Midrash and Legend: Historical Anecdotes in the Tannaitic Midrashim 9781463203962, 1463203969

Citation preview

Midrash and Legend

Gorgias Studies in Judaism

9

In this series Gorgias publishes monographs on Jewish literature, history, theology, mysticism and philosophy, from Late Antiquity to the modern period. Gorgias particularly welcomes proposals from younger scholars whose dissertations have made an important contribution to the field of Jewish Studies. Studies of language and linguistics, the Bible, and the archaeology and cultures of the Ancient Near East have their own series and will not be included in this series.

Midrash and Legend

Historical Anecdotes in the Tannaitic Midrashim

Joshua L. Moss

9

34 2014

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2014

‫ܙ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0396-2

ISSN 1935-6870

Reprinted from the 2004 Gorgias Press edition.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

ABSTRACT This study collects every example of a historical anecdote in the tannaitic midrashim―any passage which relates any incident purported to have occurred from the close of biblical times up to the composition of the midrash collection being studied. I set forth the percentage of texts in a given midrash compilation which contain historical anecdotes. I analyze the function and rhetorical forms of the historical anecdotes, identifying rhetorical tropes used by the various collections in common and tropes unique to a specific midrash collection. I take note of any anecdotes which occur elsewhere in early rabbinic literature, to explain which elements of the anecdote are stable and which vary according to context. I attempt to set forth, in positive terms, an understanding of what functions historical anecdotes serve in the tannaitic midrashim, along with a catalog of the rhetorical conventions used to fulfill those functions. The data do not bear out the notion that each collection has a rigid ideological program, but they certainly bear out the notion that different documents exhibit different preferences of style, of authorities, of argumentation, and of sources. In Sifra the “typical anecdote” was a truncated case-example embedded in a ribuicommentary, providing the content required by Sifra’s exegesis. In the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael the “typical anecdote” was a lengthy academy discussion, characterized by highly formalized interactions between Sages. Form was highly structured independent of content. The main function of an anecdote was to provide heightened interest and to illustrate or reiterate an issue raised by exegesis or an issue invoked by association. In the anecdotes of the tannaitic midrash collections we find a body of texts which, in highly formalized fashion, describe behaviors and conversations of Sages which provide legal information serving to fill in gaps discovered in Scripture by means of exegesis, or served to illustrate virtues revealed in Scripture. v

vi

Midrash and Legend

They do not spin wondrous tales based on scriptural hints, nor do they relate anything climactic, dramatic, or important as moderns would construe historical importance. Their actions are paradigmatic, timeless, and normative, providing sources of law or elucidations of law.

DEDICATION To my wife, Gina, for what she does, and does without every day, in love, making a life of learning, music, and family possible for me. /tuv vka hka To Life, for gracing me with teachers who are not only hakhamim but also Menschen.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study is a representation of the research of my doctoral dissertation. My dissertation was supervised by Professor Richard S. Sarason and Professor Edward A. Goldman of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. I’m grateful for their careful work on the dissertation; any errors are my own. I’m also grateful for the years I enjoyed with Professors Sarason and Goldman as my primary teachers and mentors. Their warmth and enthusiasm for the study of midrash shaped my own interests. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Lieve Teugels and Dr. George Kiraz of Gorgias Press for adopting this study for publication, and undertaking the painstaking work involved in editing a technical project such as this one. The publication of this book coincides with my joining the faculty of the American Hebrew Academy in Greensboro, North Carolina. I am excited to be a part of this bold experiment in Jewish education. I marvel at the rather unlikely opportunities of my life, to have had such marvelous teachers, and now to be blessed with such exceptional students, in whom (I hope and believe) the insights of the ancient Sages will come to life.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract......................................................................................................v Dedication ...............................................................................................vii Acknowledgements ...............................................................................viii Table of Contents....................................................................................xi Midrash and Legend: Historical Anecdotes in the Tannaitic Midrashim .............................1 Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael ..................31 General Characteristics of the Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael ............................ 31 List of Historical Anecdotes Found, and their Frequency ............................. 34 Translation and Explanation of Anecdotes Found........................................ 35 Formal Comparison of Parallel Passages ........................................................ 150 Summary .............................................................................................................. 162

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Simeon bar Yoḥai............................................... 165 Historical Anecdotes in Sifra―Torat Kohanim.............................. 218 Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers.......................................... 304 Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Zuta ................................................... 400 Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Deuteronomy................................... 452 Summary of Data for the Tannaitic Midrashim ............................. 550 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 566 Appendix I. Historical Anecdotes in The Mishnah ....................... 574 Appendix II. Historical Anecdotes in the Tosefta ......................... 587 Appendix III. Historical Anecdotes in the Amoraic Midrashim . 605 Bibliography of Works Consulted .................................................... 632 Index...................................................................................................... 658 ix

MIDRASH AND LEGEND: HISTORICAL ANECDOTES IN THE TANNAITIC MIDRASHIM

THE ISSUE AT HAND “Historical anecdotes”―narratives purporting to relate any postbiblical incident―are quite rare in the tannaitic midrashim, the oldest exegetical midrash compilations. Although expansions of biblical narratives are common, the spinning of narratives related to post-biblical history is not. Such anecdotes as do exist are generally mundane and relate legal precedents or legal controversies. These stories are of particular interest from an inter-religious and comparative literary point of view, because New Testament studies have often referred to certain narratives in the gospels as “midrashic.” There are indeed some dynamics shared in common between the two genres of gospel narrative and rabbinic anecdote. Both are didactic accounts. Both represent transmitted material shaped to function in specific contexts. But the fundamental matrices governing each genre are strikingly different. The gospel narratives that have been labeled “midrashic” were generated by the belief that the events they recount constitute the climactic realization of biblical types and prophecies, and are related to their scriptural stimulus by the motif of fulfillment. The historical anecdotes of the tannaitic midrash collections do not relate the fulfillment of Scripture as prophecy, but rather the exemplification of the law in the deeds and decisions of Sages. The events related are relatively mundane and paradigmatic, not eschatological or climactic. A scriptural stimulus does not seem to be the generative basis of these narratives, which may have a biblical text attached to them superficially or not at all.

1

2

Midrash and Legend

This book brings a form-critical approach to these so-called “historical anecdotes.” This study is the first comprehensive treatment of that genre in the corpus of tannaitic midrashim. Within the midrash collections themselves the “historical anecdotes” are anomalous forms. Though they have been set in contexts of biblical interpretations, these accounts do not appear to have been generated by biblical interpretation. Because similar stories appear in different contexts and different documents, the “historical anecdotes” are of particular interest for exploring the relationship between the narratives of the tannaitic midrashim and the rest of the aggadic tradition. The historical anecdotes in the tannaitic midrashim, therefore, call for a thorough form-critical and tradition-critical study, which will account for their place in the tradition history of rabbinic literature, and take notice of the light they shed on the religious self-consciousness of those who created these narratives and those who set them in their present contexts. This study proceeds from the observation that historical anecdotes, characterized as a form, are “alien” compositions, originating in contexts other than those in which they appear. Anecdotes are traditional materials, and the same incident often appears in differing exegetical contexts.1 They represent materials transmitted by, not created by, the editors of the tannaitic midrashim. The fact that they occur only rarely is a natural consequence of the exegetical structure of the midrash compilations as documents. Our investigation is concerned with the relationship of a narrative to its midrashic context. How do we explain its relationship to its exegetical context in terms of structure and content? How are stories reshaped to conform to differing exegetical contexts? Are certain forms of narrative consistently related to certain kinds of biblical stimuli? Form-analysis leads us to tradition-analysis. Tradition-analysis must attempt to account for the aspects of the anecdote that do not conform to its document, elements that give us insight into the 1 Several synoptic treatments of anecdotes are given in Jacob Neusner, The Peripatetic Saying: The Problem of the Thrice-Told Tale in Talmudic Literature (Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1985). Some of these synopses include passages from tannaitic midrashim and are exemplary for the possibilities of tradition-analysis in this literature.

Introduction and Review of Literature

3

form of the anecdote in transmission. Tradition-analysis will explore the distinctive use of common materials by the Mishnah, Tosefta, and the tannaitic midrash collections. The redactors of our collections were not mere literary copyists; rather, they selected and reshaped a stock of oral and written traditions to serve their purposes.2 While we are interested in a genealogy of transmission where that can be established plausibly, we are more concerned with the functions these narratives serve in their present contexts. Comparative study will distinguish the ways that different midrashcollections integrate similar anecdotes into their documentary settings.

REVIEW OF PRIOR SCHOLARSHIP The Discipline of Form Criticism and the Study of Midrash Martin Dibelius, whose work established the field of form criticism in New Testament studies, briefly examined the application of form criticism to rabbinic texts. He suggested that rabbinic stories stand in three possible relationships to their context: (A) “The narrative corresponds to the context in which it stands according to its original nature.” (B) “The narrative has no relation to the halakhic context,” but rather is placed there on associative or literary grounds. (C) “The narrative was originally foreign to the context, but was fitted into it when an interest corresponding to the context was stamped on it, to some extent obscuring or distorting the original character, often again abbreviating the report proper.”3

We can test Dibelius’ hypothesis most easily when we can find versions of a particular story situated in multiple contexts, but we also see his point of view validated whenever the internal logic of a 2 Arnold Goldberg, “Entwurf einer formanalytischen Methode für die

Exegese der rabbinischen Traditionsliterature,” Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 5 (1977): 1-41. 3 Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, trans. Bertram Lee Wolfe (London: James Clarice, 1971), 141-142.

4

Midrash and Legend

story disagrees with the logic of the larger unit in which it appears. Overwhelmingly we will find that historical anecdotes fall into categories “B” and “C”―fitted into context but showing evidence of having originated elsewhere, or placed without any attempt to make them fit at all. An anecdote perfectly at home in its context will be so rare that it will stand out as remarkable. Jacob Neusner recently articulated a set of distinctions similar to those of Dibelius, although he was remarking on rabbinic writing generally rather than narratives in particular:4 All the rabbinic documents are made up of three distinct types of writing, (1) writing that conforms to the documentary program of the framers of the document, realizing that program in formal and logical ways; (2) writing that does not conform to that program but appears, nonetheless, only in said document; (3) writing that not only does not conform to the formal and logical program of the document in which it appears but also appears in two or more documents.5

In reference to the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, Neusner explains how he identifies “extra-documentary” materials: Materials not composed with the document in mind will meet one of these criteria: (1) The exegesis of a passage in Exodus will not serve as precipitant of the composition; or (2) A proposition in which a passage in Exodus does not figure will be systematically expounded; or (3) A narrative not formed around a passage of Exodus will be spun out.6

4 This chapter is heavy in references to Neusner and his students, but

I feel this reflects the actual balance of the relevant literature represented in publication. 5 Jacob Neusner, The Components of the Rabbinic Documents: From the Whole to the Parts vol. 1, part 1 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), vi. 6 Neusner, Documentary Form History of Rabbinic Literature, vol. III: The Aggadic Sector. Mekhilta attributed to R. Ishmael and Genesis Rabbah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 53.

Introduction and Review of Literature

5

A free-standing composition … is one that does not depend for meaning upon the context defined by this document at all.7

Jacob Neusner’s work has emphasized knowledge of rabbinic documents as wholes as the necessary starting point for all modern study of rabbinic literature. Scholars must begin by accounting for the characteristic philosophical points of view and rhetorical traits of documents, as he asserts he has done for the major texts of classical rabbinic literature.8 With that knowledge as background, he asserts that comparative study constitutes the agenda for the next generation of scholars, a study which could not be undertaken until the documents had been thoroughly studied as wholes. How should the individual tradition, the smallest literary unit, be assessed in relation to the macroform of the “work” in which it appears? The answer to this question is both clear and not yet fully investigated. It is obvious that we move from the whole to the parts, so the individual composition … finds its place within the framework of the document’s definitive characteristics. But the investigation of the traits of compositions and composites that stand autonomous of the documents in which they occur has only just begun … For the Bavli we have a set of viable answers; for no other document do I claim to know the answer.9

Turning “from the whole to the parts” it becomes apparent that certain segments of midrashic texts do not conform to the rhetoric and plan of the document in which they appear – historical anecdotes often falling into that category. Writing about Sifre Deuteronomy, Neusner observes: The right way to classify the diverse narratives— precedent (ma’aseh), sage-story, case-narrative, and parable—remains puzzling. The issue facing this study 7 ibid. 8 Neusner, Comparative Midrash: The Plan and Program of Genesis Rabbah

and Leviticus Rabbah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 5. 9 Neusner, “German Scholarship on Rabbinic Judaism: The Goldberg-Schäfer School,” in Douglas R. Edwards and C. Thomas McCullough, eds., Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the GraecoRoman and Byzantine Periods (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 80.

6

Midrash and Legend is, to what extent do these serve an exegetical purpose congruent with the program of the document as a whole? The answer is, some do, some do not, undertake part of the burden of exegesis of the book of Deuteronomy.10

Long ago Rudolph Bultmann suggested that, as much as New Testament studies could profit from comparative study with Rabbinics, the field of Rabbinics could profit from the disciplines and methods developed for New Testament studies. As far as I can judge, the process of fixation was much more complicated in the rabbinic tradition than in the history of the Synoptic tradition; and it seems to me that an enquiry into the rabbinic history has as much to learn from a study of the Synoptics as the Synoptics from the Rabbinics.11

As in studies of the gospels, the distinguishing of traditional forms allows the interpreter to have a more subtle appreciation of the way those forms are adapted to serve the agenda of the final document. Understanding the conventions with which an ancient author was working enables the interpreter to better appreciate the ancient author’s editorial choices. Under the heading “Laws Governing Popular Narrative and Tradition,” Bultmann makes several observations which are also apt for our body of texts: The law governing the formation of popular narrative and tradition may be studied in detail in the material which the synoptists hand down. The first thing we observe is that the narrators do not give us long, unified accounts, but rather small single pictures, individual scenes narrated with the utmost simplicity. These always occupy but a brief space of time; apart

10 Neusner, Documentary Form History of Rabbinic Literature, vol. II: The

Aggadic Sector: Tractate Abot, Abot deRabbi Natan, Sifra, Sifré to Numbers and Sifré to Deuteronomy (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 223. 11 Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Second Edition, trans. John Marsh (New York: Harper and Row, 1968), 41.

Introduction and Review of Literature

7

from the Passion Narrative12 no event or proceeding is narrated which covers more than two days. As a rule only two speaking characters appear in these scenes, or at most three; involved proceedings are beyond the power of the simple story-teller. Where groups or crowds are present, they are treated as a unity. As such narratives pass from mouth to mouth, or when one writer takes them over from another, their fundamental character remains the same, but the details are subject to the control of fancy and are usually made more explicit and definite.13

Under the heading “Biographical Apothegms,” Bultmann lists many rabbinic passages as references.14 He carefully explores “The Form and History of Apothegms.”15 He defines an apothegm as a saying with a contrived brief narrative setting or occasion. Below is his explanation of the controversy dialogue, which is common to both literatures: The starting point of a controversy dialogue lies in some action or attitude which is seized on by an opponent and used in an attack by accusation or question … Controversy dialogues are all of them imaginary scenes … In the form in which we have them the controversy dialogues are imaginary scenes illustrating in some concrete occasion a principle which the Church ascribed to Jesus.16

Gary Porton has pointed out a number of anachronisms in Bultmann’s citations of rabbinic texts, due to his use of secondary sources and the general diachronic treatment current in scholarship of rabbinic literature at that time. He considers the number of

12 Just as the Passion narrative was exceptional for the gospels, so

accounts of the destruction of the Temple are exceptional in rabbinic lore. See below page 11. 13 ibid., 32. 14 ibid., 27. 15 ibid., 39ff. 16 ibid., 39-41.

8

Midrash and Legend

parallels between such gospel forms and relevant tannaitic texts to be small bordering on insignificant.17 The term “midrash” remains a synonym for “legend” in many popular and even scholarly articles and books on the subject of gospel studies.18 In that cognate branch of study, “midrash” is understood to be fanciful, pseudo-historical narratives prompted by biblical verses. Reference is made to “midrash” as the genre which perhaps gave rise to New Testament passages such as the infancy narratives. In this conception, a “midrash” is defined as a narrative whose events constitute interpretation of a biblical text. Stemberger comments: Midrash-like texts have also been identified in the New Testament; the term ‘midrash’ has been used especially for the infancy gospels and for the story of Jesus’ temptation. To be sure, the classification of a text as midrash has become rather fashionable, especially in New Testament scholarship; in this context the particular character of rabbinic midrash has not always been properly recognized as a point of departure.19 [Emphasis mine.]

It is incumbent upon scholars whose actual discipline of study is midrash to interpret the similarities and differences among these genres for the scholarly community and general public. The results of this study will provide one example of how the actual study of rabbinic anecdotes, when the proper documentary periods are distinguished and the forms analyzed, yields a picture quite different from what is often asserted by New Testament scholars concerning midrashic stories. According to Joseph Heinemann, a primary distinguishing characteristic of “midrash” is its formal arrangement as commentary to the biblical text: 17 Gary G. Porton, “The Pronouncement Story in Tannaitic

Literature: A Review of Bultmann’s Theory,” Semeia 20 (1981): 81-99. 18 A recent example is Dale Miller and Patricia Miller, The Gospel of Mark as Midrash on Earlier Jewish and New Testament Literature. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 21 (Lewiston, New York: Edwin Millen Press, 1990). 19 Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. Markus Bockmuehl, 2nd edition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 237.

Introduction and Review of Literature

9

Though this literature certainly absorbed much material which originated in the contemporaneous folk culture, rabbinic aggadah itself is no longer the product of that culture but rather is the work of the Sages themselves. The aggadot developed by them are not designed principally for entertainment, but have a strong and self-conscious didactic function … Thus, the bulk of the talmudic-midrashic aggadah does not stand by itself but rather serves the Bible, explicating and elaborating it, and also adapting it, as I have said, to present needs. For this reason, rabbinic aggadot generally did not take the form of epic stories or extensive independent works.20

If Heinemann is correct, we see why the midrashim as exegetical collections could not be in the form of, e.g., the New Testament infancy narratives, free standing stories with a scriptural proof-text incidentally appended. The relationship of the midrashic aggadah to the base text is formal and explicit. A midrash-collection is organized by reference to the biblical base text. Heinemann categorized rabbinic narratives into three broad but useful categories: (1) aggadot closely tied to a biblical narrative; (2) “historical” anecdotes which tell of post-biblical personalities and events; (3) ethical-didactic anecdotes.21 This study is concerned exclusively with the second category, “historical anecdotes.” Neusner treats Avot deRabbi Nathan at length in his introductory text, Introduction to Midrash. In that context he identifies characteristics of the stories about Sages in the midrashim: [… among] numerous differences in narrative conventions governing Scripture stories as against sage stories, three prove definitive. 1. The story about a sage has a beginning, middle and end, and the story about a sage also rests not only (or mainly) on verbal exchanges … but on described (occasionally, merely implied) action.

20 Joseph Heinemann, “The Nature of the Aggadah,” in Geoffrey H.

Hartman and Sanford Budick, eds., Midrash and Literature (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 47. 21 ibid., 43.

10

Midrash and Legend 2. The story about a sage unfolds from a point of tension and conflict to a clear resolution and remission of the conflict. 3. The story about a sage rarely invokes a verse of Scripture and never proves a proposition concerning the meaning of a verse of Scripture.22

Neusner then describes the differing character of stories regarding scriptural characters. … A story regarding scriptural figures (1) has no flow of action. The narrative sets a saying. (2) It is a “tableau”―no movement, tension, or resolution. (3) The story about a scriptural hero always involves verses from Scripture and makes the imputation of meaning to those verses the center of interest.23

Neusner has recently published an ambitious series of volumes on “The Documentary Form History of Rabbinic Literature.” He summarized the plan of these volumes in an article in the Finnish theological journal Temenos. This form-history history shows how in the unfolding of successive documents early forms persisted or were dropped, and, further, how—and to serve what task— new forms took shape and came to define the literary character of later documents. My working hypothesis suggests that [1] formalization of prose characterizes writing for documents; [2] writing that is not formalized, such as narratives of various kinds, tends also to take a position outside of the main frame of the documents in which it occurs; [3] peripatetic compositions and composites—made up of writing that travels freely from one document to another but which identifies itself with no documentary forms where it surfaces—unsurprisingly lack indicative traits

22 Jacob Neusner, Invitation to Midrash: The Workings of Rabbinic Bible

Interpretation (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1989), 222. As we will see in the course of this study, Neusner’s assertion here is generally but not absolutely true. Sifre Deuteronomy in particular contains several exceptions. 23 ibid.

Introduction and Review of Literature

11

of documentary formalization (accounting for their remarkable capacity to move hither and yon).24

Neusner’s purpose in these volumes is to trace the repertoire of formalized units used in rabbinic texts across time on a trajectory from the Mishnah to the Bavli. He does not cover all of the documents in the corpus of tannaitic midrashim, and his treatment of narratives is not analytical. He notes the presence of the form “ma’aseh” in various documents but he does not contribute to the understanding of the form and its subforms, as Goldberg has done in his study of the “ma’aseh” in the Mishnah,25 or as Jaffee has done in his study of the form of the rabbinic takkanah,26 or as Neusner himself has done for the forensic forms of the Mishnah. Neusner’s multivolume work omits entire documents of concern to this study. Where he does treat our corpus, he provides an incomplete catalog of forms and not a true form-critical analysis of passages (which was outside of his purpose). In From Text to Historical Context in Rabbinic Judaism, Neusner proposes to catalog (1) “Events that allegedly took place other than legal precedents”; (2) “Chapters in the lives of persons”; and (3) “Fragments serviceable in conventionally historical narratives” such as passages which describe states of affairs as opposed to incidents.27 He does that tractate-by-tractate in his first volume for Mishnah, Tosefta, Avot, Sifra, Sifre Numbers, and Sifre Deuteronomy. He provides no detailed analysis of the forms of the passages he catalogs, and his catalog has significant errors of omission. His conclusion is that the rabbinic canon has no sustained interest in “history” with the single exception of the events surrounding the destruction of the Temple. In the service of this conclusion he lightly touches upon large samples of data. Although this study will be limited to the tannaitic midrashim, the study of “historical anecdotes in rabbinic literature” and in early 24 Neusner, “The Documentary Form-History of Rabbinic Literature:

The Aggadic Sector,” Temenos 33 (1997): 79-80. 25 See below, p. 14. 26 See below, footnote 79. 27 Jacob Neusner, From Text to Historical Context in Rabbinic Judaism: Historical Facts in Systemic Documents (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 14-15.

12

Midrash and Legend

Judaic literature generally is its greater context, against which its conclusions may be tested and perhaps extended. I believe that future studies will confirm, as Neusner has demonstrated, that the form and content of the anecdotes which rabbinic documents find relevant provide an important window on their conception of time. Rabbinic literature does not contain history books because its conception of time does not make provision for sustained history; rabbinic literature treats stories as exemplary because its fundamental mode of thought comprises rules that demand only exemplary cases, paradigms to be replicated, but not tales to be told by way of explanation of how things are. Once people do not think historically, they do not write history; and when they think paradigmatically, they produce the counterpart of the paradigm, which is, on the one side, law and realizations in narrative of law; and on the other side, cases that serve in the exegesis of the permanent, enduring, constantly replicated, received text. Law and exegesis of Scripture serve as two media for the re-presentation of paradigms. Then stories, subordinated to law and exegesis, do their service too.28

Though their anecdotes do not tell us “what really happened” to the characters in the story, they tell us a great deal about what was important to the storytellers. The refined appreciation of their selection and presentation of anecdotes is an as yet unpaved pathway into the rabbinic world. A most basic observation is that an interest in recording stories of the Sages is a distinct development occurring after the Bar Kokhba revolt. Anthony Saldarini, summarizing the findings of Neusner, writes, “Attested (and therefore reliable) historical stories stem from Sages active at Usha after the Bar Kosiba War (140-170) … the Jamnians (70-125) felt no conscious break with the past and only at Usha did the rabbis begin to record (and rewrite) their history.”29 28 Jacob Neusner, The Presence of the Past, The Pastness of the Present

(Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 1996), 166. 29 Saldarini, “‘Form Criticism’ of Rabbinic Literature,” JBL 96 (1977): 265.

Introduction and Review of Literature

13

A number of recent studies have applied the discipline of form-criticism to the study of rabbinic literature, particularly to legal texts30 and to parables.31 Some studies have applied formcriticism to rabbinic legends.32 No existing study systematically treats the full range of historical anecdotes in the tannaitic midrashim. Arnold Goldberg was the major modern scholar whose work carefully applied form-analysis to rabbinic literature. He considered the method to be limited to yielding answers to literary questions (as opposed to historical questions regarding a pre-literary Sitz im Leben for traditions).33 In Goldberg’s work, the term midrash itself designates a form, a tradition presented as biblical interpretation. Ma’aseh and mashal are also forms explicitly recognized and named in the texts themselves.34 Apart from Midrash, a string of different forms seem to be used in the composition of rabbinic homilies without themselves being constituents of the form. The Ma’aseh, whether an example, or a short narration of some event where an authority quotes a verse from Scripture concerning an event and thereby expounds it; individual dicta, proverbs and their application; and 30 e.g., Jacob Neusner, “Form and Meaning in Mishnah,” Journal of the

American Academy of Religion 45 (1977): 27-54; Baruch M. Bokser, “Talmudic Form Criticism,” Journal of Jewish Studies 31 (1980): 46-60; and others mentioned in the bibliography. 31 e.g., Arnold Goldberg, “Das schriftauslegende Gleichnis im Midrasch,” Frankfurter Judaistiche Beiträge 9 (1982): 1-87; Peter Dschulnigg, Rabbinische Gleichnisse und das Neue Testament (Berne: Peter Lang, 1988); David Stern, Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1991); and others mentioned in the bibliography. 32 e.g., Alan J. Avery-Peck, “Rhetorical Analysis of Early Rabbinic Pronouncement Stories,” Hebrew Annual Review 13 (1991): 1-23; Arnold Goldberg, “Form und Funktion des Ma’ase in der Mischna,” Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 2 (1974): 1-38; Gary G. Porton, “The Pronouncement Story” (op. cit.), and others mentioned in the bibliography. 33 Arnold Goldberg, “Form-Analysis of Midrashic Literature as a Method of Description,” Journal of Jewish Studies 36 (Autumn 1985): 159174. 34 ibid., 162.

14

Midrash and Legend finally parables and similes; these texts, which realize different forms, are quantitatively less frequent compared to Midrash, and as a rule are subordinate to a Midrash. This applies especially to the Mashal, which is usually not an illustration in itself but part of an exegesis.35

Goldberg used form-analysis to locate segments of texts which signal their origin apart from the midrashic context, and also to note the ways in which diverse traditions have been conformed to a new context. For Goldberg, the redactors of a rabbinic text were not authors in the fullest sense, but neither were they mere transmitters of tradition. The classical rabbinic texts did not have single redactors but were themselves productions of communities or “schools.” A stock of traditional material was selected and formed for the purposes of the document at hand, and it is possible, to some degree, to distinguish the traits of the redacted text from the traits of the underlying material. The basic units of tradition were presumably individual statements of halakhah, or of a particular scriptural interpretation, or of a ma’aseh. These units of tradition are selected, formed, and arranged according to the plan of the document in which they appear. “… We know the traditional material not in its original form, but only in the form of quotations, and also not in its original connections.”36 The ma’aseh is a specific subspecies of historical anecdote, a highly formalized account of an exemplary case. Arnold Goldberg’s work on the ma’aseh in the Mishnah is a model for the kind of work this study undertakes for a wider range of anecdotes in the tannaitic midrashim.37 In the article “Form und Funktion des Ma’ase in der Mischna,” Goldberg asserted that no one had attempted a thorough form-critical analysis of the ma’aseh since Dibelius had suggested the study. Goldberg asserts that the case-example is always introduced by the introductory formula “ma’aseh” in the Mishnah (whereas other terms such as “k’var” or “pa’am ahat” are 35 ibid., 168. 36 Arnold Goldberg, “Entwurf einer formanalytischen Methode für

die Exegese der rabbinischen Traditionsliterature,” Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 5 (1977): 1-41. My translation. 37 Arnold Goldberg, “Form und Funktion des Ma’ase” (op. cit.).

Introduction and Review of Literature

15

used in other tannaitic works).38 A “ma’aseh” does not merely convey fact, it is only interested in halakhically relevant fact. As used in the Mishnah, the term “ma’aseh” is (1) an occurrence of halakhic relevance, and (2) the legal case in which the occurrence finds its relevance.39 The form of the ma’aseh is (1) the Case; (2) the Question / Legal Issue, which results from the case; (3) the Decision. The Question is rarely stated explicitly.40 A common feature is the named sage to whose attention the incident comes, in a halakhic context. “The case came before R. so and so, who said …”41 Goldberg classifies five major types (forms) of ma’asim: (1) the legal decision; (2) exemplary behavior; (3) relating a fact which proves a legal point; (4) an etiological account (this occurs often in a baraita and only once in the Mishnah)―“The Ma’aseh transmits the incident which became the cause of the [protective] regulation”; (5) aggadic “ma’aseh” (which he asserts does not occur in the Mishnah―“Since the Mishnah particularly depends on the halakhically relevant decision, aggadic Ma’aseh does not have a place in the Mishnah”).42 He feels that the baraitot of the Babylonian Talmud preserve a less “edited” form of the ma’asim than does the Mishnah.43 Since incidents are related only for the sake of information relevant to the halakhah, the claim that an “incident” came before such and such an authority does not indicate that the incident happened in his days, only that he validated the legal ruling which refers back to that incident.44 Ma’asim were transmitted mnemonically as cases with their decisions.45 38 As our study will show, this is not absolutely true, but the

exceptions are very few e.g., m. Bekhorot 5:3; m. Hallah 4:10, 4:11; m. Shabbat 1:4; m. Yevamot 4:13, 8:4; m. Ketubbot 2:9; m. Nazir 5:4; m. Eduyyot 5:6; m. Nega’im 14:13; m. Yadayim 4:4. 39 ibid., 8. 40 ibid. 41 ibid., 12. 42 ibid., 13-20. 43 ibid., 25. 44 ibid., 27. 45 ibid., 27-28.

16

Midrash and Legend

Goldberg summarizes the following functions which the ma’aseh serves in the Mishnah: (1) as source of law; (2) as an apparent contradiction of law which must be explained; (3) providing rationale for law; (4) completing an incomplete account of the law in the Mishnah.46 The ma’aseh in the Mishnah is highly formalized and brought into conformity with the Mishnah’s program. The sources may have been transmitted as individual case-traditions or collections. The primary function for the ma’aseh as transmitted, for the purpose of the tradition, was the account of case and decision … in the Mishnah there arose a secondary function of the ma’aseh in this context. The ma’aseh still indicates case and decision, it serves however particularly as source (possibly also as proof) for the record of the Mishnah, which bases its conclusion upon that ma’aseh.47

The ma’aseh was framed and transmitted to serve a somewhat different function than the ma’aseh serves in the Mishnah. Since the Mishnah’s tendency is to reduce the story to the relevant details, one should not assume that a longer version in another source necessarily represents an expansion.48 Goldberg identifies the formal characteristics and technical terms associated with the ma’aseh,49 and provides typical examples of the form.50 He classifies five major types of ma’asim and distinguishes some of the traits of the form as used in the Mishnah compared to its use in other rabbinic texts.51 He speculates about the relationship of a “ma’aseh” to a historical incident,52 and points out the mnemonic features present in the form.53 He summarizes the rhetorical functions of the ma’aseh in the Mishnah as a 46 ibid., 27-36. 47 ibid., 38. 48 ibid. 49 ibid. 50 ibid., 12. 51 ibid., 25. 52 ibid., 27. 53 ibid., 27-28.

Introduction and Review of Literature

17

document.54 He demonstrates how the ma’aseh has been conformed to its mishnaic context,55 and how elements which do not conform thereby convey information about the ma’aseh in transmission.56 Goldberg’s work is exemplary for the possibilities of form-analysis and tradition-analysis in rabbinic literature. Tradition Criticism and the Tannaitic Stories The question of the origin and transmission of individual rabbinic stories or classes of stories have been taken up by various authors. Aharon Agus, in Hermeneutic Biography in Rabbinic Midrash, treats b. Hullin 60a and asserts that the dangerousness of the notions in the Psalm generates the dangerous story. In my opinion, the motif of “dangerousness” is thematically vague for purposes of proving such a connection. The interest of Agus for this study is that he treats midrashic narrative as exegesis-driven.57 Bruce Chilton takes a Bultmann-like approach in arguing that rabbinic stories involving disputes with Gentiles are contrived settings, actually giving voice to rabbinic debates and apologetics. Commenting on b. Bekhorot 5a, he writes: It may fairly be doubted whether a Roman general was as much in touch with the arithmetic of Scripture as the question presupposes, and even whether the rabbis who told the story expected their identification of the interlocutor to be credited … More probably, a question arose within rabbinic discussion, in the idiom of numerical debate, and was imputed to a Gentile skeptic, once the doubt it represented was held to be inappropriate.58

Moshe David Herr takes the opposite point of view in his essay, “The Historical Significance of the Dialogues between 54 ibid., 27-36. 55 ibid., 38. 56 ibid. 57 Aharon R. E Agus, Hermeneutic Biography in Rabbinic Midrash.

Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums, Band XVI (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1996), 24. 58 Bruce Chilton, Profiles of a Rabbi: Synoptic Opportunities in Reading About Jesus (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 53.

18

Midrash and Legend

Jewish Sages and Roman Dignitaries.”59 Herr asserts that some of these incidents could have occurred because emperors had interaction with pagan philosophers as well. Sometimes pagan sources record the emperor as having been in the location described in a rabbinic story. Two independent legends agreeing about such an occurrence would be remarkable if there was no basis in fact, he asserts.60 He cites Philo, Legatio ad Gaium as an example of a historical account of such an encounter.61 Herbert Basser, in “Hanina’s Torah: A Case of Verse Production or of Historical Fact?” also resists the notion that anecdotes were spun from whole cloth, driven by exegesis.62 Whatever is said in rabbinic stories is said on some basis. We must assume that generally some known event generates a story in the first instance, even if in the telling names, dates, and surrounding details are completely unhistorical. So it is that we may accept the notion that R. Hananiah ben Teradyon was a martyr of the Hadrianic persecutions but question the details of the rabbinic stories about his death.63

Jacob Neusner, on the other hand, has spoken against the careless use of rabbinic anecdotes for historiography: My work on rabbinic literature begins with the principle that these are documents of religion and are to be read as evidence of religion; they may contain some historical facts, but they are, entirely and flawlessly, themselves―all of them―historical facts about religion. And that is how they are to be appreciated, understood, interpreted, and re-presented

59 in Joseph Heinemann and Dov Noy, eds., Studies in Aggadah and

Folk-Literature (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971), 123-150. 60 ibid., 124. 61 ibid., 126. 62 in Jacob Neusner, ed., Approaches to Ancient Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 1:67-82. 63 ibid., 67.

Introduction and Review of Literature

19

to the world: for what they are, not for what they are not.64

Summarizing the results of his own studies in culling historical data from rabbinic sources, Neusner writes: What I found was that while there clearly are highly formalized traits attached to the sayings and stories of Yohanan ben Zakkai, they form no coherent unit associated distinctively with his name. They conformed to the formal preferences of the documents in which they occur, and that suggests that documents form the basic and definitive literary category, and not the name of a given authority that is tied to a story or saying.65

In his review of Neusner’s The Canonical History of Ideas, Daniel Boyarin challenges Neusner’s treatment of the tannaitic midrash collections. Neusner is highly skeptical of any possibility of source-analysis which could yield facts concerning anything other than the redactor’s own point of view.66 Boyarin contends that inconsistent elements in the final text, in particular, are clues to earlier stages in the tradition.67 Since (as Neusner says) the different collections evidence different editorial programs, Boyarin argues that their shared material is all the more likely to be genuinely traditional.68 Boyarin also asserts that some historical material relating to general social conditions can be gleaned from rabbinic stories although the stories themselves are not to be considered “historical.” 69 Doris Lenhard, applying the form-analytical method of Arnold Goldberg, has undertaken and index and brief commentary on each individual homily identifiable in the rabbinic midrashim. 64 Jacob Neusner, Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament: What We

Cannot Show, We Do Not Know (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1994), 17. 65 ibid, 29. 66 Daniel Boyarin, “On the Status of the Tannaitic Midrashim: A critique of Jacob Neusner’s latest contribution to Midrashic studies,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 112 (July - September 1992): 457. 67 ibid. 68 ibid. 69 ibid., 462.

20

Midrash and Legend

Addressing the documentary approach of Neusner, she asserts that the largest coherent unit in a midrash is the individual homily.70 If she is correct, the implication for this study would be that an anecdote appears in order to serve a homily. There is no other structure which the anecdote could serve. A general view of the tradition-history which the tannaitic midrashim exemplify is very influential, well-established, and as recent scholarship has shown, probably mistaken. David Zvi Hoffman distinguished two “families” of tannaitic midrashim, one supposedly following the school of R. Ishmael and the other following the school of R. Akiva. He based himself on instances where one set of midrashim seemed to favor interpretive rules attributed to Ishmael or to Akiva in the Talmuds.71 [Hoffman] continued to develop the position pioneered by Geiger and Weiss regarding the connection between the Mekhilta and Sifre Numbers. Far more systematically than his predecessors, Hoffman argued that they are both the products of R. Ishmael’s beit midrash. This identification is based almost entirely on the Yerushalmi’s conception of the Ishmaelian techniques, now applied to the presumably tannaitic documents; in addition, following Weiss, Hoffman took note of the fact that the students of Ishmael appear in these documents frequently unlike the other tannaitic works. Similarly, he insisted that the Sifra and Sifre Deuteronomy were the product of R. Aqiba’s beit midrash.72

Hanoch Albeck asserted that the differences in exegetical terminology employed by the different compilations were imposed 70 Doris Lenhard, "Document or Individual Homily? A Critical

Evaluation of Neusner’s Methodology in the Light of the Results of Form-Analysis," Jewish Quarterly Review 4 (1997): 341-342. This article applies the results of her doctoral dissertation, Die Rabbinische Homilie. Ein formanalytischer Index (Frankfurt am Main: Gesellschaft zur Förderung Judaistischer Studien), 1988. Her work is summarized by Lieve Teugels, review of Doris Lenhard, Die rabbinische Homilie. Ein formanalytischer Index, Journal for the Study of Judaism 31 (2000): 97-105. 71 D.Z. Hoffman, “ LeMidrashey HaTannaim,” in A.Z. Rabinowitz, ed., trans., Mesilot leTorat haTannaim (Tel Aviv, 1927). 72 Jay M. Harris, How Do We Know This? Midrash and the Fragmentation of Modern Judaism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 232.

Introduction and Review of Literature

21

by their redactors and did not give true evidence of two schools of tradition. In their aggadic portions the two groups of midrashim exhibit no significant differences in terminology. He prepared detailed tables of parallels between the tannaitic midrashim. (He also argued for a relatively late date for these collections, demonstrating that the Bavli was unaware of the relevant halakhic material from the halakhic midrashim.)73 Louis Finkelstein attempted to save Hoffman’s theory by noting interpolations in our current midrash texts, building on Albeck who had noted, e.g., that the section Mekhilta deMiluim uses different terminology from Sifra generally. Nevertheless taken as wholes the midrashim could still be distinguished in the following fashion: Akiva School

Ishmael School

Exodus

MRS (fragmentary)

MRI

Leviticus

Sifra

Mekh. on Leviticus (fragmentary)

Numbers

Sifre Zuta (fragmentary)

Sifre Numbers

Deuteronomy

Sifre Deuteronomy

Mekhilta on Deuteronomy (fragmentary)74

He asserted that the compilations are not unified, and especially the aggadic traditions are common to both “schools.”75 In her recent doctoral dissertation, Anna Lynn UrowitzFreudenstein asserts that she has essentially disproved the twoschools theory.76 Her study of the exegetical methods in the tannaitic midrashim shows no significant differences in preferences between collections ascribed to the two schools. Since our present study centers mostly on aggadah, a theory such as Albeck’s and Finkelstein’s which brackets out aggadah 73 Hanoch Albeck, Untersuchungen über die halachischen Midraschim. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1927. 74 Louis Finkelstein, “Sources of the Tannaitic Midrashim,” Jewish Quarterly Review 31 (1940-1941): 213. 75 ibid., 214. 76 An Investigation of the Exegetical Methods in the Tannaitic Midrashim: A Study of Texts that Mention Individual Women (Ph.D. Dissertation, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1997).

22

Midrash and Legend

protects itself from invalidation by anything we will find. However, as far as matters go, nothing in our study is illuminated by postulating two families of midrashim, and our data will tend to argue against such a theory. In his article, “The Transmission of the Early Rabbinic Tradition,” Finkelstein attempts to account for the fact that sometimes parallels occur verbatim or nearly so among documents, and sometimes in a less strict relationship: Thus there emerge five forms in which traditions were handed down: I. The anecdotal form.77 This is the primitive tradition, no part of which is formulated in fixed words or phrases. The tradition is determined only so far as the basic idea or story is concerned. II. The semi-normative form. This is the stage in which the tradition has assumed fixed form in regard to certain catch-words, which appear in all its versions. It still remains an oral tradition, no parts have been committed to writing. III. The fully formulated oral tradition or norm. In this stage, an editor or teacher has decided to transmit the older idea or story in a fixed form, his students actually memorize the words in which he expresses the idea or tells the story. IV. The earliest written form. This derives not from III but from II. Instead of being submitted to final formulation, in a normative form, the tradition is handed down through the catchwords indicated under II; but to assist the memory further, these catchwords are committed to writing. V. The written text. This may emerge either out of III or out of IV.78

There have been a number of tradition-critical studies of rabbinic literature, mostly focusing on halakhic passages, and some 77 Obviously he is not using the word “anecdotal” here in the sense in

which we are using it elsewhere. He means ad hoc or occasional. 78 Louis Finkelstein, “The Transmission of the Early Rabbinic Tradition,” Hebrew Union College Annual 16 (1941): 115-35.

Introduction and Review of Literature

23

of them touch on halakhic midrashim. Howard I. Levine, for example, believes he shows: a) dependence of the Mishnah on traditions in the Mekhilta; b) that the Babylonian Talmud is unaware of the Mekhilta; and c) that the Mishnah and the Mekhilta sometimes represent divergent developments of a common source.79 One of the emerging themes in the study of rabbinic literature (and also New Testament studies) is the need to pay greater attention to the nature of oral cultures in attempting to reconstruct the tradition history behind texts.80 Writing about form criticism in NT studies, Vernon Robbins states: One of the major weaknesses of traditional form criticism has been its reconstruction of underlying oral forms with a scribal method developed for text and source criticism. In other words, form critics have not used data that specialists in oral literature have systematically gathered and analyzed to understand the production and transmission of oral literature. Instead, form critics have attempted to reconstruct oral forms

79 Howard I. Levine, Studies in Mishnah Pesachim, Baba Kama and the

Mechilta (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1971), vii. Other studies which touch on the tradition-criticism of specific texts include: Reuven Hammer, “Section 38 of Sifre Deuteronomy: An Example of the Use of Independent Sources to Create a Literary Unit,” Hebrew Union College Annual 50 (1979): 165-178; Steven D. Fraade, “Sifre Deuteronomy 26 (ad Deut. 3:23): How Conscious the Composition?” Hebrew Union College Annual 54 (1983): 245301; Baruch M. Bokser, “Wonder-working and the Rabbinic Tradition: The Case of Hanina ben Dosa,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 16 (June 1985): 42-92; Martin S. Jaffee, “The Taqqana in Tannaitic Literature: Jurisprudence and the Construction of Rabbinic Memory.” Journal of Jewish Studies 41 (1990): 204-25; Jacob Neusner, The Canonical History of Ideas: The Place of the So-Called Tannaite Midrashim: Mekhilta attributed to R. Ishmael, Sifra, Sifré to Numbers, and Sifré to Deuteronomy (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); Menahem Kahana, haMekhiltot leFarashat Amalek: leRishoniyutah shel haMasoret baMekhilta deRabi Yishmael behashva’ah leMakbilatah baMekhilta deRabi Shimon bar Yohai (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999); and others mentioned in the bibliography. 80 An authoritative treatment relative to gospel studies can be found in Werner Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1997).

24

Midrash and Legend with the same procedures critics uses to reconstruct early manuscript readings and early written sources.”81

On the other side of this issue, Philip Alexander asks, since Neusner is able to show the presence in the Mishnah of units of memorizable tradition in Mishnah-form, and Goldberg is able to show the presence of units of memorizable tradition in midrashform, how do we explain the very different resulting literary products? If Neusner’s and Goldberg’s literary forms are linked to orality … then they relate to oral transmission of texts, not to their oral composition. These patterns are not the patterns of natural speech, however formal and rhetorical. They have been artificially devised to assist the memorization of texts, and, in fact, they could just as easily characterize texts that were created by writing as texts that originated in an oral situation.82

Martin Jaffee offers a more nuanced analysis of the interplay between oral and written registers reflected in rabbinic texts, based on knowledge of Hellenistic models of rhetorical training. “What made an oral presentation elegant was its ability to cite or allude to well-known classical texts in the process of the speaker’s development of his own thought. The orator’s persuasive power was in part bound up with the weight of classical diction he could support without apparent effort; it was also dependent upon the apparently spontaneous organization of fresh ideas into wellknown and easily-recognizable patterns of presentation and argument.”83 In this view the mnemonically-structured written 81Vernon K. Robbins, “Form Criticism (NT),” in David Noel

Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 2:842. 82 Philip S. Alexander, “Orality in Pharisaic-Rabbinic Judaism at the Turn of the Eras,” in Henry Wansbrough, ed., Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. JSNT Supplement Series 64 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991): 177-178. 83 Martin S. Jaffee, “The Oral-Cultural Context of the Talmud Yerushalmi: Greco-Roman Rhetorical Paideia, Discipleship, and the Concept of Oral Torah,” in Peter Schäfer, ed., The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture I. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 71 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998): 35.

Introduction and Review of Literature

25

versions of traditions invoke a larger body of orally-performed “texts” without which the abbreviated written forms would have been incomprehensible.84 The written versions in turn functioned as aids to mastery issuing in further oral manipulations and recreations of the material. “The written record of a text was itself a version, whose literary purpose was fulfilled in the oral variations played upon it by the orator.”85 The rubric of “oral torah” does not deny the presence of written aids to oral mastery. If the purpose of the concept of “Torah transmitted orally” was to legitimate proscriptions against the writing of such Torah, we have seen that it was a failure. But if the concept emerges to ideologically enhance the centrality of the Sage as a vessel of Torah, the concept was a brilliant success.86

A recent doctoral dissertation by W. David Nelson, Textuality and Talmud Torah (1999), applies some of these methods to a comparison of certain legal texts from the Mekhilta of Rabbi Simeon with their parallels in the Mishnah and Tosefta. He argues that in an oral tradition there is no “correct” tradition or Urtext; rather, tradition is made to perform in certain contexts.87 Parallels between texts are often best accounted for by viewing each rendition as a specific performance of a flexible tradition, rather than by a model of copying written texts. Summarizing work by Martin Jaffee, he writes: … lemmatic “maximalists” maintain that the lemmata, as they are preserved in the written evidence, are more or less faithful written renderings of the materials as they existed in an earlier oral stage of transmission … Lemmatic “minimalists,” however, counter that it was the very process of gathering and preserving the individual traditions in textual anthologies that imparted to them 84 ibid., 44. 85 ibid., 39. 86 ibid., 59. Jaffee elaborates his method and applies it in the essays of

his new book, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). 87 W. David Nelson, Textuality and Talmud Torah (Doctoral Dissertation: Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion, 1999), 4.

26

Midrash and Legend their patterned style and formulaic rhetoric. Or stated differently, as the redactors of the various texts collected individual traditions and prepared them for written presentation, they imposed upon them the mnemonic formulae which would dictate their subsequent transmission.88

Later he quotes Jaffee (in a tacit response to Neusner’s program): There is enough coherence in many rabbinic compilations to justify the postulate of some sort of governing plan that informs the collection of intermediate units into larger documentary wholes. Yet these wholes are just distinctive enough in structure to caution us against subjecting them to hermeneutical torture in order to secure their confession of harboring some sort of comprehensive redactional intentionality.89

In summary, scholarship has provided sound examples of the application of form-criticism and tradition criticism to this literature, and scholarship has noted the potential fruitfulness of examining the “historical anecdotes” in the midrashic corpora for such study, but no work presently exists applying these techniques to a large body of texts drawn from the tannaitic midrashim. Other Related Studies This study as a treatment of the tannaitic midrashim is enormously indebted, first of all, to the scholars of the past two generations whose reconstructive and textual work allows us to have credible and critical constructions of the texts to interpret. In particular, the texts of the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon bar Yohai and of Sifre Zuta as we study them here depend upon the labors of Jacob Nahum Epstein (completed by Ezra Zion Melamed),90 and H. S. Horovitz. 88 ibid., 127. 89 ibid., 165. 90 Epstein in turn depended on Hoffman. The reconstructive process

for the MRS is explained in detail in the doctoral dissertation of David Nelson.

Introduction and Review of Literature

27

Jacob Neusner and his students have prepared a number of studies of rabbinic texts and personalities which pay careful attention to formal details and comment upon issues of transmission. The volumes of A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities and A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women91 were particularly valuable for their comments upon the toseftan texts which parallel many of our midrashic texts, and in some cases comment upon the midrashic texts as well. In the process of completing his multivolume work on the history of the mishnaic law, Neusner came to reject the view of the Tosefta which was the basis for the earlier volumes. Nevertheless the attention to detail in these volumes is exemplary and the comments most penetrating. Neusner’s own study, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus,92 served as the pattern for a number of studies by his students analyzing the traditions concerning certain major tannaim. In particular, Gary Porton’s Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael (1976)93 and Joel Gereboff’s Rabbi Tarfon94 were invaluable for this study, as well as Shamai Kanter’s study of Rabban Gamaliel II,95 Tsvee Zahavy’s Traditions of Eleazar ben Azariah96 and a number of shorter similar studies that appear in Persons and Institutions in Early Rabbinic Judaism edited by William Scott Green.97 Each of these studies pays careful attention to the variants of each given tradition and in the process sheds light on the relationships between stories in the tannaitic midrashim and 91 Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, 22 volumes (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974), and A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women, 33 volumes (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980). 92 Jacob Neusner, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973). 93 Gary Porton, The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael, 4 volumes (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982). 94 Joel Gereboff, Rabbi Tarfon, The Tradition, the Man, and Early Rabbinic Judaism (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979). 95 Shamai Kanter, Rabban Gamaliel II: The Legal Traditions (Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1980). 96 Tsvee Zahavy, The Traditions of Eleazar ben Azariah (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977). 97 William Scott Green, ed., Persons and Institutions in Early Rabbinic Judaism (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977).

28

Midrash and Legend

other sources. Neusner’s earlier Yohanan ben Zakkai98 and Traditions about the Pharisees99 also provided much useful material addressing issues of style and transmission. A number of studies treated different corpora of Rabbinic Literature with attention to narrative analysis. Richard Kalmin, Sages, Stories, Authors and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia (1994) and Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture (1999) provide extended analysis of a few illustrative selections from the Babylonian Talmud.100 The inherent weakness of such studies is that the selection of texts is determined by the author’s interests rather than a method which identifies what is typical for that corpus and genre. Alon Goshen-Gottstein provides a careful examination of the accounts concerning Elisha ben Abuyah and Eleazar ben Arakh. Although his materials generally belong to a later corpus than ours, his comments are instructive for our study as well: Rabbis might be providing information for reasons other than the satisfaction of historical curiosity. Uncovering why rabbis might tell stories is part of reading rabbinic material for its sake, as literature, and within the context of the rabbis’ own time … stories describe reality not as it was but as it should have been. They convey the religious ideals of the Sages, which should be seen as paradigmatic rather than historical … Beyond their ideological and religious dimensions, rabbinic stories have an interpretive dimension. Obviously, the primary text for interpretation is the Bible, but interpretation is also the background for tales of rabbinic heroes. Besides interpreting biblical texts, rabbinic stories fulfill the function of interpreting earlier rabbinic materials … When the primary reference point is to a constitutive text, the historical 98 Jacob Neusner, A Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai, ca. 1-80 CE, 2nd

edition (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970). 99 Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970). 100 Richard Kalmin, Sages, Stories, Authors and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), and Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).

Introduction and Review of Literature

29

concerns are replaced by hermeneutical concerns. Inasmuch as the interpreted text is an independent focus of attention, intellectual creativity might revolve around the text, rather than its historical basis … Once the concerns of the text are viewed in terms of hermeneutics, their literary, and therefore historically artificial, nature becomes natural.101

The doctoral dissertation of Anna Lynn UrowitzFreudenstein102 addresses the issue of hermeneutical methods evidenced in the tannaitic midrashim, using as her sample any text which mentions individual women. It was exemplary for me in its thoroughness and clarity, and it also shed light on a number of specific passages.

THE METHOD OF THIS STUDY This book collects every example of a historical anecdote in the tannaitic midrashim—any passage which relates any incident purported to have occurred from the close of biblical times up to the composition of the midrash collection being studied. Excluded from this study, therefore, are expanded biblical narratives or stories related to characters from biblical times. As much as possible subjectivity was controlled by presuming that almost all passages intended as “historical anecdotes” will include proper names, whether of individuals or places. An “incident” must involve actual people in an actual place at an actual time. Anonymous incidents located nowhere in particular are presumably intended as parables or stories rather than historical anecdotes. Sometimes, however, the reader must subjectively determine whether, in a certain story, “Jerusalem” is the same as “Utopia” or conversely that “a certain man” really is intended to be an actual individual.103 As mentioned above, the label “historical 101 Alon Goshen-Gottstein, The Sinner and the Amnesiac: The Rabbinic

Invention of Elisha ben Abuya and Eleazar ben Arakh (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2000), 4-5. 102 Urowitz-Freudenstein, Exegetical Methods in the Tannaitic Midrashim, op. cit. 103 Joseph Heinemann points out that there are some anecdotes on the borderline between parable and historical anecdote: “What of anecdotes and folktales which are not about historical figures, such as the

30

Midrash and Legend

anecdote” distinguishes a literary form and has nothing to do with issues of “historicity.” Any questionable passages which are not examined in the body of the book are mentioned in a footnote. Controversies between Sages are excluded unless they are set in a narrative context, i.e. described as occurring at a particular time and place. The primary corpus is: Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon bar Yohai, Sifra, Sifre Numbers, Sifre Zuta, and Sifre Deuteronomy. It is outside the scope of this study to do original work in determining the text of these documents; the standard critical editions have been used. As certain rhetorical tropes emerged from the texts, computerized databases helped to locate further examples and parallels. After having gathered the historical anecdotes, I have analyzed them in several different ways. I set forth the percentage of pages and chapters in a given midrash compilation which contain historical anecdotes. I analyze the function and rhetorical forms of the historical anecdotes, identifying rhetorical tropes used by the various collections in common and tropes unique to a specific midrash collection. I take note of any anecdotes which occur elsewhere in early rabbinic literature, to explain which elements of the anecdote are stable and which vary according to context. I attempt to set forth, in positive terms, an understanding of what functions historical anecdotes serve in the tannaitic midrashim, along with a catalog of the rhetorical conventions used to fulfill those functions. In appendices I attempt to distinguish the way that the “tannaitic midrashim” as a corpus handle historical anecdotes from the handling of such passages in the Mishnah and the Tosefta, and in the early amoraic midrashim.

stories of riddles which show the wisdom of the ‘four Jerusalemites who came to Athens’?” Heinemann, “The Nature of the Aggadah,” 44.

ohrmn ,thmhc rpxk vcrnv kfu /jcuan vz hrv

HISTORICAL ANECDOTES IN THE MEKHILTA OF RABBI ISHMAEL

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEKHILTA DERABBI ISHMAEL The Mekhilta is generally considered, like other tannaitic midrashim, to contain genuine tannaitic traditions and to have reached its basic form in the third century. Special problems, however, attach to the dating of the Mekhilta. It is difficult to demonstrate that the Babylonian Talmud knew the traditions in our Mekhilta, and in some cases it seems quite likely that the Mekhilta knew traditions which first appear in our extant literature in the Bavli. Traditions found in the Mekhilta are frequently presented in the Babylonian Talmud with the citation “ktgnah 'r hcs tb,” or “ktgnah 'r hb,”,1 but many traditions quoted by this formula do not appear in our Mekhilta. Howard I. Levine concluded, on the basis of his study of Mekhiltan halakhah, that the Babylonian Talmud was unaware of the halakhic interpretations found in the Mekhilta. For example: The Mishnah Pesachim VII, 13 is interpreted in the light of the Mekhilta and the Tosefta in a manner differing from the explanation of the Babylonian Talmud, which apparently was not aware of the Midrash found in the Mekhilta. The Talmud explains the Mishnah as the view of R. Judah whereas the study

1 Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans.

Markus Bockmuehl, 2nd edition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 253.

31

32

Midrash and Legend of the Mekhilta indicates that the Mishnah holds the opposing view of R. Simeon.2

Ben Zion Wacholder considers the Mekhilta to be a pseudepigraphic work.3 According to his view, the editor of the Mekhilta ascribed amoraic views to tannaim. The tannaim named in the Mekhilta are represented out of proportion to their importance in the Mishnah. The early pairs (,uduz) are underrepresented, as are Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and Rabban Gamaliel II. Wacholder asserts that in the Mekhilta, R. Akiva conforms to the interpretive models of Ishmael and “is void of any exegetical personality.”4 Judah the Patriarch is cited as ausev ubhcr, a late amoraic appellation for him. Certain teachers such as Eleazar of Modi’in are over-represented.5 The Mekhilta often uses ch,f and ch,fs to mark scriptural citations, rather than the tannaitic rntba. The oldest external testimony to our Mekhilta is early ninth century, in the ,ukusd ,ufkv of Simeon Kayyara (§ 633).6 “Extensive verifiable references begin to appear in about the year 1000.”7 Wacholder asserts that the Mekhilta shows knowledge of the Babylonian Talmud, while the Babylonian Talmud seems ignorant of the Mekhilta.8

2 Howard I. Levine, Studies in Mishnah Pesachim, Baba Kama and the

Mechilta (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1971), vii. In his study as a whole, Levine believes he shows: a) the dependence of the Mishnah on traditions in the Mekhilta; b) that the Babylonian Talmud is unaware of the Mekhilta; and c) that the Mishnah and the Mekhilta sometimes represent divergent developments of a common source. 3 Ben Zion Wacholder, “The Date of the Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael,” HUCA 39 (1968): 117-44. 4 ibid., 130. 5 ibid., 128-129. 6 ibid., 119. 7 ibid., 120. 8 ibid., 137. He refers the reader to Mekhilta on Exod. 21:33 [= Lauterbach I:90-94] cp. BK 49bff., and to Albeck, Untersuchungen, 91-120.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

33

Menahem Kahana9 (followed by most others) rejects Wacholder’s arguments, some of which he deems to be based on pollution of the textual tradition of the Mekhilta in the West (including all the printed editions, even Horowitz-Rabin and Lauterbach). He asserted that the Eastern textual tradition, as represented in Geniza fragments, more frequently represents the original Mekhilta.10 Modern scholarship of rabbinic literature has not generally accepted Wacholder’s radical view of the Mekhilta as pseudepigraphic, but scholars must reckon with the evidence that the Mekhilta reached final form at a late (post-Talmudic) date. The Mekhilta is not all of a piece; it is apparently composed of distinct sub-documents with differing characteristics. For instance, Daniel Boyarin notes that in the portion of the Mekhilta which comments on Exodus chapters 16 – 18, a sage will present a ars which R. Joshua will contradict with a yap.11 Boyarin considers this section to constitute a sub-document,12 basing himself on L. Finkelstein, who had divided the Mekhilta into nine subdocuments.13 Günter Stemberger notes as an example that the

9 Menahem Kahana, “Mahadurot haMekilta deRabbi Ishmael leShemot bere’i qit’ei hagenizah: Appendix A,” Tarbiz 55 (1985-1986): 515-20. 10 ibid., 516. 11 Daniel Boyarin, “Analogy vs. Anomaly in Midrashic Hermeneutic: Tractates Wayyassa and Amaleq in Mekilta,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 106 (Oct. - Dec. 1986), 659. 12 ibid., 660. 13 L. Finkelstein, “The Sources of the Tannaitic Midrashim,” Jewish Quarterly Review 31 (1940-41): 211-43. He identifies the following sections as sub-documents: (a) Proemium to Mekhilta BeShallah (older than the remainder); (b) Mekhilta BeShallah chs. 1-2 (probably from same hand as Shirata); (c) Mekhilta BeShallah 3 (cites rare authorities); (d) Mekhilta BeShallah chs. 4-6 (more frequent references to R. Meir and R. Judah); (e) Shirata; (f) Vayassa and Amalek; (g) BaHodesh chs. 1-5; (h) BaHodesh chs. 6-8 (from a different source, on the Ten Commandments; (i) BaHodesh chs. 9-11.

34

Midrash and Legend

different tractates of the Mekhilta differ in their apparent knowledge of the Mishnah.14 The general point of view taken here is to presume that we are dealing with a “tannaitic Midrash” collection in the Mekhilta, but to be mindful of the controversy regarding dating when we consider possible interplay between texts in the Mekhilta and in the Talmuds.

LIST OF HISTORICAL ANECDOTES FOUND, AND THEIR FREQUENCY In this chapter we treat 23 historical anecdotes from the Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, as follows (according to the pagination in Lauterbach): TABLE I. ANECDOTES IN MEKHILTA DERABBI ISHMAEL

Tractate Pisha Pisha Pisha Pisha BeShallah BeShallah BeShallah Shirata Shirata Shirata Vayassa Vayassa Vayassa Amalek Amalek Amalek BaHodesh BaHodesh BaHodesh BaHodesh Nezikin

Starting Point (Chapter & Line no.) 14:64 15:41 15:126 16:49 1:209 3:118 6:44 2:127 6:100 9:34 1:57 1:93 4:74 1:47 3:223 4:122 1:17 6:104 7:17 10:58 18:54

Length (lines) 14 5 5 14 26 11 28 7 6 9 7 13 16 9 21 4 25 21 28 29 20

14 “For example, as regards apparent quotations from the Mishnah

and Tosefta, tractate Shirata has zero; Shabbeta zero; Beshallah has two; Pisha has 45; and Nezikin has 36.” Stemberger, Introduction, 255.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael Tractate Kaspa Shabbeta

Starting Point (Chapter & Line no.) 3:31 1:7

35

Length (lines) 11 24

The percentage of lines devoted to historical anecdotes by tractate is as follows: TABLE II. ANECDOTES AS PERCENTAGE OF COMPOSITION.

Total Lines Anecdote Lines

%

Pisha

2,224

38 1.7%

BeShallah Shirata

1,161

65 5.6%

1,118

22 2.0%

Vayassa

712

36 5.1%

Amalek

798

34 4.3%

1,351

103 7.6%

1,887

20 1.1%

648

11 1.7%

BaHodesh Nezikin Kaspa Shabbeta TOTAL

212

24 11.3%

10,111

353 3.5%

The average anecdote in MRI is thus 15 lines, approximately 150 words in Lauterbach’s edition.

TRANSLATION AND EXPLANATION OF ANECDOTES FOUND Tractate Pisha chapter 14, Parashat Bo, to Exodus 12:40 (Lauterbach: vol. 1 pages 111-112, lines 64-77; Horowitz-Rabin: page 50 line 10 - page 51 line 4) Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt and in the land of Canaan and in the land of Goshen was four hundred and thirty years (Exodus 12:40).15 This is one of the passages which they

15 Exodus 12:40, altered here by the Mekhilta [the words of the actual

biblical phrase are bolded]. The Mekhilta is explaining that the period of 430 years is the span from the promise to Abraham (Genesis 15:13-16) to

36

Midrash and Legend changed when writing the Torah for King Ptolemy.16 Likewise they wrote for him: “God created in the beginning” (Genesis 1:1)17 “I will make a man according to an image and a likeness” (Genesis 1:26)18 “A male with corresponding female parts19 created He him” (Genesis 5:2)20 ‘And God finished on the sixth day and rested on the seventh day” (Genesis 2:2)21

the Exodus, rather than the actual span of the people’s residence in Egypt as the passage seems to state. 16 The translation of the Mekhilta passages presented in this chapter is the translation of Lauterbach. I have altered the formatting in order to highlight what I believe to be the operative structures of each passage. I have freely altered Lauterbach’s translation without comment, when I felt that a different rendering would make the logic of the passage clearer. I also take Lauterbach’s edition as my standard Hebrew text but in each case I consult the edition of Horowitz-Rabin as well. 17 Rather than “In the beginning God created” (“Bereshit bara elohim”), lest the reader imagine that a power named “bereshit” created God (Rashi to b. Megillah 9a). 18 Rather than “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” The midrash is apparently disturbed by the indelicacy of attributing an image and likeness to God, and by the plural language of the original text. 19 Or, “with his cavities” [uhceb]. 20 Rather than “male and female he created them,” in order to emphasize that all of humanity issued from the single (androgynous) individual, and to obviate the problem that the Genesis account later speaks of the creation of only one (presumably male) original human being. 21 Rather than “On the seventh day God [had] finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work.” The midrash is apparently disturbed by the contradiction that could be construed from the language of the biblical phrase, which says that God “finished his work” on the seventh day―the Sabbath. Rather, the altered text clarifies that God “finished his work” on the sixth day.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

37

“Now I will go down and there confound their language” (Genesis 11:7)22 “And Sarah laughed among her relatives” (Genesis 18:12)23 “For in their anger they slew an ox and in their self-will they tore up a stall” (Genesis 49:6)24 “And Moses took his wife and his sons and set them upon a carrier of man” (Exodus 4:20)25 “I have not taken any desirable thing from them” (Numbers 16:15)26 “Which the Lord thy God hath allotted to give light unto all the peoples” (Deuteronomy 4:19)27 “Which I have commanded the nations not to worship them” (Deuteronomy 17:3)28 22 The midrash eliminates the plural language of the original passage,

“Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language.” 23 Rather than, “So Sarah laughed to herself.” To explain why Sarah was rebuked for her laughter at God’s promise of a child, whereas Abraham had also laughed to himself (Gen. 17:17) but was not rebuked (Rashi to b. Megillah 9a). 24 The midrash is disturbed by the harsh language describing the sons of Jacob as murderers, contained in the original passage, “for in their anger they slew a man, and in their wantonness they hamstrung an ox.” 25 Rather than, “So Moses took his wife and his sons and set them on an ass.” The midrash seeks to enhance Moses’ dignity, as the Greeks would not have considered a donkey to be an appropriate vehicle for a leader (Rashi to b. Megillah 9a). 26 Rather than, “I have not taken one ass from them.” The midrash wishes to make it clear that Moses did not expropriate anything from the people (Rashi to b. Megillah 9b). 27 Rather than, “[the heavenly bodies] which the Lord thy God has allotted to all the peoples.” The alteration of the passage prevents the possible interpretation that God had decreed idolatry for the nations. 28 Rather than, “[do not worship the heavenly bodies] which I have not commanded.” The biblical phrase is ambiguous and could be taken to imply that God does not control the heavenly bodies, which could consequently be considered independent deities.

38

Midrash and Legend “And the slenderfooted” (Leviticus 11:6).29 And they also wrote for him: “Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt and in the land of Canaan and in the land of Goshen was four hundred and thirty years.”

The “anecdotal” nature of this passage rests on the phrase “the passages which they wrote for King Ptolemy.” There is no narrative here―no flow of events. Most likely, the reference to writing the Torah for King Ptolemy is simply a formula for referring to the Septuagint, alluding to the legend which appears in the Letter of Aristeas and elsewhere. The anecdote is brought in associatively, complementing a solution offered by the Mekhilta to the problem this passage presents. In fact, our anecdote does not “solve” the hermeneutical difficulty—it merely underscores it! The Septuagint says, “The time of sojourning when the Israelites sojourned in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan was four hundred and thirty years.” A phrase is added―similar but not identical to the phrase added by the Mekhilta―in order to alleviate a problem of chronology in the text of the Torah. In a similar vein Targum Jonathan says, “The days when the Israelites sojourned in Egypt were thirty shmitah years equaling two hundred and ten years, which numbered four hundred and thirty years from when the Lord spoke to Abraham, from the hour when he spoke to him on the fifteenth of Nisan between the parts until the day when they departed from Egypt.”30 The body of the passage is a list of 13 altered scriptural passages (including our base verse) which remedy a troubling expression in the traditional text. The contextual function is to locate this verse within a class of problematic passages whose indelicacies or difficulties are addressed through euphemism. Although the Mekhilta asserts that all these passages were altered for King Ptolemy (in other words, altered in the Septuagint), most of these alterations are not incorporated into the text of the 29 Rather than “and the hare [is unclean to you].” According to the

Yerushalmi, the reference to the hare would be insulting to King Ptolemy because his mother’s name was “Arneta” meaning, a “hare.” 30 My translation. I consulted Michael Maher, The Aramaic Bible: Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Exodus (Wilmington, Delaware: M. Glazier, 1997), 194.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

39

Septuagint as we now have it.31 This anecdote of passages altered by the translators of the Septuagint, therefore, represents neither an account of an event which transpired (reference to the act of translation being a mere formula), nor does it represent a description of the Greek Bible itself. (There is no reason to believe these particular passages, once altered, would have reverted in the transmission of the Septuagint.32) Rather, this passage provides a setting for a traditional list of thirteen troubling passages in the Torah, which were altered for transmission among Gentiles or should have been. The stimulus for including this list at this juncture in the Mekhilta is simply the occurrence of Exodus 12:40 in the sequence of verses treated by the Mekhilta. If we had to imagine what the traditional list might have looked like in transmission before being placed in its setting, we would imagine a simple list with some kind of mnemonic superscription. We find this tradition in such a form in the Jerusalem Talmud, where the same list of thirteen passages appears (y. Megillah 1:9). Leviticus 11:6 appears in its biblical sequence rather than at the end of the list as in the Mekhilta. The list is introduced, “Thirteen passages did the Sages change for King Ptolemy. They wrote as follows for him …” The version in the Yerushalmi contains the comment (not present in the Mekhilta) that the reason the Leviticus passage was changed was to avoid insult to Ptolemy’s mother. Compared to the Yerushalmi, the version in the Mekhilta somewhat expands the treatment of Exodus 12:40 and also alters the order of other passages, placing the two thematically similar passages about the creation of Adam together, and placing the Leviticus passage at the conclusion. The 31 The Septuagint renderings of all these passages agree with the traditional Hebrew against the alterations suggested by the Mekhilta, except in the cases of Genesis 2:2, Exodus 12:40 (our base text) and Numbers 16:15 where the Septuagint contains a reading similar to what is suggested by the Mekhilta. 32 Emmanuel Tov treats the significance of these rabbinic traditions for the transmission-history of the Greek bible in “The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the ‘Alterations’ Inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 15 (1984):65-89. He (in contrast to the position I have taken) considers these traditions to represent actual, earlier, readings of the LXX than the texts known to us.

40

Midrash and Legend

occurrence of the Leviticus passage at the conclusion in the Mekhilta makes sense only if it forms a narrative conclusion―if the composer knew the explanation given by the Yerushalmi and assumed his readers knew it, even though he omits it. A muchelaborated version occurs in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Megillah 9a). The formulaic “which they wrote for King Ptolemy” becomes occasion for an elaborate telling of the story of the translation of the Torah into Greek. The Babylonian Talmud, like the Mekhilta, concludes its list with the passage from Leviticus 11, and concludes its narrative by expansively commenting on the idea that Ptolemy’s wife (not his mother) was named “Hare,” and describing the insult to Ptolemy which would have resulted from leaving the passage unaltered.33 Given the several versions of the story which we have, and the close verbal similarities among them, we can speculate conservatively about the transmission of the bit of rabbinic tradition underlying this Mekhilta passage. To explain the passage as we have it, there must have been common cultural information about the origins of the Greek Bible, and a simple form of the list similar to what we now see in the Yerushalmi. Neither of those elements could be derived simply from the exposition of Exodus. The Mekhilta’s editors shaped the list into context, adding elaboration on the treatment of the anchor verse. No explanation of the introductory formula (“passages which they wrote for King Ptolemy”) or of the reference to the “hare” seemed necessary to the Mekhiltan editor―he could assume that common cultural information on the part of his audience. Merely placing the Leviticus verse at the conclusion of the list brought the narrative to a suitable conclusion. The following table compares the versions from the Yerushalmi and the Mekhilta, treating the Yerushalmi as if it were the prototype (though in fact I believe that the prototype precedes both versions―but the Yerushalmi made fewer alterations to it).34 The underlined phrases appear in both versions.35 33 The Babylonian Talmud version adds a fourteenth text to the list,

Exod. 24:5. The footnote in the Soncino Talmud to this passage comments that in fact it was Ptolemy’s father who was named Lagos. 34 Here and throughout the dissertation, I take the Krotoshin edition of the Yerushalmi as the standard edition. I have consulted Peter Schäfer

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

41

A.

hnkaurh [corresponds to below, “K”]

t,khfn rat ktrah hbc caunu igbf .rtcu ohrmnc ucah vba ohaka iaud .rtcu /vba ,utn gcrtu

B.

/lknv hnk,k ohnfj ubha rcs d"h uk uc,f

uc,fa ohrcsv in sjt vz uc tmuhf /lknv hnk,k uk uc,f

C.

,hatrc trc ohvkt

,hatrc trc ohvkt

D.

,unscu okmc ost vagt

,unscu okmc ost vagt

E.

36otrc uhcebu rfz

utrc uhcuebu rfz

F.

hghcac ,ucahu haac kfhu

ouhc ,ucahu haav ouhc kfhu hghcav

G.

vsrt vcv

o,pa oa vkctu vsrt vcv

H.

rntk vhcurec vra ejm,u

vhcurec vra ejm,u

I.

obumrcu rua udrv optc hf xuct ureg

obumrcu rua udrv optc hf xuct ureg

J.

uhbc ,tu u,at ,t van jehu ost hbc htaub kg ochfrhu

uhbc ,tu u,at ,t van jehu ost taub kg ochfrhu

K.

ucah rat ktrah hbc caunu ,umrtv kfcu ohrmnc vba ,utn gcrtu vba ohaka

[corresponds to above, “A”]

L.

[―] ,cbrtv ,tu ohkdrv ,rhgm ,t

[corresponds to below, “P”]

lknv hnk, ka unt vna ,uuv t,brt M.

h,tab ovn sjt snj tk

h,tab ovn sjt sunj tk

and Hans-Jürgen Becker, eds., Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1991), which at present is available for the sedarim Zera’im, Mo’ed, Nashim, Nezikin, and Toharot. Where a variant reading seems significant for the purposes of this study, I mention it in a footnote. 35 There are also parallels, not treated here, in Midrash Tanhuma to Exodus, Shemot chapter 22; Midrash Tanhuma - Buber to Exodus, Shemot chapter 19; and the extra-canonical talmudic tractate Soferim 1:8. The Tanhuma versions resemble the Mekhilta; Soferim resembles the Bavli. 36 In my opinion the Yerushalmi has here reverted to the biblical word otrc (“he created them”) as an error in transmission. The version in the Mekhilta makes more sense in context.

42

Midrash and Legend

N.

hnkaurh rhtvk o,ut lhvkt 'v ekj rat 'hnav kf ,j, ohngv kfk

t,khfn rhtvk o,ut lhvkt hh ekj rat ohngv kfk

O.

oscgk 'unutk h,hum tk rat

oscgk ,unutk h,hum tk rat

P.

[corresponds to above, “L”]

ohkdrv ,rhgm ,tu

Q.

―

uk uc,f ¼ifu

R.

―

rat ktrah hbc caunu igbf .rtcu ohrmnc ucah vba ohaka iaud .rtcu :vba ,utn gcrtu

Tractate Pisha chapter 15, Parashat Bo, to Exodus 12:44 (Lauterbach: vol. 1 page 120, lines 41-45; Horowitz-Rabin: page 54 lines 1-4) A. Another interpretation: When thou hast circumcised him, then he shall eat thereof (Exodus 12:44). B. Why is this said? C. To include one upon whom circumcision had been performed though without permanent effect.37 D. Even though the flesh has again covered the corona he is not debarred from partaking of the paschal lamb or of terumah. E. On this question our teachers in Lod took a vote and decided that such a regrowth does not constitute an interposition in regard to uncleanness.38

The anecdote is part “E” which says that the source of this halakhah is a vote taken at Lod. In general in this study I do not treat attributions of traditions as “anecdotes” or accounts, but the language used here, it seems to me, intends to convey that an event took place.39 37 lit., “even for one hour [,jt vga ukhpt].” 38 The translation of this passage is that of Lauterbach; the division of

the passage follows Jacob Neusner, Mekilta according to Rabbi Ishmael, An Analytical Translation I-II (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), ad loc. 39 Several cases “decided by vote at Lod” appear in the Yerushalmi (Shevi’it 4:2; Pesahim 3:7; Sanhedrin 3:5), and in the Tosefta (Mikwa’ot 8:6, Sanhedrin 10:5).

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

43

The entire base verse reads, “But any person’s slave, bought with money—when he has circumcised him, then he may eat it [the Passover lamb].” The Mekhilta’s treatment of the passage is stimulated by the seemingly superfluous use of the word az (“then”). According to the hermeneutical principle of “ribui” this word must come to include a case that is not explicitly mentioned. When the midrash asks, “Why is this said?” (part “B”), the answer could have been any relevant traditional case―the particular case to be chosen is not determined by the exegesis of the biblical passage. Part “C” provides us with the case, and part “D” with the halakhic conclusion.40 Part “E” provides us with the authority for that conclusion. The anecdote functions to satisfy the need for relevant content created by the ribui interpretation. In my opinion the “anecdote” here is merely an elaboration upon the simpler form of attribution: ubnb sukc used elsewhere in the Tosefta and Yerushalmi. There is no flow of narrative here. The particular ruling cited cannot be found elsewhere in tannaitic literature, nor in the two Talmuds. Tractate Pisha chapter 15, Parashat Bo, to Exodus 12:48 (Lauterbach: vol. 1 page 127, lines 126-130; Horowitz-Rabin: page 57 lines 1-3) It happened to Valeria [thrukcc vagn] that some of her handmaids took the ritual bath in front of her [vhbpk] and some took it behind her [vhrjtk]. The case then came before the Sages and they declared that those who submerged themselves in front of her were free and those who bathed behind her were still slaves. Nevertheless they all continued to serve her until the day of her death. 40 The Tosefta (Yevamot 10:2) agrees with the Mekhilta. “He who has his prepuce drawn forward and one who is born circumcised ― lo, these eat heave offering.” This contradicts the Yerushalmi (Yevamot 8:1), “One whose mark of circumcision is covered up, one who was born circumcised, and one who was circumcised before he had converted to Judaism may not eat food in the status of heave-offering.” Translations from the Tosefta and Yerushalmi here and further on in this chapter are the translations edited by Jacob Neusner (see bibliography). I have freely altered the translations without comment to harmonize the diction of texts being treated in parallel, or in order to clarify a particular phrase.

44

Midrash and Legend

The full context of this passage begins with the preceding interpretation of Exodus 12:48, “And if a sojourner sojourns with you, and he would observe the Lord’s Passover, let him be circumcised―every male―and then he may draw near to observe it. And he shall be as a citizen of the land, but anyone uncircumcised shall not eat of it.” Again the midrash seeks to explain the presence of the otherwise superfluous word az (“then”), and by means of the hermeneutical principle of gezerah shavah decides that this word comes to teach us something about slaves, just as the use of az in the previously-discussed passage taught something about slaves. This passage, as elaborated by the midrash, teaches the householder’s duty to circumcise his slaves before observing Passover. The ensuing discussion suggests several points of view on this theme, the last of which is the opinion of Rabbi Nathan: “There would be no purpose in Scripture’s saying, ‘Let all his males be circumcised and then let him come near to keep it,’ except to include the slave who took the ritual bath in the presence of his master and thereby became a free man.” This mention of the ritual bath as the last step in the slave’s emancipation serves as the stimulus to include the ma’aseh (case-account) of Valeria and her slaves. From the parallel in the Bavli (b. Yevamot 46a), and from the logic of the case, it seems that Lauterbach has mistranslated and that those who immersed “before her”41 immersed before her conversion to Judaism (the Bavli calling her “,ruhdv thrukc”), not in front of her as Lauterbach renders it. In the version of the case given by the Bavli, Valeria’s slaves all immersed before her conversion to Judaism and the question is raised as a theoretical case: What would have happened had some of her slaves immersed after her conversion?42 In the Mekhilta, this ma’aseh is neither required by the theme verse nor even by the discussion following the anecdote. The case is not really on-point in its context in the Mekhilta―the conditions making for a valid manumission of slaves are not under examination there. The story is left completely unaltered by its 41 vhbpk vh,ujpa ,men ukcya in the Mekhilta, but vhscg unsea

vhbpk ukcyu in the Bavli. 42 There is a reference to a convert, Beruria the Queen [vfkn thrurc], at Gerim 2:4, which may refer to the same figure.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

45

context, as far as I can tell. An interesting account is simply inserted at a suitable place in a discussion where it illustrates one of the opinions expressed. The anecdote functions to illustrate the interpretation offered in the name of R. Nathan, who fills the opening created by the ribui interpretation with a reference to this sort of case. In the Mekhilta the case appears anonymously; in the Bavli it appears in support of the opinion of the Babylonian amora Rav Hisda. In the Bavli the story is rather more integrated into its context, illuminating the discussion of whether ritual immersion results in manumission, regardless of whether the slave-owner is an Israelite or an idolater. The case of Valeria the convert illuminates both sides of the question and serves as the climax of the discussion which leads up to it. On account of these factors, I agree with Wacholder’s assessment that the version in the Mekhilta is better explained by assuming prior knowledge of the version in the Bavli, than by the reverse. I do not conclude that the Mekhilta copied the Talmud— there are other questions involved in that judgment that are outside the scope of my investigation—but I must conclude that the version of the story in the Mekhilta cannot be explained by its context, whereas the version in the Talmud can be explained by its context. The following table uses the English translations43 rather than the Hebrew text because my purpose is to show the reader how the case-account has been fitted to its context in each case, rather than to look at verbal similarities. I have italicized the names of authorities, and I have bolded the portions of the accounts which are in agreement. A.

Mekhilta [Midrashic discussion. The debate here concerns what halakhic principle can best be related to the placeholder in Scripture created by

Bavli [Halakhic discussion. The debate here concerns the conditions under which ritual ablution effects a slave’s emancipation.]

43 For the Bavli the translation in this chapter is the Soncino version. I. Epstein, ed., The Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino Press, 1988), ad loc. I have freely altered the translation without comment to harmonize the diction of texts being treated in parallel, or in order to clarify a particular phrase.

46

Midrash and Legend Mekhilta the otherwise superfluous use of az in the verse.] “Let all his males be circumcised and then let him come near and keep it.” This tells that the failure to circumcise his free males debars one from partaking of the paschal lamb… . The expression “then” is used here, and the expression “then” is used there… . these are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Ishmael says: Failure to circumcise one’s free males does not debar one from partaking of the paschal lamb… . but [this passage] indicates that the commandment of circumcision [of one’s slaves] has precedence over that of the Passover. R. Nathan says: “There would be no purpose in Scripture’s saying, ‘Let all his males be circumcised and then let him come near to keep it,’ except to include the slave who took the ritual bath in the presence of his master and thereby became a free man.”

B.

It happened with ['c vagn] Valeria that some of her handmaids took the ritual bath before her and some took it after her. The case then came before the Sages and they declared that those who submerged themselves in before her were free and those who bathed after her were still slaves.

Bavli R. Hama b. Guria said in the name of Rav: If a man bought a slave from an idolater and [that slave] forestalled him [ose] and performed the ritual ablution with the object of acquiring the status of a freed man, he acquires thereby his emancipation. What is the reason? The idolater has no title to the person [of the slave] and he can transfer to the Israelite only that which is his. And [the slave], since he forestalled him and performed the ritual ablution for the purpose of acquiring the status of a freed man, has thereby cancelled the obligations of his servitude, in accordance with the ruling of Rava. R. Hisda raised an objection:

It happened with ['c vagn] the proselyte Valeria that her slaves forestalled her and performed the ritual ablutions before her. And when the matter came before the Sages they decided that the slaves had acquired the status of freed men.

C.

Nevertheless they all continued to serve her until the day of her death.

―

D.

―

[From here it follows that] only if they performed ablution before her, but not after her!

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

E.

Mekhilta [For the Mekhilta the “before” and “after” possibilities were part of the case-account; for the Bavli they are part of the legal commentary and not part of the story itself.]

47

Bavli Rava replied: ‘Before her’ they acquire their emancipation whether the object of their bathing had, or had not been specified; ‘after her’ emancipation is acquired only when the object had been specified, but not when it had not been specified.

Tractate Pisha chapter 16, Parashat Bo, to Exodus 13:1 (Lauterbach: vol. 1 page 131, line 49 - page 132, line 62; HorowitzRabin: page 58, line 19 - page 59, line 10) A. Once disciples spent the Sabbath [u,ca rcf] in Yavneh. R. Joshua, however, was not there on that Sabbath. When the disciples came to visit him, he said to them: “What new lesson did you have in Yavneh?” They said to him: “After you, master.” He then said to them: “And who was there for the Sabbath?” They said to him: “R. Eleazar the son of Azariah.” Then he said to them: “Is it possible that R. Eleazar the son of Azariah was there for the Sabbath and did not give you anything new?” B. So they said to him: “He brought out this general idea in his exposition of the text: ‘Ye are standing this day all of you … your little ones’ (Deut. 29:9), etc.44 Now what do the little ones know about distinguishing between good and evil? It was but to give the parents reward for bringing their children, thus increasing the reward of those who do His will. This confirms what has been said [rntba vn ohhek]: “The Lord was

44 “You stand this day, all of you, before the Lord your God ― your

tribal heads, your elders and your officials, all the men of Israel, your children, your wives, even the stranger within your camp, from woodchopper to waterdrawer ― to enter into the covenant of the Lord your God, which the Lord your God is concluding with you this day, with its sanctions; to the the end that He may establish you this day as his people and be your God, as He promised you and as He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Deut. 29:9-11, JPS).

48

Midrash and Legend pleased for His righteousness’ sake” (Isaiah 42:21), etc.45 C. Then R. Joshua exclaimed and said to them: “Is this not a new teaching? Behold, I am eighty years old,46 and I have never had the good fortune to get this teaching until this day. Happy art thou, our father Abraham, in that Eleazar the son of Azariah is a descendant of yours. Surely, the generation in which there is an Eleazar b. Azariah is not to be considered orphaned.” D. Then they said to him: “Master, he also brought out this general idea in the exposition of the text: ‘Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say: “As the Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel” … but … “As the Lord liveth, that brought up and that led,” etc. (Jer. 23:7-8).47 One can illustrate it by a parable. To what can it be compared? To the following: One was very desirous of children. After a daughter had been born to him, he would swear by the life of the daughter. When again a son was born to him, he left off swearing by the daughter and swore only by the life of the son.”

45 Cp. the meaning given to this text in m. Makkot 3:16: “R. Hananiah

b. Akashia says, ‘The Holy One, blessed be he, wanted to give merit to Israel. Therefore he gave them abundant Torah and numerous commandments, as it is said, “It pleased the Lord for his righteousness’ sake to magnify the Torah and give honor to it’”(Translation of Neusner). 46 Horowitz-Rabin reads, “seventy years old.” 47 “Assuredly, a time is coming―declares the Lord― when it shall no more be said, ‘As the Lord lives, who brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt,’ but rather, ‘As the Lord lives, who brought out and led the offspring of the House of Israel from the northland and from all the lands to which I have banished them.’ And they shall dwell upon their own land” (Jer. 23:7-8, JPS).

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

49

The passage continues with a further exposition of the Jeremiah passage in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai, and never returns to the narrative framework.48 Previous to the introduction of this story, the Mekhilta had treated the theme of mitzvot which are given merely for the purpose of providing a reward to those who fulfill them. In the theme verse (Exod. 13:1), God says, “Consecrate to Me every first-born; man and beast, the first issue of every womb among the Israelites is Mine.” The midrash asks, why does God require consecration of the first-born if he declares they are “Mine” regardless? And the answer is given, “Consecrate them in order that you may receive a reward.” The seemingly “unnecessary” command is an occasion for God to bestow merit on Israel. Likewise God asked for offerings and a sanctuary although he required neither, merely in order to bestow a reward upon Israel. At this point in the discussion, our account is introduced. The connection of our account to what precedes it is clearly the similar conclusion reached in R. Eleazar b. Azariah’s first homily: the Israelites were commanded to bring their children to the covenant ceremony - even though the children could not understand what was happening - merely to bestow reward upon the parents for bringing them. It functions to affirm the similar interpretation advanced by the Mekhilta. R. Eleazar b. Azariah’s second exposition then leads the midrash in a different direction, or as Neusner puts it, “ … the rather meandering and rambling passage is simply parachuted down, including the wildly irrelevant exposition of Simeon b. Yohai and its secondary developments.”49 What is interesting for us to note is that the second homily (“D”) provides the transition for what follows in the Mekhilta―meandering or not―and that second homily is the main element not present in the parallel versions. Prior to its appearance in the Mekhilta it may have been part of a corpus of homilies attributed to R. Eleazar b. Azariah. By introducing it here, the editor provides a transition to R. Simeon’s parables, which would 48 The expositions here attributed to R. Simeon b. Yohai on Jer. 23

are paralleled in the Yerushalmi, Berakhot 1:5, where they are attributed to Ben Zoma. 49 Neusner, Mekilta according to Rabbi Ishmael, An Analytical Translation, op. cit., ad loc.

50

Midrash and Legend

otherwise have no relationship to the context in the treatment of Exodus. Once the new theme is established the Mekhilta drops the narrative framework entirely. The narrative setting is extremely stereotyped (sections “A” “C”). The unwillingness of the disciples to teach in the presence of their master50 and the terms of approbation from one rabbi concerning another51 are stock scenes, and have absolutely no relationship to the exegetical content of the homily. The expositions would make just as much sense apart from the narrative context, but the narrative is supplied to provide heightened interest. Sections “A” - “C” are paralleled in the Tosefta (t. Sotah 7:9, 12).52 The connection between the two versions is very general. They share a common framework and a common understanding of the passage from Deuteronomy, but do not include many actual phrases in common―not even choices of which words to cite from the biblical text. The form is a specific type of academy discussion, where one sage asks his disciples what they learned from the homily of another sage. Within those limits, and using the rhetorical tropes available, the rest of the form fills itself out. The sage must invite the students to relate a Torah teaching in his presence, and they 50 “Whoever gives a decision in the presence of his teacher is liable to

the death penalty” (Sifra, Parashat Shemini, Mekhilta deMilu’im, piska’ot 32-33―see below p. 236, cp. y. Shevi’it 6:1, y. Gittin 1:2; b. Ber. 31b, b. Eruv. 63a). “R. Yose b. Dormaskit said … I found R. Eliezer as he was sitting in the store of Nakhtomin in Lod, and he said to me, what new thing did you learn in the House of Study today? I said to him, “We are your students and we drink your waters … ” (t. Yadayim 2:7). 51 As told at t. Hagigah 2:1, R. Yohanan b. Zakkai exclaimed, “Happy are you, Abraham our father, that Eleazar b. Arakh came from your loins, who knows how to understand and to expound about the glory of his Father in heaven!” Sifre Numbers, BeHa’alotekha piska 17 relates that R. Tarfon exclaimed, “Happy are you, Abraham our father, that Akiva came from your loins.” The trope “I am like one seventy years old, but I have not merited to learn this teaching … ” can be found also at m. Berakhot 1:5 = t. Berakhot 1:12 (and in the Passover Haggadah). 52 The textual basis for the treatment of the Tosefta in this study is the edition of Lieberman where available (for the sedarim Zera’im, Mo’ed, Nashim, and portions of Nezikin), and Zuckermandel for the remainder.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

51

must appear reticent to do so. They then relate the teaching or teachings, at the conclusion of which the sage must praise his colleague. The body of the narrative is borne along almost entirely by clichés. Since the anecdote is “foreign” to its context in both documents (the details of the account are to one degree or another irrelevant to the issues at hand), it is my opinion that they share a common source, probably an oral source. The only words in common in each version are stereotyped tropes, which do not require us to think that the framer of one version saw the other version in writing. I place the Tosefta first merely as a matter of convention.53 Tosefta

Mekhilta

A.

It happened that ['c vagn] R. Yohanan b. Berokah and R. Leazar Hisma came from Yavneh to Lod and they greeted R. Joshua in Peki’in.

Once the disciples spent the Sabbath [u,ca rcf] in Yavneh. R. Joshua, however, was not there on that Sabbath. When the disciples came to visit him,

B.

Said to them R. Joshua, “What was new in the school-house today?”

he said to them: “What new lesson did you have in Yavneh?”

They said to him, “We are your disciples and we drink your water.” C.

They said to him: “After you, master.”

He said to them, “It is hardly possible that there should be nothing new in the schoolhouse today. Whose Sabbath was it?”

He then said to them: “And who was there for the Sabbath?” They said to him: “R. Eleazar the son of Azariah.”

They said to him, “It was the Sabbath of R. Eleazar b. Azariah.” He said to them, “And whence was the narration?”

Then he said to them: “Is it possible that R. Eleazar the son of Azariah was there for the Sabbath and did not give you anything new?” So they said to him: “He brought out this general idea in his exposition of the text:

53 The Yerushalmi (Hagigah 1:1) contains a tradition almost identical to that in the Tosefta except that the material which the Tosefta contains at “I” is not present. There are parallels also in b. Hagigah 3a and Numbers Rabbah 14:4, which resemble the Yerushalmi, and a derivative passage at Avot deRabbi Nathan (A) 18:2.

52

Midrash and Legend

Tosefta

Mekhilta

D.

“Assemble the people, men, women, and children, and the sojourner within your towns, that they may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God” (Deut. 31:12).

‘Ye are standing this day all of you … your little ones’ (Deut. 29:9-10), etc.

E.

He said to them, “and what did he explain in this connection?”

―

They said to him, “Rabbi, thus did he explain in this connection: F.

Now if the men came along to study, the women came along to listen, why did the children come along?

Now what do the little ones know about distinguishing between good and evil?

G.

To provide a reward to the people who brought them.

It was but to give the parents reward for bringing their children, thus increasing the reward of those who do His will.

H.

―

This confirms what has been said: “The Lord was pleased for His righteousness’ sake,” etc.”

I.

[several other, thematically unrelated, expositions in the name of R. Eleazar b. Azariah are related. At the conclusion:]

Then R. Joshua exclaimed and said to them: “Is this not a new teaching? Behold, I am eighty years old, and I have never had the good fortune to get this teaching until this day. Happy thou, our father Abraham, in that Eleazar the son of Azariah is a descendant of yours.

J.

He said to them, “The generation in which R. Eleazar flourishes is not orphaned.”

The generation in which there is an Eleazar b. Azariah is not orphaned.”

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

53

Tractate BeShallah chapter 1, to Exodus 13:21 (Lauterbach: vol. 1 page 185, line 209 - page 186, line 234; Horowitz-Rabin: t,jh,p page 82, lines 1-16) A. And the Lord went before them by day (Exod. 13:21).54 Is it possible to say so? Has it not already been said, “Do not I fill heaven and earth? Saith the Lord” (Jer. 23:24). And it is written: “And one called unto another, and said: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory’“ (Isa. 6:3). And it also says: “And behold, the glory of the God of Israel … and the earth did shine with His glory” (Ezek. 43:2). What then does Scripture mean by saying: “And the Lord went before them by day”? B. Said Rabbi: Antoninus would sometimes continue his court sessions, sitting on the platform till after dark, and his sons would stay with him there. When leaving the platform, he himself would take a torch and light the way for his sons. The great men of the Empire would approach him saying: “We will take the torch and light the way for your sons.” But he would say to them: “It is not that I have no one to take the torch and light the way for my sons. It is merely to show you how dear my sons are to me, so that you should treat them with respect.” In the same way, God showed the nations of the world how dear the children of Israel were to Him, in that He Himself went before them so that the nations should treat them with respect. C. But it is not enough that they do not treat them with respect, they even put them to death in all sorts of cruel and strange ways. In accordance with this it says, “I will gather all nations and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat” (Joel 4:2).55 One might think 54 “The Lord went in front of them in a pillar of cloud by day, to lead them along the way, and in a pillar of fire by night, to give them light, so that they might travel by day and by night” (Exodus 13:21, RSV). 55 “For then, in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all the nations and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat, and I will enter into judgment with them there, on account of my people and my heritage Israel, because

54

Midrash and Legend that this is to be on account of their practices of idolatry, of incest, and of murder, but it says, “For My people and My heritage Israel whom they have scattered among the nations” (Joel 4:2). It also says, “Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah, and because they have shed innocent blood in their land” (Joel 4:19).56 At that time “Judah will be inhabited forever” (Joel 4:20), etc. “And I will not pardon those who shed their blood” (Joel 4:21).57 When will this be? When “the Lord dwells in Zion” (Joel 4:21).58

I questioned whether I should include this passage as an “anecdote.” It does not describe an event (in the past tense), but rather a habit of Antoninus (in the continuous past tense).59 It would make no real difference to the passage if the story in section

they have scattered them among the nations. They have divided my land, and cast lots for my people, and traded boys for prostitutes, and sold girls for wine, and drunk it down” (Joel 4:2-4, NRSV). 56 “Egypt shall become a desolation and Edom a desolate wilderness, because of the violence done to the people of Judah, in whose land they have shed innocent blood. But Judah shall be inhabited forever, and Jerusalem to all generations. I will not pardon those who shed their blood, and the LORD will dwell in Zion” (Joel 4:19-21, NRSV with my alterations). 57 In my translation of this verse I have altered the translation of Lauterbach who rendered it “And I will hold as innocent their blood that I have not held as innocent.” I feel my rendering is required by the midrash. 58 The interpretation of verses from the prophet Joel in section “C” is paralleled in Sifre Deut. piska 333 (to Deut. 32:43). 59 Antoninus, the sympathetic, inquisitive Roman emperor, is a dialogue partner of R. Judah haNasi in several aggadic stories, including in the Mekhilta Shirata chapters 2 (Lauterbach vol. 2 p. 21) and 6 (Lauterbach vol. 2 p. 50), which are treated below (pp. 72, 75). See Moshe David Herr, “The Historical Significance of the Dialogues between Jewish Sages and Roman Dignitaries,” in Joseph Heinemann and Dov Noy, editors, Studies in Aggadah and Folk Literature (Jerusalem, 1971), 123-150.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

55

“B” had been told as a parable rather than as an anecdote.60 This is a passage, unlike the previous passages, where every aspect of the account is explicable as a matter of the exegesis and illustration of the theme verse. It is perfectly integrated into its context, serving as the logical departure point for what follows. So here we have an anecdote serving as a parable, functioning to illustrate the Mekhilta’s exegesis. It does not occur elsewhere and there is no reason to think that it originates elsewhere. It seems to me that passages that arouse theological embarrassment are associated with parables but also with stories regarding non-Jews―and we see both here. A parable functions to dispose of the problem raised by a passage’s literal meaning, by implying that the intention of the passage was parabolic. An encounter between a sage and a non-Jew allows the non-Jew to ask the impertinent question which no doubt occurred to the reader as well!61 And the sage normally disposes of the objection with a parable. For further examples in the Mekhilta, see below Shirata chapter 2 to Exodus 15:1 (page 72); and BaHodesh chapter 6 to Exodus 20:5 (page 113). Tractate BeShallah chapter 2, to Exodus 14:7 (Lauterbach: vol. 1 page 201, lines 196 -199; Horowitz-Rabin: chapter 1, page 89, lines 10 - 12) R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Come and see the wealth and the greatness of this wicked empire. Not one of its numerous legions is idle, for all of them are running about day and night. Compare with them those of Egypt, and all of them were idle at that.

This statement does not properly constitute an anecdote, since it has no flow of narrative, and it is not counted in my tables analyzing these anecdotes. I include it here in passing, because historical reminiscence of any sort is so rare in the Mekhilta. If the Mekhilta were inclined to step out of scriptural time into present 60 In the standard printed editions, the story actually is presented as a

parable in the name of Rabbi Antoninus! “tuva lknk xubhbuybt r''t … is” (see apparatus in Lauterbach). 61 See the comment of Bruce Chilton on this issue, in the introductory chapter of the present book, page 58.

56

Midrash and Legend

time in order to make such comparisons between Pharaoh’s Egypt and the Roman Empire, there is certainly enough stimulus in the book of Exodus to provoke such observations. But this brief comparison is all that we get. This statement is also found in the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon to Exodus 14:7 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 51). Tractate BeShallah chapter 3, to Exodus 14:13 (Lauterbach: vol. 1 page 213, line 118 - page 214 line 128; Horowitz-Rabin: chapter 2, page 95 line 10 - page 96 line 1) A. “For whereas ye have seen the Egyptians today” (Exod. 14:13), etc.62 B. In three places God warned the Israelites not to return to Egypt. For it says: “For whereas ye have seen the Egyptians today, ye shall see them again no more forever”(Exod. 14:13). And it says: “Ye shall henceforth return no more that way”(Deut. 17:16).63 And it also says, “By the way whereof I said unto thee: ‘Thou shalt see it no more again’“(Deut. 28:68).64 But in spite of these three warnings, they returned three times and in all three times they fell.

62 “And Moses said to the people, ‘Fear not, stand firm, and see the

salvation of the LORD, which he will work for you today; for the Egyptians whom you see today, you shall never see again’“ (Exod. 14:13, RSV). 63 “You may indeed set as king over you him whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. Only he must not multiply horses for himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again’“ (Deut. 17:15-16, RSV). 64 “But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you … And the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other; and there you shall serve other gods, of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known … And the LORD will bring you back in ships to Egypt, a journey which I promised that you should never make again; and there you shall offer yourselves for sale to

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

57

C. The first time was in the days of Sennacherib, as it is said: “Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help” (Isa. 31:1).65 The second time was in the days of Yohanan, the son of Korah, as it is said; “Then it shall come to pass, that the sword, which ye fear, shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt”(Jer. 42:16).66 The third time was in the days of Trajan. These three times they returned and in all of these times they fell. D. [Printed editions add the following:] Thus it is written: “Ephraim is a silly dove without sense” (Hosea 7:11), etc.67

The historical reference is to the rebellion of the Jews of Alexandria against Rome (115-117 c.e.). In a list of this sort we would expect the midrash to give six biblical citations. The three warnings should correspond to three transgressions, each represented by three biblical proof texts but instead of the third proof-text we find a post-biblical historical reference. Apparently a copyist at some point attempted to normalize the form by your enemies as male and female slaves, but no man will buy you” (Deut. 28:15, 64, 68, RSV). 65 “Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD! … And the Assyrian shall fall by a sword, not of man; and a sword, not of man, shall devour him; and he shall flee from the sword, and his young men shall be put to forced labor. His rock shall pass away in terror, and his officers desert the standard in panic, says the LORD, whose fire is in Zion, and whose furnace is in Jerusalem” (Isaiah 31:1,8-9, RSV). 66 “Then hear the word of the LORD, O remnant of Judah. Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: If you set your faces to enter Egypt and go to live there, then the sword which you fear shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt; and the famine of which you are afraid shall follow hard after you to Egypt; and there you shall die. All the men who set their faces to go to Egypt to live there shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence; they shall have no remnant or survivor from the evil which I will bring upon them” (Jer. 42:15-17, RSV). 67 “Ephraim is like a dove, silly and without sense, calling to Egypt, going to Assyria” (Hosea 7:11, RSV).

58

Midrash and Legend

presenting a third (irrelevant) scriptural quotation. (The first text is, of course, not a warning but a prediction. Reading it as a warning is a move to defuse the problem that the passage presents.) Neusner has maintained that the rabbis show no sustained interest in writing about any post-biblical historical episode except the destruction of the Temple, the only episode to receive extended treatment in the classical rabbinic literature.68 It is striking that the midrash at hand considers the Alexandrian revolt worthy of mention as an event of biblical proportions, as it were. I speculate that this is so because the Alexandrian revolt was the second of the trilogy of rebellions beginning with the destruction of the Second Temple and concluding with the Bar Kokhba revolt.69 The Sages attempted to grapple with post-biblical tragedies in terms of biblical paradigms. This passage is paralleled in the Yerushalmi (Sukkah 5:1).70 The Mekhiltan version conforms much more to the midrashic 68 Neusner, The Presence of the Past. 69 Another, different and completely anachronistic account of a

misfortune that happened for those who “returned to Egypt” is found at b. Sukkah 51b: “It has been taught, R. Judah stated, He who has not seen the double colonnade of Alexandria in Egypt has never seen the glory of Israel … Abaye stated, Alexander of Macedon slew them all. Why were they so punished? Because they transgressed this verse: ‘Ye shall henceforth return no more that way,’ and they did return. When he came and found them reading from The Book, ‘The Lord will bring a nation against thee from afar,’ he remarked, ‘I should have brought my ships in a ten days’ journey, but as a strong wind arose the ships arrived in five days’! He, therefore, fell upon them and slew them” (Soncino Translation). 70 The Yerushalmi passage is presented in the translation of Neusner,

with some alterations to harmonize with the diction of the Mekhilta translation. Also, where either translation has added words or phrases for clarification I omit them to indicate the precise differences of expression used in the original texts. This story appears also at Esther Rabbah, Petihta siman 3; the Yerushalmi’s story regarding Trajan’s wife appears at Lamentations Rabbah 1:45 and there is a similar story at Lamentations Rabbah 4:22.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

59

form of a catalog of scriptural examples whereas the Yerushalmi elaborates the narrative, departing from the form. In the Yerushalmi the third example (the most expansive) is not explicitly enumerated. The Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon also contains this passage and is identical to MRI with two exceptions noted at “G” and “H” below.71 There would seem to be two sources, then: (1) a simple enumeration of the scriptural examples as represented rather well in the Mekhilta, with the single peculiarity that the sixth example is not a biblical citation but an anecdotal reference; (2) a more elaborate story as told at the conclusion of the Yerushalmi of which the Mekhiltan editor may have been unaware. The Yerushalmi’s version would appear to be a composition based on these two distinct traditions. Mekhilta A.

―

B

“For whereas ye have seen the Egyptians today,” etc.

C.

Yerushalmi [Contains a discussion of the magnificent workmanship of the sanctuary in Alexandria.] ― And who destroyed it all? It was the evil Trajan [xubhhdury].

D.

―

R. Simeon b. Yohai taught [hb,]:

E.

In three places God warned the Israelites not to return to Egypt.

In three places the Israelites were warned not to return to the land of Egypt.

For it says: “For whereas ye have seen the Egyptians today, ye shall see them again no more forever”(Exod. 14:13). And it says: “Ye shall henceforth return no more that way”(Deut. 17:16).

For it says: “For whereas ye have seen the Egyptians today, ye shall see them again no more forever” (Exod. 14:13). And “The Lord said to you, ‘Ye shall henceforth return no more that way’“(Deut. 17:16).

71 MRS BeShallah to Exod. 14:13, Epstein-Melamed p. 56 lines 6-13.

60

Midrash and Legend

Mekhilta And it says, “By the way whereof I said unto thee: ‘Thou shalt see it no more again’“(Deut. 28:68). They returned three times and three times they fell.

Yerushalmi “And the Lord will bring you back in ships to Egypt” (Deut. 28:68). They returned three times and three times they fell.

F.

The first time [vbuatrv] was in the days of Sennacherib, as it is said: “Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help”(Isaiah 31:1).

Once [,jt] in the days of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, as it is said: “Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help” (Isaiah 31:1).

G.

[MRS includes this missing in MRI.]

proof text

What is written thereafter? “The Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses are flesh …” (Isa. 31:3).

H.

The second time was in the days of Yohanan, the son of Korah, as it is said; “Then it shall come to pass, that the sword, which ye fear, shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt”(Jer. 42:16).72

Once [,jt] in the time of Yohanan the son of Korah: “Then it shall come to pass, that the sword, which ye fear, shall overtake you …” (Jer. 42:16).

I.

The third time was in the days of Trajan. These three times they returned and in all of these times they fell.

―

J.

―

[Yerushalmi adds the following:] In the time of the evil Trajan, a son was born to him on the ninth of Av, and [the Israelites] were fasting. His daughter died on Hanukkah, and [the Israelites] lit candles. His wife sent a message to him, saying, “Instead of going out to conquer the barbarians, come and conquer the Jews, who have rebelled against you.” He thought that the trip would take ten days, but he came in five. He came and found the Israelites occupied in the study of the Torah, at the verse: “The Lord

72 MRS begins its quote with Jer. 42:14: “But if you say, We will not

remain in this land, disobeying the voice of the LORD your God and saying, ‘No, we will go to the land of Egypt, where we shall not see war, or hear the sound of the trumpet, or be hungry for bread; and we will dwell there … then the sword which you fear shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt, and the famine of which you are afraid, shall follow hard after you to Egypt; and there you shall die” (Jer. 4:13-14, 16, RSV).

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

61

will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth [as swift as the eagle flies ] …” (Deut 28:49). He said to them, with what are you occupied?” They said to him, “With thus and so.” He said to them, “I thought that it would take ten days to make the trip, and I arrived in five days.” His legions surrounded them and killed them. He said to the women, “Obey my legions, and I shall not kill you.” They said to him, “What you did to the ones who have fallen, do also to us who are yet standing.” He mingled their blood with the blood of their men, until the blood flowed into the ocean as far as Cyprus. At that moment the horn of Israel was cut off, and it is not destined to return to its place until the son of David will come.

Tractate BeShallah chapter 6, to Exodus 14:22 (Lauterbach: vol. 1 page 235, line 44 - page 237 line 71; Horowitz-Rabin: chapter 5, page 106 line 6 - page 107 line 5) [Context requires the reader begin at the previous section: ] [And the Children of Israel went into the midst of the sea (Exod. 14:22).73 … R. Judah says: When the Israelites stood at the sea, one said: “I do not want to go down to the sea first,” and the other said: “I do not want to go down into the sea first” … While they were standing there deliberating, Nahshon the son of Amminadab74 jumped up first and went down to the sea and fell into the waves… . At the same time Moses was standing and reciting long prayers before the Holy One, blessed be He… . And He said to him: “Lift up thy rod” (Exod. 14:16), etc.75 Now, what did Israel say then at the sea? “The Lord shall reign for ever and ever” (Exod. 15:18). The Holy One, blessed be He, therefore, said: “He who was the cause of My being proclaimed king at the sea, him will I make king over Israel.”] A. Once [vhv rcf] R. Tarfon and some elders were sitting in the shade of the dove-house in Yavneh, and this 73 “The Israelites went into the sea on dry ground, the waters forming

a wall for them on their right and on their left” (Exod. 14:22, NRSV). 74 An ancestor of King David (Ruth 4:20; 1 Chron. 2:10). 75 “And you, lift up your rod and stretch forth your hand over the sea, and split it, and the children of Israel shall enter the midst of the sea on dry ground” (Exod. 14:16, RSV).

62

Midrash and Legend question was asked in their presence [ovhbpk vktabu uz vkhta].76 B. “With their camels bearing spicery and balm and laudanum” (Gen. 37:25).77 C. This is to make known how very much the merit of the righteous is of help to them. For if this dearly beloved one had had to go down with an ordinary caravan of Arabs, would they not have killed him with the smell of their camels and the smell of their ‘itron? But God arranged it for him that there be sacks full of spices of good smelling balms, so that he should not die from the smell of the camels and the smell of the ‘itron. D. They said to him, “You have taught us, master!” E. Then they said to him: “Master, teach us what benediction one should recite on drinking water to quench one’s thirst.” F. He said to them: “Who createst many living beings and their wants.”78 G. They said to him, “You have taught us, master!” H. Then they said to him: “Master, teach us by what virtue Judah merited kingship.” 76 My translation. Lauterbach’s translation at this point is too free to

make the form clear. His translation of this sentence is: “This question was already discussed some time ago by R. Tarfon and the elders, when they were sitting in the shade of the dove-house in Yavneh.” 77 “So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe, the long robe with sleeves that he wore; and they took him and threw him into a pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it. Then they sat down to eat; and looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels carrying gum, balm, and resin, on their way to carry it down to Egypt. Then Judah said to his brothers, ‘What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and not lay our hands on him, for he is our brother, our own flesh.’ And his brothers agreed” (Gen. 37-23-27, NRSV). 78 According to m. Berakhot 6:8, this is a matter on which R. Tarfon dissented, the anonymous Mishnah stating that the proper blessing is “By Whose word everything exists.”

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

63

I. He said to them: “Suppose you tell!”79 J. They said: “By virtue of his having said, ‘What profit is it if we slay our brother?’“ (Genesis 37:26). K. He said to them: “Saving Joseph’s life would be only enough to atone for selling him into slavery.” L. [They replied:] “If so, then by virtue of that which he said, ‘And Judah acknowledged then, and said, “She is more righteous than I’“ (Genesis 38:26). M. He said to them: “His confession would be only enough to atone for his cohabitation with her.” N. [They replied:] “If so, then by virtue of his having said, ‘Now, therefore, let thy servant, I pray thee, abide instead of the lad’“ (Genesis 44:33). O. He said to them: “We find in every case that the guarantor must pay.” P. They then said to him: “Master, you teach us by what virtue Judah merited kingship.” Q. He said to them: “When the tribes of Israel stood at the sea, one said ‘I want to go down to the sea first,’ and the other said, ‘I want to go down to the sea first,’ as it is said, “Ephraim compasseth Me about with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit” (Hosea 12:1).80 R. While they were thus standing there deliberating with one another, Nahshon the son of Amminadab, followed by his tribe, jumped into the midst of the waves of the sea. Therefore the tribe of Judah merited kingship, as it is said, “When Judah came forth out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language; Judah became His sanctifier,” and

79 Or more simply, “You say.” 80 “Ephraim surrounds me with deceit, the House of Israel with guile;

but Judah stands firm [sr] with God, and is faithful to the Holy One” (Hosea 12:1, JPS). The midrash reads the phrase as “Judah went down [into the sea―srh] with God.”

64

Midrash and Legend therefore, “Israel became his dominion” (Psalm 114:1-2).81 S. The Omnipresent said: “He who sanctified my name at the sea, he shall come and rule over Israel.”82 T. [Printed editions add:] And the elders praised Rabbi Tarfon.

Our story appears at this juncture in the Mekhilta because it climaxes with essentially the same derash concerning Nahshon b. Amminadab as the version presented in the name of R. Judah. In my opinion this anecdote regarding R. Tarfon represents an alternative version which the anthologizer was reluctant to discard. It reaches the same conclusion by means of a different proof-text. Here, the narrative is a conventional framework for a scriptural exposition. The account itself is a story about R. Tarfon stumping the elders. It seems strange that elders would need to ask for the blessing for drinking water, something they certainly ought to know! Their question simply provides the simplest narrative occasion for R. Tarfon to express his (dissenting) view on the question.83 This account is paralleled in the Tosefta (t. Berakhot 4:16-18). In that version the occasion for R. Tarfon to express his view is the fact that he is presented with water to drink, in the presence of his students. The account in the Tosefta is in disarray. R. Tarfon opens the discussion concerning the merit of Judah with his students. Then a second ma’aseh is opened concerning “four elders,” Eleazar b. Mattiah, Hananiah b. Kinai, Simeon b. Azzai, and Simeon the Yemenite who were sitting in the gatehouse of R. Joshua. Suddenly R. Tarfon is present in their discussion offering the conclusion that Judah merited kingship “because he sanctified the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, at the sea.” All the pieces of the Mekhilta 81 This is double entendre. “Judah became his [God’s] sanctuary”

[uasek vsuvh v,hv] is read by the midrash to mean “Judah became God’s sanctifier,” and therefore object of the phrase “Israel [became] his dominion” is Judah. 82 Line “S“ is represented in Lauterbach’s Hebrew text but omitted from his translation. 83 See above, footnote 78.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

65

story are present in the Tosefta, but in a slightly different order and with a great deal of intervening material. There are very few close verbal similarities between the two versions, but the group of proof texts and the interpretation given them is fairly stable, as is the association of both parts with R. Tarfon. Just as the portion about blessings has no logical place in Mekhilta; the derash concerning Judah has no logical place in the Tosefta. The unity of the two parts seems to be a matter of transmission, an interest in one part causing the composite to appear in Mekhilta where it illuminates the Exodus passage at hand, an interest the other part causes the composite to appear in the Tosefta where it functions to illuminate m. Berakhot 6:8. (The teaching regarding the tribe of Judah at the sea also appears, without a narrative context and in the name of R. Meir, at b. Sotah 37a.) There is a parallel also in the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon to Exodus 14:22.84 The MRS presents a much less finished composition, and the ending of the anecdote has been omitted, requiring the reader to infer it from the preceding context. R. Tarfon doesn’t dialogue with his students in the MRS; instead, he asks and answers his own questions and they occasionally shout out exclamations of praise for his solo performance. The following chart presents the pieces of the MRS and Tosefta passages that are close to the version presented in the MRI. The somewhat different arrangement of the three versions makes parallel presentation difficult. Agreement between MRI and MRS are indicated by italics; Common phrases between the Tosefta and the MRI are indicated by boldface; Common phrases between the Tosefta and MRS are indicated by underline.

84 The passage is found in Epstein-Melamed at pp. 63-64. The

translation here is that given by Joel Gereboff, Rabbi Tarfon: The Tradition, the Man, and Early Rabbinic Judaism (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979), 225. He re-arranged the passage to conform it to the MRI for purposes of his presentation and I have done the same. I have changed words here and there to make translation choices conform between parallel texts.

66

Midrash and Legend

MRI [The discussion concerns the story of Israel at the Red Sea.]

MRS [The discussion concerns the story of Israel at the Red Sea.]

Tosefta [The discussion concerns the form of grace required after various kinds of food.]

B.

Once [vhv rcf] R. Tarfon and elders were sitting in the shade of the dovecote in Yavneh

Once [vhv rcfu] R. Tarfon and his students were at a vineyard in Yavneh.

It happened that ['c vagn] R. Tarfon was sitting in the shade of a dovecote on a Sabbath afternoon.

C.

[corresponds to below, “I”]

Said R. Tarfon to his students, “May I raise a question [ktat] before you?” They said to him, “Teach us.”

They brought before him a pail of cool water.

A.

“One who drinks water to quench his thirst, how does he bless? And I respond, ‘Creator of living beings and their needs.’“ They said to him, “You have taught us, our master.”

He said to his students, “One who drinks water to quench his thirst, how does he bless?” They said to him, “Teach us, our master.” He said to them, “Creator of living beings and their needs [,uapb iburxju].”

D.

and this question was asked in their presence

[compare to phrasing of “C” above]

He said to them, “May I raise a question [ktat]?” They said to him, “Teach us, our master.”

E.

“With their camels bearing spicery and balm and laudanum” (Gen. 37:25).

“Lo, Scripture says, ‘And they sat to eat … ‘ (Gen. 37:25).

He said to them, “Lo, Scripture says, ‘And they sat to eat; and looking up they saw …” (Gen. 37:25).

F.

This is to make known how much the merit of the righteous is of help to them. For if this dear friend had gone down with [ordinary] Arabs, would they not have killed

This is to make known how much the merit of the righteous proceeds before them. For if Joseph, the beloved one, had gone down to Egypt with [ordinary] Arabs,

Now it is customary for Arabs to carry only foul-smelling skins with resin. But they put that righteous man among desirable things.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

G.

MRI him with the smell of their camels and the smell of their ‘itron? But God arranged it for him that there be sacks full of spices of good smelling balms, so that he should not die from the smell of the camels and the smell of the ‘itron.

MRS would they not have slain him with their bad odor? “Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, prepared for him sacks full of spices, and the wind blew through them so as to [counteract] the smell of the Arabs.”

―

―

67

Tosefta

And may we not reason a fortiori: if, when God is angry at the righteous, he has mercy on them, when he is disposed to be merciful, how much more so! Similarly … [Two more passages are treated leading to the same refrain in conclusion.]

H.

They said to him, “You have taught us, master!”

―

―

I.

Then they said to him:, teach us, our master -

[corresponds to above, “C”]

[corresponds to above, “C”]

He said to them, “By what virtue did Judah acquire kingship?

He said, “May I inquire?” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to

one who drinks water to quench his thirst, how does he bless?” He said to them: “Creator of many

living beings and their needs [,ucr ,uapb iburxju].”

They said to him, “You have taught us, master!” J.

Then they said to him: “Master, teach us by what virtue Judah merited kingship.”

68

Midrash and Legend

MRI He said to them: “Suppose you tell!”

MRS

Tosefta them, “Why did Judah merit kingship?”

K.

They said: “By virtue of his having said, ‘What profit is it if we slay our brother?’“ (Gen. 37:26) He said to them: “the saving is sufficient only to atone for the sale.”

[corresponds to below, “M”]

[corresponds to below, “M”]

L.

[They replied:] “If so, then by virtue of that which he said, “And Judah acknowledged then, and said, “She is more righteous than I.”‘“ (Genesis 38:26) He said to them: “the confession is sufficient only to atone for the cohabitation.”

“If it is because it is written, ‘She is more righteous than I … ‘ (Genesis 38:26), the confession is sufficient only to atone for the cohabitation.

“Because he confessed concerning Tamar.” It happened that ['c vagn] four elders were sitting in the gatehouse of R. Joshua: Eleazar b. Mattiah, Hananiah b. Kinai, Simeon b. Azzai, and Simeon the Yemenite, and they were busy studying that which Akiva had taught them. “Why did Judah merit kingship?” “Because he confessed concerning Tamar.” They themselves added to the teaching … He said to them, “And do we reward people for their transgressions?” Why, then, did Judah merit kingship?”

M.

[corresponds to above, “K”]

“If it is because it is written, ‘What profit is it if we slay our brother … ‘ (Genesis 37:26), the saving is sufficient only to atone for the sale.

“Because he saved his brother from death, as it is written, ‘Then Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is it …” (Gen. 37:26) He said to them, “It is

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

MRI

N.

[They replied:] “If so, then by virtue of his having said, ‘Now, therefore, let your servant, I pray you, remain instead of the lad …” (Genesis 44:33) He said to them: “We find in every case that the guarantor must pay.”

MRS

“If it is because he said, ‘For your servant became surety for the lad … ‘ (Genesis 44:32), behold he is the guarantor, and in every case the guarantor must pay.”

69

Tosefta sufficient that the rescue atoned for the sale.” They said to him, “Because of his humility, as Scripture states, ‘Now, therefore, let your servant, I pray you, remain instead of the lad …” (Genesis 44:33) Saul, too, merited the kingship only because of his humility … [The subject of Saul’s humility is then treated with comments on three scriptural quotations.] He said to them, “But he served as guarantor, and a guarantor ultimately is freed from his surety.

O.

“Why then, did Judah merit kingship?”

Then they said to him: “Master, you teach us by what virtue Judah merited kingship.”

Then they said to him, “Teach us.”

P.

[compare below, “T”]

[compare below, “T”]

He said to them, “Because he sanctified the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, at the sea.

Q.

He said to them: “When the tribes of Israel stood at the sea, one said ‘I will go down first,’ and the other said, ‘I want to go down first,’ as it is

He said to them, “[It is] because when the tribes came and stood at the sea, this one said, ‘I will go down,’ and this one said, ‘I will go down.’

“When the tribes came and stood at the sea, this one said, ‘I will go down,’ and this one said, ‘I will go down.’

“Nahshon b.

The tribe of Judah

said, “Ephraim

They said to him, “Teach us, our master.”

70

Midrash and Legend

MRI compasseth Me about with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit.” (Hosea 12:1)

MRS Amminadab jumped and fell into the midst of the sea …” as it is written above.

While they were thus standing there deliberating with one another, Nahshon the son of Amminadab, followed by his tribe, jumped into the midst of the waves of the sea.

[the rest of the story in MRS has to be filled in from the section preceding the anecdote, as follows:]

R.

[Similar material is found in MRI in the section preceding the anecdote, whence it is also drawn here (of necessity) for MRS. See footnote 84.]

And it is explicit in the tradition with regard to him, “Save me O God, for the waters have come up … I sink in the deep mire …” (Psalm 69:2-3) “Let not the flood [sweep over me … ]” (Psalm 69:15)

And concerning that hour Scripture states, “Save me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck. I sink in deep mire, where there is no foothold … Let not the flood sweep over me.” (Ps. 69:2-3, 16)

S.

Therefore the tribe of Judah merited kingship, as it is said, “When Judah came forth out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language; Judah became His sanctifier,” and therefore, “Israel is his dominion.” (Psalm 114:1-2)

…

And Scripture states, “Judah became his sanctifier.” (Ps. 114:2) Judah sanctified the name of God at the sea. Therefore, “Israel is his dominion.” (Ps. 114:2)

T.

The Omnipresent said: “He who sanctified my

At that very hour the Holy One, Blessed be

[compare above, “P”]

Tosefta jumped and descended first and sanctified the name of God at the sea.

Nahshon the son of Amminadab jumped and fell into the sea with its waves, as it is written, “And Judah is not wayward toward God.” (Hosea 12:1) Do not read “wayward toward” [og sr] but “goes down into the sea” [oh sr].

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

MRI name at the sea, he shall come and rule over Israel.”

MRS He, said to Moses, “He who sanctified my name at the sea shall rule over Israel.” For it is written, “When the Israelites came forth from Egypt …” (Psalm 114:2) Judah who sanctified my name at the Sea will rule over Israel.

71

Tosefta

In his analysis of these passages, Joel Gereboff concludes that the MRI account derives from MRS, and that MRS and Tosefta share a non-extant common source.85 The MRS and the Tosefta here are in such poor condition that it is difficult to form an opinion. But the following factors should be taken into account: A. In terms of basic order Tosefta agrees with MRS against MRI twice, and with MRI against MRS once. B. However, there is no significant verbal agreement of Tosefta with MRS against MRI. C. There is also no significant verbal agreement of Tosefta with MRI against MRS. D. There is extended verbal agreement of MRS and MRI against Tosefta. E. In general there is little verbal agreement between the Tosefta and either Mekhilta. F. MRI is considerably more polished than MRS. For example, the dialogue between R. Tarfon and his audience is less one-sided than in the parallels. G. In MRS R. Tarfon is portrayed as teaching his students; in MRI he teaches elders; and in the Tosefta he interacts with both students and elders. H. We must account for the persistence of the association of these traditions with R. Tarfon, and the need to present three unrelated topics in a group (water blessing, Joseph’s descent to Egypt, and Judah’s merit of kingship). 85 ibid., 240.

72

Midrash and Legend I. The anecdotal framework does not serve the interests of either Mekhilta, especially since both present essentially the same interpretation of Exodus without reference to the anecdote in the preceding context. It is “foreign” to the context in t. Berakhot, which should only be interested in the water blessing.

I am therefore inclined to agree with Gereboff on the relationship of the Mekhiltan tradition to the Toseftan here―that they share a common source, and I would add to what he says that it is not likely a written source, on account of a lack of significant verbal agreement. I do not agree that MRS stands closer to Tosefta than MRI. In my opinion his assertion that MRI’s derives from MRS’ version is plausible because MRI shares so many phrases with MRS but is more polished. Tractate Shirata chapter 2, to Exodus 15:1 (Lauterbach: vol. 2 page 21, line 127 - line 133; Horowitz-Rabin: page 125 line 9 - line 12) [Context requires the reader begin at the previous section: ] [The horse and his rider (Exodus 15:1).86 The Holy One, blessed be He, would bring the horse and his rider and make them stand trial. He would say to the horse: Why did you run after My children? The horse would answer: The Egyptian drove me against my will, as it is said: “And the Egyptians pursued” (Exodus 14:9), etc.87 God would then say to the Egyptian: Why did you pursue My children? And he would answer: It was the horse that ran away with me against my will, as it is said: “For the horses of Pharaoh went in” (Exodus 15:19), etc.88 What would 86 “Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the Lord. They said: I will sing to the Lord, for He has triumphed gloriously; horse and driver He has hurled into the sea” (Exodus 15:1, JPS). 87 “The Egyptians pursued them, all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots and his horsemen and his army, and overtook them encamped at the sea, by Pihahiroth, in front of Baal-zephon” (Exodus 14:9, RSV). 88 “For when the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his horsemen went into the sea [ohc uharpc ucfrc vgrp xux tc hf], the Lord brought back the waters of the sea upon them; but the people of Israel walked on dry ground in the midst of the sea” (Exodus 15:19, RSV).

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

73

God do? He would make the man ride upon the horse and thus judge them together, as it is said: “The horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.”] A. Antoninus asked our holy Rabbi: “After a man has died and his body ceased to be, does God then make him stand trial?” B. He answered him: “Rather than ask about the body, which is impure, ask me about the soul that is pure. C. “To give a parable for this, to what is this like? To a king of flesh and blood who had a beautiful orchard. The king placed in it two guards, one of whom was lame and the other blind,” etc.,89 closing with, “and afterwards, ‘that he may judge His people’“ (Psalm 50:4).90

Obviously, the passage as we have it depends on the reader having knowledge of this parable from elsewhere! The stimulus for inserting the story of Antoninus and his dialogue with Judah haNasi at this juncture is the presentation of the midrash regarding the horse and rider being judged together, an interpretation which was perhaps itself stimulated by knowledge of the familiar parable. The narrative heightens the interest of the midrashic interpretation offered for Psalm 50:4. The Mekhilta then proceeds forward in the next sentence by completely ignoring the interjection of our story, and returns to comment further on the base verse about the horse and rider. This account also appears in the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon to Exodus 15:1 (Epstein-Melamed p. 76 ln. 13 - p. 77 ln. 5). The conversation between Antoninus and Rabbi in MRS matches MRI closely, but in the MRS the parable is written out and will be analyzed in the next chapter. In the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 91a), our story is presented as the first of a series of four dialogues between 89 Lauterbach’s note at this point reads: “The rest of this parable here referred to in apparatus by the abbreviation 'ufu (“etc.”), may be found in Sanhedrin 91b.” The parable is so familiar that the copyist does not labor to transcribe it here. The same parable appears in Leviticus Rabbah (4:5) in the name of R. Ishmael in comment upon Lev. 4:2, without a narrative context. 90 “He calls to the heavens above and to the earth, that he may judge his people” (Psalm 50:4, RSV).

74

Midrash and Legend

Antoninus and Rabbi, on the subjects of the divine judgment (our story), the course of the sun, the moment when a soul enters an embryo, and the moment when the evil inclination enters a child. Our story, as it appears in the Talmud, is as follows:91 A. Antoninus said to Rabbi: The body and the soul can both free themselves from judgment. How so? The body can plead: It is the soul that has sinned: [the proof being that] from the day it left me I lie like a dumb stone in the grave. And he soul can say: It is the body that has sinned, [the proof being that] from the day I departed from it I fly about in the air like a bird [and can commit no sin]. B. He [Rabbi] replied: I will tell thee a parable. To what may this be compared? To a human king who owned a beautiful orchard which contained splendid early figs. He appointed two watchmen therein, one lame and the other blind. The lame man said to the blind, “I see beautiful figs in the orchard. Come and take me upon thy shoulder, that we may procure and eat them.” The lame bestrode the blind, procured and ate them. C. Some time after, the owner of the orchard came. He said to them, “Where are those beautiful figs?” The lame man replied, “Have I then feet to walk with?” The blind man replied, “Have I then eyes to see with?” What did he do? He placed the lame upon the blind and judged them together. D. So will the Holy One, blessed be He, bring the soul, insert it into the body, and judge them together, as it is written, “He shall call to the heavens above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people.” (Psalm 50:4) “He shall call to the heavens above”―this refers to the soul; “and to the earth, that he may judge his people”― this refers to the body.’

In the Mekhilta (“A”) the dialogue begins with a question from Antoninus who seems to doubt the resurrection of the body specifically, a notion Rabbi addresses (“B”) before beginning the parable. In the Talmud (“A”) the dialogue begins with a statement from Antoninus, which rather nicely sets up the parable so that no 91 Soncino translation, adapted.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

75

intervening statement from Rabbi is necessary. So even though the presentation in the Mekhilta invokes a familiar parable also found in the Bavli, the editor nevertheless shapes the context of the parable in a substantially different way than the presentation in the Talmud. The parable proves to be more stable than the setting. In the Mekhilta, the anecdote serves to provide a simple commentary on the reason for a perplexing choice of words in the base verse. Tractate Shirata chapter 6, to Exodus 15:7 (Lauterbach: vol. 2 page 50, line 100 - line 105; Horowitz-Rabin: page 137 line 16 - line 19) Antoninus asked our Holy Rabbi: “I want to go to Alexandria. Is it possible that it will set up a king against me to defeat me?” He said to him: “I do not know. However, we have it written that the land of Egypt will not be able to set up a ruler or a prince,” as it is said: “And there shall be no more a prince out of the land of Egypt” (Ezek. 30:13).92 “It shall be the lowliest of kingdoms” (Ezekiel 29:15).93

This passage (not paralleled elsewhere) continues the theme of Egypt as the lowliest of the empires which came against Israel. The scriptural exegesis presented in this story is rather straightforward and not “midrashic”―evidencing no special insight into the correlation of biblical verses or the special meaning of Hebrew phrases. Rabbi is using Scripture for purposes of divination, to foretell the future. The narrative form of a dialogue between Antoninus and Judah the Prince provides a framework to make this particular biblical interpretation about Egypt relevant. The connection to the context is a variety of statements about the divine judgments upon Egypt and the subsequent weakness of the Egyptian kingdom. 92 “Thus says the Lord GOD: I will put an end to the wealth of Egypt, by the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon … Thus says the Lord GOD: I will destroy the idols, and put an end to the images, in Memphis; there shall no longer be a prince in the land of Egypt; so I will put fear in the land of Egypt” (Ezekiel 30:10, 13, RSV). 93 “It shall be the most lowly of the kingdoms, and never again exalt itself above the nations; and I will make them so small that they will never again rule over the nations” (Ezekiel 29:15, RSV).

76

Midrash and Legend

Tractate Shirata chapter 9, to Exodus 15:13 (Lauterbach: vol. 2 page 69, line 34 - page 70, line 42; Horowitz-Rabin: page 146 line 2 - line 6) A. Once Rabbi was sitting and expounding [hcr vhv rcf arusu cauh]: “One woman in Egypt gave birth to sixty myriads.” B. One of the disciples sitting before him spoke up and said to him: “Master, who is greater, the world or the righteous man?” He said to him: “The righteous man.” “Why?” asked the disciple. C. Said the master to him: “Because Moses, to whom Jochebed gave birth, was equal to all the people together.”94 And where do we find that he was equal to all the people together? It says: “As the Lord commanded Moses and the children of Israel” (Numbers 26:4).95 And it says, “Then sang Moses and the children of Israel” (Exodus 15:1). And it says: “And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses” (Deut. 34:10).

The preceding context introduces the interpretation of Song of Songs 6:8 as an allusion to the hosts of Israel who came forth from Egypt.96 The sixty queens of the poem are understood to 94 cp. Tanhuma (Warsaw) BeShallah ch. 10 = b. Sanhedrin 33b where

it is taught that one tsaddik is equivalent to the entire world. Also b. Ber. 6b = b. Shabbat 30b where it is taught that the fear of God is equal in value to the entire world. MRS to Exod. 15:1 (Epstein-Melamed p. 71 lines 18ff.) reads, “‘Moshe and the children of Israel’―Scripture relates that Moses was equal to Israel and Israel equal to Moses, at the hour when they sang the Song.” Also the MRS reads Proverbs 10:25 as saying, “The righteous person is the foundation of the world [okug suxh ehsm]” (p. 27 ln. 6). 95 “[Take a census of the people,] from twenty years old and upward; as the LORD commanded Moses and the people of Israel ['v vum ratf ktrah hbcu van ,t], who came forth out of the land of Egypt.” (Numbers 26:4, RSV, altered to conform to the Mekhilta’s reading and the Masoretic division of the phrases.) 96 “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and maidens without number” (Song 6:8, RSV). “/rpxn iht ,unkgu ohadkhp ohbunau ,ufkn vnv ohaha”

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

77

stand for the sixty myriads of Israelites who stood at Sinai. The exposition of Rabbi is tied to this interpretation, but adds something new ―that Moses is equivalent to all of Israel. The anecdote is in the form of an academy discussion, which serves to add interest to the exposition of the biblical verses. “A” functions as a summary introduction for “B”-”C”. The question asked by the student at “B” causes Rabbi to give in full (“C”) the very same teaching described in brief at “A”. This passage is duplicated in MRS, but the theme verse from Song of Songs is appended because it is not part of the preceding context in MRS as it is in MRI.97 The exegetical device whereby Exodus 15:1 teaches that Moses is equal to the people, is the twenty-fourth principle attributed to R. Eliezer b. Yose haGelili―“Something is excluded from a generalized statement in order to teach something about it.”98 Since Moses is already included in the class, “the children of Israel,” the specific mention of him would be redundant unless it came to teach something special. Tractate Vayassa chapter 1, to Exodus 15:22 (Lauterbach: vol. 2 page 88, line 57―page 89, line 63; Horowitz-Rabin: page 154, lines 4-7) [“And they went out into the wilderness of Shur” (Exodus 15:22). This is the wilderness of Kub. They said of the wilderness of Kub that it was eight hundred parasangs square, all full of serpents and scorpions, as it is said, “Who led thee through the great and dreadful wilderness, wherein were serpents, fiery serpents, and scorpions” (Deuteronomy 8:15), etc. And it is written, “The burden of the wilderness by of the sea … from a dreadful land” (Isaiah 21:1). And it is written: “The burden of the beasts of the South. Through the land of trouble and anguish, 97 Parashat BeShallah, to Exodus 15:13 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 95 ln. 15 - p. 26 line 23), presented in the next chapter. 98 “/unmg kg snkk kkfv in tmhu kkfc vhva rcs” Anna Lynn Urowitz-Freudenstein, An Investigation of Exegetical Methods in the Tannaitic Midrashim: A Study of Texts that Mention Individual Women (Ph.D. Dissertation, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1997), 431; Günter Stemberger, Introduction, 28.

78

Midrash and Legend from whence come the lioness and the lion, the viper [vgpt] and flying serpent” (Isaiah 30:6). Ef’eh means viper. They say that when the viper looks upon the shadow of a flying bird, the bird immediately is whirled around and falls in pieces—and yet: “Neither said they: ‘Where is the Lord that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, that led us through the wilderness, through a land of deserts and pits, through a land of drought and the shadow of death?’“ (Jeremiah 2:6). What is “the shadow of death [,unkm]?” A place where there is shade and with it death.] Said R. Abba: The following was told me by our great Rabbi: There was a man [vhv sjt ost] in the land of Israel whom they used to call “Merutah” [“Plucked Hair”]. They told of him: Once [,jt ogp] he went up to the top of a mountain to gather wood and he saw a serpent that was sleeping. And though the serpent did not see him, the hair of his head immediately fell out. And unto his dying day no hair ever grew on his head. Therefore they called him “Merutah.”

This anecdote has a parallel in the MRS.99 The settings and renditions of the story are very close, with no basis to prefer one to the other, any variations being the kind of thing we would expect to see in the transmission of a single source. The two versions are set in parallel in the next chapter. The form is a parabolic anecdote. The “contemporary” event illustrates the more obscure event from Scripture. The figure in the story is completely anonymous and the same freight could easily have been carried by a parable. There is no matter of law under consideration so this is not a case-example [vagn].

99 There are also parallels at Exodus Rabbah 24:4, Tanhuma

BeShallah 18, and Tanhuma Buber BeShallah 17.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

79

Tractate Vayassa chapter 1, to Exodus 15:25 (Lauterbach: vol. 2 page 91, line 93 - page 92, line 105; Horowitz-Rabin: page 155 line 7- line 14) A. “And he cried unto the Lord,” etc. (Exodus 15:25)100 From this you learn that the righteous are not hard to complain to. By the way, you also learn that the prayer of the righteous is short. B. It happened once ['c vagn] that a disciple, in the presence of R. Eliezer, went up [to lead the Prayer], and made his blessings short. C. The other disciples remarked to R. Eliezer: “Did you notice how so and so made his prayers short?!” And they used to say about him: “This one is a scholar who makes short prayers.” D. But R. Eliezer said to them: He did not make it shorter than Moses did, as it is said: “Heal her now, O God, I beseech Thee [vk tb tpr tb kt]” (Numbers 12:13). E. Again it happened once ['c vagn cua] that a disciple in the presence of R. Eliezer went up [to lead the Prayer], and made his blessings long. F. The other disciples remarked to R. Eliezer: “Did you notice that so and so made his prayers long?!” And they used to say about him: “This one is a scholar who makes long prayers.”

100 “And the people murmured against Moses, saying, ‘What shall we drink?’ And he cried to the LORD; and the LORD showed him a tree, and he threw it into the water, and the water became sweet. There the LORD made for them a statute and an ordinance and there he proved them, saying, ‘If you will diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give heed to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases upon you which I put upon the Egyptians; for I am the LORD, your healer.’“ (Exodus 15:24-26, RSV)

80

Midrash and Legend G. But R. Eliezer said to them: He did not make them longer than Moses did, as it is said: “So I fell down before the Lord forty days” (Deut. 9:25), etc.101 H. For R. Eliezer used to say: There is a time to be brief in prayer and a time to be lengthy.

The midrashic comment that the prayer of the righteous is short (at “A” above) leads by way of association to the inclusion of this anecdote regarding R. Eliezer, even though R. Eliezer (at “H”) does not completely support the point of the introductory midrash! The anecdote reflects a time when the details of the prayer service were fluid and the prayer-leader had the opportunity to elaborate the themes of the Eighteen Benedictions in his own words. (The same theme is treated without an anecdote elsewhere in the Mekhilta―BeShallah chapter 3.102) This anecdote appears in very

101 “So I lay prostrate before the LORD for these forty days and forty

nights, because the LORD had said he would destroy you” (Deuteronomy 9:25, RSV). 102 Lauterbach, p. 216. In Horowitz-Rabin this is chapter 3, p. 97. This same teaching appears in the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon, BeShallah to Exodus 14:15 (p. 57 lines 4-9 in the Epstein-Melamed edition): “And the Lord spoke to Moses, ‘Why do you cry out to me …” [“The Lord said to Moses, “Why do you cry to me? Tell the people of Israel to go forward. Lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, that the people of Israel may go on dry ground through the sea” (Exodus 14:15-16).] R. Joshua says, “Israel had only to go forward.” R. Eliezer says, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, ‘My children are in danger, and the sea is blocking [their way], and the enemy is pursuing, and you are standing and lengthening your prayers before me! Why do you cry out to me? Tell the people of Israel to go forward.’ Thus he was saying, There is a time to be short [in prayer] and there is a time to be lengthy.’ ‘O God, please heal her!’ (Num. 12:13)―this is shortening; “And I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights” (Deut. 9:9)―this is lengthening.”

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

81

similar form in the MRS and a comparison is presented in the next chapter.103 A similar anecdote regarding R. Eliezer appears in the Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 34a, as a baraita. There the context is the customs concerning the recitation of the Eighteen Benedictions.104 Mekhilta A. It happened that a certain student, in the presence of R. Eliezer, went and shortened his blessings.

Bavli [Corresponds to below, “G”]

B. His disciples said to him: “Our teacher, did you notice how so and so made his prayers short?!” And they used to say about him: “This one is a scholar who makes short prayers.”

[Corresponds to below, “H”]

C. He said to them: He did not make it shorter than Moses did, as it is said: “God, please, heal her, please.”

[Corresponds to below, “I”]

D. Again it happened that a disciple in the presence of R. Eliezer went and made his blessings long.

Our Rabbis taught: It happened that a certain student went down before the ark in the presence of R. Eliezer, and he prolonged [his blessings] excessively.

E. His disciples said to him: “Our teacher, did you notice that so and so made his prayers long?!” And they used to say about him: “This one is a scholar who makes long prayers.”

His disciples said to him: Our teacher, what a prolonger this person is!

F. He said to them: He did not make them longer than Moses did, as it is said: “So I fell down before the Lord forty days,” etc.

He said to them: Does he prolong them more than Moses our teacher, about whom it is written, “For the forty days and the forty nights,” etc.

103 Parashat BeShallah, to Exodus 15:25 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 103 ln. 15 - line 24). 104 The translation here is my own.

82

Midrash and Legend

Mekhilta G. [Corresponds to above, “A”]

Bavli Again it happened that a certain student went down before the ark in the presence of R. Eliezer, and he shortened [his blessings] excessively.

H. [Corresponds to above, “B”]

His students said to him: What an abbreviator this person is!

I.

[Corresponds to above, “C”]

He said to them: Does he shorten more than Moses our teacher, for it is written, “God, please, heal her, please.”

J.

For R. Eliezer used to say: There is a time to be brief in prayer and a time to be lengthy.

―

The Talmud does not append the lesson given at “J” which, in the Mekhilta, is the point and goal of the story. In the Talmud the lesson appended to the account is, “One who seeks divine mercy for his neighbor need not mention his name.” Thus in the Mekhilta the story is more fully crafted―each part set in balance and leading to a conclusion which takes all the parts into account. A much simpler narrative appears in Sifre Numbers. Sifre Numbers, Beha’alotekha piska 47, to Numbers 12:12 R. Eliezer’s disciples asked him, “How much may a person lengthen his prayers?” He said to them, “Don’t lengthen them more than Moses, as it is said, ‘And I fell before the Lord as at the first for forty days and forty nights … ‘ (Deut. 9:18).105 “And how much may a person shorten his prayers? He said to them, “Don’t shorten more than Moses, as it is said, ‘God, please, heal her, please.’ There is a time to be brief in prayer and a time to be lengthy.”106

We have a general statement known by several texts in the name of R. Eliezer, “There is a time to be brief in prayer and a time 105 “Then I lay prostrate before the LORD as before, forty days and

forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all the sin which you had committed, in doing what was evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger” (Deut. 9:18, RSV). 106 My translation.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

83

to be lengthy.” The association of this saying with two biblical proof texts is also widely represented. The full anecdote, however, is present only in the two Mekhiltas and the Bavli. The Bavli significantly omits the two-pronged summary of R. Eliezer, “There is a time to be brief in prayer and a time to be lengthy”―the only element that every other presentation of this teaching has in common! My opinion is that this teaching was first an exegetical gloss on Exodus 14:15―with no anecdotal component―as it appears in the two Mekhiltas (see footnote 102). In Sifre Numbers (now divorced from its exegetical connection) it becomes a simple story. In the Bavli it becomes an elaborate story and it is this elaborate story which finds its place in the two Mekhiltas, without displacing the earlier, simpler treatment. Tractate Vayassa chapter 4, to Exodus 16:13 (Lauterbach: vol. 2 page 113, lines 74―89; Horowitz-Rabin: page 166 line 6―line 13) A. Once [vhv rcf] R. Tarfon and the elders were sitting together and R. Eleazar of Modi’in was sitting before them. B. Said to them R. Eleazar of Modi’in: “Sixty cubits high was the manna that came down for Israel.” C. Said they to him: “How long will you go on making astonishing statements before us?” D. Said he to them: “This can be proved from a passage of the Torah. For which is greater, the measure for good or the measure for punishment? You must say: the measure for good.107 E. “Now what does it say about the measure for punishment? ‘On the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened’ (Genesis 7:11).108

107 There is a discussion comparing the two “measures” through

various pairs of scriptural verses at b. Sanhedrin 100a-b in the name of R. Joshua, including the pair employed here by R. Eleazar of Modi’in. 108 “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And

84

Midrash and Legend And it says: ‘Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail’ (Genesis 7:20), etc.109 Whichever you consider, fifteen cubits came down on top of the mountains and fifteen cubits came down in the valley. F. “And what does it say about the measure for good? ‘And he commanded the skies above and opened the doors of heaven’ (Psalm 78:23).110 The least that ‘doors’ can designate is two. How many windows are there in a door? Four. Four added to four makes eight. Now, go and figure it up and you will find that the manna that came down for Israel was sixty cubits high.”

The form here is an academy discussion. The use of the debate form heightens the drama, showing the ingenuity of R. Eleazar in deriving his novel interpretation. The stimulus for including this story of R. Eleazar in R. Tarfon’s academy is the previous mention of these two Sages as authorities in the contextual treatment of the description of manna in the book of Exodus. Although it relates well to the theme, this anecdote is not required by its context―the preceding and following paragraphs take no notice of it. This passage has parallels in the Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 76a, and in the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon.

rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights” (Genesis 7:11-12, RSV). 109 “And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep” (Genesis 7:19-20, RSV). 110 “… they had no faith in God, and did not trust his saving power. Yet he commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven; and he rained down upon them manna to eat, and gave them the grain of heaven. Man ate of the bread of the angels; he sent them food in abundance” (Psalm 78:22-25, RSV).

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

85

Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon to Exodus 16:14 (Epstein-Melamed pp. 110-111) A. Once [vhv rcfu] R. Tarfon and his students were sitting together and R. Eleazar of Modi’in was sitting among them.111 B. R. Eleazar of Modi’in said to them: “Sixty cubits was the height of the manna that came down for Israel.” C. They said to him: “Eleazar our brother, how long will you present us with frivolous assertions?” D. He said to them: “I expound a passage from the Torah. For which measure is greater, the measure for good or the measure for evil? You must say: the measure for good. E. “Concerning the measure for punishment, it says, ‘Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail’ (Genesis 7:20), etc. Whichever you consider, fifteen cubits came down in the riverbeds, and fifteen on top of the mountains and fifteen cubits came down in the valley. F. “And concerning the measure for good, it says, ‘And he commanded the skies above [and opened the doors of heaven] … and made manna fall like dew for them … ‘ (Psalm 78:23). The least that ‘doors’ can designate is two. How many panes are there in a door? Four. Four added to four makes eight. Eight added to eight makes sixteen. Now, go and figure it up and you will find that the manna that came down for Israel was sixty cubits high.” G. [Anecdote has ended but next paragraph continues in the same vein:] Isi b. Akavia says: Whence do you learn that the manna descended for Israel until all the nations saw it? Scripture says, “Thou preparest a table for me [in the presence of mine enemies] …” (Psalm 23:5).

My opinion is that the MRS version derives from the MRI version, which shares the same outline structure. I think that our 111 Here I am giving a modified version of Lauterbach’s translation of

MRI, adapted to the MRS.

86

Midrash and Legend

present text of MRS represents a degree of conscious or unconscious harmonization, in transmission, with the Bavli with which it shares some phrases in agreement against MRI. In the Talmud, the discussion also centers on the manna, and there (unlike in the Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael), the paragraphs following continue to debate the implications of the teaching set forth by Eleazar of Modi’in.112 Mekhilta (MRI) A. Once R. Tarfon and the elders were sitting and R. Eleazar of Modi’in was sitting before them.

Bavli Once R. Tarfon, R. Ishmael, and the elders were sitting and engaging in the parashah concerning the manna, and R. Eleazar of Modi’in was sitting among them.

B. Said to them R. Eleazar of Modi’in: “Sixty cubits high was the manna that came down for Israel.”

R. Eleazar responded and said: “The manna that came down for the Israelites was sixty cubits high.”

C. Said they to him: “Moda’ite! How long will you make astonishing statements before us?”

R. Tarfon said to him: “Moda’ite! How long will you bring us frivolous assertions!”

D. Said he to them: “This is a passage from the Torah.

He said to him, “My master, I expound a scriptural passage:

E. “For, which is the greater measure: the measure of beneficence or the measure of retribution? One must say the measure of beneficence [is greater] than the measure of retribution.

[Corresponds to below, “H”]

F. “What does it say concerning the measure for retribution? ‘On the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.’

[Corresponds to below, “I”]

112 Translation is my own, consulting the Soncino translation and

harmonizing the diction with the Mekhilta where the two passages agree in Hebrew.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

87

Mekhilta (MRI) G. “And it says: ‘Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail,’ etc. Whichever you consider, fifteen cubits came down on top of the mountains and fifteen cubits came down in the valley.

Bavli “Fifteen cubits upward did the water prevail, and the mountains were covered.

H. [Corresponds to above, “E”]

“For, which is the greater measure: the measure of beneficence or the measure of retribution? One must say the measure of beneficence [is greater] than the measure of retribution.

I.

[Corresponds to above, “F”]

“Concerning the measure of retribution it says: ‘And the windows of the heavens were opened.’

J.

“And what does it say about the measure of beneficence? ‘And he commanded the skies above and opened the doors of heaven.’ The least that ‘doors’ can designate is two. How many windows are there in a door? Four. Four added to four makes eight. Now, go and figure it up and you will find that the manna that came down for Israel was sixty cubits high.”

“And concerning the measure of beneficence it says: ‘He commanded the skies above, and the doors of heaven he opened, and he rained upon them manna to eat, and he gave them heavenly grain.’ How many windows are in a door? Four in each. Here are eight, and it is evident that the manna that came down for the Israelites was sixty cubits high.”

“Now, can fifteen cubits [of water] in the valley be fifteen cubits in the mountains? Did the water, then, stand like walls? And furthermore, how did the ark rise? Rather, the springs of the great deep burst forth until the waters became level with the mountains. And then fifteen cubits [further] upward did the waters prevail.

In my opinion the version in our Mekhilta represents a more finished, balanced composition. Particularly at “F” and “J” in our table it seems to represent an editing or tightening of a passage like that in our Gemara. The number of identical phrases make it impossible to imagine that these versions developed independently even from a common outline. I must also account for the fact that in the Bavli the story enjoys a degree of interaction with its context

88

Midrash and Legend

whereas in the Mekhilta it does not―if it were removed nothing would be “missing.” Therefore, in my tabulation I treat the Bavli version as the “parent” of the Mekhilta version, although I do not do so with a great deal of confidence. One might argue the opposite, for instance, by asserting that at “A” - “C” the Bavli expands the attributions of MRI into a full narrative. Nevertheless it is my opinion that the Mekhilta’s version is better explained by the Bavli’s than vice versa, and to assert no relationship would be impossible. Tractate Amalek chapter 1, to Exodus 17:8 (Lauterbach: vol. 2 page 138, line 47 - page 139, line 55; Horowitz-Rabin: page 177, line 13 - line 17) A. “And he fought with Israel in Rephidim” (Exodus 17:8).113 B. Said R. Hananiah, “This thing I asked R. Eleazar when he was sitting in the great session: How is ‘Rephidim’ to be understood?” He said to me: “Literally.”114 C. R. Hananiah also said, “I asked R. Eleazar: Why is it that the Israelites redeem only the first-born of asses and not also the first-born of horses and camels? He said to me: It is a decree of the King. D. Furthermore, the Israelites at the time of the exodus had only asses. There was not a single Israelite who did not bring up with him from Egypt ninety asses laden with gold and silver.”115

113 “Then came Amalek and fought with Israel at Rephidim. And Moses said to Joshua, ‘Choose for us men, and go out, fight with Amalek; tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand.’ So Joshua did as Moses told him, and fought with Amalek; and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. Whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed; and whenever he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed” (Exodus 17:8-11, RSV). 114 cp. Sanhedrin 106a for discussion of the term Rephidim including the teaching of R. Eliezer cited here. 115 Horowitz-Rabin adds, “and garments.”

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

89

There is a parallel in the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon, BeShallah, to Exodus 17:8 (page 119 line 6 - page 120 line 4 in the EpsteinMelamed edition). A. “At Rephidim” (Exodus 17:8). B. R. Hananiah said: We asked R. Eliezer about this matter when he was sitting in the great session. “How is ‘Rephidim’ to be understood?” He said to us, “Literally.” C. R. Hananiah also said: We asked R. Eliezer about this matter when he was sitting in the great session, “For what reason did Israel redeem the first-born of asses and did not redeem the firstborn of camels and the firstborn of horses?” He said to us, “It is a decree of the Supreme King of Kings, blessed be He.” D. Another interpretation: Because they helped Israel when they departed from Egypt. There was not a single Israelite who did not have seventy asses laden which bore gold and silver and precious stones and pearls.”

This version is very closely related to the version in the Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, and the differences are mostly explicable as flourishes on the part of the MRS. The table below compares these two versions in Hebrew, with the phrases in common underlined. MRI

MRS

A.

/ohshprc ktrah og ojkhu

/ohshprc

B.

h,kta vzv rcsv vhbbj hcr rnt cauh vhva rzgkt hcr ,t tcr tc,unc

,t ubkta vz rcs vhbbj 'r rnt cauh tuvaf rzghkt 'r tcr tc,unc

C.

/ugnanf hk rnt uvn ohshpr

/ugnanf ubk rnt tuvn ohshpr

D.

vbhbj hcr rnt sugu rzgkt hcr ,t h,kta

vbhbj 'r rnt sugu rzghkt 'r ,t ubkta vz rcs tcr tc,unc cauh tuvaf

E.

ohrunj hryp ,uspk ktrah utr vn ohkndu ohxux hryp tku

ohrunj hryp ktrah usp vn hbpn ohxux hrypu ohknd hryp usp tku

F.

/thv lkn ,rhzd hk rnt

lkn ,rhzd ubk rnt /v"c ohfknv hfkn

G.

ktrah ka ishc vhv tka sugu vga v,utc sckc ohrunj tkt

ktrah ,t ughhxa hpk t"s ohrmnn i,thmhc

90

Midrash and Legend MRI

H.

MRS ktrahn sjtu sjt kf lk ihta ohrunj ohgca uk uhv tka cvzu ;xf ohbugy uhva uhbpk /,uhkdrnu ,ucuy ohbctu

ktrahn sjtu sjt kf lk ihta ohrunj ohga, ung vkgv tka /cvzu ;xf ohbugy

The narrative itself bears no freight in this simple academy discussion. However, this teaching appears in narrative form also in the Talmud, Bekhorot 5b. MRI

Bavli

A.

“And he [Amalek] fought with Israel in Rephidim.”

―

B.

Said R. Hananiah, “This thing I asked R. Eleazar when he was sitting in the great session:

Said R. Hanina: I asked R. Eliezer116 in the great sessionhouse,

C.

[Corresponds to below, “D”]

“Why were the first-born of asses different from the first-born of horses and camels?

D.

How is ‘Rephidim’ to be understood?” He said to me: “Literally.”

[Corresponds to below, “H”]

E.

R. Hananiah also said, “I asked R. Eleazar: Why is it that the Israelites redeem only the first-born of asses and not also the first-born of horses and camels?

[Corresponds to above, “B”]

F.

He said to me: It is a decree of the King. Furthermore, the Israelites at the time of the exodus had only asses.

He replied: It is a decree of Scripture. Moreover, they helped Israel at the time when they departed from Egypt,

G.

There was not a single Israelite who did not bring up with him from Egypt ninety asses laden with silver and gold.”

for there was not a single Israelite who did not possess ninety Libyan asses laden with the silver and gold of Egypt.

H.

[Corresponds to above, “D”]

I also asked him: What does the word “Rephidim” signify? And he told me: Rephidim was its [the place’s] name …

116 The names “Eleazar” (rzgkt) and “Eliezer” (rzghkt) are

frequently confused in the transmission of texts.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

91

The reader may note that at “F” the Bavli agrees with the MRS against the MRI (that the asses helped the Israelites), and that at “G” the Bavli agrees with the MRI against the MRS (that each Israelite had ninety asses)! I consider it likely that the MRS materials as we have them have been influenced by the Bavli in transmission. Otherwise I see no significance in the slight differences between these tellings of the story. Perhaps the “Rephidim” question was placed first by the two Mekhiltas since it treats the theme verse at hand, whereas the subject of firstlings is of course the operative question of tractate Bekhorot. Which came first is impossible to tell, and without a context either choice would be insignificant. Shaped to context, the choices represented in each text make sense. In the context of the Mekhilta, the anecdote is imported for the sake of R. Hanina’s gloss on the Mekhilta’s base verse. Tractate Amalek chapter 3, to Exodus 18:12 (Lauterbach: vol. 2 page 177, line 223 - page 178, line 243; Horowitz-Rabin: AmalekYitro chapter 1, page 195, line 10 - page 196, line 2) A. “And Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel” (Exodus 18:12).117 And where did Moses go? Was it not he who first went out to meet him, as it is said: “And Moses went out to meet his father-in-law” (Exodus 18:7). Where then was he now? Scripture thus teaches that Moses was standing and serving them. Whence did he learn this? From our father Abraham. B. They say: R. Isaac once mentioned this in a discourse. He said: When Rabban Gamaliel gave a banquet for the Sages, all of them sat reclining, while Rabban Gamaliel stood up and served them. They then said, “We are not right in letting Rabban Gamaliel wait upon us.” C. But Rabbi Joshua said to them: “Leave him alone, let him do the serving. We find that one greater than Rabban Gamaliel waited upon people.” Said they to him: “Who was it?” Said he to them: “It was our father Abraham who waited upon the ministering angels. And 117 “And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, offered a burnt offering and

sacrifices to God; and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before God” (Exodus 18:12, RSV).

92

Midrash and Legend he believed them to be human beings, Arabs, worshipers of idols. All the more it is proper that Rabban Gamaliel should wait upon Sages, men of Torah.” D. Rabbi Zadok said to them: “Leave him alone, let him do the serving. We can find one greater than R. Gamaliel and even greater than our father Abraham who has waited upon people.” Said they to him: “Who is it?” Said he to them: “It is the Holy One, blessed be He, who gives to every one his wants and to everybody according to his needs. And not to good people alone, but also to wicked people and even to people who are worshiping idols.118 All the more is it proper that R. Gamaliel should wait upon Sages, men of Torah.”

The narrative (“B” - “D”) nicely illustrates the exegesis of the passage (“A”). The exegetical method is simply to fill an apparent gap in the text; the lesson used to fill in the gap could have been almost anything, but the lesson chosen fits convincingly. The anecdote regarding Rabban Gamaliel attending upon the Sages is found in the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon (Yitro chapter 18), Sifre Deuteronomy 38, and in the Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 32b. Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon, to Exodus 18:12 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 131) A. “And Aaron came …” (Exodus 18:12) But where did Moses go? Didn’t he at first go out to meet him? As it is said, “And Moses went forth to greet his fatherin-law” (Exodus 18:7) But this teaches that he was standing and serving! B. R. Zadok expounded this matter: When Rabban Gamaliel stood and served, they [the Sages] said, “Is it right that we should recline and Rabban Gamaliel stand and serve us!” R. Joshua said to them, “We find one greater than Rabban Gamaliel who stood and served.” They said to him, “Who is that?” He said to them, “Abraham at the crossroads, the greatest member of his generation, as it is said, “And he attended to them 118 Compare Matthew 5:45, “… so that you may be sons of your

Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (RSV).

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

93

…” (Genesis 18:8).119 And [he thought] they were not upright men, but rather men who worshipped idols and anger the Omnipresent. How much more so should Rabban Gamaliel stand and serve upright men, who are occupied with the Torah! C. R. Zadok said to them, “We find one greater than Abraham and Rabban Gamaliel who stood and served.” They said to him, “Whom?” He said to them, “The God of heaven, blessed be He, who gives to each and every one according to his needs, and to each creature what it lacks, as it is said, ‘He gives food to all flesh’ (Psalm 136:25), and it says, ‘He gives the beast its food’ (Psalm 147:9). And [he does this] not only for upright men, but also for idolaters and those who anger him. How much more so should Rabban Gamaliel stand and serve upright men, who are occupied with Torah.”

I compare these two versions in the table below, and then for the moment set aside the Mekhilta of Rabbi Simeon which, as will become apparent, exercises no influence on the other versions of the story which we find in Sifre and the Bavli. MRI A.

/ktrah hbez kfu irvt tchu vkj,n tkvu ?lkv ifhvk vanu van tmhu wrntba u,trek tmh ifhvk uhafgu ub,uj ,trek ananu snug vhva snkn ?lkv ovrctn snk ifhvn /ovhkg /ubhct

MRS lkv ifhvk van /irvt tchu 'tba u,trek tmh vkj,n tkvu tkt ub,j ,trek van tmhu ananu snug vhva snkn

119 “And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth, and said, ‘My lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant… .’ And Abraham ran to the herd, and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to the servant, who hastened to prepare it. Then he took curds, and milk, and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree while they ate” (Gen. 18:1-3, 7-8).

94

Midrash and Legend MRI

MRS

B.

ejmh hcr ars vzv rcsv urnt kthknd icr vagaf rntu ohnfjv kf uhv ohnfjk vsugx icr sng ukmt ohcuxnu ihcauh ubt iht urnt ianau kthknd /kthknd icr ubanaha ihsc

icr vhvaf eusm 'r ars vz rcs ihsc urnt ananu snug 'knd snug kthknd icru ihcuxn ubta ubananu

C.

uk ujhbv gauvh hcr ivk rnt kthknd icrn kusd ubhmn anahu uk urnt ,uhrcv ,t anhaa ovrct vz ovk rnt tuv vzht ,rav hftkn ,t anhaa ubhct ohhcrg ost hbc ova rucx vhvu vnf ,jt kg vrz vsucg hscug anaha kthknd icr vnfu /vru, hbc ohnfj

kusd ubtmn gauvh 'r ovk rnt anhau snga kthknd icrn ovk rnt tuv vzht uk urnt 'ba rusv kusd vbhpc ovrct ost hbc tku 'd ovhkg snug tuvu ihscuga ost hbc tkt ohraf kg ouenv hbpk ihxhgfnu z"g kthknd icrk vnfu vnf ,jt ost hbc hbpk ananu snuga /vru,c ihehxgu ohraf

D.

uk ujhbv eusm hcr ivk rnt kthknd icrn kusd ubhmn anaha ,t anhaa ubhct ovrctnu rnt tuv vz ht uk urnt ,uhrcv sjt kfk i,ub tuva v"cev ovk hsf vhudu vhud kfku ufrum sjtu ohraf ost hbck tku vruxjn ohgar ost hbck ;t tkt sckc kg vrz vsucg hscug ost hbcku kthknd icr vnfu vnf ,jt :vru, hbc ohnfj anaha

kusd ubtmn eusm 'r ovk rnt snuga kthknd icrnu ovrctn rnt [sic] vzhv uk urnt ananu tuv lurc ohnav vukt ivk kfku uhfrm sjtu sjt kfk i,uba i,ub 'ba vruxjn hs vhudu vhud i,ub rnutu rac kfk ojk ost hbc tku vnjk vnvck z"g ihscug ost hbc tkt ohraf vnf ,jt kg uhbpk ihxhgfnu snuga kthknd icrk vnfu ohraf ost hbc hbpk ananu :vru,c ihehxgu

We observe here that MRI and MRS are structurally very close but not very close verbally in their amplifications upon the structure. They expound the same biblical verses in the same way (although in part “D” MRI does not spell out the scriptural proof texts). The hermeneutical ideas and their relationship to the outline of the story stay the same. The words used to articulate the hermeneutical ideas are different in each case―e.g. MRI speaks of Abraham serving angels who appeared to be idolatrous Arabs, whereas MRS simply speaks of Abraham serving idolaters. In my opinion, then, these two versions represent two different performances sharing a basic pattern, and the differences in the performances are insignificant in terms of ideology and function. We will see, however, that it is the MRI that has a relationship to the other texts that share this story. The Arabs (unique to MRI) will reappear. Elements unique to MRS which reappear are the explicit citation of the Genesis text regarding Abraham, and the appellation of Abraham as “the greatest member of his generation” both of

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

95

which I consider stereotypical flourishes not requiring a common source as an explanation. However, the reference to Abraham’s guests appearing to be Arabs requires some common extra-biblical tradition as an explanation. Sifre Deuteronomy 38 (Parashat Ekev to Deut. 11:11), ed. Finkelstein, p. 73 line 14 - p. 75 line 6 A. “It is not as the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 11:10).120 The land of Egypt is watered from below, while the Land of Israel is watered from above … its inhabitants sleep in their beds while God sends down rain for them … Hence we learn that God’s ways are different from those of creatures of flesh and blood. A man acquires menservants to feed and sustain him, but He who spoke, and the world came into being, acquires menservants so that He Himself may feed and sustain them. B. Once R. Eliezer, R. Joshua, and R. Zadok were reclining at a banquet for the son of Rabban Gamaliel. Rabban Gamaliel mixed a cup [of wine] for R. Eliezer, who declined it. R. Joshua took it, whereupon R. Eliezer said to him, “What’s this, Joshua? Is it fitting for us to be reclining while Gamaliel son of Rabbi stands and serves us?” C. R. Joshua replied, “Let him serve. After all Abraham, one of the great ones of the world, served the ministering angels when he thought that they were pagan Arabs, as it is said, “And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and lo, three men stood over against him” (Genesis 18:2).121 Is this not an inference from 120 “For the land which you are entering to take possession of it is not

like the land of Egypt, from which you have come, where you sowed your seed and watered it with your feet, like a garden of vegetables; but the land which you are going over to possess is a land of hills and valleys, which drinks water by the rain from heaven, a land which the LORD your God cares for; the eyes of the LORD your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year” (Deuteronomy 11:10-12, RSV). 121 “And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them,

96

Midrash and Legend the major to the minor? If Abraham, one of the great ones of the world, served angels when he thought they were pagan Arabs, should not Gamaliel son of Rabbi serve us? D. R. Zadok thereupon said to them, “You have ignored God’s honor in order to deal with the honor of flesh and blood. If He who spoke, and the world came into being, causes winds to blow, brings up clouds, brings down rains, and raises vegetation, thus setting a table for everyone, should not Gamaliel son of Rabbi serve us?122

b. Kiddushin 32b A. R. Isaac b. Shila said in R. Mattena‘s name in the name of R. Hisda: If a father renounces the honor due to him, it is renounced; but if a rabbi renounces his honor, it is not renounced. R. Joseph ruled: Even if a rabbi renounces his honor, it is renounced, for it is said: “And the Lord went before them by day” (Exodus 13:21).123 Said Rava: How compare! There, with respect to the Holy One, blessed be He, the world is His and the Torah is His; [hence] He can forego His honor. But in this case [of a teacher], is the Torah his [that he may renounce the honor due it]? Rav then said:

he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth, and said, ‘My lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, while I fetch a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on―since you have come to your servant.’ So they said, ‘Do as you have said’“ (Genesis 18:1-5, RSV). 122 Translation from Reuven Hammer, Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986). 123 “But God led the people round by the way of the wilderness toward the Red Sea. And the people of Israel went up out of the land of Egypt equipped for battle … And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night …” (Exodus 13:18, 21, RSV).

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

97

Yes, his Torah is his, as it is written, “In his Torah he meditates day and night” (Psalm 1:2).124 B. But that is not so. For Rava was serving drink at his son’s wedding, and when he offered a cup to R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua, they stood up before him; but [when he offered] R. Mari and R. Phineas son of R. Hisda, they did not stand up before him. Thereupon he was offended and exclaimed: These rabbis are rabbis, and these rabbis are not rabbis! C. It also happened that R. Papa was serving drink at the wedding of Abba Mar, his son; when he offered a cup to R. Isaac son of Rav Judah, he did not rise before him, whereupon he was offended! — Even so, they should have shown him respect. D. R. Ashi said: Even on the view that if a rabbi renounces his honor it is renounced, yet if a Nasi renounces his honor, his renunciation is invalid. E. An objection is raised: It happened that ['c vagn] R. Eliezer, R. Joshua and R. Zadok were reclining at a banquet of Rabban Gamaliel’s son, while Rabban Gamaliel was standing over them and serving drink. On his offering a cup to R. Eliezer, he did not accept it; but when he offered it to R. Joshua, he did. Said R. Eliezer to him, “What is this, Joshua! Should we sit while Rabban Gamaliel son of Rabbi waits upon us, serving drink?” F. “We find that someone even greater than he served,” he replied: “Abraham was the greatest man of his age, yet it is written of him, “He was waiting upon them …” (Genesis 18:8).125 And should you say that they appeared to him as ministering angels, they appeared to 124 “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,

nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night” (Psalm 1:1,2 RSV). 125 “And Abraham ran to the herd, and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to the servant, who hastened to prepare it. Then he took curds, and milk, and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them [ovhkg snug tuvu] under the tree while they ate” (Genesis 18:7-8, RSV).

98

Midrash and Legend him only as Arabs. So, should we not allow Rabban Gamaliel son of Rabbi to wait upon us and serve us drink?” G. Said R. Zadok unto them: ‘How long will you disregard the honor of the Omnipresent and occupy yourselves with the honor of men! The Holy One, blessed be He, causeth the winds to blow, the vapors to ascend, the rain to fall, the earth to yield, and sets a table before every one; and we — shall not Rabban Gamaliel son of Rabbi stand over us and offer drink’! H. Rabbi Zadok said to them: “How long will you disregard the honor of the Omnipresent and occupy yourselves with the honor of men! The Holy One, blessed be He, causeth the winds to blow, the vapors to ascend, the rain to fall, the earth to yield, and sets a table before every one. And should we not allow Rabban Gamaliel son of Rabbi to wait upon us and serve us drink?126

The story comes, in its three different contexts, to illustrate three different lessons. In the Mekhilta, the story comes to commend the humble and servant-like posture of Moses, which the text learns midrashically from its base verse in Exodus. The anecdote both illustrates and lends authority to the Mekhilta’s hermeneutical idea. In Sifre Deuteronomy, the story comes to illustrate the kindness of God who prepares a table for his creatures, as the text learns midrashically from its base verse in Deuteronomy. In the Talmud, the story comes as a precedent which helps to define the question, to what extent may a leader in Israel renounce or forego the honor due to him, without thereby detracting from the Torah and its institutions? The story itself remains remarkably stable, considering that in each different context a different part of the story is specifically more relevant to the theme at hand. Underlined phrases are present in two or more of these three versions.

126 Soncino translation, adapted.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

99

Mekhilta (MRI)

Sifre Deuteronomy

Bavli

A.

… Scripture thus teaches that Moses was standing and serving them. Whence did he learn this? From our father Abraham.

… Hence we learn that God’s ways are different from those of creatures of flesh and blood. A man acquires menservants to feed and sustain him, but He who spoke, and the world came into being, acquires menservants so that He Himself may feed and sustain them.

… Rav Ashi said: Even according to the one who says that if a teacher renounces his honor, his honor is renounced―if a nasi renounces his honor, his honor is not renounced.

B.

They say: R. Isaac once mentioned this in a discourse. He said: When Rabban Gamaliel gave a banquet for the Sages, all of them sat reclining, while Rabban Gamaliel stood up and served them. They then said, “We are not right in letting Rabban Gamaliel serve us.”

Once R. Eliezer, R. Joshua, and R. Zadok were reclining at a banquet for the son of Rabban Gamaliel. Rabban Gamaliel mixed a cup [of wine] for R. Eliezer, who did not want to take it. R. Joshua took it. R. Eliezer said to him, “What is this, Joshua? Is it right that we be reclining while Gamaliel son of Rabbi stands and serves us?”

They challenged him: It happened that Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Joshua, and Rabbi Zadok were reclining at the banquet for the son of Rabban Gamaliel, and Rabban Gamaliel was waiting upon them, serving drink. He offered a cup to R. Eliezer but he did not take it. He offered it to R. Joshua, and he accepted it. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: “What is this, Joshua! Should we sit while Rabban Gamaliel son of Rabbi stands, serving us drink?”

100

Midrash and Legend

Mekhilta (MRI)

Sifre Deuteronomy

B2.

vzv rcsv wurnt rntu ejmh hcr ars kthknd icr vagaf uhv wohnfjk vsugx ihcauh ohnfjv kf sng /ukmt ohcuxn /ianau kthknd icr ihsc ubt iht wurnt icr ubanaha /kthknd

rzghkt hcr uhv rcfu eusm hcru gauvh hcru v,an ,hcc ohcuxn kthknd icr ka ubc ,t kthknd icr dzn tku rzgkt hcrk xufv hcr ukyb /ukyk vmr hcr uk rnt /gauvh gauvh vz vn rzghkt ohcuxn ubta ihsc snug hcrc kthkndu /ubananu

hcrc vagn :hch,hn gauvh hcru rzghkt uhva eusm hcru v,anv ,hcc ihcuxn wkthknd icr ka ubc kthknd icr vhvu wovhkg veanu snug rzghkt 'rk xufv i,b 'rk ub,b wukyb tku uk rnt /ukcheu gauvh wvz vn :rzghkt hcr ihcauh ubt wgauvh hcrc kthknd icru ?ubhkg veanu snug

C.

Rabbi Joshua said to them: “Let him serve. We find that one greater than Rabban Gamaliel served people.” Said they to him: “Who was it?” Said he to them: “It was our father who Abraham, waited upon the ministering angels. And he believed them to be human beings, Arabs, worshipers of idols. All the more it is proper that Rabban Gamaliel should serve Sages, men of Torah.”

R. Joshua said to him, “Let him serve. After all Abraham, one of the great ones of the world, ministering served angels when he thought that they were pagan Arabs, as it is said, “And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and lo, three men stood over against him.” Is this not an inference from the major to the minor? And if Abraham, one of the great ones of the world, served angels when he thought they were pagan Arabs, should not Gamaliel son of Rabbi serve us?

He said to him: We find someone greater than him who served. Abraham was the of his greatest generation, and it is written of him: “He was waiting upon them …” And if you say it was because they appeared to him as ministering angels, they only appeared to him as Arabs. So, should we not allow Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi to wait upon us and serve us drink?”

gauvh hcr ivk rnt anahu uk ujhbv icrn kusd ubhmna ,t anhaa kthknd wuk urnt /,uhrcv wovk rnt ?vz vzht ubhct ovrct vz hftkn ,t anhaa rucx vhvu ,rav ohhcrg ost hbc ova kg /vrz vsucg hscug icr vnfu vnf ,jt anaha kthknd /vru, hbc ohnfj

gauvh hcr uk rnt /anahu uk jbv okugv kusd ovrct ,ra hftkn ana ohhcrg ova rucxfu vrz vsucg hscug uhbhg tahu rntba vauka vbvu trhu ohrcs tkvu /ohabt ovrct vnu rnuju ke ana okugv kusd rucxfu ,rav hftkn hscug ohhcrg ova kthknd vrz vsucg /ubanah tk hcrc

kusd ubhmn :vhk rnt ovrct wanaa ubnn cu,fu wvhv rusv kusd !ovhkg snug tuvu :uc wurnt, tnau unsb ,rav hftknf tkt uk unsb tk ?uk tvh tk ubtu wohhcrgk hcrc kthknd icr ?ubhkg veanu snug

C2.

Bavli

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

D.

D 2.

101

Mekhilta (MRI)

Sifre Deuteronomy

Bavli

Rabbi Zadok said to them: “Leave him alone, let him do the serving. We can find one greater than R. Gamaliel and even greater than our father Abraham who has waited upon people.” Said they to him: “Who is it?” Said he to them: “It is the Holy One, blessed be He, who gives to every one his wants and to everybody according to his needs. And not to good people alone, but also to wicked people and even to people who are worshiping idols. All the more is it proper that Rabban Gamaliel should serve Sages, men of Torah.”

Rabbi Zadok said to them, “You have ignored the honor due the Omnipresent and deal with the honor of flesh and blood. If He who spoke, and the world came into being, makes the winds blow, makes the clouds rise, and makes the rains fall, and makes vegetation sprout, thus setting a table for each and every person, should not Gamaliel son of Rabbi serve us?

Rabbi Zadok said to them: “How long will you ignore the honor due the Omnipresent and deal with the honor of creatures? The Holy One, blessed be He, makes the winds blow, makes the clouds rise, and makes the dew fall. He makes the ground sprout thus setting a table before each and every person. And should we not allow Rabban Gamaliel son of Rabbi to wait upon us and serve us drink?

eusm hcr ivk rnt anaha uk ujhbv icrn kusd ubhmn ovrctnu kthknd ,t anhaa ubhct ht uk urnt ,uhrcv ovk rnt tuv vz i,ub tuva v"cev sjtu sjt kfk vhudu vhud kfku ufrum tku vruxjn hsf ohraf ost hbck hbck ;t tkt sckc hbcku ohgar ost vsucg hscug ost vnf ,jt kg vrz kthknd icr vnfu hbc ohnfj anaha :vru,

eusm 'r ovk rnt ouenv sucf o,jbv sucfc oheuxg o,tu hn ot osu rac okugv vhvu rnta vkgnu ,ujur chan ohnad shrunu ohbbg lrugu ohjnm ksdnu sjt kfk ijkua hcrc kthknd sjtu /ubanah tk

:eusm hcr ovk rnt o,t h,n sg ka usucf ohjhbn ohexug o,tu ouen ?,uhrcv sucfc ,ujur chan v"cev ohthab vkgnu jhnmnu ryn shrunu ijkua lrugu wvnst wsjtu sjt kf hbpk icr tvh tk ubtu snug hcrc kthknd ?ubhkg veanu

The basic outline of the story is stable across all three versions. Although there are rhetorical tropes where each version

102

Midrash and Legend

matches another, the pattern of such occurrences does not allow us to assert that the Mekhilta was a verbal model for any of the others. Each version shares certain elements with one other version, which are not shared by the third. Each version tells the same story in highly stylized language, and that stylization alone is sufficient to explain why two versions will agree against another in unpredictable patterns throughout the telling of the story. For example, whether God is invoked in one story as “HaMakom” and in another has “HaKadosh Barukh Hu” is not a matter of copying but a matter of a highly stylized vocabulary. There are a limited number of options available for verbalizing the content so long as the same general outline is adhered to. But I do think it is quite likely that the Bavli depends on Sifre Deuteronomy for its telling of the story, as the number of common phrases in those two versions is quite high. Tractate Amalek chapter 4 to Exodus 18:27 (Lauterbach: vol. 2 page 187, lines 122 - 125; Horowitz-Rabin: Amalek-Yitro chapter 2, page 200, lines 13 - 14) In Lauterbach’s text and translation: It happened once ['c vagn] that one said [mockingly], “Today there is a sacrifice of the sons of the water drinkers!” And a heavenly voice came forth from the Holy of Holies and called out: “He who received their offerings in the desert, He will also receive their offerings now.” In Horowitz-Rabin’s text: It happened once ['c vagn] concerning one who brought a sacrifice from those who drink water, that a heavenly voice came forth from the Holy of Holies and said: “He who received their offerings in the desert, He will also receive their offerings now.”

Lauterbach follows variant readings based on the Yalkut and handwritten marginal notes in an old copy of the Venice edition of the Mekhilta, while Horowitz-Rabin transcribes the editio princeps (Venice 1545). As we shall see, the variant followed by Lauterbach also agrees with the MRS. The preceding context concerns the descendants of Jonadab son of Rechab and the unconditional covenant God made with

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

103

them (Jer. 35).127 The midrash identifies them with Kenites, descendants of Moses’ father-in-law Jethro (1 Chronicles 2:55 read with Judges 4:11).128 They are called “water drinkers” because they were an ascetic sect, which drank no wine. The story conveys divine approval of the Rechabites, which leads into the next part of the midrash. “R. Nathan says, ‘The covenant with Jonadab … was greater than the one made with David … made without any condition.’“ The midrash then continues exploring the examples of conditional and unconditional promises in Scripture. The story is not required by the context―if it were removed, nothing would need to be changed in the paragraph preceding or following. However, this story is known only from this source and its parallel in MRS, and it fits well in context. It is a case-account with the twist that the authority who hears the case is the bat kol rather than a sage. MRS, Yitro, to Exodus 18:27 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 135 lines 16 - 18) It happened once ['c vagnu] that one said [mockingly], “Today there is a sacrifice of the sons of the water drinkers!” And a heavenly voice came forth from the Holy of Holies and said to them: “He who received your offerings in the desert, He will also receive your offerings now.129 127 “The command which Jonadab the son of Rechab gave to his sons, to drink no wine, has been kept; and they drink none to this day, for they have obeyed their father’s command. I have spoken to you persistently, but you have not listened to me … But to the house of the Rechabites Jeremiah said, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Because you have obeyed the command of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done all that he commanded you therefore thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Jonadab the son of Rechab shall never lack a man to stand before me’“ (Jeremiah 35: 14, 1819, RSV). 128 Compare Sifre Numbers, Beha’alotekha, piska 20, where the same identification is made. There the opinion is expressed that the descendants of Jonadab, unlike other converts, were eligible for marriage to priests. 129 This is Lauterbach’s translation to the MRI text, modified as necessary.

104

Midrash and Legend

In the text as we have it for MRS the bat kol addresses the water-drinkers in the second person rather than pronouncing concerning them in the third person (“your offerings” instead of “their offerings”). Otherwise this is identical to the version of the anecdote which we have in the Oxford ms. of the MRI. The Munich ms. of the MRI has the same variation. Tractate BaḤodesh chapter 1, to Exodus 19:1 (Lauterbach: vol. 2 page 193, line 17 - page 195, line 41; Horowitz-Rabin: page 203, line 11 - page 204, line 6) A. Once [vhv rcf] Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai was going up to Emmaus in Judea and he saw a girl who was picking barleycorn out of the excrements of a horse. Said Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to his disciples: “What is this girl?” They said to him: “She is a Jewish girl.” “And to whom does this horse belong?” “To an Arabian horseman,” the disciples answered him. B. Then said Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to his disciples: All my life I have been reading this verse and I have not realized its full meaning: “If thou knowest not, O thou fairest among women” (Song 1:8), etc.130 You were unwilling to be subject to God. Behold, now you are subjected to the most inferior of the nations, the Arabs. You were unwilling to pay the head tax to God, “a beka a head” (Exodus 38:26);131 now you are paying a head-tax of fifteen shekels under a government of your enemies. You were unwilling to repair the roads and streets leading up to the Temple; 130 “Tell me, you whom my soul loves, where you pasture your flock, where you make it lie down at noon; for why should I be like one who wanders beside the flocks of your companions? If you do not know, O fairest among women, follow in the tracks of the flock, and pasture your kids beside the shepherds’ tents” (Song of Songs 1:7-8, RSV). 131 “And the silver from those of the congregation who were numbered was a hundred talents and a thousand seven hundred and seventy-five shekels, by the shekel of the sanctuary: a beka a head (that is, half a shekel, by the shekel of the sanctuary), for every one who was numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty men” (Exodus 38:2526, RSV).

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

105

now you have to keep in repair the posts and stations on the road to the royal cities. And thus it says: “Because thou didst not serve … therefore thou shalt serve thine enemy” (Deuteronomy 28:4748).132 C. Because thou didst not serve the Lord thy God with love, therefore shalt thou serve thine enemy with hatred; because thou didst not serve the Lord thy God when thou hadst plenty, therefore thou shalt serve thine enemy in hunger and thirst; because thou didst not serve the Lord thy God when thou wast well clothed, therefore thou shalt serve thine enemy in nakedness; because thou didst not serve the Lord thy God “by reason of the abundance of all things, therefore thou shalt serve thine enemy in want of all things” (Deuteronomy 28:48). D. What is the meaning of: “In want of all things”? That their reason was taken from them.133 Another interpretation: “In want [rxujc] of all things” (Deuteronomy 28:48). They were deficient [ohrxj] in the study of the Torah.

The preceding context in the Mekhilta presents a reading of Song of Songs 1:8 in the light of Deuteronomy 28:47-48. The story about R. Yohanan b. Zakkai comes, in this context, to provide an illustration of that reading. The narrative properly includes only sections “A” and “B.” Section “C” constitutes a sermonic restatement of the base verses from Deuteronomy, and “D” provides further interpretations. Other versions of this anecdote

132 “But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD your God or be

careful to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you … Because you did not serve the LORD your God with joyfulness and gladness of heart, by reason of the abundance of all things, therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the LORD will send against you, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness, and in want of all things; and he will put a yoke of iron upon your neck, until he has destroyed you” (Deuteronomy 28:15, 47-48, RSV). 133 My rendering of this phrase [ivn ,gsv vkyhba]. Lauterbach reads, “They were out of their senses.”

106

Midrash and Legend

appear at Sifre Deuteronomy 305 and t. Ketubbot 5:10, as well as at y. Ketubbot 5:13; and b. Ketubbot 66b-67a. Sifre Deuteronomy 305 A. It once happened ['c vagn] that while Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was riding an ass and his disciples were following him, he saw a young woman gathering barley grains from under the feet of Arab cattle. B. When she saw Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, she covered her face with her hair, stood up before him, and said to him, “Master, grant me sustenance.” He asked her, “Whose daughter are you?” She replied, “I am the daughter of Nakdimon ben Gurion.” “Master,” she continued, “you no doubt remember when you signed my marriage contract.” C. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai then said to his disciples, “I did indeed sign this woman’s marriage contract, and I noticed in it a stipulation of one million gold denarii payable to her by her father-in-law’s family and her own family. Whenever they went to worship at the Temple Mount, fine woolen carpets were spread out for them to walk on, and they would enter, prostrate themselves, and return joyfully to their homes. D. “All my life I wondered about the meaning of the verse, ‘If thou know not, O fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed thy kids beside the shepherd’s tents’ (Song 1:8). But now I found it. Read not ‘your kids’ [lh,hsd] but ‘your bodies’ [lh,hud]. As long as Israel do the will of God, no nation or kingdom can rule over them, but when Israel do not do God’s will, He delivers them into the hand of the lowliest of nations, and not only into the hands of the lowliest of nations but also under the feet of the cattle of the lowliest of nations.”134

The preceding context is a “rewritten Scripture” dialogue between Moses and Joshua. Moses explains to Joshua that he wishes Israel could be led tenderly. “I do not have permission, but if I had permission, I would bring them in to dwell beside the tents of the shepherds.” The allusion to Song 1:8 provides the stimulus 134 Translation from Reuven Hammer, Sifre, ad loc.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

107

to include the narrative about R. Yohanan b. Zakkai. There is no reference, in this version, to proof texts from Deuteronomy 28 (!), and consequently the sermonic coda rephrasing Deuteronomy 28 which appeared in the Mekhilta version is also missing. The midrashic basis for R. Yohanan’s lesson, in this version, is an altered reading (“paronomasia”)135 of the one proof text from Song of Songs. t. Ketubbot 5:9-10136 A. It happened that ['c vagn] the Sages awarded to the daughter of Nakdimon b. Gurion five hundred golden denarii daily for a fund of spices, and she was only a sister-in-law awaiting levirate marriage. But she cursed them and said, “So may you award for your own daughters!” B. Said R. Leazar b. R. Zadok, “May I not see comfort, if I did not see her picking out pieces of barley from under the hoofs of horses in Akko. Concerning her I pronounced the following Scripture, ‘If you do not know, O most beautiful of women.’“ (Song 1:8)

The context in the Tosefta is the discussion of the divorcesettlement due to the wife of a poor man if she has no specification in her ketubah. “If he gets rich she goes up with him, but if he becomes poor, she does not go down with him.” The story of the daughter of Nakdimon b. Gurion appears as a digression from this theme. The reader will note that here it is R. Eleazar b. R. Zadok, rather than Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, who encountered the young woman and expounded the text from Song of Songs with reference to her. The lesson drawn is quite different although the proof-text is the same. Here, the lesson regards her greed, and her punishment is personal because she cursed the Sages. In the Mekhilta and Sifre Deuteronomy, she is a symbol for the fate of the nation following the destruction of Jerusalem and no personal criticism of her is implied.

135 Urowitz-Freudenstein, Exegetical Methods, 363-364. 136 5:8-9 in standard printed editions.

108

Midrash and Legend y. Ketubbot 5:11 A. It has been taught [hb,vu]: There was the case of ['c vagn] Marta, daughter of Boetus,137 for whom the Sages decreed a portion of two seahs of wine every day … Even so, she cursed them and said to them, “Thus may you award for your own daughters.” Said R Aha, “And they answered after her, ‘Amen.’” B. Said R. Eleazar bar Zadok, “May I not see comfort, if I did not see her picking out pieces of barley from under the hooves of horses in Akko. And concerning her I pronounced the following verse: ‘The tender and delicate woman among you …’ (Deuteronomy 28:56),138 ‘If you do not know, O most beautiful of women’” (Song 1:8). A'. And has it not been taught [hb,vu]: There was the case of ['c vagn] Miriam, daughter of Simeon b. Gurion, to whom the Sages awarded five hundred golden denarii daily for a cup of spices, and she was only a sister-inlaw awaiting levirate marriage. But she cursed and said, “So may you award for your own daughters!” B'. Said R. Leazar b. R. Zadok, “May I not see comfort, if I did not see her fastened by her hair to the tail of a horse in Akko. Concerning her I pronounced the following verse, ‘The tender and delicate woman among you …” (Deuteronomy 28:56)

137 There is a story of the eventual impoverishment of Marta daughter

of Boetus in the Talmud (b. Gittin 56a), where R. Yohanan ben Zakkai is the one who quotes Scripture (again Deut. 28) concerning her. See chapter 4, comments to Sifra on Leviticus 21:14 (page 270). 138 “The most tender and delicately bred woman among you, who would not venture to set the sole of her foot upon the ground because she is so delicate and tender, will grudge to the husband of her bosom, to her son and to her daughter, her afterbirth that comes out from between her feet and her children whom she bears, because she will eat them secretly, for want of all things, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemy shall distress you in your towns, if you are not careful to do all the words of this law which are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awful name, the LORD your God … ” (Deuteronomy 28:56-58, RSV)

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

109

The Yerushalmi in the contextual section is dependent upon the Tosefta and this version of the story seems to be an expansion of our Tosefta story. This version juxtaposes the same two texts that are juxtaposed in our Mekhilta story. Indeed, the Yerushalmi cites both passages together as if they were a single text. b. Ketubbot 66b A. Rav Judah related in the name of Rav: It once happened ['c vagn] that the daughter of Nakdimon b. Gurion was granted by the Sages an allowance of four hundred gold coins in respect of her perfume basket for that particular day, and she said to them, “May you grant such allowances for your own daughters!” and they answered after her: Amen. B. Our Rabbis taught [ibcr ub,]: It once happened that ['c vagn] R. Yohanan b. Zakkai left Jerusalem riding upon an ass, while his disciples followed him, and he saw a girl picking barley grains in the dung of Arab cattle. As soon as she saw him she wrapped herself with her hair and stood before him. “Master,” she said to him, “feed me!” “My daughter,” he asked her, “who are you?” “I am,” she replied, “the daughter of Nakdimon b. Gurion.” “My daughter,” he said to her, “what has become of the wealth of your father’s house?” “Master,” she answered him, “is there not a proverb current in Jerusalem, ‘The salt of money is diminution [rxj]?” And some say, “The salt of money is benevolence [sxj].” “And where [the Master asked] is the wealth of your father-in-law’s house?” “The one,” she replied, “came and destroyed the other. Do you remember, Master,” she said to him, “when you signed my ketubah?” “I remember,” he said to his disciples, “that when I signed her ketubah, I read therein ‘A million gold denarii from her father’s house,’ besides [the amount] from her father-in-law’s house.” C. Thereupon R. Yohanan b. Zakkai wept and said: How happy are Israel; when they do the will of the Omnipresent no nation nor any language-group has any power over them; but when they do not do the will of the Omnipresent he delivers them into the hands of a low people, and not only in the hands of a low people but into the power of the beasts of a low people.

110

Midrash and Legend D. Did not Nakdimon b. Gurion, however, practice charity? Surely it was taught: It was said of Nakdimon b. Gurion that, when he walked from his house to the house of study, woolen clothes were spread beneath his feet and the poor followed behind him and rolled them up! If you wish I might reply: He did it for his own glorification. And if you prefer I might reply: He did not act as he should have done, as people say, “In accordance with the camel is the burden.”139 E. It was taught [thb,v]: R. Eleazar the son of R. Zadok said, ‘May I [not] behold the consolation [of Zion] if I have not seen her picking barley grains among the horses’ hoofs at Akko. I applied to her this Scriptural text: “If you do not know, you fairest among women, go your way forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed your kids beside the shepherds’ tents” (Song 1:8). Read not “your kids [lh,uhsd]” but “your bodies [lh,uhud].”140

The Bavli’s version appears to conflate elements we saw in the Tosefta, Sifre, and the Mekhilta. The amount of material is too great to provide a phrase-by-phrase synopsis here, but a chart of key elements of the different versions is offered here to facilitate comparison: Mekh.

Sifre Deut.

Tosefta

Yerushalmi

Bavli

rcf vhv

vagn 'c

vagn 'c

vagn 'c

vagn 'c

R. Yohanan the one who encounters the girl

O

O

P

P

O

Location of event specified as Emmaus

O

P

P

P

P

Location of event specified as Akko

P

P

O

O

O

R. Eliezer (or similarly spelled name) recalls seeing girl

P

P

O

O

O

Introductory formula:

139 i.e., The richer and the greater the man the more is expected of him (Soncino note ad loc.). 140 Soncino translation, adapted.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

111

Mekh.

Sifre Deut.

Tosefta

Yerushalmi

Bavli

Song chapter 1 quoted

O

O

O

O

O

Deuteronomy chapter 28 quoted

O

P

P

O

P

Lesson regards Israel in general

O

O

P

P

P

Lesson regards Nakdimon’s daughter in particular

P

P

O

O

O

Lesson regards Nakdimon himself

P

P

P

P

O

Nakdimon’s daughter reviles Sages

P

P

O

O

P

Girl is anonymous

O

P

P

P

P

Girl is identified (Nakdimon’s daughter―or in Yer. as Miriam daughter to Simeon b. Gurion)

P

O

O

O

O

Girl speaks (at incident involving picking barley behind horse)

P

O

P

P

O

Girl’s hair is tied to horse’s tail

P

P

P

O

O

Ketubah for one million gold denarii

P

O

P

P

O

Allowance of 500 (or 400) gold denarii daily

P

P

O

O

O

Nakdimon’s daughter (or Miriam) was a widow awaiting levirate marriage

P

P

O

O

P

The relationship among these various versions is complex. Several generalizations can be made. There is no version, now in our possession, which we could consider to be the “base text” which was then modified and seen by all the others. No version exerts such influence that all of its constituent elements reappear in all other versions. The Tosefta, naturally enough, exerts a controlling influence on the Yerushalmi and Bavli, so that no

112

Midrash and Legend

element that is present in the Tosefta is absent in the Yerushalmi and most are included by the Bavli in its extensively reworked telling of the story. The interpretation of the verse from the first chapter of Song of Songs is the only element universally present―along with a poor girl and at least one horse! The Bavli incorporates two elements in common with Sifre Deuteronomy which are lacking in all other sources. As far as we can tell, the Mekhilta version exercises no influence on any other version, as it possesses several important elements unique to itself.141 The form also varies from text to text. In the Tosefta and its dependents, the story is introduced as a case-example [vagn] and indeed functions in that fashion. In the Mekhilta and Sifre Deuteronomy, it functions as an exclamation by a sage, who beholds an event or object that he interprets as a portent. I cannot identify any of these extant versions as a source for the Mekhilta. I am inclined to say that the versions in Sifre Deuteronomy and Mekhilta have a common source (1) because they alone identify R. Yohanan ben Zakkai as an actor and omit mention of R. Eliezer as an actor in the story, and (2) because the versions in the Mekhilta and Sifre Deuteronomy are shaped so as to lay the emphasis upon the fortunes of Israel in general; whereas the Toseftan and Talmudic tellings are shaped to lay emphasis upon the fortunes of the one girl in particular or her family.142

141 This is contrary to Jacob Neusner, A Life of Yohanan b. Zakkai

(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970), 186, who considered the transmission history to be: MRI and y. Ketubbot 5:11 as primary, ARN as combining them, and t. Ketubbot, Sifre Deut., and b. Ketubbot as amplifying the version in ARN. See also Burton L. Visotzky, “Most Tender and Fairest of Women: Study in the Transmission of Aggadah,” Harvard Theological Review 76 no. 4 (October 1983), 403-418. 142 A different anecdote regarding the daughter of Nakdimon b. Gurion appears at Avot deRabbi Natan (A) 13. “It is related concerning the daughter of Nakdimon b. Gurion that her bed had been arrayed at the cost of twelve thousand golden dinars, and that from one eve of the Sabbath to the next a Tyrian golden dinar was spent by her on sweetmeats. She was then a childless widow awaiting the decision of her brother-in-law.” In chapter 17 (siman 4) a version of our anecdote occurs closely resembling the Bavli, paragraph “B.”

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

113

Tractate BaḤodesh chapter 6, to Exodus 20:5 (Lauterbach: vol. 2 page 244, line 104 - page 246, line 124; Horowitz-Rabin: page 226, line 5 - line 17) A. Another interpretation: “For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:5).143 Zealously do I exact punishment for idolatry, but in other matters I am merciful and gracious. B. A certain philosopher asked Rabban Gamaliel: It is written in your Torah: “For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:5). But is there any power in the idol that it should arouse jealousy? A hero is jealous of another hero, a wise man is jealous of another wise man, a rich man is jealous of another rich man, but has the idol any power that one should be jealous of it? C. He said to him: Suppose a man would call his dog by the name of his father, so that when vowing he would vow, “By the life of this dog.” Against whom would the father be incensed? Against the son or against the dog? D. He said to him: Some idols are worthwhile.144 E. He said to him: What is your reasoning? F. Said the philosopher: There raged a fire in a certain province, but the temple with the idol in it was saved. Was it not because the idol could take care of itself? G. He said to him: I will give you a parable. To what may the matter be compared? To the conduct of a king of flesh and blood when he goes out to war. Against whom does he wage war, against the living or against the dead? 143 “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make

for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Exodus 23:3-6, RSV). 144 Or, “It [an idol] has some power.” /lrum v,menk ah

114

Midrash and Legend H. He said to him: Against the living. I. He said to him: If there is no usefulness in any of them, why does He not annihilate them? J. He said to him: But is it only one object that you worship? Behold, you worship the sun, the moon, the stars and the planets, the mountains and the hills, the springs and the glens, and even human beings. Shall He destroy His world because of fools? “Shall I utterly consume all things from off the face of the earth, saith the Lord” (Zephaniah 1:2).145 K. He said to him: Since it causes the wicked to stumble, why does God not remove it from the world? L. But he said to him: Because of fools? If so, then since they also worship human beings, “Shall I cut off man from the face of the earth?” (Zephaniah 1:3)

The philosopher provides a foil for the character of Rabban Gamaliel, the entire dialogue providing an elegant justification of God’s “jealousy” in the face of the knowledge that an idol has no reality as a god. Since the key element of the argument is Rabban Gamaliel’s parable (paragraph “G”), the narrative functions as a parable in explaining the base text. Parallels to this account appear in the Mishnah at Avodah Zarah 4:7; in the Tosefta at Avodah Zarah 6:7; in the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon to Exodus 20:5; and in the Babylonian Talmud at Avodah Zarah 54b-55a. m. Avodah Zarah 4:7 Bold letters indicate phrases similar or identical to the Mekhilta:

145 “I will utterly sweep away everything from the face of the earth, says the LORD. I will sweep away man and beast; I will sweep away the birds of the air and the fish of the sea. I will overthrow the wicked; I will cut off mankind from the face of the earth, says the LORD. I will stretch out my hand against Judah, and against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut off from this place the remnant of Baal and the name of the idolatrous priests; those who bow down on the roofs to the host of the heavens; those who bow down and swear to the LORD and yet swear by Milcom; those who have turned back from following the LORD, who do not seek the LORD or inquire of him” (Zephaniah 1:2-6, RSV).

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

115

They asked the elders, If he does not desire the worship of idols [vrz vsucg], why does he not wipe it away? They said to them, If they worshipped a thing for which the world has no need, he would have done away with it. But behold, they worship the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the planets. Shall he destroy his world because of fools? They said to them, If so, let Him put an end to that which the world does not need, and leave that which the world does need. They said to them, Then we would only strengthen those who worship them, since they would say, Know that these are true deities, for behold, they have not been destroyed.146

t. Avodah Zarah 6:7 (7:3) Bold letters indicate phrases similar or identical to the Mekhilta: Philosophers [ihpuxukhp] asked the elders in Rome, “If he does not desire idolatry [vrz vsucg], why does he not wipe it away? They said to them, If people worshipped something of which the world had no need, he would have abolished it. But behold, they worship the sun, moon, stars and planets. Shall he destroy his world because of fools? But the world pursues its natural course and as for the fools who act wrongly, they will have to come and they shall render an account. A man who steals [cbd] seed to sow, it is not proper [ipux tk] that it should flourish. A man has intercourse with another man’s wife, it is right that he should not produce a child [skhk upux iht], but the world pursues its natural course and as for the fools who act wrongly, they will have to come and they shall render an account.

b. Avodah Zarah 54b-55a [Bold letters indicate phrases similar or identical to the Mekhilta. Italics indicate phrases similar or identical to the Tosefta. Bold Italics indicate a phrase common to all three:]

146 Translation follows Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth (New York:

Judaica Press, 1964), ad loc.

116

Midrash and Legend A. Our rabbis taught: Philosophers asked the elders in Rome, “If your God has no desire for idolatry [ohcfuf ,sucg], why does he not wipe it away?” They replied, “If it was something of which the world has no need that they worship, He certainly would abolish it. But behold, they worship the

sun, moon, stars and planets; should He destroy the Universe on account of fools! But the world

pursues its natural course, and as for the fools who act wrongly, they will have to render an account. Another illustration: Suppose a man stole [kzd] a measure of wheat and went and sowed it in the ground; it is right that it should not [tka tuv ihs] flourish, but the world pursues its natural course and as for the fools who act wrongly, they will have to render an account. Another illustration: Suppose a man has intercourse with his neighbor’s wife; it is right that she should not [tuv ihs tka] conceive, but the world pursues its natural course and as for the fools who act wrongly, they will have to render an account. This is similar to what R. Simeon b. Lakish said: The Holy One, blessed be He, declared, “Not enough that the wicked put My coinage to vulgar use, but they trouble Me and compel Me to set My seal thereon!”

B. A philosopher asked R. Gamaliel, It is written in your Torah, “For the Lord thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God” (Deuteronomy 4:24).147 Why, however, is He so jealous of its worshippers rather than of the idol itself? He replied, “I will give you a parable. To what is the matter like? To a human king who had a son, and this son reared a dog to which he attached his father’s name, so that whenever he took an oath he exclaimed, “By the life of this dog, my father!” When the king hears of it, with whom is he angry—his son or the dog? Surely he is angry with his son! He said to him, “You call the idol a dog, but there is some reality in it. “What is your proof?” He replied, Once a fire broke out in our city, and the whole town was burnt with the exception of a certain 147 “Take heed to yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make a graven image in the form of anything which the LORD your God has forbidden you. For the LORD your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God” (Deuteronomy 4:23-24, RSV).

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

117

idolatrous shrine!” He said to him, I will give you a parable. To what is the matter like? To a human king against whom one of his provinces rebelled. If he goes to war against it, does he fight with the living or the dead? Surely he wages war with the living! He said to him, You call the idol a dog and a dead thing. In that case, let Him destroy it from the world! He replied, “If it was something unnecessary to the world that was worshipped, He would abolish it; but people worship the sun and moon, stars and planets, brooks and valleys. Should He destroy His universe on account of fools! And thus it states, “Am I utterly to consume man and beast; am I to consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, even the stumbling-blocks of the wicked!” (Zeph. 1:2-3). Because the wicked stumble over these things, is He to destroy them from the world? Do they not worship the human being; so “am I to cut off man from off the face of the ground?” (Zeph. 1:3). C. General Agrippa asked R. Gamaliel, It is written in your Torah, “For the Lord thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God” (Deuteronomy 4:24). Is a wise man jealous of any but a wise man, a warrior of any but a warrior, a rich man of any but a rich man? He replied, “I will give you a parable: To what is the matter like? To a man who marries an additional wife. If the second wife is her superior, the first will not be jealous of her, but if she is her inferior, the first wife will be jealous of her.148

It seems that Tosefta and Mekhilta represent two branches of a stream which, in the Talmud, converge again. The Tosefta and the Mekhilta have different tellings of a similar midrashic story, one concerning a philosopher and the Jewish elders at Rome, the other concerning a philosopher and Rabban Gamaliel. The Talmud preserves both settings (plus a third) but then conflates all the versions in its own amplified telling of the tales. The MRS seems quite unaware of the MRI in this case, having no element in agreement with MRI against the Bavli.

148 Translation of Soncino edition, with alterations.

118

Midrash and Legend MRS, Yitro, to Exodus 20:5 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 147 ln. 24 - p. 148 ln. 3) The elder Agrippa asked Rabban Gamaliel: There is no jealousy unless there are rivals, as it is said, “Know this day and consider it in your heart that the Lord, he is God [ … and there is no other]” (Deut. 4:39). He replied: There is no jealousy, not for a superior and not for a peer, but for an inferior. And thus it says, “My people have committed two evils―they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water” (Jeremiah 2:13). If they had merely ‘forsaken me, the fountain of living water’ they would have been disgraceful; how much more so when “they hewed for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns incapable of holding water” (Jeremiah 2:13).

This version of the story is quite different from the others that we have. It is closest to the third part of the Bavli’s account, which mentions a General Agrippa. There are certain commonalties, to be sure: the name Agrippa, Rabban Gamaliel (the Patriarch is, however, the “standard” character for fielding such questions from notables, especially nonJews), and the notion of jealousy regarding an inferior. The rough structure is imposed by the question and answer format. But the scriptural proofs are different, and the parable in the Bavli is not present in the MRS. Neither does the MRS resemble the account in MRI where Rabban Gamaliel is questioned by a philosopher. 149 149 At this point I considered, and rejected, treating Tractate

BaHodesh chapter 6 at Lauterbach p. 247 lines 134-143. This passage alludes to historical conditions but does not describe an event with any flow of narrative. In Lauterbach’s translation, the passage reads as follows: “Of them that love me and keep my commandments (Exod. 20:6). ‘Of them that love Me,’ refers to our father Abraham and such as are like him. ‘And keep my commandments,’ refers to the prophets and the elders. Rabbi Nathan says, ‘Of them that love Me and keep My commandments,’ refers to those who dwell in the land of Israel and risk their lives for the sake of the commandments. ‘Why are you being led out to be executed?’ ‘Because I circumcised my son to be an Israelite.’ ‘Why are you being led out to be burned?’ Because I read the Torah.’ ‘Why are you being led out to be crucified?’ ‘Because I ate unleavened bread.’ ‘Why are you getting a hundred lashes?’ “Because I performed the ceremony of

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

119

Tractate BaḤodesh chapter 7, to Exodus 20:7 (Lauterbach: vol. 2 page 249, line 17 - page 251, line 44; Horowitz-Rabin: page 228, line 3 - line 20) A. For four things did Rabbi Mattia ben Heresh go to Rabbi Eliezer haKappar in Laodecia. He said to him: Master! Have you heard the four distinctions in atonement which Rabbi Ishmael used to explain? B. He said to him: Yes. One scriptural passages says, “Return, O backsliding children” (Jeremiah 3:14),150 from which we learn that repentance makes atonement.151 And another scriptural passage says: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you” (Lev. 16:30),152 from which we learn that the Day of Atonement makes atonement. Still another scriptural passage says: “Surely this iniquity shall not be atoned for until you die”(Isaiah 22:14),153 from

the Lulav.’ And it says: ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends’ (Zechariah 13:6). These wounds caused me to be beloved of my father in heaven.” This passage is a theological characterization of the situation in Judea in the wake of the Bar Kokhba revolt. 150 “Go, and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, ‘Return, faithless Israel, says the LORD. I will not look on you in anger, for I am merciful, says the LORD; I will not be angry for ever. Only acknowledge your guilt, that you rebelled against the LORD your God and scattered your favors among strangers under every green tree, and that you have not obeyed my voice, says the LORD. Return, O faithless children, says the LORD; for I am your master; I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion’”(Jeremiah 3:1214, RSV). 151 I have in each case here translated ,qrpfn as “makes atonement” rather than “brings forgiveness” as Lauterbach does. 152 “For on this day he shall make atonement for you, to cleanse you, and from all your sins before the LORD you shall be clean” (Lev. 16:30, my rendering). 153 “In that day the Lord GOD of hosts called to weeping and mourning, to baldness and girding with sackcloth; and behold, joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine. ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’ The LORD of hosts has

120

Midrash and Legend which we learn that death makes atonement. And still another scriptural passage says: “Then will I visit their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquity with strokes” (Psalm 89:33),154 from which we learn that chastisements make atonement. C. How are these four passages to be maintained? If one has transgressed a positive commandment and repents of it, he is forgiven on the spot. Concerning this it is said, “Return, O backsliding children.” D. If one has violated a negative commandment and repents, repentance alone has not the power of atonement. It merely leaves the matter pending and the Day of Atonement makes atonement. Concerning this it is said, “For on this day atonement shall be made for you.” E. If one willfully commits transgressions punishable by extinction or by death at the hands of the court and repents, repentance cannot leave the matter pending nor can the Day of Atonement make atonement, but both repentance and the Day of Atonement make half an atonement, and chastisements make half an atonement. Concerning this it is said, “Then I will visit their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquity with strokes.” F. However, if one has profaned the name of Heaven and repents, repentance cannot leave the matter pending, neither can the Day of Atonement make atonement, nor can chastisements cleanse him. But repentance and the Day of Atonement both can merely leave the

revealed himself in my ears: ‘Surely this iniquity will not be forgiven you till you die,’ says the Lord GOD of hosts” (Isaiah 22:12-14, RSV). 154 “If his children forsake my law and do not walk according to my ordinances, if they violate my statutes and do not keep my commandments, then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with scourges; but I will not remove from him my steadfast love, or be false to my faithfulness. I will not violate my covenant, or alter the word that went forth from my lips. Once for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David. His line shall endure for ever, his throne as long as the sun before me. Like the moon it shall be established for ever; it shall stand firm while the skies endure. Selah” (Psalm 89:31-38, RSV).

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

121

matter pending. And the day of death along with sufferings cleanse him. Concerning this it is said, “Surely this iniquity shall not be atoned for until you die.” G. And so also when it says: “That the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for with sacrifice nor offering” (1 Samuel 3:14),155 it means: With sacrifice and offering it cannot be atoned for, but it will be atoned for by the day of death.

The passage leaves behind its narrative beginning as soon as R. Eleazar haKappar’s exposition begins—by the end of the passage it is clearly no longer a narrative. So as to narrative form it is an aborted Academy Discussion. As far as its exegetical method, it takes four apparently contradictory texts and reconciles them by referring them to four categories―in this case four categories of sinners. The Mekhilta goes on to give alternative opinions regarding the notion of one’s death making atonement, and these additional opinions are in no way woven into a narrative framework. There are numerous parallels to the thematic material in this passage, some of which include narrative materials: t. Kippurim 4:8; y. Sanhedrin 10:1; y. Shevu’ot 1:9; y. Yoma 8:8; b. Yoma 86a; Avot deRabbi Nathan (A) 29. Functionally the narrative fragment serves as a way of attributing the tradition, and also to heighten interest. t. Kippurim 4:8 (4: 9 in printed editions) This text presents the simple form of this teaching, in the name of R. Ishmael, with no narrative. The argument identifies four categories and then appends proof texts for each, whereas the Mekhilta is structured to reconcile four texts by means of referring them to four categories. A. Rabbi Ishmael says: There are four categories of atonement. One who transgresses a positive 155 “On that day I will fulfill against Eli all that I have spoken

concerning his house, from beginning to end. And I tell him that I am about to punish his house forever, for the iniquity which he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them. Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be expiated by sacrifice or offering forever” (1 Samuel 3:12-14, RSV).

122

Midrash and Legend commandment and repents does not leave his place until he is forgiven, as it is said, “Return wayward children and I will heal your backslidings [tprt ofh,cuan]” (Jeremiah 3:14, Hosea 14:5).156 B. One who transgresses a negative commandment and repents, repentance suspends the matter and the Day of Atonement makes atonement, as it is said, “For on this day he shall make atonement” (Lev. 16:30), etc. C. One whose willful transgression carries the punishment of extirpation or execution by the court, if he repents, repentance and the Day of Atonement suspend the matter, and suffering in the remaining days of the year purge, as it is said, “And I will punish their transgressions with the rod” (Psalm 89:33), etc. D. But the person by whom the name of heaven is willfully profaned, though he repents, repentance does not have the power to suspend the matter, nor the Day of Atonement to atone. But repentance and the Day of Atonement atone for a third, and sufferings atone for a third, and death purges along with sufferings. And regarding this it is said, “Surely this iniquity shall not be atoned for you until you die” (Isaiah 22:14), which teaches that the day of one’s death purges.

y. Yoma 8:7 (in Krotoshin ed., 8:8 in First Printed Edition and ms. Leiden) R. Mattiah b. Heresh asked R. Eleazar b. Azariah in the Academy, “Have you heard of the four types of atonement that R. Ishmael used to expound? He said to him, “They are three, besides repentance” …

The rest of the passage, which essentially agrees with our Mekhilta, is not reproduced here. The reader will note that the Eleazar of this passage is now Eleazar b. Azariah. The Yerushalmi version concludes differently than either Tosefta or Mekhilta: [Mekhilta concludes with: Concerning such a person does Scripture make the statement: “Surely this iniquity will 156 The author has added words to Jer. 3:14, apparently based on

Hosea 14:5: “I will heal their faithlessness [o,cuan tprt]; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned from them” (RSV).

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

123

not be forgiven you until you die.” And Yerushalmi

continues:] Thus we have learned the fact that death makes atonement. Said R. Yohanan, “This represents the opinion of R. Leazar b. Azariah, R. Ishmael, and R. Akiva. But Sages say, “The goat which is sent away157 effects atonement. In its absence the day itself effects atonement.”

The Yerushalmi would seem to be a slightly expanded version of something like what we see in our Mekhilta. y. Shevu’ot 1:6 This is essentially identical to the passage at y. Yoma 8:7. Here it is not specified that R. Mattiah b. Heresh question R. Liezer in the academy. y. Sanhedrin 10:1 This is essentially identical to the passage at y. Yoma 8:7. Here the tag is not present: “In its absence the day itself effects atonement.” Avot deRabbi Nathan (A) 29:5 This version in its narrative introduction is closest to the Mekhilta.158 In its body of argument, it shares elements distinctive to the Mekhilta and to the Bavli (below): A. For [the] four distinctions in atonement did R. Mattia ben Heresh go to R. Ishmael b. Eliezer haKappar, to meet him in Laodecia. And he said to him, “Have you heard the four distinctions in atonement, which R. Ishmael used to expound? B. He said to him, “I have heard them, and they are three, and repentance is required with each one of them. C. The first scriptural passage says, “Return, O backsliding children, says the Lord, and I will heal your backslidings” (Jeremiah 3:14). And another scriptural passage says, “For on this day he shall atone for you to cleanse you” (Lev. 16:30). And 157 Lev. 16:8-10ff. 158 The translation here is my own, referencing Lauterbach’s diction

in rending the Mekhilta. I have consulted the Soncino translation.

124

Midrash and Legend another scriptural passage says, “Then I will visit their transgressions with a rod, and their iniquities with strokes” (Psalm 89:33). And another scriptural passage says, “Surely this iniquity shall not be atoned for until you die” (Isa. 22:14). D. How then [can all four be maintained]? If a person transgresses a positive commandment and repents, he does not leave there before he is forgiven―immediately. Concerning this [case] it is said, “Return, O backsliding children.” E. A person who transgresses a negative commandment, and repents, repentance suspends the matter and the Day of Atonement makes atonement. Concerning this [case] it is said, “For on this day he shall atone for you.” F. A person who transgresses a commandment whose penalty is excision or execution by the court, and repents, repentance and the Day of Atonement suspend the matter, and suffering purges. And concerning this [case] it is said, “And I will visit their transgressions with a rod.” G. But someone who profanes the name of Heaven, repentance does not have the power to suspend the matter, nor sufferings to purge, nor the Day of Atonement to atone, but repentance and sufferings suspend the matter, and death purges it along with them. And concerning this [case] it is said, “Surely this iniquity shall not be atoned for until you die.”

b. Yoma 86a159 A. R. Mattia ben Heresh asked R. Eleazar ben Azariah in Rome: “Have you heard the four divisions of atonement that R. Ishmael expounds? B. He said to him, “There are only three, and repentance with each one.” C. If one transgressed a positive commandment and repented, he does not move from there until he is 159 The translation here is my own, referencing Lauterbach’s diction

in rending the Mekhilta. I have consulted the Soncino translation.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

125

forgiven. As it is said, “Return, O backsliding children” (Jer. 3:14). D. If one transgresses a negative commandment and repented, repentance suspends the matter and Yom Kippur atones, as it is stated, “For on this day he shall atone for you, from all your sins” (Lev. 16:30). E. If he committed sins that are punishable by karet or sins that are punishable by judicial execution, repentance and Yom Kippur suspend the matter, and suffering purges, as it is stated, “Then I will punish their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquity with plagues” (Psalm 89:33). F. But one who is guilty of desecration of the Name, repentance does not have the power to suspend the matter, nor Yom Kippur to atone, nor suffering to purge. Rather, all of them suspend the matter, and death purges, as it is stated, “And it was revealed in my ears by the Lord of Hosts, This sin will not be atoned for until you die” (Isaiah 22:14).

The relationship of these versions is complex and the table below attempts to clarify some of the issues: Mekh.

Tosefta

Yerushalmi

ARNA

Bavli

O

P

O

O

O

Location of narrative

Laodecia

―

Academy

Laodecia

Rome

Teaching in the name of / Question answered by

R. Eleazar haKappar

(simply) R. Ishmael

R. Eleazar b. Azariah

R. Ishmael b. Eleazar haKappar

R. Eleazar b. Azariah

4 passages presented first together, then expounded

O

P

O

O

P

Number of categories in teacher’s reply

4

4

3 or 4*

3

3

Mattia b. Heresh poses the question (narrative)

126

Midrash and Legend

Mekh.

Tosefta

Yerushalmi

ARNA

Bavli

5th proof text appended

O

P

P

P

P

Concept of partial atonement (versus suspending)

O

O

O

P

P

* Regarding the number of distinctions of repentance, the Yerushalmi says “there are three besides repentance”; ARNA and the Bavli say “there are three and repentance is needed with each one.” The structure of the argument remains fourfold in each case, despite this difference.

On the basis of the narrative framework, we would group Mekhilta and ARNA into a family, and Yerushalmi and Bavli into a family. However on the logic of their treatment of the subject matter regarding repentance, we would group the Mekhilta, Yerushalmi, and ARNA together; Tosefta and the Bavli together. The former group finds concepts to reconcile problems among texts, whereas the latter provides proof texts to justify a set of concepts. Tractate BaḤodesh chapter 10, to Exodus 20:20 (Lauterbach: vol. 2 page 280, line 58 - page 282, line 86; Horowitz-Rabin: page 240, line 20 - page 241, line 13) A. Once [vhv rcf] Rabbi Eliezer was sick and the four elders, Rabbi Tarfon, Rabbi Joshua, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, and Rabbi Akiva, went in to visit him. B. Rabbi Tarfon then began, saying: Master, you are more precious to Israel than the globe of the sun, for the globe of the sun gives light only for this world, while you have given us light both for this world and for the world to come. C. Then Rabbi Joshua began, saying: Master, you are more precious to Israel than the days of rain, for rain gives life only for this world while you have given us life for this world and for the world to come.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

127

D. Then Rabbi Eleazar the son of Azariah began, saying: Master, you are more precious to Israel than father and mother. For father and mother bring a man into the life of this world, while you have brought us to the life of the world to come. 160 E. Then Rabbi Akiva began, saying: Precious are chastisements. F. Rabbi Eliezer then said to his disciples: Help me up. Rabbi Eliezer then sat up and said to him: Speak, Akiva. G. Akiva then said to him: Behold it says, “Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign; and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Chronicles 33:1-2), etc.161 And it also says, “These also are the proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out” (Proverbs 25:1). And could the thought enter your mind that Hezekiah king of Judah taught the Torah to all Israel, and to his son Manasseh he did not teach the Torah? You must therefore say that all the instruction which he gave him and all the trouble which he took with him did not affect Manasseh at all. H. And what did have effect on him? You must say: chastisements. For it is said: “And the Lord spoke to Manasseh, and to his people, but they gave no heed. Wherefore the Lord brought upon them the 160 cp. m. Bava Metzi’ah 2:11. If a man must decide whether first to recover his father’s lost property or his teacher’s, he give priority to his teacher, “for his father brought him into this world, but his master who taught him wisdom brings him into the life of the world to come.” 161 “Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem. He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to the abominable practices of the nations whom the LORD drove out before the people of Israel. For he rebuilt the high places which his father Hezekiah had broken down, and erected altars to the Baals, and made Asherahs, and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served them … Manasseh seduced Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that they did more evil than the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the people of Israel” (2 Chronicles 33:1-3,9 RSV).

128

Midrash and Legend captains of the host of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, and bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon. And when he was in distress, he besought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. And he prayed to Him; and He was entreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom” (2 Chronicles 33:10-13). Thus you learn that chastisements are very precious.162

The Mekhiltan version is duplicated nearly word for word (including the preceding context of lessons about suffering) in Sifre Deuteronomy. Sifre Deuteronomy piska 32 (Va’Ethanan piska 7), to Deut. 6:5 [Bolded text indicates phrases present in both the Mekhilta and Sifre Deuteronomy. Bracketed text indicates phrases present in the Mekhilta, not present in Sifre Deuteronomy. Plain text is material present only in Sifre Deuteronomy, not present in the Mekhilta.] A'. Once [vhv rcfu] Rabbi Eliezer was sick and [the four elders,] Rabbi Tarfon, Rabbi Joshua, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, and Rabbi Akiva, went in to visit him. B'. Rabbi Tarfon then began, saying: Master, you are more precious to Israel than the globe of the sun, for the globe of the sun gives light only for this world, while you have given us light both for this world and for the world to come. C'. Then Rabbi Joshua began, saying: Master, you are more precious to Israel than the days of rain, for rain gives life only for this world while you have given us life for this world and for the world to come. 162 The bulk of this anecdote is missing from the printed editions,

which contain our narrative introduction up to “Rabbi Tarfon then began saying: Master, you are more precious to Israel than the globe of the sun” and then conclude, “Thus you learn that chastisements are very precious.” Probably a copyist at some point expected the reader to be able to supply the rest of the anecdote from memory, relying on the Bavli.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

129

D'. Then Rabbi Eleazar the son of Azariah began, saying: Master, you are more precious to Israel than father and mother. For father and mother bring a man into [the life of] this world, while you have brought us to [the life of] the world to come. E'. Then Rabbi Akiva began, saying: Precious are chastisements. F'. Rabbi Eliezer then said to his disciples: Help me up. Rabbi Eliezer then sat up and said to him: Speak, Akiva. G'. Akiva then said to him: Behold it says, “Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign; and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem. [And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord]” (2 Chronicles 33:1-2), etc. And it also says, “These also are the proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out” (Proverbs 25:1). And could the thought enter your mind that Hezekiah king of Judah taught the Torah to [all] Israel, and to his son Manasseh he did not teach the Torah? Rather, [you must therefore say that] all the instruction which he gave him and all the trouble which he took with him did not affect him [Manasseh] at all, but only chastisements. H'. [And what did have effect on him? You must say: chastisements.] For it is said: “And the Lord spoke to Manasseh, and to his people, but they gave no heed. Wherefore the Lord brought upon them the captains of the host of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, and bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon. And when he was in distress, he besought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. And he prayed to Him; and He was entreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom” (2 Chronicles 33:10-13). [Thus you learn that] chastisements are precious.

It is clear that these two versions are virtually identical to the extent that one must copy the other or both a common written source. Both fit well in their current contexts so that it is

130

Midrash and Legend

impossible to judge their relationship on that account. But rather than invent a hypothetical common source, since I must choose one, I find that the Mekhilta’s version can better be explained as minimally glossing Sifre’s, rather than seeing Sifre as arbitrarily dropping certain phrases. I am also more confident that the Bavli was aware of traditions in Sifre than of traditions in the Mekhilta, based on what we have seen elsewhere. The story juxtaposes the flattery of the other elders with the more profound wisdom of R. Akiva. In the context of the Mekhilta, the inclusion of this story is prompted by a general context of teachings regarding sufferings as disciplines sent by God. The teaching of R. Akiva fits, anthologically, into this context, and the narrative adds interest and authority to his lesson. A number of sayings have the refrain “Precious are chastisements,” which appears also in our anecdote. A parallel is found at Sanhedrin 101a, which belongs to a genre of stories concerning Sages lying ill or on their deathbeds.163 In some such passages, the sage expresses his apprehension of things to come. In others, disciples offer comfort and the sage singles out one of the disciples. b. Sanhedrin 101 (a-b)164 [Previous context:] [Rabah bar bar Hanah said, When R. Eliezer took ill (rzghkt 'r vkjaf) his students came to visit him. He said to them, “There is powerful anger in the world!” They began to weep, but Rabbi Akiva was laughing. They said to him, “Why do you laugh?” He said to them, “Why are you weeping?” They said to him, “Is it possible that a Torah scroll should be in distress and we would not weep?” He said to them, “That is why I am laughing! As long as I saw my master, and his wine would not spoil, and his flax would not be smitten, and his oil would not turn rancid, 163 The Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 5a-b, has a string of passages about sufferings as a divine discipline of love, which includes several sickbed accounts: of R. Hiyya bar Abba, R. Yohanan, and R. Eliezer (a different story than our account above). Sanhedrin 68a contains another deathbed account concerning R. Eliezer and his disciples in which Akiva figures prominently and in which R. Eliezer is the major speaker (in contrast to our account above). 164 Soncino translation, adapted.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

131

and his honey would not spoil, I said to myself, “Perhaps, God forbid, my master has already received his reward in this world. But now that I see my master in distress, I rejoice. (Rabbi Eliezer) said to him, “Akiva, is there anything I have failed to perform from the entire Torah?” He said to him, “Our master has taught us, “For there is not a righteous man on earth who has done good and never sinned” (Ecclesiastes 7:20).] A. Our rabbis taught: When Rabbi Eliezer took ill [vkjaf rzghkt 'r], four elders came in to visit him.165 Rabbi Tarfon, and Rabbi Joshua, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rabbi Akiva. B. Rabbi Tarfon spoke up and said, “You are better for Israel than a drop of rain, for a drop of rain is beneficial in this world, but my master benefits us in this world and in the world to come.” C. Rabbi Joshua spoke up and said, “You are better for Israel than the globe of the sun, for the globe of the sun provides light in this world, but my master provides light in this world and in the world to come. D. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah spoke up and said, “You are better for Israel than a father and mother, for a father and mother are for this world, but my master is for this world and into the world to come. E. Rabbi Akiva spoke up and said, “Precious are sufferings.” F. [Rabbi Eliezer] said to them, “Support me, that I may hear the words of Akiva my student, who said, ‘Precious are sufferings.’ He said to him, “Akiva, from whence do you learn this?” G. He said, “I expound a biblical verse, ‘Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem … and he did evil in the eyes of the Lord’ (2 Chronicles 33:1-2). And it is written, ‘These, too, are the proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, King of Judah, archived’ (Proverbs 25:1). Would Hezekiah, 165 This phrase is the one place where the Bavli agrees with the

Mekhilta against Sifre Deut. in this story.

132

Midrash and Legend King of Judah, have taught Torah to the entire world, and not teach Torah to his own son? Rather, all the trouble he undertook for him, and all the effort he invested in him, did not elevate him to goodness, but only suffering. H. As it is said, ‘And the Lord spoke to Manasseh and to his people, but they did not pay heed. So the Lord brought upon them the commanders of the King of Assyria, and they captured Manasseh with hooks, bound him with copper fetters, and transported him to Babylon’ (2 Chronicles 33:10-11). And it is written, ‘And when Manasseh was in distress he entreated the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and he prayed to him, and He was entreated by him and heard his supplication, and returned him to Jerusalem, to his kingdom; then Manasseh knew that the Lord is God’ (2 Chronicles 33:12-13). Thus you learn that sufferings are precious.

This story is related to its context by the general theme of sickness and healing. Compared to the tradition represented by Mekhilta and Sifre, the Bavli retains the order in which disciples speak, but the actual speeches of R. Tarfon and R. Eleazar b. Azariah are transposed. The Bavli adds a few more narrative details: “[Rabbi Eliezer] said to them, “Support me, that I may hear the words of Akiva my student, who said, ‘Precious are sufferings.’ He said to him, “Akiva, from whence do you learn this?” He said, “I expound a biblical verse …” Despite the fact that the Bavli makes many different word choices in its telling of this story, there is enough identical material that mere conventions of language and a similar plot line would not be enough to account for the similarities. The Bavli must have known the version in Mekhilta/Sifre or have a common source. It seems likely that the Bavli slightly expands the tradition of Mekhilta/Sifre.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

133

Tractate Nezikin chapter 18, to Exodus 22:23 (Lauterbach: vol. 3 page 141, line 54 - page 143, line 73; Horowitz-Rabin: page 313, line 5 - line 15) A. “If thou afflict in any wise” (Exodus 22:23).166 Whether by a severe affliction or a light affliction. Another interpretation: “If thou afflict in any wise.” This tells us that one becomes guilty of oppression only after he has repeated the act.167 At the time when [rcf vhv] R. Simeon and R. Ishmael were led out to be killed, R. Simeon said to R. Ishmael: Master, my heart fails me, for I do not know why I am to be killed. R. Ishmael said to him: Did it never happen in your life that a man came to you for a judgment or with a question and you let him wait until you had sipped your cup, or had tied your sandals, or had put on your cloak? And the Torah has said: “If thou afflict in any wise,” whether it be a severe affliction or a light affliction. Whereupon R. Simeon said to him: You have comforted me, Master.”

Another anecdote follows immediately in context. B. When R. Simeon and R. Ishmael were killed [udrvbafu], R. Akiva said to his disciples: Be prepared for trouble. For, if something good had been destined to come upon our generation, R. Simeon and R. Ishmael―and none else― would have been the first ones to receive it. Now then, it must, therefore, be that these two men have been taken from our midst only because it is revealed before Him by whose word the world came into being that great suffering is destined to come upon our generation. This confirms what has been said: 166 “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were

strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you do afflict them [vbg, vbg ot], and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry; and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless” (Exodus 22:21-24, RSV). 167 The midrash is attempting to account for the apparently redundant use of the verb of the phrase, “if you do afflict them [vbg ot vbg,].” The apparent redundancy is here explained as indicating that repetitive abuse brings greater punishment.

134

Midrash and Legend “The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart, and godly men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come” (Isa. 57:1). And it also says: “He entereth into peace, they rest in their beds, each one that walketh in his uprightness” (Isa. 57:2). And then, “But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the harlot” (Isa. 57:3).

There are many stories of Sages and their martyrdom, particularly regarding the Hadrianic persecutions.168 It is common for the sage to wonder why he has been arrested or sentenced, and be comforted by another sage. For the sage in distress, the threat to faith is more disturbing than the threat to life. The exegetical method of the passage is ribui―the apparently redundant use of the verb “to afflict” indicates that the verses’ warnings apply to a judge who afflicts widows and orphans in any manner whatsoever. The first anecdote is imported because of the exegetical lesson imbedded in it. R. Ishmael (in the anecdote) reiterates the interpretation already offered by the Mekhilta in its own voice. The second anecdote is imported, associatively, in the wake of the first anecdote. There are parallels in Avot deRabbi Nathan (A) chapter 38, Avot deRabbi Nathan (B) chapter 41, and Semahot at chapter 8 (47a). Semahot 47a169 Italics indicate phrases used by Semahot which also appear in the Mekhilta. B'. Thus he [Samuel the Small] spoke at the time of his death, “Simeon and Ishmael are destined for the sword and the rest of the people for spoilation; great distress will befall after them.” He uttered these words in Aramaic. When R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Ishmael came [to be tried―utcafu], it was decreed against them that they should be put to death. Whereupon R. 168 e.g., b. Avodah Zarah 10b ff., 17a ff.; b. Berakhot 61b; b. Ta’anit

29a; Tanhuma (Warsaw) Ki Tavo chapter 2; Tanhuma (Buber) Ki Tavo chapter 4. 169 Presented here in the Soncino translation.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

135

Ishmael broke into tears; and R. Simeon said to him, “Avrekh, why do you weep? Two steps more and you will be in the bosom of the righteous, and yet you weep!” He replied, “Do I then weep because we are about to be executed? It is because we are about to be executed as murderers and desecrators of the Sabbath are.” He said to him, “Perhaps you were having a meal or sleeping when a woman came to ask [a ruling] concerning her ritual impurity or her cleanness, and your servant told her that you were asleep. And the Torah states, “You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict them in any way―for if they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry” (Exodus 22:21-23). And what is written after this? “My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword” (Exodus 22:24). Some say that it was R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who was weeping, and R. Ishmael who answered him in these words. A'. When R. Simeon and R. Ishmael were executed, and the report reached R. Akiva and R. Judah b. Baba, they arose, girded their loins with sackcloth, rent their garments and exclaimed, “Our brother Israelites, if good were destined to come to the world, at first none would receive it but R. Simeon and R. Ishmael; but now that it is revealed before Him who spoke and the universe came into being that eventually great punishments will come upon the world, they have consequently been taken out of the world, “The

righteous perisheth, and no man layeth in to heart,” and it says, “He entereth into peace, they rest in their beds” (Isa. 57:1-2).

These stories are told so differently in each version that the close verbal similarities which appear in the speech of R. Akiva are most surprising. The sequence of the two passages has been transposed, obviously. In this version it is R. Ishmael who weeps and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who comforts. Story “A” contains actual phrases in common, whereas story “B” has no phrases but scriptural phrases in common. So the similarities in “B” can be explained by a general outline of the story being known in common, but in “A” we have a case for Semahot knowing the story in our Mekhilta. The stimulus for the inclusion of the story in Semahot is a discussion of the different kinds of mourning due to

136

Midrash and Legend

people of different social stature, and the great mourning that surrounded the death of R. Gamaliel. In Avot deRabbi Natan (A) Akiva will drop out of the narrative and with him the explicit midrashic connections to Isaiah 57. In this version, R. Ishmael does not quote Exodus 22 (nor does R. Simeon) but the connection is made by the narrator at the conclusion. Avot deRabbi Nathan (A) 38170 B'. When they seized [uap,af] Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Ishmael and led them to execution, Rabban Simeon was perplexed in his mind and said, Woe to us that we are to be put to death like desecrators of the Sabbath, or idolaters, or immoral persons, or murderers.’ R. Ishmael b. Elisha said to him, ‘May I say a word to you?’ He said, ‘Speak’; and R. Ishmael said, ‘Perhaps when you were sitting down to a meal, poor persons came and stood at your door, and you did not allow them to enter and eat with you.’ Rabban Simeon replied, ‘I swear by Heaven that I never did so; but I set watchers who sat at the door, and when poor persons came they brought them to me and they ate and drank with me, and blessed Heaven’s name.’ Then R. Ishmael said, ‘Perhaps when you were sitting and expounding on the Temple mount, and all the multitudes of Israel were sitting before you, your mind was puffed up.171 Rabban Simeon answered, ‘Ishmael, my brother, a man must be prepared to accept his fate.’ C'. They both pleaded with the executioner; one said, ‘I am a priest, son of a High Priest; put me to death first so that I do not witness the death of my colleague.’ The other said, ‘I am a prince, the son of a prince; put me to death first so that I do not witness the death of my colleague.’ The executioner said, ‘Draw lots.’ They did so, and the lot fell upon Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. The executioner took the sword and cut off his head. R. Ishmael b. Elisha took it up, held it to his bosom, wept and exclaimed, ‘Holy mouth, faithful mouth! Holy 170 Presented here in the Soncino translation. 171 Porton renders this, ‘you became over bearing’ [lhkg l,gs vjz].

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

137

mouth, faithful mouth! Mouth that gave forth beautiful gems, precious stones and pearls! Who has buried you in the dust and filled your tongue with dust and ashes? Concerning you was it stated [rnut cu,fv lhkg], Awake O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is near unto Me’ (Zech. 13:7). He had not yet finished his words when they took the sword and cut off his head. Of them Scripture states, ‘My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless’ (Exodus 22:23).

There are no common phrases here at all between ARNA and the Mekhilta, and only one between ARNA and Semahot―R. Ishmael’s despondency that he is to be executed “as murders and desecrators of the Sabbath are.” Avot deRabbi Nathan (B) 41172 This version has a very close relationship both to Semahot and to ARNA. B'. A story is told ['c vagn] of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and Rabbi Ishmael. When they were going out to be executed, and Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel was crying. Rabbi Ishmael said to him, “Rabbi, why are you crying? Won’t you be at the side of your ancestors in a couple of more steps?” He replied, “Did you imagine that I am crying because I shall not have a few more years?” Rabbi Ishmael said, “Scripture says: ‘Sweet is the sleep of a laborer, whether he eats little or much’” (Ecclesiastes 5:11). Rabbi Simeon said, “Should I not cry when I am going out to be executed like an idolater, like the unchaste, like shedders of blood, like Sabbath breakers?” Rabbi Ishmael said to him, “Is it for no reason? During your life did not a woman come to you to ask you about her menstrual 172 Presented here in the translation of Anthony Saldarini, The Fathers

According to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi Nathan) version B: A Translation and Commentary (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975), ad loc. Where Schechter offers corrections to the manuscript reading I have accepted his corrections as the textual basis for this treatment. I also referred to the translation and comments of Gary Porton, The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael, vol. II (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982), 131-33.

138

Midrash and Legend uncleanness or a man about his vow and you were sleeping or eating; or perhaps that time was not free or perhaps the servant did not let him enter.” He replied, “Whether I was sleeping or eating the servant was instructed not to prevent any man from entering.” He continued, “And yet it was not without reason? Once I was sitting and some people were standing around me [for judgment], and I swelled with pride.” Rabbi Ishmael said, “We deserve to go forth to execution.” C'. The executioner came to chop off the head of Rabban Simeon. Rabbi Ishmael said to him, “That is not right. I am greater than he. Come and chop off my head first.” The executioner asked, “In what are you greater than he?” He answered, “I am a High Priest, son of a High Priest.” The executioner came to chop off Rabbi Ishmael’s head. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said to him, “That is not right. I am greater than he.” The executioner asked, “In what are you greater than he?” He answered, “I am a prince, the son a prince.” The executioner came and chopped off the head of Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel. Rabbi Ishmael embraced and kissed it and wept, saying, “This is the mouth which labored at Torah, and now it is full of sand, as Scripture says, ‘He has made my teeth grind on gravel, and made me cower in ashes…’” (Lamentations 3:16). The executioner came immediately and chopped off the head of Rabbi Ishmael, in fulfillment of what Scripture says [rntba uhkg ohhek],173 “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me, says the Lord of hosts” (Zechariah 13:7).

Gary Porton comments that to him it is clear that Semahot represents the latest version, incorporating the references to a 173 This is the first time we have encountered this kind of fulfillment

phrase, so common in the gospels, in a rabbinic anecdote. To the best of my knowledge, it does not occur elsewhere in this sense. The phrase “rntba vn ohhek” appears in several places in the Mekhilta, with the meaning that one scriptural passage reveals the implicit but esoteric meaning of another. For example, see below, Pisha chapter 16 to Exod. 13:1 (p. 47). Cp. also Sifra BeHukotai perek 1 to Lev. 26:4, treated below (p. 286).

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

139

woman coming to inquire about her menstrual blood, and feasting and sleeping, all from ARNB. The speech of R. Akiva, in his view, is incorporated from the Mekhilta.174 Tractate Kaspa chapter 3 to Exodus 23:7 (Lauterbach: vol. 3 page 170, line 31 - page 171, line 41; Horowitz-Rabin: page 327, line 11 - line 17) A. … “And the innocent and righteous slay thou not” (Exodus 23:7).175 Once Simeon the son of Shetah sentenced to death [drv rcf] one false witness against whom an alibi had been established. Judah b. Tabbai then said to him: May I not live to see consolation if you did not shed innocent blood. For the Torah said: You may sentence to death on the evidence of witnesses, and also, you may sentence witnesses to death on the basis of an alibi. Just as there must be two witnesses giving evidence, so also must there be two against whom an alibi is established.

Another anecdote follows immediately in context. B. And once Judah b. Tabbai entered [xbfb rcfu] a ruin and found a slain man still writhing, and a sword still dripping blood was in the hand of the slayer. Said Judah b. Tabbai to him, May judgment come upon me if it be not true that either I or you killed him. However, what can I do since the Torah has said: “By the mouth of two witnesses … shall a matter be established”? (Deut. 19:15)176 But He who knows 174 Porton, Ishmael, op. cit., vol. 2 p. 133. 175 “Keep far from a false charge, and do not slay the innocent and

righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.” (Exodus 23:7, RSV) 176 “A single witness shall not prevail against a man for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed; only on the evidence of two witnesses, or of three witnesses, shall a charge be sustained. If a malicious witness rises against any man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days; the judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. And the rest shall hear, and fear, and shall never again commit any such

140

Midrash and Legend everything and is acquainted with all thoughts, will exact punishment of that man. Hardly had he come out when a serpent bit him and he died.”

I am quite surprised that these stories are not introduced by the formula “'c vagn” (given the number of instances in the Mekhilta where that formula is used), because each is really quite a classic instance of the case-example form, perfectly illustrating the exegetical point at hand. There are parallel passages to the first anecdote at t. Sanhedrin 6:6; b. Hagigah 16b; and b. Makkot 5b. There are parallel passages to the second anecdote at t. Sanhedrin 8:3; y. Sanhedrin 4:11; and b. Sanhedrin 37b. t. Sanhedrin 6:6 Phrases in italics appear also in the Mekhiltan account: The witnesses are never declared to be perjurers before the trial is over. They are not flogged, nor do they pay compensation, nor are they put to death until the trial is over. One witness alone is not declared a perjurer, unless the other one also is declared a perjurer. And one is not flogged, put to death, or required to pay compensation, unless both of them are required to undergo flogging, be put to death, or to pay compensation. Said R. Judah b. Tabbai, “May I not see consolation, if I did not put to death a single perjured witness. But this was in order to uproot from the heart of the Boethusians the position which they stated, that [a perjured witness could not be put to death] until after the person whom he had accused had actually been executed. Said to him Simeon b. Shetah, “May I not see consolation, if you have not shed innocent blood. For lo, the Torah has said, ‘On the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is to die be put to death’ (Deut. 17:6).177 Just as the witnesses must be two, so the witnesses who are proved to be perjured must be two.” At evil among you. Your eye shall not pity; it shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deuteronomy 19:15-21, RSV). 177 “On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses he that is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness” (Deuteronomy 17:6, RSV).

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

141

that moment Judah b. Tabbai agreed never to give a legal ruling except in accord with Simeon b. Shetah.”

This version transposes the actors from what we find in the Mekhilta―Simeon b. Shetah is correcting R. Judah b. Tabbai on the same point of law. t. Sanhedrin 8:3 [The introductory context explains that witnesses were instructed that circumstantial evidence was not admissible as testimony.] … so that witnesses should not say, “We saw him running after his fellow, with a sword in his hand. He ran in front of him into a shop, and then the other went after him in the store. We went in after them and found the victim slain on the floor, with a knife in the hand of the murderer, dripping blood. Now lest you say, “If not you, then who killed him?”—said Simeon b. Shetah, “May I not see consolation, if I did not see someone run after his fellow, with a sword in his hand, and he went before him into a ruin, and he ran in after him, and then I came in right after him, and found the slain, with a knife in the hand of the murderer, dripping blood, and I said to him, ‘You evil person! Who killed this one? May I not see consolation if I did not see him. Either you killed him or I did! But what can I do to you? For your case is not handed over to me. For lo, the Torah has said, “At the testimony of two witnesses or at the testimony of three witnesses shall he who is on trial for his life be put to death” (Deut. 17:6). But he who knows the thoughts of man will exact punishment from that man.’ He did not move from the spot before a snake bit him and he died.”

The speech of Simeon b. Shetah here involves some identical phrases with the speech attributed to Judah b. Tabbai in the Mekhilta. Otherwise the versions involve a similarly structured telling of the story, but Mekhilta tells it in the third person about Judah b. Tabbai and in this Tosefta account Simeon b. Shetah speaks for himself.

142

Midrash and Legend y. Sanhedrin 4:9 What is considered “supposition?” So that they should not say, “We saw him running after his fellow, with a sword in his hand. He ran in front of him into a ruin, and then the other went after him into the ruin. We went in after them and found the victim slain. We saw him leaving with a knife in his hand, dripping blood. Now lest you say, “If not, then who killed him”—said Simeon b. Shetah, “May I not see consolation if I did not see someone run after his fellow, and he went before him into a ruin, and he ran after him, and then I came in right after him, and found the slain, and this one was leaving with a knife in the hand of the murderer, dripping blood, and I said to him, ‘May I not see consolation if you did not kill him! But what can I do to you? For your blood is not handed over to me. But he who knows the thoughts of man will exact punishment from that man.’ He did not move from the spot before a snake bit him, and he died.

This is derivative from Tosefta, clearly. The versions of the story in the Babylonian Talmud will also agree with the Tosefta against the Mekhilta. b. Hagigah 16b Who taught the following teaching of our Rabbis? R. Judah b. Tabbai said, “May I not see consolation, if I did not have a perjuring witness put to death as a demonstration against the Sadducees, who said the perjuring witnesses were not to be put to death unless the accused had been put to death. Said Simeon b. Shetah to him, “May I not see consolation, if thou didst not shed innocent blood. For the Sages said: Perjuring witnesses are not put to death until both of them have been proved perjurers; and they are not flogged until both of them have been proved perjurers, and they are not ordered to pay money until both of them have been proved perjurers. Forthwith Judah b. Tabbai undertook never to give a decision except in the presence of Simeon b. Shetah. All his days Judah b. Tabbai prostrated himself on the grave of the executed man, and his voice used to be heard. The people believed that it was the voice of the executed man; but

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

143

he said to them: “It is my voice. Ye shall know this on the morrow after I die, my voice will not be heard.” R. Aha the son of Rava said to R. Ashi: But perhaps he appeased him, or summoned him to judgment! According to whom will this be? Granted, if you say R. Meir, who said that Simeon b. Shetah was Head of the Court and R. Judah b. Tabbai was Prince, that is why he decided points of law in the presence of Simeon b. Shetah; but if you say the Rabbis, who say that Judah b. Tabbai was Head of the Court and Simeon b. Shetah was Prince, how may the Head of the Court decide points of law in the presence of the Prince! No, ‘he undertook’ is to be understood with reference to association. “I will not even join [in an opinion against Simeon b. Shetah].”178

Here we see a possible explanation about why one version of the story might reverse the roles of R. Judah b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah as found in another version. The tradition was confused as to which figure was nasi and which was av beyt din. b. Makkot 5b It has been taught [thb,]: R. Judah b. Tabbai said: ‘May I [never] see consolation if I did not have one perjuring-witness executed to disabuse the mind of the Sadducees, who used to say that perjurers were put to death only after the [falsely] accused person had [actually] been executed.’ Said Simeon b. Shetah to him: ‘May I [never] see consolation if you have not shed innocent blood, because the Sages declared that witnesses found to be perjurers are not put to death until both have been proved as such, and are not flogged until both have been proved as such.’ Forthwith did Judah b. Tabbai take upon himself a resolve never to deliver a decision save in the presence of Simeon b. Shetah. And all through his [remaining] days, Judah b. Tabbai used to go and prostrate himself on the grave of that [slain] witness, and his voice would be heard and people thought that it was the voice of the slain man; but he would tell them, ‘It is my voice! You will be convinced when on the morrow of this 178 Soncino translation.

144

Midrash and Legend man’s [his own] death his voice will be heard no more’. Said R. Aha, the son of Rava, to R. Ashi: He might perhaps have answered the summons of the deceased, or else he might have obtained his forgiveness.179

b. Sanhedrin 37b Our Rabbis taught [ibcr ub,]: What is meant by conjecture?―He [the judge] says to them: Perhaps ye saw him running after his fellow into a ruin, ye pursued him, and found him sword in hand with blood dripping from it, whilst the murdered man was writhing [in agony]: If this is what ye saw, ye saw nothing. It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Shetah said: May I never see comfort if I did not see a man pursuing his fellow into a ruin, and when I ran after him and saw him, sword in hand with blood dripping from it, and the murdered man writhing, I exclaimed to him: Wicked man, who slew this man? It is either you or I! But what can I do, since thy blood [i.e., life] does not rest in my hands, for it is written in the Torah, “At the mouth of two witnesses … shall he that is to die be put to death”? May he who knows one’s thoughts exact vengeance from him who slew his fellow! It is related that before they moved from the place a serpent came and bit him [the murderer] so that he died.180

Tractate Shabbeta chapter 1, to Exodus 31:13 (Lauterbach: vol. 3 page 197, line 7 - page 199, line 30; Horowitz-Rabin: page 340, line 5 - page 341, line 1) A. Once [vhv rcf] R. Ishmael, R. Eleazar b. Azariah and R. Akiva were walking along the road followed by Levi the net maker and Ishmael the son of R. Eleazar b. Azariah. B. And the following question was discussed by them:181 Whence do we know that the duty of saving life supersedes the Sabbath laws?182

179 Soncino translation, with some alterations. 180 Soncino translation. 181 Literally, “And this question was asked in their presence … ”

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

145

C. R. Ishmael, answering the question, said: Behold it says: “If a thief be found breaking in” (Exodus 22:1), etc.183 Now of what case does the law speak? Of a case when there is a doubt whether the burglar came merely to steal or even to kill. Now by using the method of kal vahomer, it is to be reasoned: Even shedding of blood, which defiles the land and causes the Shekhinah to depart, is to supersede the laws of the Sabbath if it is to be done in protection of one’s life. How much more should the duty of saving life supersede the Sabbath laws! D. R. Eleazar answering the question, said: If regarding circumcision, which affects only one member of the body, one is to disregard the Sabbath laws, how much more should one do for the whole body when it is in danger! But they said to him: From the instance cited by you it would also follow that just as there the Sabbath is to be disregarded only in a case of certainty, so also here the Sabbath is to be disregarded only in a case of certainty. E. R. Akiva says: If punishment for murder sets aside even the Temple service, which in turn supersedes the Sabbath, how much more should the duty of saving life supersede the Sabbath laws! F. [The argument of the passage continues though the narrative has concluded, or rather, ended without conclusion.] G. R. Yose the Galilean says: When it says “But my Sabbaths ye shall keep” (Exod. 31:13),184 the word 182 The discussion searches for biblical support of the alreadyaccepted principle. Compare t. Shabbat 10:14―“All laws are suspended for the sake of saving life except for the prohibitions of idolatry, incest, and the shedding of blood” (same teaching is found at b. Ketubbot 19a and b. Yoma 82a). 183 “If a thief is found breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him; but if the sun has risen upon him, there shall be bloodguilt for him” (Exodus 22:1-2, RSV). 184 And the LORD said to Moses, “Say to the people of Israel, `You shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you. You

146

Midrash and Legend “but” [lt] implies a distinction. There are Sabbaths on which you must rest and there are Sabbaths on which you should not rest. H. R. Simeon b. Menasia says: Behold it says, “And ye shall keep the Sabbath for it is holy unto you” (Exod. 31:14). This means: The Sabbath is given [vruxn] to you but you are not given over [ihruxn] to the Sabbath. I. R. Nathan says: Behold it says, “Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations” (Exod. 31:16). This implies that we should violate one Sabbath so that a person may be able to observe many Sabbaths.

The narrative context is completely irrelevant to the content of the discussion. It is an academy discussion set in a walk along the road. It is curious to me why Levi the net maker and Ishmael b. R. Eliezer are mentioned in the introduction but do not speak. Parallels occur at t. Shabbat 15:16 and Yoma 85a-b. In t. Shabbat 15:16, a similar halakhic discussion appears, with attributions in some cases to the same authorities, but without the narrative context. It seems most likely that the narrative setting in the Mekhilta is gratuitous, to heighten the reader’s interest. The anecdote fits in its context in the Mekhilta because it climaxes with an interpretation of the base verse (Exodus 31:14). The Toseftan version begins with this verse, and I am surprised that our Mekhilta does not prefer that arrangement, as it usually does.

shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you; every one who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed’“ (Exodus 31:12-17, RSV).

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael t. Shabbat 15:16-17 (16:13-14 in printed editions) A. Said R. Yose, “How do we know that danger to life overrides the restrictions of the Sabbath? Since it says, ‘But my Sabbaths you should observe’ (Exodus 31:13). B. “One might think that circumcision or Temple service or danger to life [are subject to the prohibitions of the Sabbath], except that Scripture says ‘but’ as a way of imposing a distinction. There are times that you must rest on the Sabbath, and times that you must not rest on the Sabbath.” C. R. Liezer says, “As to circumcision, on account of which they override the prohibitions of the Sabbath, why is this so? It is because they are liable to extirpation if it is not done on time. Now lo, the matter yields an argument a fortiori: Now if on account of a single limb of a person, they override the prohibitions of the Sabbath, is it not logical that one should override the prohibitions of the Sabbath on account of the whole of him?” D. They said to him, “From the very place from which you bring proof, we shall refute you. Now just as in that case one overrides the prohibitions of the Sabbath in case of certainty and not in case of doubt, should they override the prohibitions of the Sabbath in the saving of life?” E. Said R. Akiva, “Now in what regard did the Torah impose a more strict rule, in the case of the Temple service or in the case of the Sabbath? It was more strict in the case of the Temple service than in the case of the Sabbath. For the Temple service overrides the Sabbath, and the Sabbath does not override it. Now the matter yields an argument a fortiori: Now if the Temple service overrides the prohibitions of the Sabbath, and a matter of doubt concerning the safety of life overrides it, the Sabbath, which the Temple service overrides—all the more so should matters of doubt concerning the saving of life override it. Thus you have learned that a matter of doubt concerning the saving of life overrides the Sabbath.”

147

148

Midrash and Legend F. R. Aha says in the name of R. Akiva, “Lo, Scripture says, ‘If a thief is found breaking in …’ (Exod. 22:2). Now [the safety of] the householder―is it a matter of certainty or a matter of doubt? You must say that it is a matter of doubt. Now if they kill one person to save the life of another, whose life is subject only to doubt as to its safety, is it not logical that they should override the prohibitions of the Sabbath to save a life which is in doubt as to its safety.” Lo, the religious requirements were given over to Israel only so that they may live by them, since it says, “You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, by doing which a man shall live” (Lev. 18:5).185 To live by them and not to die by them.

The reader will note that where the Mekhilta has R. Eleazar b. Azariah, the Tosefta has R. (E)liezer. These names frequently exchange places in the transmission of texts.186 The Tosefta contains a very different outline and argument than the Mekhilta although there are some general similarities―associations of each argument with a certain proof text and a certain teacher. b. Yoma 85a A. Once [vhv rcf] R. Ishmael, R. Akiva, and R. Eleazar b. Azariah were traveling on the road with Levi the net maker and R. Ishmael the son of R. Eleazar b. Azariah following behind, and the following question was discussed by them: Whence do we know that the duty of saving life supersedes the Sabbath laws? B. R. Ishmael, answering the question, said, “If the thief is discovered while tunneling in …” (Exod. 22:1). Now if concerning this one, about whom there is doubt whether he came after money or after a life— and the shedding of blood contaminates the land and causes the Shekhinah to depart from Israel—it is permitted [for the householder] to save himself at the 185 “You shall do my ordinances and keep my statutes and walk in

them. I am the LORD your God. You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, by doing which a man shall live: I am the LORD” (Lev. 18:4-5, RSV). 186 See Jacob Neusner, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1973), introduction.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

149

cost of [the thief’s] life, how much more so does the duty of saving of life supersede the Sabbath laws! C. R. Akiva, answering the question, said, “If a man shall act intentionally against his fellow … from beside my altar [shall you take him]” (Exodus 21:14).187 “From beside my altar,” but not “from upon my altar.”188 (Rabah bar bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan, “This was taught only in regard to putting to death, but in order to save life, even from upon my altar.”) Now in this case, where it is questionable whether there is substance to his words or not, and the sacrificial service overrides the Sabbath, how much more so does the duty of saving life supersede the Sabbath laws! D. R. Eleazar, answering the question, said, “Now if for circumcision, which [benefits] just one of the person’s 248 members, one is to disregard the Sabbath laws, how much more does [that which benefits] his entire body supersede the Sabbath laws!” E. R. Yose the son of R. Judah says, “But my Sabbaths you shall keep” (Exodus 31:13). I might think this applies in every case, but Scripture says, “But” to make a distinction. R. Jonathan b. Joseph says, “For it is holy to you” (Exodus 31:14). It has been given to you, but you have not been given over to it. R. Simeon b. Menasia says, “The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath …” (Exodus 31:16). The Torah said: Violate one Sabbath so that a person may be able to observe many Sabbaths.189

This passage matches the Mekhilta exactly at most points, although it has expansions here and there such as in the teaching of 187 “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee. But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him treacherously, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die” (Exodus 21:12-14, RSV). 188 “If he has begun the service they do not interrupt him to bring him to judgment until he has finished his service” (Rashi). 189 Based on the Soncino translation, adapted to harmonize with Lauterbach’s Mekhilta translation where the Hebrew corresponds.

150

Midrash and Legend

R. Akiva. Within the narrative, attributions stay the same between the Mekhilta and the Bavli. When the narrative closes, the attributions diverge (R. Simeon b. Menasia n Mekhilta becomes R. Jonathan b. Joseph in the Bavli; R. Nathan becomes R. Simeon b. Menasia).190 I consider the version in the Bavli a direct descendant of the version in our Mekhilta―the Bavli’s version being nicely explained as a modest expansion of the Mekhiltan version.

FORMAL COMPARISON OF PARALLEL PASSAGES What follows is a series of tables helping to identify certain characteristic elements of these historical anecdotes found in the Mekhilta. For each anecdote I identify the anecdote “marker”―a rhetorical trope which marks the beginning of a passage and identifies it as an anecdote. We shall see if these markers are ever present in passages other than anecdotes in the Mekhilta. I mark the trope as “distinguishing” in the third column if the anecdote marker is not used for any non-anecdote in the Mekhilta. We will also identify tropes which bear the weight of the narrative (e.g. “he sat and expounded”) or determine the structure of the passage. The use of these tropes in tannaitic literature generally will be treated in the chapter that synthesizes our findings from each individual midrash collection.

190 At this point I considered including Tractate Shabbata chapter 1 (Lauterbach: page 204, line 112 - page 205, line 119; Horowitz-Rabin: page 343, line 15 - line 19). I rejected it because it describes general conditions but lacks the sequence of action necessary to be considered an anecdote. The passages is as follows: “It is a sign forever” (Exodus 31:17). This tells that the Sabbath will never be abolished in Israel. And so you find that anything to which the Israelites were devoted with their whole souls has been preserved among them. But anything to which the Israelites were not devoted with their whole souls has not been retained by them. Thus the Sabbath, circumcision, the study of Torah, and the ritual of immersion, for which the Israelites laid down their lives, have been retained by them. But such institutions as the Temple, civil courts, the sabbatical and jubilee years, to which the Israelites were not wholeheartedly devoted, have not been preserved among them.” This is a homiletical characterization of the religious persecutions which occurred in the land of Israel under Hadrian.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

151

TABLE III. FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ANECDOTES IN THE MEKHILTA DERABBI ISHMAEL

Text Starting Point

Anecdote Marker

Dist.

Other Tropes

Basic Form



ohrcsv in sjt uc tmuhf

List enumeration of examples

past tense - uk uc,f Pisha 14:64

Pisha 15:41

Pisha 15:126

coupled with reference to historical figure―here lknv hnk, past tense ubh,ucr ubnb vz kg coupled with reference to place name - suk

case citation - 'c vagn





?rntb vnk … thcvk

vagn tcu ohnfj hbpk … urntu v,un ouh sg

Simple Commentary using hucr [embedded case example] Case Example

rcs vn ofk vhv asj 'hcr lhrjt

Pisha 16:49

BeShallah 1:209

BeShallah 3:118

rcf + past tense here u,ca rcf 'af + past tense, here ukmt ohshnk,v utcafu

Name of historical figure here xubhbuybt coupled with tuva ohngp hnhc + name of historical figure - here xubhdruy





[vhv]a rapt X hcr oa ashj tku ?rcs ofk ars vz kkf iht k"t (!)asj rcs vz hbt hrv … vba 'g icf lhrat …ubhct ovrct ou,h rusv iht ufu,c X 'ra vn(u) rnuk sunk, v"cev … lf



vaukac … ,unuen

Academy Discussion one sage learns teaching of another from students

Parabolic Anecdote List enumeration of examples

152

Midrash and Legend

Text Starting Point

BeShallah 6:44

Anecdote Marker

Dist.

… 'r vhv rcf coupled with place name here vbchc lcua



Other Tropes vktab vkta ovhbpk uk urnt ubhcr ub,snk uk urnt ubsnk ubhcr hbkta,a sg …kg…kg vnk kan vnus rcsv

Basic Form

Academy Discussion master and students

Shirata 2:127

kta + name of historical figure here xubhbuybt and ausev hbhcr



Shirata 6:100

kta + name of historical figure here xubhbuybt and ausev hbhcr



ouen kfn

Sage answers Non-Jew



‫ה‬bgb

Academy Discussion master and students

… 'r vhv rcf(u) Shirata 9:34

Vayassa 1:57

Vayassa 1:93

coupled with 'arusu 'cauh vhv sjt ost + place name



… urnt

case citation - 'c vagn



sjt shnk, vzv rcsv …’'r hk jhxv uhvu … u,ut ihrue u,un ouh sg uk urnt uhshnk, uhvu … 'kg ohrnut …k vga ah …k vga ahu

Vayassa 4:74

… 'r vhv rcf coupled with 'cauh



hbukp(u) ovhbpk cauh h,n sg ccdn v,t !ubhkg thcnu tuv tren vru,v in rnut huv lapb vn vn …’'c rnut tuv

Sage answers Non-Jew

Parabolic Anecdote

Academy Discussion master and students

Academy Discussion among Sages

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

153

Text Starting Point

Amalek 1:47

Anecdote Marker

Dist.

Other Tropes

Basic Form



… utr vn thv lkn ,rhzd

Academy Discussion among Sages



…a snkn vzv rcs … 'r ars ubt iht … 'a ihsc ,jt kg vnfu vnf

Academy Discussion among Sages

vzv rcs …’r rnt and …’r ,t h,kta coupled with cauh vhva [tcr tc,unc] 'af + past tense

Amalek 3:223

coupled with name of sage here vsugx d"r vagaf coupled with 'cauh

Amalek 4:122

BaHodesh 1:17

BaHodesh 6:104

BaHodesh 7:17

BaHodesh 10:58

case citation - 'c vagn coupled with reference to 2nd Temple … 'r vhv rcf coupled with place-name

kta + name of sage here xupuxukp interviews d"r past tense + name of sage(s) here …’'r kmt …’'r lkv

 ,c vtmh vrntu … kue







…rnut 't cu,f unhhe,h smhf ukt ohcu,f # … rntb vz kg

coupled with place-name here theusk

Vkuj … 'r vhv rcf

ovk rnt uhshnk,k … h,hhv hnh kf euxpv vz true gsuh h,hhv tku … tuv vn of,ru,c ch,f ,htr vn k"t kan lk kuant vnus rcsv vnk

Case Example

Portent

Sage answers Non-Jew

Academy Discussion among Sages

…rnut tuv ifu v,t chcj …n ktrahk



(hhj)k … vzv okug (hhj)k … tcv okug … rnut huv… rntba … 'a ,snk tv

Sage in Sickbed

154

Midrash and Legend

Text Anecdote Marker

Starting Point Nezikin 18:54

Dist.

… 'r vhv rcf coupled with drvhk 'tmuh

Kaspa 3:31

Shabbeta 1:7



[also: udrvaf]

rcf + past tense + name of sage here drv rcf jya ic iugna



… 'r vhv rcf coupled with lrsc (ih)fkvn



Other Tropes gsuh hbt iht drvb vn kg hcr hb,njb ubhe,v … 'k ofnmg vnjbc vtrt …tk ot hkg tc, … tk ot ,ucajnv kgc grph tuv vkta vktabu ovhbpk uz … ihbn u"e … ot vnu

Basic Form

Martyrdom of Sage with appended Portent

Case Example

Academy Discussion among Sages

The next table presents essentially the same data as the previous table, but is organized by forms instead of passages. In the column “Mekhiltan Examples,” passages in brackets are not anecdotes treated above, but indicate other passages that use the same tropes. TABLE IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF FORMS EMPLOYED.

Basic Form Academy Discussion one sage learns teaching of another from his students

Typical Tropes (used in MRI) oa [vhv]a rapt ashj tku X hcr ?rcs ofk 'hcr lhrjt asj rcs vz iht k"t

Basic Outline I. Sage X asks students to relate teaching of Sage Y. II. They demur, he insists.

…vba 'g icf hbt hrv III. They relate ubhct ovrct lhrat teaching. …… IV. Sage X praises ou,h rusv iht Sage Y effusively. ufu,c …'ra

Mekhiltan Examples Pisha 16:49

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

Basic Form

Typical Tropes (used in MRI) …’ 'r vhv rcf [ouen oa+c]

Basic Outline

155

Mekhiltan Examples Vayassa 4:74 Amalek 1:47 [simpler form] Amalek 3:223 BaHodesh 7:17 [simpler form]

I. Sages are named II. Sage X proposes theory …’ 'ru… 'r vhv rcf III. Sage Y rebukes … 'r ars vzv rcs him IV. Sage X provides rnut tuv vn …’c proof V. Sage Y praises him … rnut tuv ifu ==== … rntb vz kg I. Sages are named … rnut sjt cu,f II. Sage X does something thv lkn ,rhzd III. Sage Y rebukes him rnut huv IV. Sage X provides unhhe,h smhf reason ukt ohcu,f # V. Sage Y praises him lapb vn ==== I. Sages are named … utr vn II. Sage X asks Sage …a snkn Y question vru,v in tuv tren III. Sage Y answers with proof text vnfu vnfu ,jt kg Academy … 'r vhv rcf I. Sage poses BeShallah 6:44 arusu cauh Discussion rhetorical questions Shirata 9:34 master and II. Students answer [simpler form] sjt shnk, vbgb students and sage refutes their Vayassa 1:93 ubhcr ub,snk uk urnt answers [students chided] ubsnk ubhcr uk urnt III. Students beg for correct answer uhshnk, uk urnt IV. Sage answers vkta ovhbpk vktab V. Students laud sage 'c vagn Case Example The case of … Pisha 15:126 The case came to Amalek 4:122 vagn tcu [authority] who urntu ohnfj hbpk Kaspa 3:31 … vrntu kue ,c vtmh declared … … Commentary Why is this said? To Pisha 15:41 thcvk … rntb vnk include the case of … (Ribui) [Nezikin 1:46] Academy Discussion among Sages

156

Basic Form List thematically related passages

Midrash and Legend Typical Tropes (used in MRI) ohrcsv in sjt uc tmuhf [can signal a vua vrhzd or a list]

List - warnings and fulfillments

… ,unuen vaukac

Martyrdom of Sage

… 'r 'tmuh udrvaf / drvhk [gsuh hbt iht drvb vn kg hcr hb,njb … 'k ofnmg ubhe,v

Parabolic Anecdote

rnuk sunk, vn(u) v"cev … lf … vhv sjt ost u,un ouh sg

Basic Outline This is one of those matters which … In like manner …

I. In three places … II. Quotation of three warnings “The first …” III. All three times … IV. Quotation of three fulfillments “The first …” V. All three times … Confident Martyr I. When X was led forth to be executed … II. Disciples weep, praise master III. Master consoles / declares portent IV. Heavenly voice or sign declares X to be in World to Come

Mekhiltan Examples Pisha 14:64 [Shirata 10:24] [many for uc tmuhf e.g.: Pisha 16:38 BeShallah 2:67 Shirata 6:10, etc.] BeShallah 3:118

Nezikin 18:54

Troubled Martyr I. When X was led forth … II. Master X weeps at his fate, or is confused by his fate III. Master Y explains or consoles IV. “You have comforted me …” I. What does BeShallah 1:209 Scripture mean? Vayassa 1:57 II. Story III. In the same way, God …

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

Basic Form Portent

Sage answers Non-Jew

Sage in Sickbed

Typical Tropes Basic Outline (used in MRI) uhshnk,k … ovk rnt I. Sage encounters object or event, asks vz true h,hhv hnh kf gsuh h,hhv tku euxpv question II. Exclaims … tuv vn declaration of woe, … 'k ofnmg ubhe,v with biblical proof texts vnus rcsv vnk kan I. Non-Jew poses … kg hbkta,a sg question II. Sage answers with parable …kg vkuj … 'r vhv rcf ktrahk v,t chcj …n … vzv okug (hhj)k … tcv okug (hhj)k

I. Disciples come to visit sage, names are given II. Disciples offer conventional words of comfort III. Disciple X offers surprising message IV. (Sage thanks Disciple X.)

157

Mekhiltan Examples BaHodesh 1:17 Nezikin 18:54

Shirata 2:127 Shirata 6:100 [atypical] BaHodesh 6:104 BaHodesh 10:58

In the following table we give the names of the documents which contain parallels to a Mekhiltan text, and then we identify the relationship of our text to the parallel passage. Some of these identifications will be quite speculative, others more firmly based―the notes on the individual passages above will make that clear. But the burden of making some decision even if tentative is a necessary part of this investigation. In these tables I am comparing forms of anecdotes and not entire documents. If we determine that in a certain instance the Talmud has an anecdote in a form that requires knowledge of an anecdote like that found in our Mekhilta to explain it, that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the redactors of our Talmud knew the Mekhilta as we have it. I think that in many cases the relationship of these small transmission units like anecdotes compared to the presumed relationships of larger documents will be surprising, but drawing conclusions on the significance of these occurrences will be deferred to a later chapter that accounts for all the relevant data. I identify a parallel as “P” if it appears to be a Parent to the Mekhilta’s version, which is to say the Mekhilta’s version can only be explained by reference to the “Parent.” “C” represents Child,

158

Midrash and Legend

the opposite relationship―the parallel depends on the Mekhiltan version. I use a caret “^” to indicate that two versions seem dependent on a common source for explanation. I use an “N” to mean “Does Not Know”―no relationship can be demonstrated other than that the source in question does not know our Mekhilta. If I think a relationship is quite firmly based, I make my symbol bold. I use a question mark to indicate where, in my opinion, there is no basis even to speculate about a relationship among versions of a story. This would be the case where the parallels are very general and there is not enough verbal similarity to indicate a common oral or written tradition. I should state the assumptions, based upon which I make these determinations. I tend to the opinion that: 1. A more polished rendition of a story (with more rhetorical flourishes) is later. 2. In aggadah, the Talmud is more likely to expand a passage than to compress it, therefore, if it “drops” details I tend to think they were not known. 3. If the Talmud wishes us to understand that it is quoting from a tannaitic collection outside the Mishnah, we can presume it will use a citation formula such as “ub, ibcr”. 4. I assume as a matter of convention that the documents we are working with were substantially completed in the order Mishnah, Tosefta, tannaitic midrashim, Yerushalmi, Bavli, but I allow for the probability that the contents of these documents (except for the Mishnah) were not entirely fixed until the postTalmudic era. Therefore the general relationship of documents creates an initial presumption as to the relationship of the anecdotes within them, but that presumption is readily overturned based on contrary evidence. 5. Anecdotes are generally extra-documentary in nature (Neusner’s term), not explained by their present contexts, therefore 6. Variations which make an anecdote more suitable for its present context are unlikely to be original, unless the anecdote itself is so fully explained by its context that

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

159

we can imagine it was composed specifically for the context in which we now find it. 7. Later versions of a story will alleviate “problems” perceived in an earlier version of a story. TABLE V. PARALLELS IN TANNAITIC LITERATURE AND THE TALMUDS.

Text Parallels and Starting Relationships Point Pisha 14:64

Pisha 15:41

Pisha 15:126

Common Elements

Yerushalmi (P) List of examples Bavli (^)

―

Bavli (P)

―

Case story

Tosefta (^) Names of authorities, Yerushalmi (N) basic outline, same Pisha 16:49 Bavli (N) interpretations of proof ARNA (N) texts

BeShallah 1:209

―

―

MRS (C) List of examples and BeShallah Yerushalmi (C) interpretive refrains 3:118

BeShallah 6:44

MRS (P) Tosefta (^)

All the composites contain R. Tarfon, water blessing, Joseph story, and story of tribe Judah at the Red Sea, with similar use of proof texts.

Distinguishing Elements in Mekhilta Unique order, unique introduction and conclusion, assumes unstated information Mekhilta gives an anecdotal force to a citation formula used without that force in Tosefta and Yerushalmi Passage not integrated into its context―if removed would not be “missing.” Does not interact with what precedes and follows. Story presents a derash similar to the preceding context, then leads to new associations. Lacks several portions represented in body of Yerushalmi version. Mekhilta tells a story about Antoninus which serves as a parabolic illustration Simpler representation of form, lacks elaborate narrative found in Yerushalmi “Elders” (not students); most coherent and polished version; composite contains elements which are foreign to the Mekhilta’s interest

160

Midrash and Legend

Text Parallels and Starting Relationships Point Shirata 2:127

MRS (C) Bavli (P)

Shirata 6:100

―

Shirata 9:34

MRS (C)

Vayassa 1:57

Vayassa 1:93

Vayassa 4:74

Amalek 1:47

Amalek 3:223

Common Elements Question of Antoninus concerning afterlife answered by R. Judah. Same parable used in answer. ―

Answer is given, then the question! Then answer is reiterated at length.

Contemporary event illustrates sage’s interpretation of biblical event R. Eliezer answers MRS (^) students’ questions re: Sifre Num. (P) long and short prayer with Bavli (P) similar proof texts MRS (^)

Distinguishing Elements in Mekhilta Antoninus’ question much simpler than in Bavli. Parable is identified but not quoted in full. Context ignores anecdote. R. Judah answers Antoninus with a simple scriptural exegesis atypical MRI lacks an appendix present in MRS, which is unnecessary in MRI because of the preceding context Two Mekhiltas virtually identical

Story is similar to Bavli but conclusion is twopronged like Sifre Num. and other sources. Argument in Mekhilta R. Tarfon, students, and R. follows scriptural verses MRS (C) Eleazar of Modi’in, general more closely, less Bavli (P) outline of argument from digression. Context same proof texts ignores anecdote. Names of Sages and interpretations of texts. Mekhilta places at the Setting of anecdote. Many beginning the part of MRS (^) phrases in common. 2 Bavli (^) composite which parts of composite interests it. included though only one is relevant Moses serves Jethro. Gamaliel does not offer Key names of key Sages. cup to R. Eliezer. MRS (^) General outline. Proof Specifically says God Sifre Deut. (^) texts and their use. Arabs provides for “the Bavli (^) and Angels. wicked.” Rabban Gamaliel should serve “Sages, men of Torah.”

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael Text Parallels and Starting Relationships Point Amalek 4:122

MRS (C)

Common Elements An ascetic brings a sacrifice and a divine voice expresses approval. Fits with Mekhilta’s favorable mention of the ascetic Jonadab.

BaHodesh 7:17 BaHodesh 10:58

Nezikin 18:54

Kaspa 3:31

Distinguishing Elements in Mekhilta MRS (reconstructed from MHG) and MRI are essentially identical here.

R. Yohanan at Emmaus, interrelates Deut. 28 and Song 1, anonymous girl represents the fortunes of Israel. R. Eliezer not involved. R. Gamaliel, King MRS (N) parables, midrash on At least one Philosopher, Mishnah (^) Exodus 20 and on “should he destroy his Zephaniah text - everything Tosefta (^) world because of fools?” Bavli (C) is taken up in turn by Bavli. Four divisions of Fifth proof text, omits Tosefta (P) atonement originate from nothing from Tosefta. ARNA (C) R. Ishmael. Mattiah b. Mattiah b. H eresh Yerushalmi (^) H eresh travels to an visits R. Eleazar Bavli (N) Eleazar to learn them. haKappar in Laodecia. Every element is Mekhilta adds a few light Sifre Deut (P) incorporated in all three finishing touches to the Bavli (C) versions version in Sifre. Proof text from Exodus 22, names of the executed Exodus 22 brackets the ARNA (N) Sages, and one sage entire first account. “You ARNB (N) comforting the other. have comforted me, Semahot (C) Speech of R. Akiva with its Rabbi.” proof texts is similar to what appears in Semahot. “May I not live to see consolation.” Judah b. Concise versions of the Tabbai or Simeon b. anecdote provide just Shetah sentenced a single enough to illustrate the Tosefta (^) exegesis of the verse at perjurer to death and is Yerushalmi (N) rebuked by his colleague. hand - does not elaborate Bavli (N) the rules of law as does Colleague discovered a murderer who cannot be the Tosefta and its convicted but punished by dependents. God.

Sifre Deut (^) ARNA (N) Song of Songs text, girl, BaHodesh Tosefta (N) horse, hooves, barley. 1:17 Yerushalmi (N) Bavli (N)

BaHodesh 6:104

161

162

Midrash and Legend

Text Parallels and Starting Relationships Point

Shabbeta 1:7

Tosefta (^) Bavli (C)

Common Elements Every element of Mekhilta is present in Bavli except two attributions; Tosefta has different organization and somewhat different arguments, but similar attributions and proof texts. Eleazar’s interpretation is challenged

Distinguishing Elements in Mekhilta Text is organized to conclude with the baseverse. Narrative is abandoned midway without comment.

The following table summarizes the relationships described in the previous table. TABLE VI. RELATIONSHIP OF ANECDOTES IN MRI TO THEIR PARALLELS

Mekhilta Knows

Knows Mekhilta

Shares Source

Does Not Know Mekhilta (but knows other sources)

Mishnah

―

―

1 case

―

Tosefta

1 case

―

5 cases

1 case

MRS

1 case

5 cases

4 cases

1 case

Sif N.

1 case

―

―

―

Sif D.

1 case

―

2 cases

―

ARNA

―

1 case

―

3 cases

ARNB

―

―

―

1 case

Yer.

1 case

1 case

1 case

3 cases

Bavli

4 cases

2 cases

4 cases

4 cases

SUMMARY The Mekhilta rarely resorts to historical anecdotes as a means of fulfilling its agenda. The most important forms for the anecdotes that do occur are the case-example and the academy discussion. Almost every other category of anecdote could be subsumed under the category of “academy discussion,” because almost every anecdote involves Sages interacting in their highly formalized relationships.

Historical Anecdotes in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael

163

Through the case-example, the Mekhilta finds material to fit into the opening created by redundant expressions in the biblical text. It also imports homilies that touch on the exegetical interests of the Mekhilta, and they are transmitted as complete units, including both the directly relevant and less relevant portions. Anecdotes can also serve a parabolic purpose to illustrate a lesson from Scripture, or to preserve a reminiscence of Sages who were respected by the wise men among the nations whose false gods had been judged by the Exodus. Sometimes narrative contexts seem to be spun for traditions that previously had no narrative. At other times the Mekhilta will begin a narrative and then lose interest in it without finishing, completing its treatment of the theme in another form. Sometimes the Mekhilta will devote considerable effort to reshaping an account for its context, and sometimes it will drop an anecdote completely unaltered into a context that ignores its presence. The relationships of Sages to their students, and Sages to each other, are highly formalized as they are related in these anecdotes. Following the action of anecdotes about Sages is like reading the transcript of a high tea party. If we know who the actors are, whether they are all Sages or some are laymen, and if the various Sages were ever students of each other, we can make a fairly good guess at the outline of their conversation without having to know the topic. The protocols of behavior among the Sages provide the structure which carries each “academy discussion” from beginning to end, whether they are interacting literally in the academy, in each other’s homes, by the roadside, visiting each other’s sick, or literally in their final moments of life. Like other rabbinic documents, the Mekhilta assumes a large degree of cultural knowledge on the part of its readers. The composers or compilers felt free to allude to a parable or teaching in another part of the rabbinic tradition, and could safely assume that the reader/disciple would be able to supply the unstated information.191 We find examples of close verbal parallels where we must assume a common knowledge of written sources, and we also find parallel structures without identical phrasing, where different documents make differing use of the common oral stock 191 Copyists also depended on readers to be thoroughly familiar with

the Bavli in particular, and introduced ellipses into the tradition.

164

Midrash and Legend

of rabbinic anecdotes and homilies. The association of certain teachings with certain proof texts and with certain teachers is remarkably stable. We saw several examples of parallels that maintain a basic common structure without any evidence of “copying.” The Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael is generally more polished and better composed than its cousin, the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon, and the small sample we have seen here gives us no indication that one Mekhilta directly copies from the other. Frequently the Mekhilta is aware of traditions which otherwise first appear in the Babylonian Talmud, and the Babylonian Talmud frequently appears unaware of traditions as they appear in the Mekhilta. When an anecdote appears in multiple attestations with phrase upon phrase of exact verbal agreement, we must assume a chain of transmission involving written texts. If we had no consideration other than to make sense of some anecdotes in the tradition, a late date for the Mekhilta would be quite compelling. Next to the Bavli, the anecdotes of the Mekhilta find their largest stock of parallels in the Tosefta. Sometimes teachings, which are incorporated into a narrative by the Mekhilta, are presented without narrative in the Tosefta. The relationships between Tosefta and Mekhilta are generally broad but shallow―many parallels but not many parallels with close verbal similarities. Perhaps this indicates a fluid, contemporary oral tradition. Among the other tannaitic midrashim, only Sifre Deuteronomy parallels the Mekhilta more than once in its anecdotes. Like the Mekhilta, Sifre Deuteronomy contains a high proportion of aggadic material since the biblical texts at its basis have a high proportion of non-legal material. Where there are parallels,, the relationship of a tradition in Sifre Deuteronomy to the MRI is just as close, possible closer, than that between MRI and MRS. Of the 23 anecdotes treated here, 20 have at least one parallel in another classical rabbinic document, and 17 of them have parallels in documents generally considered “tannaitic.”

tnuz ic hrcs ukt ,ukhkv lhhj hnh kf ohnhv lhhj hnh jhanv ,unhk thcvk lhhj hnh kf vzv okugv lhhj hnh t"fju

HISTORICAL ANECDOTES IN THE MEKHILTA OF RABBI SIMEON BAR YOḤAI

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE “OTHER MEKHILTA” This chapter forms something of an appendix to the previous chapter. Of the twenty-three anecdotes occurring in the Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, eleven have parallels in the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon. We have only sixteen anecdotes in the whole of EpsteinMelamed’s edition of the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon, which may represent only a bit more than half of the full MRS,1 now lost. Most of the parallels are extremely close, the differences being such as we might find (and sometimes do find!) between different manuscripts or editions of the Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael alone. However, sometimes the differences are substantial. J. N. Epstein wrote, “The Mekhilta of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai belongs to the latest of all [the midrashim] of the school of the Rabbi Akiva; and made extensive use of the Siphra, Siphre, and Tosefta, quoting verbatim … All this suggests lateness.”2 Melamed’s introduction to their edition of the MRS includes lists of citations using citation formulae in the MRS for material which 1 By the estimation of M.D. Herr, “Mekilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai,” Encyclopedia Judaica 11:1269-70 (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972). 2 J. N. Epstein with E. Z. Melamed, ed., Introduction to Tannaitic Literature: Mishna, Tosephta and Halakhic Midrashim [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1957), 738, quoted in Ben Zion Wacholder, “A Reply to Morton Smith [on the Problem of Method in the Study of Rabbinic Literature],” JBL 92 (1973): 114-15.

165

166

Midrash and Legend

appears in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and many baraitot otherwise known only from the Bavli. The differences in approach between MRS and MRI pertain to halakhic material; in aggadah they display no differences of approach. M.D. Herr considers the MRS to be a work dependent on the MRI. “It contains many comparatively late features, particularly in its language. Most of its aggadic passages are similar to those in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael, from which they were apparently taken. On the basis of all these factors and, furthermore, since the midrash was unknown in its present form to the rabbis of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, the date of its redaction in Erez Israel is to be assigned to not earlier than the commencement of the fifth century C.E.”3 Menahem Kahana has also argued recently for the priority of the traditions reflected in MRI.4 Epstein-Melamed and others think rather that MRI and MRS shared a common aggadic source, but had different sources for their halakhic portions.5 W. David Nelson’s doctoral dissertation is the most recent thorough examination of the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon. He considers MRS and MRI to be contemporaneous documents, two different performances of a common rabbinic repertoire of interpretations related to the book of Exodus. A valid explanation must take into account not only the similarities but also the divergences, which Nelson does by considering oral as well as written sources.6 It hardly appears likely, as M.D. Herr seems to assert, that a writer would know the MRI as a completed, written document and still see the need to develop the MRS.

3 Herr, “Mekilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai,” 1269-70. 4 Menahem Kahana, Two Mekhiltot on the Amalek Portion: The Originality

of the Version of the Mekhilta d’Rabbi Ishma’el with respect to the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shim’on ben Yohay [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999). 5 E.g. Louis Finkelstein, “The Sources of the Tannaitic Midrashim,” Jewish Quarterly Review 31 (1940-41):211-43. See p. 214. 6 W. David Nelson, Textuality and Talmud Torah: Issues of Early Rabbinic and Oral Transmission of Tradition as Exemplified in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon b. Yohai (Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew Union College, 1999).

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

167

LIST OF HISTORICAL ANECDOTES FOUND, AND THEIR FREQUENCY The percentage of lines devoted to historical anecdotes by tractate is as follows: TABLE I. ANECDOTES IN MEKHILTA DERABBI SIMEON

Parashah & Base Verse (from Exodus) Bo - 12:8 Bo - 12:16 BeShallah - 14:13 BeShallah - 14:22 BeShallah - 15:1 BeShallah - 15:13 BeShallah - 15:22 BeShallah - 15:25 BeShallah - 16:14 BeShallah - 17:8 Yitro - 18:12 Yitro - 18:27 Yitro - 20:5 Mishpatim - 21:1 Mishpatim - 21:13 Mishpatim - 21:29

Source MHG ms. Antonin ms. Firkovich ms. Firkovich ms. Paris ms. Firkovich MHG ms. Adler ms. Firkovich MHG ms. Firkovich / MHG MHG MHG ms. Cambridge ms. Cambridge ms. Firkovich

Starting Point (Page, Line #)

Length (lines)

13:9 21:10 56:6 63:28 76:13 95:15 102:17 103:15 110:7 119:6

5 11 9 15 18 9 4 10 14 5

131:17

8/5

135:16 147:24 158:13 169:7 181:7

3 5 9 11 2

TABLE II. ANECDOTES AS PERCENTAGE OF COMPOSITION.

Bo (mss) Bo (MHG) BeShallah (mss) BeShallah (MHG) Yitro (mss) Yitro (MHG) Mishpatim (mss) Mishpatim (MHG) Ki Tisa (mss) Ki Tisa (MHG) Vayakhel (mss) Vayakhel (MHG) TOTAL

Total Lines Anecdote Lines 786 11 219 5 1,735 75 263 9 501 8 326 13 1,225 22 359 ― ― ― 64 ― ― ― 11 ― 5,489 142

% 1.4% 2.3% 4.3% 3.4% 1.6% 4.0% 1.8% 0.0% ― 0.0% ― 0.0% 2.6%

168

Midrash and Legend

Since the lines from MHG are denser than those from manuscript transcriptions (approximately 19 words per line versus 12 words per line), I weight the percentages accordingly. The average anecdote in MRS is thus 9 lines, approximately 125 words in the edition of Epstein-Melamed.

TRANSLATION AND EXPLANATION OF ANECDOTES FOUND Parashat Bo, to Exodus 12:8 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 13, lines 9-14, from Midrash haGadol) A. “With unleavened bread and with bitter herbs” (Exodus 12:8/Numbers 9:11).7 B. [Scripture] includes here many herbs: lettuce, endive, chervil, ivy and maror. C. R. Judah says, “Even thorns and wild lettuce.” D. R. Ilai says in the name of R. Eliezer, “Even palm ivy. And I searched among all his students, looking for a partner for myself, but I did not find [one].”8

Another anecdote follows immediately in context: E. “With unleavened bread and with bitter herbs shall they eat it” (Exodus 12:8/Numbers 9:11). F. It a commandment to eat all of them at once. G. Hillel the Elder used to wrap one up in the other and eat them. H. One might think that omission of any of them invalidates it.9 7 Referring to the eating of the Passover lamb: “They shall eat the

meat that very night. Roasted with fire and unleavened bread, with [literally, upon] bitter herbs they shall eat it [ohrurn kg w,umnu at hkm ukfth]” (Exodus 12:8). The midrash here actually quotes the phrase as it appears in Numbers, not as it appears in the Exodus verse: “With unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it [ohrurnu ,umn kg uvukfth]” (Numbers 9:11). 8 Nelson’s note: “i.e., none of R. Eliezer’s disciples would agree to eat the offering in this manner with R. Ilai.”

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

169

I. The verse states [however], “They shall eat it …” [(Exod. 12:8).10 J. Even one of them [suffices].11

Since MRS is less readily available than MRI, and since no standard English translation exists, in this chapter I copy out these Hebrew texts in full for the benefit of the reader:12 ,rzjv - vcrv ohrurn (itf) vchr . vsuvh 'r /rurn[v]u vbhcjrj[v]u vfn,[v]u ihakgvu 'r ouan 'nut htgkt 'r /ihkd ,rzju ihkuruj ;t w'nut h,aecu uhshnk, kf kg h,rzhju /ih®khcœeœrh gv ;t wrzghkt vumn / /h,tmn tku rcj hk /ikfutu vzc vz ifruf vhv iezv kkv /,jtf ikuf kuftk sjt ukhpt wk", /vz ,t vz ihcfgn uvh kufh /ivn

9 Or rather, “You might think that [the absence of] one of them

prevents the other” for if they constituted a single mitzvah, the absence of one element would render impossible the fulfillment of the commandment. 10 This means: There is no need for Scripture to repeat the verb “they shall eat” as it does in Exod. 12:8, unless the apparent redundancy actually comes to teach something which otherwise would not be known. In this case the repetition of the verb “they shall eat” comes to render the eating of the two items as two different commandments. This is the interpretive method of huba tuva rcs, that an apparent repetition actually comes to distinguish two related matters. See Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. Markus Bockmuehl, 2nd edition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 24, and Anna Lynn Urowitz-Freudenstein, An Investigation of the Exegetical Methods in the Tannaitic Midrashim: A Study of Texts that Mention Individual Women (Ph.D. Dissertation, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1997), 427. 11 Meaning, even if only one of them is available. The two mitzvot are not dependent upon each other―even if one commandment cannot be fulfilled, the other one still must be. The translation here and throughout Parashat Bo is that of W. David Nelson, who translates the entire Parashah as an appendix to his dissertation, op. cit. I have made some minor alterations for the purposes of clarity in the context of this study. 12 I have added formatting and punctuation in accordance with my interpretation of each passage.

170

Midrash and Legend

The first passage is clearly an “anecdote” by the definition we are using. The second passage, if it were standing by itself, would not have been included here. Especially when we get into Levitical laws in Sifra, there will be many references to how procedures “used to be” done and this continuous past tense is a way of communicating norms rather than incidents. But since it is attached to the anecdote about R. Ilai, I include it. The anecdote of R. Ilai serves as a one-sentence case-example embedded in a passage that is basically a ribui-commentary. The midrash wonders why the text says ohrurn (plural) rather than rurn (singular), when the singular is the common way of referring to the plant used as “bitter herbs.” The midrash explains that this spelling comes to include other varieties of plants that are bitter herbs in addition to the one whose proper name was maror.13 The case example is imported associatively with the preceding material concerning varieties of bitter herbs and functions as an illustration. In the second portion, we learn that bitter herbs, unleavened bread, and the meat of the paschal lamb should all be eaten together, or as the verse says literally, upon each other. The brief precedent cited is the practice of Hillel to wrap these foods together and thus eat them simultaneously. Again, the case example functions to illustrate the commentary. The midrash then explains the apparently redundant use of the “they shall eat,” in Exodus 12:8. It indicates that a separate command of “eating” applies to unleavened bread and bitter herbs, so that if one element cannot be present for some reason, the other one should still be eaten. The incident regarding R. Ilai has a parallel at b. Pesahim 39a. The practice of Hillel is reported at b. Pesahim 115a. b. Pesahim 39a 14 [I emphasize the places of verbal agreement with the MRS with bold text:]

13 Jastrow identifies this plant as Cichorium Itybus, “Succory,” in Greek

πιχρι′ς. 14 Here I quote the Soncino translation, except that where the Hebrew is the same as in MRS I harmonize the diction with the translation of Nelson.

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

171

B'. The School of Samuel taught: These are the herbs with which a man discharges his obligation on Passover: With lettuce, with endive, with chervil, with ivy, with harginin, and with hardofannim. C'. R. Judah says: Hazereth yolin [thistles] and wild lettuce too are like them. D'. R. Ilai says in the name of R. Eliezer: Even palm ivy. But I searched among all his students, looking for a partner for myself, but I did not find one. But when I came before R. Eleazar b. Jacob he agreed with my words. ― R Judah said: Whatever [plant which] contains an acrid [pungent] sap. R. Yohanan b. Berokah said: Any [plant] the leaves of which look faded [bleached]. Others say: Every bitter herb contains an acrid sap and its leaves are faded. R. Yohanan said: From the words of all of them we may learn [that every] bitter herb contains an acrid sap and its leaves are faded. R. Huna said: The halakhah is as the ‘Others.’

The passage in the Talmud fits nicely in its place, giving the opinions of a variety of schools as to which herbs fulfill the requirements of the preceding Mishnah passage (m. Pesahim 2:6). The Mekhiltan passage is equally appropriate to its context. However, the anecdote and dispute among Sages concerning nonexegetical matters is more characteristic of the Talmud than of the midrash. We cannot ignore the exact similarity of phrasing that occurs in the two passages, and in the absence of other evidence, I consider the shorter form of the story to represent an earlier form of the tradition. b. Pesahim 115a 15 A. Ravina said, R. Mesharsheya son of R. Nathan told me: Thus did Hillel say on the authority of tradition: A man must not make a sandwich of matsah and bitter herbs together and eat them, B. because we hold that matsah nowadays16 is a biblical obligation, whereas bitter herbs are a rabbinical

15 Presented here in the Soncino translation.

172

Midrash and Legend requirement and thus the bitter herbs, which are rabbinical, will come and nullify the matsah, which is biblical. C. And even on the view that precepts cannot nullify each other, that applies only to a biblical [precept] with a biblical [precept], or a rabbinical [precept] with a rabbinical [precept], but in the case of a scriptural and a rabbinical [precept], the rabbinical [one] comes and nullifies the scriptural [one]. D. Which Tanna do you know [to hold] that precepts do not nullify each other? — it is Hillel.17 E. For it was taught, it was related of Hillel that he used to wrap them together, for it is said, “they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.” F. R. Yohanan observed: Hillel’s colleagues disagreed with him. For it was taught: You might think that he should wrap them together and eat them, in the manner that Hillel ate it, therefore it is stated, “they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs,” [intimating] even each separately. G. To this R. Ashi demurred: If so, what is [the meaning of] ‘even’? Rather, said R. Ashi, this Tanna teaches thus: You might think that he does not discharge his duty unless he wraps them together and eats them, in the manner of Hillel. Therefore it is stated, they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, [intimating] even each separately. H. Now that the law was not stated either as Hillel or as the Rabbis, one recites the blessing ‘[Who hast commanded us] concerning the eating of unleavened bread’ and eats; then he recites the blessing ‘concerning the eating of bitter herbs,’ and eats; and then he eats unleavened bread and lettuce together without a blessing, in memory of the Temple, as Hillel [did].

The halakhic question of interest to the Talmud here is whether a biblical obligation and a rabbinic enactment may be performed together and included in the same blessing―the eating 16 in the absence of the Passover lamb. 17 the Elder.

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

173

of bitter herbs being, in the absence of the Passover lamb, a rabbinic rather than a biblical obligation. This is not the question of interest to the Mekhilta, which treats the eating of both matsah and bitter herbs as biblical obligations. Both passages answer their very different questions by a hyper-literal reading of Exodus 12:8 and Number 9:11, but these are the obvious verses to be used in treating this topic and the exegetical method (ribui) is also very common. So here we do not have sufficient basis for asserting a common transmission. Each passage makes perfect sense in its context. The presence of reference to the custom of Hillel in both passages also needs no special explanation since it would presumably have been a custom known to every individual celebrating a rabbinic Passover seder. Parashat Bo, to Exodus 12:16 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 21, lines 1020, from manuscript Antonin) [Context requires that the reader begin with the citation of the base verse (line 6):] “Only [lt] what every person [apb - nefesh] is to eat” (Exod. 12:16).18 I might assume [that one may] even [prepare food] for cattle, for it is called “nefesh.” In accordance with what is said in Scripture, “One who kills a beast [vnvc apb―nefesh beheymah] shall make restitution for it…” (Leviticus 24:18). One might think they may gather lupines for the chickens and make cakes for the dogs. The verse teaches [however], “for you” (Exodus 12:16). “For you,” and not for gentiles. “For you,” and not for dogs. A. It once occurred ['c vagn] that Simeon of Teman did not come to the schoolhouse on the night of the festival. R. Judah ben Baba found him the next morning. He said to him, “Why didn’t you come last night to the school house?” B. He said to him, “I happened upon the opportunity to fulfill a religious duty, and I performed it. A troop of 18 “On the first day there shall be a holy assembly, and on the seventh day a holy assembly for you; no manner of work shall be done on them; but what every person needs to eat, that only shall be prepared for you” (Exod. 12:16, RSV).

174

Midrash and Legend Gentiles came into the city, and we were afraid that they would be hostile to the citizens. So we slaughtered a calf for them, and fed them food and drink, and sheltered them so that they would not be hostile to the citizens.” C. He said to him, “I’d be surprised if your reward [for this deed] was not lost in the injury [you caused]! D. For behold they said, “They do not prepare food on festival days for gentiles or dogs” (t. Yom Tov 2:6).19 ,hck cuy ouh hkhkc tc tka hbnh,v iugnac vagn ,uk rnt .tctc ic vsuvh 'r utmn ,hrjak .arsnv vumn ,uk rnt ?arsnv ,hck ant v,tc tk vn hbpn ohud ka [20,akc] ,uarc .[v]h,hagu hshk grht ,jt .rhgv hbc ,t uchvmh tna ihtrh,n ubhvu rhgk u(b)xbfb tka oubfxu oubheavu oubkftvu sjt kdg ovk ubyja tmh tka lhkg hbt vhn, ,uk rnt .rhgv hbc ,t uchvmh tk - cuy ouhc ihaug iht :urnt hrva ,lsxpvc lrfa .ohckf ,khftk tku ohud ,khft

This is a beautiful example of the full case form. The case is introduced with the name of the person whom the case concerns. We learn of his action. The action is reported to a sage, who then renders an opinion on the propriety of the action or the consequences of the action. We also have here a citation of the Tosefta using the formula “urnt hrv”. The case is included here, of course, because the conclusion reached in the case-account on the basis of a halakhic tradition, is the same case which finds a biblical anchor in the midrash by means of the hermeneutical method of huba tuva rcs―apparently repeated commandments actually specify different cases. The case example functions to provide the content required by the exegetical opening. This anecdote is paralleled in the Tosefta (Yom Tov 2:6) and the Bavli (Betzah 21a)

19 Translation of Nelson. 20 Bracketed reading is found in Midrash haGadol; Epstein-Melamed

considers the ms. reading here to be an error.

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

175

t. Yom Tov 2:6 (2:4) 21 [Phrases in common with the MRS are indicated by bold type.] ― They do not prepare food either for gentiles’ or dogs’ consumption on the festival day. A'. It once occurred ['c vagn] that Simeon of Teman did not go out to the schoolhouse on the night of the festival. R. Judah ben Baba found him the next morning. He said to him, “Why didn’t you come last night to the school house?” B'. He said to him, “I happened upon the opportunity to fulfill a religious duty, and I performed it. A troop of Gentiles came into the city, and we were afraid that they would be hostile to the citizens of the city. So we slaughtered a calf for them, and fed them food and drink, and sheltered them so that they would not be hostile to the citizens.” C'. He said to him, “I’d be surprised if your reward [for this deed] was not lost in the injury [you caused]! D'. For behold they said [urnt hrva], “They do not prepare food on festival days for gentiles or dogs.”

This represents a completely identical tradition. The minor differences in wording which appear are the same kind of differences that appear among traditions of the Tosefta itself. The only substantial difference is that the Tosefta first presents the halakhah as a simple tradition, and then gives the case-example that affirms it. We conclude in this instance that the Mekhilta is quoting the Tosefta.

21 Translation of Neusner, but diction has been harmonized with

Nelson’s translation of MRS. The textual basis for the treatment of the Tosefta in this study is the edition of Lieberman where available (for the sedarim Zeraim, Mo’ed, Nashim, and portions of Nezikin), and Zuckermandel for the remainder.

176

Midrash and Legend b. Betzah 21a 22 [Phrases in common with the MRS are shown in bold type.] [R. Hisda said: An animal half of which belongs to a heathen and half to an Israelite is permitted to be slaughtered on a Festival, because as much as an olive’s bulk of flesh is unattainable without slaughtering; [but] dough belonging half to a heathen and half to an Israelite may not be baked on a Festival for it is possible to divide it at the kneading… .] ― They asked of R. Huna: “May the [Jewish] inhabitants of the valley who are obliged to supply bread for the troops, bake [it] on a Festival?” — He replied to them: “We have determined that if they can give some bread [thereof] to a child and they [the soldiers] do not object, then every [loaf] is fit for a child; hence it is permitted; but if not, it is forbidden.” A'. “But surely it was taught [thb,vu]: It once occurred ['c vagn] that Simeon of Teman did not come to the schoolhouse on the night [of the Festival]. Judah b. Baba found him the next morning. He said to him: ‘Why didn’t you come last night to the schoolhouse?’ B'. He said to him: ‘A troop of soldiers came into our town and wished to plunder the entire city; so we killed a calf for them and fed them and let them depart in peace.’ C'. He said to him: ‘I’d be surprised if your reward was not lost in your injury, D'. for surely the Torah said ‘for you’ but not for heathens. But why so: the [calf] was fit to be eaten [by them]?’ ― Said R. Joseph: “It was a trefah calf. But it was fit for dogs?” ― Tannaim differ on this; for it was taught: ‘Save that which every soul must eat, that only may be done by you.’ From the implication of the expression ‘every soul’ I might assume also that the soul of cattle is included as it is said, ‘And he that

22 Quoted in the Soncino translation.

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

177

smiteth a soul of a beast mortally shall make it good’; the text therefore says, ‘for you’ [intimating] but not for dogs. This is the opinion of R. Yose the Galilean. R. Akiva says: “Even the soul of cattle is included; if so, then why does the text say ‘for you’? For you, but not for heathens — And what reason do you see to include dogs and to exclude heathens? I include dogs, since you are responsible for their food, and I exclude heathens because you are not responsible for their food.”

In this case the Tosefta better explains the Bavli than the Bavli could explain either the Tosefta or MRS. The Bavli cites the anecdote from the Tosefta as a basis for objection to R. Huna’s ruling, and then goes on to bring further evidence including the midrashic readings of Exodus 12:16 ascribed to tannaim. It is highly unlikely that the MRS―if depending on the Bavli―would revert to a freestanding halakhah rather than a biblical quotation as its denouement. Parashat BeShallah, to Exodus 14:13 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 56, lines 6-13, from ms. Firkovich) A. In three places the Omnipresent warned the Israelites not to return to Egypt. For it says: “For whereas ye have seen the Egyptians today [ye shall see them again no more forever]”(Exod. 14:13). And it says: “For the Lord has said to you that ye shall henceforth return no more [that way]” (Deut. 17:16). And it says, “By the way whereof I said unto thee: ‘Thou more [shalt thou see it]”(Deut. 28:68). They returned these three times and in all three times they fell. B. The first time was in the days of Sennacherib, “Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help…” (Isaiah 31:1). What is written concerning them? “The Egyptians are men, and not God…” (Isa. 31:3). The second time was in the days of Yohanan, the son of Korah, “No, but we will go into the land [of Egypt]…”(Jer. 42:14). “Then it shall come to pass, that the sword, which ye fear, [shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt]”(Jer. 42:16). The third

178

Midrash and Legend time was in the days of Trajan. These three times they returned and in all of these times they fell.23 /'mnk ruzjk tka 'ah ,t 'uenv rhvzv ,unuen vakac w’'nutu /’'nudu w'nutu /(uy zh 'cs) 'nudu lk urzj i,akac /(jx jf oa) chrjbx hnhc vbuatr /ukpb i,akacu ?ivc 'ntb vn /(t tk 'gah) 'udu lkb jre ic ibjuh hnhc vhhba .(d oa) 'nudu 'nrh) .’'udu [24 ] urzj i,akac .xubhdury hnhc,hahka .(zy wsh cn .ukpb i,akacu

There is a parallel to this account in the Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, which I treat in chapter 2 (page 56), along with its parallel in the Yerushalmi at Sukkah 5:1.25 Parashat BeShallah, to Exodus 14:22 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 63 ln. 28 - p. 64 line 17, from ms. Firkovich) [The extended passage concerns the story of Israel at the Red Sea. The preceding context is required to make sense of the anecdote:] [Nahshon the son of Amminadab jumped and fell into the sea with its waves, as it is written, “And Judah is not wayward toward God” (Hosea 12:1). Do not read “wayward toward” (og sr) but “went down into the sea” (oh sr). And it is explicit in the tradition with regard to him, “Save me O God, for the waters have come up … 23 This is the translation of Lauterbach to the parallel passage in MRI, modified slightly as necessary to conform to the Epstein-Melamed text of MRS. 24 The MRS inaccurately quotes Jeremiah 42:14. 25 At this point I considered, and rejected, including a dialogue between R. Nathan and R. Simeon bar Yohai which appears in EpsteinMelamed at p. 60 ln. 13, because there is no setting and hence in my opinion no narrative. Commenting on Exodus 14:13: “R. Nathan asked R. Simeon bar Yohai, Why is it that in every other place it is written ‘The angel of the LORD,’ but here it is written, ‘The angel of God.’ He replied, In each case ‘God’ [ohvkt] indicates judgment. For Israel at that hour [was under judgment] whether they would be delivered or whether they would perish at the hand of the Egyptians.”

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

179

I sink in the deep mire…” (Psalm 69:2-3). “Let not the flood (sweep over me…)” (Psalm 69:15)… At that very hour the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses, “He who sanctified my name at the sea shall rule over Israel.” For it is written, “When the Israelites came forth from Egypt…” (Psalm 114:2). Judah who sanctified my name at the sea will rule over Israel.] A. Once [vhv rcfu] R. Tarfon and his students were sitting at a vineyard in Yavneh. Said R. Tarfon to his students, “May I ask a question of you?” They said to him, “Teach us.” B. “One who drinks water to quench his thirst, how does he bless? For I say ‘Creator of living beings and their needs.’“ They said to him, “You have taught us, our master.” C. “Lo, it says, ‘And they sat to eat bread…’ (Genesis 37:25).26 D. This is to make known how much the merit of the righteous protects them. For if Joseph, the dear one, had gone down to Egypt with [ordinary] Arabs, would they not have slain him with their bad odor? Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, prepared for him sacks full of spices, and the wind blew within them so as to [counteract] the smell of the Arabs. E. He said to them, “By what virtue did Judah acquire kingship?” F. “If it is because it is written, ‘She is more righteous than I…’ (Genesis 38:26), the confession is sufficient only to atone for the cohabitation.”

26 “So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe, the long robe with sleeves that he wore; and they took him and threw him into a pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it. Then they sat down to eat; and looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels carrying gum, balm, and resin, on their way to carry it down to Egypt. Then Judah said to his brothers, ‘What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and not lay our hands on him, for he is our brother, our own flesh.’ And his brothers agreed” (Gen. 37:23-27, NRSV).

180

Midrash and Legend G. “If it is because it is written, ‘What profit is it if we slay our brother…’ (Genesis 37:26), the saving is sufficient only to atone for the sale.” H. “If it is because he said, ‘For your servant became surety for the lad…’ (Genesis 44:32), behold he is the guarantor, and in every case the guarantor must pay.” I. Then they said to him, “Teach us.” J.

He said to them, “[It is] because when the tribes came and stood at the sea, this one said, ‘I will go down,’ and this one said, ‘I will go down.’ Nahshon b. Amminadab jumped and fell into the midst of the sea…, as it is written above. And he shall rule over Israel."27 rnt .vbchc orfc ihcauh uhshnk,u iupry’'r vhv rcfu uk 'nt .vkta ofhbpk ktat uhshnk,k iupry 'r ivk 'nut hbta ?lrcn tuv vn utnmk ohn v,uav .ubsnkh wivk rnt .ubhcr ub,snk uk 'nt .iburxju ,uapb truc ''nut tuv hrv ghsuvk .(vf zk 'rc) 'nudu ;xuh srh ukhta ,nsen thv ifhv sg ohehsm ka i,ufz gr jhrc u,ut ihdruv uhv tk wihhcrgv og tuv chcj 'mnk jurvu ohnac ohtkn ohea ֹvֹcֹev uk inhz tkt !ivka ,ufz vz htc ivk 'nt .ohhcrg ka ijhr hbpn ivc ,cabn 'tba ouan ot ?,ufknv ,t vsuvh kyb oa) 'ba 'an ot .vthcv kg rpf,a vtsuvk vhs w(uf jk ,rpfna vkmvk vhhs w(uf zk oa) 'nudu rnta ouan ot .vrhfnv kg 'nt .okan crg ouen kfcu ?tuv crg tkvu w(ck sn oa) vz ohv kg usngu ohyca utcafa ,ivk 'nt !ubhsnk wuk csbhng ic iuajb .pe .sruh hbt 'nut vzu sruh hbt 'nut . 'ah kg kuanh tuvu .khgk–',fsf .ohv lu,k uk kpbu

This passage is paralleled in the Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael and I have treated it fully in chapter 2 (pages 61ff.). There is also a parallel in the Tosefta (Berakhot 4:16-18), which is treated there. The MRS here represents a considerably less finished composition than the MRI.28 27 The translation here is that given by Joel Gereboff, Rabbi Tarfon:

The Tradition, the Man, and Early Rabbinic Judaism (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979), 225, with some slight alterations. 28 At this point I considered but rejected a series of dialogues which appear in Epstein-Melamed at p. 68 lns. 9ff. (to Exodus 14:28), between Pappos and Akiva in the form “xuhpp wlhhs vcheg 'r k"t … xuhpp 'r ars

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

181

Parashat BeShallah, to Exodus 15:1 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 74 ln. 11, from Paris manuscript) There is a fragment of an anecdote at Epstein-Melamed p. 74 ln. 11. The introductory formula is there—“kthknd icr vhv rcfu” ―but then the next line is illegible in ms. Paris where the story formerly appeared. There is no trace of the shank of the story remaining. This is not counted in my listing of anecdotes. Parashat BeShallah, to Exodus 15:1 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 76 ln. 13 - p. 77 line 5, from Paris manuscript) [Context requires the reader begin at the previous section:29] [“The horse and his rider” (Exodus 15:1). The Holy One, blessed be He, would bring the horse and his rider and make them stand trial. He would say to the horse: Why did you run after My children? The horse would answer: The Egyptian drove me against my will, as it is said: “And the Egyptians pursued” (Exodus 14:9), etc. He would then say to the Egyptian: Why did you pursue My children? And he would answer: It was the horse that ran away with me against my will, as it is said: “For the horses of Pharaoh went in…” (Exodus 15:19). The Holy One, blessed be He, would bring the horse and its rider and judge them together.] [Material in square brackets below is material supplied by Epstein-Melamed from Midrash haGadol due to lacunae in the manuscript.] A. Antoninus asked Rabbi about this. He said to him, “After a man has died and his body ceased to be, does God then make him stand trial?”

… ohhen v,t vn”. I don’t consider them narratives because there is no setting, and in the definition of the project we excluded dialogues between Sages where there is no setting as not being “anecdotes” for purposes of this study. 29 Once again, and throughout this chapter, where MRS has only minor differences from MRI, I am using the Lauterbach translation of MRI as a basis and altering it as necessary to conform to the MRS. The translation of the parable (which is missing from the MRI) is my own.

182

Midrash and Legend B. He answered him: “Rather than ask about the body, which is impure, ask me about the soul that is pure. C. “To give a parable for this, what is this like? It is like a king of flesh and blood who had an orchard] that contained lovely early figs, [and he stationed two guards in it, one lame and the other] blind. The lame one said [to the blind one]: ‘I see [lovely early figs.’ The blind said to him,] ‘And can I see?’ The lame one said to him, ‘And can I walk?’ The lame one rode on the shoulders of the blind one, and they went and took the early figs. D. “Some days later, the king came, and sat in judgment against them. He said to them: ‘Where are those early figs?’ The blind one said to him, ‘And can I see?’ The lame one said to him, ‘And am I able to walk?’ E. “The king was clever. What did he do? He made this one ride on the shoulders of the other, and they walked! The king said to them, ‘Thus you did, and thus you ate!’ F. “Even so the Holy One, blessed be he, summons the body and the soul and makes them stand trial. He says to the body, ‘Why have you sinned before me?’ It says before him, ‘Master of the Universe, from the day that the soul departed from me, I have been cast aside like a stone. He says to the soul, ‘Why have you sinned before me?’ It says before him, ‘Master of the Universe, is it I who sinned? The body sinned! From the day that I departed from it, have I not been pure before thee? G. “The Holy One, blessed be he, summons the soul and makes it enter the body, and judges them together, as it is said, ‘He will call to the heavens above’ to summon the soul, ‘and to the earth’ to summon the body, and afterwards, ‘to judge his people’ (Psalm 50:4).30 [Hebrew text appears in the table below.]

30

The midrash reads “‫[ ָלדִין עַמּוֹ‬to judge his people]” in a word-play as “‫[ ָלדִין עִמּוֹ‬to judge with it]”―meaning, the soul with the body.

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

183

This is a match to MRI Tractate Shirata chapter 2 (Lauterbach: page 21, line 127 - line 133) with the parable of the orchard and its lame and blind guards. In this version, unlike in the MRI, the parable is written out and so here we set the Hebrew side by side with the Bavli (b. Sanhedrin 91a). Phrases in common are underlined. The translation for the Bavli is found in chapter two (p. 74). MRS

Bavli

A.

uk 'nt .hcr ,t xubhbybt kta uz vkuf ;udu ,n vz osta rjtnu ?ihsk uthcn ֹvֹcֹev oukf

:hcrk xubhbuybt vhk rnt ihkufh vnabu ;ud ?smhf wihsv in inmg ruypk

B.

[corresponds to below, “G”]

ouhna w,tyj vnab :rnut ;ud ictf kyun hbhrv - hbnn varhpa :,rnut vnabu /rcec onus - ubnn h,arhpa ouhna wtyj ;ud /rupmf rhutc ,jrup hbhrv

C.

kg hbktua v,ta sg :uk 'nt vnab kg hbhkta tny ;ud .vruvy thva

--

D.

lknk ?vnus rcsv vnk kan ukaun uc vhvu xsrp uk vhva osu rac hba uc chauvu .,utb ,urufc 'nt .tnux sjtu rdhj sjt ohrnua hbt ,utb ,urufc :tnuxk rdhj uk ?hbt vtur hfu :tnux uk 'nt .vtur ?lkvk hbt kufh hfu :rdhj uk rnt ukybu ufkvu tnux hcd kg rdhj cfr .,urufcv ,t

wkan lk kuant wvhk rnt lknk :vnus rcsv vnk xsrp uk vhva wosu rac w,utb ,urufc uc vhvu wvtb sjt wohrnua hba uc chauvu uk rnt /tnux sjtu rdhj ,utb ,urufc :tnuxk rdhj tc /xsrpc vtur hbt /okftk othcbu hbchfrvu wtnux hcd kg rdhj cfr /oukftu outhcvu

E.

'nt .ihsc ivhkg cahu lknv tc ohnhk :vnux uk rnt ?,urufc iv ifhv ivk kufh hfu rdhj uk rnt ?hbt vtur hfu ?lkvk hbt

rnt /xsrp kgc tc ohnhk ?iv ifhv ,utb ,urufc :ivk hk ah oukf :rdhj uk rnt uk rnt ?ivc lkvk ohkdr ohbhg hk ah oukf :tnux ?,utrk

F.

chfrv ?vag vn .vhv jep lknv ivk 'nt .ihfkvn uhvu vz hcd kg vz .o,kftu o,hag lf :lknv

hcd kg rdhj chfrv - vag vn /sjtf o,ut isu tnux

184

Midrash and Legend MRS

Bavli

G.

vnabu ;ud thcn ֹvֹcֹev lf :;udk 'nut /ihsc ishngnu ?hbpk ,tyj vn hbpn okug ka ubucr :uhbpk rnut vnab hbnn ,tmha ouhn rnut /ictf lkaun hbt ,tyj vn hbpn :vnabk ka ubucr :uhbpk 'nt ?hbpk ;ud ?h,tyja hbt okug ubnn h,tmha ouhn !tyj ?lhbpk hbt vruvy tk

[corresponds to above, “B”]

H.

vxhbfnu vnab thcn ֹvֹcֹev 'tba sjtf ibsu ;udc thcvk thcvk vnab lf rjtu ;udv ,t /ung ihhshn–

thcn tuv lurc ausev ;t isu w;udc veruzu vnab rntba /sjtf o,ut ohnav kt treh .rtv ktu wvnab uz - kgn /;udv vz - ung ihsk

In the conversation between Antoninus and R. Judah, the MRS matches MRI completely. In the parable, the MRS has many phrases in common with the Talmud, and certainly it is the same parable, but it is not clear that one source copied the other. The MRS version has an appreciably simpler Hebrew style than the Bavli’s.31 The story of Antoninus finds its natural context much 31 The same parable appears in Leviticus Rabbah (4:5) in the name of R. Ishmael in comment upon Lev. 4:2, without a narrative context. The language of the parable there is very close to the language used in MRS. I use underline below to indicate phrases in common with the version in MRS. I use italics to indicate only those places where Lev. R.’s version agrees with the Bavli against MRS.

'r hb, /'udu w,utb ,urufc uc vhvu xsrp uk vhva lknk kan wktgnah wivk rntu wtnux sjtu rdhj sjt wohrnua lknv uc chauvu wtnuxk rdhj rnt ohnhk /uktv,utbv ,urufc kg urvzv /kftbu tcv wtnux uk rnt/xsrpc vtur hbt ,utb ,urufc ?hbt vtur hfu wtnux rnt ?lkvk hbkufh hfu wrdhj uk rnt ovk ucahu ufkvu w,urufcv ,t ukftu tnux d"g rdhj cfr wivk rnt /xsrp u,utc lknv xbfb ohnhk /unuenc aht wlknv hbust wtnux uk rnt ?,utbv ,urufcv ov ifhv hbt kufh hfu wlknv hbust wrdhj uk rnt ?hbt vtur hfu rdhj chfrv ?ivk vag vn wjehp vhva lknv u,ut ?lukvk o,kftu l,hag lf wivk rnt /ihfkvn ukhj,vu tnux d"g ,tyj vn hbpn wapbk rnut v"cev k"gk lf /,urufcv ,t tuv ;udv - h,tyj tk hbt wohnkugv iucr wuhbpk rnt ?hbpk rhutc ,jrup vruvy rupmf ubnn h,tmha vgan !tyja

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

185

better in Talmud, where there is a series of such conversations. The structural differences in MRS could possibly be explained simply as an attempt to salvage as much as possible of the Talmud’s parable within the constraints of MRI’s somewhat different introduction, but I incline to the opinion that they share a common source. Parashat BeShallah, to Exodus 15:13 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 95 ln. 15 - p. 96 line 23, from ms. Firkovich) A. Once Rabbi was sitting and expounding ['r vhv rcfu arusu cauh]: “One woman of Israel brought forth sixty myriads from her one womb.” B. At that time his disciples spoke up and said: “Who is greater, a righteous man [tsaddik] or all men?” He said to them: “A righteous man.” They said to him, “In what way?” C. He said to them: “We find that Jochebed, the mother of Moses, gave birth to Moses who was equal to all of Israel. And thus we find that Moses was equal to all Israel, at the hour when he sang the Song [at the Sea], as it is said, ‘Then sang Moses and the children of Israel’ (Exod. 15:1). ‘And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses…’ (Deut. 34:10). And it says: ‘According to all that the Lord commanded Moses his servant…’ (Josh. 11:15).32

?hbpk ,tyj vn hbpn w;udk rnut ?lhbpk h,tyj vn /hbt thv vnab - h,tyj tk hbt wohnkugv iucr wuhbpk rnt hcd kg lkauva ictf hbnn v,mha 'gan !vtyja vaug v"cev vn /lhbpk h,tyj tna wlkab hbt gere wrntba wsjtf ovhba isu ;udc veruzu vnab thcn ?ivk thcvk /'udu w;udv ,t thcvk wvnabv ,t / 32 “As the LORD had commanded Moses his servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD had commanded Moses” (Joshua 11:15, RSV). The parallel at MRI uses a different proof text (Numbers 26:4).

186

Midrash and Legend D. “And it says, ‘They are sixty queens…’ (Song 6:8). And it says, ‘My undefiled dove is but one…’“ (Song 6:9).33 ohaa tucr 'ahn vat vskha arusu cauh 'r vhv rcfu kusd hn :urntu vgav v,utc uhshnk, ubgbu .,jt xrfc :ivk 'nt ?vnc:uk urnt /ehsm :ivk 'nt ?ost kf ut ehsm sdbf kueaa van ,t van ka unt scfuh vskha ubhmn 'nta vgac 'ah kff kuea van vhva ubhmn ihfu. 'ah kf .(t uy 'na) 'tba vrha 'nutu .(h sk 'cs) 'nudu 'nutu .(uy th 'uvh) 'nudu a"va) 'nudu 'nutu /'udu .(y-j u

This is a match to MRI Tractate Shirata chapter 9 (Lauterbach: page 69, line 34 - page 70, line 42), and is treated in the previous chapter. MRS has an appendix of additional scriptural references which MRI lacks, or rather, which is unnecessary in MRI because there the same freight is carried by the preceding context.34 The academy discussion is imported associatively because of its incidental inclusion of an interpretation of a verse from Exodus 15. The narrative functions to heighten the interest of the interpretation offered. Parashat BeShallah, to Exodus 15:22 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 102 ln. 17 - line 20, from Midrash haGadol) [The previous context is required to understand the anecdote:] [“And they went on to the wilderness of Shur” (Exodus 15:22). This is the wilderness of “Kuv.”35 They said about the wilderness of “Kuv” that it was eight hundred parasangs by eight hundred parasangs, and 33 “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and maidens

without number. My dove, my perfect one, is only one, the darling of her mother, flawless to her that bore her. The maidens saw her and called her happy; the queens and concubines also, and they praised her” (Song 6:8-9, RSV). 34 There are further excurses on Moses being equal to the entire nation in MRS to Exodus 18:1, Epstein-Melamed p. 129, lines 2-6. 35 cuf is the name of a thorny cactus (Jastrow).

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

187

all of it was full of snakes and scorpions, as it is said, “He led you through the wilderness…” (Deuteronomy 8:15).36 And it says, “An oracle concerning the beasts of the Negev, in a land of trouble and anguish … and viper [vgpt]” (Isaiah 30:6).37 Viper means “Ikheous.”38 They said, This Ikheous, in the hour when it would see the shadow of a bird flying in the air, the bird would be consumed and it would drop limb by limb. And thus Scripture says, “And they did not say, ‘Where is the Lord, who brought us up from the land of Egypt, who led us in … a land of deserts … in a land of drought and the shadow of death [,unkm]’“ (Jeremiah 2:6).39 A place where shadow is accompanied by death.] R. Aba said, our great Rabbi related this matter to me: There was a man in the land of Israel whose name was “Maritah” [bald].40 And why was he called “Marita”? Because once he went to gather wood from the mountain, and he saw a serpent sleeping, and the serpent did not see him. But all his hair fell out, and he did not grow any more hair to the day of his death. That is why they called him, “Maritah.”

This passage is very similar to its parallel in MRI. Both are compared here in Hebrew, with common phrases underlined. There is no basis to distinguish one from the other as “earlier”; they are two transmissions of precisely the same tradition. Here the 36 “[God] Who led you through the great and terrible wilderness, with

its fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground where there was no water, who brought you water out of the flinty rock …” (Deut. 8:15, RSV). 37 “An oracle on the beasts of the Negev. Through a land of trouble and anguish, from where come the lioness and the lion, the viper [vgpt] and the flying serpent …” (RSV). The midrash understands this as “the viper even the flying serpent.” 38 xugfht = ε‘ χιεύς, a young viper (Liddell-Scott-Jones). 39 “And they did not say, ‘Where is the Lord, who brought us up from the land of Egypt, who led us in the wilderness, in a land of deserts and pits, in a land of drought and deep darkness, in a land that none passes through, where no man dwells’“ (Jeremiah 2:6, RSV). 40 Meaning “bald” or literally “plucked.”

188

Midrash and Legend

anecdote functions to illustrate the aggadic interpretation offered for the base verse. MRS

MRI

:tct 'r rnt /kusdv ubhcr hk ja vz rcs

:tct hcr rnt /kusdv ubhcr hk jhxv vz rcsv

unau ktrah .rtc vhv sjt ost ?vyhrn u,ut ihrue vnku /vyhrn in ohmg yekk lkv ,jt ogpa ajbvu iah ajbv ,t vtru wrvv jnm tku urga kf rabu /uvtr tk ihrue uhvu /u,un ouh sg rga uc /vyhrn u,ut

uhvu ktrah .rtc vhv sjt ost ,jt ogp wurnt /vyurn u,ut ihrue vtru w ohmg yuekk rvv atrk vkg /uvtr tk ajbvu iah ajbv ,t uc jnm tku uatr rga rab shnu u,ut ihrue uhvu /u,un ouh sg rga /vyurn

Parashat BeShallah, to Exodus 15:25 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 103 ln. 15 - line 24, from ms. Adler) A. “And he cried unto the Lord” (Exod. 15:25), etc.41 From this you learn that the righteous are not hard to complain to. By the way, we also learn that the prayer of the righteous is short. B. It happened once ['c vagnu] that someone, in the presence of R. Eliezer, went up [to lead the Prayer], and made his blessings long. C. His disciples said to him, “Our Master, did you notice So-and-so who made his blessings long?!” So people would say, “What a blesser he is!” D. He [R. Eliezer] said to them: He does not prolong [his prayers] more than Moses did, as it is said, “So I fell down before the Lord [forty days]” (Deut. 9:18), etc. And it says, “And I remained on the mountain” (Deut. 9:9), etc.

41 “And the people murmured against Moses, saying, ‘What shall we drink?’ And he cried to the LORD; and the LORD showed him a tree, and he threw it into the water, and the water became sweet. There the LORD made for them a statute and an ordinance and there he proved them, saying, ‘If you will diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give heed to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases upon you which I put upon the Egyptians; for I am the LORD, your healer’“ (Exodus 15:24-26, RSV).

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

189

E. Again it happened ['c vagn cuau] that someone, in the presence of R. Eliezer, went up [to lead the Prayer], and made his blessings short. F. His disciples said to him, “Our Master, did you notice So-and-so who made his blessings short?!” So people would say, “What a scholar he is!” G. He said to them: He did not shorten [his prayers] more than Moses did, as it is said: “Heal her now, O God, I beseech Thee [vk tb tpr tb kt]” (Num. 12:13). H. As he used to say: There is a time to shorten prayer and a time to lengthen. I. “Heal her now, O God, I beseech Thee”―now that is shortening! “And I remained upon the mountain forty days and nights”―now that is lengthening!

This is parallel to MRI Tractate Vayassa chapter 1 (Lauterbach: page 91, line 93 - page 92, line 105), which is treated in detail in the previous chapter (p. 79). The Hebrew text of both versions is given below, with common phrases underlined. I find no basis to prefer one to the other as “earlier.” They both seem to be slightly different performances of the same tradition, amplifying R. Eliezer’s well-known teaching about prayer into an exemplary account.42 The anecdote is imported associatively even though it does not fully affirm the interpretation offered at “A.” MRS snk ,t ifhn / /kcek ihae ohesm ihta ubsnk ubhfrs hpku /vrme ohehsm ,kp,a

MRI itfn /'udu /kcek ihae ohesm ihta snk v,t lfrs hpk /vrme ohehsmv ,kp,a

B

hbpk rcga sjtc vagnu /uh,ufrcc lhrtvu rzghkt 'r v,htr hbhcr wuhshnk, uk 'nt /uh,ufrcc lhrtva 'ukp !tuv ifrcn urntha hsf

[corresponds to below, “H”]

C

wvann r,h lhrtv tk wivk 'nt y 'cs) 'nudu 'tba /(y oa) 'nudu 'nutu /(jh

[corresponds to below, “I”]

A

42 As explained in the previous chapter.

190

Midrash and Legend

D

MRS [[corresponds to below, “F”]

E

[[corresponds to below, “G”]

F.

'r hbpk rcga sjtc vagn cuau uk urnt /uh,ufrcc rmheu rzghkt rmhea hbukp v,htr 'r wuhshnk, 'nk, wurntha hsf /uh,ufrcc !tuv 'nfj

[[corresponds to above, “D”]

G

wvann r,h rmhe tk wivk 'nt rnta /(dh ch 'nc)

[[corresponds to above, “E”]

H

[corresponds to above, “B”]

rcga sjt shnk,c vagn cua /uh,ufrcc lhrtvu rzghkt hcr hbpk ,htr hbhcr wuhshnk, uk urnt uhvu /uh,ufrcc lhrtva hbukp ifrtn ofj shnk, wuhkg ohrnut /tuv

I.

[corresponds to above, “C”]

r,uh vz lhrtv tk wovk rnt vz rntba wvann /’udu

J.

rmek vga ah w’nut vhva /lhrtvk vga ahu

rmek vga ah wrnut vhva /lhrtvk vga ahu

K L.

MRI hbpk rcga sjt shnk,c vagn /uh,ufrcc rmheu rzghkt hcr ,htr hbhcr wuhshnk, uk urnt uhvu /uh,ufrcc rmhea hbukp ofj shnk, wuhkg ohrnut /tuv irme /

r,uh vz rmhe tk wovk rnt vz rntba wvann

―

/rmek hrv /lhrtvk hrv -

―

Parashat BeShallah, to Exodus 16:14 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 110 ln. 7 - p. 111 line 20, from ms. Firkovich) A. Once [vhv rcfu] R. Tarfon and his students were sitting together and R. Eleazar of Modi’in was sitting among them. B. R. Eleazar of Modi’in said to them, “Sixty cubits was the height of the manna that came down for Israel.” C. They said to him: “Eleazar our brother, how long will you present us with frivolous assertions?”

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai D. He said to them: “I expound a passage from the Torah. For which measure is greater, the measure for good or the measure for evil? You must say: the measure for good. E. Concerning the measure for punishment, it says, “Fifteen cubits upward [did the waters prevail]” (Genesis 7:20), etc. Whichever you consider, fifteen cubits came down in the riverbeds, and fifteen on top of the mountains and fifteen cubits came down in the valley. F. And concerning the measure for good, it says, “And he commanded the skies above [and opened the doors of heaven] … and made Manna fall like dew for them…” (Psalm 78:23). The least that “doors” can designate is two. How many panes are there in a door? Four. Four added to four makes eight. Eight added to eight makes sixteen. Now, go and figure it up and you will find that the manna that came down for Israel was sixty cubits high. G. [Anecdote has ended but next paragraph continues in the same vein:] Isi b. Aqavia says: Whence do you learn that the Manna descended for Israel until all the nations saw it? Scripture says, “Thou preparest a table for me [in the presence of mine enemies]…” (Psalm 23:5). hgsunv rzgkt 'ru ihcauh uhshnk,u iupry 'r vhv rcfu vnt ohaa whgsunv rzgkt 'r ivk 'nt /ivhbhc cauh rzgkt uk unrt /'ahk ivk sruh vhva inka uvcd vhv wivk 'nt ?ubhkg thcnu ccdn v,t h,n sg ubhjt ,sn wvcurn vsn uz ht hfu /arus hbt vru,v in tren ,snc /cuyv ,sn w'nut huv ?grv ,sn ut cuyv wrnut tuv ,ubgrup 'nudu kjbv lu,c vnt vrag anju lapb vn /(f z 'rc) kg vnt vrag anj rvv hbp kg vnt vrag anj w'nut tuv cuyv ,sncu /vgecv hbp ,u,ks yugn /(df jg 'v,) 'nudu 'nudu gcrt kg gcrt /gcrt ?,ksc ,ucurt vnf /oh,a tm tv /rag vaa hrv vbna kg vbna /vbna hrv ivk sruh vhva in ka uvcd vhv vnt ohaaa caju /'ahk

This passage is treated in the previous chapter (p. 85).

191

192

Midrash and Legend

Parashat BeShallah, to Exodus 17:8 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 119 ln. 6 - p. 120 line 4, from Midrash haGadol) A. “At Rephidim” (Exodus 17:8). B. R. Haninah said, “We asked R. Eliezer about this matter when he was sitting in the great session. ‘How is Rephidim to be understood?’ He said to us, ‘Literally.’” C. R. Haninah also said, “We asked R. Eliezer about this matter when he was sitting in the great session, ‘For what reason did Israel redeem the first-born of asses and did not redeem the firstborn of camels and the firstborn of horses?’ He said to us, ‘It is a decree of the King, the King of Kings, blessed be He.’ D. “Another interpretation: Because they helped Israel when they departed from Egypt, for there was not a single Israelite who did not have seventy asses laden before him bearing gold and silver and precious stones and pearls.” hcr ,t ubkta vz rcs vhbbj 'r rnt / ?tuvn ohshpr - tcr tc,unc cauh tuvaf rzghkt ubkta vz rcs wvbhbj 'r rnt sugu /ugnanf wubk rnt vn hbpn - tcr tc,unc cauh tuvaf rzghkt 'r ,t hrypu ohknd hryp usp tku ohrunj hryp ktrah usp :t"s /v"c ohfknv hfkn lkn ,rhzd wubk rnt ?ohxux kf lk ihta ohrmnn i,thmhc ktrah ,t ughhxa hpk uhva uhbpk ohrunj ohgca uk uhv tka sjtu sjt /,uhkdrnu ,ucuy ohbctu cvzu ;xf ohbugy

This version is very closely related to the version in the Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael and is fully treated in the previous chapter (p. 88). The differences are mostly explicable as flourishes on the part of the MRS. Parashat Yitro, to Exodus 18:12 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 131 ln. 17 - p. 132 line 5, from ms. Firkovich, supplemented from Midrash haGadol) A. “And Aaron came…” (Exodus 18:12). But where did Moses go? Didn’t he at first go out to meet him? As it is said, “And Moses went forth to greet his father in law” (Exodus 18:7). But this teaches that he was standing and serving!

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai B. R. Zadok expounded this matter, when Rabban Gamaliel was standing and serving. They [the Sages] said, “Is it right that we should recline and Rabban Gamaliel stand and serve us!” R. Joshua said to them, “We find one greater than Rabban Gamaliel who stood and served.” They said to him, “Who is that?” He said to them, “Abraham at the crossroads, the greatest member of his generation, as it is said, “And he attended to them…” (Genesis 18:8). [Here there is a gap in ms. Firkovich and Epstein-Melamed completes the account from Midrash HaGadol:] And [he thought] they

were not upright men, but rather men who worshipped idols and anger the Omnipresent. How much more should Rabban Gamaliel stand and serve upright men who are occupied with the Torah! C. R. Zadok said to them, “We find one greater than Abraham and Rabban Gamaliel who stood and served.” They said to him, “Whom?” He said to them, “The God of heaven, blessed be He, who gives to each and every one according to his needs, and to each creature what it lacks, as it is said, ‘He gives food to all flesh’ (Psalm 136:25), and it says, ‘He gives the beast its food’ (Psalm 147:9). And [he does this] not only for upright men, but also for human beings, worshippers of idols and those who anger him. How much more so should Rabban Gamaliel stand and serve upright men, who are occupied with Torah.” tmh vkj,n tkvu ?lkv ifhvk van / /(z jh 'na) 'tba ?u,trek eusm 'r ars vz rcs !ananu snug vhva snkn tkt ihcuxn ubta ihsc wurnt /ananu snug 'knd icr vhvaf wgauvh 'r ovk rnt ?ubananu snug kthknd icru vzht wuk urnt /anhau snga 'knd icrn kusd ubtmn 'tba wrusv kusd wvbhpc ovrct wovk rnt ?tuv tkt ohraf ost hbc tku /(j yh 'rc) ,jt kg /ouenv hbpk ihxhgfnu z"g ihscuga ost hbc ost hbc hbpk ananu snuga kthknd icrk vnfu vnf kusd ubtmn weusm 'r ovk rnt /vru,c ihehxgu ohraf vzhv wuk urnt /ananu snuga kthknd icrnu ovrctn kfk i,uba wtuv lurc ohnav vukt wivk rnt ?[sic] 'tba wvruxjn hs vhudu vhud kfku uhfrm sjtu sjt rnutu (vf uke 'v,) ihscug ost hbc tkt ohraf ost hbc tku /(y zne 'v,) kthknd icrk vnfu vnf ,jt kg /uhbpk ihxhgfnu z"g :vru,c ihehxgu ohraf ost hbc hbpk ananu snuga

193

194

Midrash and Legend

This passage with is parallels is treated in the previous chapter (p. 91ff.). Parashat Yitro, to Exodus 18:27 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 135 lns. 16 - 18, from Midrash haGadol) It happened once ['c vagn] that one said [mockingly], “Today there is a sacrifice of the house of the water drinkers!” And a heavenly voice came forth from the Holy of Holies and said to them, “He who received the offerings of your fathers in the desert, He will also receive your offerings now.” ,tmh /ouhv ohn h,ua ,hc icre rnta sjtc vagnu icre kchea hn wivk vrntu ohasev asue ,hcn kue ,c /uz vgac ofbcre kceh tuv rcsnc ofh,uct

This passage is explained in the chapter on MRI where it also appears (p. 102). Parashat Yitro, to Exodus 20:5 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 147 ln. 24 p. 148 ln. 3, from Midrash haGadol) The elder Agrippa43 asked Rabban Gamaliel: There is no jealousy except if there are rivals, as it said, “Know this day and consider it in your heart that the Lord, he is God [… and there is no other]” (Deut. 4:39). He replied: There is no jealousy, not for a superior and not for a peer, but for an inferior. And thus it says, “My people have committed two evils―they have forsaken me, the fountain of living water” (Jeremiah 2:13). If they had merely ‘forsaken me, the fountain of living water’ they would have been disgraceful; how much more so when “they hewed for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns incapable of holding water” (Jeremiah 2:13). tkt tbe,n iht :kthknd icr ,t tcx xphrdt kta 'tba wohrjtc wtbe,n iht uk rnt /(yk s 'cs) [ …] tuv ifu /ubnn iyec tkt uc tmuhfc tku ubnn kusdc tk 43 This is possibly an error for “General Agrippa,” “tcm ra” as at b. Avodah Zarah 55a, rather than “tcx” as our text reads. Epstein-Melamed notes that the reading “Agrippa the Dyer [tgcm xuphrdt]” occurs in the Venice edition of MRI for this story.

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

195

wrnut ohhj ohn ohhj ohn ruen h,ut uczg ukt /(dh c 'nrh) vnfu vnf ,jt kg wuhv ihcukg /(oa)

This passage is treated in the previous chapter (p. 113ff.). The anecdote functions to put the problem posed by the passage in the mouth of an “outsider” and thus to disarm it, while giving an authority figure an opportunity to address the issue. Parashat Mishpatim, to Exodus 21:1 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 158 ln. 13 - p. 159 ln. 21, from ms. Cambridge, supplemented by parallel sources, as explained below) [The ms. Cambridge on which Epstein-Melamed relies for this passage has lacunae for the first several lines of the story, and Epstein-Melamed supplies what is missing from the parallels in the Bavli and Yerushalmi. We begin with the reconstructed material and below I mark where the manuscript resumes.] A. [Editors’ reconstruction based on b. Hagigah 14b:] It happened that ['c vagnu] Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was riding on his donkey, going from Jerusalem, and R. Eleazar ben Arakh his student was walking behind him. B. He said to him, “Master, teach me one chapter of the ma’asey merkavah [theosophy].” C. He said to him, “Have I not already instructed you that ‘merkavah cannot even be taught to an individual privately unless he is already wise and understands [the subject] on his own’“ (m. Hagigah 2:1). D. He said to him [ms. begins:], “If not, give me permission to recite in your presence.” E. R. Eleazar ben Arakh was expounding until flaming fire surrounded him on all sides. F. As soon as Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai saw the flaming fire surrounding him, he descended from upon his donkey, and kissed him, and said to him, “R. Eleazar ben Arakh, blessed is she who bore you! Blessed are you, Abraham our father, that this one issued from your loins!”

196

Midrash and Legend G. [Anecdote has ended but passage continues:] He used to say, “If all the Sages of Israel were in one tray of a scale, and R. Eliezer ben Arakh was in the other, he would outweigh them all.” tmuhu runjv kg cfur vhva htfz ic ibjuh icrc vagnu rnt /uhrjt lkvn ushnk, lrg ic rzgkt 'ru wokaurhn tk wuk rnt /vcfrn vagnc sjt erp hk vba 'r wuk vhv if ot tkt wshjhc vcfrnc tku wofk h,hba lf rnuta ,uar hk i, uhtk ot wuk rnt /u,gsn ihcnu ofj at v,hhva sg arus lrg ic rzgkt 'r vhv /lhbpk hfz ic ibjuh icr vtra iuhf /uhchcx kfn ,yvkn runjv kgn srh wuhchcx kfn ,yvkn atv v,hhva lhrat !l,skuh hrat wlrg ic rzgkt 'r wuk rntu ueabu ot wrnut vhv tuv !lhmkjn tmh vza wubhct ovrct lrg ic rzgkt 'ru wohbztn ;fc ktrah hnfj kf uhvh /okuf ,t tuv ghrfn wvhhba ;fc

The connection of this anecdote to its context is the discussion of the phrase, “These are the judgments which you shall place before them” (Exodus 21:1). The midrash discusses whether “them” includes all Israelites or specifies certain subcategories. Laws which should be taught to one group and not to another are discussed. This leads nicely (but not unavoidably) to the inclusion of our story which mentions that mysticism is not to be taught publicly. The anecdote functions by providing content for the opening created by mi’ut hermeneutic. Parallel accounts also occur at t. Hagigah 2:1, y. Hagigah 2:1 and b. Hagigah 14b. t. Hagigah 2:1 A. They do not expound the laws of prohibited relationships before three persons, but they do expound them before two; or about the Works of Creation before two, but they do expound them before one; or about the Chariot before one, unless he was a sage and understands of his own knowledge (m. Hagigah 2:1). B. In happened that ['c vagn] Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was riding on a donkey, and R. Leazar b. Arakh was driving the donkey from behind. C. He said to him, “Rabbi, teach me one chapter of the works of the Chariot. D. He said to him, “Have I not ruled for you to begin with that they do not expound concerning the Chariot before an

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai individual, unless he was a sage and understands of his own knowledge? E. He said to him, “Now may I lay matters out before you?” He said to him, “Say on.” F. R. Leazar ben Arakh commenced and expounded concerning the works of the Chariot. G. Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai got off his ass, wrapped himself in his cloak [u,hky], and the two of them sat down on a rock under an olive tree, and he [Eleazar] laid matters out before him. H. Yohanan got up and kissed him on his head and said to him, “Blessed be the Lord, God of Israel, who gave to Abraham, our father, a son who knows how to understand and expound upon the glory of his father who is in heaven. I. Some preach nicely but do not practice nicely, or practice nicely but do not preach nicely. Leazar ben Arakh preaches nicely and practices nicely. J. Happy are you, O Abraham, our father, for Eleazar b. Arakh has gone forth from your loins, who knows how to understand and expound upon the glory of his father in heaven.44

y. Hagigah 2:1 A. Once ['c vagn] Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was going on the road, riding on a donkey, and R. Eleazar ben Arakh was walking behind him. He said to Yohanan, “Master, teach me a chapter in the Work of the Chariot.” B. He said to him, “Have not the Sages taught thus: Nor the Chariot unless he is a sage and understands of his own knowledge?” C. [R. Eleazar] said to him, “Master, give me permission to speak about the subject in your presence.” He said to him, “Speak!”

44 Translation of Neusner.

197

198

Midrash and Legend D. As soon as R. Leazar ben Arakh opened [his discourse] on the Work of the Chariot, Rabban Yo
anan ben Zakkai got off the donkey, saying, “It is not right that I should be hearing about the glory of my Creator while still seated on a donkey!” They went and sat down under a tree. E. Then fire fell from heaven and surrounded them, and the ministering angels skipped before them like wedding guests rejoicing before the bridegroom. An angel answered from the midst of the fire and said, “According to your words, Eleazar ben Arakh, is the Work of the Chariot.” F. Immediately all the trees opened their mouths and sang, “Then shall all the trees of the wood sing for joy” (Ps. 96:12). G. When R. Leazar ben Arakh finished [expounding] the Work of the Chariot, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai stood up and kissed him upon his head and said, “Blessed be the Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who has given to Abraham our father a wise son who knows how to expound on the glory of our Father who is in heaven. H. “Some expound well, but do not fulfill well; some fulfill well, but do not expound well. Eleazar ben Arakh expounds well and fulfills well. I. “Happy are you, Abraham our father, that Eleazar ben Arakh has come forth from your loins.”45

b. Hagigah 14b A. Our Rabbis taught: Once ['c vagn] R. Yohanan b. Zakkai was riding on an ass when going on a journey, and R. Leazar b. Arakh was driving the ass from behind. [R. Eleazar] said to him: Master, teach me a chapter of the ‘Work of the Chariot.’ B. He answered: Have I not taught you thus: ‘Nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a Sage and understands of his own knowledge’?

45 Translation of Neusner.

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

199

C. [R. Eleazar] then said to him: Master, permit me to say before thee something which thou hast taught me. He answered: Say on! D. Forthwith R. Yohanan b. Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up, and sat upon a stone beneath an olive tree. Said [R. Eleazar] to him: Master, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? He answered: Is it proper that whilst thou art expounding the ‘Work of the Chariot,’ and the Divine Presence is with us, and the ministering angels accompany us, I should ride on the ass! E. Forthwith, R. Eleazar b. Arakh began his exposition of the ‘work of the Chariot’, and fire came down from heaven and encompassed all the trees in the field; [thereupon] they all began to utter [divine] song. What was the song they uttered?―“Praise the Lord from the earth, ye sea-monsters, and all deeps … fruitful trees and all cedars … Hallelujah” (Psalm 148:7,9,14). An angel [then] answered from the fire and said: This is the very ‘Work of the Chariot.’ F. [Thereupon] R. Yohanan b. Zakkai rose and kissed him on his head and said: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, Who hath given a son to Abraham our father, who knoweth to speculate upon, and to investigate, and to expound the ‘Work of the Chariot’! G. There are some who preach well but do not act well, others act well but do not preach well, but thou dost preach well and act well. H. Happy art thou, O Abraham our father, that R. Eleazar b. Arakh hath come forth from thy loins.46

These passages are all very closely related, probably all derivative from the Tosefta. Because of the number of passages involved I will compare some of the key features rather than attempt a phrase by phrase comparison. Tosefta

MRS

Yerushalmi

Bavli

Mishnah quoted as introduction

―

―

―

46 Soncino translation, modified slightly.

200

Midrash and Legend Tosefta

MRS

Yerushalmi

Bavli

Anecdote marker: 'c vagn







R. Eleazar was driving

just following

just following

R. Eleazar was driving

“Have I not taught thee [lk h,rnt] …”

“Have I not taught you [ofk h,hba] …”

“Have not the Sages taught [ohnfj uba] …”

“Have I not taught you [ofk h,hba] …”

“May I lay matters out for you?” [v,gn lhbpk vmrt]

“Let me recite [,uar hk i, rnuta] …”

“Let me recite [rnuk hbar,] …”

“Let me recite [rnuk hbar,] …”

Yohanan Yohanan Yohanan dismounts when dismounts when dismounts when Eleazar begins he sees mystic Eleazar begins reciting flames reciting

Yohanan dismounts before Eleazar begins reciting

Yohanan dons tallit

―

―

Yohanan wraps himself [tallit unspecified]

They sat on rock under olive tree

―

They sat under a tree

They sat on rock under olive tree

[No supernatural sign]

“Blessed be the Lord … who gave to Abraham … a son who knows how to … expound on the glory of his father in heaven” “Eleazar … expounds well and fulfills well.”

Fire from heaven surrounds all the Fire from heaven trees, angels surrounds the pair, mentioned by Eleazar skipping angels, surrounded by Yohanan but not angel speaks from flaming fire manifest, singing fire, then singing trees trees (Ps. 148), then (Ps. 96) angel speaks from fire

―

“Blessed be the Lord … who gave to Abraham … a son who knows how to … expound on the glory of his father in heaven”

“Blessed be the Lord … who gave to Abraham … a son who knows how to … investigate and expound the Work of the Chariot”

―

“Eleazar … expounds well and fulfills well.”

“Eleazar … expounds well and fulfills well.”

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai Tosefta

MRS

Yerushalmi

“Happy are you, “Happy are you, “Happy are you, Abraham … for Abraham … that Abraham … for this one has Eleazar … has Eleazar … has gone forth from gone forth from gone forth your loins.” from your loins.” your loins.”

201 Bavli

“Happy are you, Abraham … for Eleazar … has gone forth from your loins.”

Parashat Mishpatim, to Exodus 21:13 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 169 ln. 7 - p. 170 ln. 17, from ms. Cambridge) [“Though he did not premeditate, but God let him fall into his hand…” (Exodus 21:13). “Reward is visited by means of worthy men, and punishment by means of sinners.”] A. Trajan asked Julianus [xhbukuk] and Pappios his brother about this matter, when he decreed [rzdaf] their death sentences. B. He said to them: I am the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and you are the sons of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Let the one who delivered Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah from the power of Nebuchadnezzar come and deliver you from my power! C. They said to him: Nebuchadnezzar was worthy that miracles be performed by his hand, and Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were worthy that miracles be performed by their hands. Nebuchadnezzar was worthy because he did not become guilty of shedding innocent blood, and Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were worthy because they were not deserving of death. D. But you are not thus worthy that miracles should be performed by your hand, and we are not thus worthy that miracles should be performed on our behalf. You are guilty of shedding innocent blood, and we are deserving of death. E. And if you do not kill us, will we not die? It is written in our Torah, “Though he did not premeditate, but God let him fall into his hand…” (Exodus 21:13).47 47 “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. But if

he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I

202

Midrash and Legend Reward is bestowed by means of worthy men, and punishment by means of sinners.48 And when we die, you will know that we are the sons of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. F. They did not die until he encountered the ones who gouged out his eyes. thv uz /chhj hsh kg vcuju htfz hsh kg ,ufz ihkdkdn . . . ivhkg rzdaf uhjt xuhpp ,tu xhbukuk ,t xubuhry ktaa ovhbc o,tu wrmb sfucb ka ubc hbt wivk 'nt /v,hn vhbbj ,t khmva hn tuch /vhrzgu ktahn vhbbjka urnt /hshn of,t khmhu rmb sfucb shn vhrzgu ktahn ktahn vhbbju wohxb ush kg ,uaghk vfz rmb sfucb wuk tka vfz rmb sfucb /ohxb ovhsh kg vagha ufz vhrzgu tka ufz vhrzgu ktahn vhbbju wheb os lupak chhj,b kg ohxb ,uaghk htsf v,t ht v,tu /v,hn uchhj,b v,chhj,b v,t /ohxb ubk uagha htsf ubt iht ubtu wlhsh v,t ht ot hfu /v,hn ubchhj,b ubtu wheb os lupak 49wub,ru,c ',f [50...] ?oh,n ubt iht wubdruv kg vcuju htfz hsh kg ,ufz ihkdkdn / ktahn vhbbj ka uhbc ubta gs, ,unbafu /chhj hsh /uhbhg ,t ihyyjn i,ut vtra sg u,n tk /vhrzgu

b. Ta’anit 18b A. What is Trajan’s [Day]?51 B. It was said: When Trajan was about to execute [durvk xubhhruy aecaf] Lulinus and his brother Pappos in Laodicea he said to them, ‘If you are of the people of Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, let your God come and deliver you from my hands, in the same way as he delivered Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah from the hands of Nebuchadnezzar; C. and to this they replied: ‘Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were perfectly righteous men and they merited that a miracle should be wrought for them, and will appoint for you a place to which he may flee” (Exodus 21:12-13, RSV). 48 Cp., besides the parallel stories here, b. Shabbat 32a, y. Sanhedrin 10:2, where this proverbial phrase is used. 49 Emendation suggested by Epstein-Melamed; ms. reads, “h,ru,c”. 50 There is a lacuna here in the text. 51 Passage is presented in the Soncino translation.

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

203

Nebuchadnezzar also was a king worthy for a miracle to be wrought through him, D. but as for you, you are a common and wicked man and are not worthy that a miracle be wrought through you; and as for us, we have deserved of the Omnipresent that we should die, and if you will not kill us, the Omnipresent has many other agents of death. The Omnipresent has in His world many bears and lions who can attack us and kill us; E. the only reason why the Holy One, blessed be He, has handed us over into your hand is that at some future time He may exact punishment of you for our blood.’ F. Despite this he killed them. It is reported that hardly had they moved from there when officials arrived from Rome and split his skull with axes.52

Sifra Emor perek 9 (to Leviticus 22:32) A. In this connection Sages have said [urnt itfn]:53 B. Whoever gives his life on condition that a miracle is done for him—no miracle will be done for him. C. But if it is not on condition that a miracle be done for him, a miracle will be done for him. D. For so we find in the case of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, that they said to Nebuchadnezzar, “We have no need to answer you in this matter, for if so it 52 Soncino Talmud note on this point: “xubhhruy The identification of

this name with Trajan is disputed, particularly as Trajan is known to have died a natural death. It is suggested that this reference here is to Trajan’s general, Lusius Quietus, who was executed by Trajan (Schürer I, 660 n. 62). Nothing can however as yet be said with certainty.” Of course accuracy in facts is not a primary concern in an ideological narrative―cp. Appendix III, the last passage treated (Lev. R. 22:3) which offers a boldly contrary-to-fact account of the death of Titus. 53 “In this connection”―referring to the subject of sanctifying God’s name through martyrdom, based on Sifra’s reading of Lev. 22:32: “And you shall not profane my holy name [by publicly violating the commandments]; but I will be sanctified among the children of Israel [when you accept martyrdom rather than publicly profane the commandments]: I am the LORD who sanctifies you.”

204

Midrash and Legend must be, our God whom we serve is able to save us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will save us from your power, O king. But even if he does not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your god or worship the statue of gold that you have set up” (Dan. 3:16-18). E. And when Marainus seized [xp,afu] Pappos and Lulainos, brothers in Laodicea, he said to them, “If you come from the people of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your God come and save you from my power.” F. They said to him, “Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were worthy men, and Nebuchadnezzar was a king worthy of having a miracle done on his account. G. “But you are a wicked king, and you are not worthy of having a miracle done on your account, and, for our part, we are liable to the death penalty inflicted by Heaven, so if you do not kill us, there are plenty of agents of punishment before the Omnipresent, plenty of bears, plenty of lions, plenty of panthers, plenty of fiery snakes, plenty of scorpions, to do injury to us. H. “But in the end the Omnipresent is going to demand the penalty of our blood from your hand.” I. They say that he did not leave there before officials came from Rome, and split his skull with axes.54

Semahot 8:1555 A. And further [R. Akiva expounded]: Reward is brought about through persons of merit and punishment through persons of guilt. B. When Trajan was about to execute [drvaf] Pappos and his brother Lulainus in Laodecia, he said to them, ‘If you are of the people of Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, let your God come and deliver you from my hands, in the same was as he delivered Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah [from Nebuchadnezzar].’

54 Translation of Neusner, modified. 55 Given here in the Soncino translation.

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

205

C. They replied, ‘Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were worthy men and Nebuchadnezzar was a worthy king, and it was fitting that a miracle should be wrought through their agency; but you are a wicked king and are not worthy that a miracle should be wrought through your agency. D. ‘As for us, we deserve death at the hand of God, and if you do not slay us, the Omnipresent has many other agents of death; He has many demons, many bears, many leopards, many snakes, many venomous serpents, many scorpions which will come and attack us; but when we die you will learn that we are the descendants of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.’ E. It is reported that before they died they witnessed his eyes gouged out.56

MRS and Semahot can be grouped together―they alone share the proverb that rewards are dispensed by the agency of the worthy, and punishments by the agency of the wicked. They alone share the introductory marker “drvaf,” the warning “when we die, then you will know,” and the gouging of eyes. In MRS, in my opinion, the gouging of eyes may have been introduced in response to the story of Samson which is cited in the preceding context, in support of the same proverb and base text. Sifra and Ta’anit are grouped together―they share the bears and lions (Semahot also has this), they alone share the warning that Trajan will suffer bloodguilt through the martyrs’ deaths, and they alone share the officials from Rome with their axes. Ta’anit has the simplest form of the story. The story comes in brief to answer the simple question, “What is Trajan’s day?” In both Semahot and MRS, the story comes to illustrate the proverb regarding how rewards and punishments are dispensed, and in MRS, the proverb is imported to illustrate MRS’ interpretation of the base text. In Sifra the story comes to illustrate the topic at hand regarding the proper attitude with which to face martyrdom. In my opinion a simple telling of the story, such as we have at Ta’anit, would stand first in the tradition. MRS and Sifra amplify and adapt the story and fit it to their purposes. Semahot knows all of these stories or at least MRS with its proverb and Sifra with its 56 There is a passing reference to this story at y. Megillah 1:4.

206

Midrash and Legend

bears and scorpions, and incorporates as many elements as possible. Parashat Mishpatim, to Exodus 21:29 (Epstein-Melamed, p. 181 lns. 7-8, from ms. Firkovich) [The preceding context regards the goring ox: “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be held innocent. But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death… . If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned” (Exodus 21:28-29, 32, RSV).] [“The ox shall be stoned” (Exodus 21:29). I only know about an ox. Whence do I learn what to do concerning the rest of beasts and fowl, that they are in the same class as the ox? Scripture teaches, “And the ox shall be stoned” (Exodus 21:32). And also R. Eliezer says, the “ox” that killed must be put to death by [a court of] twenty-three.57 As for the rest of beasts and fowl, if they cause death whoever goes ahead and kills them will be rewarded by heaven.”] R. Judah ben Baba bore witness that a rooster, which had killed a person, was stoned in Jerusalem. ,uagk ,ucrk ihbn /rua tkt hk iht odu / wk", ?ruac tmuhf ;ugu vhj vnvc rta / ohragc u,,hn ,hnva ruav w'nut rzghkt 'r odu osuev kf wu,hnva ;ugu vhj vnvc rtau wvakau kexba tcc ic vsuvh 'r shgv /ohnak vfz idruvk /apbv ,t drva okaurhc kudbr,

57 “The ox to be stoned is tried by [a court of] twenty-three, as it is written,

‘The ox shall be stoned and its owner shall be put to death.’ As the death of the owner, so that of the ox can be decided only by twentythree” (m. Sanhedrin 1:4, Soncino translation).

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

207

This seems simply to be a quotation from the Mishnah which serves to demonstrate the point at hand. Since it is a case illustrating the law, I classify it as a ma’aseh. m. Eduyyot 6:158 R. Judah b. Baba testified concerning five things: that women who are minors are made to declare an annulment of their marriage; that a woman is allowed to re-marry on the evidence of one witness; that a rooster was stoned in Jerusalem because it had killed a person; and about wine forty days old, that it was used as a libation on the altar; and about the continual offering of the morning, that it is offered at the fourth hour.

y. Eruvin 10:159 Said R. Zerika, R. Hamnuna explained, “One puts on tefillin up to the place at which the head of an infant is soft [with the cranium not fully hardened, and that place will hold only a single box of tefillin, and not two. There we have learned, concerning a rooster that was stoned in Jerusalem because it had killed a person. It saw the soft skull of an infant and went and pecked at it.

FORMAL COMPARISON OF PARALLEL PASSAGES For each anecdote I identify the anecdote “marker”―a rhetorical trope which marks the beginning of a passage and identifies it as an anecdote. I mark the trope as “Distinguishing” in the third column if the anecdote marker is always an anecdote marker for MRS. We will also identify tropes which bear the weight of the narrative or determine the structure of the passage (e.g. “he sat and expounded”).

58 Soncino translation. 59 Translation of Neusner.

208

Midrash and Legend TABLE III. FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ANECDOTES IN THE MEKHILTA DERABBI SIMEON

Text Starting Point Bo to Exod. 12:8 (p. 13 line 9)

Anecdote Marker past tense + name of sage

Dist.



Other Tropes … itf vchr k", … kufh

Basic Form Commentary ribui with embedded case-example

w(ucr) utmn ,hrjak tk vn hbpn wk"t ?o"vck ant v,tc Bo to Exod. 12:16 (p. 21 line 10)

'c vagn + proper name



grht ,jt vumn [v]h,hagu hshk

Case-Example

tka lhkg hbt vhn, lsxpvc lrfa tmh [citing T.] urnt hrv(a)

BeShallah to hnhc + name of Exod. 14:13 historical figure (p. 56 line 6) here xubhdury

BeShallah to Exod. 14:22 (p. 63 line 8)

vhv rcfu … 'r ihcauh uhshnk,u coupled with place name here vbchc orf

kta + name of BeShallah to historical figure, Exod. 15:1 (p. here xubhbybt 76 ln. 13) and hcr BeShallah to Exod. 15:13 (p. 95 line 15)

… 'r vhv rcf

BeShallah to Exod. 15:22 (p. 102 line 17)

vhv sjt ost + place name

BeShallah to Exod. 15:25 (p. 103 line 15)



coupled with arusu cauh

… ,unuen vaukac

vkta ofhbpk ktat 

ubsnkh uk urnt ubhcr ub,snk uk urnt



hbktua v,ta sg …kg hbhkta…kg wkan ?vnus rcsv vnk



uhshnk, ubgb …’r hk ja vz rcsv



… urnt

… u,ut ihrue uhvu

Academy Discussion master and students

Sage answers Non-Jew Academy Discussion master and students Parabolic Anecdote

u,un ouh sg uhshnk, uk urnt

case citation 'c vagn(u)

List enumeration of examples



…. urntha hsf …k vga ah …k vga ahu

Academy Discussion master and students

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai Text Starting Point

Anecdote Marker

Dist.

Other Tropes

209

Basic Form

ivhbhc cauh hbukp(u) v,t h,n sg ?ubhkg thcnu ccdn BeShallah to Exod. 16:14 (p. 110 line 7)

vhv rcfu uhshnk,u … 'r ihcauh



in tren arus hbt vru,v rnut huv

Academy Discussion among Sages

lapb vn rnut tuv …’'c

BeShallah to Exod. 17:8 (p. 119 line 6)

…’'r rnt vz rcs ubkta …’'r ,t coupled with setting

… vn hbpn 

lkn ,rhzd ohfknv hfkn

Academy Discussion among Sages

cauh tuvaf [tcr tc,unc] …a snkn tkt Yitro to Exod. 18:12 (p. 131 line 17)

Yitro to Exod. 18:27 (p. 135 line 16)

… 'r vhvaf + present tense



vnfu vnf ,jt kg ohraf ost hbc vru,c ihehxgu

Academy Discussion among Sages

case citation 'c vagn coupled with reference to 2nd Temple

kta + name of Yitro to historical figure, Exod. 20:5 (p. here 147 line 24) tcx xphrdt and d"r

Mishpatim to Exod. 21:1 (p. 158 line 13)

… 'r ars vz rcs





Case Example

___ tkt ___ iht

Sage answers Non-Jew

vnfu vnf ,jt kg ?ofk h,hba lf tk

'c vagn + proper name coupled with place name here okakurh

kue ,c ,tmh vrntu …



,uar hk i, lhbpk rnuta !lskuh hrat ubhct ovrct lhrat !lhmkjn tmh vza

Academy Discussion among Sages (where one sage is pupil of the other)

210 Text Starting Point

Midrash and Legend

Anecdote Marker

Dist.

Other Tropes

Basic Form

v,hn ivhkg rzdaf ['v] tuch hshn of,t khmhu

ktaa thv uz + proper name

Mishpatim to coupled with Exod. 21:13 past tense action (p. 169 line 7) rzdaf v,hn ivhkg



…a htsf ubt iht htfz h"g ,ufz ihkdkdn chhj hsh kg vcuju

Martyrdom of Laymen

…a gs, ,unbafu …a sg u,n tk

Mishpatim to Exod. 21:29 (p. 181 line 7)

'r shgv …a 'kp + place name

―



Case-Example

The next table presents essentially the same data as the previous table, but is organized by forms instead of passages. TABLE IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF FORMS EMPLOYED.

Basic Form Academy Discussion among Sages

Typical Tropes (used in MRS) … 'r ars vz rcs vz rcs …’r rnt …’r ,t ubkta ivhbhc cauh hbukp … vn hbpn …a snkn tkt v,t h,n sg ?ubhkg thcnu ccdn in tren arus hbt vru,v rnut huv

Basic Outline I. Sages are named II. Sage X proposes theory III. Sage Y rebukes him IV. Sage X provides proof V. Sage Y praises him ====

lkn ,rhzd ohfknv hfkn vnfu vnf ,jt kg

I. Sages are named II. Sage X does something III. Sage Y rebukes him IV. Sage X provides reason V. Sage Y praises him

?ofk h,hba lf tk

====

lapb vn rnut tuv …’'c

,uar hk i, lhbpk rnuta

I. Sages are named II. Sage X asks Sage

Examples in MRS BeShallah to Exod. 16:14 (p. 110 ln.7) BeShallah to Exod. 17:8 (p. 119 ln.6) Yitro to Exod. 18:2 (p. 131 ln. 17) Mishpatim to Exod. 21:1 (p. 158 ln.13)

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

Basic Form

Typical Tropes (used in MRS) !lskuh hrat

Basic Outline

211 Examples in MRS

Y question III. Sage Y answers ubhct ovrct lhrat !lhmkjn tmh vza with proof text ohraf ost hbc vru,c ihehxgu Academy Discussion master and students

vkta ofhbpk ktat I. Sage poses BeShallah to rhetorical questions Exod. 14:22 uhshnk, uk urnt II. Students answer (p. 63 ln.8) ubsnkh uk urnt and sage refutes their BeShallah to ubhcr ub,snk uk urnt answers Exod. 15:13 II. Students beg for … 'r vhv rcfu (p. 95 ln.15) correct answer ihcauh uhshnk,u III. Sage answers BeShallah to … 'r vhv rcf IV. Students laud Exod. 15:25 arusu cauh sage (p. 103 ln. 15) uhshnk, ubgb … urntha hsf …k vga ah …k vga ahu

Case-Example

The case of … The case came to w(ucr) utmn ,hrjak tk vn hbpn wk"t [authority] who ?o"vck ant v,tc declared … 'c vagn

tka lhkg hbt vhn, lsxpvc lrfa tmh urnt hrv(a) [citing T.]

Bo to Exod. 12:16 (p. 21 ln.10) Yitro to Exodus 18:27 (p. 135 ln.16) Mishpatim to Exod. 21:29 (p. 181 ln.7)

kue ,c ,tmh … vrntu …a 'kp 'r shgv Commentary (Ribui)

… itf vchr k", … kufh

I. Passage with redundant phrase is quoted. II. One might think … [erroneous conclusion is stated] III. But Scripture states [redundant phase is quoted] IV. Correct conclusion is given involving a special case which would

Bo to Exod. 12:8 (p. 13 ln.9)

212

Basic Form

Midrash and Legend Typical Tropes (used in MRS)

Basic Outline

otherwise have no scriptural support List - warnings and … ,unuen vaukac I. In three places … fulfillments II. Quotation of three warnings “The first …” III. All three times … IV. Quotation of three fulfillments “The first …” V. All three times … Martyrdom of v,hn ivhkg rzdaf I. Persecutor taunts Laymen martyr or offers way ['v] tuch to avoid martyrdom hshn of,t khmhu II. Martyr accepts …a htsf ubt iht death as just and htfz h"g ,ufz ihkdkdn from God, quotes chhj hsh kg vcuju Scripture III. Martyr declares …a gs, ,unbafu portent upon persecutor …a sg u,n tk IV. Portent is fulfilled Parabolic I. A scriptural … vhv sjt ost Anecdote wonder is described u,un ouh sg II. “Contemporary” similar event is mentioned Sage answers I. Non-Jew poses 'kp kta uz Non-Jew question … 'kp 'r ,t II. Sage answers with ___ tkt ___ iht parable vnfu vnf ,jt kg === hbktua v,ta sg …kg hbhkta…kg I. Hostile non-Jew quotes verse to Sage wkan ?vnus rcsv vnk II. Sage counters with another verse and parable

Examples in MRS

BeShallah to Exod. 14:13 (p. 56 ln.6)

Mishpatim to Exod. 21:13 (p. 169 ln.7)

BeShallah to Exod. 15:22 (p. 102 ln.17) BeShallah to Exod. 15:1 (p. 76 ln.13) Yitro to Exod. 20:5 (p. 147 ln.24)

In the following table we give the names of the documents which contain parallels to a text in MRS, and then we identify the relationship of our text to the parallel passage. Some of these identifications will be quite speculative, others more firmly based―the notes on the individual passages above will make that

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

213

clear. The reader should bear in mind that these tables compare forms of anecdotes and not entire documents.60 “P” indicates a Parent to the version in MRS, which is to say the MRS version can only be explained by reference to the “Parent.” “C” represents Child, the opposite relationship―the parallel depends on the MRS version. “^” indicates that two versions seem dependent on a common source for explanation. “N” “Does Not Know”―the source in question does not know MRS. “?” there is no basis even to speculate about a relationship between versions of a story. If I think a relationship is particularly well-founded, I make my symbol bold. TABLE V. PARALLELS IN TANNAITIC LITERATURE AND THE TALMUDS.

Text Starting Point Bo to Exod. 12:8 (p. 13 ln. 9)

Bo to Exod. 12:16 (p. 21 ln. 10)

BeShallah to Exod. 14:13 (p. 56 ln. 6)

Parallels and Relationships

Bavli (C)

Tosefta (P) Bavli (^)

Common Elements Dispute regarding herbs designated “ohrurn.” R. Ilai looks in vain for a partner to eat Palm Ivy at Passover. Tosefta and MRS virtually identical. Bavli seems to depend on T but shares with MRS the exposition of Exod. 12:16.

MRI (P) List of examples and Yerushalmi (^) interpretive refrains

Distinguishing Elements in MRS R. Ilai. Briefest version of anecdote. Only MRS bases argument on baraita and Scripture. Very close to MRI, expands slightly, lacks elaborate narrative in Yerushalmi

60 Since so many anecdotes are shared between MRS and MRI, this

table is largely a transposition of the table from the last chapter.

214

Midrash and Legend

Parallels and Relationships

Common Elements

BeShallah to Exod. 14:22 (p. 63 ln. 8)

MRI (C) Tosefta (^)

All the composites contain R. Tarfon, water blessing, Joseph story, and story of tribe Judah at the Red Sea, with similar use of proof-texts.

BeShallah to Exod. 15:1 (p. 76 ln. 13)

MRI (P) Bavli (^) [Lev. R. (^)]

Question of Antoninus concerning afterlife answered by R. Judah. Same parable used in answer.

BeShallah to Exod. 15:13 (p. 95 ln. 15)

MRI (P)

Answer is given, then the question! Then answer is reiterated at length.

MRI (^)

Contemporary event illustrates sage’s interpretation of biblical event

Text Starting Point

BeShallah to Exod. 15:22 (p. 102 ln. 17)

BeShallah to Exod. 15:25, (p. 103 ln. 15)

BeShallah to Exod. 16:14 (p. 110 ln. 7)

BeShallah to Exod. 17:8, (p. 119 ln. 6)

Distinguishing Elements in MRS R. Tarfon carries entire conversation by himself; reader must supply ending “as it is written above” Parable also known from Bavli (and Lev. R.) is shaped to fit MRI’s introduction. MRS has an appendix lacking in MRS, which is unnecessary in MRI because of the preceding context Two Mekhiltas virtually identical

Structure is parallel to MRI R. Eliezer answers but the actual MRI (^) students questions re: Sifre Num. (P) phrases used to long and short prayer Bavli (P) gloss here and with similar proof texts there are different.. R. Tarfon, students, and MRS shares R. Eleazar of Modi’in, certain phrases MRI (P) general outline of with Bavli, Bavli (P) argument from same which are not proof texts shared by MRI. Names of Sages and interpretations of texts. MRS agrees with MRI as to Setting of anecdote. MRI (^) structure; Many phrases in Bavli (^) common. 2 parts of sometimes with Bavli as to composite included phrasing though only one is relevant

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

Text Starting Point

Yitro to Exod. 18:12 (p. 131 ln. 17)

Yitro to Exod. 18:27 (p. 135 ln. 16) Yitro to Exod. 20:5 (p. 147 ln. 24)

Mishpatim to Exod. 21:1 (p. 158 ln. 13)

Mishpatim to Exod. 21:13 (p. 169 ln. 7)

Parallels and Relationships

Common Elements

Key names of key Sages. MRI (^) General outline. Proof Sifre Deut. (^) texts and their use. Arabs Bavli (^) and Angels.

215 Distinguishing Elements in MRS God provides for “idolaters who anger him.” Rabban Gamaliel should serve “upright men, occupied with Torah.” MRS (reconstructed from MHG) and MRI are essentially identical here.

An ascetic brings a sacrifice and a divine voice expresses approval. MRI (P) Fits with Mekhilta’s favorable mention of the ascetic Jonadab. Rabban Gamaliel, No parable in MRI (N) question regarding divine reply; citation of Bavli (^) jealousy, (General) Jeremiah 2. Agrippa Fits in context only by virtue of associations Eleazar b. Arakh made by the expounds ma’asey Toseftan baraita. Tosefta (P) merkavah to his teacher on No tallit for Yerushalmi (^) the road with donkey, Yoḥanan, Bavli (^) citation of baraita, flames surround “Blessed are you, Eleazar alone, Abraham” abbreviated praise for Eleazar Proverb regarding Lulianos and Pappos; ‘we rewards and deserve death and you are punishments unworthy of a miracle’; with its proof Sifra (^) reference to Ḥananiah from Exodus Bavli (P) Mishael and Azariah; 21:13; gouging Semahot (C) ‘when we die you will of eyes. No learn’, some kind of head bears or other injury to their persecutor. “agents of death” mentioned.

216

Midrash and Legend

Text Starting Point Mishpatim to Exod. 21:29 (p. 181 ln. 7)

Parallels and Relationships

Common Elements

Mishnah (P) Killer rooster deserved Yerushalmi (^) death

Distinguishing Elements in MRS Rooster mentioned in regard to exposition of law regarding goring ox

The following table summarizes the relationships described in the previous table. TABLE VI. RELATIONSHIP OF ANECDOTES IN MRS TO THEIR PARALLELS

MRS Knows

Knows MRS

Shares Source

Does Not Know MRS (but knows other sources)

Mishnah

1 case

―

―

―

Tosefta

2 cases

―

1 case

MRI

5 cases

1 case

4 cases

1 case

Sifra

―

―

1 case

―

Sif N.

1 case

―

―

―

Sif D.

―

―

1 case

―

Yer

―

―

3 cases

―

3 cases

1 case

6 cases

―

Bavli

SUMMARY The examination of the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon does not give us a great deal more data than we had after examining the Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael. Because our edition of MRS is a document reconstructed from individual citations, in many cases “context” beyond the individual pericope is unrecoverable. In the MRS as we have it, there is not one anecdote without parallel in another classical rabbinic document, and all but one have parallels in documents generally called “tannaitic.” Even if we eliminate MRI, seven out of sixteen have clear relationships to other documents of “tannaitic literature.” Even after studying just one additional source document, the relationship of anecdotes in tannaitic midrashim to other sources and especially to the Bavli becomes dizzying. It seems simple enough to assert certain relationships between individual pericopes,

The Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai

217

but these lines of relationship become conflicting and impossible if extended to the documents in which those pericopes now appear. Rabbinic texts come to us in layers of canonization, from any point of view. The Mishnah, at the point of its canonization/publication, became a document to be commented upon and interpreted but not altered. This was also the case for the Talmuds at the points of their closure. However with the “tannaitic midrashim” and the baraitot of the Bavli, there was apparently an extended period of fluidity, which in the case of the former never reached completion. Baraitot, as extra-canonical rabbinic statements, could be reshaped and adapted to context without apology or explanation. It appears to me that the editors of tannaitic midrashim must have had considerable knowledge of the collections of baraitot which were study materials of the Oral Law in the academies of Babylonia, and also exercised some influence upon their development. The tannaitic midrash collections maintained a high degree of fluidity in transmission, and harmonization with the Bavli by copyists was apparently considered appropriate, possibly due to the subordinate canonical status of these collections. Otherwise the relationships between our texts and the Bavli would be completely inexplicable. The nature of these relationships cannot be resolved without a more sophisticated theory than we now have regarding the collection and transmission of the baraitot on which the Bavli depends. Traditionally it was assumed that the Bavli depended on the Tosefta, Sifra, Sifre, and the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael as sources of baraitot. As this study indicates, that picture of things is quite impossible if one means the Bavli as we now have it and the Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael as we now have it. The lines of dependence point in both directions―something which also makes Wacholder’s notion of the Mekhilta as a document being dependent on the completed Bavli very difficult to maintain. A sufficient model will take into account the apparent knowledge, by the Mekhiltan tradition, of some Babylonian baraitot in written form, while also taking into account the influence of the completed Bavli upon the textual transmission of the tannaitic midrashim.

ubh,uct hektu ubhekt 'v lhbpkn iumr hvh lhbpk vmurnu ,kcuenu vcuaj uz vrhnt tv,a u,fkvfu unuencu usgunc shn, icre ubrcehv uktf

HISTORICAL ANECDOTES IN SIFRA―TORAT KOHANIM

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SIFRA It is clear from talmudic references that an early rabbinic collection of baraitot existed related to the interpretation of the book of Leviticus, and that collection was known by the name of Sifra.1 Our document, the tannaitic midrash collection which bears the same name, should not be considered identical with that early tradition, but can be considered dependent upon it. Sifra is the midrashic text to which Jacob Neusner’s documentary approach has been applied most successfully. Sifra has a clear program, consistently and repetitively pursued, with relatively little variation.2 Sifra accepts the decisions of the Oral 1 b. Eruvin 96b, b. Megillah 28b, and several other places. See Moshe

David Herr, “Sifra,” Encyclopedia Judaica 14:1517-19 (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972). 2 Jacob Neusner, Uniting the Dual Torah: Sifra and the Problem of the Mishnah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Neusner’s model for Sifra is widely but not universally accepted. Neusner’s position strikes me as attending only to the formal and rhetorical presentation of the midrashic passages, but not their content… Certainly, the midrashim as we now have them at times take pains to indicate when the verse being explicated served as the ‘source’ of Mishnaic law…On the other hand, we must note that some midrashim deal with legal issues untouched by the Mishnah, and the legal conclusions

218

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

219

law but wishes to demonstrate that Scripture, and not abstract reasoning, provides the basis for its categories.3 To that end Sifra repeatedly employs a commentary form as follows: I. II. III. IV.

Base verse is quoted. Traditional halakhah is stated. An erroneous, though logical, position is suggested. The base verse is shown to be necessary to correct the error.

Sifra clearly quotes mishnaic material, sometimes with but often without a citation formula.4 Sifra may not have known the of others sometimes disagree with those of the Mishnah… the midrashic texts have their own integrity and direct relationship to Scripture, or, at least, to something other than the Mishnah… we must note that the exegetes are still concerned with scriptural anomalies that in their view create law, rather than with anchoring in a scriptural passage what they acknowledge is existing law… However much the rabbinic exegetes may wish to anchor the Mishnah’s laws in Scripture, they must operate within a theory of Scripture to achieve this… by plausibly showing that the norm in question is encoded within scriptural language; without this encoding the norm would never have been known, and would remain devoid of biblical authority. Whatever their historical point of departure, the systematically recognized point of departure for these exegesis is Scripture, not the Mishnah or some other source of traditional law. Jay M. Harris, How Do We Know This? Midrash and the Fragmentation of Modern Judaism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 10-11. 3 “… by composing a document that for very long stretches simply cannot have been put together without the Mishnah, and at the same time subjecting the generative logical principles of the Mishnah to devastating critique, that … authorship took up its position. The destruction of the Mishnah as an autonomous and free-standing document, based upon its own logic, is followed by the reconstruction of [large tracts of the Mishnah] as a statement wholly within, and in accord with, the logic and program of the written Torah in Leviticus.” Jacob Neusner, The Judaism Behind the Texts: The Generative Premises of Rabbinic Literature. vol. II, Tosefta, Tractate Abot, and Earlier Midrash Compilations: Sifra, Sifre to Numbers, and Sifre to Deuteronomy (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 56.

220

Midrash and Legend

Mishnah as we have it.5 Hoffman speculated that Sifra quotes earlier collections of halakhah such as the (hypothetical) Mishnah of R. Meir, which supposedly preceded the Mishnah of Judah haNasi.6 Sifra came to incorporate several later additions: the Baraita deRabbi Ishmael which expounds the 13 principles of exegesis ascribed to him; the Mekhilta deMiluim, and portions of other sections.7 The character of the anecdotes in Sifra is appreciably different from that of the anecdotes in the two Mekhiltas. Sifra’s interest is purely halakhic, and its authors do not like to deviate from the commentary form. Consequently we see many mixed forms, such as where a case-example is embedded in a commentary, such that the form of the Sifra-pericope as a whole remains a commentary, while the sub-form of the case-example may be truncated. The Mekhiltas often present a completely freestanding anecdote with no essential and formal relationship to its context, so that if it were removed, there would be no evidence that it was “missing.” Sifra avoids this―when it incorporates an element into its presentation, it usually integrates that element into its argument.

LIST OF HISTORICAL ANECDOTES FOUND, AND THEIR FREQUENCY In this chapter we treat 19 historical anecdotes from Sifra, as follows: TABLE I. ANECDOTES IN SIFRA

Parashah & Base Verse (from Leviticus) Vayikra - Dibura deNedavah parashah 2 to Lev. 1:2 Vayikra - Dibura deHovah perek 1 to Lev. 4:2 Shemini - Mekhilta deMiluim siman 33 to Lev. 10:1

Length (lines) 3 19 4

4 urnt itfn is frequently employed as a citation formula, and the tradition cited often appears in Mishnah or Tosefta. 5 Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. Markus Bockmuehl, 2nd edition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 263. 6 D.Z. Hoffman, “LeMidrashei HaTannaim,” in A.Z. Rabinowitz, ed., trans., Mesilot leTorat haTannaim (Tel Aviv, 1928), 29. 7 Detailed by Stemberger, Introduction, 261.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

221 Length (lines) 6 1 5 2 8 5 1 5 4 1 7 4 3 2 6 7

Parashah & Base Verse (from Leviticus) Tazria - Dibura deNega’im perek 2 to Lev. 13:3 Tazria - Dibura deNega’im perek 9 to Lev. 13:37 Metsora parashah 1, to Leviticus 14:4 Metsora parashah 2, to Leviticus 14:8 Metsora - Zavim perek 5 to Leviticus 15:13 Kedoshim perek 4, to Leviticus 19:17 Emor parashah 1 (siman 12) to Leviticus 21:3 Emor parashah 1 (siman 14) to Leviticus 21:3 Emor parashah 2, to Leviticus 21:10 Emor perek 2, to Leviticus 21:14 Emor perek 9, to Leviticus 22:32 Emor parashah 11, to Leviticus 23:24 Emor perek 16, to Leviticus 23:40 BeHar parashah 3, to Leviticus 25:17 BeHukotai perek 1, to Leviticus 26:4 BeHukotai perek 7, to Leviticus 26:36

The percentage of lines devoted to historical anecdotes by tractate is as follows: TABLE II. ANECDOTES AS PERCENTAGE OF COMPOSITION.

Tractate 13 Middot

Total Lines

Anecdote Lines

%

89

0 0.0%

Vayikra / Dibura deNedavah

1,061

3 0.3%

Vayikra / Dibura deHovah

1,154

19 1.7%

Tsav

882

0 0.0%

Tsav / Mekhilta deMiluim

155

0 0.0%

Shemini / Mekhilta deMiluim

217

4 1.6%

Shemini

777

0 0.0%

Tazria - Nega’im

842

6 0.7%

Metsora

438

6 1.5%

Metsora / Zavim

449

8 1.7%

Aharei Mot

776

0 0.0%

Kedoshim

664

5 0.7%

222

Midrash and Legend

Tractate

Total Lines

Anecdote Lines

%

Emor

1,091

25 2.3%

BeHar

431

2 0.5%

BeHukotai

592

13 2.1%

9,618

90 0.9%

TOTAL

The average anecdote in Sifra is thus 5 lines, approximately 60 words in the Weiss edition.

TRANSLATION AND EXPLANATION OF ANECDOTES FOUND Vayikra - Dibura deNedavah parashah 2 (to Leviticus 1:2), ed. Weiss 4b-c8 [Sifra here comments upon the following biblical passage: “Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them, ‘When any man of you brings an offering to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of livestock from the herd or from the flock. If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it at the door of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD; he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him’“ (Leviticus 1:2-4, RSV).] A. Male Israelites lay on hands, but female Israelites do not lay on hands.9 8 Here and throughout this chapter the translation of Sifra is that of

Neusner. I modify his translation without comment if I feel a more literal rendering clarifies the argument. If I alter his construction of the meaning of a phrase, I include his interpretation in a footnote. Jacob Neusner, Sifra: An Analytical Translation, 3 volumes (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), updated in The Components of the Rabbinic Documents: From the Whole to the Parts, vol. 1 parts 1-4 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). 9 m. Kiddushin 1:7-8. “… all positive commandments that are bound up with a stated time are incumbent upon men but women are exempted … placing the hands on the head of a sacrifice [,ufhnxv], and wavings

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

223

B. R. Yose and R. Simeon say, “As an optional matter women indeed are permitted to lay on hands.” C. Said R. Yose, “Abba Eleazar said to me, ‘We had [vhv ubk] a calf that fell into the classification of a sacrifice of peace offerings, and we brought it out to the Women’s Court, so that the women laid hands on it.’“10 D. Not because women [must] lay hands.11 But it was so as to please the women. E. Might one suppose that [women] should not lay hands on burnt offerings, for burnt-offerings do not require waving, F. but they may indeed lay hands on peace-offerings, for peace-offerings do require waving?12

[,upub,vu], and bringing it near, and taking up of the handful, and the burnings, and the wringing of the necks, and the sprinklings, and the receptions ― they are performed by men and not by women, save the meal offering of the wife suspected of adultery and of the female nazirite which they themselves have to wave.” Translation of Philip Blackman, Mishnayot, 2nd edition (Gateshead: Judaic Press, 1990), ad loc. 10 I have divided this passage differently from Neusner. He includes “C” and “D” as one quotation, an interruption in the argument of Sifra. I consider the bare case-incident by itself to be the quoted tradition, and the conclusion drawn to be part of the argumentation of Sifra itself. 11 /ohabc vfhnxva hbpn tk Here I have not followed Neusner’s rendering of, “Now is there any valid laying on of hands in the Women’s Court? Obviously not.” Compare m. Menahot 9:8, which could be cited in support of his interpretation. “All may lay the hands on the offering except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind man, a gentile, a slave, an agent, or a woman. The laying on of hands is outside the commandment. [One must lay] both hands on the head of the animal; and in the place where one lays on the hands there the animal must be slaughtered; and the slaughtering must immediately follow the laying on of hands” (Blackman). Cp. b. Menahot 93a. But I feel his rendering brings in an issue extranaeous to the argument in Sifra. 12 “The peace offering of the individual requires laying on of hands for the living beasts and waving after they are slaughtered, but waving is not required for the living beasts. The peace offering of the congregation requires waving both for the living beats and after they are slaughtered, but the laying on of hands is not required” (m. Menahot 5:7, Blackman).

224

Midrash and Legend G. Scripture says, “… and you will say to them,” H. which serves to encompass everything stated in the passage within the fundamental rule, namely, I. just as women do not lay hands on burnt-offerings, so they do not lay hands on peace offerings.

The ma’aseh concerning Abba Eleazar illustrates a rejected opinion, from the point of view of the passage as a whole. The form of the anecdote is a case-example. The form of the passage as a connected unit is a refutation of an erroneous conclusion using the hermeneutical technique of ribui―this is the favored form of Sifra generally. There are several talmudic passages concerned with the question of whether women are permitted to perform those mitzvot which they are not obligated to observe.13 Some of these make reference to our anecdote. b. Hagigah 16b A. R. Simeon b. Abba said that R. Yohanan said: Never let shevut be unimportant in thy eyes. For the laying on of the hands [on a Festival-day] is [prohibited] only on account of shevut, yet the great men of the age differed thereon. B. But is this not already quite clear! ― It is required on account of a precept [the fulfillment of which is prohibited] as shevut. C. But is not that too quite clear! ― [It is required] to contradict the view that they differ regarding the laying on of the hands itself: thus he teaches us that it is in regard to shevut that they differ. D. Rami b. Hama said: You can deduce from this that the laying on of hands must be done with all one’s 13 For most of the anecdotes presented in this chapter, there are many

related passages which could be cited containing discussions of law relevant to the issues presented in the passage which have been listed by the commentators to Sifra. I mention a few of these in the footnotes, but in the text of the chapter of necessity I restrict my attention to passages which contain a form of the anecdote itself, or which contain materials which help explain the form of the anecdote as presented in Sifra.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

225

strength; for if you suppose that one’s whole strength is not required, what [work] does one do by laying on the hands? E. An objection was raised: [It is written]: “Speak to the people of Israel … he shall lay his hands.” Male Israelites lay on hands but female Israelites do not lay on hands. F. R. Yose and R. Simeon say: As an optional matter female Israelites indeed are permitted to lay on hands.14 G. Said R. Yose: Abba Eleazar told me: Once we had [,jt ogp ubk vhv] a calf that fell into the classification of a sacrifice of peace offerings, and we brought it to the Women’s Court, so that the Women laid hands on it—not because women [must] lay hands, but it was so as to give pleasure to the women. H. Now if you suppose that we require the laying on of the hands to be done with all one’s strength, would we, for the sake of gratifying the women, permit work to be done with holy sacrifices! Is it to be inferred, therefore, that we do not require all one’s strength? I. Actually, I can answer you that we do require [it to be] with all one’s strength, [but the women] were told to hold their hands lightly. J. If so, [what need was there to say], ‘not that the laying on of the hands has to be done by women’? He could [more simply] have pointed out that it was no laying on of the hands at all! K. R. Ammi said: His argument runs: Firstly and secondly. Firstly, it was no laying on of the hands at all, and secondly, it was [done] in order to gratify the women.15

The anecdote proper (italicized above) appears here in full and just as it appears in Sifra, except for insignificant variations such as we see within the textual transmission of a single document. Here 14 Cp. b. Hullin 85a. “For it was taught: The sons of Israel lay on [their hands upon the head of the sacrifice] but the daughters of Israel do not lay on their hands. R. Yose and R. Simeon say, ‘Daughters of Israel lay on their hands of free choice’“ (Soncino translation). Our anecdote is not included in this passage. 15 Soncino translation, adapted to match the diction of Neusner’s translation of Sifra.

226

Midrash and Legend

in tractate Hagigah the anecdote is brought as a supporting case for a completely different issue―the issue of whether the act of leaning on a sacrificial animal constitutes a violation of shevut. Shevut refers to the rabbinical restrictions on actions which, though not falling within the thirty-nine categories of labor biblically prohibited on the Sabbath, nevertheless violate the spirit of the Sabbath. In contrast, in Sifra the anecdote comes only to illustrate the question as to whether women, not obligated to perform the commandment of semikhah, are nevertheless permitted to do so. The introductory formula fits perfectly in the Sifra passage (“A” and “B” in our outline of the Sifra passage), but is somewhat superfluous in the context of its setting in the Bavli. The Bavli has cited a baraita in its entirety even though only part of it is relevant to its interests. The slight differences of wording in the two presentations of the anecdote are set forth in the table below, with common phrases underlined. I consider the Talmud to be quoting the anecdote from a Sifra-tradition (baraitot associated with specific verses from Leviticus), if not from the actual text of Sifra as we have it. Sifra

Bavli

A.

ihfnux ktrah hbc /,ufnux ktrah ,ubc ihtu

ihfnux ktrah hbc /,ufnux ktrah ,ubc ihtu

B.

ohrnut iugna hcru hxuh hcr /,uar ,ufnux ohabv

ohrnut iugna hcru hxuh hcr /,uar ,ufnux ktrah ,ubc

C.

tct hk rnt hxuh hcr rnt hjcz kdg ubk vhv rzgkt ,rzgk uvubtmuvu ohnka ohabv uhkg ufnxu ohabv

rzgkt tct hk jx hxuh hcr rnt hjcz ka kdg ubk vhv ,jt ogp ohab ,rzgk uvubthcvu ohnka ohab uhkg ufnxu

D.

tkt ohabc vfhnxva hbpn tk /ohab ka jur ,jb hbpn

tkt ohabc vfhnxa hbpn tk /ohabk jur ,jb ,uagk hsf

b. Eruvin 96a-b A. For it was taught [thb,s]: Michal the daughter of the Kushite wore tefillin and the Sages did not attempt to prevent her, and the wife of Jonah attended the festival pilgrimage and the Sages did not prevent her. Now since the Sages did not prevent her it is clearly evident that they hold the view that it is a positive precept the

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

227

performance of which is not limited to a particular time.16 B. But is it not possible that he holds the same view as R. Yose who ruled: It is optional for women to lay their hands upon an offering? For were you not to say so, how is it that Jonah’s wife attended the festival pilgrimage and the Sages did not prevent her, seeing that there is no one who contends that the observance of a festival is not a positive precept the performance of which is limited to a particular time? You must consequently admit that he holds it to be optional; could it not then here also be said to be optional?17 C. … Neither R. Meir holds the same view as R. Yose nor does R. Judah hold the same view as R. Yose. Neither R. Meir holds the same view as R. Yose, since we learned: “Children are not to be prevented from blowing the shofar,” from which it follows that women are to be prevented; and any anonymous Mishnah represents the view of R. Meir. D. Nor does R. Judah hold the same view as R. Yose, since it was taught: “Speak to the people of Israel … and he shall lay”—only male Israelites ‘shall lay’ but not female Israelites. R. Yose and R. Simeon ruled: It is optional for women to lay hands. Now who is the author of all anonymous statements in Sifra? R. Judah.18

Here the Talmud does not reiterate our anecdote but comments upon the passage as a matter well known to the reader, which does not need to be spelled out. The Talmud observes that the conclusion drawn from the ma’aseh by R. Yose contradicts the 16 If this were true, all women would be obligated to wear tefillin and to perform the pilgrimage, which is clearly not the case from the point of view of the Talmud. The Bavli is setting up a straw man in order to knock it down as the argument unfolds. 17 cp. b. Rosh HaShanah 33a. 18 Soncino translation. R. Judah bar Ilai is understood by the BT to be the author of the anonymous Sifra (b. Shabbat 137a, b. Kiddushin 53a, b. Sanhedrin 86a). See Stemberger, Introduction, 262. Also Zvi Kaplan, “Judah bar Ilai,” Encyclopedia Judaica 10:337-39.

228

Midrash and Legend

view of the anonymous Sifra. This is additional evidence that the Talmud knows this anecdote in just the form in which we have it in Sifra (as demonstrated by tractate Hagigah), and in just the setting in which we have it (as demonstrated here by tractate Eruvin). Vayikra - Dibura deHovah perek 1 (to Leviticus 4:2), ed. Weiss 16b-c [Context is required for understanding:] [R. Yose says, “‘and does any one of them’ (Leviticus 4:1).19 There are occasions on which one is liable for a single offering on account of a sequence of deeds, and there are times that one is liable for each and every deed that he does.” How so? If someone does not know the very principle of the Sabbath and performed many acts of labor on many different Sabbath days, even though he has carried out a variety of generative acts of labor, he is liable only for a single sin-offering for his entire lifetime. He who knows the principle of the Sabbath and erred, thinking that this is not the Sabbath, this is not the Sabbath, and carried out many acts of labor on many Sabbaths, is liable for the violation of every Sabbath. He who knows that it was Sabbath but erred, thinking that this is not a prohibited variety of labor, this is not a prohibited variety of labor, and carried out many such acts of labor on many Sabbaths, if he has carried out acts of labor of diverse generative types, he is liable for each generative type of labor; but if he performed an act of labor of only a single classification, he is liable for each such act performed in ignorance of what he was doing in a spell of inadvertence.”20] A. Said R. Akiva, “I asked [h,kta] Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua in the meat market of Emmaus, where they

19 “And the LORD said to Moses, “Say to the people of Israel, If any one sins unwittingly in any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, and does any one of them, if it is the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people, then let him offer for the sin which he has committed a young bull without blemish to the LORD for a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:1-3, RSV). 20 cp. to m. Shabbat 7:1.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

229

had gone to buy a beast for the wedding banquet of Rabban Gamaliel’s son:21 B. He who has sexual relations with his sister, with his father’s sister, and with his mother’s sister in a single spell of inadvertence―what is the rule? Is he liable once for all of them, or once for each and every action? C. They said to me: We have not heard the rule on that case, but we have heard the rule, “He who has sexual relations with five women when they are menstruating, in a single spell of inadvertence, is liable for each and every act of sexual relations.” And we regard the matters in the former case as subject to a proof by an argument a fortiori from the latter case. D. And further did R. Akiva ask them: A limb that is dangling from a beast―what is the rule? E. They said to him: We have not heard the rule for that particular case. But we have heard the rule concerning a limb which is dangling from a man, that it is deemed clean. For so did the people afflicted with boils do in Jerusalem: he goes on the eve of Passover to a physician, and the physician cuts the boil, until he leaves on it a hair’s breadth, and he sticks it onto a thorn, and the patient pulls away from it. And this one would prepare his Passover, and the physician likewise would prepare his Passover.22 And we regard the matters as subject to proof by an argument a fortiori. F. And further did R. Akiva ask them: He who slaughters five animal sacrifices outside the Temple courtyard in a single spell of inadvertence―what is the law? Is he liable for one single offering for them all, or for one offering for each and every act of slaughter? G. They said to him: We have not heard.

21 The translation here is that of Neusner, but the divisions of the text

are mine. Neusner treats the entire anecdote as one extra-documentary passage―a passage which does not forward the argument of Sifra. Indeed it is a quotation from the Mishnah (m. Keritot 3:7-10). 22 Since neither touched the boil after it was detached from the living body, neither contracts uncleanness.

230

Midrash and Legend H. Said R. Joshua: I heard the rule which applies in the case of him who eats from a single animal sacrifice in five dishes in a single act of inadvertence, that he is liable [to bring an offering] for each and every one on account of the violation of the laws of sacrilege. And I regard the matters as subject to proof by an argument a fortiori.23 I. [This line is a parenthesis which interrupts both the quote from m. Keritot and the anecdote:] Said R. Simeon: But how is eating probative for slaughtering?24 J. [Quote from m. Keritot, and anecdote, resumes:] But this is what he25 asked them: He who eats remnant from five animal sacrifices in a single act of inadvertence―what is the law? Is he liable for a single offering for all of them, or is he liable for an offering for each and every one? K. They said to him: We have not heard. L. Said R. Joshua: I have heard the rule that applies in the case of one who eats from a single animal sacrifice in five dishes in a single act of inadvertence, that he is liable to bring an offering for each and every one on account of the violation of the laws of sacrilege.26 And

23 So far this is a quote from m. Keritot 3:7-9. 24 t. Keritot 1:22 (1:13). 25 Akiva. 26 This opinion is contradicted by t. Keritot 4:1. “He who eats five

pieces of meat from a single animal-sacrifice in five dishes in a single spell of inadvertence brings only a single sin-offering. And in a matter of doubt concerning them he brings only a single suspensive guilt-offering. But if in five spells of inadvertence, he brings five sin-offerings, and in a matter of doubt concerning them he brings five suspensive guilt-offerings, R. Yose bar Judah says, and R. Eliezer bar Simeon says, ‘Even if he ate five pieces of five animal-sacrifices in a single spell of inadvertence, he brings only a single sin-offering. And in a matter of doubt concerning them, he brings only suspensive guilt-offering.’ This is the general principle: Whoever brings a sin-offering for a matter of certainty, brings a suspensive guiltoffering for a matter of uncertainty. And whoever does not bring a sinoffering for a matter of certainty does not bring a guilt-offering for a matter of uncertainty. But if he ate five pieces of meat from a single animal-sacrifice before the sprinkling of the blood, even in a single spell

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

231

I regard the matters as subject to proof by an argument a fortiori. M. Said R. Akiva: If it is the law, we shall of course accept it, but if it is merely a matter of logical reasoning, there is a retort. N. He said to him: Answer. O. He said to him: No, if you have so stated in the case of the laws of sacrilege, in which instance the one who gives something to someone else is equivalent to the one who eats, and the one who causes another to enjoy benefit is equivalent to the one who derives benefit himself, joining together a quantity sufficient to the laws of sacrilege even when the joining is over a long period of time—will you say so in the case of a remnant, to which none of these considerations apply? [Here the anecdote ends without conclusion. A passage follows with a similar dialogue (without anecdotal setting) between Akiva and R. Eliezer on a related set of issues.]

There are several talmudic passages dealing with the liability one incurs during “spells of inadvertence,” some of which include parts of this anecdote. The exegetical purpose of Sifra is certainly not sufficient to explain the anecdote in all its details, and in fact it has been imported from Mishnah Keritot. This is an exception to the rule that Sifra fits imported material into its own structure of argument. This is simply a long, thematically related quotation. m. Keritot 3:7-10 27 A. Said R. Akiva, “I asked [h,kta] Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua in the meat market of Emmaus, where they had gone to buy a beast for the wedding banquet of Rabban Gamaliel’s son: B. He who has sexual relations with his sister, with his father’s sister, and with his mother’s sister in a single of inadvertence, he brings a sin-offering for each and every piece” (Translation of Neusner). 27 The textual basis for the Mishnah passages treated in this chapter is the edition of Hanoch Albeck, Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, six vols. (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1959).

232

Midrash and Legend spell of inadvertence―what is the rule? Is he liable once for all of them, or once for each and every action? C. They said to me: We have not heard the rule on that case, but we have heard the rule, “He who has sexual relations with five women when they are menstruating, in a single spell of inadvertence, is liable for each and every act of sexual relations.” And we regard the matters in the former case as subject to a proof by an argument a fortiori from the latter case. D. And further did R. Akiva ask them: A limb that is dangling from a beast―what is the rule? E. They said to him: We have not heard the rule for that particular case. But we have heard the rule concerning a limb which is dangling from a man, that it is deemed clean. For so did the people afflicted with boils do in Jerusalem: he goes on the eve of Passover to a physician, and the physician cuts the boil, until he leaves on it a hair’s breadth, and he sticks it onto a thorn, and the patient pulls away from it. And this one would prepare his Passover, and the physician likewise would prepare his Passover. And we regard the matters as subject to proof by an argument a fortiori. F. And further did R. Akiva ask them: He who slaughters five animal sacrifices outside the Temple courtyard in a single spell of inadvertence―what is the law? Is he liable for one single offering for them all, or for one offering for each and every act of slaughter? G. They said to him: We have not heard. H. Said R. Joshua: I have heard the rule which applies in the case of him who eats from a single animal sacrifice in five dishes, that he is liable on account of each and every act for the violation of the laws of sacrilege. And I regard the matters as subject to proof by an argument a fortiori. I. R. Simeon said: Not thus did R. Akiva ask of them, but: He who eats remnant from five animal sacrifices in a single act of inadvertence―what is the law? Is he liable for a single offering for all of them, or is he liable for an offering for each and every one? J. They said to him: We have not heard.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

233

K. Said R. Joshua: I have heard the rule that applies in the case of one who eats from a single animal sacrifice in five dishes in a single act of inadvertence, that he is liable to bring an offering for each and every one on account of the violation of the laws of sacrilege. And I regard the matters as subject to proof by an argument a fortiori. L. Said R. Akiva: If it is the law, we shall of course accept it, but if it is merely a matter of logical reasoning, there is a retort. M. He said to him: Reply. N. He said to him: No, if you have so stated in the case of the laws of sacrilege, in which instance the one who gives something to someone else is equivalent to the one who eats, and the one who causes another to enjoy benefit is equivalent to the one who derives benefit himself, joining together a quantity sufficient to the laws of sacrilege even when the joining is over a long period of time—will you say so in the case of a remnant, to which none of these considerations apply? O. [Here the anecdote ends without conclusion and proceeds into same the dialogue of Akiva and Eliezer which appears also in Sifra.]28

Except for the insertion of one line in Sifra (I” in outline presented above for that passage), there are no significant differences between the two presentations. Sifra simply quotes the Mishnah. b. Makkot 14a A. Said R. Akiva: I asked [h,kta] Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua in the meat market of Emmaus, where they had gone to buy a beast for the wedding banquet of his son: B. He who has sexual relations with his sister who is his father’s sister and his mother’s sister, what is the rule? Is he liable once only for the several categories of the offence, or for each prohibition violated? 28 Here I have simply reproduced the translation as given by Neusner

for Sifra, adjusting slightly for the very slight differences in the Hebrew between the two texts.

234

Midrash and Legend C. Said they to him: We have not heard the rule in this case, but we have heard the rule: “He who has sexual relations with his five wives when they are menstruating, in a single spell of inadvertence, is liable for each and every act of sexual relations.” And we regard the matters in the former case as subject to a proof by an argument a fortiori from the latter case. D. [What follows is material not present in Mishnah and Sifra:] What say we in the problem of the niddah? That although each error is [a sin] of the same denomination, he is nevertheless liable [for a sin-offering] on account of each act, severally; should he not all the more be held liable on each count where the sinful act falls under three different denominations? [End of anecdote without conclusion.] E. And the Rabbis [what say they]? — The [argument] a fortiori is not sound, for how can you argue from the niddah where several distinct persons are involved [to this where there is only one person]? F. And the other [R. Isaac] likewise accepts the refutation of that a fortiori; but he derives the principle of Distributive Incidence from the [redundant] expression of ‘his sister’ in the latter part of the same verse. G. And the other [Rabbis], what [say they] is the purport of repeating the expression — ‘his sister’ in the latter part of that verse? — They say, It lays down specifically the penalty of [a brother with any sister], his sister who is both his father’s and mother’s daughter, to indicate the [legal principle] that penalties inferred by argument are not sanctioned.29

Here sections “A” - “C” correspond to our anecdote as found in the Mishnah and in Sifra. The Talmud understands the case quite differently: the sister, father’s sister, and mother’s sister are not three different women but one woman in an incestuous family who bears all three relationships to the transgressor!30 The Mishnah of m. Keritot reads: 29 Soncino translation, adapted. 30 Rashi explains: “A wicked son of a wicked man―who had sexual

relations with his mother and she bore him two daughters, and later he

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

235

?uvn wsjt okgvc unt ,ujt kgu uhct ,ujt kgu u,ujt kg tcv

But the version of the Bavli in tractate Makkot reads: ?chhj uvn wunt ,ujt thva uhct ,ujt thva u,ujt kg tcv

This is not a matter of a difference in transmission. Rather, the Gemara rephrases the case as a form of commentary. The Bavli knows the mishnaic version of the case, which it includes in its proper place in tractate Keritot. The Bavli alters words here in tractate Makkot to make the anecdote speak to the case in which it is interested. There is no basis, on account of the partial citation of the anecdote in Makkot 14a, to assert that the Bavli knows this particular anecdote as represented in Sifra―or to deny it. The knowledge of the Mishnah by all the other sources fully explains the common elements. The anecdote is an academy discussion among Sages, set along the roadside―a popular form. The same setting is used for a completely different anecdote in b. H ullin 91b. b. Hullin 91b R. Akiva said: I once asked [h,kta] R. Gamaliel and R. Joshua in the meat market of Emmaus where they had gone to buy a beast for the wedding feast of R. Gamaliel’s son [this is identical to the phrase used in the parallels above]: It is written: And the sun rose upon him. Did the sun rise upon him only? Did it not rise upon the whole world? R. Isaac said: It means that the sun which had set for his sake now rose for him. For it is written: And Jacob went out from Beer-Sheba, and went toward Haran. And it is further written: And he lighted upon the place. When he reached Haran he said [to himself], ‘Shall I have passed through the place where my fathers prayed and not have prayed too?’ He immediately resolved to return, but no sooner had he thought of this than the earth contracted and he immediately lighted upon the place. After he prayed he wished to return [to where he was], but the Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘This righteous man has come to my

had sexual relations with one of them, and she bore him a son. If that son had sexual relations with the sister of his mother, she would be also his sister, and the sister of his father.”

236

Midrash and Legend habitation; shall he depart without a night’s rest?’ Thereupon the sun set.

Shemini - Mekhilta deMiluim (to Leviticus 10:1), ed. Weiss 45c [Previous context:] [“They offered alien fire before the Lord, such as he had not commanded them” (Leviticus 10:1).31 R. Ishmael says: Can one think that it was actually ‘alien fire’? Scripture says, “such as he had not commanded them,” meaning that the issue was that they brought it in without taking counsel. R. Akiva says … why is it said, “such as he had not commanded them”? It was because they had not consulted Moses, their master.] [I italicize phrases which are absent in the version of the Yerushalmi, farther below:] A. R. Eliezer says [rnut t"r], “They [Nadab and Abihu] became liable for punishment only because they taught law in the presence of Moses, their master, for whoever teaches law in the presence of his master is liable to the death penalty.”32

31 “Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer, and put fire in it, and laid incense on it, and offered unholy fire before the LORD, such as he had not commanded them. And fire came forth from the presence of the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD … Now Moses diligently inquired about the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it was burned! And he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron who were left, saying, ‘Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?’ Behold, its blood was not brought into the inner part of the sanctuary. You certainly ought to have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.’ And Aaron said to Moses, ‘Behold, today they have offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD; and yet such things as these have befallen me! If I had eaten the sin offering today, would it have been acceptable in the sight of the LORD?’ And when Moses heard that, he was content” (Leviticus 10:1-2,16-20, RSV). 32 “A persistent theme in Eliezer-stories is the assertion that he never said anything new, but always cited his masters, copying their deeds as

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

237

B. And it happened [grhta vagnu] concerning a certain student who taught [law] in his [Eliezer’s] presence. He said to Immah Shalom, his wife, “He will not see the Sabbath depart.” And he died. C. After the Sabbath, Sages came to him and said to him, “Rabbi, are you a prophet?” He said to them, “I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but thus have I received as a tradition from my masters: That whoever teaches law in his master’s presence is liable to the death penalty.”

y. Shevi’it 6:1 [I have italicized some of the phrases where the Yerushalmi’s anecdote (“C”-”D”) differs from the version in Sifra.] A. R. Hiyya said in the name of R. Huna: A disciple who gave a decision, even in accord with the decided law— his instruction is null. B. It was taught [hb,]: whoever teaches law in his master’s presence is liable to the death penalty. C. It was taught in the name of R. Eliezer [t"r oac hb,], “Nadab and Abihu died only because they taught [law] in the presence of Moses, their master. D. And it happened ['c vagn] concerning a certain student who tuaght [law] in the presence of Rabbi Eliezer, his teacher. He said to Imma Shalom, his wife, “He will not see the Sabbath depart.” And the Sabbath did not depart before he died. E. His disciples said to him, “Rabbi, are you a prophet?” He said to them, “I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but thus have I received as a tradition: That every disciple who teaches law in his master’s presence is liable to the death penalty.” 33 well as their words.” Neusner, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man, 2 vols. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973), 1:115. 33 Translation of Neusner, modified to match Sifra where the texts match in Hebrew. In this chapter, when a Yerushalmi passage is clearly a close parallel to a Sifra passage, I adapt the Sifra translation of Neusner to the presentation of the Yerushalmi passage so that the English will convey

238

Midrash and Legend [The Yerushalmi makes no mention of Sages visiting after the Sabbath.]

y. Gittin 1:2 [Duplicates Shevi’it, above, with minor variations.]

b. Eruvin 63a A. Whoever does not defer to his teacher, Rava said: if in his presence, he has violated a prohibition and becomes liable to the death penalty. If not in his presence, he has still violated a prohibition, but the death penalty does not apply. Is then no penalty incurred in his absence? B. Was it not in fact taught [thb, tvu]: R. Eliezer stated: The sons of Aaron died only because they gave a legal decision in the presence of Moses, their master. C. What was the exposition they made? “And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:7). “Although,” they said, “fire came down from heaven, it is nevertheless a religious duty to bring also some ordinary fire.” D. R. Eliezer, furthermore, had a disciple [sjt shnk,u uk vhv] who once gave a legal decision in his presence. He said to Imma Shalom, his wife, “I will be surprised if he lives out the year.” And he did not live out the year. E. She said to him: “Are you a prophet?” He said to her, “I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but thus have I received as a tradition: Whoever teaches law in his master’s presence is liable to the death penalty.” F. Now, in connection with this incident Raba b. Bar Hanah related in the name of R. Yohanan: That disciple’s name was Judah b. Goria and he was three parasangs distant from his Master? — He was in his to the reader the degree of similarity and difference actually present in Hebrew. When the Yerushalmi passage covers different material, I present the translation of the Yerushalmi by Neusner, et. al., The Talmud of the Land of Israel, 35 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19821994).

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

239

presence. But was it not stated that ‘he was three parasangs distant’? — And according to your conception what need was there for the mention of his name and the name of his father? But the fact is that all the details were given in order that it not be said that the whole story was a fable.34

The Bavli is obviously acquainted with a story similar to our Yerushalmi or Sifra, but it would be impossible for us to determine the Bavli’s source simply on the basis of the slight differences in language between those two accounts. The story in the Bavli is connected to its subject matter in the same manner that the story is connected to its context in the Yerushalmi. The exposition of Leviticus by Rabbi Eliezer and its accompanying anecdote come to illustrate the topic of the ban on a disciple teaching halakhah in the presence of his master. (This is interpreted by the Bavli to mean, in the district of his master.) In my opinion the context in Sifra better explains why the exposition of Leviticus and this anecdote would be linked together. For purposes of either the Yerushalmi or the Bavli, it would have served to present either the case story or the proof text by itself, but the linking of them together is explained best by Sifra. In Sifra, the story serves as a parabolic anecdote. The anecdote bears the same freight as a parable, illustrating an interpretation of Scripture. However, in the Yerushalmi and particularly in the Bavli, it is the anecdote itself (not the interpretation of Scripture) which is of interest as a case-example. So in the Talmuds the anecdote is related to its context as if it were a stand-alone case example, but the vestigial form of Scriptureillustration persists.35 The table below presents the anecdote proper. Phrases held in common by two or more versions are underlined.

34 The same teaching in the name of R. Eliezer appears at b. Yoma 53a, without the anecdote regarding Eliezer’s student. There the context concerns the prohibitions regarding approach to the inner sanctuary. The translation here uses the Soncino translation as a basis, but I make the diction conform to that used for Sifra and the Yerushalmi above. 35 There is an additional parallel in Pesikta deRav Kahana (26:11), which is close to the version in the Yerushalmi, but not identical.

240

Midrash and Legend Sifra

Yerushalmi

Bavli

A.

shnk,c grhta vagnu /uhbpc vruva wsjt

't shnk,c vagn hcr hbpk vruva /ucr rzghkt

uk vhv sjt shnk,u vruva rzghkt hcrk /uhbpc vfkv

B.

ouka vnhtk vk rnt thmun ubht wu,at /,nu - u,ca

wu,at ouka tnhtk rnt /u,ca tmuh ubht /,na sg u,ca tmh tku

tnhtk rzghkt hcr rnt hbt vhn,wu,at ouka /u,ba vz thmuh ot /u,ba thmuv tku

C.

,ca rjtk /ukmt ohnfj uxbfb

--

--

D.

wuk urnt ?v,t thcb hcr

wuhshnk, uk urnt ?v,t thcb hcr

?v,t thcb wuk vrnt

E.

thcb tk wovk rnt whfbt thcb ic tku hfbt wh,ucrn hbkcuen lf tkt

hfbt thcb tk wivk rnt whfbt thcb ic tku wkcuen hbt lf tkt

hfbt thcb tk wvk rnt whfbt thcb ic tku whbkcuen lf tkt

F.

vfkv vrunv kfa /v,hn chhj ucr hbpc

vrunv shnk, kfa ucr hbpc vfkv /’,hn chhj

vfkv vrunv kf /v,hn chhj ucr hbpc

Tazria - Dibura deNega’im, perek 2 (to Leviticus 13:3), ed. Weiss 61a [The passage comments upon Leviticus 13:3: “The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ‘When a man has on the skin of his body a swelling or an eruption or a spot, and it turns into a leprous disease on the skin of his body, then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests, and the priest shall examine the diseased spot on the skin of his body; and if the hair in the diseased spot has turned white and the disease appears to be deeper than the skin of his body, it is a leprous disease; when the priest has examined him he shall pronounce him unclean’“ (Leviticus 13:1-3, RSV).] [Phrases in italics are missing from, or different than, the parallel passage in the Mishnah.] A. “And he will declare him unclean” (Leviticus 13:3). B. Him does he declare unclean, and he does not declare unclean him who uproots the tokens of uncleanness from the midst of his diseased spot before he came to the priest.” C. Said R. Akiva: I asked [h,kta] R. Ishmael and R. Joshua while they were going to Nidbat:

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

241

D. If he does so36 during his quarantine, what is the law? E. They said to me, “We have not heard, but we have heard, ‘If before he comes to the priest, he is clean, but if after they have certified him leprous, he is [still] unclean.’“ F. I began to bring proofs for them [ovk thcvk h,kj,v ,uhtr]: G. On what account is he clean if he does so before he came to the priest? Is it not because the priest has not actually seen the tokens of uncleanness? H. So if this happens while he is shut up, he is clean until the priest will declare him unclean. I. Another version [tbhrjt tbahk]: J. It is all the same whether he is standing before the priest or whether he is standing during his quarantine. He is clean until the priest will declare him unclean. K. They said to me: Well do you speak [v,t vph whk urnt rnut].

The material at “B”-”H” and “K” appears to be based on quotations from the Mishnah. We do not see Sifra altering mishnaic materials in this manner in our other pericopes. The anecdote is imported associatively and does not actually support Sifra’s exegetical idea! This also is an anomaly for Sifra. The presence of the Aramaic tbhrjt tbahk is also a curiosity, possibly indicating that “I”-”K” represent a later comment on a text which originally ended the anecdote at “H”. The material at “J”-”K” is paralleled in the Tosefta (Nega’im 3:4) in the name of R. Yose rather than Akiva. In the Mishnah passage below, italics are used to highlight differences from the anecdote as found in Sifra. m. Nega’im 7:4 A. If one plucks out the tokens of uncleanness, or burns away the raw flesh, he transgresses a negative commandment.37 And what 36 i.e., removes the marks of his leprosy. 37 t. Nega’im 3:1, “He who uproots the tokens of uncleanness from

his plague, whether he uprooted it in its entirety or whether he uprooted part of it, whether before he came to a priest or after he came before a

242

Midrash and Legend is the ruling regarding his cleanness? If before he comes to the priest, he is clean, but if after he has been certified leprous, he is [still] unclean. B. R. Akiva said: I asked [h,kta] Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua when they were going to Gadwad, C. If he does so during his quarantine, what is the law? D. They said to me, “We have not heard, but we have heard, ‘If before he comes to the priest, he is clean, but if after he has been certified leprous, he is [still] unclean.’“ E. I began to bring proofs for them [ovk thcn h,kj,v ,uhtr]: F. It is all the same whether he is standing before the priest or whether he is in isolation, he is clean unless the priest certifies him unclean.38

t. Nega’im 3:439 [Previous context concerns a person who removes one or more of his “tokens of uncleanness,” and the other eruptions resolve by themselves, before he comes to the priest to be examined. The Tosefta adds to the anecdote given in the Mishnah:] A. Said R. Yose … “He is clean.” B. I began bringing proofs to them [thcn (sic) u,khj,v ,uhtr ivk]: C. On what account is he clean before he comes to the priest? Is it not because the priest has not seen the tokens of uncleanness which are on him?

priest, whether while he was certified unclean, or whether during quarantine, or whether after he was declared clean―lo, such a one is smitten with forty stripes” (Translation of Neusner). 38 Translation of Blackman, altered to conform to the diction of Neusner’s translation of Sifra. 39 The textual basis for the treatment of the Tosefta in this study is the edition of Lieberman where available (for the sedarim Zeraim, Mo’ed, Nashim, and portions of Nezikin), and Zuckermandel for the remainder.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

243

D. Also [if he does so] while he is quarantined, let him be clean, until the priest sees the tokens of uncleanness which are on him. E. They said to him, “Well you have spoken [wuk urnt v,rnt vph].”40

When we use the Tosefta’s additional material to supplement the Mishnah’s anecdote, we have a version in a form like what appears in Sifra. In the table below, italics are used to highlight phrases unique to one version. Sifra

Mishnah

Tosefta

A.

Said R. Akiva: I asked R. Ishmael and R. Joshua while they were going to Nidbat:

R. Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua when they were going to Gadwad,

―

B.

If he does so during his quarantine, what is the law?

If he does so during his quarantine, what is the law?

―

C.

They said to me, “We have not heard, but we have heard, ‘If before he comes to the priest, he is clean, but if after they have certified him leprous, he is [still] unclean.’“

They said to me, “We have not heard, but we have heard, ‘If before he comes to the priest, he is clean, but if after he has been certified leprous, he is [still] unclean.’“

Said R. Yose … “He is clean.”

D.

I began to bring proofs for them:

I began bringing proofs for them:

I began bringing proofs to them:

40 In this chapter, when a Tosefta passage is clearly a close parallel to

a Sifra passage, I adapt the Sifra translation of Neusner to the presentation of the Tosefta passage so that the English will convey to the reader the degree of similarity and difference actually present in the Hebrew. When the Tosefta passage covers different material, I present the translation of the Tosefta by Jacob Neusner, et. al., The Tosefta, 6 vols. (New York: Ktav, 1986).

244

Midrash and Legend Sifra

Mishnah

Tosefta

E.

On what account is he clean if he does so before he came to the priest? Is it not because the priest has not actually seen the tokens of uncleanness?

―

On what account is he clean if he does so before he came to the priest? Is it not because the priest has not actually seen the tokens of uncleanness which are on him?

F.

So if this happens while he is shut up, he is clean until the priest will declare him unclean.

―

So if this happens while he is shut up, such a one is clean until the priest sees the tokens of uncleanness which are on him.

G.

Another version:

―

―

H.

It is all the same whether he is standing before the priest or whether he is standing during his quarantine. He is clean until the priest will declare him unclean.

It is all the same whether he is standing before the priest or whether during his quarantine. He is clean until the priest will declare him unclean.

―

I.

They said to me: Well do you speak.

―

They said to him, “Well have you spoken.”

Tazria - Dibura deNega’im, perek 9 (to Leviticus 13:37), ed. Weiss 66d-67a A. “He is clean” (Leviticus 13:37).41 41 “When a man or woman has a disease on the head or the beard, the

priest shall examine the disease; and if it appears deeper than the skin, and the hair in it is yellow and thin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an itch, a leprosy of the head or the beard. And if the priest examines the itching disease, and it appears no deeper than the skin and there is no black hair in it, then the priest shall shut up the person with the itching disease for seven days, and on the seventh day the priest shall examine the disease; and if the itch has not spread, and there is in it no yellow hair, and the itch appears to be no deeper than the skin, then he shall shave himself, but the itch he shall not shave; and the priest shall shut up the person with the itching disease for seven days more; and on the seventh day the priest shall examine the itch, and if the itch has not

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

245

B. Might one say he should clear him and depart?42 C. Scripture says, “The priest shall declare him clean” (Leviticus 13:37). D. Since it says, “And the priest shall declare him clean,” might one think that if the priest declared the unclean to be clean, he should be regarded as clean? E. Scripture says, “He is clean,” and “the priest shall declare him clean.”43 F. On this account did Hillel come up from Babylonia [kccn kkhv vkg vzv rcsv kg].44

This fragment of an anecdote functions here to lend traditional authority to Sifra’s exegetical idea. t. Nega’im 1:16 A. A priest who declared a clean person to be unclean or declared the unclean person to be clean, he [the patient] consults him at the end of the first week, even though he declared the unclean to be unclean and declared the clean to be clean, has done nothing at all. B. In respect to uncleanness, it says, “He is unclean, the priest must pronounce him unclean” (Leviticus 13:45), and in respect to cleanness it says, “He is clean, and the priest declares him clean” (Leviticus 13:37). spread in the skin and it appears to be no deeper than the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. But if the itch spreads in the skin after his cleansing, then the priest shall examine him, and if the itch has spread in the skin, the priest need not seek for the yellow hair; he is unclean. But if in his eyes the itch is checked, and black hair has grown in it, the itch is healed, he is clean; and the priest shall pronounce him clean” (Leviticus 13:29-37, RSV). 42 i.e., If a sage finds the person to be clean, is it still necessary for him to appear before a priest? 43 cp. m. Nega’im 3:1. “All can contract uncleanness from leprosy symptoms except gentiles and the resident alien. All are qualified to inspect the leprosy symptoms, but uncleanness or cleanness must be pronounced by a priest. They say to him, ‘Say, Unclean,’ and he says, ‘Unclean’; ‘Say Clean,’ and he says, ‘Clean.’“ 44 i.e., to learn this law.

246

Midrash and Legend C. This is one of the things concerning which Hillel came up from Babylonia [vkg ivhkga ohrcsv in sjt vzu kccn kkv].

This is a more complicated case than that considered in Sifra. There, the case was considered where a priest made an error in his initial diagnosis of leprosy. Here, the case is considered where the priest made an error in his first examination, but made no error in his follow-up examination at the end of the leper’s week of quarantine. The priest’s initial declaration stands because Scripture vests him with that authority. The parallel in the Yerushalmi considers the same construction of the case as given in Sifra. y. Pesahim 6:1 A. For three matters Hillel went up from Babylonia ['d kg kccn kkv vkg ohrcs]. B. “He is clean” (Leviticus 13:37). C. Might one say he should clear him and depart? D. Scripture says: “The priest shall pronounce him clean.” E. Since it says, “And the priest shall declare him clean,” might one think that if the priest declared the unclean to be clean, he should be regarded as clean? F. Scripture says, “He is clean,” and “the priest shall declare him clean.” G. For this Hillel went up from Babylonia [vkg vz kg kccn kkv].

The Yerushalmi continues on to complete its triad of matters concerning which Hillel went up to the land of Israel: the other two being questions regarding the paschal offering and unleavened bread, matters on which Exodus and Deuteronomy seem to contradict each other.45 45 “One verse says, ‘You shall slaughter the Passover offering for

the LORD your God, from the flock and the herd’ (Deut. 16:2). And another verse says, ‘From the sheep or the goats you may take it’ (Exod. 12:5). How is this possible? The flock for the Passover offering and the herd for the festival offering. One verse says, ‘Six days you shall eat unleavened bread’ (Deut. 16:8). And another verse says, ‘Seven

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

247

The anecdote in each case is simply the one line concerning Hillel: Sifra: Tosefta: Yerushalmi:

/kccn kkhv vkg vzv rcsv kg /kccn kkv vkg ivhkga ohrcsv in sjt vzu /kccn kkv vkg vz kg

In terms of the contextual material, Yerushalmi is clearly closely related to Sifra (I believe it is quoting Sifra), and only thematically related to Tosefta. All three sources know a tradition linking this principle of law to Hillel’s aliyah but Yerushalmi and Sifra use the very same words in describing the case. We see no evidence in Sifra that this law was one of three laws which concerned Hillel. Tosefta seems to know there were additional laws in question but does not specify the number or content of the others. Only the Yerushalmi specifies them as three and tells us what they were supposed to be. Metsora, parashah 1 (to Leviticus 14:4), ed. Weiss 70b-c [Sifra comments upon the following passage of Scripture: “This shall be the law of the leper for the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the priest; and the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall make an examination. Then, if the leprous disease is healed in the leper, the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two living clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet stuff and hyssop; and the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water. He shall take the living bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet stuff and the hyssop, and dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water; and he shall sprinkle it seven times upon him who is to be cleansed of leprosy; then he shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird go into the open field. And he who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and bathe himself in water, and he shall be clean; and after days you shall eat unleavened bread’ (Exod. 12:15). How is this possible? Six from the new grain, and seven from the old grain. And he derived this by exegesis, and thus he taught it, and he went up and received it as halakhah” (y. Pesahim 6:1).

248

Midrash and Legend that he shall come into the camp, but shall dwell outside his tent seven days. And on the seventh day he shall shave all his hair off his head; he shall shave off his beard and his eyebrows, all his hair. Then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe his body in water, and he shall be clean…” (Leviticus 14:2-9, RSV).] [Previous context:] [“Living”―and not slaughtered. “Clean”―and not unclean. “Clean”― and not terefot.46 “And Wood”―might one think that any sort of wood is acceptable? Scripture says, “of cedar.” If it is cedar, might one think even a leaf is sufficient?47 Scripture says, “and wood.” How so? A log of cedar.48 R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel says: And its head is to be leafy.49] A. Said Rabbi Judah: It was my week, and I followed Rabbi Tarfon to his house. B. He said to me, “Judah, my son, give me my sandal,” and I gave it to him. C. He put his hand to the window and gave me a staff from it.

46 “Torn”―here in the technical sense of something rendered nonkosher due to injury or defect. 47 Neusner reads, “If it is cedar, might one think it may be smooth?” My rendering of ;ry and ;ury as “leaf” and “leafy” agrees with Ravad, and also the lexical information in the dictionaries of Jastrow and Sokoloff and The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (http://cal1.cn.huc.edu). I do not find the reading of ;ry as “smooth” convincing in this context, especially in this particular phrase. Joel Gereboff renders ;ry as “smooth” here and then as “a leaf” below at “G.” I do not see any indication that Sifra or the Mishnah construes the word differently in the two places. Joel Gereboff, Rabbi Tarfon: The Tradition, the Man, and Early Rabbinic Judaism (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979), 194. 48 Neusner reads here, “A chip of cedar.” The point of the text is that the cedar wood must be a piece of whole wood from the body of the tree, a chopped piece or a piece fit for chopping [,gec], as opposed to a leaf, or a twig, or a broken-off branch. I have used the word “log” here as the closest common English word. 49 Ravad comments, “so that it can be easily identified as cedar.” Neusner renders this phrase, “And its head is to be smooth.”

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

249

D. He said to me, “Judah, with this staff I have declared three lepers clean.” E. In that incident, I learned seven laws: F. 1. That it is of cypress wood [,urc]; G. 2. And on its head, a leaf [;ry vatrcu];50 H. 3. and that its length is a cubit; I. 4. and that its thickness is as thick as a quarter of the leg of the bed, one into two, and two into four; J. 5. and they sprinkle and repeat and do it even a third time [ohakanu ohbuau ohznu] [with the same staff]; K. 6. and that they purify while the Temple is standing and while the Temple is not standing; L. 7. and that they purify in the provinces.

The narrative provides an exemplary action by a sage. It is a variation on the ma’aseh but differs from the model.51 In a “typical” ma’aseh,52 the action occurs first, it is brought to an authority for judgment, and it is through the pronounced judgment that the example provides a norm.53 In this variation, whatever the revered sage does, ipso facto provides a norm. In this context this exemplary action by a sage functions primarily to illustrate the issues which Sifra has derived by exegesis 50 Neusner renders, “That its head is smooth.” 51 Arnold Goldberg counts the Exemplary Action as a category of

ma’aseh because in the Mishnah such accounts are introduced by the formula 'c vagn. I consider the differences to be extensive enough that a separate rubric is useful. Arnold Goldberg, “Form und Funktion des Ma’ase in der Mischna,” Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 2 (1974):1-38. See pp. 13-20 in particular. 52 Such as we see, for example, in the chapter on MRS, Parashat Bo, to Exodus 12:16, or below in Sifra, Emor parashah 1 (to Leviticus 21:3). 53 The typical form of the ma’aseh in the Mishnah is (1) the Case; (2) the Question / Legal Issue, which results from the case; (3) the Decision. The Question is rarely stated explicitly. A common feature is the named sage to whose attention the incident comes, in a halakhic context. “The case came before R. so and so, who said …” Goldberg, “Form und Funktion des Ma’ase,” 8, 12.

250

Midrash and Legend

about the piece of cedar wood which must be used in the process of ritually purifying a leper after his healing. I italicized certain phrases to highlight differences between the version of the anecdote in Sifra and in the Tosefta. The Mishnah contains parallel material about the cleansing of lepers, but it does not contain this anecdote. In its regulations it mentions the staff which should be “as thick as a quarter of the leg of the bed, divided exactly, one into two, and two into four.”54 In the Tosefta below, paragraphs “D” through “I” are parallel to the account in Sifra. I have used italics to highlight the differences between the two versions. 54 m. Nega’im: “(14:1) How do they cleanse the leper? [The priest] used to bring a new, flat, broad bowl and put therein a quarter-log of running water, and he would bring two free birds. He slaughtered one of them over the earthenware vessel with the running water, and dug and buried it in [the leper’s] presence. He took cedar wood and hyssop and scarlet wool and tied them together with the ends of the strip of wool; and he brought near to them the tips of the wings and the tip of the tail of the other; he dipped and sprinkled seven times on the back of the leper’s hand, and some say on his forehead also. And in this manner they used to sprinkle on the lintel of a leprous house from the outside. (14:2) [The priest] came to set free the living bird, and he did not turn his face toward the sea or toward the City or toward the wilderness, as it is said, ‘but he shall let go of the living bird out of the city into the open field’ (Leviticus 14:53). He then came to cut off the leper’s hair, and passed the razor over his whole body. He washed his garments and immersed himself. He was then clean in that he did not render a place unclean by entering, but he rendered unclean like a reptile; he could enter the wall [of the city]; he was banned from his house for seven days, and he was prohibited from marital intercourse. (14:3) On the seventh day he shaves a second time like the first shaving; he washed his garments and immersed himself; he was clean, and no longer rendered unclean like a reptile but was a tebul yom; he may now eat of tithe; after he had awaited sundown he could eat of terumah; when he had brought his atonement offering he could eat of hallowed things. Thus we find three stages of purification in the case of a leper, and likewise, also there are three stages in the purification of a woman after childbirth. (14:6) This is the ordinance regarding the cedar wood: its length should be one cubit, and its thickness like a fourth of the leg of a bed, one leg split into two and these two split into four. This is the ordinance with regard to the hyssop: it should not be Greek hyssop, or Kochalit hyssop, or Roman hyssop, or wild hyssop, or any kind of hyssop which has a qualified name” (Blackman, modified).

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

251

t. Nega’im 8:2 A. A hyssop which is fit for the purification-rite is fit for the leper. B. If one sprinkled with it for the purification rite, it is fit for the leper. C. R. Eliezer says: Cedar-wood and hyssop and a red thread which are mentioned in the Torah are to be articles with which work has not been done. D. Said R. Judah: It was my week, and I went to be with R. Tarfon, at his house. E. He said to me, “Judah, my son, give me my sandal.” and I gave it to him. F. He put his hand to the window and gave me a staff from it. G. He said to me, “My son, with this I have purified three lepers. H. And I learned seven laws from it: I. 1. That they are of cypress wood [,hrct]; J. 2. And its head is leafy [;ury vatru]; K. 3. Its length is a cubit; L. 4. and that its thickness is as thick as a quarter of the leg of the bed, one into two, into four; M. 5. They sprinkle, even a second and a third time [ihzn vakanu ohba] [with the same staff]; N. 6. and they purify both while the House is standing and while the House is not standing; O. 7. and they purify in the provinces.

In the context of this Tosefta passage, the anecdote particularly clarifies that the piece of cedar wood may be used on more than one occasion, contrary to the opinion expressed in the name of R. Eliezer at “C”. The story contains elements irrelevant to the specific interests of either Sifra or Tosefta, and so it is difficult to imagine it having originated in either context. But it is rather more appropriate to the interests of the Tosefta than to those of Sifra.

252

Midrash and Legend y. Sotah 2:2

The Yerushalmi simply quotes the argument from t. Nega’im chapter 8, as to whether the instruments of purification can be reused. But it transmits our anecdote in a form that agrees with Sifra against the text of Tosefta as we have it, wherever they differ. This is evidence, in my view, that the Yerushalmi is quoting the Tosefta, but that the version of Tosefta used by the Yerushalmi agreed with our Sifra and has been corrupted in transmission. Metsora, parashah 2 (to Leviticus 14:8), ed. Weiss 71b [The passage comments upon Leviticus 14:8: “And he who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and bathe himself in water, and he shall be clean; and after that he shall come into the camp, but shall dwell outside his tent seven days. And on the seventh day he shall shave all his hair off his head; he shall shave off his beard and his eyebrows, all his hair. Then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe his body in water, and he shall be clean…” (Leviticus 14:8-9, RSV).] [Previous context:] [“And he will dwell outside his tent” (Leviticus 14:8). He is to be like one who has been excommunicated.55 And he is prohibited from having sexual relations. “His tent.” His tent means only his wife, as it is said, “Return to your tents” (2 Kings 15:1).] A. “Seven days.” B. And not the days during which he is certified unclean―the words of Rabbi. C. R. Yose b. R. Judah says: It is an argument a fortiori concerning the days he is certified unclean. D. Said R. Hiyya: I spent the Sabbath before Rabbi, and did Rabbi not teach us that Jotham was born to Uzziah only during the days he was certified unclean? E. He said to them: Indeed thus did I state. 55 Where another person is forbidden from approaching him closer

than four cubits. Cp. b. Bava Metzi’a 59b.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

253

The anecdote is “D” and “E”―that R. Hiyya received this teaching on a certain Sabbath that he spent before Judah haNasi. This is a truncated form of the academy discussion. There is really no significance to the setting other than to heighten the interest. The text could simply have said “did not Rabbi teach us” without the setting and the argument would have the same force. Sifra normally affirms the opinion which it favors with a reprise of the significant phrase from the base text, but in this case it does not do so. The function of the anecdote is to lend authority to Sifra’s exegetical idea. b. Mo’ed Katan 7b A. “But he shall dwell outside his tent seven days” (Leviticus 14:8). B. He is prohibited from having sexual relations; for ‘tent’ means only his wife, as it is said: “Go, say to them, return to your tents” (2 Kings 15:1). C. R. Judah says: “They shall reckon for him seven days” (Ezekiel 44:26). He is excluded while counting his seven days but not while he is certified unclean. D. R. Yose b. R. Judah says: “They shall reckon for him seven days”―all the more so while he is certified unclean. E. Said R. Hiyya: ‘I argued on this point before Rabbi.’ F. Rabbi, you taught that Jotham could not have been born unto Uzziah except during the time that he was certified unclean. G. Rabbi replied: Indeed thus did I state. H. Wherein do they differ? I. R. Yose b. Judah argues that what the All Merciful has plainly indicated concerning a convalescent leper while counting his seven days is all the more applicable while he is certified unclean.

254

Midrash and Legend J. And the other Master [Rabbi] argues that what has been stated has been stated, and what has not been stated is not [to be assumed as] stated.56

It is my opinion that the Bavli quotes the anecdote as known from Sifra, but the Gemara expands upon the story as known from that source, notably by inserting the additional proof text from Ezekiel. In the table below, common elements are underlined. The specific narrative setting from Sifra has dropped away (“I spent the Sabbath before Rabbi”), with the change of one word. Sifra A.

/hcr hrcs uyhkjv hnh tku

Bavli :rnut vsuvh hcr /uyukj hnh tku wurhpx hnh -

B.

rnut vsuvh hcrc hxuh 'r /uyhkjv hnhk rnuj ke

:rnut vsuvh hcrc hxuh hcr /uyukj hnhk rnuju ke

C.

whcr hbpk h,cav thhj hcr rnt o,uh vhv tka hcr ubsnk tkvu ?uyhkjv hnhc tkt vhzugk

:hcr hbpk h,bs :thhj hcr rntu uk vhv tk o,uh ubhcr ub,snhk ?uyukj hnhc tkt vhzugk

D.

:h,rnt lf hbt ;t ovk rnt

:h,rnt lf hbt ;t vhk rnt

Metsora - Zavim, perek 5 (to Leviticus 15:13), ed. Weiss 77b-c [The passage comments upon Leviticus 15:13: “And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes; and he shall bathe his body in running water, and shall be clean” (RSV).] [Previous context:] [“Then he shall be clean.” From imparting uncleanness to clay utensils by carrying them. Ben Azzai says: If in a case in which the law has not treated an offspring of a source of uncleanness of a minor order as equivalent to an offspring of a source of uncleanness of a minor order such that it contracts uncleanness from a generative source of uncleanness of a minor order, the law has nonetheless treated an offspring of uncleanness of a major order as equivalent to an offspring of uncleanness of a major order so as to contract uncleanness from a generative source of 56 This translation is based on the Soncino translation, but I have

harmonized the diction with Neusner’s rendering of Sifra.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

255

uncleanness57—in a case in which the law has treated an offspring of a major source of uncleanness as equivalent to a generative source of uncleanness of a major order,58 should it not be the rule that we should treat the offspring of uncleanness of a major order as equivalent to the offspring of uncleanness of a major order to contract uncleanness from the generative source of uncleanness of a major order?59] A. Said to him R. Yose the Galilean: Explain this. B. He said to him: People do not have to make explanations to a sage. C. He said to him: Then repeat it.60 D. He said to him: People do not have to make repetitions for a sage.61 E. Then R. Yose the Galilean went and did make an explanation of the saying, as follows: F. If in a case in which the law has not treated as equivalent clothing of those made unclean by a

57 This is illustrated by R. Yose with the case of clothing of one made

unclean by a creeping thing, contrasted with the case of a piece of clothing itself made unclean by a creeping thing (explained below). 58 This is illustrated by R. Yose with the case of a utensil and a man, each made unclean by a creeping thing. 59 This is an erroneous conclusion which will subsequently be rejected, illustrated by R. Yose with the assertion that since clothing made unclean by a flux and clothing made unclean by one who has a flux are equivalent, the degrees of uncleanness imparted by a man with a flux to another man and to a clay vessel should be equivalent [but in fact are not as will be shown from Scripture]. Neusner in his note says he is uncertain of his translation here (“I do not claim to have done full justice to the language of Ben Azzai”). 60 Neusner’s note: “for purposes of memorization.” 61 Weiss has the reverse order of Neusner here, presenting “C”-”D”, then “A”-”B” according to our outline. Here Neusner appears to follow the edition of Kolidetzky, Sifra deve Rav (Jerusalem, 1961).

256

Midrash and Legend creeping thing and clothing itself made unclean by a creeping thing,62 G. the law has treated as equivalent a clay utensil made unclean by a creeping thing and a man made unclean by a creeping thing,63 H. here, in a case in which the law has treated the clothing of those made unclean by flux as equivalent to clothing itself made unclean by a flux,64 is it not reasonable that the law should treat as equivalent both a utensil made unclean by a one with a flux and a man made unclean by a one with a flux?65 I. [But] Scripture says, “then he shall be clean.” J. from imparting uncleanness to clay utensils by carrying them.

One of the peculiar “symptoms” of the zav,66 distinguishing him from all other living sources of uncleanness, is that he imparts uncleanness to objects by moving them (hesset),67 even without direct contact. Clay vessels are not subject to uncleanness on their exterior, so that if a zav merely touches the exterior of a clay vessel, he does not render it unclean. But if he moves the vessel, he imparts uncleanness to its interior space by hesset.

62 The clothing contracting, in the first case, second degree impurity,

and in the second case, the clothing contracts first degree impurity. 63 Both contracting first degree impurity. 64 Both becoming primary sources of impurity. My source for these explanations is Eliyahu Rabbah, the Vilna Gaon’s commentary to the mishnaic order of Purities. These rules are included as an appendix in the Mishnah translation of Herbert Danby (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933), 800-804. 65 But the two cases are not equivalent because the zav (one with a flux) transmits impurity to a man merely by touching him, but not so with the vessel! Vilna edition reads “is it not reasonable that the law should treat as equivalent clay vessels which are carried [tanc xrj hkf]?” “I” and “J” are missing in the Vilna edition of Sifra. 66 A man (cz) or a woman (vcz) who suffers from a genital discharge of gonorrhea. 67 /yxhv

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

257

The commentary of Ravad asserts that the case in view is that of a zav who has immersed himself in order to be cleansed from the uncleanness of his flux, and later that day discovers that he has had another discharge. Sifra, according to this view, addresses the status of objects which he has touched between his immersion and his discovery of the discharge. His seven days of cleanness are invalidated, and anything he contaminated by sitting or lying on it is unclean. But objects he moved between his bathing and his discovery did not contract uncleanness by moving. This is a conclusion which could not be derived by logic in the absence of an explicit scriptural statement. Sifra therefore, following its favored form of argument, presents us with two different, logically valid arguments which nevertheless lead to the erroneous conclusion that whatever the zav moves should in any case be rendered unclean. In this way Sifra demonstrates that Scripture is necessary in order to arrive at the correct categories of law in this case. 68 The anecdote here is the argument between the two Sages, particularly “B” and “C”. Although no setting is given, this is not merely an exchange of opinions such as we might expect in a hypothetical or constructed argument. This is full-fledged bickering and thus constitutes a narrative. This narrative has no parallel account elsewhere. This is the exceptional case where a narrative fully conforms to the logical and topical program of the midrashic document, in every respect forwarding the commentary function of the passage. The anecdote is not paralleled elsewhere, though the issues of law are discussed elsewhere (e.g. b. Megillah 8b). Therefore in my opinion the best explanation for the form of the narrative is that it originated under the same hand and point of view which is responsible for Sifra as an organized document.

68 An alternative understanding of the case under consideration,

which really does not alter the line of argumentation here, is that Sifra is discussing a leper who is also a zav (cp. b. Megillah 8b). The previouslydiscussed case in Sifra was that of a leper. If his flux ceases and he counts seven days, he may bathe to be cleansed of his uncleanness as a zav although he is still unclean as a leper. What is the benefit of his doing so? He will not render vessels unclean by moving them (yxhv)―otherwise the effects of the two kinds of uncleanness are very similar.

258

Midrash and Legend

Kedoshim, perek 4 (to Leviticus 19:17), ed. Weiss 89a-b [Previous context:] [“You shall not hate your brother…” (Leviticus 19:17).69 One might suppose that one should merely not curse him, strike him,70 or slap him.71 Scripture says, “in your heart.” I spoke only concerning hatred that is in the heart. And how do we know that if one has admonished him four or five times, he should still go and admonish him again? Scripture says, “Admonishing, you shall admonish your neighbor.” One might suppose that that is the case even if one rebukes him and his countenance blanches. Scripture says, “lest you bear sin on his account.”] A. Said R. Tarfon: By the Temple service! I doubt that in this generation there is anyone who is able to give a [proper] admonition! B. Said R. Eleazar b. Azariah: By the Temple service! I doubt that in this generation there is anyone who is able to receive an admonition! C. Said R. Akiva: By the Temple service! I doubt that in this generation there is anyone who knows just how an admonition is set forth! D. Said R. Yohanan b. Nuri: I call heaven and earth to bear witness against me, if it is not so that more than four or five times Akiva was given a flogging on my account on the authority of Rabban Gamaliel, because I complained to him about him, and through it all I knew that he loved me all the more on that account. 69 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason with your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:1718, RSV). 70 Neusner reads, “set him straight” for ubf,, apparently working from the root iuf whereas Soncino Talmud apparently works from the root vfb. I have adopted that reading here because it makes more sense in context. 71 Neusner reads, “contradict him” for ubryx,.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

259

This account (“D”) is an exemplary action by a sage. This time the sage’s action does not provide halakhic information, but lifts up the sage as the model of a biblical virtue. In this case, Akiva serves as an example of one who knew how to receive an admonition. Sifre Deuteronomy, parashat Devarim, piska 1 (to Deut. 1:1) [Previous context:] [“(These are the words which Moses spoke) to all Israel …” (Deuteronomy 1:1). Had he admonished only part of them, those who were out at the market would have said, “Is this what you heard from the son of Amram? And did you not give him such-and-such an answer? If we had been there, we should have answered him four or five times for every word he said!” Another matter concerning “to all Israel.” This teaches that Moses collected all of them together, from the greatest to the least of them, and he said to them, “Lo, I shall admonish you. Whoever has an answer, let him come and say it.”] A. Another matter concerning “to all Israel.” B. This teaches that all of them were subject to admonition but quite able to deal with the admonition. C. Said R. Tarfon: By the Temple service! I doubt that in this generation there is anyone who knows how to give an admonition! D. Said R. Eleazar b. Azariah: By the Temple service! I doubt that in this generation there is anyone who knows how to receive an admonition! E. Said R. Akiva: By the Temple service! I doubt that in this generation there is anyone who knows just how an admonition is set forth! F. Said R. Yohanan b. Nuri: I call to testify against me heaven and earth, if it is not so that more than five times Akiva was criticized before Rabban Gamaliel in Yavneh, for I would lay complaints against him, and [Rabban Gamaliel] criticized him. Nonetheless, I know that each time added to [Akiva’s] love for me.

260

Midrash and Legend G. This illustrates the verse: “Do not criticize a scorner, lest he hate you; but reprove a wise person, and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8).72

This anecdote is a much poorer “fit” in this context than it was in Sifra, where the topic of giving and receiving rebuke was actually in view in the base text. b. Arakhin 16b [Previous context:] [Our Rabbis taught: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart.” One might suppose that one should merely not strike him, slap him, or curse him. Scripture says, “in your heart”—Scripture speaks of ‘hatred in the heart.’ And how do we know that if a man sees something unseemly in his neighbor, he is obligated to admonish him? Because it is said, “Admonishing, you shall admonish.” If he admonished him and he did not accept it, how do we know that he must admonish him again? Scripture says, “you shall admonish” in any case. One might suppose that that is the case even if one admonishes him and his countenance blanches. Scripture says, “lest you bear sin on his account.”] A. It was taught [thb,]: Said R. Tarfon: I would be surprised if there is anyone in this generation who accepts admonishment, B. for if one says to him: Remove the mote from between your eyes, he would answer: Remove the beam from between your eyes! C. Said R. Eleazar b. Azariah: I would be surprised if there is anyone in this generation who knows how to admonish! D. And said R. Yohanan b. Nuri: I call to testify against me heaven and earth, that many times Akiva was flogged on my account. E. For I would complain about him before Rabban Gamaliel.73

72 Translation of Neusner, adapted.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

261

F. And even so, I increased his love for me, G. To fulfill what is said: “Do not admonish a scorner, lest he hate you; but admonish a wise person, and he will love you.”74

The relationship between these versions is hard to determine. In the following table I have used italics to highlight some of the distinctive elements of each version. ƒ The Bavli agrees with Sifra against Sifre Deuteronomy that R. Akiva was flogged. ƒ The Bavli agrees with Sifre Deuteronomy by quoting the closing text from Proverbs. ƒ Sifra and Sifre Deuteronomy agree with each other against the Bavli by having R. Tarfon speak of giving (rather than accepting) rebuke, in having the series of oaths “by the Temple Service,” in having R. Akiva speak, and in the patterns of language at “D” and “F” below.

Although the evidence is somewhat ambiguous, I believe that Sifre Deuteronomy knew the version in Sifra, and that the Bavli knew both. Sifra

Sifre Deut.

Bavli

A. Said R. Tarfon: By the Temple service! I doubt that in this generation there is anyone who is able to admonish!

Said R. Tarfon: By the Temple service! I doubt that in this generation there is anyone who is able to admonish!

Said R. Tarfon: I would be surprised if there is anyone in this generation who accepts admonishment,

B. ―

―

for if one says to him: Remove the mote from between your eyes, he would answer: Remove the beam from between your eyes!

73 According to the emendation of Shitah Mekubetset. The received reading says, “before Rabban Simeon son of Rabbi.” 74 Soncino translation, adapted.

262

Midrash and Legend Sifra

Sifre Deut.

Bavli

C. Said R. Eleazar b. Azariah: By the Temple service! I doubt that in this generation there is anyone who is able to receive admonishment!

Said R. Eleazar b. Azariah: By the Temple service! I doubt that in this generation there is anyone who is able to receive admonishment!

Said R. Eleazar b. Azariah: I would be surprised if there is anyone in this generation who knows how to admonish!

D. Said R. Akiva: By the Temple service! I doubt that in this generation there is anyone who knows just how an admonishment is set forth!

Said R. Akiva: By the Temple service! I doubt that in this generation there is anyone who knows just how an admonishment is set forth!

―

E. Said R. Yohanan ben Nuri: I call to testify against me heaven and earth, that more than four or five times Akiva was flogged on my account before Rabban Gamaliel.

Said R. Yohanan ben Nuri: I call to testify against me heaven and earth, that more than five times R. Akiva was criticized on my account before Rabban Gamaliel at Yavneh.

And said R. Yo
anan ben Nuri: I call to testify against me heaven and earth, that many times Akiva was flogged on my account.

F. For I used to complain to him about him.

For I would complain about him and he would criticize him.

For I would complain about him before Rabban Gamaliel.

G. And through it all I knew that he would love me all the more.

And through it all I knew that each time he would love me all the more,

And even so, I increased his love for me,

H. ―

To fulfill what is said: “Do not rebuke a scorner, lest he hate you; but rebuke a wise person, and he will love you.”

To fulfill what is said: “Do not admonish a scorner, lest he hate you; but admonish a wise person, and he will love you.”

Emor, parashah 1 (to Leviticus 21:3), ed. Weiss 94a [The passage comments upon Leviticus 21:3: “And the LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them that none of them shall defile himself for the dead among his people, except for his nearest of kin, his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, his brother, or his virgin sister (who is

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

263

near to him because she has had no husband; for her he may defile himself)” (Leviticus 21:1-3, RSV).] A. “For her he may defile himself.” B. It is a religious duty to do so. C. If he does not wish to contract corpse-uncleanness, he is forced against his will to do so. D. There is the case of ['c vagnu] Joseph the priest, whose wife died on the eve of Passover and who did not want to contract corpse-uncleanness on her account. E. Sages forced him and made him unclean against his will.

Here this case example comes in support of a very simple point of law: that in those cases where Scripture permits a priest to contract impurity in attending to the burial of his deceased relative, the permission constitutes a duty as well. In the Bavli, the same case comes in the context of a more complicated discussion involving the same principle. b. Zevahim 100a A. Abaye said: … And how do you know that we differentiate between [death] before midday and [death] after midday [on the eve of Passover]? B. Because it was taught: “For her shall he defile himself” (Lev. 21:3)―it is a religious duty to do so.75 75 Compare b. Sotah 3a. “‘For her he may defile himself.’ This is

voluntary in the opinion of R. Ishmael; but R. Akiva says: It is obligatory. What is the reason of R. Ishmael? Since it is written: ‘Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron and say unto them, There shall none defile himself for the dead among his people,’ was it likewise necessary to write, ‘For her he may defile himself’? And [from where does] R. Akiva [learn that a priest may so defile himself]?―He derives it from, ‘Except for his close relative.’ What then is the purpose of, ‘For her he should defile himself’? [It is to indicate that] it is obligatory. And [how does] R. Ishmael [explain the addition of these words]?―‘For her’ he may defile himself but not for any of her limbs” (Soncino translation, modified). This passage is relevant also to the anecdote which follows next in this chapter.

264

Midrash and Legend C. If he does not wish to contract corpse-uncleanness, we defile against his will. D. There is the case of ['c vagn] Joseph the priest, whose wife died on the eve of Passover and who did not want to contract corpse-uncleanness on her account. E. And his brother priests took a vote and made him unclean against his will. F. But the following contradicts it: “[He shall not make himself unclean for his father … and for his sister [when they die]” (Num. 6:7).76 Why is this stated? G. [For this reason:] Behold if he was on his way to slaughter the Passover-offering or to circumcise his son, and he learnt that a near relation of his had died, you might think that he may defile himself; hence you read, ‘he shall not make himself unclean.’ H. You might think that just as he may not defile himself for his sister, so may he not defile himself for an unattended corpse: therefore it states, ‘and for his sister’: he may not defile himself for his sister, but he must defile himself for an unattended corpse. I. Hence you must surely infer that one holds good [where the person died] before midday, and the other where he died after midday.

The Talmud here deals with conflicts of principles which are not in view in the simpler presentation in Sifra. The anecdote itself, and its halakhic introduction, stays fairly stable between both contexts, but “the Sages” are replaced by “brother priests” in the Talmud as those who force Joseph the priest to attend to his wife’s burial. The form is the case-example. Sifra

Bavli

A.

/vumn - tnyh vk tnyhk vmr tk /ujrf kgc u,ut ihtnyn

/vumn - tnyh vk /ujrf kg u,ut ihtnyn - vmr tk

B.

ivfv ;xuhc vagnu ohjxp hcrgcu u,at v,na /vk tnyhk vmr tku

ivfv ;xuhc vagnu jxpv crgc u,at v,na /tnyhk vmr tku

76 This text refers, in context, to Nazirites and not to priests.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra C.

:ujruf kg uvutnhyu ohnfj uvupjsu

265

:ujrf kg uvutnhyu ohbvfv uhjt ubnbu

Emor, parashah 1 (to Leviticus 21:3), ed. Weiss 94a [Another anecdote follows a few lines later:] A. “For her he may defile himself” (Lev. 21:3). B. He is not to contract corpse-uncleanness on account of her limbs.77 C. For a man78 may not contract corpse-uncleanness on account of a limb that has fallen from a living person who is a relation of his on his father’s side. D. But he does contract corpse-uncleanness so as to bury a bone as small as a barleycorn from a relative on his father’s side. E. R. Yose says: A man does not contract corpseuncleanness so as to bury a bone as small as a barleycorn from a relative on his father’s side. F. There was the case of ['c vagn] Joseph b. Pakses, on the foot of whom an ulcer arose. G. The physician wanted to chop it off. H. He said to him: When you have cut it so as to leave only a thread like a hair’s breadth, tell me. I. He chopped it off until he left only a thread like a hair’s breadth and told him. J. He called Nehunia, his son, and said to him: Hunia, my son, up to this point you were obligated to take care of me. From this point, go out, for a priest does not contract corpse-uncleanness on account of a limb from a living person in the case of his father.79

77 See footnote 75, above. 78 i.e., a priest. 79 This is the same principle of law as discussed above with reference

to Vayikra―Dibura deHovah perek 1 (to Leviticus 4:2). As long as the limb was attached by a hair’s-breadth to a living person, it could not impart uncleanness, but when separated, it would impart corpseuncleanness.

266

Midrash and Legend K. And when the case came before the Sages, they said: This is the sort of case concerning which Scripture says, “There is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness” (Ecclesiastes 7:15). L. The righteous man perishes, and maintains his righteousness.80

y. Nazir 7:1 A. It was taught [hb,]: R. Yose says: A man [who is an ordinary priest] does not contract uncleanness on account of a limb that has fallen from his father while the father is yet alive, but he does contract corpse uncleanness by reason of a bone the size of a barley kernel deriving from his father [after he has died]. B. R. Judah says: Just as a person contracts corpse uncleanness by reason of burying a bone the size of a barley kernel deriving from his father, so he contracts uncleanness by reason of a limb that has fallen from his father while he is yet alive. C. There was the case of ['c vagn] Yose b. Pakses, on the foot of whom an ulcer arose. D. The doctor came to cut it off. E. He said to him: When you have left it hanging by only a thread as thin as a hair, let me know.

80 Fränkel (Korban HaEidah), commenting on the parallel in the

Yerushalmi, understands this to mean, “Though the righteous man is perishing, he maintains his righteousness,” as Joseph b. Pakses did. I have translated according to this interpretation. Neusner’s translation reads, “‘Sometimes a righteous man perishes in spite of his righteousness’ (Ecclesiastes 7:15). The righteous man perishes, and his righteousness with him.” I consider it possible this is intended as a criticism: The overrighteous person puts his life in danger for fine points of legality (and danger to life overrides legalities such as the sort Joseph b. Pakses was concerning himself with). Cp. Ecclesiastes 7:16, b. Yoma 22b80 Neusner translates here, “if he does not have these traits, how do we know they should [nevertheless] magnify him from above his brothers [uhjt kan uvuksdha ihbn uk iht]?” The midrash construes this phrase to mean that his fellow priests should endow him, as the anecdote illustrates. Compare b. Yoma 18a, treated below (p. 273), where this is made explicit.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

267

F. He cut it off and left it hanging by a thread as thin as a hair, and so informed him. G. He called Nehuniah, his son, and said to him: Nehuniah, my son, up to this point you were obligated to take care of me. From this point forth, go out, for a person does not contract corpse-uncleanness by reason of a limb cut off from his father while he is still alive. H. Now when the case came to the Sages, they said: This is the sort of case concerning which Scripture says, “A righteous man perishes in his righteousness” (Ecclesiastes 7:15). I. That is to say, [though] the righteous man perishes, his righteousness [remains] with him.

In the anecdote itself, the Yerushalmi exhibits no significant differences from Sifra. In both cases the anecdote comes as a case example of one who followed the opinion that a priest should not intentionally incur impurity on account of a limb amputated from a close relative. But the attribution of the legal opinions themselves is different in the two texts. Position Given A. A priest should contract uncleanness to bury a limb amputated from a living close relative

in Sifra

In Yerushalmi

―

R. Judah

B. A priest should NOT contract uncleanness stated to bury a limb amputated from a living close anonymously relative

R. Yose

C. A priest should contract uncleanness to bury an entire corpse of a deceased close relative

implied by “E”

implied by “E”

D. A priest should NOT contract uncleanness to bury an entire corpse of a deceased close relative

―

―

E. A priest should contract uncleanness to bury stated even a small bone of a deceased close anonymously relative F. A priest should NOT contract uncleanness to bury even a small bone of a deceased close relative

R. Yose

R. Yose R. Yohanan [implied]

In both versions it appears that Jose(ph) ben Pakses held to a minority, stricter-than-necessary position, with the result that his

268

Midrash and Legend

course of action is praised (and perhaps) lamented by the Sages when they hear the case, by means of the quote from Ecclesiastes. The story is a much better “fit” in the Yerushalmi than in Sifra where its relationship to the base verse is tenuous. It seems likely to me that they stem from a common source as far as the anecdote is concerned. The baraita concerning the anecdote remained stable, but the baraita regarding R. Yose’s opinions proved less stable for some reason. Emor, parashah 2 (to Leviticus 21:10), ed. Weiss 94c-d [The passage comments on Leviticus 21:10: “The priest who is chief among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil is poured, and who has been consecrated to wear the garments, shall not let the hair of his head hang loose, nor rend his clothes; he shall not go in to any dead body, nor defile himself, even for his father or for his mother; neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 21:1012, RSV).] A. “The priest who is chief among his brethren [ivfvu uhjtn kusdv]…” B. He is to be chief among his brethren in dignity, wealth, power, wisdom, and appearance. C. If he does not have [wealth], how do we know that they should magnify him [i.e., endow him] from what his brothers have?81 D. Scripture says, “he who is chief among [literally, from] his brethren,” meaning, he should be made great from [the means of] his brethren.82 E. They report about [kg uhkg urnt] Phinehas of Habbetah that the lot fell on him to serve as high priest.

82 Neusner translates here, “he should be chief at least relative to his

brethren” [uhjtn kusd tvha]. But see the previous note.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

269

F. The Temple treasurers and administrators went to fetch him and found him quarrying stone, so they filled up the quarry with golden denars. G. Said R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel: Now was he a stonecutter? And was he not our son in law?83 And did they not find him ploughing? As in the passage where it is said, “with twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he was with the twelfth” (1 Kings 19:19).84

There is a remarkable attitude toward tradition displayed here, that the editor feels the need and the liberty to put these conflicting accounts before us rather than select the version or combination which he found most convincing. I imagine that R. Hananiah wishes to clarify that Phinehas was not a stonecutter but rather a farmer because a landed farmer had more status than a stonecutter. The same anecdote appears in the Tosefta with only insignificant differences between the texts. In Sifra the anecdote serves as a case-example for the stated law, and is related to its context by the simple commentary form to which the case-anecdote is subservient in Sifra. t. Kippurim (Yoma) 1:6 A. It is the religious requirement of the high priest to be greater than his brethren in dignity, strength, wealth, wisdom, and appearance. B. If he is not, how do we know that his brothers should magnify him [i.e., endow him]? Since it says, “And the priest who is chief among [literally, from] his brethren” (Leviticus 21:10)―that his brethren should magnify him. C. They report about [kg uhkg urnt] Phinehas of Habbeta, that the lot fell on him to serve as high priest. 83 ubhb,j―in his translation of Sifra Neusner renders this as “father in law,” and in Tosefta as “son in law” and the word can bear either meaning. I’ve chosen “son in law” as the more likely reading in both cases. 84 “So he [Elijah] departed from there, and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, who was plowing, with twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he was with the twelfth. Elijah passed by him and cast his mantle upon him” (1 Kings 19:19, RSV).

270

Midrash and Legend D. The Temple treasurers and administrators went to fetch him and found him while he was quarrying stone, so they filled up the quarry with golden denars. E. R. Hanina b. Gamaliel says, “He was not a stonecutter. And was he not our son in law? And they found him ploughing, just as it says concerning Elisha, ‘with twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he was with the twelfth’“ (1 Kings 19:19). Sifra

Tosefta

A.

v,cj aht xjbhp kg uhkg urnt /kusd ivf ,uhvk ukrud vkga

v,cj aht xjbp kg uhkg urnt /kusd ivf ,uhvk ukrud vkga

B.

ihkufrnu ohrczhd uhrjt ufkvu ,t uhkg uknu wcmuj uvutmnu /cvz hrbhs cmjnv

uvutmnu ihkfrntu ihrczd uhrjt ufkvu cmjnv ,t uhkg utknu wcmuj tuvaf /cvz hrhbs

C.

kthknd ic vhbbj hcr rnt ?vhv ubhb,j tkvu ?vhv ,,x hfu

kthknd ic tbhbj 'r 'nt ?vhv ubhb,j tkvu /vhv ,,x tk

D.

ihbgf aruj tkt uvutmn tk tkvu rntba :

rntba vnf aruj tuvaf uvutmnu gahktc :

Emor, perek 2 (to Leviticus 21:14), ed. Weiss 95a [The passage comments upon Leviticus 21:14: “The priest who is chief among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil is poured … he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or one divorced, or a woman who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he shall not marry; but a virgin of his own people he shall take to wife, that he may not profane his children among his people; for I am the LORD who sanctifies him” (Leviticus 21:10, 13-15, RSV).] [Phrases in Italics duplicate the Mishnah.] A. “He shall take to wife.” B. What is the point of Scripture here?85 C. How do you know that if he had betrothed a widow and was then appointed high priest, he may consummate the marriage? D. Scripture says, “He shall take to wife.”

85 In other words, “Why this apparently redundant phrase?”

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

271

E. There is the case ['c vagn] of Joshua b. Gamla, who consecrated Martha daughter of Boetus, and the king appointed him high priest, and he then consummated the marriage. F. Might one suppose that in the case where a common priest had made a verbal agreement to enter into the levirate marriage, he may [if in the interval appointed high priest] nonetheless consummate the marriage? G. Scripture says, “He shall take to wife,” H. but not a levirate wife.

Here the Mishnah and Sifra have the same law and the same case-example. The mishnaic material is simplified and fit to context by Sifra, where it is demonstrated that the traditional law is supported by seemingly extraneous phrases in the scriptural base text. Once again we have a case-example embedded in a ribuicommentary. m. Yevamot 6:4 [Italicized portions appear in Sifra. The previous context concerns various marriages forbidden to a high priest.] If he [an ordinary priest] had betrothed a widow and was then appointed high priest, he may consummate the marriage. There is the case ['c vagn] of Joshua b. Gamla, who consecrated Martha daughter of Boetus, and the king appointed him high priest, and he then consummated the marriage. If one awaiting the decision of the levir became subject to a common priest who was subsequently appointed high priest, [the latter], though he had already made a verbal agreement, must not consummate the levirate marriage. Mishnah asea tknd ic gauvhc vagnu lknv uvbnu xu,hc ,c t,rn ,t /vxbfu kusd ivf ,uhvk

Sifra ashea tknd ic ghauvhc vagn lknv uvbhnu xu,hhc ,c v,rn /vxbfu kusd ivf ,uhvk

In tractate Yevamot, in its treatment of this Mishnah, the Talmud offers more details about the couple mentioned in our anecdote. b. Yevamot 61a Our Rabbis taught: Whence is it deduced that [a priest] who betrothed a widow and was afterwards appointed

272

Midrash and Legend High Priest may consummate the marriage? It is specifically stated in Scripture, “He shall take to wife” (Leviticus 21:14). If so, [the same law should apply to] a yevamah awaiting the decision of the levir also!―A ‘wife’ but not a yevamah [levirite wife]. It once happened to Joshua etc. He appointed him but he was not elected! Said R. Joseph: I see here a conspiracy; for R. Assi, in fact, related that Martha the daughter of Boetus brought to King Yannai86 a tarkab of denarii before he gave an appointment to Joshua b. Gamla among the High Priests.87

86 Soncino Talmud note: “Yannai is often employed in the Talmud as

a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers. Here it stands for Agrippa II, v. Josephus Antiquities XX, 9, 4, and Derenbourg, Essai, 248ff.” 87 Soncino translation. Another account concerning the extraordinary wealth of the woman, Martha daughter of Boetus, is related in regard to the siege of Jerusalem under Vespasian: “The biryoni were then in the city. The Rabbis said to them: Let us go out and make peace with them [the Romans]. They would not let them, but on the contrary said, Let us go out and fight them. The Rabbis said: You will not succeed. They then rose up and burnt the stores of wheat and barley so that a famine ensued. Martha the daughter of Boetus was one of the richest women in Jerusalem. She sent her man-servant out saying, Go and bring me some fine flour. By the time he went it was sold out. He came and told her, There is no fine flour, but there is white [flour]. She then said to him, Go and bring me some. By the time he went he found the white flour sold out. He came and told her, There is no white flour but there is dark flour. She said to him, Go and bring me some. By the time he went it was sold out. He returned and said to her, There is no dark flour, but there is barley flour. She said, Go and bring me some. By the time he went this was also sold out. She had taken off her shoes, but she said, I will go out and see if I can find anything to eat. Some dung stuck to her foot and she died. Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai applied to her the verse, “The tender and delicate woman among you which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground …” (Deuteronomy 28:56). Some report that she ate a fig left by R. Zadok, and became sick and died. For R. Zadok observed fasts for forty years in order that Jerusalem might not be destroyed, [and he became so thin that] when he ate anything the food could be seen [as it passed through his throat.] When he wanted to restore himself, they used to bring him a fig, and he used to suck the juice and throw the rest away. When Martha was about to die, she brought out all

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

273

The same story is related in a somewhat different context in tractate Yoma. b. Yoma 18a It is quite right that [they assume] perchance he has forgotten, but that he never learnt, do we ever appoint men of that type? Surely it has been taught: “And the priest that is chief among his brethren” (Leviticus 21:10)―that means he should be chief among his brethren in power, in good looks, in wisdom, and in wealth. Others say: How do we know that if he does not possess [any wealth], his brethren, the priests, magnify him [i.e., endow him]? Scripture says: ‘And the priest who is great by reason of his brethren,’ i.e., make him great from what his brethren have. R. Joseph said: That is no difficulty. One refers to the first Temple, the other to the second, for R. Assi said: A tarkab of denars did Martha, the daughter of Boetus give to King Yannai to nominate Joshua ben Gamla as one of the high priests.

Emor, perek 9 (to Leviticus 22:32), ed. Weiss 99d [The passage comments on Leviticus 22:32: “So you shall keep my commandments and do them: I am the LORD. And you shall not profane my holy name, but I will be hallowed among the people of Israel; I am the Lord who sanctifies you, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 22:31-33, RSV).] A. “And you shall not profane…” B. On this basis Sages have said [urnt ifhn]: C. Whoever gives his life [as a martyr] on condition that a miracle is done for him—no miracle will be done for him. her gold and silver and threw it in the street, saying, What is the good of this to me, thus giving effect to the verse, They shall cast their silver in the streets” (b. Gittin 56a, Soncino Translation). Compare y. Ketubbot 5:11, which is treated briefly in Chapter 2 (p. 108), in the explanation of the Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, tractate BaHodesh chapter 1, to Exodus 19:1.

274

Midrash and Legend D. But if it is not on condition that a miracle be done for him, a miracle will be done for him. E. For so we find in the case of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, that they said to Nebuchadnezzar, “We have no need to answer you in this matter, for if so it must be, our God whom we serve is able to save us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will save us from your power, O king. But even if he does not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your god or worship the statue of gold that you have set up” (Dan. 3:16-18). F. And when Marainus seized [xp,afu] Pappos and Julianos [xubhhkuk] his brother in Laodicea, he said to them, “If you come from the people of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your God come and save you from my power.” G. They said to him, “Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were worthy men, and Nebuchadnezzar was a king worthy of having a miracle done on his account. H. But you are a wicked king, and you are not worthy of having a miracle done on your account, and, for our part, we are liable to the death penalty inflicted by Heaven, so if you do not kill us, there are plenty of agents of punishment before the Omnipresent, plenty of bears, plenty of lions, plenty of panthers, plenty of fiery snakes, plenty of scorpions, to do injury to us. I. But in the end the Omnipresent is going to demand the penalty of our blood from your hand. J. They say that he did not leave there before officials came from Rome, and split his skull88 with axes.

This passage has parallels in the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon, in the Bavli (Ta’anit 18b), and in the extracanonical tractate Semahot (8:15). The distinguishing features of the version in Sifra are “A” “D” above. The anecdote is related to a biblical passage which, by means of rabbinic understanding of the terms involved, speaks of the attitude with which one should face the possibility of martyrdom. This connection is unique to Sifra. The variations 88 Neusner renders it, “chopped of his head.” “ujun ,t uthmuvu”.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

275

within the anecdote itself are discussed in full in the previous chapter of this study. See my comments on the Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon to Exodus 21:13, beginning at page 201. Emor, parashah 11 (to Leviticus 23:24), ed. Weiss 101d [The passage comments upon Leviticus 23:24: “Say to the people of Israel, In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe a day of solemn rest, a memorial proclaimed with blast of trumpets, a holy convocation. You shall do no laborious work; and you shall present an offering by fire to the LORD” (Leviticus 23:23-24, RSV).] [Previous context:] [What is the order of beneditions (in the amidah for the New Year musaf service)?: One recites “the Fathers,” “Divine Power,” “Sanctification of the Name,” including within it the verses referring to God’s sovereignty, and does not sound the ram’s horn; then the “Sanctification of the Day,” and one sounds the ram’s horn, then the Remembrance-verses and one sounds the ram’s horn, the Ram’s Horn-verses and one sounds the ram’s horn; then one recites the blessing for the “Sacrificial service,” the “Thanksgiving Blessing,” and the “Priestly Blessing”―the words of R. Yohanan b. Nuri.] [Said to him R. Akiva: If he does not sound the ram’s horn in connection with the verses referring to God’s sovereignty, why does he make mention of them at all? Rather, one recites the “Fathers,” “Divine Power,” the “Sanctification of the Name,” and includes the verses on God’s sovereignty with the “Sanctification of the Day,” and then sounds the ram’s horn, the Remembrance-verses and sounds the ram’s horn, the Ram’s Horn-verses and sounds the ram’s horn, then the blessing for the “Sacrificial Service,” the “Thanksgiving Blessing,” and the “Priestly Blessing.”89] [Rabbi says: With the verses referring to God’s sovereignty one recites the “Sanctification of the Day.” Just as we find that in every circumstance, one recites it in the fourth 89 This is mishnaic material quoted by Sifra (m. Rosh HaShanah 4:5).

276

Midrash and Legend (blessing), so here too one should say it in the fourth (blessing). Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: The “Sanctification of the Day” belongs with the Remembrance-verses. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: Just as we find that in every circumstance one says it in the middle, so here too one should say it in the middle.] A. Now when they sanctified [uasheafu] the year in Usha, on the first day, Rabbi Simeon son of R. Yohanan b. Berokah stood passed [before the ark] and recited [the Prayer] in accord with the view of R. Yohanan b. Nuri. B. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: That was not the custom that we followed in Yavneh. C. So on the second day R. Hananiah, son of R. Yose the Galilean, passed [before the ark] and recited [the Prayer] in accordance with the opinion of R. Akiva. D. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: Now that was the custom that we followed in Yavneh.

The form of the story is a case-example, where an action performed receives approval or disapproval from an authority, even though there is no formal legal judgment rendered. This case example is imported associatively because it adds material relevant to the topic of sanctifying the first of Tishri. This material also appears at t. Rosh HaShanah 2:11. t. Rosh HaShanah 2:11 [Previous context:] [In a place in which they are accustomed to recite (the Prayer) in accord with the view of R. Akiva, they say the prayers in accord with the view of R. Akiva. Where they are accustomed to say the prayers in accord with the view of R. Yohanan b. Nuri, they say the prayers in accord with the view of R. Yohanan b. Nuri. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: The “Sanctification of the Day” belongs with the Remembrance-verses. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: Just as we find that in every circumstance one says it in the fourth (blessing), so here too one should say it in the fourth (blessing). Rabbi says: Just as we find that in every circumstance one says it in the middle, so here too one should say it in the middle.]

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

277

A. Now when they sanctified the year in Usha, on the first day R. Yohanan b. Berokah passed [before the ark] and recited [the Prayer] in accord with the view of R. Yohanan b. Nuri. B. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: That was not the custom which we followed in Yavneh. C. So on the second day R. Hanina, son of R. Yose the Galilean, passed [before the ark] and recited [the Prayer] in accordance with the opinion of R. Akiva. D. Then said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: Now that was the custom which we followed in Yavneh.90

The Toseftan material is appropriated in the Yerushalmi and the Bavli. y. Rosh HaShanah 4:6 [Previous context:] [In Judea they followed the custom of Rabbi Akiva, and in the Galilee that of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. If one transgressed and did in Judea like the Galilee, or in Galilee like Judea, he has fulfilled his obligation.] A. Now when they sanctified the year in Usha, on the first day Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Berokah passed [before the ark] and recited [the Prayer] in accord with the view of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. B. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: That was not the custom which we followed in Yavneh. C. So on the second day Rabbi Hananiah, son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean, passed [before the ark] and recited [the Prayer] in accord with the view of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. D. Said R. Simeon ben Gamaliel: That was the custom which we followed in Yavneh.91 90 Translation of Neusner, corrected. 91 Translation of Edward A. Goldman, adapted here to match the

diction used by Neusner for Sifra. Edward A. Goldman, The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation, vol. 16, Rosh Hashanah. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).

278

Midrash and Legend

The anecdote appears in the same form, but in the context of discussions of the intercalation of the calendar, at y. Rosh HaShanah 3:1, y. Sanhedrin 1:2, and y. Nedarim 6:8. b. Rosh HaShanah 32a A. Now when the Beit Din sanctified the year in Usha, R. Yohanan b. Berokah went down [before the ark] in the presence of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, and acted according to the view of R. Yohanan b. Nuri. B. Said to him Rabban Simeon: That was not the custom they followed in Yavneh. C. On the second day, R. Hanina, son of R. Yose the Galilean went down [before the ark] and acted according to the view of R. Akiva. D. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: Now that is the custom that they followed in Yavneh.92

There are some differences among all four sources. We must assume that the Bavli and Yerushalmi draw on Tosefta or Sifra or both. Since it is clear that Yerushalmi frequently draws on Tosefta, and there is no evidence to the contrary here, it seems plausible simply to understand the use of this anecdote in the two Talmuds as drawing upon the Tosefta. Here I have underlined certain phrases distinctive to a single version of the story. Sifra

Tosefta

Yerushalmi

Bavli

A.

,t uasheafu vautc vbav iuatrv ouhc

,t uaseafu vautc vbav

,t uasheafu tautc vbav iuatr ouhc

,hc uasheafu vbav ,t ihs vautc

B.

iugna hcr sng ibjuh 'r ka ubc rntu veurc ic hcr hrcsf /hrub ic ibjuh

ibjuh 'r rcg rntu veurc ic /hrub ic ibjuh hrcsf

hcr rcg ka ubc ktgnah rntu c"chr /i"chr hrcsf

ic ibjuh 'r srh icr hbpk teurc kthknd ic iugna ibjuh hcrf vagu /hrub ic

C.

iugna icr rnt tk kthknd ic if ohdvub ubhhv /vbchc

iugna icr rnt tk kthknd ic if ihdvub ubhhv /vbchc

tk d"car rnt if ihdvub ubhhv /vbchc

icr uk rnt uhv tk iugna /vbchc if ihdvub

92 I have translated following the diction used by Neusner in his

translation of Sifra.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra Sifra

Tosefta

Yerushalmi

279 Bavli

D.

sng hbav ouhc ka ubc vhbbj hkhkdv hxuh hcr hrcsf rntu /tcheg hcr

rcg hbav ouhc ka ubc tbhbj hcr hkhkdv hxuh hcr hrcsf rntu /tcheg hcr

rcg 'c ouhc ka ubc’hbbj hcr rntu hkhkdv h"r /g"r hrcsf

srh hbav ouhk ubc tbhbj hcr hxuh hcr ka vagu hkhkdv /tcheg hcrf

E.

iugna icr rnt lf kthknd ic ohdvub ubhhv :vbchc

iugna icr rnt lf kthknd ic ihdvub ubhhv :vbchc

lf d"car 'nt ihdvub ubhhv :vbchc

iugna icr rnt lf kthknd ic ihdvub uhv :vbchc

There is instability in the attributions given at “B” and general stability in the story everywhere else. Possibly Tosefta represents an original version (Yohanan b. Berokah is the actor); Rabban Simeon’s name comes into play as we see it in the Bavli, and a copyist of Sifra mistakenly inserts the name of R. Simeon before the name of Yohanan b. Berokah as the actor. The Yerushalmi attempts to correct the obvious error and gives us a different name, a R. Ishmael son of Yohanan b. Berokah.93 All this is highly speculative, however. Yerushalmi depends on Tosefta, not only for the form of its anecdote, but for its context and place in the argument. Since this is an “extra-documentary” passage for Sifra, quoting the Mishnah and another source, I am inclined to assert that even Sifra depends on Tosefta here, as without doubt is the case for the Bavli. Emor, perek 16 (to Leviticus 23:40), ed. Weiss 102c-d [The passage comments upon Leviticus 23:40: “On the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in the produce of the land, you shall keep the feast of the LORD seven days; on the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on the eighth day shall be a solemn rest. And you shall take on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days. You shall keep it as a feast to the LORD seven days in the 93 Alternatively, it is possible that the Yerushalmi gives us an earlier

reading of Sifra, and that what we now have in Sifra represents a copyist’s corruption due to unconscious harmonization with the Bavli.

280

Midrash and Legend year; it is a statute forever throughout your generations; you shall keep it in the seventh month. You shall dwell in booths for seven days; all that are native in Israel shall dwell in booths, that your generations may know that I made the people of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 23:39-43, RSV).] A. “For yourself.” B. One that belongs to you, not a stolen one. C. On this basis Sages have said [urnt ifhn]:94 D. A person does not fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival to wave the lulav by using the lulav of his fellow,95 unless he freely gave it to him as a gift,96 and he to his fellow, and he to his fellow, even if they are a hundred people. E. There was the case ['c vagn] of Rabban Gamaliel and elders, who were traveling in a boat, and only Rabban Gamaliel alone had a lulav. Rabban Gamaliel gave it as a gift to R. Joshua, and R. Joshua to R. Eleazar b. Azariah, and R. Eleazar b. Azariah to R. Akiva, and all of them carried out their obligation.

Riding on a ship is a stereotypical situation,97 which is not to say that there were never any real incidents that took place on 94 We saw in MRS that this was used as a citation formula. In Sifra urnt itfn usually refers to a tradition from Mishnah or Tosefta. 95 This is a citation from m. Sukkah 3:13, “ If the first holy day of the Festival happened to fall on the Sabbath, all the people bring their Lulavim to the synagogue. The next day they come early, and every man discerns his own and takes it up, because the Sages have said, no man can fulfill his obligation on the first holy day of the Festival with the lulav of his fellow. But on the other days of the Festival, a man may fulfill his obligation with the lulav of his fellow.” 96 Neusner translates here “unconditional gift,” however, that is precisely the question to be taken up by the Bavli, below, and the word “unconditional” is not present here. 97 m. Berakhot 4:6; m. Ma’aser Sheni 5:9; y. Shabbat 16:8; b. Hullin 41b, 88b.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

281

ships. But like the person riding through the desert98 (another stereotypical travel-situation), the shipboard traveler is faced with certain predictable problems of ritual observance. He is not in control of the movement of the ship (nor is he liable for its movement as a Sabbath-violation). And as appears in our story, his ability to acquire supplies is severely restricted. Therefore, a halakhic story about being “on a ship” invokes an entire category of related laws by association. t. Sukkah 2:11 A. On the first day of the festival a person does not fulfill his obligation by using the lulav of his fellow. B. Unless he gave it to him as an unconditional gift [vb,n vrund]. C. It happened that ['c vagn] Rabban Gamaliel and elders were traveling in a boat and had no lulav with them. Rabban Gamaliel bought a lulav with a golden denar. Once he had fulfilled his obligation with is, he gave it to his fellow, and his fellow to his fellow, so that all of them fulfilled their obligation. Afterward they returned it to him.

As a general rule we consider it to be more likely that one author would elaborate on the story of another than simplify it, so it would seem here that the version of the story in Tosefta elaborates the version of the story in Sifra. But it should also be considered that Sifra is more tightly organized than Tosefta and we have seen Sifra simplify mishnaic material.99 I consider these two accounts to be two renditions of a common tradition which Tosefta has amplified and which Sifra has left unadorned, the version in Sifra therefore being like the source of the version in Tosefta. b. Sukkah 41b A. From what our Rabbis have taught, ‘And you shall take’ [implies] that there should be a ‘taking’ with the hand of each individual.

98 b. Pesahim 28a; b. Hullin 88b. 99 See above, on Emor perek 9 regarding Leviticus 21:14 (p. 273).

282

Midrash and Legend B. ‘For yourself’―one that belongs to you, excluding a borrowed or a stolen one. C. On this basis Sages have said [ohnfj urnt itfn]: D. A person does not fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival by using the lulav of his fellow, unless he gave it to him as a gift. E. And it once happened that ['c vagnu] when R. Gamaliel, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar b. Azariah and R. Akiva were traveling on a ship and R. Gamaliel alone had a lulav which he had bought for one thousand zuz, R. Gamaliel took it and fulfilled his obligation with it; then he gave it as a gift to R. Joshua who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it and gave it as a gift to R. Eleazar b. Azariah who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it, and gave it as a gift to R. Akiva who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it and then returned it to R. Gamaliel.100 F. Why does he need to mention that he returned it?―He teaches us something incidentally viz., that a gift made on condition that it be returned constitutes a valid gift; as also follows from what Raba said: [If a man say to his fellow], ‘Here is an etrog [as a gift] on condition that you return it to me,’ and the latter took it and fulfilled his obligation with it, if he returned it, he is regarded as having fulfilled his obligation, but if he did not return it, he is regarded as not having fulfilled his obligation. G. For what purpose need he mention that [R. Gamaliel] had bought it for one thousand zuz?―In order to let you know how precious to them was the opportunity of fulfilling a religious duty.

100 Another story regarding the observance of Sukkot on a ship

occurs at b. Sukkah 23a. “ According to R. Akiva, as it has been taught, He who erects his Sukkah on the deck of a ship, R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R. Akiva valid. It happened with R. Gamaliel and R. Akiva when they were journeying on a ship that R. Akiva arose and erected a Sukkah on the deck of the ship. On the morrow the wind blew and tore it away. R. Gamaliel said to him, Akiva, where is thy Sukkah?” (Soncino translation).

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

283

The Talmud here builds upon the version of the story in the Tosefta, and the legal question which the Talmud explores is based on a part of the anecdote which only occurs in the Tosefta―the return of the lulav to its original owner, R. Gamaliel. Sifra gives no evidence of knowing that part of the anecdote, and does not interact with the legal question which it raises. On the other hand the Bavli shares with Sifra the names of the elders, an element not presented by the Tosefta, and does not incorporate Tosefta’s stipulation that the gift must be unconditional. Therefore it seems likely that the Bavli drew upon both sources. Underlined phrases below are shared by two or more passages. Sifra

Tosefta

Bavli

A.

kthknd icrc vagn ohbhezvu

kthknd icrc vagn ohbezu

kthknd icrc vagnu rzgkt hcru gauvh hcru wtcheg hcru vhrzg ic

B.

tku vbhpxc ohtc uhva shc ot hf wckuk tmnb /sckc kthknd icr

tku vbhpxc ihtc uhva jek /ckuk ivng vhv [/cvz rbhsc ckuk d"r

tku wvbhpx ihtc uhva icrk tkt ckuk vhv ujeka wsckc kthknd /zuz ;ktc

C.

--

u,cuj hsh uc tmha iuhf

kthknd icr ukyb wuc tmhu

D.

vb,n kthknd icr ub,bu gauvh hcru wgauvh hcrk wvhrzg ic rzgkt hcrk vhrzg ic rzgkt hcru utmh okufu wtcheg hcrk :o,cuj hsh

urcju urcjk ub,b /ikuf utmha sg urcjk

gauvh hcrk ub,bu gauvh hcr ukyb wvb,nc hcrk ub,bu wuc tmhu wvb,nc vhrzg ic rzgkt vhrzg ic rzgkt hcr ukyb vb,nc ub,bu wuc tmhu ukyb wtcheg hcrk uc tmhu tcheg hcr

E.

--

/uk uvurhzjvu lf rjtu

/kthknd icrk urhzjvu

BeHar, parashah 3 (to Leviticus 25:17), ed. Weiss 107c [The passage comments upon Leviticus 25:17: “In this year of jubilee each of you shall return to his property. And if you sell to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another. According to the number of years after the jubilee, you shall buy from your neighbor, and according to the number of years for crops he shall sell to you. If the years are many you shall increase the price, and if the years are few you shall diminish the price, for it is the number of the crops that he is selling to you. You shall not

284

Midrash and Legend wrong one another, but you shall fear your God; for I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 25:13-17, RSV).] [Previous context:] [“You shall not wrong one another.” This refers to fraud in monetary transactions. Might one suppose that at issue is fraud in words? When scripture [apparently repeating itself] says, “You shall not wrong one another,” lo, at issue is fraud accomplished through words. Lo, how then am I to interpret [the first], “you shall not wrong one another”?101 This refers to fraud in monetary transactions. And how much of an overcharge is involved in fraud? An overcharge of four pieces of silver for what one has bought for twenty-four pieces of silver to the sela―a sixth of the purchase price. How long is it permitted to retract?102 For the length of time it takes to show it to a storekeeper or an expert.] A. R. Tarfon103 gave instructions in Lod, “Fraud is an overcharge of eight pieces of silver to a sela, one third of the purchase price.” So the merchants of Lod rejoiced. B. He said to them, “It is permitted to retract all day long.” C. They said to him, “Let R. Tarfon leave us where we were.” D. And they reverted to conduct matters in accord with the ruling of the Sages.104

Sifra creates a place-holder for content on the theme of fraud by its hermeneutics. But the actual content is imported associatively—both the mishnaic law and the case example which relates an unsuccessful challenge to that law. In the anecdote R. Tarfon states a rejected opinion, but the anomalous part of this 101 Sifra is building its argument upon the repetition of this

phrase―each iteration is understood to specify a distinct case. 102 i.e., for the purchaser to annul the sale on the basis of overcharge. 103 Weiss edition reads “R. Simeon” here but at “C” reads “R. Tarfon.” Koleditzky reads “R. Tarfon.” 104 This anecdote is a citation from m. Bava Metzi’a 4:3.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

285

narrative is that the opinion is rejected, not by Sages, but by laymen who should have been subject to R. Tarfon’s ruling (even if faulty). Joel Gereboff describes this passage as “a dispute in an odd form,” where one half of the dispute is stated declaratively, and the other half framed in narrative.105 From the point of view of legal exegesis that analysis is accurate, but from the point of view of analyzing the narrative it is not particularly illuminating. If this were a typical case-example concerning rejected law, I would expect either the merchants or R. Tarfon to undertake an action, and have the matter come to the attention of the Sages. What is missing in this narrative is an explicit statement of the legal mechanism whereby the merchants could revert to their original behavior. I believe that implicit in the narrative is the halakhic principle that a takanah takes hold only when the community accepts it; if the community rejects it, the takanah is void.106 The previouslyaccepted law remains in force—in the case at hand, “the ruling of the Sages.” So the narrative is after all a case-example, anomalous though it may be. Rather than the action of the laymen being judged by a sage, the action of the sage is judged by the community, at “C”. The fact that R. Tarfon issued a rash ruling is demonstrated by the fact that the community could not accept it. m. Bava Metzi’a 4:3 ― Fraud is an overcharge of four pieces of silver for what one has bought for twenty four pieces of silver to the sela―a sixth of the purchase price. How long is it permitted to retract? For the length of time it takes to show [the object or coin] to a storekeeper or to his relative. A. R. Tarfon gave instructions in Lod, “Fraud is an overcharge of eight pieces of silver to a sela, one third of the purchase price.” So the merchants of Lod rejoiced.

105 Joel Gereboff, Rabbi Tarfon, 126. 106 y. Avodah Zarah 2:8; cp. b. Avodah Zarah 36a; b. Bava Batra 60b;

b. Bava Kama 79b; b. Horayot 3b; cp. Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Mamrim 2:5.

286

Midrash and Legend B. He said to them, “All day long it is permitted to retract.” C. They said to him, “Let R. Tarfon leave us where we were.” D. And they reverted to conduct matters in accord with the ruling of the Sages.107

Here as elsewhere it is my opinion that Sifra is quoting the Mishnah. There are no significant differences between the two versions of the anecdote. I have highlighted the slight differences by underlining them. Mishnah

Sifra

A.

ohragn ;xf vgcrt vtbutv /jenk ,u,a /gkxk ;xf vgcrtu

;xf vgcrt ?vtbut thv vnfu /gkxk ;xf gcrtu ohragn /jenk ,u,au

B.

?rhzjvk r,un h,n sg /ucurek ut rd,k vtrha hsf sg

?rhzjvk r,un h,n sg /heck ut rd,k vtrha hsf sg

C.

:sukc iupry hcr vruv /gkxk ;xf vbuna vtbutv /suk hrd, ujnau /jenk ahka

:sukc [iupry] hcr vruv wgkxk ;xf ,buna vhhbuvv /suk hrd, ujnau /jenk ahka

D.

/rhzjvk r,un ouhv kf /ovk rnt /ubnuenc iupry hcr ubk jhbh wuk urnt :ohnfj hrcsk urzju

/ouhv kf rhzjvk r,un wovk rnt /ubhnuen iupry 'r ubk jhbh wurnt :ohnfj hrcsk urzju

BeHukotai, perek 1 (to Leviticus 26:4), ed. Weiss 110d [The passage comments upon Leviticus 26:4: “If you walk in my statutes and observe my commandments and do them, then I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. And your threshing shall last to the time of vintage, and the vintage shall last to the time for sowing; and you shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land securely” (Leviticus 26:3-4, RSV).] [Previous context:]

107 The Bavli, Bava Metzi’a 49b-51a, discusses the halakhic implications of the story at length but adds no detail regarding the form of the story itself. Here I have simply adapted Neusner’s Sifra translation to reflect the slight differences for the text of the Mishnah.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

287

[“Their season” is Wednesdays. But perhaps it is only on Friday nights?108 They said: Even in the years like the time of Elijah, if rain came on the Sabbath evenings, it was only a mark of a curse. Then how am I to interpret, “then I will give you your rains in their season?” A. It [“their season”] is on Wednesdays. B. There was a case, in the time of [hnhc vagn] Herod, in which the rain would come by night. At dawn the sun shown, the wind blew, the land dried out,109 C. and the workers would go out to their labor knowing that the things they did were for the sake of heaven. D. “Then I will give you your rains in their season” (Leviticus 26:4). E. [“Their season” is] on the night of the Sabbath. F. There was a case, in the time of [hnhc vagn] Simeon b. Shetah, in the time of Queen Shelom-Tsiyon, when it would rain from Friday night to Friday night, so that the grains of wheat grew as large as beans, and the grains of barley were like olive pits, and the lentils were like golden denars. G. Sages made a bundle of some of them and left them behind for coming generations, H. so as to demonstrate how much sin accomplishes.110 I. This serves to illustrate the following [vn ohhek rntba]: J. “But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he does not hear” (Isaiah 59:2). K. They have held back goodness from you.

These stories are not found elsewhere. Although this text does not relate a specific incident, I include it because it touches on the 108 Neusner’s comment: “when people cannot sow seed.” 109 So that it could be tilled (Neusner). 110 Because in a sinful generation they would not enjoy such benefits.

288

Midrash and Legend

era of interest and because it is called “vagn” by the text. Queen Salome Alexandra / Shelom-Tsiyon was supposed to be the sister of Simeon b. Shetah (b. Berakhot 48a), and her influence helped to bring the Pharisaic movement into prominence. Naturally her reign is recalled as a time of blessing. She reigned both as wife of Alexander Yannai (104-76 B.C.E.), and in her own right after his death (76-67 B.C.E.).111 With these two accounts then, we have an affirmative illustration for each of the two interpretations offered concerning the base verse, and I classify these as parabolic anecdotes regarding the reward for the obedient. BeHukotai, perek 7 (to Leviticus 26:36), ed. Weiss 112b [The passage comments upon Leviticus 26:36: “And I will scatter you among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword after you; and your land shall be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste … And as for those of you that are left, I will send faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; the sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight, and they shall flee as one flees from the sword, and they shall fall when none pursues. They shall stumble over one another, as if to escape a sword, though none pursues; and you shall have no power to stand before your enemies … Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them; for I am the LORD their God; but I will for their sake remember the covenant with their forefathers, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 26:33, 36-37, 4445, RSV).] A. “The sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight.” B. Said R. Joshua b. Korhah: Once we were in session [ohcauh ubhhv ,jt ogp] among trees, and the wind blew and brought down leaves one on another, and we got up and ran, saying, “Woe is us! What if the charioteers catch up with us?” 111 Isaiah Gafni, “Salome Alexandra,” Encyclopedia Judaica 14:691-93.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

289

C. After a while we looked back and saw that there was no one there, and we sat down on the spot and wept, saying, “Woe is us! For in us is realized this verse of Scripture [euxpv ohhe,b ubhkga], ‘the sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight, and they shall flee as one flees from the sword’“―out of fear! D. “‘and they shall fall when none pursues’“―out of faintness. E. “They shall stumble over one another.” F. It does not mean “over one another,” but, “over the sin of one another.” G. This teaches that every Israelite is a pledge for every other one. H. “And you shall have no power to stand before your enemies.” I. This refers to the hour that Jerusalem was taken.

In my opinion, the anecdote comprises “B” - “C” only. Then the anecdote ends without comment and the simple commentarylike exegesis resumes, seamlessly. This anecdote does not appear elsewhere, and it is a parabolic anecdote where a contemporary event illustrates a biblical expression. Rejected Passages Because of the distinctive nature of Sifra, there were many passages which I considered including but rejected as not fitting our criteria for an anecdote. These were passages which referred to past conditions, or to dialogues between Sages without setting, and the like.

Dibura deNedavah, perek 9, commenting on Leviticus 1:16, presents a saying in the name of R. Hananiah b. Antigonus, “There were two dump heaps there [in the Temple], one at the east of the ramp, one at the east of the altar…” and details what kinds of remains were placed in each of these heaps. Since there is no “event” I did not include this reminiscence. Tsav, perek 1, commenting on Leviticus 6:18, presents a saying in the name of R. Hananiah, Prefect of the Priests, “Father rejected animals that had been blemished, even when they were already on top of the altar.” This passage relates to the Mishnah, Zevahim 9:3 and its context. At first I looked to treat this as citation of a case-example, but concluded

290

Midrash and Legend

it did not constitute an anecdote because it refers to a general practice rather than a specific incident. Tsav, perek 2, commenting on Leviticus 6:10, presents sayings in the name of R. Judah, R. Yose, and R. Meir, concerning how many additional stacks of wood were needed for the ritual on the day of atonement. This refers to a generalized practice rather than a concrete incident―there is no narrative to analyze. Tsav / Mekhilta deMiluim, at siman 37, commenting on Leviticus 8:34, presents a saying from the Mishnah (Yoma 1:1) with glosses, “Seven days before the Day of Atonement they set apart the high priest from his house…” This refers to a generalized practice rather than a concrete incident. Kedoshim, perek 2, commenting on Leviticus 19:9, contains a statement from the Mishnah in the name of Rabban Gamaliel, “In my father’s household they used to designate one portion as peah on behalf of all the olive trees that they owned in every direction…” This refers to a generalized practice rather than a concrete incident. Shemini, perek 2, commenting on Leviticus 10:20, contains a statement in the name of R. Judah, “Hananiah b. Judah would expound as long as he lived, ‘Harsh was the impatience that caused Moses to err as he did.’ After he died, lo, I am in the position of replying to him: And what is it that caused him to be impatient? It was the error he had made!” R. Judah reminisces that he was unwilling to contradict Hananiah b. Judah’s teaching as long as he lived, but after he had died, R. Judah took the liberty of contradicting his teaching. Since there is no specific event in view, and no flow of narrative, I do not treat this passage as an anecdote. Metsora, parashah 1, commenting on Leviticus 14:2, contains an argument between R. Akiva and a disciple named Monobazes (Mumbaz). The argument between them is phrased very “conversationally” but in the definition of the project I exclude disputes which do not have narrative settings, and there is no narrative setting for this argument. Metsora, parashah 4, commenting on Leviticus 14:21, contains an argument between R. Akiva and R. Nehemiah over the interpretation of the biblical passage. No setting is given and there is no flow of narrative. Emor, parashah 10, commenting on Leviticus 23:14, contains a ruling that Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai is said to have instituted “after the Temple was destroyed … that on the entire day of waving the sheaf of first grain, it should be prohibited to consume new produce.” No setting is given and there is no flow of narrative. Emor, perek 16, commenting on Leviticus 23:40, contains another ruling that Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai is said to have instituted “Once the Temple had been destroyed … that the lulav should be taken in the villages all seven days as a memorial to the Temple…” No setting is given and there is no flow of narrative.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

291

BeHukotai, perek 6, commenting on Leviticus 26:29, contains an anecdote regarding a Doeg b. Joseph during the siege of Jerusalem. It appears to me that this reference is to the era of the destruction of the first Temple rather than of the second Temple, and so the account is excluded under the definition of this project, although there is the possibility that it was intended as an account concerning the destruction of the second Temple. BeHukotai, perek 8, commenting on Leviticus 26:44, contains historical references but no flow of narrative. “‘I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly.’ … ‘I will not spurn them’ in the time of Vespasian; ‘Neither will I abhor them’ in the time of Greece; ‘So as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them’ in the time of Haman; ‘For I am the Lord their God’ in the time of Gog.”

FORMAL COMPARISON OF PARALLEL PASSAGES For each anecdote I identify the anecdote “marker”―a rhetorical trope which marks the beginning of a passage and identifies it as an anecdote. I mark the trope as “Distinguishing” in the third column if that trope, or combination of elements, is always an anecdote marker for Sifra. I also identify tropes which bear the weight of the narrative or determine the structure of the passage (e.g. “he sat and expounded”). TABLE III. FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ANECDOTES IN SIFRA

Text Starting Point

Anecdote Marker

past tense deNedavah (“ubk vhv”) + parashah 2 name of sage + setting, (to Lev. 1:2) here ohab ,rzg

Dist.



…’r rnt …’r ,t h,kta Hovah perek 1 (to Lev. 4:2)

coupled with place name - here xutnt ka zhkytc and stereotyped action here vnvc jehk ubc v,ank

Other Tropes

Basic Form

k", … kufh

Commentary ribui with embedded case-example

kf ,ucrk ihbgc runtv …lf …a oaf ?chhj uvn w…v wubgna tk …c ubgna kct



ubt ohturu u"e ohrcsva wkceb vfkv ot ihsk otu vcua, ah

Academy Discussion among Sages

292 Text Starting Point Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim siman 33 (to Lev. 10:1)

Midrash and Legend

Anecdote Marker

Dist.

Other Tropes ukmt ohnfj uxbfb … uk urnt

… 'c vagn

hbkcuen lf h,ucrn …v kf v,hn chhj ?uvn + case



Basic Form

Parabolic Anecdote misdeed punished

wubgna tk … ubgna kct Nega’im perek 2 (to Lev. 13:3)

thcvk h,kj,v ,uhtr ovk

…’r rnt …’r ,t h,kta coupled with place name here ,csbk ohfkuvc



?…a vn hbpn ?…a hbpn tku …;t

Academy Discussion among Sages

tbhrjt tbahk … sjtu … sjt whk urnt rnut v,t vph

Nega’im perek 9 (to Lev. 13:37)

Metsora parashah 1 (to Lev. 14:4)

Sage name + past tense verb + place name - here kccn kkhv vkg Sage name + past tense verb + setting, here vsuvh r"t h,fkvu v,hv h,ca

Sage name + past tense Metsora verb parashah 2 + setting, here (to Lev. 14:8) thhj r"t hcr hbpk h,cav

Zavim perek 5 (to Lev. 15:13)

Sage names + argument

―





X

wv,hv h,ca 'r rjt h,fkvu vc h,snku ,ufkv gca

… tkt … iht rnuju ke 

ubsnk tkvu …a hcr h,rnt lf hbt ;t



ouenc ot vn w… vag …a ihs ubht … vagba ofjk … iht

Sage’s Conversion to Torah Study [fragment of form] Exemplary Action by a Sage halakhah Academy Discussion among Sages [abbreviated form] Commentary ribui with embedded Academy Discussion among Sages

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra Text Starting Point

Anecdote Marker

Kedoshim perek 4 (to Lev. 19:17)

Sage name + past tense + setting, here vek ohngp 'v d"r hbpk … tcheg



Emor parashah 1 siman 12 (to Lev. 21:3)

case citation 'c vagn + proper name



Emor parashah 1 siman 14 (to Lev. 21:3)

Emor, parashah 2 (to Lev. 21:10)

case citation 'c vagn + proper name

Dist.

Other Tropes

Basic Form

ah ot vsucgv … vzv rusc hkg hbshgn .rtu ohna

Exemplary Action by a Sage - virtue

ujrf kg(c)

Case Example

w…itf sg …lkhtu ifhn 

hbpk rcs tcafu … urnt ohnfj

Case Example

… rntb vz kg proper name + kg uhkg urnt + past tense verbs

?…a ihbn uk iht …k", 

wuhrjt ufkvu uvutmnu ?… tkvu ?… hfu ?rnuk sunk, vn

Emor perek 2 (to Lev. 21:14)

293

case citation 'c vagn + proper name



rnut v,t ihbn … k", ?… (ot) /… k", /…kufh

Simple Commentary with appended Case Example Commentary ribui with embedded Case Example

… urnt ifhn

Emor perek 9 (to Lev. 22:32)

past tense verb + (ratf) 'af + name of historical figure, here xubhhrn xp,afu + place name theshkc

…c ubhmn ifa



ofh(v)kt tuch hshn of,t khmhu Martyrdom of v,hn hchhjn ubtu Laymen ohehzn vcrv ouenv hbpk gxb tk wurnt …a sg oan

Emor parashah 11 (to Lev. 23:24)

past tense verb + (ratf) 'af + name of historical figure here d"car et. al, + place name vautc



vagu/rntu …’r hrcsf ubhhv tk w…r"t if ihdvub

Case Example

294 Text Starting Point

Midrash and Legend

Anecdote Marker

Dist.

Other Tropes

Basic Form

… urnt ifhn Emor perek 16 (to Lev. 23:40)

case citation 'c vagn + names of Sages + setting, here vbhpxc



tmuh ost iht … 'c u,cuj hsh … if ot tkt

Case Example

vtn iv ukhpt vbhpxc ihtc uhva

BeHar parashah 3 (to Lev. 25:17)

Sage name + setting, here sukc iupry hcr

BeHukotai perek 1 (to Lev. 26:4)

an exemplary story 'c vagn + location in time xusruv hnhc and vfknv umnka hnhc

BeHukotai perek 7 (to Lev. 26:36)

past tense + ,jt ogp + name of sage + setting, here ohcauh ubhhv ,ubkhtv ihc

… 'r vruv 

ubk jhbh ubhnuenc …'r … rnut v,t ?… tkt ubht ut



hbt vn tv ?[euxp] ohhen

Case Example (anomalous)

Parabolic Anecdote obedience rewarded

rntba vn ohhek



ubhkga ubk hut … euxpv ohhe,b

Parabolic Anecdote misdeed punished

The next table presents essentially the same data as the previous table, but is organized by forms instead of passages. TABLE IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF FORMS EMPLOYED.

Basic Form

Typical Tropes (used in Sifra)

Academy Discussion among Sages

…’'r rnt …’'r ,t h,kta ?chhj uvn / uvn w…v wubgna tk …c ubgna kct ouenc ot vn w… vag …a … vagba ihs ubht ?…a vn hbpn …;t ?…a hbpn tku

Basic Outline

Examples in Sifra Hovah perek 1 (to Lev. 4:2)

I. Sages are named II. Sage X asks his superior re: difficult case Nega’im III. Sage Y says he perek 2 does not know but (to Lev. 13:3) offers theory IV. Sage X, with Metsora permission, provides parashah 2 superior theory (to Lev. 14:8) (V. Sage Y praises [abbreviated Sage X) form] =====

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

Basic Form

Typical Tropes (used in Sifra) … sjtu … sjt ubt ohturu u"e ohrcsva ofjk … iht wkceb vfkv ot vcua, ah ihsk otu thcvk h,kj,v ,uhtr ovk whk urnt rnut v,t vph

Case Example112

… 'c vagn … kg uhkg urnt … 'r vruv … rntb vz kg uvutmnu wuhrjt ufkvu vbhpxc ihtc uhva ?… tkvu ?… hfu …’r hrcsf vagu/rntu hbpk rcs tcafu … urnt ohnfj … urnt ifhn ubhhv tk w…r"t if ihdvub

Basic Outline I. Sage X expresses opinion II. Sage Y responds, “Did not Sage Z teach otherwise on this occasion?” III. Sage Y’s statement is affirmed or refuted.

295 Examples in Sifra Zavim perek 5 (to Lev. 15:13) [embedded in commentary]

[Informal setting marketplace, banquet, rather than “Academy” proper, as setting for discussions among Sages, in every case in Sifra and some cases in the two Mekhiltas.] The case of … The Emor case came to parashah 1 [authority] who siman 12 declared … (to Lev. 21:3) Emor parashah 1 siman 14 (to Lev. 21:3) Emor, parashah 2 (to Lev. 21:10) [appended to commentary] Emor perek 2 (to Lev. 21:14) [embedded in commentary]

112 The case-examples in Sifra seem to cluster in parashat Emor. I

don’t have an explanation.

296

Basic Form

Midrash and Legend Typical Tropes (used in Sifra)

Basic Outline

Examples in Sifra Emor parashah 11 (to Lev. 23:24) Emor perek 16 (to Lev. 23:40) BeHar parashah 3 (to Lev. 25:17) [anomalous form]

Commentary

k", … kufh …k", ?…a ihbn uk iht ?rnuk sunk, vn ihbgc runtv kf ,ucrk …lf …a oaf ouenc ot vn w… vag …a … vagba ihs ubht rnut v,t ihbn … k", ?… (ot)

I. Passage w/ deNedavah redundant phrase is parashah 2 quoted. (to Lev. 1:2) II. Oral law is stated. [commentary II. One might think with … [erroneous embedded conclusion contrary caseto Oral law stated] example] III. But Scripture Emor states [redundant perek 2 (to phase is quoted] Lev. 21:14) (IV. Implied: Thus Scripture is required [commentary with as basis for statement embedded from Oral law.) case(Anecdote may be example] used to supplement II Zavim but is not required by form, and constitutes perek 5 (to Lev. 15:13) a mixed form.) [commentary with embedded academy discussion]

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

Basic Form Exemplary Action by a Sage

Typical Tropes (used in Sifra) vc h,snku ,ufkv [rpxn] ah ot vsucgv … vzv rusc X

wv,hv h,ca 'r rjt h,fkvu

.rtu ohna hkg hbshgn

297

Examples in Sifra I. Master and disciple, Metsora both Sages, are parashah 1 named, and setting (to Lev. 14:4) given [halakhah] II. Action by Master Kedoshim is described perek 4 III. Disciple reports: (to Lev. “From this action I 19:17) learned the following [virtue] [halakhic] principles …” Basic Outline

===

Martyrdom of Laymen

Parabolic Anecdote

I. A biblical verse describing a virtue is expounded. II. Sage X describes action of Sage Y which exemplified that virtue I. Persecutor taunts Emor v,hn hchhjn ubtu martyr or offers way perek 9 ouenv hbpk ohehzn vcrv to avoid martyrdom (to Lev. ofh(v)kt tuch II. Martyr accepts 22:32) hshn of,t khmhu death as just and from wurnt God, (quotes ……a sg oan gxb tk Scripture) ……c ubhmn ifa (III. Martyr declares portent upon persecutor) IV. Portent is fulfilled I. A scriptural Shemini … ubhhv ,jt ogp punishment or reward Mekhilta …a 't shnk,c vagn is described deMiluim II. “Contemporary” siman 33 vagn similar event is (to Lev. 10:1) … [kaun oa] hnhc mentioned BeHukotai … rnut v,t perek 1 ?… tkt ubht ut (to Lev. 26:4) /…k", ? …kufh …rnut …’ru BeHukotai perek 7 hbt vn tv (to Lev. ?[euxp] ohhen 26:36) rntba vn ohhek

298

Midrash and Legend

Basic Form

Typical Tropes (used in Sifra) ubhkga ubk hut … euxpv ohhe,b

Basic Outline

Examples in Sifra

v,hn chhj …v kf Sage’s Conversion to Torah Study

[full form does not appear in Sifra]

I. Sage is perplexed by Nega’im perek 9 biblical problem (to Lev. II. Derives solution 13:37) on his own [truncated III. Travels to learn form] halakhah from authorities IV. His own exposition is confirmed by tradition [Based on the parallel in Yerushalmi. Several variations exist in Bavli,113 and amoraic midrashim, but not in Sifra.]

In the following table we give the names of the documents which contain parallels to an anecdote in Sifra, and then we identify the relationship of our text to the parallel passage. Some of these identifications will be quite speculative, others more firmly based―the notes on the individual passages above will make that clear. The reader should bear in mind that these tables compare forms of anecdotes and not entire documents. There are many passages treating halakhic matters related to an anecdote in Sifra. In these tables we only consider parallels to the narrative itself. “P” indicates a Parent to the version in Sifra, which is to say the Sifra version can only be explained by reference to the “Parent.”

113 E.g., in the case of Hillel, the legend of his initiation into Torah study is presented at b. Yoma 35b; and his acceptance by the community as scholar and nasi at b. Pesahim 66a. The legends of R. Akiva’s and R. Eliezer’s initiations into Torah study are found in Avot deRabi Nathan (A) chapter 6. Compare b. Ketuvot 62b (for Akiva).

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

299

“C” represents Child, the opposite relationship―the parallel depends on the version in Sifra. “^” indicates that Sifra and another version are best explained as relying on a common source. “N” “Does Not Know”―the source in question does not know Sifra. “?” there is no basis even to speculate about a relationship between versions of a story. If I think my view of a relationship is very well founded, I make my symbol bold. TABLE V. PARALLELS IN TANNAITIC LITERATURE AND THE TALMUDS.

Text Starting Point

Parallels and Relationships

Common Elements

Distinguishing Elements in Sifra

Bavli imports anecdote just Sifra embeds as it appears in Sifra, but anecdote in biblical Bavli (C) uses it to address a different commentary. halakhic issue. Sifra entertains an extraordinarily long Sifra imports the Mishnah digression, following without change; Bavli Hovah Mishnah (P) the mishnaic reconstrues the case given perek 1 (to Bavli (^) material. Interpolates by the Mishnah to explore Lev. 4:2) one line from related questions Tosefta into the story. Sifra uses anecdote primarily to illustrate Linkage with R. Eliezer’s Leviticus; the two interpretation of story of Talmuds are more Nadab and Abihu. Disciple Shemini interested in the who taught in R. Eliezer’s Mekhilta anecdote as a caseYerushalmi (C) presence dies. R. Eliezer deMiluim example for Bavli (C) speaks to “Imma Shalom his siman 33 understanding when wife.” “I am neither a (to Lev. 10:1) “teaching halakhah in prophet nor son of a one’s master’s prophet, but thus have I presence” actually received as a tradition …” incurs liability to death. deNedavah parashah 2 (to Lev. 1:2)

300 Text Starting Point Nega’im perek 2 (to Lev. 13:3)

Nega’im perek 9 (to Lev. 13:37)

Metsora parashah 1 (to Lev. 14:4) Metsora parashah 2 (to Lev. 14:8) Metsora Zavim perek 5 (to Lev. 15:13) Kedoshim perek 4 siman 12 (to Lev. 19:17) Emor parashah 1 siman 12 (to Lev. 21:3) Emor parashah 1 siman 14 (to Lev. 21:3)

Midrash and Legend Distinguishing Elements in Sifra Mishnah closely matches Anecdote is told as first half of anecdote and connected story legal issue but has no from point of view Mishnah (P) conclusion; Tosefta closely of R. Akiva despite Tosefta (C) matches second but Tosefta “another version” is incomplete (has no clear introduced in the beginning!). middle. Sifra takes no notice Hillel came up from of matters related to Babylon to learn this and Tosefta (^) the anecdote which other (T), 3 other (Y) laws. Yerushalmi (C) are not related to its Yerushalmi matches Sifra’s subject structure of Sifra. matter. Mishnah contains parallel of Anecdote fits Mishnah (P) law but not of anecdote; argument of Tosefta Yerushalmi shows that Tosefta (^) and is somewhat out Yerushalmi (^) Tosefta was once closer to of place in Sifra Sifra R. Judah gets the Bavli takes up argument first and last word, stated briefly in Sifra and Bavli (C) whereas in the Bavli explores the theoretical the argument implications. continues. Narrative fully b. Megillah 8b has a close serves the structure parallel to the legal issues ― of Sifra and may but does not contain the have originated in its anecdote. present context. Bavli incorporates elements Clear relation of from Sifra and Sifre base verse in Deuteronomy. R. Tarfon, R. Leviticus to Sifre Deut. (C) Akiva criticized or flogged anecdote. Akiva Bavli (C) under Rabban Gamaliel on flogged four or five times. No quote of account of R. Yohanan b. Proverbs verse. Nuri. Bavli incorporates anecdote from Sifra to illustrate a Case simply affirms Bavli (C) different legal issue legal principle concerning conflicts of derived by exegesis. principles. Case itself affirms Yerushalmi attributes the the stricter halakhic legal opinions of the Sages Yerushalmi (^) opinion, but the differently. Anecdote attitude of “the proper is virtually identical.. Sages” is ambiguous. Parallels and Relationships

Common Elements

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra Text Starting Point Emor, parashah 2 (to Lev. 21:10)

Parallels and Relationships

Tosefta (P)

Common Elements Anecdote matches closely and literally, but halakhic introduction is somewhat different in Tosefta. Anecdote “fits” Tosefta better. Sifra appears to quote Mishnah and adapts law to commentary form. Mishnah is concerned with a wider variety of forbidden marriages. Bavli comments upon Mishnah.

Emor perek 2 (to Lev. 21:14)

Mishnah (P) Bavli (^)

Emor perek 9 (to Lev. 22:32)

Lulainos and Pappos; ‘we deserve death and you are MRS (^) unworthy of a miracle’; Bavli (P) reference to Hananiah Semahot (C) Mishael and Azariah; some kind of head injury to the persecutor

Emor Tosefta (P) parashah 11, to Leviticus Yerushalmi (^) Bavli (^) 23:24

Emor perek 16 (to Lev. 23:40)

Tosefta (^) Bavli (C)

BeHar parashah 3 (to Lev. 25:17)

Mishnah (P)

Other sources are explicable here without reference to Sifra, and Sifra is best explained by Tosefta.

301 Distinguishing Elements in Sifra Anecdote is a caseexample, which illustrates law derived by exegesis from base text. Sifra uses mishnaic law to supply content for its ribui commentary on Leviticus. No proof text from Exodus as in MRS. Anecdote related to theme from Leviticus re: facing martyrdom. Antagonist is called “Marainus” instead of “Trajan.” Minor variation: R. Simeon b. Yoḥanan b. Berokah who stood.

Sifra does not state that Rabban Gamaliel bought the Bavli knows material unique lulav, nor that it was to Tosefta and Sifra, relying eventually returned more heavily on Tosefta. to him. Tosefta does not state, as Sifra does, the names of the other Sages. Anomalous form where action of Sifra seems to quote authority is properly Mishnah. rejected by community.

302

Midrash and Legend

Text Starting Point

Parallels and Relationships

Common Elements

BeHukotai perek 1 (to Lev. 26:4)

―

―

BeHukotai perek 7 (to Lev. 26:4)

―

―

Distinguishing Elements in Sifra Illustrates biblical “blessings” by reference to an idealized era. Two such anecdotes for two different interpretations of the base verse. Parabolic anecdote illustrating a biblical warning.

The following table summarizes the relationships described in the previous table. TABLE VI. RELATIONSHIP OF ANECDOTES IN SIFRA TO THEIR PARALLELS

Sifra Knows Knows Sifra

Shares Source

Mishnah

5 cases

―

―

Tosefta

2 cases

1 case

4 cases

MRS

―

―

1 case

Sifre Deut.

―

1 case

―

―

3 cases

3 cases

1 case

6 cases

3 cases

Yerushalmi Bavli

SUMMARY In our treatment of the two Mekhiltas, we saw a wide variety of forms that were included because of a general thematic connection to points raised by the exposition of Exodus. There were many connections to other rabbinic documents and the genealogy of those connections was extremely complex. Accounts sometimes seemed to depend on accounts in documents long-supposed to be “later,” and the theory that the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael is not a tannaitic midrash collection at all seemed quite plausible. Sifra is completely different. It presents us with few surprises. The incorporation of materials from the Mishnah and baraitot is not ad hoc and episodic, but an essential part of Sifra’s program. Incorporated materials are not left to stand alone and unconnected on the basis of a vague association with the topic at hand. They are

Historical Anecdotes in Sifra

303

abbreviated and integrated into the argumentation of Sifra, whose commentary form subsumes whatever form the tradition might have held in another context. The average length of an anecdote in the Mekhilta is 15 lines in Lauterbach’s edition, approximately 123 words. The average length of an anecdote in Sifra is 5 lines in Weiss’ edition, approximately 62 words. In the examination of the Mekhiltas we were impressed by the highly formalized behavior and speech of Sages within the stories presented. In Sifra there is no room for stories to possess the length necessary to make a characterization of the behavior and speech of the characters in them. The formalization that dominates an anecdote in Sifra is the structure of the document’s own argumentation. Characters serve to provide a saying or a behavior relevant to Sifra’s program, and then disappear. Lines of tradition are also not confusing, but exactly what we would expect. We see direct quotation from the Mishnah and parallel development with the Tosefta, which along with Sifra represents a collection of baraitot also known by the Yerushalmi and the Bavli. The transmission of Tosefta and Sifra is so closely interrelated that we sometimes find the version of an anecdote which would make most sense in Tosefta has actually been transmitted by Sifra, and vice versa. The purely halakhic interest of Leviticus, and hence Sifra, partly explains why it stands in such stark contrast to the Mekhiltan tradition, which treats long narrative portions of the book of Exodus and hence contains more aggadah. But beyond that one must consider that Sifra is indeed, as Neusner has demonstrated, a much more highly organized document than the two Mekhiltas, a document which imposes its own disciplined structure upon the materials which it incorporates.

/h,apapu h,sng vkt kf kg wvnka rnt wvc gdh h,hhva iuhf h,rej wvnust vrp ka varp ['s ekj wu"f 'hx w’z 'p wvcr ,kve]

HISTORICAL ANECDOTES IN SIFRE NUMBERS

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SIFRE NUMBERS In the two Mekhiltas we encountered collections whose plan seemed to be largely anthological. Material (including anecdotes) appeared on the basis of a merely thematic connection to the topic suggested by the base verse from Scripture, and even, quite often, on the basis of a tangential connection suggested by the Mekhilta’s own language. A wide variety of anecdotal forms were employed and allowed to stand on their own with little attempt to connect them, much less conform them, to the contextual material in the Mekhilta. In Sifra we saw the other end of the spectrum. Sifra had a single dominant exegetical form - the ribui commentary, and in the few cases where it employed an anecdote, it strongly preferred a truncated case-example that would supply content to the hermeneutical opening created by the ribui. Sifre Numbers represents a mediating approach. It is a phraseby-phrase commentary on the legal sections of the book of Numbers. When it employs an anecdote, it prefers an Academy Discussion in which one of the voices reiterates its own exegetical view. It does not normally truncate the anecdote to fit, as Sifra does, but neither does it have any place for a stand-alone, loosely related story. The anecdote either forms a step in Sifre Numbers’ argument or illustrates the result of its argument.

LIST OF HISTORICAL ANECDOTES FOUND, AND THEIR FREQUENCY In this chapter we treat thirteen historical anecdotes from Sifre Numbers, as follows: 304

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

305

TABLE I. ANECDOTES IN SIFRE NUMBERS

Parashah & Base Verse (from Numbers) Naso - 5:12 Naso - 6:2 Beha’alotekha - 10:8 Shelah - 15:41 Korah - 18:3 Korah - 18:7 Korah - 18:13 Korah - 18:18 Hukat - 19:2 Hukat - 19:2 Hukat - 19:9 Pinhas - 28:26 Masei - 35:34

Piska 7 22 74 115 116 116 117 118 123 123 124 148 161

Starting point (Page & line) 11:1 26:7 70:1 128:16 132:6 133:16 137:4 141:2 151:10 152:22-23 158:13 195:5 222:8-17

Length (lines) 4 7 9 18 3 4 8 17 4 2 12 8 11

The percentage of lines devoted to historical anecdotes by parashah is as follows: TABLE II. ANECDOTES AS PERCENTAGE OF COMPOSITION.

Parashah Naso Beha’alotekha Shelah Korah Hukat Balak Pinhas Matot Masei TOTAL

Total Lines 1,222 1,018 493 417 375 101 481 330 171 4,608

Anecdote Lines 11 9 18 32 18 0 8 0 11 107

% 0.9% 0.9% 3.7% 7.7% 4.8% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 6.4% 2.3%

The average anecdote in Sifre Numbers is thus 8 lines, approximately 104 words in the Horowitz edition.

306

Midrash and Legend

TRANSLATION AND EXPLANATION OF ANECDOTES FOUND Naso, piska 7 to Numbers 5:12 (p. 11 lns. 1-4 in Horowitz edition) [Sifre comments upon the following biblical passage:] [“Say to the people of Israel, If any man’s wife goes astray and acts unfaithfully against him, if a man lies with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act; and if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself; then the man shall bring his wife to the priest …” Then the priest shall write these curses in a book, and wash them off into the water of bitterness; and he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness … And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has acted unfaithfully against her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her body shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children” (Numbers 5:12-15, 23-24, 27-28, RSV).] A. “If any man’s wife goes astray.” The Scripture clearly speaks of a proper wife, to exclude a widow married to a priest, and a divorcee or a released levirate widow married to an ordinary priest.1 1 cp. m. Sotah 4:1. “When a wife under her husband’s authority

goes astray (Num. 5:29). Excluding one merely betrothed, and one waiting the decision of a levir, a widow married to a high priest, and a divorcee or a released levirate widow married to an ordinary priest, an illegitimate girl or a Netinah married to an ordinary Israelite, and an Israelite girl married to an illegitimate Israelite or a Netin. These do not drink [the bitter water], nor do they receive the divorce settlement.” Wives

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

307

B. And according to the words of Akavia b. Mehalalel, even to a freed slave-girl or the wife of a convert. C. They said to him: But behold [hrvu], Karkemit was a freed slave girl in Jerusalem, and Shemaiah and Avtalyon made her drink according to this scriptural statement. D. He replied to them: They only appeared to make her drink.2 And they excommunicated him [Akavia], and he died during his excommunication, and the court stoned his coffin.3

The form here is a double case example. There is the case of Karkemit―concerning which Akavia and the Sages dispute; and the case of Akavia himself and his excommunication. It serves to illustrate and expand the issue derived by exegesis. m. Eduyyot 5:64 A. Akavia b. Mehalalel testified concerning four cases. They said to him: Akavia: Retract regarding these four opinions which you have stated, and we will make you vice president of the court [ihs ,hc ct] of Israel. He said to them: It is better for me to be called a fool all my days, than to behave wickedly before the Omnipresent for one hour, lest people say, “He retracted for the sake of power.”

in these categories (all “prohibited but valid”) are not subject to the trial by ordeal because they are subject to a court-mandated divorce in any case due to their illegal marriage. 2 /vueav vndus Neusner renders this, “When they administered the water to her it was merely to set an example.” His rendering is quite plausible but it seems clear to me that the parallel passages understand the case according to the rendering I have given, following Jastrow, “vndus”. 3 Here and throughout this chapter the translations of each text are my own. For Sifre Numbers, I have in each case consulted Neusner’s translation, as I have done for the Tosefta, Yerushalmi, Sifra, and Sifre Deuteronomy. For the Babylonian Talmud, I have in each case consulted the Soncino translation. 4 The textual basis for the Mishnah passages treated in this chapter is the edition of Hanoch Albeck, Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, six vols. (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1959).

308

Midrash and Legend B. He would declare the hair remaining from a leprous eruption, and yellow blood, to be unclean. But the Sages declared them clean. He used to permit [the use of] the hair of a firstling with a defect which fell out and was placed in a window, and afterwards it was slaughtered. But the Sages prohibited it. He used to say: They do not make a female convert or a freed slave-girl drink [the bitter water]. But the Sages say: They make her drink. C. They said to him: There was the case of ['c vagn] Karkemit who was a freed slave-girl in Jerusalem, and Shemaiah and Avtalyon made her drink. He replied: They only appeared to make her drink. And they excommunicated him. And he died during his excommunication. And the court stoned his coffin. D. Rabbi Judah said: God forbid that Akavia was excommunicated. For the Temple court was never locked before any man in Israel with the wisdom and fear of sin of Akavia ben Mehalalel. Then whom did they excommunicate? Eleazar b. Enoch who contested the validity of the laws concerning the purification of hands. And when he died, the court sent a messenger and laid a stone on his coffin. This teaches that whoever is excommunicated, and dies while excommunicated, they stone his coffin.

If Sifre depends on the Mishnah here, and I come to the text with the presumption that it does, then Sifre has taken the small part of the text which illustrates its own point regarding the law of the woman suspected of adultery. The other testimonies of Akavia b. Mehalalel, and the dispute regarding the anecdote itself, are of no interest and are omitted. The table below compares the Hebrew text of the anecdote proper. Underlined text indicates phrases in common. Mishnah

Sifre Numbers

―

,t tk ihean iht wrnut vhv tuv /,rrjanv vjpa ,t tku ,ruhdv /ihean wohrnut ohnfju

ktkkvn ic thceg hrcsfu /rd ,atu ,rrjuanv ;t

A.

vjpa ,hnfrfc vagn wuk urnt vueavu wokaurhc v,hva ,rrjan /iuhkyctu vhgna

vjpa ,hnfrf hrvu wuk urnt vueavu wohkaurhc v,hv ,rrjuan /vzv iuakf iuhkyctu vhgna

B.

/vueav tnds wovk rnt

/vueav vndus wovk rnt

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers Mishnah C.

wuhusbc ,nu wuvusbu /uburt ,t ihs ,hc ukexu

309

Sifre Numbers wuhusbc ,nu wuvushbu /uburt ,t ihs ,hc ukexu

y. Mo’ed Katan 3:1 [Context concerns grounds for excommunication and procedures for vacating an excommunication. Various stories of valid and invalid excommunications are recounted.] [Mishnah quotations are set in italics.] A. There we have learned [ibhb, in,]: Whom did they excommunicate? Eleazar b. Enoch who contested the validity of the laws concerning the purification of hands. B. That is to say, he who contests the validity of a matter, even from the words of the scribes, must be excommunicated. C. There we have learned: They only appeared [vnfs] to make her drink [the bitter water]. D. What does “dikhmah” [vnfs] mean? “Those like her” [dikhavatah - v,uufs]. E. They excommunicated him, and he died during his excommunication. And the court stoned his coffin, F. to teach you that whoever is excommunicated and dies [while excommunicated]―they stone his coffin. G. That is to say, whoever humiliates an elder, even after his death, must be excommunicated.

The Yerushalmi is trying to understand what the excommunicable offense was that Akavia committed. It could not have been merely that he asserted Shemaiah and Avtalyon made Karkemit drink the water as an example or even in appearance only, nor merely that he held an opinion contrary to that of the Sages. His offence must have been that he insulted the Sages of the past, Shemaiah and Avtalyon by saying “those like her made her drink.” Shemaiah and Avtalyon were reputed to be descendants of converts,5 so Akavia asserted that they wished to make it appear 5 b. Gittin 57b, b. Sanhedrin 96b.

310

Midrash and Legend

(contrary to the law) that the freed slave-girl (a type of convert) was like an Israelite woman in every respect. The Yerushalmi deduces that it was on account of Akavia’s disrespect to Sages, even to deceased Sages, that he deserved excommunication. b. Berakhot 19a [Direct quotes from m. Eduyyot are highlighted with italics.] A. And Rabbi Joshua b. Levi said: Whoever slanders scholars after their deaths descends to Gehinnom, as it is said: “As for those who disgrace the dead,6 the LORD shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity” (Psalm 125:5). B. … And Rabbi Joshua b. Levi said: In twenty-four cases the court excommunicates a person for [insult to] the honor of a teacher, and they are all related in the Mishnah [ub,banc]. C. Rabbi Eleazar asked him: Where? He replied: Go and find them. D. He went and examined carefully, and found three cases: one who showed contempt for the purification of hands, one who slandered scholars after their deaths, and one who is presumptuous in his mind toward that which is above. E. One who slandered scholars after their deaths―what [case] was that? F. As we have learned [ib,s]: He used to say: They do not make a female convert or a freed slave-girl drink [the bitter water]. But Sages say: They make her drink. 6 This reading is required by R. Joshua’s midrashic interpretation. (RSV reads, “But those who turn aside upon their crooked ways … ”) R. Joshua appears to read “hamatim” [“those who turn aside” ohynv], as “hameitim” [“the dead” oh,nv] or “hamitim” [“the funeral biers” (ohynv). The form should be “mitot” (,uyn) but this is a permissible midrashic misreading]. R. Joshua also reads “akalkalotam” [“their crooked ways”―o,ukekeg] as its homonym “hakilkel otam” [“he who disgraced them”―o,ut kekev, from the root keke. The proper Hebrew pronunciation is “kilkel” but the homonym works better if the verb is articulated as in Aramaic, “kalkel.”].

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

311

G. And they said to him: There was the case of ['c vagn] Karkemit, a freed slave-girl in Jerusalem, and Shemaiah and Avtalyon made her drink. He replied: They only appeared to make her drink. And they excommunicated him. And he died during his excommunication. And the court stoned his coffin. H. And the one who showed contempt for the purification of hands, what [case] was that? I. As we have learned [ib,s]: Rabbi Judah said: God forbid that Akavia was excommunicated. For the Temple court was never locked on account of any man in Israel with the wisdom and purity and fear of sin of Akavia ben Mehalalel. But whom, then, did they excommunicate? Eleazar b. Enoch who contested the validity of the laws concerning the purification of hands. And when he died, the court sent a messenger who laid a large stone on his coffin, to teach you that whoever is excommunicated, and dies while excommunicated, the court stones his coffin. J. One who is presumptuous in his mind toward that which is above―what [case] was that? K. As we have learned [ib,s]:7 Simeon b. Shetah sent [a message] to Honi the circle-drawer: You ought to be excommunicated, and if you were not Honi the circledrawer I would decree your excommunication. But what can I do? For you misbehave before God and he does what you want [anyway], like a son who misbehaves before his father and he does what he wants.8 About you the Scripture says, “Let your father rejoice, and let she who bore you be glad” (Proverbs 23:25).

The general concerns of this passage in the Bavli match those in the Yerushalmi closely. In the surrounding context, many of the same examples are brought concerning the issue of excommunication. However, the Bavli does not explicitly take up the novel interpretation that the Yerushalmi gave to the Mishnah 7 This citation is from m. Ta’anit 3:4. 8 Soncino translation: “you ingratiate yourself [tyj,n v,ta] with

the Omnipresent and He performs your desires, and you are like a son who ingratiates himself [tyj,na icf] with his father and he performs his desires.”

312

Midrash and Legend

passage from Eduyyot. The language and structure of the Bavli are very different. For instance, the grouping of the three cases by the Bavli is not suggested by the Mishnah nor by the Yerushalmi. This is a good example of a later text imposing a higher degree of structure on a pericope than an earlier text. There is no basis for asserting a direct dependence by the Bavli here on any source other than the Mishnah.9 Naso, piska 22 to Numbers 6:2 (p. 26 lns. 7-13 in Horowitz edition) [Context concerns various aspects of the Nazirite vow: who may take it, in what form may they make the vow, who can annul it, etc.] [Sifre comments upon the following biblical passage:] [“And the LORD said to Moses, “Say to the people of Israel, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD …” All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall come upon his head; until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the LORD, he shall be holy; he shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long… . “And this is the law for the Nazirite, when the time of his separation has been completed: he shall be brought to the door of the tent of meeting … And the Nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the door of the tent of meeting, and shall take the hair from his consecrated head and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offering” (Numbers 6:1-2,5,13,18, RSV).] A. “To separate himself to the LORD.” The commandment concerns one who separates himself for the sake of the Lord. B. Simeon the Righteous said: I never ate the guiltoffering concerning a Nazirite vow, except once, when a certain one came [tcaf] from the south. He had

9 Numbers Rabbah 9:28 has a version of this story which is very close

to that given by Sifre Numbers.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

313

beautiful eyes and a good appearance, and his curly hair in locks.10 C. I said to him: What reason do you have to destroy such beautiful hair? D. And he said to me: I was a shepherd in my village, and I went to draw water from the well, and I beheld my reflection, and my heart seized me and sought to drive me from the world. I said to [my hair]: You wicked one! Behold you boast of that which is not your own. It belongs to dust and the worm and the grub. Behold, I will cut you off for the sake of heaven. E. [Simeon:] Immediately I bent my head and kissed him on his head, and I said to him: May those like you be multiplied in Israel, who do the will of the Omnipresent. And concerning you the Scripture is fulfilled: “When a man or a woman makes a special vow … to separate himself to the LORD.”

The form of the anecdote itself is a case example. The Nazirite has performed an action, and Simeon the Righteous expresses his approval. In the context of Sifre, the anecdote serves a parabolic function, to illustrate a virtue learned from Scripture. It is appended to a very brief commentary form, which paraphrases the base text. t. Nezirut 4:7 (4:6)11 A. Simeon the Righteous said: In all my days I never ate the guilt-offering [concerning a Nazirite vow], except once. It happened that ['c vagn] a certain one came to me from the south. And I beheld him with beautiful eyes and a good appearance, and his curly hair in locks. B. I said to him: What reason do you have to destroy this beautiful hair? C. And he said to me: I was a shepherd in my town, and I went to draw water from the river, and I beheld my reflection, and my [baser] inclination seized me and 10 Jastrow, “,umuue”. 11 The textual basis for the treatment of the Tosefta in this study is

the edition of Lieberman where available (for the sedarim Zeraim, Mo’ed, Nashim, and portions of Nezikin), and Zuckermandel for the remainder.

314

Midrash and Legend sought to drive me from the world. I said to [my hair]: You wicked one! You only boast of that which is not your own―that which is destined to turn to dust and the worm and the grub. Behold, I pledge to cut you off for the sake of heaven. D. [Simeon:] I bent my head and kissed him, and I said: May those like you be multiplied, who do the will of the Omnipresent in Israel. Concerning you that which is said is fulfilled: “When a man makes a special vow … to separate himself to the LORD.”

Here in the Tosefta, the case example stands on its own as part of a catalog of legal statements and cases relevant to the cutting of the Nazirite’s hair. If this one item were removed, it would not affect the structure. There are a few minor differences in wording but no significant differences from Sifre Numbers. I imagine that the freestanding version we see in the Tosefta is like the (probably oral) source of Sifre Numbers. The anecdote, in the form of a case-example, preceded its parabolic use by the midrash. I doubt that the anecdote is original to Tosefta―there is nothing about its relationship to its context which would indicate that. y. Nedarim 1:1 The preceding context concerns the issue of whether the vow of a Nazirite is, in itself, a good and commendable thing. Scripture gives rise to question this, because it requires a guilt-offering at the completion of the Nazirite’s vow. Simeon’s anecdote comes to illustrate this negative view toward the Nazirite vow. His statement that he never partook of a Nazirite’s guilt-offering indicates his view that―except in this one case―he never encountered a Nazirite who took the vow from proper motives. [Previous context:] [R. Simeon [b. Gamaliel] says: Those who took vows as Nazirites were sinners. As it is said: “And [the priest] shall make atonement for him, because he sinned against his soul” (Numbers 6:11).12 This sin, “against his soul,” is that he denies himself wine.13] 12 This interpretation reads the phrase divorced from its context.

“And if any man dies very suddenly beside him, and he defiles his consecrated head, then he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing;

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

315

A. And the view of Simeon the Righteous is like that of R. Simeon. As it has been taught [hb,s]: B. Simeon the Righteous said: In all my days I never ate the guilt-offering of a Nazir, except once. Once [ogp ,jt] a certain one came up to me from the south, and his appearance was ruddy, with beautiful eyes and a good appearance, and his curly hair was arranged in many locks. C. And I said to him: My son, what reason do you have to destroy this beautiful hair? D. And he said to me: My master, I was a shepherd in my town, and I went to fill the water trough, and I saw my reflection in the water, and my [baser] inclination seized me and sought to destroy me from the world. I said to [my hair]: You wicked one! You grasp onto that which is not your own. I pledge to consecrate you to heaven. E. [Simeon:] And I bent my head to him, and I said to him: My son, may those like you be multiplied, who do the will of the Omnipresent in Israel. Concerning you Scripture says: “When a man makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD.” F. R. Mana inquired: Why do I need the opinion of Simeon the Righteous, although I have that of R. Simeon?14 on the seventh day he shall shave it. On the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest to the door of the tent of meeting, and the priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, and make atonement for him, because he sinned by reason of the dead body [apbv kg tyj ratn]. And he shall consecrate his head that same day, and separate himself to the LORD for the days of his separation, and bring a male lamb a year old for a guilt offering; but the former time shall be void, because his separation was defiled” (Numbers 6:9-12, RSV). 13 “apb” can refer to pleasure and refreshment, as in the verse “And on the seventh day, [the Lord] rested and was refreshed [apbhu ,ca]” (Exodus 31:17). Thus a sin “against the soul” is understood as “the sin of denying oneself a legitimate pleasure”―asceticism. 14 In other words, what does the case concerning Simeon the Righteous add to what has already been said?

316

Midrash and Legend G. Simeon the Righteous did not eat a sin offering for fat all his days, nor did he eat a sin offering for blood all his days.15 H. Simeon the Righteous reasoned that people make vows in moments of excitement. I. And since they make vows in moments of excitement, it ends in regret. J. And since he regrets it, his sacrifice is like the slaughter of unconsecrated meat [even though it takes place] in the Temple court. But this one considered his vow, and his mouth and his mind agreed.

Again, we see slight differences from both Tosefta and Sifre Numbers in the body of the anecdote. The case example is wellintegrated into the actual argument of the passage here, so that if it were removed the argument of the passage would be impossible. Each of these three texts has a different formula for introducing the anecdote and a different formula for introducing the scriptural proof, both being highly conventional matters likely to be harmonized to the preference of a document. Quite surprisingly, each version words the vow of the Nazirite using a different term for the consecration [SN―ohnak ljkdn hbrv; T―ljkdk hkg hrv ohnak; Y―ohnak lahsevk hkg]. The Yerushalmi seems to know a version of the story like what we see in the Tosefta. 15 ehsmv iugna kft tk … uhnhn ckj ,tyj ehsmv iugna kft tk /uhnhn os ,tyj The meaning, as I understand it, is that he was extremely scrupulous and never made a mistake in his ministrations as priest that would have required him to offer a sin offering. Neusner renders this, “Simeon the Righteous did not eat the fat of a sin offering in his entire life, nor did he consume the blood of a sin offering in his entire life.” I don’t think Sifre would consider it necessary to say that Simeon the Righteous never committed bold sacrilege. That, plus the order of the nouns in semikhut controls my interpretation. The commentaries understand the references to the sin offering here to be simply a reiteration of what was said at “B”―that Simeon did not consider the vows (and hence the related offerings) of most Nazirites to be valid, so he did not eat his portion of them, nor did he cause their fat and blood to be consumed upon the altar. hpk uhnhn ,tyj icre iugna kft tksn thae ckj ,tyj kkfc ,utyjv kf kukfk x"av lrs … tyj kg tca (Fränkel, Korban haEidah).

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers y. Nazir 1:5 [Previous context concerns the various euphemisms whereby one might incur the obligation of a Nazirite. The Gemara then asserts that the number of transgressions possible due to Nazirite vows or faulty vows are innumerable. “There is not sufficient place for the bringing of offerings in expiation for inadvertent sins in their (Nazirites’) behalf.”] A. And the view of Simeon the Righteous is like that of R. Simeon. As it has been taught [hb,s]: B. Simeon the Righteous said: In all my days I never ate the guilt-offering of a Nazir, except one time [ogp sjt] when a certain one came up to me from the south, and I saw him, with an appearance of beautiful eyes and good to behold, and his curly hair was in locks. C. And I said to him: My son, what reason do you have to destroy this beautiful hair? D. And he said to me: My master, I was a shepherd in my town, and I went to fill the water trough, and I saw my reflection in the water, and my [baser] inclination seized me and sought to destroy me from the world. I said to [my hair]: You wicked one! How can you grasp onto that which is not your own! I pledge to consecrate you to heaven. E. [Simeon:] And I embraced him and kissed him on his head, and I said to him: My son, may those like you be multiplied, who do the will of the Omnipresent in Israel. Concerning you the Scripture says: “When a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD.” F. R. Mana inquired: Why do I need the opinion of Simeon the Righteous, although I have that of R. Simeon? G. Simeon the Righteous did not eat a sin offering for fat all his days. Simeon the Righteous did not eat a sin offering for blood all his days. H. Simeon the Righteous reasoned that people make vows in moments of excitement.

317

318

Midrash and Legend I. And since they make vows in moments of excitement, it ends in regret. J. And since he regrets it, his sacrifice is like the slaughter of unconsecrated meat [even though it takes place] in the Temple court. But this one considered his vow, and his mouth and his mind agreed.

There are slight differences between this version and that in Nedarim. The relevance to context is greater in tractate Nedarim. b. Nazir 4b [The Bavli discusses the term “to the Lord” as used in reference to consecrated things: sin offerings, guilt offerings, and firstlings.] A. Concerning the Nazirite, too, is it not written “to the Lord”? This is required according to what is taught [thb,sfk]: B. Simeon the Righteous said: In all my days I never ate the guilt-offering of a defiled Nazirite, except for one man who came [tca sjt ost] to me from the south. He had beautiful eyes and a good appearance, and his curly hair was arranged in locks. C. I said to him: My son, what reason do you have to destroy this beautiful hair? D. He said to me: I was a shepherd for my father in my town, and I went to fill the water trough from the well, and I beheld my reflection, and my [baser] inclination seized me and sought to banish me from the world. I said to [my hair]: You fool! Why in the world would you boast of that which is not your own―for your end is to be for the worm and the grub. By the Temple service, I will to cut you off for the sake of heaven. E. [Simeon:] I stood and I kissed him on his head, and I said to him: May Nazirites like you be multiplied in Israel. Concerning you the Scripture says: “When a man makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD.”

There are few differences between this version and the Tosefta. This time there is no trope to introduce the case narrative. Once again a new oath-formula: “!ohnak ljkdta !vsucgv” The

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

319

pattern of the Talmud’s argument does not depend on the insertion of this case; rather, the case-example serves much the same purpose as in Sifre Numbers―to illustrate an interpretation of the base verse from Numbers (6:2) concerning a Nazirite. b. Nedarim 9b [Context concerns the various euphemisms whereby one might incur the obligation of a Nazirite. One of these is “Let my vow be as the vows of the wicked [ohgar hrsb],” because, as has been described above, the Nazirite vow is viewed with general disfavor. The passage is also concerned with the distinction between the offerings of an ordinary Israelite, and the offerings which are expected to accompany the conclusion of a Nazirite vow (Num. 6:1320).] A. As it was taught [thb,s]: They said concerning Hillel the Elder, that no man ever committed sacrilege with one of his offerings all his days. He would bring it while it was still unconsecrated to the Temple court and then consecrate it, and lay hands upon it and slaughter it. B. That is allowable for free will offerings, but what is there to say regarding the free will offerings [accompanying the completion] of Nazirite vows? Consider it according to the view of Simeon the Righteous. C. As it was taught [thb,s]: Simeon the Righteous said: In all my days I never ate the guilt-offering of defiled Nazirite, except for one. Once [,jt ogp] a certain man came to me from the south, and I saw him, that he had beautiful eyes and a good appearance, and his curly hair was arranged in locks. D. I said to him: My son, what reason do you have to destroy this beautiful hair of yours? E. He said to me: I was a shepherd for my father in my town, and I went to draw water from the well, and I beheld my reflection, and my [baser] inclination seized me and sought to banish me from the world. I said to [my hair]: You wicked one! Why in the world would you boast of that which is not your own―of that which is destined to be for the worm and the grub. By the

320

Midrash and Legend Temple service, I will to cut you off for the sake of heaven. F. [Simeon:] Immediately I stood and I kissed him on his head. I said to him: May Nazirites of their Nazirite vows like you be multiplied in Israel. Concerning you the Scripture says: “When a man makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD.”

This version stands between the version in b. Nazir, and the version in the Yerushalmi. Thematically also this version is related to the view of the Nazirite vow as sinful, which is explicit in the Yerushalmi passage but not in the parallel in b. Nazir. It would seem that this passage in Nedarim relies on the Yerushalmi to a greater extent than the other Bavli version. Beha’alotekha, piska 74 to Numbers 10:8 (p. 70 lns. 1-8 in Horowitz edition) [Sifre Numbers comments upon the following passage of Scripture:] [“The LORD said to Moses: Make two silver trumpets; of hammered work you shall make them; and you shall use them for summoning the congregation, and for breaking camp. And when both are blown, all the congregation shall gather themselves to you at the entrance of the tent of meeting … And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets. The trumpets shall be to you for a perpetual statute throughout your generations … On the day of your gladness also, and at your appointed feasts, and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; they shall serve you for remembrance before your God: I am the LORD your God” (Numbers 10:1-3,8,10, RSV).] A. “The priests.” Whether fit or blemished―the words of R. Tarfon.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

321

B. R. Akiva says: Fit and not blemished. Here it mentions “priests” and elsewhere it mentions “priests.”16 Just as priests mentioned elsewhere indicates those who are fit and not blemished, so when “priests” are specified here, it means fit and not blemished. C. R. Tarfon said to him: How long will you present us with frivolous assertions, Akiva? I am not able to bear it! May I bury my sons if I did not see Simeon my mother’s brother, who was lame in one foot, as he was standing and sounding a trumpet! D. He said to him: Perhaps, my master, you saw him during the convocation, for blemished priests are permitted during the convocation, and on the Day of Atonement,17 and at the commencement of the Jubilee.18 E. R. Tarfon said to him: By the Temple service! For you did not make it up! Blessed are you, Abraham our Father, that Akiva came forth from your loins! Tarfon saw and forgot; Akiva expounds on his own and reconciles [the account with the correct law]. Whoever abandons you abandons his own life!

This academy discussion form is appended to a commentary (once again). A part of the commentary’s complete form is missing and is replaced by Akiva’s statement, “fit and not blemished.” The sons of Aaron are the major category. Those fit to function as priests are the subcategory. It is an accepted principle of rabbinic hermeneutics that when a specification follows a generalization, it is to limit the force of the generalization to that which is 16 Lev. 1:5 also uses the phrase “The sons of Aaron, the priests” in reference to the sprinkling of the blood of sacrifices, which clearly pertains only to fit priests (Horowitz). 17 Horowitz, on the basis of the parallels and logic of the case, says that the phrase “on the Day of Atonement” should be omitted. Ram’s horns, not trumpets, were blown on the Day of Atonement. 18 On the occasion of the convocation and the Jubilee, priests sound trumpet blasts from the city walls (outside the sanctuary). See t. Sotah 7:15, below p. 325. Akiva only excludes the blemished priests from the sounding of the trumpet in the ritual of the sanctuary. Regarding the “convocation,” see footnote 28.

322

Midrash and Legend

specified.19 The anecdote itself completely follows the model for an Academy Discussion among Sages. The anecdote lends authority to Sifre’s exegetical idea. We have seen both the structure and most of the phrases in the two Mekhiltas. In the full form in Mekhilta we would be given a setting and the cast of Sages would be introduced by name, which we do not see here. Since no setting is given, this Discussion would have been omitted from this study except for R. Tarfon’s historical reminiscence about his uncle, which is an abbreviated case example in support of R. Tarfon’s view. t. Zevahim 1:8 (1:6) [This passage contains a different, but thematically-related and similarly-structured dispute between R. Tarfon and R. Akiva.] A. R. Akiva expounded: Whence do we learn concerning the receiving of the blood, that it should only be performed by a fit priest wearing the vestments used for the service? B. Scripture says: “And Aaron’s sons the priests shall present the blood” (Lev. 1:5).20 C. I might think that this refers [only to] the throwing [of the blood]. D. When it says, “And they shall throw it” (Lev. 1:5a), this is to specify the throwing. Thus it only says “and 19 yrpu kkfn―“from the general to the specific,” the fifth of the

seven principles attributed to Hillel, and the fourth of the thirteen attributed to R. Ishmael in the opening of Sifra. Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. Markus Bockmuehl, 2nd edition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 19. 20 “… When any man of you brings an offering to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of cattle from the herd or from the flock. “If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it at the door of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD; he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. Then he shall kill the bull before the LORD; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall present the blood, and throw the blood round about against the altar that is at the door of the tent of meeting” (Leviticus 1:2-5, RSV).

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

323

they shall present” (Lev. 1:5b) in order to specify the receiving. E. Scripture connects21 receiving to throwing. Just as the throwing must be done by a fit priest and it should only be performed by a fit priest wearing the vestments used for the service, so receiving the blood must be done by a fit priest and it should only be performed by a fit priest wearing the vestments used for the service. F. And elsewhere, it says,22 “And you shall anoint them … to serve me as priests” (Exodus 40:15).23 Just as “priest” specified elsewhere indicates a fit priest wearing the vestments used for the service, so “priest” specified here indicates a fit priest wearing the vestments used for the service. G. R. Tarfon said to him: Akiva, how long will you present us with frivolous assertions? May I bury my son if I have not heard the distinction between receiving [the blood] and throwing it. But you have equated receiving [the blood] and throwing it! H. He said to him: Permit me to say in your presence something that you have taught me. I. He said to him: Say it. J. He said to him: [The law] has not treated intention as equivalent to action in reference to receiving [the

21 “ahen vkce” introduces a hekesh interpretation, based on the idea

that two subjects treated in the same passage are subject to similar stipulations. 22 Introducing a gezerah shavah interpretation whereby a similar expression in two different passages serves to indicate that the two subjects bears similar stipulations. 23 “Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tent of meeting, and shall wash them with water, and put upon Aaron the holy garments, and you shall anoint him and consecrate him, that he may serve me as priest. You shall bring his sons also and put coats on them, and anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may serve me as priests: and their anointing shall admit them to a perpetual priesthood throughout their generations” (Exodus 40:12-15, RSV).

324

Midrash and Legend blood]. The law has treated intention as equivalent to action in reference to the throwing.24 K. Whoever receives the blood [with the intention of eating the offering]25 outside the Temple court, it is valid, but whoever throws the blood [with the intention of eating the offering] outside the Temple court, it is invalid. L. If invalid [priests] received [the blood] they do not incur liability, but if invalid priests threw [the blood] they incur liability.

24 See m. Zevahim 1:4, where receiving and tossing are explicitly said

to be equivalent in this respect. The Tosefta’s view here (in the name of R. Akiva) apparently contradicts the Mishnah, a problem treated at b. Zevahim 13a. In summary, the Talmud resolves the difficulty by asserting that an incorrect intention of the category of “vnak tka” can invalidate the Passover-offering or the Sin-offering if the officiant makes an error about which sacrifice he is offering, and therefore fails to form the correct intention whether while slaughtering the animal, receiving the blood, conveying it, or throwing it upon the altar. The offering thus becomes invalid as a Passover offering or sin offering, and this is the case whenever the priest mistakenly intends to offer an offering in a lower level of holiness. However, the sacrifice does not become completely rejected in the category of “kudhp”―a ruined offering, such as is the case if the officiant intends to commit sacrilege with the offering by eating it after its appointed time. In this more serious category, the offering is not merely invalid for its specific purpose but becomes forbidden for any purpose. According to R. Akiva, it is this improper intention which does not render the sacrifice invalid if it is in the priest’s mind only at the stage of receiving the blood. However, if the intention is in the priest’s mind at the time of the throwing of the blood, the offering is rendered piggul. In this way the Talmud reconciles the Mishnah with R. Akiva’s opinion in the Tosefta, “for [the Mishnah] teaches that the sacrifice is rendered ‘invalid’ [kxpb] but it does not teach that it becomes ‘ruined’ [kdp,n]” (b. Zevahim 13a). See also Jacob Milgrom, “Abomination,” Encyclopedia Judaica 2:96-97 (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972). Another version of this dispute is found in Sifra, Dibura deNedbah parashah 4 (to Leviticus 1:5). 25 This is the interpretation given by Neusner’s translation. Literally, “Who ever receives the blood outside the Temple court, it is valid, but whoever throws the blood outside the Temple court, it is invalid.” See m. Zevahim 2:1.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

325

M. He said to him: By the Temple service! For you have not strayed either right or left. I heard it but I could not explain it,26 and you expound and reconcile [the account with] the correct law [vfkv]. Behold, whoever abandons you abandons his own life!27

For purposes of this study, I do not consider this passage to be a “parallel” to our text in Sifre Numbers―it treats a different topic of law. Clearly, however, in structure it is closely related, employing the same operative tropes and featuring the same Sages. t. Sotah 7:15-16 (7:8) A. On that day [of convocation]28 the priests would stand on the city walls and at the gates, with trumpets of gold in their hand, and they would sound them and blast them. B. If any priest did not have a trumpet in his hand, they would say “this one does not appear to be a priest.” C. It was a source of great profit to the men of Jerusalem, who would rent trumpets for a gold denar. D. On that day [of assembly] R. Tarfon saw a lame [priest] standing and blowing a trumpet. On that basis he said that a lame [priest] blows [the trumpet] even in the sanctuary.

As was mentioned above, the anecdote in Sifre Num. constituted an anecdote within an anecdote. R. Tarfon’s reminiscence and the conclusion he draws from it constituted a brief ma’aseh (case example), whereas R. Tarfon’s interaction with R. Akiva constituted an academy discussion. Also we noted that the conclusion of law to be derived from the academy discussion reverses the conclusion to be drawn from the ma’aseh. Here we have the ma’aseh by itself. If the Sifre passage is built upon this Tosefta passage (or a tradition like it), then Sifre’s treatment of it constitutes a reversal of the halakhic position presumed by Tosefta. 26 or, “make the distinction” [arpk]. 27 I have followed Neusner’s outline of the passage. 28 The context in the related Mishnah passage (m. Sotah 7:8) indicates

that this is the second day of Sukkot after the conclusion of the Sabbatical year, the day when the “King’s portion” would be read in the Temple.

326

Midrash and Legend y. Yoma 1:1 [The discussion concerns the issue of why a high priest must wear his magisterial garments even in cases where he is bringing offerings that can be offered by an ordinary priest.] A. R. Ba said: Logically the law should have been that he serves wearing the four garments [of an ordinary priest]. And why does he not serve [in that manner]? So that people should not say, “We saw a high priest who sometimes served in the four garments, and sometimes in the eight garments!” B. Said R. Jonah: “Doesn’t he serve in the inner court and not in the outer?”29 C. But does he not receive inquiries outside?30 D. So people might draw erroneous conclusions as to what he wears inside from how he appears outside. E. For did not R. Tarfon, the father of all Israel, thus err in confusing the blowing [of the trumpet] at the convocation] with the blowing [of the trumpet] accompanying an offering [in the Sanctuary]? F. As it is taught [hb,s]: “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall sound the trumpets” (Numbers 10:8).31 G. “[Priests who are] fit and not blemished”―the words of R. Akiva. H. R. Tarfon said to him: May I bury my sons if I did not see my mother’s brother, who was lame in one of his feet, as he was standing in the Temple court, with a trumpet in his hand, and he was sounding it!

29 Neusner’s note: “Where people will not see him anyhow?” 30 I have followed Neusner’s translation very closely at “A”-”C”. 31 hb,s is not the proper formula for introducing a scriptural

quotation, but rather, for quoting a baraita. It seems clear that the Yerushalmi is quoting Sifre Num. or at least a Sifre tradition that associates this anecdote with a certain interpretation of Numbers as represented in our Sifre Num.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

327

I. R. Akiva said to him: My master, is it possible that you only saw him at the time of the convocation? J. But I was speaking of the time of an offering. K. R. Tarfon said to him: May I bury my sons if you have strayed, either to the right or to the left. I am the one who witnessed the event [vagn], but I forgot [the details of] it, and I could not explain it. But you expound and reconcile [the account] with the traditional law [vguna]. Behold, whoever abandons you abandons his own life.

In the Tosefta passage discussed immediately above (t. Sotah 7), the distinction seemed to be between a trumpet ritual outside the sanctuary and one inside the sanctuary. In the former case, a lame priest could participate but not in the latter. There is nothing in the specification of the case given by Sifre Numbers which contradicts that interpretation. However the Yerushalmi, while taking up the case as known by Sifre Numbers, has added specifications so that it is impossible to apply the Tosefta’s view to the Yerushalmi’s version of the case. In the Yerushalmi’s version, R. Tarfon specifically witnessed his uncle sounding the trumpet in the Temple (although in the outer court). The Yerushalmi, therefore, must also specify for us that it is the sounding of trumpets accompanying offerings which can only be performed by a fit priest. On both sides of the question, therefore, new details are added which considerably constrain our understanding of the case. The Yerushalmi also presents this story in tractates Megillah (1:10)32 and Horayot (3:2).33 The context is similar in both of the other tractates, although it is most “on topic” in Yoma where the underlying Mishnah (1:1-2) discusses the officiation of the High Priest at the daily offerings for the seven days preceding the Day of Atonement. For these offerings he could have worn the garments 32 Only difference that I see in y. Megillah is that R. Tarfon names his uncle “Simeon” as in Sifre Numbers, and that name is missing in tractate Yoma. The Tosefta does not know that the anecdote involves R. Tarfon’s relative at all. 33 The only difference that I see here is that R. Tarfon says “I heard and forgot” rather than “I saw and forgot” as in the other two Yerushalmi passages. In Horayot R. Tarfon’s uncle is named “Simeon,” as in tractate Megillah.

328

Midrash and Legend

of an ordinary priest (as a matter of law), but the Yerushalmi indicates that he ought not to do so. Joel Gereboff considers the Yerushalmi version to be a reworking of a Tarfon tradition by an author favoring Akiva. “Tarfon serves simply as a foil for Akiva.”34. The following table compares some of the elements distinguishing each version of the story. Sifre Num.

t. Sotah

y. Yoma

Anecdote marker (for the reminiscence of what R. Tarfon saw)

hhbc ,t jpet h,htr tk ot

ouhc uc iupry 'r vtr

hhbc ,t jpet h,htr tk ot

Whom did R. Tarfon see blowing the trumpet?

Simeon, his uncle

Where did R. Tarfon see him?

Unspecified

Special features

his uncle an unspecified priest [Simeon in other tractates] in Jerusalem outside the Temple

in the Temple court

Sifre Num. Passage begins with Num. 10:8. Tarfon: “How long will you present us with frivolous assertions? I am not able to bear it!” Akiva: “blemished priests are permitted at convocation and commencement of Jubilee.” Tarfon: “Blessed are you, Abraham our father …” Tarfon “Saw and forgot” t. Sotah

Passage begins with discussion of the convocation. R. Tarfon does not speak, and R. Akiva is not present. R. Tarfon’s opinion goes uncontradicted

y. Yoma

Passage begins with discussion of priestly garments. Akiva: blemished priest is permitted at convocation but not at time of offering. Tarfon “witnessed the event but forgot it and could not explain it.”

34 Joel Gereboff, Rabbi Tarfon: The Tradition, the Man, and Early Rabbinic

Judaism (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979), 101-107.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

329

Shelah, piska 115 to Numbers 15:41 (p. 128 ln. 16 - p. 129 ln. 11 in Horowitz edition) [Sifre Numbers comments upon the following passage of Scripture:] [“The LORD said to Moses, ‘Speak to the people of Israel, and bid them to make fringes on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put upon the fringe of each corner a cord of blue; and it shall be to you a fringe to look upon and remember all the commandments of the LORD, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to go after wantonly. So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD your God’“ (Numbers 15:37-41, RSV).] A. R. Nathan says: Among all the commandments in the Torah, there is none which does not have its reward mentioned beside it.35 Go and learn from the commandment of fringes. B. It happened with ['c vagn] a certain man who was very careful about the commandment of fringes, that he heard that there was a certain prostitute in the seaside cities, and she would receive four hundred gold pieces as her fee. He sent her four hundred gold pieces, and she fixed a time for him [to visit her]. C. As soon as his time arrived, he came and seated himself at the door of her house. Her maidservant entered and said to her, “That man for whom you have fixed a time, behold, he is sitting at the door of the house.” She said to her, “Let him enter.” D. As soon as he entered, she spread out seven silver cushions and one of gold for him, and she was upon the uppermost, and between each cushion there were supports of silver, and the uppermost one was of gold. And as soon as he approached to do the deed, his four

35 This opinion is expressed at t. Hullin 10:16 in the name of R. Jacob.

Compare b. Hullin 142a.

330

Midrash and Legend fringes came forth and they appeared to him like four witnesses, and they slapped him on his face. E. Immediately he withdrew and he sat upon the floor.36 She also withdrew and sat upon the floor. F. She said to him, “By the Capitol of Rome! I will not let you go until you tell me what defect you have seen in me! G. He said to her, “By the Temple service! I have not seen any defect in you, for there is no one with your beauty in all the world. But the Lord our God has commanded us a comparatively minor commandment, and written concerning it, ‘I am the Lord your God … I am the Lord your God’―two times. ‘I am the Lord your God’ in the future―to pay a reward; ‘I am the Lord your God’ in the future―to exact punishment. H. She said to him, “By the Temple service! I will not let you go until you write for me your name, and the name of your city, and the name of the academy where you study Torah.” And he wrote for her his name, and the name of his city, of his teacher, and the name of his academy where he studied Torah. I. And she arose and distributed her wealth―one third to the government, one third to the poor, and one third she took with her and she came and she stood within the academy of R. Hiyya. J. She said to him, “Rabbi, convert me!” K. He said to her, “Perhaps you have set your eyes on one of the students [of my academy].” She took out for him the note which was in her hand. L. He said to him [to that student], “Arise! Take possession of what you have purchased. The beddings which she spread for you while prohibited to you, she will spread out for you with full permission.” M. [R. Nathan is again the speaker:37] This is its reward38 in this world. And in the world to come―I do not know how much [greater]!

36 lit., “the ground.” 37 This seems to be assumed by the language.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

331

This is a parabolic anecdote―it might not even be considered an anecdote except for the mention, by name, of R. Hiyya. The anecdote offers two explanations of the apparent redundancy in Numbers 15:41 where “I am the Lord your God” is stated twice. According to the student in the story, the statement is made twice for reward and punishment. According to R. Nathan (the narrator), the statement is made twice for reward in this world and in the next. This is an indication that the story has been fitted to R. Nathan’s opinion, rather than composed to illustrate it. If it were composed for that purpose originally, we would expect it to conform more completely. b. Menahot 44a A. It has been taught [thb,]: R. Nathan said: You do not find any [even] minor commandment which is written in the Torah, that does not have its reward in this world, and in the world to come I do not know how much [greater]. Go and learn from the commandment of fringes. B. It happened with ['c vagn] a certain man who was very careful about the commandment of fringes, that he heard that there was a certain prostitute in the seaside cities, and she would receive four hundred gold pieces as her fee. He sent her four hundred gold pieces, and he fixed a time with her [for him to visit]. C. As soon as his time arrived, he came and seated himself at the door. Her maidservant entered and said to her, “That man who sent you four hundred gold pieces has come, and he is sitting at the door.” She said, “Let him enter,” and he entered. D. She spread out seven cushions for him, six of silver and one of gold, and between each cushion was a step made of silver, and the uppermost one was of gold. She ascended and seated herself upon the uppermost, when she had undressed. And he also ascended to sit unclothed next to her. His four fringes came forth and they slapped him on his face.

38 The reward of the mitzvah―vrfa i,n vz. Neusner renders this

phrase “his reward.”

332

Midrash and Legend E. He withdrew and he sat upon the floor. She also withdrew and sat on the edge of the floor. F. She said to him, “By the Capitol of Rome! I will not let you go until you tell me what defect you have seen in me! G. He said to her, “By the Temple service! I have never seen a woman as beautiful as you. But the Lord our God has commanded us a certain commandment called ‘fringes,’ and written concerning it, ‘I am the Lord your God’―two times. I am He who will exact punishment in the future, and I am He who will in the future pay a reward. Now they [my fringes] have testified against me like four witnesses.” H. She said to him, “I will not let you go until you tell me what your name is, and what the name of your city is, and what the name of your teacher is, and what the name of the academy is where you study Torah.” He wrote it down and placed it in her hand. I. And she arose and divided all her property―one third to the government, one third to the poor, and one third she took with her (except for those beddings) and she came to the academy of R. Hiyya. J. She said to him, “Rabbi, give orders concerning me that they should make me a convert!” K. He said to her, “My daughter, perhaps you have set your eyes on one of the students [of my academy].” She took out the note from her hand and gave it to him. L. He said to her, “Go, take possession of what you have purchased.” M. Those beddings which she spread out for him while prohibited [to him], she could then spread out with full permission. This is his reward in this world, and in the world to come I do not know how much [greater].

To me it is clear that the Bavli is dependent upon the version in Sifre, with overwhelming close verbal similarity. But the Bavli makes a delightful reversal of R. Hiyya’s speech at “L”. There are

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

333

some other minor differences between the two versions.39 In the table below, bold text indicates phrases in common. Sifre Numbers

Bavli

A.

R. Nathan says: Among all the commandments in the Torah, there is none which does not have its reward mentioned beside it. Go and learn from the commandment of fringes.

It has been taught: R. Nathan said: You do not find any [even] minor commandment written in the Torah, which does not have its reward in this world, and in the world to come I do not know how much [greater]. Go and learn from the commandment of fringes.

B.

It happened with a certain man who was very careful about the commandment of fringes, that he heard that there was a certain prostitute in the seaside cities, and she would receive four hundred gold pieces as her fee. He sent her four hundred gold pieces, and she fixed a time for him [to visit her].

It happened with a certain man who was very careful about the commandment of fringes, that he heard that there was a certain prostitute in the seaside cities, and she would receive four hundred gold pieces as her fee. He sent her four hundred gold pieces, and he fixed a time with her [for him to visit].

C.

As soon as his time arrived, he came and seated himself at the door of her house. Her maidservant entered and said to her, that man for whom you have fixed a time, behold, he is sitting at the door of the house. She said to her, “Let him enter.”

As soon as his time arrived, he came and seated himself at the door. Her maidservant entered and said to her, that man who sent you four hundred gold pieces has come, and he is sitting at the door. She said, “Let him enter,” and he entered.

D.

As soon as he entered, she spread out seven silver cushions and one of gold for him, and she was upon the uppermost, and between each cushion there were supports of silver, and the uppermost one was of gold. And as soon as he approached to do the deed, his four fringes came forth and they appeared to him like four

She spread out seven cushions for him, six of silver and one of gold, and between each cushion was a step made of silver, and the uppermost one was of gold. She ascended and seated herself upon the uppermost, when she had undressed. And he also ascended to sit unclothed next to her. His

39 There is a very different story about a sage visiting a prostitute in a

coastal city, which contains some similar language, at b. Avodah Zarah 17a.

334

Midrash and Legend Sifre Numbers

Bavli

witnesses, and they slapped him on his face.

four fringes came forth and they slapped him on his face.

E.

Immediately he withdrew and he sat upon the floor. She also withdrew and sat upon the floor.

He withdrew and he sat upon the floor. She also withdrew and sat upon the floor.

F.

She said to him, “By the Capitol of Rome! I will not let you go until you tell me what defect you have seen in me!

She said to him, “By the Capitol of Rome! I will not let you go until you tell me what defect you have seen in me!

G.

He said to her, “By the Temple service! I have not seen any defect in you, for there is no one with your beauty in all the world. But the Lord our God has commanded us a comparatively minor commandment, and written concerning it, ‘I am the Lord your God … I am the Lord your God’―two times. ‘I am the Lord your God’ in the future―to pay a reward; ‘I am the Lord your God’ in the future―to exact punishment.

He said to her, “By the Temple service! I have never seen a woman as beautiful as you. But the Lord our God has commanded us a certain commandment called ‘fringes,’ and written concerning it, ‘I am the Lord your God’―two times. I am He who will exact punishment in the future, and I am He who will in the future pay a reward. Now they [my fringes] have appeared against me like four witnesses.

H.

She said to him, “By the Temple service!” I will not let you go until you write for me your name, and the name of your city, and the name of the academy where you study Torah. And he wrote for her his name, and the name of his city of his teacher, and the name of his academy where he studied Torah.

She said to him, I will not let you go until you tell me what your name is, and what the name of your city is, and what the name of your teacher is, and what the name of the academy is where you study Torah. He wrote it down and placed it in her hand.

I.

And she arose and distributed her wealth―one third to the government, one third to the poor, and one third she took with her and she came and she stood within the academy of R. Hiyya.

And she arose and divided all her property―one third to the government, one third to the poor, and one third she took with her (except for those beddings) and she came to the academy of R. Hiyya.

J.

She said to him, “Rabbi, convert me!”

She said to him, “Rabbi, give orders concerning me that they should make me a convert!”

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

335

Sifre Numbers

Bavli

K.

He said to her, “Perhaps you have set your eyes on one of the students [of my academy].” She took out for him the note which was in her hand.

He said to her, “My daughter, perhaps you have set your eyes on one of the students [of my academy].” She took out the note from her hand and gave it to him.

L.

He said to him [to that student], “Arise! Take possession of what you have purchased.

He said to her, “Go take possession of what you have purchased.”

The beddings which she spread for you while prohibited to you, she will spread out for you with full permission.”

Those beddings which she spread out for him while prohibited [to him], she then spread out with full permission.

This is its reward in this world. And in the world to come―I do not know how much [greater]!

This is his reward in this world, and in the world to come I do not know how much [greater]!

M.

Korah, piska 116 to Numbers 18:3 (p. 132 lns. 6-11 in Horowitz edition) [Sifre Numbers comments upon the following passage of Scripture:] [“So the LORD said to Aaron, ‘You and your sons and your fathers’ house with you shall bear iniquity in connection with the sanctuary; and you and your sons with you shall bear iniquity in connection with your priesthood. And with you bring your brethren also, the tribe of Levi, the tribe of your father, that they may join you, and minister to you while you and your sons with you are before the tent of the testimony. They shall attend you and attend to all duties of the tent; but shall not come near to the vessels of the sanctuary or to the altar, lest they, and you, die. They shall join you, and attend to the tent of meeting, for all the service of the tent; and no one else shall come near you. And you shall attend to the duties of the sanctuary and the duties of the altar, that there be wrath no more upon the people of Israel. And behold, I have taken your brethren the Levites from among the people of Israel; they are a gift to you, given to the LORD, to do the service of the tent of meeting. And

336

Midrash and Legend you and your sons with you shall attend to your priesthood for all that concerns the altar and that is within the veil; and you shall serve. I give your priesthood as a gift, and any one else who comes near shall be put to death’“ (Numbers 18:1-7, RSV).] [Previous context:] [“But (the assisting Levites) shall not come near to the vessels of the sanctuary or to the altar.” This is the warning. “Lest they die.” This is the punishment. I would know (from this verse) only about Levites, that they are punished and warned about performing priestly service. Whence do I learn about priests performing the service of Levites? Scripture says, “Both they and you.”40] A. Concerning [exchanging] one type of [levitical] service and another, whence do I learn? Scripture says, “and you.” B. Once [rcfu] R. Joshua ben Hananiah sought to help R. Yohanan ben Gudgedah [in his levitical service]. He [Yohanan b. Gudgedah] said to him, “Turn back, for you have already sinned against your life! For I belong to the gatekeepers, and you belong to the singers.41 C. Rabbi says, “[This case example] is not needed, for it is already said, “Let not the tribe of the families of the Kohathites be destroyed from among the Levites; but deal thus with them, that they may live [… appoint them each to his task and to his burden]” (Numbers 4:18-19).42 D. I would know [from this verse] only about the descendants of Kohath. Whence do I learn about the descendants of Gershon and Merari? Scripture says,

40 /o,t od ov od 41 There is a passing reference to “Yohanan b. Gudgeda, in charge of

locking the gates,” in t. Shekalim 2:14. 42 “Let not the tribe of the families of the Kohathites be destroyed [u,hrf,] from among the Levites; but deal thus with them, that they may live and not die when they come near to the most holy things: Aaron and his sons shall go in and appoint them each to his task and to his burden, but they shall not go in to look upon the holy things even for a moment, lest they die” (Numbers 4:18-20, RSV).

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

337

“with Aaron and with his sons they shall attend to their priesthood;43 but if anyone else comes near, he shall be put to death” (Numbers 3:10).

The anecdote proper is very brief, the case example at letter “B” which supports the exegetical conclusion drawn at “A.” The Bavli uses the same case example, but ultimately comes to a different halakhic conclusion than Sifre Numbers.44 The Bavli does not hold that one Levite who performed the ritual duty of another became liable to the death penalty, and the Bavli does not include Yohanan ben Gudgeda’s words to that effect in its version of the anecdote. The Bavli’s language for the anecdote is quite different from that of Sifre Numbers, and the Bavli makes no mention of the opinion of Rabbi in connection with this point of law. I consider it most unlikely that the Bavli would know the anecdote from Sifre Numbers, and yet pay no attention to Rabbi’s opinion and prooftext. Therefore, I conclude that the Bavli does not rely on the version of the account we have in Sifre Numbers; rather, they stem from a common tradition. b. Arakhin 11b A. It was also taught thus [hfv hnb thb,]: “Lest they, and you, die.” You for performing their service, and they for performing your service―[are liable to be punished] by death. They performing [a different branch of] their service―they are not liable to death, but [are guilty of] violating a prohibition [vrvzt].45

43 … uhbc ,tu irvt ,t This seems to me to be the reading required

by the midrash. “And you shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall attend to their priesthood; but if any one else comes near, he shall be put to death” (Numbers 3:10, RSV). The midrash is not attempting to show that Levites cannot perform priestly service (which is already explicit in Scripture), but that Levites cannot interchange branches of service (an accepted law for which the midrash is attempting to establish a biblical basis). 44 Sifre Zuta (to Numbers 18:3) agrees with Sifre Numbers against the Bavli in its halakhah, employing the same midrashic basis as Sifre Numbers. 45 An ordinary negative commandment, for which death is not specified as the penalty.

338

Midrash and Legend B. Abaye said: We have held that a [levitical] singer who performed the gatekeeping service of his fellow is liable to death, as it is said, “Those who encamped before the tabernacle on the east, before the tent of meeting … and the stranger [rzvu] who came near was to be put to death” (Numbers 3:38).46 What does “the stranger” mean? If you should say, it is literally a “stranger,”47 it should be written only one time!48 Instead, it means a “stranger” to that particular [act of] service. C. They raised an objection [hch,n]: A singer who served as a gatekeeper, or a gatekeeper who served as a singer―they are not liable to death, but [only guilty of] a violation! D. Tannaim differ [thv htb,], as it is taught [thb,s]: There was the case of ['c vagn] R. Joshua bar Hananiah who went to help with the shutting of the doors beside R. Yohanan ben Gudgeda. He said to him, “My son, turn back, for you belong to the singers, and not to the gatekeepers.” E. What is unstated that they are disputing [tvc utk htn hdhkpne]? One master supposed: It [performing the wrong act of service] incurs death, and thus our rabbis decreed [against helping as a preventative measure]. And the other master supposed: It [performing the wrong act of service] [merely constitutes] a violation, and [so] they did not so decree [against helping as a preventative measure]! F. As all agree [tnkg hkufs], it [performing the wrong act of service] [only constitutes] a violation. One master

46 “And those to encamp before the tabernacle on the east, before the tent of meeting toward the sunrise, were Moses and Aaron and his sons, having charge of the rites within the sanctuary, whatever had to be done for the people of Israel; and anyone else who came near was to be put to death” (Numbers 3:38, RSV). 47 i.e., a non-Jew or perhaps simply a non-levite. 48 Whereas in fact the “stranger” is mentioned here at verse 38 and also at verse 10 (as treated above in the translation of Sifre Numbers to Numbers 18:3, paragraph “D” [page 336]).

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

339

supposed: Our Sages decreed against helping. And the other master supposed: Our Sages did not so decree.

The following table compares only the anecdote proper. Identical phrases are underlined. Note that the terms at “C” are transposed. Sifre Num.

Bavli

A.

vhbbj ic gauvh 'r aec rcfu /vsdsud ic ibjuh 'r ,t ghhxk

vhbbj rc gauvh 'rc vagn ,u,ks ,pdvc ghhxk lkva /tsdsud ic ibjuh 'r kmt

B.

wlhrujtk ruzj :uk rnt wlapbc chhj,n v,t rcfa

wlhrujtk ruzj :uk rnt

C.

ohrguav in hbta /ohrruanv in v,tu

ohrruanv in v,ta 49/ohrguanv in tku

Korah, piska 116 to Numbers 18:7 (p. 133 lns. 16-19 in Horowitz edition) A. “I give you the service of your priesthood as a gift” (Numbers 18:7). B. To make the eating of holy things in the provinces equivalent to the service of the Sanctuary in the Sanctuary. C. Just as with the service of the Sanctuary in the Sanctuary one sanctifies his hands and [only] afterwards performs his service, even so the eating of holy things in the provinces requires the sanctification of his hands,50 and afterwards he may eat. D. And once [rcfu] R. Tarfon was delayed from coming to the academy. E. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, “What was your reason to delay?”

49 “Singers” and “Gatekeepers” make a pun when juxtaposed in

Hebrew; “meshorarim” and “mesho’arim.” 50 m. Hagigah 2:5 “The hands must be washed for eating ordinary food, and for eating the [second] tithe and terumah. For eating holy things, they must be immersed. And for the sin-offering water, if his hands have become unclean, then his whole body is considered unclean.”

340

Midrash and Legend F. He said to him, “That I was performing an act of divine service [scug h,hhva].” G. He said to him, “Are not all your words [a source of] astonishment? And is there any divine service [properly so called] at the present time [in the absence of the Sanctuary]? H. He said to him, “Behold it says, ‘I give you the service of your priesthood as a gift’―to make the eating of holy things in the provinces equivalent to the service of the Sanctuary in the Sanctuary.51

This case example comes as an illustration and perhaps the true source of the biblical interpretation given by Sifre Numbers―a homiletical lesson concerning the value of priests eating their portions even outside of the Temple in a state of sanctity. Incidentally it teaches another lesson, the necessity of handwashing outside the sanctuary.52 We have already seen the setting of a student coming late to the house of study as a stereotypical occasion for his superior to ask him about what has happened to him recently (at MRS to Exodus 12:16, see p. 173). This is a mixed form containing elements of the Academy Discussion among Sages, but in my view the Case Example dominates. This case is cited in the Bavli at Pesahim 72b, where the discussion concerns an inadvertent transgression committed in the performance of a mitzvah. The question at hand is whether the mitzvah renders the one who performed it immune from liability in regard to the inadvertent transgression. One example given is that of a man who enters the street with his lulav on the first day of the Festival of Booths which is also a Sabbath day, and he had forgotten it was a Sabbath. Another example is that of a disqualified priest who did not know he was disqualified and 51 A similar teaching featuring R. Tarfon is found at Sifre Zuta to

Numbers 18:7. “They said concerning R. Tarfon that he would eat terumah at dawn and say, ‘I have brought the morning daily offering.’ And he would eat terumah at twilight, and say, ‘I have brought the daily evening offering.’“ 52 This is derived by the exegetical method of hekesh―since the eating of the priest’s portion and the priestly service in the Sanctuary are mentioned in the same passage, the midrash is able to conclude that certain laws which apply to one case apply to the other.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

341

performed an act of service [vsucg]. R. Joshua, against the anonymous baraita,53 maintains that the offerings which he offered in his ignorance are valid. b. Pesahim 72b-73a ― What is R. Joshua’s reason? As it is written: “O Lord, bless his disqualified one,54 and accept the work of his hands” (Deuteronomy 32:11). A. And where is terumah55 called divine service? B. As it is taught [thb,s]: There was the case ['c vagn] when R. Tarfon did not come to the academy one night, and the next morning Rabban Gamaliel found him. C. He said to him: Why did you not come to the academy last night? D. He said to him, “I was performing an act of divine service [h,scg vsucg].” E. He said to him, “All your words are only tall tales56 [vnh, hrcs]! Whence could you demonstrate that there is any act of divine service possible at the present time?” F. He said to him, “Behold, it says, ‘I give you the service of your priesthood as a gift, but the stranger who comes near shall be put to death’―the eating of terumah in the provinces is made equivalent to the service of the Temple.”

This is essentially the same story we have seen, with the same authorities, and the same lesson drawn. But the wording is quite 53 The anonymous baraita expresses the opinion ascribed to R. Eliezer

at m. Terumot 8:1. 54 … ukhj 'v lrc From Moses’ blessing of the tribe of Levi: “Bless, O LORD, his substance, and accept the work of his hands; crush the loins of his adversaries, of those that hate him, that they rise not again” (Deuteronomy 32:11, RSV). 55 The offering given to the priests for the benefit of their households. See below, Sifre to Numbers 18:13 (p. 342). 56 Or, “parodoxes.”

342

Midrash and Legend

different. There is no mention of hand-washing in view. There is no reason to assert a dependence of the Bavli on a written version of the account in Sifre Numbers. These appear to be two different performances of the same oral tradition. The anchor points of this unit of tradition are the names of Sages, the key term “avodah,” and the biblical proof-text. The rest of the anecdote is built in place and hung on that framework.57 Underlined phrases are phrases common to both texts: Sifre Num.

Bavli

A.

iupry 'r tv,ab rcfu /arsnv ,hck tckn

iupry hcrc vagn :thb,s /arsnv ,hck ant tc tka

B.

wkthknd icr uk rnt ?,uv,avk ,htr vn

/kthknd icr utmn ,hrjak ,tc tk vn hbpn wuk rnt ?arsnv ,hck ant

C.

/scug h,hhva wuk rnt

/h,scg vsucg wuk rnt

D.

!?vnh, lhrcs kf tkv wuk rnt ?uhafg vsucg ah hfu

lhrcs kf wuk rnt !vnh, hrcs tkt ibht ?ihbn wvzv inzc vsucg hfu

:rnut tuv hrv wuk rnt

:rnut tuv hrv wuk rnt

ohkucdc ohase ,khft ,uagk /asenc asen ,sucgf

ihkucdc vnur, ,khft uag /asenv ,hc ,sucgf

E. F.

/

Korah, piska 117 to Numbers 18:13 (p. 137 lns. 4-11 in Horowitz edition) [Sifre Numbers comments upon the following passage of Scripture:] [“Then the LORD said to Aaron, ‘And behold, I have given you whatever is kept of the offerings made to me, all the consecrated things of the people of Israel; I 57 Sifre Zuta (to Num. 18:7) has a similar lesson involving the behavior of R. Tarfon, but it is not included here because it is not an anecdote―it has no flow of narrative regarding a specific incident. “They said: Whoever gives terumah to the one who eats it, according to its commandment, it is credited to him as if he performed an act of divine service. They said concerning Rabbi Tarfon, that he would eat terumah in the morning, and say, ‘I have brought the daily morning offering [shn, [rja ka.’ And he would eat terumah at twilight, and say, ‘I have brought the daily evening offering [ohcrgv ihc ka shn,].’”

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

343

have given them to you as a portion, and to your sons as a perpetual due … This also is yours, the offering of their gift, all the wave offerings of the people of Israel; I have given them to you, and to your sons and daughters with you, as a perpetual due; every one who is clean in your house may eat of it. All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine and of the grain, the first fruits of what they give to the LORD, I give to you. The first ripe fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring to the LORD, shall be yours; every one who is clean in your house may eat of it’” (Numbers 18:8,1113, RSV).] [In previous context, Sifre examines the repetition of the phrase “Every one who is clean in your house may eat of it.” Since meaningless repetition is considered impossible, Sifre concludes that the phrase is repeated in order to include an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest. But the following narrative contradicts that position!] A. Once [rcfu] Yohanan ben Bag Bag sent a message to R. Judah in Netsivim. B. He [Judah] said to him [Yohanan], “I have heard about you, that you used to say concerning an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest, that she may eat terumah. C. He sent a message to him: And you, do you not say the same thing? I am confident concerning you, that you are expert in the inner principles of the Torah. Do you not know how to reason from a minor case to a major one? D. If [in the case of] a Canaanite slave girl, with whom intercourse does not effect marriage,58 so that she may eat terumah, the presentation of money does indeed effect marriage so that she may eat terumah;59 [in the 58 Literally, “acquire her.” 59 Marriage of an Israelite woman to an Israelite man can be

accomplished by intercourse (with the intention of effecting marriage), or by her acceptance of an object of value (with the declaration that it effects marriage), or by means of the marriage contract. This stage of marriage is called “betrothal” (erusin) or “marriage” (kiddushin), but the nuptuals are not complete until (in ancient times, sometime later), the groom brought the wife into the bridal chamber (huppah) in his own household. Sifre is

344

Midrash and Legend case of] an Israelite woman, with whom intercourse does effect marriage [lit., acquire her] so that she may eat terumah, is it not logical that the presentation of money should effect marriage [lit., acquire her] with her so that she may eat terumah? E. But what can I do? For they [the Sages] have said, “An Israelite woman betrothed [to a priest] never eats terumah until she enters the bridal chamber.”60 F. Even if she has not consummated their union, [after that] she may eat terumah, and if she died, her husband inherits from her.61

This is an Academy Discussion among Sages with an embedded Case Example. The case example serves to overturn the halakhic exegesis of Sifre Numbers! Though the exegesis is prima facie correct, the decision of the court takes precedence. The caseexample form here is not typical because the actual occurrence (if any) is omitted; only the decree of the court is reported. t. Ketubbot 5:1 [The Tosefta and Yerushalmi comment upon the following Mishnah:] [“The levir does not provide terumah to eat [to the widow anticipating levirate marriage with him]. Though she waited six months for the husband [who died before consummating the marriage] and six months for the levir, even if all of them were for the husband except one day for the levir, she does not eat terumah. This is the earlier ruling.62 And the court following them ruled, ‘The woman does not eat terumah until she enters the bridal chamber’“ (m. Ketubbot 5:3).] A. Reaching maturity is equivalent to a demand [on the part of the prospective husband that the betrothed concerned with the status of the bride between the stages of betrothal and her actually joining the groom’s household, thus entering full marriage. 60 See m. Ketubbot 5:3, below. 61 “If she died, her husband inherits from her” indicates a boundary issue indicating the legal difference between full marriage and betrothal. Compare m. Gittin 5:5; m. Eduyyot 7:9; t. Ketubbot 3:8, 4:3. 62 Literally, “the first Mishnah.”

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

345

prepare herself for the marriage]; they give her twelve months [to prepare].63 B. If she was a minor [when she was betrothed], either she or her father can dissent [and annul the betrothal]. C. R. Tarfon says, “They give her all her food from terumah.” D. Concerning what [case] is this said? From the time of her betrothal. E. But from the time of her [completed] marriage, R. Tarfon concedes that they give her half ordinary food and half terumah. F. Concerning what [case] is this said? In the case of a priest’s daughter betrothed to a priest. G. But [in the case of] an Israelite woman married to a priest, everyone agrees that they supply all of her provisions from ordinary food. H. R. Judah b. Baterah says, “Two measures of terumah, and one of ordinary food.” I. R. Judah says, “She sells the terumah [to priests] and purchases ordinary food with the purchase price.” J. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says, “In any place where they mention terumah, they give double the amount of ordinary food.” K. This is the earlier ruling. L. Our Sages said, “The [Israelite] woman does not eat terumah until she enters the marriage canopy,”64 and the levirate wife until she consummates the marriage. 63 Twelve months is the expected time between betrothal and the

time when the bride will enter her husband’s household. “They give a virgin twelve months, from the time that the husband claims her, to provide for herself. Just as they give to the woman, so they give to the man to provide for himself. And for a widow thirty days. If their time has come and they did not marry or their husbands died, they [brides] eat [i.e. are provided for] from what is his, and the [brides] eat terumah [if he is a priest]” (m. Ketubbot 5:2). 64 m. Ketubbot 5:3.

346

Midrash and Legend M. If she dies [after that point], her husband inherits from her. N. R. Menahem b. Nappah said in the name of R. Eliezer haKappar: It happened that ['c vagn] R. Tarfon betrothed [ase] three hundred women in order to be able to feed them terumah, for those were years of scarcity. O. Once [rcfu] Yohanan ben Bag Bag sent a message to R. Judah in Netsivim. P. He [Judah] said to him [Yohanan], “I have heard about you, that you say concerning an Israelite woman betrothed to a priest, that she may eat terumah. Q. He sent a message to him and said to him: I am confident concerning you, that you are expert in the inner principles of the Torah. And do you know how to reason from a minor case to a major one? R. If [in the case of] a Canaanite slave girl, with whom intercourse does not effect marriage, so that she may eat terumah, the presentation of money does indeed effect marriageto qualify her to eat terumah; [in the case of] an Israelite woman, with whom intercourse does effect marriage with her to qualify her to eat terumah, is it not logical that the presentation of money should effect marriage with her to qualify her to eat terumah? S. But what can I do? For the Sages have already said, “An Israelite woman betrothed [to a priest] does not eat terumah until she enters the bridal chamber.” T. And if she dies [after that point], her husband inherits from her.

The Tosefta presents us with further conflicting opinions among the Sages as to when, precisely, the bride of a priest becomes eligible to consume terumah as a member of his household. The last word is given to the opinion (here as in the Mishnah) that the bride does not become eligible until she actually enters the bridal chamber, physically entering the groom’s household. The case comes to support the opinion given in the Mishnah and reiterated by the Tosefta. In the wording of the anecdote proper, there are only minor differences from Sifre Numbers.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

347

y. Ketubbot 5:4 A. As it has been taught [hb,s]: Originally they used to say, “An Israelite woman who is betrothed [to a priest] eats terumah.” B. For thus they expounded, “If a priest acquires a person with money…” (Lev. 2:11).65 C. Is it not so, whether he acquires a wife or a slave girl?66 D. They retracted and said, “After twelve months, when he becomes obligated for her provisions…”67 E. But the final court said, “The woman may never eat terumah until she enters the marriage canopy.” F. Once [rcfu] Yohanan ben Bag Bag sent a message to R. Judah b. Baterah in Netsivim. G. He [Judah] said to him [Yohanan], “They have said in your name, that [you hold that] an Israelite woman betrothed [to a priest] may eat terumah. H. He sent a message to him, and said to him, “I am confident concerning you, that you are expert in the secrets of the Torah. Do you not even know how to derive from a minor case to a major one? I. If [in the case of] a Canaanite slave girl, with whom intercourse does not effect marriage so that she may eat terumah, the presentation of money does indeed effect 65 “An outsider shall not eat of a holy thing. A sojourner of the

priest’s or a hired servant shall not eat of a holy thing; but if a priest buys a slave as his property for money [upxf ihhbe apb vbeh hf ivfu], the slave [lit., he] may eat of it; and those that are born in his house may eat of his food” (Leviticus 22:10-11, RSV). 66 They are both “acquired with money” which would seem to fit the requirements of the prooftext. Neusner renders this, “For if you do not maintain that view, then what is the difference between him who acquires a woman and him who acquires a slave girl?” If the slave girl and the bride are in the same category (that they may eat terumah when they are ‘acquired with money’), then it would be the case that the betrothed bride could eat terumah―the position that the Yerushalmi (following the Mishnah) ultimately rejects. 67 See footnote 63.

348

Midrash and Legend marriage so that she may eat terumah; [in the case of] an [Israelite] woman, with whom the one who has intercourse with her does indeed effect marriage so that she may eat terumah, is it not logical that the presentation of money should effect marriage so that she may eat terumah? J. But what can I do? For behold, the Sages have said, “An Israelite woman betrothed [to a priest] does not eat terumah until she enters the bridal chamber.”68 K. And they relied upon a scriptural text, as it is said, “Every one who is clean in your house may eat of it” (Numbers 18:11). L. Rabbi Yudan said, “Behold, this is an argument from the minor to the major for which there is a rebuttal. He can say this to him, ‘No, if you have spoken of a Canaanite slave girl, who is acquired by force,69 can you say the same of this case [of an Israelite bride], who is not acquired by force? M. Concerning any argument from the minor to the major which has [such] a rebuttal, the [legal conclusion dependent upon] the argument from the minor to the major is void.

As is the case with the Tosefta, the Yerushalmi here is interested in the principles for resolving this dispute between the Sages. As the Yerushalmi shows, there are valid proofs for either position. For that reason, as Rabbi Yudan expresses, the argument cannot be resolved on the basis of exegesis, but only by appeal to the authority of the court as given in the case-example. We presume that the Yerushalmi follows the Tosefta here as elsewhere. b. Kiddushin 10b [The Talmud is investigating the question as to whether intercourse effects kiddushin (betrothal) only, or nissuin (full marriage). The distinction is that, in the case of nissuin the husband “inherits from her, must contract corpseuncleanness for her, and may annul her vows,” whereas these duties and privileges remain with her father if she is 68 See m. Ketubbot 5:3. 69 vezj―more precisely, by possession.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

349

not yet fully married. As is customary for the Talmud, a number of boundary cases are investigated.] A. Come and hear: Once [rcfu] Yohanan ben Bag Bag sent a message to R. Judah b. Baterah in Netsibis. B. He said to him, “I have heard about you, that you say that an Israelite woman betrothed [to a priest] may eat terumah. C. He sent a message to him: And you, do you not say so? I am confident concerning you, since you are expert in the inner principles of the Torah, that you know how to reason from a minor case to a major one [as follows]: D. Just as a Canaanite slave girl, with whom intercourse does not qualify her to eat terumah, her [purchase] money does qualify her to eat terumah; this one [the Israelite woman], with whom intercourse does qualify her to eat terumah, is it not logical that her [betrothal] money should qualify her to eat terumah? E. But what can I do? For the Sages have already said, “An Israelite woman betrothed [to a priest] does not eat terumah until she enters the bridal chamber.” F. In what case? If it refers to intercourse accompanied by the bridal chamber, or money accompanied by the marriage chamber, in both cases he qualifies her to eat. But if it refers to intercourse accompanied by the bridal chamber, but money not accompanied by the bridal chamber,70 here are two, and there is only one. G. But no, it refers to intercourse not accompanied by the bridal chamber, and to money not accompanied by the bridal chamber.71 H. If you should say that [intercourse] effects complete marriage [nissuin], in that case it is obvious that in his view intercourse is more effective than money.72 But if 70 i.e., to betrothal money. 71 Thus proving that intercourse effects betrothal (kiddushin) and not

full marriage (nissuin). 72 Hence the argument from the minor case (acquisition by money) to the major case (acquisition by intercourse).

350

Midrash and Legend you say that it effects [only] betrothal [kiddushin], why is he certain in the one case and doubtful in the other? I. Rav Nahman b. Isaac said, “Certainly [okugk] I tell you, [he refers to] intercourse accompanied by the bridal chamber and money not accompanied by the wedding chamber.”73 J. And as to your saying, here are two cases, and there is one case, the argument from minor to the major still holds good. [According to this view], thus he sent to him: [The Bavli now restates the case-example to agree with the interpretation at hand (which it ultimately rejects!).] K. Just as a Canaanite slave girl, with whom intercourse does not qualify her to eat terumah―even if accompanied by the bridal chamber, her [purchase] money does qualify her to eat terumah―without the bridal chamber; this one [the Israelite woman], with whom intercourse does qualify her to eat terumah―with the bridal chamber, is it not logical that her [betrothal] money should qualify her to eat terumah―without the bridal chamber! L. But what can I do? For the Sages have already said, “An Israelite woman betrothed [to a priest] does not eat terumah until she enters the bridal chamber”―in accord with the ruling of Ulla.74

73 The objection at “H” has thus been disposed of. 74 Or, “on account of abuse [tkugs ouan].” To prevent abuse

whereby the merely betrothed would have intercourse in order to permit the bride to eat terumah. Soncino translation (following Rashi) renders this, “on account of Ulla [a sage’s name].” See b. Ketubbot 5a: “Rav Huna said, ‘the bridal chamber effects marriage,’ based on an argument from minor to major. Just as [betrothal] money, which does not qualify [the bride] to eat terumah nevertheless effects marriage [i.e. betroths her]; the bridal chamber which does qualify her to eat terumah, is it not logical that it effects marriage? As for [betrothal] money, that it does not qualify her to eat [terumah], didn’t Ulla say, ‘The Torah speaks of a betrothed Israelite woman eating terumah, as it is said, “If a priest acquires a person with money …”‘ (Lev. 2:11). Thus it speaks of effecting marriage by means of money. For what reason, then, did they say, ‘She does not eat?’ It was a decree, lest they

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

351

M. And [what was the view of] ben Bag Bag? Concerning the Canaanite slave-girl, he has not left out anything concerning her acquisition; but here [in the case of the Israelite woman] he has left out part of her acquisition. N. Ravina said: According to the [written] Torah it would seem apparent to him that she may eat [terumah], and he only sent his message to him [R. Judah b. Baterah] to inquire concerning rabbinic law: O. And [according to this view] this is the message that he sent to him: P. I have heard about you, that you say that an Israelite woman betrothed [to a priest] eats terumah―and you do not allow for annulment [due to discovery of bodily defect].75 Q. He sent a message to him: And you, do you not say so? I am confident concerning you, that you are expert in the inner principles of the Torah. Don’t you know how to reason from a minor case to a major one? R. If a Canaanite slave girl, with whom intercourse does not qualify her to eat terumah, her [purchase] money does qualify her to eat terumah―and we do not allow for annulment [due to defect]; this one [the Israelite woman], with whom intercourse does qualify her to eat terumah, is it not logical that her [betrothal] money should qualify her to eat terumah―and we should not allow for annulment! S. But what can I do? For the Sages have already said, “An Israelite woman betrothed [to a priest] does not eat terumah until she enters the bridal chamber”―in accord with the ruling of Ulla.76 T. And [what of the view of] ben Bag Bag? He does not allow for annulment in the case of slaves. If they have apparent physical defects, would he not observe them? If [he would think to annul] on account of hidden defects, what difference would it make to him? It is for mix a cup for her [while she is yet] in her father’s household, and she give it to her brother and her sister …” 75 See Jastrow, iupnhx. 76 See above, footnote 74.

352

Midrash and Legend labor that he requires him, so it is not of concern to him. If he is found to be a thief or a swindler―he has [nevertheless] obtained him. What can you say? Armed robbers or those subject to warrants from the government―behold, it would be easy for him [to discover]. U. Since, whether according to the [first] master or to the [second] master she [the betrothed bride] may not eat [terumah], what is the [practical] difference between them? V. This is the difference between them: [Whether the husband] accepted [any defects in the bride],77 [whether the father] delivered [her to the husband or his agents],78 and [whether] he [the father or his agent] went [with her to the husband’s home].79

The anecdote as presented in the Bavli is closer in wording to Sifre Numbers than to the Tosefta. First the anecdote is presented essentially unaltered. Then the Talmud, by way of commentary, alters the anecdote to reflect the legal theories it ascribes to the Sages. The following table presents the versions of the anecdote proper. All the versions are quite similar, but the reader will observe that while both the Yerushalmi and Bavli are generally closer to the Tosefta than to Sifre, the Bavli seems to know details 77 Thus eliminating ben Bag Bag’s concern about annulment―since he has removed the possible grounds for annulment. 78 Thus transferring her from her father’s household (and authority) to the husband’s. 79 Thus reserving her under father’s authority until the father or agent actually transfer her to the husband or his agent. “The bride remains under the authority of her father until she enters the bridal chamber. If the father delivered her to the agents of the husband, behold, she is under the authority of the husband. If the agents of the father went with the agents of the husband, behold, she remains under the authority of the father. If the agents of the father delivered her to the agents of the husband, behold, she is under the authority of the husband” (m. Ketubbot 4:5). These distinctions are explored further at b. Ketubbot 48b, where it is asserted that the “delivery” of the bride places her under the husband’s authority in terms of inheritance, but she still is not eligible to eat terumah until she actually enters the bridal chamber.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

353

represented only in Sifre Numbers. See “C” and “D” in the table below. Sifre Num.

Tosefta

Yerushalmi

Bavli

A.

jka rcfu dc dc ic ibjuh vsuvh 'r kmt /ohchmbc

jka rcfu dc dc ic ibjuh vsuvh 'r kmt vrh,c ic /ohchmbk

jka rcfu dc dc ic ibjuh vsuvh 'r kmt vrh,c ic :ihchmbk

jka rcfu dc dc ic ibjuh vsuvh hcr kmt vrh,c ic :ohchmbk

B.

wuk rnt lhkg h,gna rnut v,hhva ktrah ,c kg ivfk ,xrutnv ,kfut thva /vnur,c

wuk rnt lhkg h,gna rnut v,ta ktrah ,c ivfk ,xrutnv /vnur,c ,kfut

― wlnan urnt ,c vxurta ,kfut ktrah /vnur,c

― lhkg h,gna rnut v,ta ,c vxurt ,kfut ktrah /vnur,c

C.

wuk jka v,t iht wv,tu ?lf rnut

wuk rntu uk jka–

ukmt jka wuk rntu–

wuk jka v,t iht wv,tu ?lf rnut

D.

lc hbezjun hec v,ta /vru, hrsjc u"ec iushku ?gsuh v,t ht

lc h,hhv ezjun hec v,ta /vru, hrsjc rnuju ke iusk ?gsuh v,t ht

lc h,hhv ezjun hec v,ta /vru, hr,hxc aursk ukhpt rnuju kec ?gsuh v,t iht

lc hbezjun hec v,ta /vru, hrsjc kec aursk ht rnuju ?gsuh v,t

E.

vjpa vnu ihta ,hbgbf vbue v,thc kuftk v,ut ;xf wvnur,c v,ut vbue– vnur,c kuftk

vjpa vnu ihta ,hbgbf vbue v,thc kuftk v,ut ;xf wvnur,c v,ut vbue vkhftvk– vnur,c

vjpa ot vn ihta ,hbgbf vbue v,thcv vkhftvk v,ut ;xfv wvnur,c v,ut vbue vkhftvk– vnur,c

vjpa vnu ihta ,hbgbf v,khftn v,thc wvnur,c v,khftn vpxf– vnur,c

F.

ktrah ,c vbue v,thca kuftk v,ut ihs ubht vnur,c vbue ;xf tvha kuftk v,ut !vnur,c

ktrah ,c vbue vthcva vkhftvk v,ut ihs ubht vnur,c vbue ;xf tvha vkhftvk v,ut !vnur,c

vat vbue vthcva vkhftvk v,ut ihs ubht vnur, vbue ;xf tvha vkhftvk v,ut !vnur,c

uz v,thca v,khftn wvnur,c vpxfa ihs ubht v,khftn !vnur,c

G.

?vagt vn kct urnt hrva wohnfj

?vagt vn kct urnt hrva wohnfj

?vagt vnu wurnt ivu

?vagt vn kct urnt hrva wohnfj

H.

vxurt iht ktrah ,c vnur,c ,kfut xbfh,a sg /vpujk

vxurt iht ktrah ,c vnur,c ,kfut xbf,a sg /vpujk

vatv iht okugk vnur,c ,kfut xbfh,a sg /vpujk

vxurt iht ktrah ,c vnur,c ,kfut xbf,a sg /vpujk

354

Midrash and Legend Sifre Num.

Tosefta

Yerushalmi

Bavli

I.

vpujk vxbfb tka hp kg ;t ,kfut vkgcb /vnur,c

―

―

―

J.

vkgc v,n otu /varuh

vkgc v,n ot /varuh

―

―

Korah, piska 118 to Numbers 18:18 (p. 141 lns. 2-18 in Horowitz edition) [Sifre Numbers comments upon the following passage of Scripture:] [“Everything that opens the womb of all flesh, whether man or beast, which they offer to the LORD, shall be yours; nevertheless the first-born of man you shall redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts you shall redeem… But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy. You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shall burn their fat as an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the LORD; but their flesh shall be yours, as the breast that is waved and as the right thigh are yours. All the holy offerings which the people of Israel present to the LORD I give to you, and to your sons and daughters with you, as a perpetual due; it is a covenant of salt for ever before the LORD for you and for your offspring with you” (Numbers 18:15,17-19, RSV).] A. “But their flesh shall be yours, as the breast that is waved and as the right thigh; yours it shall be” (Numbers 18:18).80 B. Scripture drawsn an analogy between [ahevu] the firstling and the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. Just as the breast and thigh of peace-offerings are eaten over two days and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over two days and one night.81 80 Paragraph divisions here follow Neusner. 81 Scripture connects them (hekesh) indicating that they bear a similar

trait or traits, but does not make explicit what the similar trait is. Cp. Sifre Deuteronomy, piska 125 to Deuteronomy 15:20. “‘You shall eat it, [you

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

355

C. And this very question was asked of the Sages in the vineyard at Yavneh: For how long may the firstling be eaten? D. R. Tarfon expounded: For two days and one night. E. His disciples said to him: Our master, teach us! F. He said to them: A firstling is [of the category] Lesser Holy Things, and peace-offerings are Lesser Holy Things.82 Just as peace-offerings are eaten over two days and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over two days and one night. G. R. Yose the Galilean was there, when he first came to serve the Sages. He said to him: My master, a sin offering is a gift to the priest, and a firstling is a gift to the priest. Just as a sin offering is eaten over one day and one night, so a firstling should be eaten over one day and one night. H. He said to him: My son, I learn about one case [rcs] from an analogous case, and I deduce one case from an analogous case. I learn about a case which concerns Lesser Holy things from a case which [also] concerns Lesser Holy Things; but I do not learn about a case concerning Lesser Holy Things from a case concerning Most Holy Things. I. He said to him: My master, I do learn about one case from an analogous case, and I do deduce one case from an analogous case. I learn about a case which concerns that which is given to the priest from a case which [also] concerns that which is given to the priest; but I do not learn about a case concerning that which is given to the priest from a case concerning that which may be given to any person. and your household,] before the Lord your God year by year [vba vbac] [at the place which the LORD will choose].’ This teaches that the firstling is eaten over two days. One day of this year, and one day of the year to come.” See also b. Bekhorot 27b; b. Terumot 21b. 82 The delineation of which sacrifices were to be considered “most holy things” and which “lesser holy things” is found in the Mishnah, Zevahim chapter 5. The term “most holy things” is a biblical term; the term “lesser holy things” is a rabbinic term for the other “holy things” not designated “most holy things.”

356

Midrash and Legend J. R. Tarfon withdrew, and R. Akiva jumped in.83 He said to him: My son, this is how I expound it. “But their flesh shall be yours, as the breast that is waved and the right thigh…” Scripture drawns an analogy between [ahev] the firstling and the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. Just as the breast and thigh of peaceofferings are eaten over two days and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over two days and one night. K. He said to him: My master, you connect it to the “breast” and “thigh” of peace-offerings,84 but I connect it to the “breast” and “thigh” of the thanksgiving offering.85 Just as the breast and thigh of the thanksgiving offering are eaten over one day and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over one day and one night. L. He said to him: My son, thus do I expound it: “But their flesh shall be yours, as the breast that is waved and the right thigh…” Scripture only adds, “yours it shall be” to indicate through the [extra] “to be” that it should be eaten for two days and one night.86

The dynamic between R. Tarfon and R. Akiva here is very much like what we saw at piska 74 to Numbers 10:8 (above, p. 320). Once again R. Akiva speaks for the anonymous Sifre with its exegesis of the base text. R. Tarfon’s categorical reasoning is set aside by R. Akiva’s hekesh exegesis. This is an academy discussion among Sages, although the presence of R. Yose as a disciple mixes 83 This trope is used at Sifre Zuta to Numbers 19:16 (Horowitz p. 312), in a dispute between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua (who “departs”) and R. Akiva (who “jumps in”). There is no narrative setting for the dispute in Sifre Zuta, and in my opinion the “departing” and “jumping in” there indicate the status of a line of argumentation, not narrative descriptions. 84 Lev. 7:34. 85 Lev. 7:15; 22:29-30. 86 Here I am relying on Neusner’s rendering, “Scripture uses the language ‘shall be yours,’ only to serve as a medium for extending the matter through reference to the verb ‘to be’ [which is not needed for meaning], so to indicate that the meat is eaten over a period of two days and one night.”

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

357

the form with the forms of the Academy Discussion between master and disciples, and of the Initiation of a Sage into Torah Study. However, R. Yose serves mainly as a foil for R. Tarfon and R. Akiva who are the key players, so that the Academy Discussion among Sages dominates. b. Zevahim 57a A. “The firstling is eaten by priests” (m. Zevahim 5:8). B. Our rabbis taught [ibcr ub,]: Whence do we learn concerning a firstling, that it is eaten over two days and one night? C. As it is said, “But their flesh shall be yours, as the breast that is waved and as the right thigh” (Numbers 18:18). D. Scripture draws an analogy between [ahevu] the firstling and the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. Just as peace-offerings are eaten over two days and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over two days and one night. E. And this question was asked before the Sages in the vineyard at Yavneh: For how long may the firstling be eaten? F. R. Tarfon responded and said: For two days and one night. G. There was a certain student there, who had come to the academy before the Sages for the first time, and R. Yose the Galilean was his name. He said to him: My master, whence do you derive your opinion? H. He said to him: My son, peace offerings are [in the category of] Lesser Holy Things, and a firstling is [of the category] Lesser Holy Things. Just as peaceofferings are eaten over two days and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over two days and one night. I. He said to him: My master, a firstling is a gift to the priest, and a sin offering or a guilt offering is a gift to the priest. Just as a sin offering or a guilt offering is [permitted to eat] for one day and one night, so a firstling should be [permitted to eat] for one day and one night.

358

Midrash and Legend J. He said to him: My son, we deduce one case [rcs] from an analogous case, and we learn about one case from an analogous case. Just as peace offerings are not brought on account of sin, so a firstling is not brought on account of sin. Just as peace-offerings are eaten over two days and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over two days and one night. K. He said to him: My master, we do indeed deduce one case from an analogous case, and one should indeed learn about one case from an analogous case. A sin offering or a guilt offering is a gift to the priest, and a firstling is a gift to the priest. Just as a sin offering or a guilt offering is [permitted to eat] for one day and one night, so a firstling should be [permitted to eat] for one day and one night! L. R. Akiva jumped in and R. Tarfon withdrew. He said to him: Behold, it says, “But their flesh shall be yours…” Scripture comes and connects [their flesh] to the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. Just as peaceofferings are eaten over two days and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over two days and one night. M. He said to him: You have connected it to the “breast” and “thigh” of peace-offerings, but I connect it to the “breast” and “thigh” of the thanksgiving offering. Just as the thanksgiving offering is eaten over one day and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over one day and one night! N. He said to him: Behold, it says, “But their flesh shall be yours, as the breast that is waved and the right thigh…” Now Scripture need not [also] say, “yours it shall be.” Why then does Scripture say “yours it shall be” [an apparent redundancy]? Scripture has added the second “to be” [to teach something we would not otherwise know] about a firstling.

The Bavli is quite close to Sifre Numbers at “C”-”F” and “L””N”. The argument of R. Tarfon and R. Yose the Galilean is quite different. In my opinion the instability of R. Tarfon’s argument is due to the fact that it is a straw argument in both cases. His function is to argue based on categories apart from exegesis, and to fail in doing so. R. Tarfon’s own students are no longer present in this version. It is the argument of R. Akiva which succeeds and

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

359

which therefore is of primary interest. The Bavli uses a formula for citing a baraita. It does not seem that Sifre as we have it is the direct source for the Bavli’s baraita although it is closely related. In the following table common or very close phrasing is indicated by boldface type. Sifre

Bavli

―

“But their flesh shall be yours, as the breast that is waved and as the right thigh; yours it shall be.” Scripture comes and connects the firstling to the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. Just as the breast and thigh of peace-offerings are eaten over two days and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over two days and one night.

Our rabbis taught: Whence do we learn concerning a firstling, that it is eaten over two days and one night? As it is said, “But their flesh shall be yours, as the breast that is waved and as the right thigh” Scripture comes and connects the firstling to the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. Just as peaceofferings are eaten over two days and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over two days and one night.

A.

And this question was asked of the Sages in the vineyard at Yavneh: For how long may the firstling be eaten?

And this question was asked before the Sages in the vineyard at Yavneh: For how long may the firstling be eaten?

B.

R. Tarfon expounded: For two days and one night.

R. Tarfon responded and said: For two days and one night.

C.

[see below, “E”]

There was a certain student there, who had come to the academy before the Sages for the first time, and R. Yose the Galilean was his name.

D.

His disciples said to him: Our master, teach us!

He said to him: My master, whence do you derive your opinion?

He said to them: A firstling is [of the category] Lesser Holy Things, and peace-offerings are Lesser Holy Things. Just as peaceofferings are eaten over two days and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over two days and one night.

He said to him: My son, peace offerings are [in the category of] Lesser Holy Things, and a firstling is [of the category] Lesser Holy Things. Just as peaceofferings are eaten over two days and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over two days and one night.

360

Midrash and Legend Sifre

E.

R. Yose the Galilean was there, when he first came to serve the Sages. He said to him: My master, a sin offering is a gift to the priest, and a firstling is a gift to the priest. Just as a sin offering is eaten over one day and one night, so a firstling should be eaten over one day and one night.

Bavli [see above, “C”] He said to him: My master, a firstling is a gift to the priest, and a sin offering or a guilt offering is a gift to the priest. Just as a sin offering or a guilt offering is [permitted to eat] for one day and one night, so a firstling should be [permitted to eat] for one day and one night.

F.

He said to him: My son, I learn about one case from an analogous case, and I deduce one case from an analogous case. I learn from a case which concerns Lesser Holy things from a case which [also] concerns Lesser Holy Things; but I do not learn about a case concerning Lesser Holy Things from a case concerning Most Holy Things.

He said to him: My son, we deduce one case from an analogous case, and we learn about one case from an analogous case. Just as peace offerings are not brought on account of sin, so a firstling is not brought on account of sin. Just as peace-offerings are eaten over two days and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over two days and one night.

F.

He said to him: My master, I do learn about one case from an analogous case, and I do deduce one case from an analogous case. I learn from a case which concerns that which is given to the priest from a case which [also] concerns that which is given to the priest; but I do not learn about a case concerning that which is given to the priest from a case concerning that which is given to any person.

He said to him: My master, we do indeed deduce one case from an analogous case, and one should indeed learn about one case from an analogous case. A sin offering or a guilt offering is a gift to the priest, and a firstling is a gift to the priest. Just as a sin offering or a guilt offering is [permitted to eat] for one day and one night, so a firstling should be [permitted to eat] for one day and one night!

G.

R. Tarfon withdrew, and R. Akiva jumped in. He said to him: My son, this is how I expound it. “But their flesh shall be yours, as the breast that is waved and the right thigh …” Scripture comes and connects the firstling to the breast and thigh of peaceofferings. Just as the breast and thigh of peace-offerings are eaten over two days and one night, so

R. Akiva jumped in and R. Tarfon withdrew. He said to him: Behold, it says, “But their flesh shall be yours…” Scripture comes and connects [their flesh] to the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. Just as peace-offerings are eaten over two days and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over two days and one night.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers Sifre

361

Bavli

the firstling should be eaten over two days and one night. H.

He said to him: My master, you connect it to the “breast” and “thigh” of peace-offerings , but I connect it to the “breast” and “thigh” of the thanksgiving offering. Just as the breast and thigh of the thanksgiving offering are eaten over one day and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over one day and one night.

He said to him: You have connected it to the “breast” and “thigh” of peace-offerings, but I connect it to the “breast” and “thigh” of the thanksgiving offering. Just as the thanksgiving offering is eaten over one day and one night, so the firstling should be eaten over one day and one night!

I.

He said to him: My son, thus do I expound it: “But their flesh shall be yours, as the breast that is waved and the right thigh …” Scripture says, “yours it shall be” to indicate through the [extra] “to be” that it should be eaten for two days and one night.

He said to him: Behold, it says, “But their flesh shall be yours, as the breast that is waved and the right thigh …” Now Scripture need not [also] say, “yours it shall be.” Why then does Scripture say “yours it shall be” [an apparent redundancy]? Scripture has added the second “to be” [to teach something we would not otherwise know] about a firstling.

Hukat, piska 123 to Numbers 19:2 (p. 151 lns. 10-13 in Horowitz edition) [Sifre Numbers comments upon the following passage of Scripture:] [“Now the LORD said to Moses and to Aaron, “This is the statute of the law which the LORD has commanded: Tell the people of Israel to bring you a red heifer without defect, in which there is no blemish, and upon which a yoke has never come. And you shall give her to Eleazar the priest, and she shall be taken outside the camp and slaughtered before him; and Eleazar the priest shall take some of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle some of her blood toward the front of the tent of meeting seven times. And the heifer shall be burned in his sight; her skin, her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall be burned; and the priest shall take cedarwood and hyssop and scarlet stuff, and cast them into the midst

362

Midrash and Legend of the burning of the heifer. Then the priest shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterwards he shall come into the camp; and the priest shall be unclean until evening. He who burns the heifer shall wash his clothes in water and bathe his body in water, and shall be unclean until evening. And a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the people of Israel for the water for impurity, for the removal of sin. And he who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until evening. And this shall be to the people of Israel, and to the stranger who sojourns among them, a perpetual statute” (Numbers 19:1-10, RSV).] A. “This is the statute of the law…” (Numbers 19:2).87 B. R. Eliezer says: A “statute” is mentioned here, and a “statute” is mentioned elsewhere. Just as when a “statute” is mentioned elsewhere Scripture speaks about [a ritual performed wearing] the white garments, even so when “statute” is mentioned here Scriptures speaks about [a ritual performed wearing] the white garments.88 C. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai‘s disciples asked him: In what garments is the [red] heifer prepared [by the priest]? D. He said to them: In the golden garments. E. They said to him: Have you not taught us, our master, [that it is] in the white garments?

87 The division of paragraphs here follows Neusner. 88 There, reference is to the ritual of the Day of Atonement

(Horowitz). “And the priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement, wearing the holy linen garments; he shall make atonement for the sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. And this shall be an everlasting statute for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins …” (Leviticus 16:32-34, RSV).

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

363

F. He said to them: If I have forgotten what my own eyes have seen and what my own hands performed, all the more so [u"e] [would I forget] what I have taught! G. And why [did he do] this? H. In order to strengthen the disciples. I. And there are those who say that it was Hillel, but he would not have been able to say, “what my own hands performed.”

The form of the anecdote is an Academy Discussion between master and students, and it comes to support Sifre Numbers’ gezerah shavah interpretation of the base text. The same anecdote comes, without the biblical commentary, in the Tosefta. t. Parah 4:7 (4:4) A. It [the preparation of the heifer] requires the four white garments of an ordinary priest. B. If he prepared it either in the golden garments, or in non-priestly garments, he disqualifies it. C. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s disciples asked him: In what [garments] is the heifer prepared [by the priest]? D. He said to them: In the golden garments. E. They said to him: You have taught us [that it is] in the white garments. F. He said to them: You have spoken well. If I have forgotten the deed that my own hands performed and what my own eyes have seen, how much more so [kg vnfu vnf ,jt] [would I forget] what my ears have heard! G. And it was not that he [really] did not know, but he sought to stimulate the disciples. H. And there are those who say that they asked [this] of Hillel, not that he [really] did not know, but he sought to stimulate the disciples. I. As R. Joshua used to say: Whoever repeats [teachings] but does not work at them is like a man who sows but does not reap.

364

Midrash and Legend J. Whoever studies Torah and forgets it resembles a woman who gives birth and then buries [the offspring]. K. R. Akiva says, “Chant it, chant it steadily.”

The Tosefta gives more attention to what the anecdote teaches about Torah learning, whereas Sifre Numbers gives a short version, keeping the focus on the laws concerning the red heifer. I consider these to be two independent performances of a common tradition. The following table compares the versions of the anecdote proper (common phrases indicated by underlined text). Sifre Num.

Tosefta

A.

whtfz ic ibjuh icr ,t uhsunk, ukta ?,hagb vrp ohkf ukhtc

whtfz ic ibjuh icr ,t uhsunk, ukta ?,hagb vnc wvrp

B.

/cvz hsdcc wovk rnt

/cvz hsdcc wovk rnt

C.

wubhcr ub,snk tkvu wuk urnt ?ick hsdcc

/ick hsdcc ub,snk wuk urnt

D.

hbhg utra vn ot wovk rnt wh,jfa hsh u,raa vnu /h,snka vnk u"e

/o,rnt vph wovk rnt wh,jfa hbhg utru hsh uaga vagnu !vnfu vnf ,jt kg–hbzt ugnaafu

E.

?vnk lf kfu /ohshnk,v ,t ezjk hsf

wgsuh vhv tka tku /ohshnk,v ,t zrzk aecn vhva tkt

F.

tkt wvhv iezv kkv ohrnut ahu /hsh u,raa vn rnuk kufh vhv tka

wukta iezv kkv ohrnut ahu wgsuh vhv tka tk ukta /ohshnk,v ,t zrzk aecn vhva tkt

Our anecdotes above indicate that there is another tradition giving a similar anecdote with Hillel as the central figure. We find such an anecdote in Sifre Zuta, commenting upon the same base text. Sifre Zuta, Hukat to Numbers 19:3 (Horowitz, p. 302) A. They said: Once [,jt ogp] they asked Hillel: In what is [the High Priest89] dressed when the heifer is burnt? B. He answered them: In his special high-priestly garments. C. They said to him: It is only burnt [by him] in [the] plain white garments [worn by ordinary priests].

89 m. Parah 3:8.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

365

D. He said to them: I saw [h,htr hbt] Joshua b. Perahiah who burned it while wearing the special high-priestly garments. E. They said to him: We saw that he burned it while wearing plain white. F. He [Hillel] said to him:90 You say it in his name,91 and I say it in his name! Who is able to resolve the argument?92 G. He93 said to him: Go to the Torah. Who burned the first [red] heifer? H. He said to him:94 Eleazar. I. He95 said to him: Could he have worn the special highpriestly garments [even] in the days of his father? J. He [Hillel] said to them: Do not shame [me for] forgetting. If I have forgotten what my own eyes have seen, would I not all the more forget what my ears have heard! But what does Scripture say? “The priest,” to indicate that he serves as priest in the [regular priestly] garments.96

There are many differences between this anecdote, similar as it is, and the anecdote above, represented in Sifre Numbers and Tosefta. The exegesis based on the biblical phrase “Eleazar the priest” is new, although it would make equal sense in context in Sifre Numbers. The claim that the master (Hillel) witnessed the ritual is new, for Yohanan b. Zakkai had claimed to perform it. The High Priest’s garments are called his magisterial garments rather than his golden garments. In Sifre Zuta we have a conflict of eyewitnesses, rather than a conflict in the recollection of the master. Most 90 We do not know who “him” is! 91 On authority of Joshua b. Perahiah, whose behavior is an

exemplary action by a sage. 92 More literally, “who can argue?” 93 Or, “they” [k"t]. 94 Or, “them” [k"t]. 95 Or, “they.” 96 This passage is treated by Neusner, Purities, 9:253-55.

366

Midrash and Legend

importantly, Sifre Zuta’s version is unwilling to offhandedly dismiss the teacher’s apparent forgetfulness. The conflict of traditions creates a crisis that can only be resolved by the appeal to scriptural authority. The previous versions offer no such resolution. It appears to me that Sifre Zuta solves various problems perceived in the other versions (and even stated as problems in the other versions), so that it seems likely that Sifre Zuta knows the other traditions. Hukat, piska 123 to Numbers 19:2 (p. 152 lns 22-23 in Horowitz edition) [Previous context concerns the impossibility of reasoning a fortiori regarding the red heifer because it is sui generis among the sacrifices. The defects which invalidate it do not invalidate other offerings, so it is not valid to reason (apart from an explicit scriptural statement) that defects which invalidate other offerings invalidate the heifer.] A. And R. Judah ben Baterah says: Just as [in the case of] a sin offering of poultry, where those who bring it must be ritually pure, a blemish does not invalidate it [if the blemish appears when it is being offered];97 so [in the case of] the heifer, where those who bring it are [explicitly declared to be] unclean,98 is it not logical that a blemish should not invalidate it? B. [But] Scripture says, “in which there is no blemish” (Numbers 19:2).99 Thus it may not have a blemish, 97 Compare m. Zevahim 9:1-3, “The altar sanctifies whatever pertains

to it … Rabban Gamaliel says, ‘Whatever pertains to the altar and goes up to it may not come down again … R. Simeon used to say: If an offering became invalid in the Sanctuary, the Sanctuary accepts it; if its invalidation did not take place in the Sanctuary [but rather, previously], the Sanctuary does not accept it. R. Akiva declares those with a blemish to be fit [if the blemish first appeared in the Sanctuary]. But R. Hanina the chief of the priests says, ‘My father used to reject blemished sacrifices [even] from the top of the altar.’“ 98 Numbers 19:7,8,10. 99 Compare also m. Parah 2:3, “All defects that invalidate [sacrificial animals, also] invalidate the heifer. If one rode on it, supported himself on it, hung on its tail, crossed a river [leaning] on it, put a double harness on

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

367

even if [the defect were such that] it would be valid for the Temple service. C. R. Josiah said: I said in the presence of R. Judah b. Baterah, “What would be such a blemish [that would not invalidate it for the Temple service]? And he showed me between his two fingers, something coming out like two tails.100

I am far from certain that I have understood the legal issues in this passage. Nevertheless the narrative itself is simple. R. Josiah asked R. Judah b. Baterah a question of law and he answered with a demonstration. R. Judah b. Baterah does not offer any proof for his opinion here, so this is an extremely abbreviated form of the academy discussion among Sages, and it comes primarily as an illustration of what kind of defect in the hair of the red heifer can invalidate it. If the entire narrative were omitted except for the phrase “like two tails” the same freight would be borne as far as the argument of Sifre Numbers is concerned. There are no other versions of this story in our corpus. Hukat, piska 124 to Numbers 19:9 (p. 158 ln. 13 - p. 159 ln. 4 in Horowitz edition) A. “And it shall be for the congregation of the people of Israel…” (Numbers 19:9). B. On this basis they said: A heifer which drank the sinoffering water—its flesh becomes impure for twentyfour hours.

it, or put his cloak upon it, it becomes invalid. But if one [merely] tied it with a leading rope, or made a sandal for it so that it not slip, or spread one’s cloak on it because of flies, it [remains] valid. This is the general rule: If anything was done for its sake, it remains valid; but if for the sake of another, it becomes invalid.” 100 Signifying the two discolored hairs, which can disqualify the red heifer if they are growing from the same follicle. See m. Parah 2:5. There, Judah ben Baterah holds that two discolored hairs even if they are not adjacent invalidate it. In the Toseftan version (t. Parah 2:7) it is reported that R. Judah held that two discolored hairs in two different follicles but adjacent invalidate it.

368

Midrash and Legend C. R. Judah says: They [sin-offering waters] are nullified in its belly, as it is said, “And it [lit., she] shall be for the congregation of the people of Israel…”101 D. Inquiry was once made concerning this law [rcfu vktab uz vfkv] before thirty-eight elders at the vineyard at Yavneh, and they declared its flesh to be ritually pure. E. “And it shall be for the congregation of the people of Israel…” (Numbers 19:9). F. This is one of the matters which Rabbi Yose the Galilean argued before Rabbi Akiva, and R. Akiva defeated him, but afterwards, he discovered a rebuttal. G. He said to him: Will you permit me to reply? H. He said to him: [I would] not [permit it] to any man but you, for you are Yose the Galilean! I. He said to him: Behold, it says, “And it shall be for the congregation of the people of Israel to be kept for the water for impurity, for the removal of sin.” J. When they are [properly] kept, they are waters of impurity.102 K. R. Tarfon said: “I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward; no beast could stand before him, and there was no one who could rescue from his power; he did as he pleased and magnified himself” (Daniel 8:4) ― this is Akiva. L. “As I was considering, behold, a he-goat came from the west across the face of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes. He came to the ram with the two horns, which I had seen standing on the bank of the river, and he ran at him in his mighty wrath. I saw him come close to the ram, and he was enraged against him and struck the ram and broke his two horns; and the

101 “A heifer which drank the waters of purification ― its flesh

becomes impure for twenty-four hours. R. Judah says: They [the waters of purification] are nullified in its belly” (m. Parah 9:5). 102 Here meaning, which impart impurity.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

369

ram had no power to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled upon him; and there was no one who could rescue the ram from his power” (Daniel 8:5-7)―this is Yose the Galilean.

We have two connected anecdotes. Despite the typical anecdote marker rcfu and the setting vbchc orfc, I consider “D” to be merely a complex citation-formula and not a true anecdote since there is no flow of narrative. The court decision becomes an actual case-example in the Tosefta, below. The narrative here is the argument between Akiva and Yose. R. Yose agrees with the halakhic view attributed to the elders at Yavneh, but apparently his first attempt to justify the view did not stand up to Akiva’s scrutiny. We do not have any mention here of the original arguments employed by either party, only of R. Yose’s ultimately successful rebuttal. t. Mikwa’ot 7:11 (8:6) A. A heifer which drank [the waters of purification] less than twenty four hours previously, and one slaughtered it within twenty four hours [from when it drank] ― B. This was a case, and R. Yose the Galilean wanted to declare it clean, and R. Akiva wanted to declare it unclean. C. R. Tarfon supported R. Yose the Galilean. R. Simeon ben Nanos supported R. Akiva. D. R. Simeon ben Nanos defeated R. Tarfon. R. Yose the Galilean defeated R. Simeon ben Nanos. E. R. Akiva defeated R. Yose the Galilean. F. Some time later, he discovered a rebuttal. G. He said to him: Will you permit me to reply? H. He said to him: [I would] not [permit it] to any man, but you are Yose the Galilean! I. He said to him: Behold, it says, “And it shall be for the congregation of the people of Israel to be kept for the water for impurity, for the removal of sin.” J. When they are [properly] kept, they are waters of impurity—and not when a heifer has drunk them.

370

Midrash and Legend K. This was a case upon which thirty-two elders voted in Lod and declared it clean. L. At that time R. Tarfon recited this Scripture passage: “I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward; no beast could stand before him, and there was no one who could rescue from his power; he did as he pleased and magnified himself” (Daniel 8:4)― this is R. Akiva. M. He [continued and] said: “As I was considering, behold, a he-goat came from the west across the face of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes” (Daniel 8:5)―this is R. Yose the Galilean and his rebuttal. N. He came to the ram with the two horns, which I had seen standing on the bank of the river, and he ran at him in his mighty wrath. I saw him come close to the ram, and he was enraged against him and struck the ram and broke his two horns” (Daniel 8:6)―this is Akiva and Simeon ben Nanos. O. “And the ram had no power to stand before him” (Daniel 8:7a)―this is Akiva. P. “But he cast him down to the ground and trampled upon him” (Daniel 8:7b)―this is Yose the Galilean. Q. “And there was no one who could rescue the ram from his power” (Daniel 8:7c)―these are the thirtytwo elders who voted in Lod and declared it clean.

The Tosefta adds characters to the academy discussion, but the new characters do not perform any actions that impact on the structure significantly. Tosefta connects the two parts by implying that R. Yose was the force behind the decision of the thirty two elders. The Tosefta and Sifre Numbers seem to represent two performances of an oral tradition. The language is most “stable” (i.e., likely to be identical) at the key transition points of structure, and at the quotations. The framework is filled out in independent ways.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

371

Sifre Zuta to Numbers 19:10 (Horowitz p. 305 lns 1-5) A. “And they shall be for the congregation of the people of Israel to be kept.” B. They said: Once they inquired, saying, “Behold, a heifer who drank the water for impurity and was slaughtered immediately afterwards―what is its status?” C. And they sought to declare its flesh unclean. D. R. Eliezer ben Jacob said to them: Thus it is said: “And they shall be for the congregation of the people of Israel to be kept for water for impurity.” E. When they are [properly] kept, they are waters of impurity. When they are not kept properly, they are not waters of impurity.”

This passage combines the two legal issues presented in the Sifre Numbers. It ascribes the exegetical basis of R. Yose (as portrayed by Sifre Numbers) to R. Eliezer ben Jacob and in turn to a group of Sages whom he persuaded. The following table compares the versions of the anecdote proper in Tosefta and Sifre Numbers. Identical or very close language is indicated by boldface type. Where Sifre Zuta has comparable material, it is also given. Tosefta

Sifre Numbers

Sifre Zuta

―

A heifer which drank [the waters of purification] less than twenty four hours ago, and one slaughtered it within twenty four hours [from when it drank]―

… they said: A heifer which drank the waters of purification—its flesh becomes impure for twenty-four hours. R. Judah says: They [the waters of purification] are nullified in its belly, as it is said, “And it [lit., she] shall be for the congregation of the people of Israel …”

―

A.

[corresponds to below, “I”]

Inquiry was once made concerning this law before thirty-eight elders at the vineyard at Yavneh, and they declared its flesh to be

They said: inquired, “Behold, a drank the impurity slaughtered

Once they saying, heifer who water for and was immedi-

372

Midrash and Legend Tosefta

Sifre Numbers

Sifre Zuta

clean …

ately afterwards what is its status?”

―

B.

This was a case, and R. Yose the Galilean wanted to declare it clean, and R. Akiva wanted to declare it unclean.

This is one of the matters which Rabbi Yose the Galilean argued before Rabbi Akiva

And they sought to declare its flesh unclean.

C.

R. Tarfon supported R. Yose the Galilean. R. Simeon ben Nanos supported R. Akiva. D. R. Simeon ben Nanos defeated R. Tarfon. R. Yose the Galilean defeated R. Simeon ben Nanos.

―

―

D.

R. Akiva defeated R. Yose the Galilean. Some time afterwards, he discovered a rebuttal.

and R. Akiva defeated him, but afterwards, he discovered a rebuttal.

―

E.

He said to him: Will you permit me to retract?

He said to him: Will you permit me to retract?

―

F.

He said to him: [I would] not [permit it] to any man, but you are Yose the Galilean!

He said to him: [I would] not [permit it] to any man but you, for you are Yose the Galilean!

―

G.

He said to him: Behold, it says, “And it shall be for the congregation of the people of Israel to be kept for the water for impurity, for the removal of sin.”

He said to him: Behold, it says, “And it shall be for the congregation of the people of Israel to be kept for the water for impurity, for the removal of sin.”

R. Eliezer ben Jacob said to them: Thus it is said: “And they shall be for the congregation of the people of Israel to be kept for water for impurity.”

H.

When they are [properly] kept, they are waters of impurity—and not when a heifer has

When they are [properly] kept, they are waters of impurity.

When they are [properly] kept, they are waters of impurity. When they are not kept properly, they are not

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers Tosefta

Sifre Numbers

drunk them.

373 Sifre Zuta

waters of impurity.”

I.

This was a case upon which thirty-two elders voted in Lod and declared it clean.

[corresponds to above, “A”]

―

J.

At that time R. Tarfon recited this Scripture passage …

R. Tarfon said …

―

Pinhas, piska 148 to Numbers 28:26 (p. 195 lns. 5-12 in Horowitz edition) [Sifre Numbers comments upon the following passage of Scripture:] [“On the day of the first fruits, when you offer a cereal offering of new grain to the LORD at your feast of weeks, you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work, but offer a burnt offering, a pleasing odor to the LORD; two young bulls, one ram, seven male lambs a year old; also their cereal offering of fine flour mixed with oil, three tenths of an ephah for each bull, two tenths for one ram, a tenth for each of the seven lambs; with one male goat, to make atonement for you. Besides the continual burnt offering and its cereal offering, you shall offer them and their drink offering. See that they are without blemish” (Numbers 28:26-31, RSV).] [Previous context:] [“A cereal offering of new grain to the Lord” (Numbers 28:26). That it should be newer than all of the meal offerings; you should not make any other meal offering prior to it. On this basis Sages have said: They do not bring meal offerings, or first fruits, or the meal offering that accompanies an animal offering, before bringing the [first] sheaf [rnug] [of barley]. But if he has already done so, the offering is invalid…103 They do not bring [any other grain 103 “The omer rendered [new grain] permitted throughout the land,

and the two loaves rendered it permitted in the Temple. One may not offer meal-offerings, first-fruits, or meal-offerings that accompany animal

374

Midrash and Legend offering] before the two loaves.104 But if one has brought it, it is valid. What is the difference between the [first] sheaf and the two loaves? Anything [brought] before the [first] sheaf is forbidden to the altar105 and forbidden to an ordinary person. Therefore, if one brought it, it is of no benefit to him. Anything [brought before the two loaves is forbidden to the altar but permitted to an ordinary person. Therefore if he brought it, it benefits him.] A. R. Tarfon says: Since the [offering of the first] sheaf of [barley] permits [new grain to its owner], and the two loaves of bread permit [new grain to be offered in the Temple], if I learned [the rule] about meal offerings that are brought prior to the [first] sheaf, that they are invalid, even so meal offerings that are brought prior to the two loaves should be invalid. B. R. Judah ben Nahman said to him: No, if you have spoken about meal offerings that are brought prior to the [first] sheaf, which are not fit either for the altar or for an ordinary person, will you say the same concerning meal offerings that are brought prior to the two loaves, that they are invalid? For even though they are not fit for the altar, they are fit for an ordinary person.106 C. R. Akiva looked at him, and his face was beaming. D. He said to him: Judah ben Nahman, your face was beaming because you refuted an elder. I would be surprised if you prolong your days in the world. E. R. Judah bar Ilai said: The matter took place at Passover, and when I came for Atseret,107 I said,

offerings, before the omer; and if one did so, it was invalid. Nor may one offer these before the two loaves; but if one did so it was valid” (m. Menahot 10:6). Cp. t. Menahot 10:26-27. 104 On Shavuot (Pentecost). See Lev. 23:17. 105 lit., “to the Highest,” meaning for presentation upon the altar. See Jastrow, “vucd”. 106 Thus proving that the two cases are not truly analogous and invalidating R. Tarfon’s reasoning. 107 The rabbinic name for Pentecost.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

375

“Where is Judah ben Nahman?” They told me, “He has gone.”

The form, clearly, is an academy discussion among Sages. This is not the first time we have seen death result from disrespect to a sage (see Sifra to Leviticus 10:1, above p. 236), but it is the first time we have seen it as the finale to an academy discussion among Sages. The response of R. Judah bar Nahman to R. Tarfon seems mild and appropriate enough. I do not know why the rebuke by R. Akiva and the story about his death have been associated with this particular dispute. The Bavli brings the same anecdote, without any citation-formula indicating a baraita. The most significant difference is in the phrasing attributed to R. Tarfon. The Bavli’s presentation of Judah bar Nahman’s argument is elliptical, but the structure remains identical. There Judah bar Nahman is called Judah bar Nehemiah. b. Menahot 68b A. R. Tarfon was sitting and raised this question: What is the difference between [grain offerings] brought prior to the [first] sheaf, and before the two loaves? B. Judah bar Nehemiah said before him: No;108 if you have spoken about [grain offered] before the [first] sheaf, which then becomes forbidden in its entirety even to an ordinary person, will you say the same concerning [grain offerings brought] prior to the two loaves, that they are invalid? For even though they are not fit for the altar, they are fit for an ordinary person. C. R. Tarfon fell silent. R. Judah ben Nehemiah’s face was beaming. D. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Judah, your face was beaming on account of your refuting an elder. I would be surprised if you prolong your days. E. R. Judah the son of R. Ilai said: That happened two weeks before Passover, and when I came up for 108 “No” is not a possible answer to the question, “What is the difference between X and Y?”! The Bavli expects the reader to supply R. Tarfon’s implied argument on the basis of the preceding Mishnah. See footnote 103.

376

Midrash and Legend Atseret, I asked after Judah ben Nehemiah. :”Where is he?” They told me, “He is dead and gone.”

It seems the two versions share a basic outline and some catch-phrases, but it doesn’t seem that the Bavli knows the version in Sifre Numbers as a written text. A.

Sifre Numbers

Bavli

R. Tarfon says: Since the [offering of the first] sheaf of [barley] permits [new grain to its owner], and the two loaves of bread permit [new grain to be offered in the Temple], if I learned [the rule] about meal offerings that are brought prior to the [first] sheaf, that they are invalid, even so meal offerings that are brought prior to the two loaves should be invalid.

R. Tarfon was sitting and raised this question: What is the difference between [grain offered] before the [first] sheaf, and before the two loaves? [This question is elliptical. R. Tarfon knows that the omer makes anything offered before it invalid but the two loaves do not (as stated in the foregoing Mishnah). His question regards discovering the basis for the distinction.]

B.

R. Judah ben Nahman said to him: No, if you have spoken about meal offerings that are brought prior to the [first] sheaf, which are not fit either for the altar or for an ordinary person, will you say the same concerning meal offerings that are brought prior to the two loaves, that they are invalid? For even though they are not fit for the altar, they are fit for an ordinary person.

Judah bar Nehemiah said before him: No; if you have spoken about [grain offered] before the [first] sheaf, which then becomes forbidden in its entirety even to an ordinary person, will you say the same concerning [grain offerings brought] prior to the two loaves, that they are invalid? For even though they are not fit for the altar, they are fit for an ordinary person.

C.

R. Akiva looked at him, and his face was beaming.

R. Tarfon fell silent. Judah bar Nehemiah’s face was beaming.

D.

He said to him: Judah ben Nahman, your face was beaming on account of your shaming an elder. I would be surprised at you if you prolong your days in the world.

Rabbi Akiva said to him: Judah, your face was beaming on account of your shaming an elder. I would be surprised if you prolong your days.

E.

R. Judah bar Ilai said: The matter took place at Passover, and when I came for Atseret, I said, “Where is Judah ben Nahman?” They told me, “He has gone.”

R. Judah the son of R. Ilai said: That happened two weeks before Passover, and when I came up for Atseret, I asked after Judah ben Nehemiah. :”Where is he?” They

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers Sifre Numbers

377

Bavli told me, “He is dead and gone.”

Masei, piska 161 to Numbers 35:34 (p. 222 lns. 8-17 in Horowitz edition) [Sifre Num. comments upon the following passage of Scripture:] [“If any one kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses; but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. Moreover you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death; but he shall be put to death. And you shall accept no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the high priest. You shall not thus pollute the land in which you live; for blood pollutes the land, and no expiation can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of him who shed it. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the LORD dwell in the midst of the people of Israel” (Numbers 35:30-34, RSV).] A. “You shall not defile the land in which you live…” (Numbers 35:34). B. Scripture says that the shedding of blood defiles the land, and causes the divine presence to depart. And on account of the shedding of blood, the Temple was laid waste. C. It happened with ['c vagn] two priests who were were running side by side109 ascending the ramp, and one of them preceded his companion to within four cubits [of the altar]. D. He took a knife, and lodged it in his heart. E. Rabbi Zadok came, and stood on the steps of the entrance-hall, and said: Listen to me, our brothers of the house of Israel! Behold, it says, “If any one is found slain, lying in the open country…” (Deut. 109 Neusner renders this, “of equal standing [ihua].”

378

Midrash and Legend 21:1).110 Come and let us measure [to see] who is responsible to bring the heifer―the Holy Place [kfhv] or the [Temple] courts!111 F. And all Israel moaned and wept. G. After this, the father of the child came, and found him still convulsing. H. He said to them: Our brothers, behold, I am your atonement!112 My son is still convulsing, so the knife is not defiled [from corpse uncleanness]! I. This comes to teach you that the defilement of knives was more grievous to them than the shedding of blood.

110 “If in the land which the LORD your God gives you to possess, any one is found slain, lying in the open country, and it is not known who killed him, then your elders and your judges shall come forth, and they shall measure the distance to the cities which are around him that is slain; and the elders of the city which is nearest to the slain man shall take a heifer which has never been worked and which has not pulled in the yoke. And the elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a valley with running water, which is neither plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley. And the priests the sons of Levi shall come forward, for the LORD your God has chosen them to minister to him and to bless in the name of the LORD, and by their word every dispute and every assault shall be settled. And all the elders of that city nearest to the slain man shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley; and they shall testify, ‘Our hands did not shed this blood, neither did our eyes see it shed. Forgive, O LORD, thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and set not the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of thy people Israel; but let the guilt of blood be forgiven them.’ So you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from your midst, when you do what is right in the sight of the LORD” (Deuteronomy 21:19, RSV). 111 This is a homiletical statement only ― neither Jerusalem nor the Temple can bring the heifer (m. Sotah 9:2), whose offering pertains in any case to atoning for an unsolved murder in the open country, as the Bavli explains below. 112 Meaning, because I have prevented you from ritually defiling the sanctuary and its vessels, which would have required offerings for atonement.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

379

J. And thus it says, “Moreover Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another…” (2 Kings 21:16 RSV). K. From this they said that the offense of shedding blood makes the divine presence depart, and defiles the Sanctuary.

As will be clear from the parallels, this is a case example that has been truncated. The decision of law to be learned from it is explicit in the Mishnah (below), but not here. Here the caseexample is serving the function of a parabolic anecdote, illustrating a biblical precept. Just as we have noticed in previous anecdotes, that a voice in the anecdote sometimes reiterates what has already been stated by the anonymous Sifre (e.g. in Sifre to Numbers 18:18, above p. 354), so here “K” (the apostrophe of the anecdote) reiterates “B” (the apostrophe of the exegesis), in slightly different words. m. Yoma 2:1-2 A. At first, whoever wished to clear the altar [of ashes] would clear it. On an occasion where there were many, they would run and ascend the ramp, and whoever preceded his companion [to get] within four cubits [of the altar] acquired [the duty]. B. And if both of them were side by side, the supervisor would tell them, “put out fingers.” Which ones would they stretch out? The index or middle finger.113 They would not put out the thumb in the sanctuary.114 C. In happened that ['a vagn] there were two running side by side ascending the ramp, and one of them knocked against his companion, with the result that he fell and broke his leg. When the court saw that what they were doing was dangerous, they ordered that no one should clear the altar unless chosen by lot. There were four [matters determined by] lots, and this was the first [matter determined by] lot.

113 Or, “one or two [ohh,a ut ,jt].” 114 This refers to some selection method the details of which are lost

to us. The speculations offered by the Gemara are not convincing.

380

Midrash and Legend

Here we are clearly dealing with a case example—an incident resulting in a legal decision. The Bavli treats these two accounts (pushing vs. stabbing) as different incidents but the Yerushalmi (following the Tosefta) attempts to harmonize them, as will be seen below. t. Kippurim (Yoma) 1:12 (1:10) A. It happened with ['c vagn] two priests who were running side by side ascending the ramp, and one pushed the other to reach the four-cubit limit. B. [The other] took a knife, and lodged it in his heart. C. Rabbi Zadok came, and stood on the steps of the entrance-hall, and said: Listen to me, our brothers of the house of Israel! Behold, it says, “If any one is found slain … then your elders and your judges shall come forth, and they shall measure the distance…” (Deut. 21:1-2). Come and let us measure [to see] who is responsible to bring the heifer―the Holy Place or the [Temple] courts! D. All the people moaned and wept after he [had spoken]. E. After this, the father of the child came. He said to them: Our brothers, I am your atonement! My son is still convulsing, so the knife is not defiled [from corpse uncleanness]! F. This comes to teach you that the defilement of a knife was harder [to bear] for Israel than the shedding of blood. G. And thus it says, “Moreover Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another…” (2 Kings 21:16 RSV). H. On this basis they said that on account of the shedding of blood the divine presence was withdrawn, and the Sanctuary was defiled.

Here the Tosefta presents us with a version of the anecdote virtually identical to that in Sifre Numbers, with the same associated texts and moral. There are a number of unusual word choices in Sifre Num. that are duplicated in all the other versions, such as calling the dying priest a “child” [eubh,]. It seems impossible to me that these unusual elements of style would simply

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

381

be included in various independent performances of a tradition. In my opinion the version in the Tosefta is more like the source of Sifre than vice versa, because only in Tosefta does the caseexample form serve its natural function, whereas in Sifre the form is a poor fit. Another version of the story appears in tractate Shevu’ot. t. Shevu’ot 1:4 [Context discusses the severity of the sin of “defiling the sanctuary.”] A. It happened with ['c vagn] two brothers who were priests, that they were running side by side ascending the ramp, and one of them preceded his companion to within four cubits [of the altar]. B. One of them took the [sacrificial] knife and lodged it in his [the other one’s] heart. C. Rabbi Zadok came, and stood on the steps of the entrance-hall on the Temple Mount and said: Listen to me, our brothers of the house of Israel! Behold, it says, “If any one is found slain in the open country … then your elders and your judges shall come forth, and they shall measure the distance…” (Deut. 21:12). As for us, from where shall we measure?! From the Holy Place or the [Temple] courts?! D. All Israel moaned and wept after he [had spoken]. E. After this, the father of the child came. He said to them: I am your atonement! My son is still convulsing, so the knife is not defiled [from corpse uncleanness]! F. This teaches you that the defilement of a knife was harder for them [to bear] than the shedding of blood. G. And thus it says, “Moreover Manasseh shed very much innocent blood…” (2 Kings 21:16 RSV). H. On this basis they said that on account of the shedding of blood the divine presence was withdrawn, and the Sanctuary was defiled.

There are a few differences in word choice, but the two which change the import of the story are the detail that the two priests were brothers, and the specification that the knife used for the

382

Midrash and Legend

stabbing was the sacrificial knife [indicated by addition of one letter―the definite article]. y. Yoma 2:2 (2:1) A. It happened with ['c vagn] one who preceded his companion to within four cubits of the altar. B. His companion took the [sacrificial] knife, and lodged it in his heart. C. Rabbi Zadok stood on a step of the entrance-hall. He said to them: Listen to me, my brothers, the house of Israel! It is written, “If any one is found slain … then your elders and your judges shall come forth, and they shall measure the distance…” (Deut. 21:1-2). As for us, from where are we to measure?! From the Holy Place or from the [Temple] courts?! D. [IN ARAMAIC] All burst out crying until they were overwhelmed [ihehxg] with weeping. E. [IN HEBREW] The father of that child entered. He said to them: I am your atonement! The child is still convulsing, so the knife has not been defiled [from corpse uncleanness]! F. This teaches you that ritual impurity was harder for them [to bear] than the shedding of blood―to their shame.

This version stands closest to the version in t. Shevu’ot. The proof texts and the moral at the end (as represented in both Tosefta versions and in Sifre) are omitted. Here the Yerushalmi seems interested in illustrating the Mishnah’s issue (the need for selection by lot in order to keep the ritual of the sanctuary orderly), but the Yerushalmi is not interested in a full exploration of the anecdote for its own sake. b. Yoma 23a-b A. “It happened that ['a vagn] there were two running side by side ascending the ramp” (m. Yoma 2:2). B. Our Rabbis taught [ibcr ub,]: It happened with [vagn 'c] two priests, that both of them were running side by side ascending the ramp, and one of them preceded his

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

383

companion by less than four cubits. [The other] took a knife and lodged it in his heart. C. Rabbi Zadok stood on the steps of the entrance-hall, and said: Our brothers of the house of Israel, listen! Behold, it says, “If any one is found slain in the open country … then your elders and your judges shall come forth…” (Deut. 21:1-2). As for us, upon whom [does the duty fall] to bring the heifer whose neck must be broken—upon the city or upon the [Temple] courts?! D. All the people moaned and wept. E. The father of the child came and found him still convulsing. He said: Behold, he is your atonement! For my son is still convulsing, so the knife has not become defiled [from corpse uncleanness]! F. This comes to teach you that the ritual purity of vessels was more important to them than the shedding of blood. G. And thus it says, “Moreover Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another…” (2 Kings 21:16). H. [IN ARAMAIC] Which incident took place first?115 I. If you say that the one involving bloodshed took place first―Is it possible that they would not have ordered the assignment by lot on account of an incident involving bloodshed, and then have ordered it on account of an incident involving [a mere] broken leg? Rather, the incident involving the broken leg took place first. J. But since they had ordered assignment by lot, how could the incident have occurred within four cubits [of the altar]? Certainly the incident involving shedding of blood took place first, but originally they thought it was an accident. Since they saw that even apart from that, [the procedure] was dangerous, our Rabbis ordered assignment by lot.

115 Comparing the tradition in the Mishnah with that in the baraita.

384

Midrash and Legend K. [HEBREW] Rabbi Zadok stood on the steps of the entrance-hall, and said: Our brothers of the house of Israel, listen! Behold, it says, “If any one is found slain in the open country … then your elders and your judges shall come forth…” (Deut. 21:1-2). As for us, upon whom [does the duty fall] to bring the heifer whose neck must be broken- upon the city or upon the [Temple] courts?! L. [ARAMAIC] But is Jerusalem subject to the bringing of the heifer whose neck is to be broken? Has it not been taught [thb,vu]: [HEBREW] “Ten matters were stated concerning Jerusalem”116―and this is one of them. “It [Jerusalem] does not bring the heifer whose neck is to be broken” (m. Sotah 9:2). M. Furthermore, “It is not known who killed him” is written (Deuteronomy 21:1). But here it was known who killed him. But [he said it] to increase the weeping. N. The father of the child came and found him still convulsing. He said: Behold, he is your atonement. For my son is still hanging on [ohhe]… O. This comes to teach you that the ritual purity of vessels was more important to them than the shedding of blood. P. It was asked [uvk thgcht]: [Was it that their concern over] shedding of blood had waned, but [their concern over] the ritual purity of vessels was at its proper level, perhaps [their concern over] shedding of blood was at its proper level, but [their concern over] the ritual purity of vessels had become more strict? Q. Come and hear: Thus it has been received by the tradition [tsunk,]: “Moreover Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another…” (2 Kings 21:16). Learn from this that it was [their concern about] the shedding of blood which had waned, but [their concern over] the ritual purity of vessels was at its proper level.

As we have seen in other passages, the Bavli retells the story as a form of commentary so that the second telling―though of 116 b. Sotah 45a; b. Bava Kama 82b.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

385

interest to show us how the Talmud understands the story―does not supply any information as to the transmission history of the anecdote. The Bavli treats the accounts of the priests bumping and the account of the priest stabbing as two different accounts, not to be harmonized, whereas the Yerushalmi attempted to harmonize them as two versions of one story. The several versions of the story have several interesting differences, which are compared in Hebrew below. Because there are so many versions to compare, parallel columns will not serve well, so line by line I lay out the versions of SN (Sifre Numbers), TY (t. Yoma), TS (t. Shevu’ot), Y (y. Yoma), and B (b. Yoma). In the first section, where the Mishnah provides a parallel I cite it as M. I have underlined certain phrases where one version differs from the others in a way that I find significant or interesting. wacfc ihkugu ihmru ihua uhva ohbvf hbac vagn /,unt gcrt lu,c urhcjk ovn sjt oseu wacfc ihkugu ihmr uhva ohbvf hbac vagn /,unt gcrt lu,k urhcj ,t ivn sjt ;js wacfc ihkugu ihmru ihua uhva ohbvf ohjt hbac vagn /,unt gcrt lu,k urhcj ,t ovn sjt oseu /jczn ka ,unt gcrt lu,c urhcj ,t osea sjtc vagn /acfc ihkugu ihmru ihua ivhba uhva ohbvf hbac vagn /urhcj ka ,unt gcrt lu,k ivn sjt ose /acfc ihkugu ihmru ihua ivhba uhva ohbvf hbac vagn /ukdr vrcabu kpbu wurhcj ,t ivn sjt ;jsu wvbfx hshk ihtca ihs ,hc utra iuhfu) (… xhpc tkt jcznv ,t ihnru, uvh tka ubhe,v /uckc uk vge,u ihfx kyb /uckc uk ge,u ihfx kyb /uckc ge,u ihfxv ,t ivn sjt kyb /uckc vge,u ihfxv ,t urhcj kyb /uckc uk ge,u ihfx kyb :rntu okutv ,ukgn kg sngu eusm hcr tc :rntu okutv ,ukgn kg sngu eusm hcr tc :rntu ,hcv rvc okutv ,ukgn kg sngu eusm 'r tc :ivk rnt /okutv ,kgn kg eusm 'r uk sng :rntu okutv ,kgn kg eusm 'r sng [quote from Deut. 21] … rnut tuv hrv !ktrah ,hc ubhjt hbugna [quote from Deut. 21] … rnut tuv hrv !ktrah ,hc ubhjt hbugna [quote from Deut. 21] … rnut tuv hrv !ktrah ,hc ubhjt hbugna [quote from Deut. 21] … ch,f !ktrah ,hc hjt hbugna [quote from Deut. 21] … rnut tuv hrv !ugna wktrah ,hc ubhjt

SN

't

TY TS Y B M

SN TY TS Y B SN TY TS Y B SN TY TS Y B

'c

'd

's

386

Midrash and Legend

!?,urzgv kg ut kfhvv kg :vkdgv ,t thcvk hutr hn kg susnbu utuc !?,urzgv kg ut kfhvv kg :vkdgv ,t thcvk hutr hn kg susnbu utuc !?,urzgv in ut kfhvv in ?sunb ifhvn wubt !?,urzgv in ?kfhvv in ?sunk ubk ifhtn wubt !?,urzgv kg ut rhgv kg ?vpurg vkdg thcvk hn kg wubt /vhhfcc ktrah kf ugd /vhfcc uhrjt ogv kf ugd /uhrjt vhfcc ktrah kf ugd /vhhfcc ihehxg iubhts sg wihhfc tng kf iura /vhfcc ogv kf ugd /rprpn utmnu eubh, ka uhct tc f"jtu /eubh, ka uhct tc f"jtu /eubh, ka uhct tc f"jtu /eubh,v u,ut ka uhct xbfb /rprpn tuvaf utmnu eubh, ka uhct tc /,tnyb tk ihfxu rprpn hbc ihhsg !of,rpf hbhrv wubhjt :ovk rnt /tnyb tk ihfxu rprpn hbc ihhsg !of,rpf hbt wubhjt :ovk rnt /tnyb tk ihfxu hbc tuv rprpn !of,rpf hbt wubhjt :ovk rnt /ihfxv ,tnyhb tk rprpn eubh,v ihhsg !of,rpf hbt :ivk rnt /ihfx vtnyb tku rprpn hbc ihhsgu !of,rpf tuv hrv :rnt /ohns ,ufhpan r,uh ovk vchcj ohbhfx ,tnuya lsnkk [2Kings quote] …runt tuv ifu /ohns ,ufhpan r,uh ktrahk ovk vae ihfx ,tnuya lsnkk [2Kings quote] …runt tuv ifu /ohns ,ufhpan ivhkg vae v,hv ihfx ,tnuya lsnkn [2Kings quote] …runt tuv ifu /htbdk - ohns ,ufhpan ivk vae vtnuy v,hva snkn /ohns ,ufhpan r,uh ohkf ,rvy ivhkg vaea lsnkk [2Kings quote] …runt tuv ifu /tnyn asenu ,ek,xn vbhfa ohns ,fhpa iugc :urnt ifhn /tnyb asenu ,hkgb vbhfa ohns ,ufhpa iugc :urnt itfn /tnyhn asenv ,hcu ,hkgb vbhfa ohns ,ufhpa iugc :urnt itfn -[][see Shabbat 33a] --

SN TY TS Y B SN TY TS Y B SN TY TS Y B SN TY TS Y B SN

'v

'u

'z

'j

'y

TY TS Y B SN TY TS Y B

'h

REJECTED PASSAGES There were two passages which were considered, but rejected, for this study.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

387

Sifre Numbers (Balak) to Numbers 25:1 (piska 131; Horowitz, p. 170 lns. 13-16) Now this proud and arrogant government has only four provinces worthy of an empire, and these are they: Abia, Alexandria, Cartagena, and Antioch. But these [the Midianites] had sixty such provinces, and all of them were worthy of an empire, as it is said, “And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city that we did not take from them, sixty cities, the whole region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan” (Deut. 3:4, RSV).117

This passage represents a historical reminiscence, but not a narrative concerning any incident, and so does not meet the criteria for this study. Sifre Numbers (Beha’alotekha) to Numbers 12:12 (piska 105; Horowitz p. 104 lns. 18-21) R. Eliezer’s disciples asked him, “How much may a person lengthen his prayers?” He said to them, “Don’t lengthen them more than Moses, as it is said, ‘And I fell before the Lord as at the first for forty days and forty nights…’ (Deut. 9:18). “And how much may a person shorten his prayers? He said to them, “Don’t shorten more than Moses, as it is said, ‘God, please, heal her, please’ (Numbers 12:13). There is a time to be brief in prayer and a time to be lengthy.”

This passage is treated in the chapter on the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael (p. 82), where it is presented as a parallel to the Mekhilta’s treatment of Exodus 15:25. It is not treated as an anecdote in its own right in this chapter because there is no setting given and we do not treat a dispute as an anecdote in this study if it has no narrative setting.

FORMAL COMPARISON OF PASSAGES For each anecdote I identify the anecdote “marker”―a rhetorical trope which marks the beginning of a passage and identifies it as an anecdote. I mark the trope as “Distinguishing” in the third column if that trope, or combination of elements, is always an anecdote 117 Translation of Neusner.

388

Midrash and Legend

marker for Sifre Numbers. I also identify tropes which bear the weight of the narrative or determine the structure of the passage (e.g. “he sat and expounded”). TABLE III. FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ANECDOTES IN SIFRE NUMBERS

Text Starting Point

Anecdote Marker Dist.

Other Tropes

Basic Form

… ['r] hrcsfu hrvu + Naso to proper name, past Numbers 5:12 tense verbs, and (p. 11 ln. 1) place name

,qhbukp hrvu [ouen oa]c v[,]hv 

vzv iuakf

Case Example

action by court, here: uvushbu and uburt ,t s"c ukexu okugn h,--- tk sjt tkt

Naso to Numbers 6:2 (p. 26 ln. 7)

proper name + past tense verbs



[ost] rhcgvk okugv in

Case Example

uatr kg uh,eabu ucrh l,unf ktrahc … itf rntb … ikvk rnbu ohqruntv A vn B ikvk ohqruntv A ;t B itf

Beha’alotekha to Numbers 10:8 (p. 70 ln. 1)

v,t h,n sg !ubhkg thcnu ccdn proper names + past tense verbs



,t jpet … ot hhbc !…a vsucgv lhrat …ubhct ovrct A 'r (hbt) wjfau vtr unmgn arus B 'r

lnn arupv kf uhhjn arupf

Academy Discussion among Sages [embedded in yrpu kkf Commentary with embedded Case Example]

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers Text Starting Point

Anecdote Marker Dist.

Other Tropes

389

Basic Form

ostc vagn … vhva sjt … aha gna ohv hfrf inz(v) ghdva iuhf uk cahu gere hcd kg !hnur ka vpd Shelah to Numbers 15:41 (p. 128 ln. 16)

… tk !vsucgv 'c vagn + proper names + past tense verbs



(vke) vumn tkt … ubhvkt 'v ubum sg l,jhbn hbht hk (cu,f,)a

Parabolic Anecdote obedience rewarded

lrhg oau lna v,ta larsn oau vru, uc snk ,t vzczcu vbunn kf ljenc vfz ruxhtc …a (vn) r,hvc (itf) Korah to Numbers 18:3 (p. 132 ln. 6)

rcf + proper names + past tense verbs



chhj,n v,t lapbc lhrm iht rntb rcf hrv ,htr vn w(ucr) k"t ?(o"vck) ,uv,avk

Koraḥ to Numbers 18:7 (p. 133 ln. 16)

proper names + rcfu

?vnh, lhrcs tkv 

hrv wk"t … rnut tuv

Case Example [abbreviated form] Case Example [elements of Academy Discussion among Sages]

“B”f “A” ,uagk

Korah to Numbers 18:13 (p. 137 ln. 4)

lhkg h,gna … rnut v,hhva proper names + vhv rcfu



v,t iht wv,tu ?lf rnut v,ta lc hbezjun vru, hrsjc hec

Academy Discussion among Sages [with embedded Case Example]

390 Text Starting Point

Midrash and Legend

Anecdote Marker Dist.

Other Tropes

Basic Form

u"ec iushku ?gsuh v,t ht w… vnu …a ihs ubht ?vagt vn kct urnt hrva … ohnfj vktab vkta uzu wuhsunk, uk urnt !ubsnk ubhcr Korah to Numbers 18:18 (p. 141 ln. 2)

proper names + past tense verbs + place name [here vbchc orf]

tcaf w__ 'r anak vkhj, ohnfj ,t 

wrcsn rcs sunkt /rcsn rcs iustu

Academy Discussion among Sages [mixed form]

A 'r ek,xb B 'r .peu B

cu,fv tc k A ,t ahevu uhshnk, ukta … 'r ,t

Hukat to Numbers 19:2 (p. 151 ln. 10)

proper names + past tense verbs

ub,snk tkvu … ubhcr 

utra vn ot u,raa vnu hbhg wh,jfa hsh !h,snka vnk u"e

Academy Discussion master and students

ezjk hsf ohshnk,v ,t Hukat to Numbers 19:2 (p. 152 ln. 22)

Hukat to Numbers 19:9 (p. 158 ln.13)

proper names + past tense verbs

+ rcfu proper names + past tense verbs





wA 'r rnt … B 'r hbpk h,nb vfkv cfu vktab uz ohbez (#) hbpk (ouen oa)c ohrcsv in sjt vz is A 'r vhva B 'r hbpk

Academy Discussion among Sages [abbreviated] Academy Discussion among Sages [with embedded case example]

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers Text Starting Point

Anecdote Marker Dist.

Other Tropes

391

Basic Form

lf rjtu B 'r uekxu vcua, uk tmn ?ruzjk hbt vn kfk tk k"t lk tkt ost (una) v,ta hrv wk"t … rnut tuv Pinhas to Num. 28:26 (p. 195 ln. 5)

… uc kf,xbu uhbp ucvmu proper names + past tense verbs



!iezv ,t ,cav lhkg hbt vhn, lhrt, ot okugc ohnh ubhjt hbugna … ktrah ,hc

Masei to Num. 'c vagn + name of  35:34 (p. 161 sage ln. 8)

… rnut tuv hrv … urnt ifhn ohns ,fhpa iugc ,ek,xn vbhfa tnyn asenu

Academy Discussion among Sages [with appended portent]

Case Example [partial form, used as parabolic illustration]

The next table presents essentially the same data as the previous table, but is organized by forms instead of passages. In the column “Examples in Sifre Numbers,” passages in brackets are not anecdotes treated above, but indicate other passages that use the same tropes. TABLE IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF FORMS EMPLOYED

Basic Form

Typical Tropes (used in Sifre Num.)

Academy Discussion – among Sages

vktab vkta uzu v,t h,n sg !ubhkg thcnu ccdn lhkg h,gna … rnut v,hhva B

ohrcsv in sjt vz 'r hbpk is A 'r vhva

Basic Outline I. Sages are named. II. Sage X proposes theory. III. Sage Y rebukes him. IV. Sage X provides proof. V. Sage Y praises him ==== I. Sages are named. II. Sage X asks Sage Y question. III. Sage Y

Examples in Sifre Num. Beha’alotekha to Numbers 10:8 (p. 70 ln. 1) [mixed form] Korah to Numbers 18:7 (p. 133 ln. 16) [Case Example with elements

392

Basic Form

Midrash and Legend Typical Tropes (used in Sifre Num.) wA 'r rnt … B 'r hbpk h,nb v,t iht wv,tu ?lf rnut v,ta lc hbezjun vru, hrsjc hec lf rjtu B 'r uekxu vcua, uk tmn ?ruzjk hbt vn ost kfk tk k"t (una) v,ta lk tkt … rnut tuv hrv wk"t u"ec iushku ?gsuh v,t ht wrcsn rcs sunkt /rcsn rcs iustu B

'r .peu B

A 'r

ek,xb

cu,fv tc k A ,t ahevu

…a ihs ubht w… vnu ,htr vn w(ucr) k"t] [?(o"vck) ,uv,avk

Basic Outline answers with case example ==== I. Sages are named. II. Sage X proposes legal theory based on reason.. III. Sage Y refutes it based on Scripture. IV. Sage Y (or X) proposes (same or different) theory based on biblical proof, which is not refuted. ==== I. Sages are named. II. Sage X proposes legal theory.. III. Sage Y (his inferior or student) defeats him in argument without showing proper deference.. IV. Sage Z pronounces portent against Sage Y. V. Fate of Sage Y is described

Examples in Sifre Num. of Academy Discussion] Korah to Numbers 18:13 (p. 137 ln. 4) [Case Example embedded in Academy Discussion] Korah to Numbers 18:18 (p. 141 ln. 2) [mixed form] Hukat to Numbers 19:2 (p. 152 ln. 22) [abbreviated form] Hukat to Numbers 19:9 (p. 158 ln.13) Pinhas to Num. 28:26 (p. 195 ln. 5)

118[?vnh, lhrcs tkv] … ot hhbc ,t jpet !…a vsucgv …ubhct ovrct lhrat … uc kf,xbu uhbp ucvmu !iezv ,t ,cav lhkg hbt vhn, okugc ohnh lhrt, ot

118 These two examples are in square brackets because they come

from Korah to Numbers 18:7 (piska 116) which is primarily a case example with elements only of an academy discussion.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

Basic Form

Typical Tropes (used in Sifre Num.)

Basic Outline

393 Examples in Sifre Num.

wjfau vtr A 'r (hbt) unmgn arus B 'r lnn arupv kf uhhjn arupf Academy Discussion master and students

Case Example

I. Sage poses rhetorical questions. … 'r ,t uhsunk, ukta (II. Students answer … ubhcr ub,snk tkvu and sage refutes their answers). III. wuhsunk, uk urnt Students beg for !ubsnk ubhcr correct answer. IV. vkhj, tcaf w__ 'r Sage answers. (V. Students laud sage) ohnfj ,t anak ==== hbhg utra vn ot wh,jfa hsh u,raa vnu I. Students ask Sage question. II. He gives !h,snka vnk u"e flawed answer (as ohshnk,v ,t ezjk hsf test). III. They correct him. IV. He praises them vktab vkta uzu

… ['r] hrcsfu ,qhbukp hrvu [ouen oa]c v[,]hv vzv iuakf … rnut tuv hrv wk"t “B”f “A” ,uagk lapbc chhj,n v,t (,ubgrup) … (vrhcg) iugc vktab uz vfkv rcfu ohbez (#) hbpk (ouen oa)c action by court: uvushbu and uburt ,t s"c ukexu … urnt ifhn uatr kg uh,eabu ktrahc ucrh l,unf ohns ,fhpa iugc

The case of … The case came to [authority] who declared …

Korah to Numbers 18:18 (p. 141 ln. 2) [mixed form] Hukat to Numbers 19:2 (p. 151 ln. 10)

Naso to Numbers 5:12 (p. 11 ln. 1) Naso to Numbers 6:2 (p. 26 ln. 7) Korah to Numbers 18:3 (p. 132 ln. 6) [abbreviated form] Korah to Numbers 18:7 (p. 133 ln. 16) [elements of Academy Discussion among Sages] Korah to Numbers 18:13 (p. 137 ln. 4) [Case Example

394

Midrash and Legend

Basic Form

Typical Tropes (used in Sifre Num.) ,ek,xn vbhfa tnyn asenu lhrm iht rntb rcf hrv ?vagt vn kct … ohnfj urnt hrva

Basic Outline

Examples in Sifre Num. embedded in Academy Discussion] Hukat to Numbers 19:9 (p. 158 ln.13) [mixed form] Masei to Num. 35:34 (p. 161 ln. 8)

Parabolic Anecdote

ostc vagn … vhva sjt inz(v) ghdva iuhf gere hcd kg uk cahu !hnur ka vpd … tk !vsucgv (vke) vumn tkt … ubhvkt 'v ubum sg l,jhbn hbht hk (cu,f,)a

I. A scriptural Shelah to punishment or reward Numbers 15:41 is described. II. A (p. 128 ln. 16) person disciplines his actions in the light of the biblical promise. (III. Gentiles / the unlearned are drawn to God and Torah because of him). IV. His reward is described.

lrhg oau lna v,ta larsn oau vru, uc snk vbunn kf ,t vzczcu ljenc vfz ruxhtc …a (vn) r,hvc (itf)

In the following table we give the names of the documents which contain parallels to an anecdote in Sifre to Numbers, and then we identify the relationship of our text to the parallel passage. Some of these identifications will be quite speculative, others more firmly based―the notes on the individual passages above will make that clear. The reader should bear in mind that these tables compare forms of anecdotes and not entire documents. “P” indicates a Parent to the version in Sifre Numbers, which is to say the version in Sifre Numbers can only be explained by reference to the “Parent.”

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

395

“C” represents Child, the opposite relationship―the parallel depends on the version in Sifre Numbers. “^” indicates that Sifre Numbers and another version are best explained as relying on a common source. “N” “Does Not Know”―the source in question does not know Sifre Numbers. “?” there is no basis even to speculate about a relationship between versions of a story. If I think a relationship is particularly well-founded, I make my symbol bold. TABLE V. PARALLELS IN TANNAITIC LITERATURE AND THE TALMUDS.

Text Starting Point

Parallels and Relationships

Common Elements

Sifre Num. extracts that element of the anecdote which directly concerns its interest in the laws of Mishnah (P) Naso to Numbers the jealousy-ordeal. The Yerushalmi (^) 5:12 (p. 11 ln. 1) two Talmuds treat the Bavli (^) anecdote according to their developments of the topic of excommunication. Yerushalmi and Bavli depend on Tosefta. The stand-alone case example as represented in Tosefta resembles or Tosefta (P) Naso to Numbers is the source for Sifre Yerushalmi (^) 6:2 (p. 26 ln. 1) Num. Yerushalmi and Bavli (^) Bavli are concerned with the status of the Nazir’s offerings, a concern not explored in Tosefta and Sifre Num.

Distinguishing Elements in Sifre Numbers Abbreviates Mishnah. The wife of a convert. “According to this scriptural statement [vzv iuakf].”

Case is appended to commentary form without trope to mark anecdote. Only halakhic issue is the rareness of proper motive on the part of the Nazirite.

396

Text Starting Point

Beha’alotekha to Numbers 10:8 (p. 70 ln. 1)

Shelaḥ to Numbers 15:41 (p. 128 ln. 16)

Koraḥ to Numbers 18:3 (p. 132 ln. 6)

Korah to Numbers 18:7 (p. 133 ln. 16)

Midrash and Legend

Parallels and Relationships

Common Elements

T. presents simple case. Sifre Num. represents case within a dispute (in a form represented Tosefta (P) separately in T.), altering Yerushalmi (C) the halakhah. Y. seems to build upon both but agrees with Sifre against T. as to the legal outcome.

Distinguishing Elements in Sifre Numbers R. Tarfon gets most agitated, swearing four different ways. Sifre allows R. Akiva, in the story, to complete its exposition of the base verse.

Bavli (C)

Very similar language and structure in both versions. Same coastal town, four hundred gold pieces, maidservant, silver and gold cushions, face-slapping fringes. R. Nathan’s proverb brackets the anecdote in Sifre Num.; it is given in prologue by Bavli. R. Ḥiyya’s comments are solely directed to the woman in Bavli. Bavli makes explicit “nakedness.”

Seven silver cushions; “there is no one with your beauty in all the world”; a comparatively minor commandment; she demands his profile in writing; student (not woman) is commanded to “take possession of what you purchased.”

Bavli (^)

Bavli employs the case example in language very close to Sifre Numbers but does not seem to know contextual material from Sifre Num.

“You have already sinned against your life”; “I belong to the gatekeepers.”

Bavli (^)

Concern with handwashing; R. Tarfon was Same basic case, language not very close, delayed, not absent; anecdote illustrates a different legal issue. In Bavli, R. is completely Tarfon specifies terumah. framed by the interpretation of Numbers.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

Text Starting Point

Korah to Numbers 18:13 (p. 137 ln. 4)

Korah to Numbers 18:18 (p. 141 ln. 2)

Hukat to Numbers 19:2 (p. 151 ln. 10)

Hukat to Numbers 19:2 (p. 152 ln. 22)

Hukat to Numbers 19:9 (p. 158 ln.13)

397

Distinguishing Elements in Sifre Numbers The woman who Yerushalmi and Bavli enters the bridal Tosefta (^) seem to know Tosefta’s chamber and dies Yerushalmi (N) version but Bavli seems without Bavli (C) to know Sifre’s version consummating the as well. marriage. Parallels and Relationships

Bavli (^)

Common Elements

Same basic academy discussion. R. Tarfon’s argument is a straw argument and differs in the two versions.

Anecdote proper is closely similar in Tosefta but context reflects the Tosefta (^) interests of each Sifre Zuta (C) document. Sifre Zuta attempts to fix problems in the version from Tos./Sifre Num.

―

Sifre Z (N) Tosefta (^)

―

R. Akiva speaks for anonymous Sifre Num. and demonstrates victory of biblical exegesis over abstract reason. Introduces anecdote by exegesis gezerah shavah. Rabban Yohanan says he forgot what he had taught (vs. what he had heard or what his eyes had seen).. Abbreviated academy discussion with simple question and answer (no proof or argumentation).

The vineyard at Yavneh. Only R. Akiva and Yose are in the Rabbis Akiva, Yose, and discussion. No Tarfon, the book of explicit Daniel, more than thirty connection elders, “will you permit between the me to retract?” Academy Discussion and the decision of the elders.

398

Midrash and Legend

Text Starting Point

Parallels and Relationships

Pinhas to Num. 28:26 (p. 195 ln. 5)

Masei to Numbers 35:34 (p. 222 ln. 8)

Bavli (C)

Distinguishing Elements in Sifre Numbers R. Tarfon’s Rabbis Akiva, Tarfon, argument more fully stated; Judah Judah b. Nahman or Nehemiah, Judah b. Ilai, ben Nahman. basic structure the same, Judah ben disrespectful sage dead Nahman’s view is that of the by Shavuot anonymous Sifre. Common Elements

Full anecdote represented only in Mishnah (P) Tosefta. Sifre appears to Tosefta (P) influence wording of Yerushalmi (C) Yerushalmi and Bavli Bavli (C) over Tosefta in some places.

The following table described in the previous table.

summarizes

Concluding moral of anecdote reiterates exegetical moral of Sifre Num. itself.

the

relationships

TABLE VI. RELATIONSHIP OF ANECDOTES IN SIFRE NUMBERS TO THEIR PARALLELS

Sifre Num. Knows

Knows Sifre Num.

Shares Source

Does Not Know Sifre Num. (but knows other sources)

Mishnah

2 cases

―

―

―

Tosefta

3 cases

―

3 cases

―

Sifre Zuta

―

1 case

―

1 case

Yerushalmi

―

2 cases

2 cases

1 case

Bavli

―

4 cases

5 cases

―

SUMMARY Of the thirteen anecdotes which we have treated, twelve of them have parallels, and seven anecdotes have parallels in documents generally called “tannaitic.” As was the case with Sifra, there are many more parallels to the legal issues in cases where parallels are lacking to the anecdote form itself. Again, like Sifra and unlike the two Mekhiltas, the lines of relationship to the two Talmuds and to the Tosefta are unsurprising. Tosefta and Sifre Numbers represent

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Numbers

399

parallel collections of baraitot, one organized by the Mishnah’s topical and logical scheme of organization, and the other by a scheme controlled by the exegesis of Scripture.

:[htez ic ibjuh icr] ovk rnt ihrvyn ohnv tku w,tnyn ,nv tk !ofhhj /h,rzd vrzd h,eej vej wv"cev rnt tkt wch,fs wh,rzd rcgk htar v,t ht ['j 'hx wy"h 'p wvcr rcsnc]

HISTORICAL ANECDOTES IN SIFRE ZUTA

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SIFRE ZUTA The text of Sifre Zuta used in this chapter is the edition of Horowitz, which is reconstructed from medieval quotations and some genizah fragments. Saul Lieberman considered Sifre Zuta to be the earliest of the exegetical midrashim, dating it to the early third century.1 Though Sifre Zuta sometimes seems to depend on law which we otherwise know from the Mishnah it does not use a citation formula to reference that material, and it also frequently disagrees with the Mishnah.

LIST OF HISTORICAL ANECDOTES FOUND, AND THEIR FREQUENCY In this chapter we treat 12 historical anecdotes from Sifre Zuta, as follows: TABLE I. ANECDOTES IN SIFRE ZUTA

Parashah & Base Verse (from Numbers) Naso to Num. 6:5 Naso to Num. 6:12 Naso to Num. 6:27 Beha’alotekha to Num. 8:2 Hukat to Num. 19:2

Starting point (Page & line) p. 241 ln. 20 p. 243 ln. 18 p. 250 ln. 11 p. 255 ln. 7 p. 300 ln. 17

Length (lines) 4 6 6 2 6

1 Saul Lieberman, Siphre Zutta: The Midrash of Lydda [Hebrew] (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1968), cited in Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. Markus Bockmuehl, 2nd edition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 269-270.

400

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Zuta Parashah & Base Verse (from Numbers) Hukat to Num. 19:2 Hukat to Num. 19:3 Hukat to Num. 19:4 Hukat to Num. 19:10 Hukat to Num. 19:16 Matot to Num. 30:4 Matot to Num. 30:13

Starting point (Page & line) p. 301 ln. 18 p. 302 ln. 5 p. 302 ln. 14 p. 305 ln. 13 p. 313 ln. 11 p. 326 ln. 17 p. 327 ln. 21

401

Length (lines) 7 7 20 6 4 4 16

The percentage of lines devoted to historical anecdotes by parashah is as follows: TABLE II. ANECDOTES AS PERCENTAGE OF COMPOSITION.

Parashah Naso Beha’alotekha Shelah Korah Hukat Balak Pinhas Matot Masei TOTAL

Total Lines 656 749 274 221 374 ― 244 118 122 2,758

Anecdote Lines 16 2 0 0 50 ― 0 20 0 88

% 2.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 13.4% ― 0.0% 16.9% 0.0% 3.2%

The average anecdote in Sifre Zuta is thus 8 lines, approximately 124 words in the Horowitz edition.

TRANSLATION AND EXPLANATION OF ANECDOTES FOUND Naso to Numbers 6:5 (p. 241 lns. 20-23 in Horowitz edition) [Sifre Zuta comments upon the following passage of Scripture:] [“Say to the people of Israel, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD, he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no

402

Midrash and Legend vinegar made from wine or strong drink, and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried … All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall come upon his head; until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the LORD, he shall be holy; he shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long” (Numbers 6:2-3,5, RSV).] A. Whoever became a Nazirite in an unclean country, and came to a ritually pure country—I might think [kufh] that he may cut his hair and remove his locks again. B. Scripture says [rnuk sunk,]: “He shall be holy―he shall let his locks grow long.” So he must let his locks grow long [thus recommencing his entire Nazirite-vow period]. C. There was the case of ['c vagn] Queen Helena,2 whose son went off to war. She said, “If my son returns safely from the war, behold, I will be a Nazirite for seven years. And her son returned from the war and she was a Nazirite for seven years. D. At the end of seven years, she went up to the land of Israel, and the House of Hillel instructed that she should be a Nazirite for yet seven more years. E. At the end of [the second] seven years she became impure,3 with the result that she was a Nazirite for twenty-one years.4

Since Sifre Zuta is less readily available than Sifre Numbers, and since no standard translation exists, in this chapter I copy out these Hebrew texts in full for the benefit of the reader:5 2 Queen of Adiabene, a convert to Judaism. See Josephus, Antiquities book 20 chapter 2, which also mentions a pilgrimage of Helena to Jerusalem. There is another story at t. Sukkah 1:1 concerning Queen Helena who “had seven sons who were disciples of Sages.” The story is taken up by b. Sukkah 2b, which comments that she “did nothing except in accordance with the words of the Sages [kg tkt v,ag tk vhagn kf ohnfj hp].” Cp. also y. Sukkah 1:1. 3 i.e., through contact with a corpse, which (as the biblical text at Numbers 6:12 specifies) invalidates the period of Naziriteship. 4 Translations of Sifre Zuta throughout this chapter are my own.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Zuta

403

jkdh kufh wvruvy .rtk uk tcu vtny .rtc ruzhba hn wk", /hba grp jkahu /tuv grp ksd ot wvrntu wvnjknk vbc lkva vfknv hbkvc vagn tcu /ohba gca vrhzb hbrv woukac vnjknv in hbc tch gca ;uxku /ohba gca vrhzb v,hvu vnjknv in vbc vrhzb tv,a kkv ,hc vruvu wktrah .rtk ,kg wohba w,tnyb ohba gca ;uxku /,urjt ohba gca sug /vba ohragu ,jt vrhzb ,tmnbu

This is a formation we saw several times throughout Sifre Numbers. First comes a ribui interpretation of the biblical passage. It seems redundant to say that a person must let his locks grow long after saying that a razor should not touch his head. The seemingly redundant expression actually comes to teach a case not made explicit―the case of a person who moves from an unclean country (any non-Jewish territory) to a clean country (the portions of the land of Israel under Jewish control).6 The case example is fully represented―we have both the action and the decision of law. The case example comes to illustrate exactly the point already made by the anonymous midrash. The function of the anecdote is to provide the content required by Sifre Zuta’s hermeneutical opening. m. Nazir 3:6 A. One who vowed a Nazirite vow for an extended period, and completed his Nazirite period, and afterwards came to the [land of Israel]―the House of Shammai say, “He is a Nazirite for thirty days.” And the House of Hillel say, “He is a Nazirite from the beginning [of the duration of the original vow].” B. There was the case of ['c vagn] Queen Helena, whose son went off to war. She said, “If my son returns safely from the war, I will be a Nazirite for seven years. And her son returned from the war and she was a Nazirite for seven years. At the end of seven years, she went up to the land [of Israel], and the House of Hillel 5 I have added punctuation and formatting. A translation of Sifre Zuta

into German appeared after the completion of this study. Dagmar Börner-Klein, Der Midrasch Sifre zuta, Rabbinische Texte. Zweite Reihe, Tannaitische Midraschim vol. 3A (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2002). It was not consulted for the present work. 6 b. Shabbat 14b.

404

Midrash and Legend instructed her that she should be a Nazirite for yet seven more years. At the end of [the second] seven years she became impure, with the result that she was a Nazirite for twenty-one years. C. R. Judah said, “She was only a Nazirite for fourteen years.”

Only “B” is present in Sifre Zuta. Although there are differences of diction and spelling, the versions have too many close verbal similarities to be considered independent of each other. The legal issue of the case-example fits either context equally well. I consider the mishnaic form and general context to be the likely source for Sifre Zuta rather than vice-versa. The simple anecdote does not explain the Houses Dispute, nor the dissenting opinion of R. Judah. It is more likely that Sifre Zuta employed only the portion of a halakhic tradition which it found relevant and normative than that the Mishnah utilized a simple midrashic tradition and added extraneous issues to it. The following table compares only the anecdote proper in the two versions, indicating common phrases by underline. Sifre Zuta

Mishnah

A.

vbc lkva wvfknv hbkvc vagn in hbc tch ot wvrntu wvnjknk vrhzb hbrv woukac vnfknv /ohba gca

vbc lkva wvfknv hbkhvc vagn in hbc tuch ot wvrntu wvnjknk vrhzb tvt woukac vnjknv /ohba gca

B.

vrhzb v,hvu wvnjknv in vbc tcu /ohba gca

vrhzb v,hvu wvnjknv in vbc tcu /ohba gca

C.

wktrah .rtk ,kg wohba gca ;uxku vrhzb tv,a kkv ,hc vruvu /,urjt ohba gca sug

w.rtk v,kg ohba gca ;uxcu vrhzb tv,a kkv ,hc vuruvu /,urjt ohba gca sug

D.

w,tnyb ohba gca ;uxku /vba ohragu ,jt vrhzb ,tmnbu

w,tnyb ohba gca ;uxcu /vba ,jtu ohrag vrhzb ,tmnbu

E.

―

wvsuvh hcr rnt tkt vrhzb v,hv tk /vba vrag gcrt

y. Nazir 3:6 A. One who vowed a Nazirite vow for an extended period, and completed his Nazirite period, and afterwards came to the land of Israel—the House of Shammai say, “He is a Nazirite for thirty days.” And

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Zuta

405

the House of Hillel say, “He is a Nazirite from the beginning [of the duration of the original vow].” B. There was the case of ['c vagn] Queen Helena, whose son went off to war. She said, “If my son returns safely from the war, I will be a Nazirite for seven years. And her son returned from the war and she was a Nazirite for seven years. At the end of seven years, she went up to the land [of Israel], and the House of Hillel instructed her that she should be a Nazirite for yet seven more years. At the end of [the second] seven years she became impure, with the result that she was a Nazirite for twenty-one years. C. R. Judah said, “She was only a Nazirite for fourteen years.” D. Rabbi Yose of the school of Rabbi Bun said, Rabbi Hiyya bar Joseph and Rabbi Yohanan disputed: E. “One said, ‘Rabbi Judah agrees with the House of Shammai.’7

F. “And the other said, ‘Rabbi Judah held that she had not been made unclean at all.’“8 G. In any case [rehg kf] you cannot say that Rabbi Judah agrees with the House of Shammai—for does it teach [hb,u] thirty days and fourteen years [as the period when she was a Nazirite]?9 H. We do not find mention [hb,n ibhb, tk] of months when years are under discussion.10 7 In which case she would need seven years for the original vow, plus thirty days added when she came to the land of Israel, plus seven years for the repetition of the original vow on account of her contracting corpseuncleanness. 8 In which case we would have to understand that R. Judah agreed with the House of Hillel. She would need seven years for the original vow, plus seven years which were added when she came to the land of Israel. 9 As explained above at footnote 7. 10 Here and throughout the chapter, I have relied on Neusner’s translation of the Yerushalmi, but freely altered it in order to keep the diction parallel to my rendering of Sifre Zuta, and generally in favor of a greater degree of literalness.

406

Midrash and Legend

“A”-“C” are simply quotations from the Mishnah, so the Yerushalmi is not counted as a new “version” of the story in the summary tables for this chapter. The dispute at “D”-“H” gives us a sense of how malleable the case-story can become under pressure of varying constructions of the law. There is a very similar treatment of the story in the Bavli (b. Nazir 19b). Naso to Numbers 6:12 (p. 243 lns. 18-23 in Horowitz edition) [Sifre Zuta comments upon the following passage of Scripture:] [“All the days that he separates himself to the LORD he shall not go near a dead body. Neither for his father nor for his mother, nor for brother or sister, if they die, shall he make himself unclean; because his separation to God is upon his head … And if any man dies very suddenly beside him, and he defiles his consecrated head, then he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing; on the seventh day he shall shave it. On the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest to the door of the tent of meeting, and the priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, and make atonement for him, because he sinned by reason of the dead body. And he shall consecrate his head that same day, and separate himself to the LORD for the days of his separation, and bring a male lamb a year old for a guilt offering; but the former time shall be void, because his separation was defiled” (Numbers 6:6-7,9-12, RSV).] [Preceding context:] [“And he shall separate himself to the LORD for the days of his separation.” He must return and complete the days of his separation for which he separated himself. “And bring a lamb”―not a bullock; “a year old”―actually a year old, not a “year old” in the sense of being born in the previous calendar year. “For a guilt offering”―behold, this is a penalty. R. Simeon said, “We do not find (mention of) a guilt offering which must be

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Zuta

407

brought to no effect, except in this case alone.11 For thus it is written afterwards, ‘but the former time shall be void.’ ‘The former time is considered void’: It (might be) voided whether by (contact with) a quarter-log of blood, or by a quarter-kab of bones, or by touching a spit (of meat) or by the days when a leper is declared unclean. I might think that he invalidates (his Naziriteship) by any of these means. But Scripture says, “Because his separation was defiled.” Defilement invalidates; but all of these other means of defilement do not invalidate.] A. Rabbi Akiva said: Thus I reasoned before Rabbi Eliezer: Now if a bone the size of a barleycorn12 cannot defile a person merely by being in the same tent with him, but a Nazir must cut his hair if he touches it or carries it—should it not follow that a quarter-log of blood, which does defile a person merely by being in the same tent with him, would cause the Nazir to have to cut his hair on account of touching or carrying it? B. He reprimanded me, and said: One does not argue from the minor to the major case in the matter of the Nazir. C. And when I came to Rabbi Joshua, and reported the matter to him, he said to me: It seems to me that the argument from minor to major is valid, but what can I do? For the Sages have already decreed a half-log [to be the amount necessary to invalidate a Nazirite’s vow on account of defilement]. omg ot vn :rzghkt hcr hbpk h,bs wtcheg hcr rnt kg jkdn rhzbv wkvtc ostv ,t tnyn ubhta wvrugaf ostv ,t vtnyn thva wos ,hghcr–utan kgu ugdn ?vtan kgu vgdn kg jkdn rhzbv tvha ihs ubht wkvtc 11 Cp. Sifre Numbers piska 31 to Numbers 6:12, and Numbers

Rabbah 10:16. “All other guilt offerings prescribed in the Torah are, until they are brought, a bar to atonement, except this one. Lest it be supposed that this one is also a bar Scripture states, ‘and he shall consecrate … and he shall bring,’ implying that even though he has not yet brought the offering he can nevertheless effect consecration” (Numbers Rabbah 10:16, Soncino Translation). 12 The smallest amount of a corpse which can impart corpseuncleanness. See the chapter on Sifra, where comment is made on Lev. 21:3 (p. 265).

408

Midrash and Legend h,tcafu /rnuju ken rhzbc ihbs iht :hk rntu whc ;zb hbt vtur :hk rnt /rcsv ,t uk h,rnt wgauvh hcr kmt /duk hmj ohnfj urzda ?vagt vn kct wrhnjvku kevk

This is an academy discussion among Sages. The academy discussion comes to validate the commentary of Sifre Zuta. The midrash bases itself on a very close reading of the passage, endowing each word with freight. “His separation [urzb] was defiled,” says Scripture, not “he was defiled,” which indicates to the midrash that not every form of defilement which renders a man ritually impure has the effect of voiding his Nazirite vow.13 Thus the decision of the Sages in the matter finds a biblical anchor. In form (not in subject matter), this anecdote is very similar to the one we treated in Sifre to Numbers 18:13 (above, p. 342), where a logically valid argument is set aside based on the authority of the Sages. The decree of the Sages mentioned at “C” is a fragment of a Case-Example embedded in our academy discussion. In the full case example we would be told the specific occasion for the decree mentioned. m. Nazir 7:4 A. Rabbi Akiva said, Thus I reasoned before Rabbi Eliezer: Now if a bone the size of a barleycorn cannot defile a person merely by being in the same tent with him, but a Nazir must cut his hair if he touches it or carries it—should it not follow that a quarter-log of blood, which does defile a person merely by being in the same tent with him, would cause the Nazir to have to cut his hair on account of touching or carrying it? B. He said to me: What is this, Akiva? We do not argue in this matter from the minor to the major case. C. And when I went and argued these matters before Rabbi Joshua, he said to me: You spoke well, but thus [according to R. Eliezer] they declared the halakhah.

The argument at “A” is identical to Sifre Zuta. “B” and “C” are only generally similar. Since “A” is a highly structured argument, each term being a technical halakhic term, it seems to me that these similarities can be explained as two performances of 13 The details of which forms of defilement have the effect of voiding

the Nazirite vow are spelled out at m. Nazir 7:2-3.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Zuta

409

an oral “text” without any indication of documentary copying. However, the generating of this material is best explained by the kind of categorical logic of the Mishnah, rather than in the midrashic plan of a document like Sifre Zuta. Sifre Zuta could have plugged any relevant issue14 into the opening created by its exegetical method. The following table compares the anecdote proper in both passages, with common phrases underlined. Sifre Zuta

Mishnah

A.

wtcheg hcr rnt :rzghkt hcr hbpk h,bs wvrugaf omg ot vn wkvtc ostv ,t tnyn ubhta–utan kgu ugdn kg jkdn rhzbv vtnyn thva wos ,hghcr tvha ihs ubht wkvtc ostv ,t ?vtan kgu vgdn kg jkdn rhzbv

wtcheg hcr rnt :rzghkt hcr hbpk h,bs wvrugaf omg ot vn wkvutc ost tnyn ubhta–utan kgu ugdn kg jkdn rhzbv tnyn tuva wos ,hghcr tvha ihs ubht kvutc ost ?vtan kgu vgdn kg jkdn rhzbv

B.

:hk rntu whc ;zb /rnuju ken rhzbc ihbs iht

?tcheg vz vn :hk rnt /rnuju ken itf ihbs iht

C.

wgauvh hcr kmt h,tcafu /rcsv ,t uk h,rnt wrhnjvku kevk hbt vtur :hk rnt ohnfj urzda ?vagt vn kct /duk hmj

ohrcsv ,t h,hmrvu h,tcafu w,rnt vph :hk rnt gauvh hcr hbpk /vfkv urnt if tkt

Naso to Numbers 6:27 (p. 250 lns. 14-18 in Horowitz edition) [Sifre Zuta comments upon the following passage of Scripture:] [“The LORD said to Moses, ‘Say to Aaron and his sons, Thus you shall bless the people of Israel: you shall say to them, The LORD bless you and keep you: The LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you: The LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace. So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless them’” (Numbers 6:22-27, RSV).] [Preceding context:] [“They shall put my name (upon the people of Israel)…” The name that is unique to Me. This teaches 14 such as those represented in m. Nazir chapter 7, which discusses

degrees of impurity that invalidate a Nazirite’s vow.

410

Midrash and Legend that they make the blessing with the Unique Name.15 I might think that even in the provinces they should make the blessing with the Unique Name. But Scripture says, “And they shall put my name (upon the people of Israel)” and farther on it says, “To place His name there” (Deut. 12:5). Just as farther on it means the Sanctuary, so here it means the Sanctuary. After the sectarians16 increased, they would only pass it [the proper pronunciation of the Divine Name] on to the discreet among the priests.”] A. R. Tarfon said: It happened ['u vagn] that I was standing with my brother priests in a row, and I inclined my ears to the lips of the High Priest, and I listened to him as he spoke it [the Divine Name] in the midst of the chanting of his brother priests.17 B. Or perhaps they make the blessing in the Sanctuary and do not make the blessing in the provinces? You have said,18 “In every place where I cause my name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you” (Exodus 20:24). Even in the provinces, but in the provinces one says it as three blessings,19 and in the sanctuary they say it as one blessing.20 In the sanctuary

15 i.e., the Tetragrammaton. 16 Or, “lawless ones [ohmurpv].” See Jastrow, “.rp” and “vmrp.” 17 Joel Gereboff treats this passage in his study of R. Tarfon, and he

translates it: “Said R. Tarfon, ‘M’SH W: I was standing in a row among my brothers the priests, and I cocked my ear toward the high priest, and I heard him say it [so that it would be lost] in the singing of his fellow priests.’“ In his rendering, the point of the anecdote is that the high priest said the name so softly that the indiscreet would not be able to hear it; in my interpretation the point is understood to be that R. Tarfon had the opportunity to hear the Divine Name pronounced properly―perhaps being one of the last to do so. Joel Gereboff, Rabbi Tarfon: The Tradition, the Man, and Early Rabbinic Judaism (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979), 286-87. 18 i.e., Scripture says. 19 Meaning, after each of the three sections of the blessings, the congregation responds with “Amen.” 20 Meaning, the congregation responds once at the end of the entire threefold blessing with “Amen.”

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Zuta

411

they say the name as it is written, but in the provinces by a euphemism. In the provinces they lift their hands as high as their shoulders, but in the Sanctuary above their heads. ohbvfv hjt og snug h,hhvu vagn :iupry 'r rnt urnta uh,gnau wkusd ivf hpkf hbzt h,hyvu wvruac ihtu ihfrcn asenc ut /ohbvfv uhjt ,nhgb lu,c w,rnt ?ihkucdc ihfrcn tkt wihkucdc ;t /(sf f ,una) /,jt vfrc asencu w,ufrc aka rnut ihkucdca ihkucdc /uhubhfc vbhsncu wuc,ff oav rnut asenc /ivhatr hcd kg asencu wivh,up,f sdbf ivhsh ihtaub

The anecdote proper is letter “A” alone; “B” resumes Sifre Zuta’s argument after the narrative parenthesis stimulated by the mention of the sectarians.21 The case-example simply illustrates the practice of reciting the blessing using the Divine Name as written, in the sanctuary. In addition we learn that it was spoken in such a setting that its sound was drowned out by the choir of priests, so that the indiscreet would not learn its pronunciation. y. Yoma 3:7 [Context concern’s the High Priest’s ministrations on the Day of Atonement, in particular his confession of the sins of Israel, during which he pronounces the Divine Name as written.] A. Ten times that day he expressed the Divine Name, six in regard to the bullock, three for the goat, and one for the lots. B. Those who were nearby would fall on their faces, and those who stood at a distance would say, “Blessed be the name of his glorious kingdom for ever and ever.” 21 There is a parallel to “B” at m. Sotah 7:6. “How is the priestly blessing performed? In the country they say it as three blessings, but in the Sanctuary as one blessing. In the Sanctuary one says the Name as written, but in the country by a euphemism. In the country the priests lift their hands as high as their shoulders, but in the Sanctuary above their heads, except for the High Priest, who does not lift his hands above his frontlet. Rabbi Judah says, ‘Even the High Priest raises his hands above his frontlet, as it is said, “And Aaron lifted his hands toward the people, and blessed them”‘“ (Lev. 9:22). The same tradition appears at m. Tamid 7:2.

412

Midrash and Legend C. These and those would not move from the spot until he disappeared from their sight. “This is my name for ever” (Exodus 3:15) may be read, “This is my name, which is to be concealed.”22 D. At first he would say it [the Divine Name] in a loud voice. After the sectarians increased, he would say it in a low voice. E. Said R. Tarfon, “I was standing [h,hhv snug] in a row with my brothers, the priests, and I inclined my ear to the lips of the High Priest, and I heard him as he murmured the Name during the chanting of his brother priests. F. At first it [the Divine Name] was transmitted to anybody. After the sectarians increased, it was only transmitted to trustworthy people…23

Here the wording of the case-example is changed slightly so as to make it clear that the exemplary action of the High Priest was the manner in which he pronounced the Divine Name, so that it was not audible to unworthy people. Whereas in Sifre Zuta the High Priest came out of nowhere into a discussion that primarily concerned the priestly blessing performed by the priests as a group,24 here in the Yerushalmi R. Tarfon’s reminiscence is more fitting. b. Kiddushin 71a [Context concerns secret or arcane matters passed down discreetly among the Sages.] A. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Yohanan‘s name: The [pronunciation of the Divine] Name of four letters the Sages confide to their disciples once a septennate―others state, twice a septennate.

22 Forever, “okugk,” is written haser, “okgk.” 23 This is Neusner’s translation, except for “D”-”F” which are given

in my translation. 24 According to m. Tamid 5:1, 7:2, the priests recited the Priestly Benediction daily in the Temple.

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Zuta

413

B. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Reason supports the view that it was once a septennate, for it is written, this is my name forever [le’olam] which is written le’allem. C. Rava thought to lecture upon it at the public sessions. Said a certain old man to him, It is written, le’allem [to be kept secret]. D. R. Avina opposed [two verses]: It is written: ‘this is my name’; but it is also written: ‘and this is my memorial’? ― The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I am not called as I am written: I am written with yod he, but I am read, alef dalet. E. Our Rabbis taught [ibcr ub,]: At first they would transmit the twelve-lettered Name25 to anyone. After the sectarians increased, they would only transmit it to the discreet among the priests, and the discreet among the priesthood only murmured it, [and that] during the chanting of their brother priests. F. It was taught [thb,]: R. Tarfon said: Once [,jt ogp] I ascended the platform after my mother’s brother [to pronounce the priestly blessing], and I inclined my ear toward the High Priest, and I heard him as he murmured the Name during the chanting of his brother priests. G. Rav Judah said in Rav‘s name: The forty-two lettered Name is entrusted only to him who is pious, meek, middle-aged, free from bad temper, sober, and not insistent on his rights. And he who knows it is heedful thereof and observes it in purity, is beloved above and popular below, feared by man, and inherits two worlds—this world and the future world. 26

The Bavli cites a baraita at “E,” only part of which is represented in our passage from Sifre Zuta. The verbal correspondence between our text of Sifre Zuta and this baraita is not very close, but it does contain some elements which agree with 25 According to Rashi, we do not know what names are designated

here by the twelve-lettered name and the forty-two lettered name. Marvin Fox, “God, Names of,” Encyclopedia Judaica 7:674-686. See p. 684. 26 This is the Soncino translation, except for “E” and “F” which are my translation.

414

Midrash and Legend

Sifre Zuta against the Yerushalmi, as well as some elements which agree with the Yerushalmi against Sifre Zuta. In the table below, phrases which occur in two or more versions are underlined. I imagine that the Bavli and Yerushalmi rely on a baraita in a somewhat different form than we see in Sifre Zuta. Sifre Zuta

Yerushalmi

Bavli

―

wohmurpv ucran … u,ut ihrxun ,uhvk urzj /vbuvfca ohgubmk

urnut vhv vbuatrc wvucd kuec [d"f] wihmurpv ucran /lunb kuec urnut vhv

vbuatrc :r", ,uh,ut c"h ic oa u,ut ihrxun uhv ucran/ ost kfk ihrxun uhv wohmhrpv /vbuvfca ohgubmk u,ut vbuvfca ohgubmvu u,ut ohghkcn /ohbvfv ovhjt ,nhgbc

A.

:iupry 'r rnt snug h,hhvu vagn wvruac ohbvfv hjt og

:iupry r"t h,hhv snug wvruac ohbvfv hjt ihc

:iupry hcr rnt :thb, h,hkg ,jt ogp wifusk hnt hjt rjt

B.

hbzt h,hyvu wkusd ivf hpkf

hbzt h,hyvu wkusd ivf hpkf

hbzt h,hyvu wkusd ivf kmt

C.

urnta uh,gnau ,nhgb lu,c /ohbvfv uhjt

ughkcn uh,gnau /ohbvfv ,nhgbc

oa ghkcva h,gnau /ohbvfv uhjt ,nhgbc

―

―

rxnb tuv vbuatrc ucran wost kfk rxnb vhv tk wohmurpv /ohrafk tkt

―

Beha’alotekha to Numbers 8:2 (p. 255 lns. 7-8 in Horowitz edition) [Sifre Zuta comments upon the following passage of Scripture:] [“Now the LORD said to Moses, ‘Say to Aaron, When you set up the lamps, the seven lamps shall give light in front of the lampstand.’ And Aaron did so; he set up its lamps to give light in front of the lampstand, as the LORD commanded Moses. And this was the workmanship of the lampstand, hammered work of gold; from its base to its flowers, it was hammered work; according to the pattern which the LORD had shown Moses, so he made the lampstand” (Numbers 8:1-4, RSV).] [Preceding context:]

Historical Anecdotes in Sifre Zuta

415

[“When you set up the lamps.” It is not known whether “when you set up” refers to raising them up, or whether “when you set up” refers to arranging them. When it says “the seven lamps shall give light” that must mean raising them up, not merely arranging them. I might think (kufh) that the height of all of them was the same, but you say27 “to raise up the perpetual lamp” (Exodus 27:20)―in the same manner. I might think that Aaron knew that the height of all of the individual lamps was not the same, but his sons might set their height all the same. But Scripture says, “The seven lamps shall give light.” “Aaron and his sons shall arrange it” (Exodus 20:21) ― in the same manner. And whence do I know that they went in a circle like a kind of crown? Scripture says, “The seven lamps shall give light.” And whence do I know that each lamp would be set from the side of the middle lamp? Scripture says, “against the lampstand (vrubnv hbp kun kt).” And thus it says, “and they are dwelling against me (hkunn)” (Numbers 22:5, RSV).28] R. Simeon said: When I went to Rome, I saw the lampstand there.29 All the lamps were set from the side of the middle lamp. wvrubnv ,t oa h,htru whnurk h,fkvaf wiugna 'r rnt /hgmntv rb sdbf ihryxun ,urbv kf uhv

The anecdote is simply the one sentence in the name of R. Simeon.30 It is a case example, of an incident that happened that supports a certain construction of the law―the construction already given by Sifre Zuta based on its simple commentary. This brief anecdote has no parallel.

27 i.e., Scripture says. 28 Other (seemingly contradictory) speculations as to the appearance

of the lampstand are found at b. Menahot 98b, and in Sifre Num. at piska 59 to Numbers 8:2 (beginning of parashat Beha’alotekha). 29 Perhaps this refers to the triumphal arch of Titus, which contains a depiction of the menorah. 30 There is an account of a trip by R. Simeon b. Yohai to Rome at b. Me’ilah 17a. The lampstand is not mentioned in that story.

416

Midrash and Legend

Hukat to Numbers 19:2 (p. 300 lns. 14-19 in Horowitz edition) [The biblical text, upon which this passage comments, is given in the chapter on Sifre Numbers to Numbers 19:2 (piska 123), page 361.] A. “And they shall take a heifer.” They should not acquire a calf and raise it. B. They said: There was the case that ['a vagn] they acquired a pregnant red heifer from non-Jews, and they tended her until she gave birth, to see if the offspring would be fit for the ritual of the red heifer. And they guarded the offspring until she reached three years of age, and they returned and purchased her with funds from the Temple treasury, to fulfill what is said, “And they shall take a heifer.” C. They should not acquire a calf and raise it. R. Eliezer says: They do not acquire her from non-Jews, but the Sages declare such a heifer to be fit.31 D. They said, It happened that ['a vagn] they acquired a heifer from the Arabs, and they would call it “Damat! Damat!” and she would run and come.32 ujeka vagn :urnt /uksdhu vkdg ujeh tka sg v,ut ihrnan uhvu> wohudv in vnust vrcug vrp ihrnan uhvu / /hkfc tk kct shc vrp os rafv ;t rupm os rafv vn wrhafn rupm osu rhafn vrpu khtuv kct hkfv in vrp os rafv ;t wshv in tk kct hkfv in oat inau khtuv :tbhbj ic iugna 'r k"t /shv in tk in tk kct shv in oat ina vn wrhafn vrp osu rhafn iusk cyun