My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs [1 ed.] 0199359334, 9780199359332

Citation preview

My Perfect One

My Perfect One Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs JONATHAN K APL AN

1

1 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America

© Oxford University Press 2015 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kaplan, Jonathan, 1976– author. My perfect one : typology and early Rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs/ Jonathan Kaplan. p.  cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–19–935933–2 (alk. paper) — ISBN 978–0–19–935934–9 — ISBN 978–0–19–935935–6 1. Bible. Song of Solomon—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. Song of Solomon—Allegorical interpretations. I. Title. BS1485.52.K37 2015 223.’906088296—dc23 2014033924

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

‫‪To Deborah‬‬ ‫אחת היא יונתי תמתי‬

Contents

Acknowledgments xi Abbreviations xiii A Note on Translation and Transliteration xv Introduction

1

Song of Songs as a Divine Love Song  3 Song of Songs and Tannaitic Literature  7 1. A llegory, Mashal, or Figuration? Song of Songs in Early Rabbinic Interpretation 15 Reading Homer, Reading the Bible, and the Birth of Allegory  15 Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?  18 The Emergence of Typological and Figural Interpretation in Antiquity  21 Figural Interpretation in Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs  26 Figural Interpretation and the Rabbinic Reading of Other Biblical Books  30 Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation: Conclusions  32 2. Song of Songs and Israel’s National Narrative Dramatis Personae: Heroes and Villains in Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs  48

47

viii    Contents

Typology, Historicization, Song of Songs, and Israel’s National Narrative  56 Typological Correlation to Singular, Past Events  56 Proleptic Historicization  65 Contemporizing Historicization  67 Multiple Signification in Typological Historicization  71 Israel’s National Narrative, Epic Literature, and the Cultivation of Early Rabbinic Society  78 3. Female Beauty and the Affective Nature of Rabbinic Piety

95

Female Beauty in Song of Songs  96 Portraying Israel’s Unique Beauty and the Feminization of the Jewish Man  98 Song of Songs and the Shape of Rabbinic Piety  105 Song of Songs and the Practice of Piety  112 Song of Songs and the Affective Character of Rabbinic Piety  118 4 . Israel’s Ideal Man

135

The Ideal Man of Song of Songs  135 What Provokes Such Love?  137 Exemplarity in Dialogue  144 The Torah as an Expression of Divine Love  148 Rabbinic Piety and Divine Imitation  150 5. Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder? Domesticating the Elusive Lover of Song of Songs

159

The Elusive Lover of Song of Songs  160 Subverting the Night Visions  164 Exile and Divine Absence in Tannaitic Interpretation of Song of Songs  168 A Theology of Presence  175 Conclusion

183

Contents  ix

Bibliography 191 Rabbinic Texts  191 Non-Rabbinic Ancient Sources  192 Secondary Sources  193 Index of Ancient Sources 211 General Index 221

Acknowledgments

products of relationships and experiences as much as they are the end result of time spent doing research and writing. The first seeds of this volume were planted in a seminar on Jewish interpretation of Song of Songs that I took with David R. Blumenthal at Emory University in 2004. I further developed many of the ideas that are prefatory to this volume in my doctoral dissertation, “A Divine Love Song: The Origins of the Theo-erotic Interpretation of the Song of Songs in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity,” completed under the direction of Jon D. Levenson in 2010. The focus of this volume emerged in my conversations with him and the other members of my committee, Shaye J. D. Cohen and Jonathan Wyn Schofer, as the natural next step in my exploration of ancient interpretations of Song of Songs. I extend my thanks to them for both guiding me through the dissertation process and helping me think about the next steps of my research. Early drafts of chapters 1, 2, and 5 were written while a Jacob & Hilda Blaustein Postdoctoral Associate in the Judaic Studies Program at Yale University. I am grateful for the collegial and supportive environment afforded me by the Judaic Studies and Religious Studies faculty at Yale. In particular, I would like to thank individuals who provided important feedback on this project at various stages: Alan Appelbaum, John J. Collins, Stephen J. Davis, Steven D. Fraade, Liora Halperin, Christine E. Hayes, Paula Hyman z”l, Oded Irshai (visiting), Ivan Marcus, Hindy Najman, Micha Perry, and Eliyahu Stern. This volume was completed at the University of Texas at Austin. I am thankful for the collegiality and warm home afforded me here in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies and by its chairs, Kristen Brustad and Kamran Aghaie, as well as the support of the Schusterman Center for Jewish Studies and the Department of Religious Studies. In particular, I would like to thank several of my colleagues who provided me salient advice as I have brought this project to completion: Steven J. Friesen, Jo Ann Hackett, John Huehnergard, Martha G. Newman, Na’ama Pat-El, Jonathan Wyn Schofer, and L. Michael White. I would also like to express my gratitude to Dean books are the

xii    Acknowledgments

Randy L. Diehl and his office at the College of Liberal Arts for providing generous research and summer support, which have eased the process of finishing this project. Earlier versions of several parts of this volume were presented at the Judaism in Antiquity Workshop at Harvard University, the Midrash and Megilloth Sections at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, the Hebrew Bible and History of Interpretation Section at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Jewish Studies, the Ancient Judaism Workshop and Judaic Studies Colloquium at Yale University, and the Ancient Near East Lecture Series at the University of Texas at Austin. I offer my thanks to the participants at those sessions for their insightful comments and questions. My friends and colleagues in the Judaica Electronic Workgroup (Phillip I. Ackerman-Lieberman, Naftali Cohn, Ari Finkelstein, David Freidenreich, Jason Kalman, Maud Kozodoy, Jordan Rosenblum, David Shyovitz, Loren Spielman, and Katja Vehlow) served as an important sounding board for this project at various stages. I appreciate the work of the two anonymous reviewers of this volume who read this volume closely and offered many important suggestions that have greatly improved it. I am grateful to several colleagues for reading and commenting on drafts of chapters: Gregg Gardner, Tzvi Novick, Suzie Park, Jordan Rosenblum, and Sara Ronis. Sonja Rethy provided invaluable editorial assistance at the end of this project. My editor at Oxford University Press, Steve Wiggins, has graciously guided this project to production and has generously offered his advice as I peppered him with many questions. I would also like to extend my thanks to Theo Calderara, Charlotte Steinhardt, and Elisabeth R. Nelson at Oxford University Press. In addition, I would like to thank several individuals for assisting me with various matters during the process of writing this book. Aaron Michael Butts, Yonatan Moss, and Charles M. Stang provided invaluable assistance on the sections on Patristic exegesis and Syriac in chapter 1. Yonatan Sagiv helped me with several bibliographic matters related to Sifra, including his assistance untangling its recension history. I would also like to extend my thanks to several individuals for providing me important bibliographical assistance along the way. Rabbi Carl Perkins provided me a copy of his unpublished paper “The Interpretation of the Song of Songs in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael.” Baruch Alster, Brian P. Gault, and Birke Rapp-de Lange graciously sent me copies of their dissertations. Menachem Butler helped me locate several important works. Most important, I am grateful to my wife, Deborah, and our two daughters, Gabriella and Talya, for their love and their forbearance as I have toiled away on this project.

Abbreviations

AB ABD ACW AJSR AnBib ASE AYBRL BA BibInt BibOr BJS BKAT BZAW CBQ DSD EDEJ

FC HTR HUCA IDBSup Int JAOS JBL JJS JNES JQR

Anchor Bible The Anchor Bible Dictionary Ancient Christian Writings Association for Jewish Studies Review Analecta Biblica Annali di storia dell’esegesi Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Interpretation Biblica et Orientalia Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Dead Sea Discoveries The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Fathers of the Church Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Edited by K. Crim. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1976. Interpretation Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review

xiv    Abbreviations

JSJ JSJSup JSOTSup JSQ KAT KTU

LCL LXX MT NJPS NovTSup OBT OTL PAAJR RevQ SBLDS SBT SJLA SJT SNTSMS SP SSEJC STDJ StPB TSAJ VT WBC WMANT WUNT ZAW

Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Jewish Studies Quarterly Kommentar zum Alten Testament Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. AOAT 24/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1976. 3d enlarged ed. of KTU: The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. Münster: Ugarit, 2013. Loeb Classical Library Septuagint, collection of ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible Masoretic Text New Jewish Publication Society translation Novum Testamentum Supplements Overtures to Biblical Theology Old Testament Library Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Revue de Qumran Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Studies in Biblical Theology Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra pagina Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia Post-biblica Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

A Note on Translation and Transliteration

the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament in this book are adapted from the Tanakh, except for those cited within an excerpt from another source. (Reprinted from the Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures by permission of the University of Nebraska Press. Copyright 1985 The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia.) I have, at times, modified the translations taken from the Tanakh to highlight a particular textual or interpretive nuance. Translations from the New Testament and the Apocrypha are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible. (Copyright © 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.) All translations of rabbinic sources are my own, unless noted. All translations of other ancient sources were prepared in consultation with relevant editions and translations as noted. As this book was written with both specialists and non-specialists in mind, I have transliterated Hebrew words in the body of this volume using a general-purpose style. Where relevant, I have included the Hebrew characters in the notes. In general, I have followed the general-purpose style outlined in The SBL Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (ed. Patrick H. Alexander, et al.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999, 28–29). I have departed from this style in a number of important ways: (1) I have not rendered the spirantization of the following consonants: gimel, dalet, kaf, and tav; (2) I have transliterated the consonant chet as ḥ and the consonant sin as ś; and (3) I have, occasionally, rendered the consonant shin as  š, rather than sh, for the sake of clarity. For Hebrew words that appear ­frequently throughout the volume (e.g., halachic), I have followed the style conventions in appendix A of The SBL Handbook of Style even when they differ from the transliteration system used in this volume. a l l t r a n s l at i o n s f r o m

My Perfect One

Introduction For we are your people, and you are our God; we are your children, and you are our father; we are your servants, and you are our master; we are your congregation, and you are our portion; we are your inheritance, and you are our lot; we are your flock, and you are our shepherd; we are your vineyard, and you are our watchman; we are your craft, and you are our maker; we are your companion, and you are our beloved; we are your treasured possession, and you are our God; we are your people, and you are our king; we are your betrothed, and you have spoken for us. We are brazen, and you are compassionate and gracious; we are stiff necked, and you are slow to anger; we are completely sinful, and you are abounding in mercy. We—our “days are like a passing shadow” (Ps 144:4), and “you remain the same, and your years do not cease” (Ps 102:28). —k i

anu amek a,

from the Yom Kippur Vidui (confessional) liturgy

on first re ading,

Song of Songs recounts youthful love and lust. The overtly erotic tenor of this little poem sets it apart from other biblical books in the canons of Jewish and Christian scripture. Yet, Jews during the GrecoRoman period came to regard Song of Songs as an archetypal and idealized portrait—as a divine love song—rather than a work depicting human attraction, longing, and love. The successors of this Second Temple period approach to Song of Songs—rabbinic Judaism and Christianity—continued this trajectory, interpreting the work as a statement of divine love between God and Israel or Jesus and his followers, respectively. For rabbinic Judaism, Israel is God’s companion (ra’yah), and God is Israel’s beloved (dod), appellations drawn from Song of Songs and so elegantly captured in the piece of liturgical poetry, Ki anu ameka, reproduced earlier.1 The aim of this volume is

2   

my perfect one

to explore one stage in the development of rabbinic biblical interpretation (midrash; plural: midrashim) of Song of Songs: how the first generations of rabbinic sages, known as the Tannaim, approached this little book during the first centuries of the common era. In particular, I will be examining their readings of Song of Songs found in the interpretive works known as the tannaitic midrashim. In this volume, I advance a number of claims about tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs. As I argue in more detail in chapter 1, the tannaitic midrashim employ a typological mode of interpreting Song of Songs, analogous to Christian modes of typology, that sees in Song of Songs figurations of ideal characters and events in Israel’s scriptural history. The Tannaim correlate verses of Song of Songs with archetypal expressions of Israel’s relationship with God in order to paint an idealizing portrait of this relationship. In chapter 2, I will examine in more detail how the Tannaim “historicized” this work and read it in a way akin to how other ancient societies read epic poetry. I will then, in chapters 3 and 4, examine how the Tannaim exploit the sections of Song of Songs in which one lover extols the other’s beauty in order to characterize God’s relationship with Israel. Next, I will explore how they subvert verses that describe the female protagonist’s longing for her male beloved by rereading them as statements assuring Israel of God’s steadfast presence. As we will see in the coming chapters, the interpretation of Song of Songs as a divine love song in the tannaitic midrashim idealizes and rabbinizes scripture as part of casting a larger vision for rabbinic society. This approach to Song of Songs helps cultivate the social and hermeneutical space for piety marked by affective devotion to God through the mitsvot, or “commandments”— a piety figured and shaped by the divine love song that is Song of Songs. In tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs, Israel becomes God’s “perfect one” (tamah)—an appellation used by the male beloved for the female protagonist of Song of Songs (5:2, 6:9)—and both parties and their relationship are imagined in idyllic and ideal terms. The Tannaim’s use of Song of Songs to portray an idealized construction of Israel’s relationship with God mitigates against traditional scholarly conceptions that associate tannaitic literature primarily with law. Certainly, other works in the tannaitic corpus, which I will introduce later, are concerned principally with legal matters. The tannaitic midrashim, while also exhibiting a strong interest in this area, should not, however, be mislabeled halachic (i.e., legal) midrashim. This genre designation is often employed to distinguish these works from the later amoraic midrashim, which, because of their association with homiletics and narrative, are often called aggadic midrashim.

Introduction    3

As I show in what follows, and which is widely agreed upon by scholars of ancient Judaism, to label the tannaitic midrashim as halachic obscures their profound interest in exploring the shape of Israel’s national narrative and in relating aggadic traditions. The use of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim is part of these larger programs. Because of this misperception of the tannaitic midrashim, the Tannaim are often understood as investing little rhetorical effort in appealing to the emotions of their audience. For instance, in her recent monograph on Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana, Rachel A. Anisfeld characterizes the tannaitic midrashim as “developing a theology of greater distance, respect and authority,” in contradistinction to the amoraic midrashim, which invest serious rhetorical effort in a new appeal to their audience through a greater emphasis on “intimacy and indulgence.”2 It is certainly the case that the amoraic midrashim, and Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana in particular, focus more on nurturing the theological emphases of intimacy and indulgence in the larger social context of the Christianization of the Roman Empire, as Anisfeld shows. It is, however, an overstatement to view this increased focus as purely innovative. As I will show in what follows, the Tannaim are perfectly capable of and interested in expressing the intimacy of God’s relationship with Israel. Like the Amoraim, and exemplified in Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana in particular, the Tannaim employ Song of Songs to precisely that end, albeit with a less specific focus on this aim. In framing their understanding of God and Israel’s relationship through a typological interpretation of Song of Songs, the Tannaim plant the seeds of a theology of intimacy that blossoms fully in the much more extensive interpretations of the Amoraim.3 In many cases, the Tannaim frame the core aggadic traditions and approaches to Song of Songs that become central to later amoraic traditions and are restated throughout classical rabbinic literature. While the focus of this volume is not on tracing the development of these traditions from tannaitic to amoraic literature, this point is worth noting as it highlights the important contribution that the Tannaim make both to the development of rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs and to the crafting of a portrait of God’s intimate relationship with Israel.

Song of Songs as a Divine Love Song The Tannaim do not innovate the interpretation of Song of Songs as a divine love song. It is a legacy they receive, as I have argued elsewhere, from the interpretive culture of Second Temple period Judaism. 4 How this interpretation developed in the Second Temple period, however, is a matter of speculation

4   

my perfect one

and mystery.5 Some have argued that it is inherent to the composition of Song of Songs.6 Others have located the transformation of Song of Songs from secular love song to divine love song in socio-political transformations in Jewish society in the Second Temple period.7 Still others have situated its development in the process of the inclusion of Song of Songs in the canon of ancient Israelite scripture.8 There is, however, nowhere near enough evidence to make any reasonable conjecture regarding the emergence of the interpretation of Song of Songs as a divine love song. As John Barton rightly notes, “there is no evidence at all that any serious interpreters in antiquity ever read the Song ‘literally’ anyway.”9 This absence of competing interpretations of Song of Songs makes it difficult, if not impossible, to locate the process by which it began to be read as a divine love song. What is clear is that the interpretation of Song of Songs as a divine love song builds upon a spousal or marital metaphor in describing the relationship between God and Israel. Of course, the spousal metaphor is part of the literary legacy of ancient Israel. The metaphor appears prominently in the corpus of Israelite prophetic writings. In the monarchic and exilic period, various prophets imagine Israel as God’s adulterous wife who transgresses the exclusive sanctity of her relationship with her husband by worshipping other gods (Hos 2:4–17; Jer 2:1–3:13, 13:20–27; Ezek 16, 23; cf. Isa 54:4–8, 62:4–5).10 The prophets employ this metaphor to chastise Israel, who is portrayed as God’s long-standing spouse. Often, the prophet will challenge Israel to remember their covenant responsibilities by appealing to an earlier stage of their union, one marked by mutual fidelity and devotion. As Jeremiah states, “Thus said the Lord, ‘I accounted to your favor, the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride—How you followed me in the wilderness, in a land not sown’” (Jer 2:2; see also Isa 62:4–5). Notably these verses are never quoted in correlation to Song of Songs in the corpus of early rabbinic interpretation that I will be discussing in this volume. Nevertheless, the metaphor of youthful love in which Israel’s wanderings with God in the wilderness following the exodus and Sinai are likened to the first days of their marriage does play a prominent role, as we shall see, in framing early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs. The first books of the Bible, known as the Pentateuch or Torah, and in particular Deuteronomy, do not explicitly describe Israel’s relationship with God as a marital one. They frequently employ, however, terminology associated with marital devotion. For instance, in Deut 6:4–9, Israel is enjoined to loving devotion to God “with all [her] heart and with all [her] soul and with all [her] might.” Elsewhere in Deuteronomy, Moses commands Israel to “follow none but the Lord your God” (Deut 13:5), language that contrasts with the commandment to

Introduction    5

Israel not to follow other gods (e.g., 6:14; cf. Hos 2:15).11 Similarly, in Deuteronomy, Israel’s devotion to God is expressed through her “cleaving” or “holding fast” to God (e.g., 11:22). The verb used here in Deuteronomy to characterize Israel’s relationship with God is employed famously in the second chapter of Genesis to portray the union of a husband and a wife (2:24). In addition, God is described in the Torah as an “impassioned” or “jealous God” (Exod 20:5, 34:14; Deut 4:24, 5:9, 6:15) in language evocative of the jealousy that comes upon a husband when he suspects his wife of adultery (Num 5:14, 29, 30).12 Similarly, the root describing sexual activity outside of sanctioned relationships, commonly translated as “whoring” or “prostituting,” appears in contexts describing human marital infidelity (e.g., Gen 38:15) and Israel’s potential or actual unfaithfulness to the covenant (e.g., Deut 31:16; Hos 2:4).13 Scholars have debated the degree to which the linguistic resonances between the descriptions of God’s relationship with Israel in the Torah and the terminology used to describe marriage in ancient Israelite prophetic literature indicate that the spousal metaphor is implicit in the Torah. Gerson Cohen, followed more recently by David M. Carr, argued that the use of the spousal metaphor to characterize God and Israel’s relationship is not the exclusive contribution of the prophets. Rather, the metaphor is woven into the fabric of the Torah.14 As Cohen suggests, the prophets, “to be sure, spelled it out, amplified it, and gave it a new intensity. However, they had inherited it from the more ancient circles of popular and priestly monotheism.”15 Moshe Weinfeld finds Cohen’s analysis suggestive and “quite reasonable,” but he ultimately rejects it. He notes that the metaphor is not explicit in the Torah and is absent from comparative ancient Near Eastern covenantal documents.16 Weinfeld’s rejection builds both on his own research and on an influential article by William L. Moran.17 In this article Moran compares the language of love in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua to 2 Kings) with that of ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties. He finds that in both corpora love “can be commanded” and “may be defined in terms of loyalty, service and obedience.”18 Weinfeld builds on Moran’s analysis by further pointing out that both corpora only employ the metaphors of father-son (though Moran sees this metaphor as absent from Deuteronomy) and servant-master to describe the relations between the vassal and his sovereign. In this understanding, the Torah and its old covenantal notions of commanded, covenantal love have little to do with the spousal metaphor, whose innovation is to be credited to the prophets. Jacqueline E. Lapsley has strongly critiqued Moran’s approach, in part by questioning his assumption “that the language of love in Deuteronomy has been decisively stripped of its emotional connotations.”19 She follows Frank Moore Cross’s important observation that the language of love in Deuteronomy

6   

my perfect one

and the larger corpus of the Deuteronomistic History is imported from the familial into the political and ultimately into the theological realm.20 In the patriarchal structure of ancient Israelite society, the pater familias was the nexus of a variety of internal and external familial relationships. Within the family these connections included relationships between father and sons (as well as daughters), master (i.e., the father) and servants/slaves, and husband (i.e., the father) and wife. Parity relationships between householders were often defined in terms of brotherhood, regardless of whether their kinship was genetic or fictive (e.g., Gen 4:8–9; Lev 25:25). Given these facts, it is a curious distinction to exclude the spousal metaphor from the Torah and argue that it is an innovation of the prophets when the rest of the terms for covenantal fidelity are so strongly present in the Torah. Despite this point of disagreement with Moran and Weinfeld, their work raises an important caution about assuming homogeneity in cultural conceptions of love. Moran, in particular, challenged the uncritical import of romantic conceptions of affective love into our analysis of love language in Deuteronomy. In similar fashion, I will attempt to exhibit caution in my interpretation of how the Tannaim employed both Song of Songs and the vocabulary of love. I will explore this topic in greater detail in chapter 4 after I have significantly explored the use of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim to characterize ideal Israel and her beloved. For now, it is sufficient to point to my methodological caution. It is also important to note Lapsley’s salient critique that Moran stripped the Deuteronomic notion of love of its emotional content by describing it primarily in terms of commandment and obedience. In doing so he fell prey to the false assumption of “most moderns . . . that actions flow naturally out of feelings; an emotion generates an action appropriate to it.”21 Building on studies by Yochanan Muffs and Gary Anderson, Lapsley points out that we should also be attentive to the way behavior, particularly legislated behavior, shapes emotions.22 Indeed, as we will see in what follows, the early rabbinic sages nearly entirely stripped Song of Songs of its erotic tenor in their interpretation. As I will argue in more detail in chapter 4, this interpretive move should not lead us to misconstrue them as also stripping the affective or emotive from their understanding of what it means to love God. Notably, the Tannaim connect Song of Songs to the broader idea of what it means to love God as expressed in the Torah and Israelite prophetic literature. What is remarkable is that in all of the tannaitic midrashim, they rarely connect Song of Songs to the prophetic materials that speak of God and Israel’s relationship in marital terms.23 Instead, they primarily interpret Song of Songs in conversation with various verses in the Torah. Perhaps, this approach to interpreting Song of Songs develops because most of the tannaitic

Introduction    7

commentaries are organized as collections of commentaries on verses in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. In doing so, they make explicit a metaphor that is implicit in the Torah.

Song of Songs and Tannaitic Literature Tannaitic literature consists of a number of works, of which the process of compilation and redaction spans several centuries beginning with the early third century c.e.24 The most well-known work of tannaitic literature is the Mishnah. Though scholars debate its purpose, the work is arranged topically and includes records of legal debates and scriptural interpretation.25 Another work, known as the Tosefta (Aramaic “the addition”), parallels the structure of the Mishnah but offers variant and expansive versions of the material found in the Mishnah. Another sub-corpus of tannaitic literature, known collectively as the tannaitic midrashim, entails the verse-by-verse exegetical commentaries on four books from the Torah: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The works in this category that have survived from antiquity include Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael on Exodus, Sifra on Leviticus, Sifre Bemidbar on Numbers, and Sifre Devarim on Deuteronomy. Additionally, there is a commentary on Exod 25:1ff, which is related to Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael but circulated as an independent work: Baraita de-Meleket ha-Mishkan. Beginning in the nineteenth century, other tannaitic midrashic works have been reconstructed from fragments found in the Cairo Geniza, medieval manuscripts, and citations from medieval halachic authorities: Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoh.ai on Exodus, Sifre Zuta on Numbers, and Mekilta le-Devarim (or Midrash Tannaim) on Deuteronomy. Menah.em I. Kahana has also identified and published passages from an additional tannaitic midrash on Deuteronomy known as Sifre Zuta on Deuteronomy.26 Undoubtedly the tannaitic midrashim reached their final form after the redaction of the Mishnah at the very beginning of the third century c.e. While the dating of individual books in this corpus needs to be made caseby-case, my operative assumption in this volume is that most of these materials were edited by the end of the late third century.27 As I noted earlier, the focus of this volume is on the interpretations of Song of Songs contained in the tannaitic midrashim with some attention given to the limited discussion of Song of Songs in the Mishnah and the Tosefta. I will also reference, where salient, the reception in later materials of the interpretive traditions found in the tannaitic midrashim. As would be expected, tannaitic midrashic works that have larger sections of narrative and non-legal material contain more discussions of Song of

8   

my perfect one

Songs. For instance, Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, a tannaitic work on Exodus, by far contains the largest number of interpretations of Song of Songs (twentyfive passages in total). The other major work of tannaitic midrash on Exodus, Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoh.ai, contains fifteen passages that cite Song of Songs (all but one of them parallel passages in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael). Similarly, the major tannaitic collection on Deuteronomy, Sifre Devarim, has fourteen passages that contain interpretations of Song of Songs. Other more legally focused works such as Sifra and Sifre Bemidbar only contain two passages each. Another notable feature of this material is that while named sages periodically appear throughout these passages (e.g., Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yose the Galilean), the majority of the interpretations are anonymous. Additionally, while the tannaitic midrashim employ a consistent approach to Song of Songs as a divine love song, there are three passages in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael that employ Song of Songs in order to explicate linguistic and formal features of the Hebrew language.28 These exemplars are unremarkable as rabbinic interpretation frequently employs intertextual interpretation of scripture for philological explication. For this reason, I am not devoting focused attention to them in this volume. Two other parts of rabbinic literature are often referenced in discussions of tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs. The first is purportedly tannaitic traditions found in later rabbinic works such as the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds and the later midrashic collections (e.g., Genesis Rabbah and Song of Songs Rabbah). I have generally excluded them from discussion in this volume for two reasons. First, the size of the rabbinic corpus would make any discussion of rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs selective and make it difficult to gain an appreciation of the specific shape of interpretations contained in smaller bodies of works like the tannaitic midrashim. Second, because many of the purportedly tannaitic traditions preserved in these later works are unattested in early tannaitic works, their provenance remains uncertain. The approach I am taking in this volume is to focus on the tannaitic midrashim and the Mishnah and the Tosefta. I leave for a different project the necessary task of evaluating these other materials and exploring their relationship to the materials I am discussing. The second source often referenced in discussions of tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs is the Shi‘ur Qomah (“Measure of the Body”), a mystical work that is part of the corpus of early Jewish mystical literature known as Hechalot literature. The Shi‘ur Qomah enumerates in detail the measurements and names of the various parts of the divine body and includes an interpretation of the bodily description of the male beloved from Song 5:10–16. There is widespread scholarly debate regarding the provenance, dating, and

Introduction    9

nature of the Shi‘ur Qomah as well as the role that the interpretation of Song 5:10–16 plays in the work. Because of these uncertainties and my own interest in focusing on the tannaitic midrashim, I have excluded discussion of the Shi‘ur Qomah from this volume.29 The primary reason that I am focusing this study on the interpretations of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim is because I believe that the interest of scholars in the interpretation of Song of Songs in later collections such as Song of Songs Rabbah has obscured our appreciation of the earlier material.30 The materials in the tannaitic midrashim are often referenced as a mere prelude to discussions of the later material without a deep appreciation of their unique shape and contributions. My approach in this volume is analogous to a now common approach in Mishnah and Tosefta studies, where scholars will frequently study a theme or a tractate in these works as the primary focus of their discussion.31 It is my hope that by concentrating my lens on the tannaitic midrashim I will be able to help chart a clearer portrait of the unique contribution of this material to the history of interpretation of Song of Songs. Telling this largely untold story will give us a better appreciation for a work that takes center stage in late antiquity and the middle ages among Christians and Jews. My approach in this book differs, however, from studies that focus on a particular work, such as the Mishnah, or a tractate within that work. Notably there is no tannaitic commentary on Song of Songs such as the later work, Song of Songs Rabbah. In effect, what I have done is created a “new corpus of rabbinic literature.”32 The primary danger of such an approach is that I could lose appreciation of the specific literary location of each of these passages in discrete works of tannaitic midrashim. I have attempted, though, throughout this volume, to lessen this danger by paying attention to the literary context of each passage, the role that a passage plays in each work, and the contribution that each interpretation makes to the work in which it is embedded.33 This volume is not an attempt to chart a dogmatic center or centers in tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs. My aim is to analyze how Song of Songs is interpreted in particular passages and to draw passages together around common issues in the interpretation of Song of Songs: how the Tannaim identify the main and supporting characters in the work, how the Tannaim correlate Song of Songs to other passages in scripture, how Israel and God are described using the descriptions of the female protagonist and her beloved, and how the Tannaim deal with the themes of absence and longing in Song of Songs. With these issues in mind, I now turn to the task of charting and analyzing the contours of the typological approach to Song of Songs found in the tannaitic midrashim.

10   

my perfect one

Notes 1. See Macy Nulman, The Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer: The Ashkenazic and Sephardic Rites (Lanham, Md.: Jason Aronson, 1993), 196–97. Ki anu ameka is the introductory song to Vidui or the confessional prayers at all the services on Yom Kippur. This liturgical poem is based on a midrashic tradition found in the sixth-century commentary to Song of Songs, Song of Song Rabbah. The particular passage is an interpretation of “my beloved is mine and I am his” from Song 2:16 (Song Rab. 2:45). 2. Rachel A. Anisfeld, Sustain Me with Raisin-Cakes: Pesikta deRav Kahana and the Popularization of Rabbinic Judaism (JSJSup 133; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 189. 3. Birke Rapp-de Lange (“Rabbinische Liebe: Untersuchungen zur Deutung der Liebe des Hohenliedes auf das Studium der Tora in Midrasch Shir haShirim Rabba” [Ph.D. diss., Katholieke Theologische Universiteit in Utrecht, 2003], 15–16) notes a similar intensification of the theme of the study of Torah from tannaitic to amoraic interpretation of Song of Songs. 4. Jonathan Kaplan, “The Song of Songs from the Bible to the Mishnah,” HUCA 81 (2010/2013): 43–66. 5. For a fuller discussion of the attendant issues, see Jonathan Kaplan, “A Divine Love Song: The Emergence of the Theo-erotic Interpretation of the Song of Songs in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2010). 6. E.g., Gerson Cohen, “The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religious Mentality,” in Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures (JPS Scholar of Distinction Series; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 1–17; reprinted from The Samuel Friedland Lectures, 1960–1966 (ed. Louis Finkelstein; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1966); Ellen F. Davis, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000); eadem, “Reading the Song Iconographically,” in Scrolls of Love: Ruth and the Song of Songs (ed. Peter S. Hawkins and Lesleigh Cushing Stahlberg; New York: Fordham University Press, 2006), 172–84, 342–44; André LaCocque, Romance, She Wrote: A Hermeneutical Essay on Song of Songs (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1998); idem, “‘I Am Black and Beautiful,’” in Scrolls of Love, 162–71, 341–42; Phyllis Trible, “Love’s Lyrics Redeemed,” in God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 144–65. 7. Othmar Keel, for instance, locates the transformation in the understanding of Song of Songs to the loss of Jewish independence in 63 b.c.e. Keel proposes that, in this context, Song of Songs transitioned from being national-religiösen Literatur to gottesdienstlich-religiöser Literatur. See Keel, Das Hohelied (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1986), 16. Keel’s commentary on Song of Songs was subsequently translated into English (The Song of Songs: A Continental Commentary [1st Fortress Press ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994]) and French (Le Cantique des cantiques: introduction et commentaire [Fribourg, Suisse; Paris:

Introduction    11 Editions universitaires; Cerf, 1997]) but with no revision of his position on the origins of the interpretation of Song of Songs as a divine love song. Keel’s perspective is endorsed by Aldo Ceresa-Gastaldo, “Nuove ricerche sulla storia del testo, le antiche versioni e l’interpretazione del Cantico dei Cantici,” ASE 6 (1989): 31–38, here 34. See my critique of Keel’s position in Kaplan, “A Divine Love Song,” 30–36. 8. E.g., Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1999), 611; Aage Bentzen, “Remarks on the Canonisation of the Song of Solomon,” Studia Orientalia Ioanni Pedersen (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1953), 41–47. 9. John Barton, “The Canonicity of the Song of Songs,” in Perspectives on the Song of Songs [Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung] (ed. Anselm C. Hagedorn; BZAW 346; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 5. 10. For a helpful survey of the use of this metaphor in prophetic literature, see Carleen R. Mandolfo, Daughter Zion Talks Back to the Prophets: A Dialogic Theology of the Book of Lamentations (Semeia Studies 58; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 29–54. Note David M. Carr’s location of the use of this metaphor in prophetic literature in the larger context of biblical descriptions of gender and sexual hierarchy: “Gender and the Shaping of Desire in the Song of Songs and its Interpretation,” JBL 119 (2000): 233–48, here 238–39. See also idem, The Erotic Word: Sexuality, Spirituality, and the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 59–74. 11. Compare similar usages in Deut 10:12, 11:22, 19:9, 30:16; Josh 22:5; 1 Kgs 3:3. 12. Using the root ‫קנא‬. 13. I.e., ‫זנה‬. 14. Cohen, “The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religious Mentality,” 6–8; Carr, “Gender and the Shaping of Desire,” 238–39. 15. Cohen, “The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religious Mentality,” 8. 16. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 81 n. 6. 17. William L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87. 18. Ibid., 81–82. 19. Jacqueline E. Lapsley, “Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 65 (2003): 350–69, here 355. 20. Ibid.; Frank Moore Cross, “Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel,” in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 3–21; see also Moshe Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 184–203; Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville, Ky.: WJKP, 2001), 36–60.

12   

my perfect one

21. Lapsley, “Feeling our Way,” 356–57. 22. Ibid., 357; Lapsley cites Yochanan Muffs, “Love and Joy as Metaphors of Willingness and Spontaneity in Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related Literatures: Part I, Divine Investitures in the Midrash in the Light of Neo-Babylonian Royal Grants,” in idem, Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), 121–38; originally published in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty: Part Three, Judaism Before 70 (ed. Jacob Neusner; SJLA 12; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 1–36; idem, “Love and Joy as Metaphors of Willingness and Spontaneity in Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related Literatures: Part II, The Joy of Giving,” in idem, Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel, 165–93; and Gary A. Anderson, A Time to Mourn, a Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991). 23. One example that explicitly correlates Song of Songs to the prophetic marriage metaphor occurs in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Pish.a 13 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, p. 106, lines 143–49; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 47, lines 8–11) where Ezek 16:7 serves as a co-text. Another example in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Beshallah. 7 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, p. 254, lines 156–59; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 115, lines 11–13) employs Hos 2:21–22 as a co-text. 24. For more detailed introductions to tannaitic literature and the attendant critical issues, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (trans. and ed. Markus Bockmuehl; 2d ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 108–63, 247–75; and Eyal Ben-Eliyahu, Yehudah Cohn, and Fergus Millar, Handbook of Jewish Literature from Late Antiquity, 135–700 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 23–28, 61–78. 25. For a brief survey of some theories regarding the purpose of the Mishnah, see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, 133–39. 26. Menah. em I. Kahana, ed., Sifre Zuta on Deuteronomy: Citations from a New Tannaitic Midrash (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2002). 27. On this point, see the discussion in Strack and Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, 250–51. This observation challenges Isaac H. Weiss (Dor dor ve-dorshav: hu sefer divre ha-yamim la-torah shebe-‘al peh ‘im qorot sofreha u-sefareha [Vilna: Bidfus ha-almanah vehe-ah. im Rom, 664, 1904], 2.210–12) and Chanoch Albeck (Untersuchungen über die halakischen Midraschim [Berlin: Akademie-verlag, 1927], 87–120) who date the redaction of the tannaitic midrashim to the end of the amoraic period in the fifth century c.e. Cf. Abraham Goldberg’s more detailed critique of Albeck’s argument in “Chanokh Albeck: Mavo la-Talmudim,” Kiryat Sefer 47 (1972): 9–19, here 17–19. These collections are, however, linguistically similar to the Mishnah and lack the linguistic influences of Galilean Aramaic typical of the Palestinian midrashim produced in the Galilean academies of the fifth century. On this point, see Menah. em I.

Introduction    13 Kahana, “The Halakhic Midrashim,” in The Literature of the Sages, Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature (ed. Shmuel Safrai and others; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2006), 3–105, here 61. Ben Zion Wacholder argues that both Mekiltas are post-talmudic compositions, in part because they reflect later Aramaic influence on Hebrew (“The Date of the Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael,” HUCA 39 [1968]: 117–44). Wacholder’s argument has been heavily critiqued by Daniel Boyarin (“On the Status of the Tannaitic Midrashim: A Critique of Jacob Neusner’s Latest Contribution to Midrashic Studies,” JAOS 112 [1992]: 464–65), Günter Stemberger (“Die Daiterung der Mekhilta,” Kairós [1979]: 81–118), and Kahana (“The Critical Editions of Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael in the Light of the Genizah Fragments” [Hebrew], Tarbiz 55 [1985]: 489–524, here 515–20). Additionally numerous citations from the Mishnah and Tosefta appear in the tannaitic midrashim, which E. Z. Melamed (Pirqe mavo le-sifrut ha-Talmud [Jerusalem, 1973]) has collected. These factors support the predominant scholarly opinion that the redaction of the tannaitic midrashim was undertaken in Roman Palestine in the generation or two after the publication of the Mishnah, no later than the second half of the third century c.e. 28. See Shirta 6 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, p. 51, lines 112–18; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 137, line 23; p. 138, lines 1–4); Beshallah. 5 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, pp. 224–25, lines 15–31; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 101, lines 5–15); and Bah.odesh 8 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, p. 264, lines 98–104; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 234, lines 10–12). A parallel version of the Beshallah. passage appears in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoh.ai, Beshallah. 24:2 (ms. Firkovitch II A 268; Epstein and Melamed, eds., 87; Nelson, ed., 104). 29. See Sara Japhet’s recent and helpful summary of the debates regarding the Shi‘ur Qomah as well as the bibliography in her footnotes; Japhet, “The ‘Description Poems’ in Ancient Jewish Sources and in the Jewish Exegesis of the Song of Songs,” in A Critical Engagement: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of J. Cheryl Exum (ed. David J. A. Clines and Ellen van Wolde; Hebrew Bible Monographs 38; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011), 216–29, here 220–23. Notably Japhet skips over the interpretation of the description poems in the tannaitic midrashim, the subject of chapters 3 and 4 of this volume. 30. I will also return to this discussion in subsequent chapters in my discussions of works by a number of scholars, including Daniel Boyarin and Tamar Kadari. 31. E.g., Naftali S. Cohn, The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis (Divinations; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012). 32. I am indebted to one of the anonymous reviewers of this volume for this phrase. 33. A similar methodological caution is employed by Steven D. Fraade in From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1991), 14–15.

1

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration? song of songs in early r abbinic interpretation sages whose opinions are expressed in the tannaitic midrashim read Song of Songs as chronicling the reciprocal and affective relationship between Israel and her God. In other words, they understood the “plain sense” of Song of Songs as a divine love song, rather than a work of erotic, secular love poetry. This interpretive mode is most frequently called “allegorical.” In this chapter I examine how the interpretation of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim should be characterized—as an allegory, as a mashal (rabbinic parable), or as something entirely different. To frame this exploration, I describe the emergence of allegorical interpretation in Greco-Roman antiquity. I then examine the various approaches to early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs, typified by the work of Daniel Boyarin and David Stern, before offering my own proposal. I contend that figural interpretation, akin to the form of typological interpretation practiced in early Christianity, provides a better description of early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs. Using a typological mode of interpretation, the first rabbinic interpreters read Song of Songs as an idealized figuration of God’s loving relationship with Israel, which they located in the framework of the history of Israel’s redemption. t h e e a r ly r a b b i n i c

Reading Homer, Reading the Bible, and the Birth of Allegory Allegorical interpretation seems to have originated in philosophical embarrassment over the mythological language of foundational texts of ancient Greek society and eventually became an important discursive tool for ancient philosophers.1 Prominent among early allegorical interpretations were the efforts, beginning with the first Pythagoreans (ca. 525 b.c.e.), to appropriate the works of Homer and Hesiod.2 By the late fifth and early fourth centuries b.c.e.,

16   

my perfect one

allegorical interpretation of the Homeric epics had become commonplace.3 Hyponoia, which means “the real meaning which lies at the bottom of a thing,” is one of three words used in this early Greek literature to describe allegorical interpretation. 4 The other two terms are symbolon (“symbol”) and aínigma (“enigma”).5 A new term, allēgoria, emerged later, by the first century b.c.e., and was used to describe the process of interpretation and to serve as a substitute for hyponoia.6 Allegorical interpretation, in its most basic sense, involves uncovering the “hidden” or “covert” meaning of a text. The manner of allegorical interpretation in antiquity, however, is quite varied and can, as Robert Lamberton notes, “comprehend virtually the whole of what we call ‘interpretation.’ ”7 The elasticity and imprecision of the term “allegory” in classical literature therefore raises a profound question of its usefulness as a generic descriptor of the literary and hermeneutical shape of the interpretations of Song of Songs contained in the tannaitic midrashim.8 Because of the diversity of allegorical interpretation in antiquity, it is useful to establish a point of reference for a narrower definition of allegory with which to compare early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs. Rather than beginning with an abstract definition of allegory, I will look briefly at two representative figures from antiquity who are noted for their use of allegorical interpretation in the exegesis of biblical texts: Philo of Alexandria (20 b.c.e.–50 c.e.) and Origen (185–ca. 253 c.e.). In addition to their use of allegory to interpret the Bible, both writers are culturally proximate to the early sages and their writing is often invoked in discussions of early rabbinic interpretation.9 By no means am I seeking to arrive at a comprehensive definition for allegory in antiquity by looking at the work of these two writers. Rather, I point to these two authors as practitioners of a particular form of biblical interpretation that reads the Bible through the lens of what I call philosophical allegory. I understand philosophical allegory as one of the many forms of allegorical reading in antiquity. Philosophical allegory, as practiced by Philo and Origen, sees in biblical texts symbols of eternal, abstract forms and ideals outside the biblical text such as “sense” and “soul.” Philo and Origen represent, in this regard, a particular hermeneutical approach rather than a paradigm for all allegorical interpretation in antiquity. Philo’s interpretation of Gen 2:1 illustrates the basic lines of his mode of allegorical interpretation.10 “And the heaven and the earth and all their world were completed” (Gen. ii. 1). He [Moses] had already told of the creation of mind and sense-perception; he now fully sets forth the consummation of both. He does not say that either the individual mind or the particular

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?    17

sense-perception have reached completion, but that the originals have done so, that of mind and that of sense-perception. For using symbolical language [symbolikōs] he calls the mind heaven, since heaven is the abode of natures discerned only by mind, but sense-perception he calls earth, because sense-perception possesses a composition of a more earthly and body-like sort. “World,” in the case of mind, means all incorporeal things, things discerned by mind alone: in the case of senseperception it denotes things in bodily form and generally whatever sense perceives. Here Philo interprets Gen 2:1 as referring to the creation of the ideals of mind and sense. Moses speaks “symbolically” using “the heaven” to refer to that which can only be comprehended by the intellect. “The earth” refers to sensation because it evokes corporeality. The culmination of the creation of heaven and earth, as the obvious meaning of the verse is replaced by the symbolic meaning, thus transforms into coded language for the culmination of the abstract philosophical ideals of mind and sense. Philo uses the term symbolikōs to describe Moses’s encoding of the text of Gen 2:1 with a covert or hidden meaning. This term, as I noted earlier, is part of the technical vocabulary of allegorical interpretation in ancient Greek literature. As Copeland and Struck point out, it is virtually synonymous with the later term allēgoria. Both terms, by their definition, denote “the encoded expression of a mystical or philosophical truth, a manifestation of transcendental meaning that is at once immediate and remote.”11 Allegory, for Philo, is a mode of interpreting a text as a series of coded references to concepts not explicitly mentioned.12 Philo’s focus on correspondences between this world and the divine realm leads him to emphasize universal ideals over particular, historical realities.13 As I argue later, following Erich Auerbach, it is this emphasis on the universal as opposed to the historical that differentiates the type of philosophical allegory seen in Philo from a different mode of allegorical interpretation known as typology, or figural interpretation.14 Origen’s commentary and homilies on Song of Songs are some of the earliest extant Christian works on Song of Songs and had widespread and lasting influence on Christian interpretation.15 Origen describes Song of Songs as an allegorical composition written by Solomon using the form of a dramatic poem, in particular a wedding song. For Origen, Song of Songs can only rightly be appreciated, however, as a poem about the erotic, passionate union of the Word of God, in the guise of the Bridegroom, and the Bride, understood as both the individual soul and the corporate Church.16 The following example from the very beginning of Book One of the Commentary illustrates Origen’s basic approach:

18   

my perfect one

“Let Him kiss me with the kisses of His mouth.” (I.2a–Vg. I.3a). . . . This is the content of the actual story, presented in dramatic form. But let us see if the inner meaning also can be fittingly supplied along these lines. Let it be the Church who longs for union with Christ; but the Church, you must observe, is the whole assembly of the saints. . . . As the third point in our exposition, let us bring in the soul whose only desire is to be united to the Word of God and to be in fellowship with Him, and to enter into the mysteries of His wisdom and knowledge as into the chambers of her heavenly Bridegroom; which soul has already received His gift—that is to say, her dowry.17 The poem, thus, has an “inner meaning”—which includes both the union of Christ and the Church and the soul and “her heavenly Bridegroom.”18 Proper interpretation of Song of Songs aims to uncover its true meaning through symbolic interpretation. In this regard, Origen shares with his forbear in Alexandria, Philo, a concern for unlocking the hidden and covert meanings of Scripture by correlating Scripture to universal ideals through a form of philosophic allegory.19

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration? After this brief survey of the emergence of allegorical interpretation and its specific expression in a form of philosophical allegory practiced by representative figures of early Jewish and Christian exegesis, it is possible to return to the question I posed at the beginning of this chapter. Can early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs rightly be accorded the generic appellation “allegorical”? Or is there a more nuanced descriptive model for understanding this material? To explore this question I turn to an interpretation of Song 2:6 in the tannaitic compilation of midrashim on Exodus, Mekilta deRabbi Yishmael, a rather typical example of early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs.20 “And they stood at a distance” (Exod 20:15). Beyond twelve miles. This indicates that the Israelites were startled and moved backward twelve miles and then again, returning, moved forward twelve miles— twenty-four miles at each commandment. Thus, they are found on that day covering two hundred and forty miles in one stretch of time. Then the Holy One said to the ministering angels: Go down21 and assist your brothers, as it is said, “Angels of hosts march, they march”22 (Ps 68:13). I.e., “they march [with Israel]”23 in going and “they march

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?    19

[with Israel]” when returning. And not only the ministering angels, but also the blessed Holy One, as it is said, “His left hand was under my head, and his right hand embraced me” (Song 2:6). In this example, the anonymous rabbinic interpreter understands the Sinai theophany to be so horrifying for Israel that it caused them to retreat from the mountain to the edge of the camp a distance of twelve miles (i.e., Roman miles) after each of the ten divine utterances was given. They would then return to the mountain to receive each of the next divine utterances. This pattern would result in their traversing a fanciful two hundred and forty miles during the Sinai theophany. The statement in Exod 20:15 that Israel “stood at a distance” apparently provokes this description. Citing Ps 68:13, the interpreter envisions the angels of the presence journeying with Israel to and from the mountain each time. The psalmist’s double mention of the angels “marching” elicits the statement that the angels’ first act of marching was their retreat from the mountain with Israel and the second act their return to the mountain with Israel. The anonymous interpreter then asserts that the angels were not the only ones involved in traveling with Israel but that the Holy One did so as well. To support this contention, he appeals to the female protagonist’s description of her beloved’s caressing embrace in Song 2:6. Whereas the angels merely marched with Israel, God embraces them lovingly. As in Philo’s interpretation of Gen 2:1 or Origen’s interpretation of Song of Songs, the interpreter understands Song 2:6 in terms other than its apparent “literal” meaning. This verse refers to the embrace of Israel (the female protagonist) by God (her male counterpart). In contrast to the philosophical allegory found in Philo’s or Origen’s works, the interpreter correlates Song 2:6 not to metaphysical ideals but to the specific, historical drama of Israel’s relationship with God. Daniel Boyarin argues that the rabbis employ Song of Songs, as in this example, as a mashal, or parable, in their interpretation of the Torah. He defines mashal as “a story whose meaning by itself is perfectly clear and simple, and because of its simplicity enables one to interpret by analogy a more complex, difficult, or hermetic text.”24 Boyarin rightly recognizes that the sages read Song of Songs in order to explicate the complexities of the Torah. His emphasis on the relative simplicity of Song of Songs in comparison to the Torah is, however, difficult to sustain. While the early rabbinic sages frequently invoke Song of Songs in order to interpret a verse from elsewhere in their canon, they make no judgment regarding the relative difficulty of the various texts. In fact, the various works of tannaitic midrashim more regularly use standard formulae for scriptural citation typically employed to

20   

my perfect one

introduce verses from the Torah or Prophets when introducing Song of Songs.25 This point suggests that the early sages do not understand Song of Songs as relatively more complex than any other scriptural text. Boyarin also bases his description of the rabbinic approach to Song of Songs on one extended rabbinic reflection on the nature of Song of Songs in Song Rab. 1:8.26 But it is difficult to generalize about all of rabbinic culture or exegetical practice based on one passage. Additionally, it is problematic to employ without qualification a later text such as this one, perhaps dating from the fourth, fifth, or sixth century, to describe earlier tannaitic practice. In this volume, I have chosen the more circumscribed path of exploring a limited corpus of rabbinic materials (interpretations of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim) and describing their approach to Song of Songs based on their interpretive practice. As I argue, these early rabbinic sages correlate Song of Songs to the history of redemption contained in the Torah through a mode of figural interpretation in order to present an idealized portrait of Jewish life and praxis. In contrast to Boyarin, David Stern characterizes interpretations of Song of Songs like those found in the tannaitic midrashim as midrashic allegory, distinct from philosophical allegory such as in Philo or Origen, but allegory nonetheless.27 Stern views the allegorical impulse as “one of the two major determinants of early Jewish interpretation of the Song.”28 The second determinant is that this mode of interpretation is historical. To use Michael Fishbane’s formulation, as Stern does, the rabbinic interpreter “historicizes the non-historical” in his interpretation of Song of Songs.29 Stern rightly points out that this approach to Song of Songs is unexceptional and rather commonplace in broader rabbinic interpretation, as seen in the historicization of Ps 68:13 in the example discussed earlier.30 He suggests that we adopt new categories for describing rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs that “touch upon the practice of reading (e.g., its purpose and function, intended audience, modes of presentation).” Stern chooses the terms “exoteric” and “esoteric” to name his categories of interpretation.31 These categories, however, tell us precious little about the shape of early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs or the particular interpretive techniques the early sages employ in their interpretation of Song of Songs.32 This point is more salient when one recognizes that nearly all of the interpretations of Song of Songs contained in the tannaitic midrashim can be understood, using Stern’s categories, as exoteric midrashic allegory on Song of Songs. While I find Stern’s use of midrashic allegory and his categories of exoteric and esoteric ultimately inadequate, his essay does help us better appreciate how the rabbis interpret Song of Songs. His differentiation of midrashic from

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?    21

philosophical allegory pushes us to avoid describing rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs simply as allegory. As Stern notes, this rabbinic mode of interpretation is patently historical. It does not concentrate on connecting Song of Songs to trans-historic, philosophical ideals. This historical concern shares affinities with an expression of early Christian allegorical reading known as typology. In Christian figural interpretation, people, events, and institutions portrayed in the Old Testament serve as prefigurations of Jesus in the context of salvation history. The interpreter correlates the antitype or prefiguration contained within the Old Testament to the realization of that type in the life of Jesus. The juxtaposition of the prefiguration and its realization illuminates their mutual interpretation. I suggest then that the language of typology or figural interpretation better describes the way the early sages interpret Song of Songs than does the language of philosophical allegory or mashal. For instance, in the interpretation of Song 2:6 discussed earlier, a verse from Song of Songs presents a figuration or type of an event disclosed in Torah. As we will observe in the following discussion about the emergence of typology in Christian interpretive practice, Christian typology generally sees interpretive value in both the type and its realization. In the case of tannaitic interpretation, this point is also salient. In the example from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, the correlation of Song 2:6 with the Sinai theophany reveals deeper truths about both. Song of Songs is not simply a tale of two star-crossed lovers; it is a statement of the affectionate, reciprocal love between God and Israel. The Sinai theophany is not merely the signing of a contract between two parties; it is the fiery consummation of God’s loving relationship with Israel. It should be noted that the figural approach to Song of Songs in tannaitic sources does not demonstrate awareness that there is a “literal” meaning of Song of Songs, which describes the erotic exchanges of two teenage lovers. Christian typology, in contrast, generally interprets earlier, real historical events as prefiguring later historical events. While tannaitic sources do not demonstrate a similar concern for the “historicity” of Song of Songs, they do read its forms, figures, and events as figurations of historical realities in Israel’s ideal past and in rabbinic experience and practice.33 Song of Songs, then, does, for the earliest sages, have a sensus literalis, a plain, or peshat, sense as it describes the divine love of God and Israel.

The Emergence of Typological and Figural Interpretation in Antiquity Typology, or figural interpretation, has its roots in classical Greek and Latin sources and involves a complex of words associated with “form.” In classical

22   

my perfect one

Greek, this semantic domain includes morphē, eidos, schēma, typos, and plasis.34 In classical Latin, the number of terms is more limited and largely restricted in their original meaning to “plastic form”: figura and forma.35 Both typos in Greek and figura in Latin develop over time beyond their original use of describing inanimate objects and plastic forms. As Erich Auerbach notes, typos developed more “universal, lawful, and exemplary” connotations through its pairings with other terms in Greek philosophy such as in the works of Plato and Aristotle.36 These metaphorical and philosophical constructions of the language of form began to exert a similar effect on Latin writers in the wake of the Hellenization of Roman education in the first century b.c.e.37 Auerbach points to Varro, Lucretius, and Cicero as being the predominant innovators of the meaning of figura.38 As with Greek typos, figura takes on increasingly abstract connotations in Latin literature and by the end of the first century c.e. becomes an important technical term in philosophical discourse in the Roman Empire.39 Emerging within the cultural milieu of the Roman Empire, early Christianity employed the language of typos and figura as a mode of linking the Old Testament to the New. Ancient Christian typological analysis focuses on establishing relationships between persons and events based on similarities or shared phenomena. Old Testament “persons, events, and institutions” have spiritual meaning for early Christian theologians as prefigurations of events in salvation history, particularly the life and passion of Jesus. 40 The first ­exemplars of a nascent mode of typology in early Christianity appear in the New Testament in the Pauline epistles. 41 In Rom 5:12–21, for instance, Paul establishes a correspondence between Adam and Jesus. Adam’s actions enabled the entrance of sin and ultimately death into the world (v. 12). 42 In contrast, Jesus’s “act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all” (v. 18). 43 Adam prefigures Jesus as “a type of the one who was to come” (v. 14; estin typos tou mellontos). The very infidelity of Adam prefigures the fidelity of Jesus. Paul uses the language of typology with a similar force in 1 Cor 10:6, 11. In 1 Cor 10:1–5, Paul describes God’s displeasure with Israel following the experiences of the exodus and divine provision in the wilderness. Though the Israelites had witnessed all of these miracles, “they were struck down in the wilderness” (10:5). Presumably, Paul is referring to God’s promise of wrath in the face of the constant complaining of the Israelites (Num 14:26– 35). The Corinthian congregation has witnessed similar miraculous acts of salvation (1 Cor 10:11), but Paul uses the actions of their spiritual ancestors to serve as “examples” (typoi; 1 Cor 10:6, 11) to this last generation of what not to do. 44 In both Romans and 1 Corinthians, Paul employs a nascent mode of typological interpretation in order to help these congregations map themselves

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?    23

onto the landscape of salvation history. In the first case, it helps them better appreciate the work of Jesus the Messiah. In the second case, it serves as parenesis designed to spur the Corinthian community to greater fidelity. Nascent typological interpretation also appears in Hebrews and 1 Peter. In Heb 8:5, the author appeals to Exod 25:40 (39) to highlight the paltry character of worship in the earthly sanctuary in comparison to the divine worship in heaven at which the exalted Jesus officiates as high priest. Subverting the contextual meaning of God’s instructions to Moses, the author uses the language of this verse from Exodus to characterize the earthly tabernacle negatively as a shadowy and sketchy “pattern” (typon; Hebrew tavnit) of the heavenly one. 45 In the next chapter, the author of Hebrews continues this line of interpretation. In Heb 9:24, he describes the earthly sanctuary as a “mere copy,” “representation,” or “correspondence” (antitypa) “of the true” heavenly sanctuary. The author of 1 Peter also uses the term antitypon to correlate the waters of Noah with the waters of baptism (3:21). As J. Ramsey Michaels notes, the author of 1 Peter employs antitypon not as a lesser archetype, as in Heb 9:24, but rather as a term to indicate a correspondence between the practice of baptism and the Noah story. 46 As these examples show, the antitypos or typos corresponds to another object, event, or idea in form and structure. This correspondence enables theological reflection on the later object, event, or idea. The notion of antitype as prefiguration becomes more central as early Christian exegetes employ the language of antitypos to correlate the Old Testament to the New. By the third and fourth centuries of the common era, Christian thinkers developed a more refined understanding of the relationship between the Old Testament and the New. The North African theologian, Augustine of Hippo (354–430 c.e.), concisely defines this relationship: “For this reason, in the Old Testament, the New is hidden; in the New, the Old is revealed.”47 Likewise, Origen reflects, “You see that everywhere the mysteries are in agreement. You see the patterns of the New and Old Testament to be harmonious.”48 These statements reflect a consensus among Christian thinkers that not only must the Old Testament be preserved for Christian use but also that there is a specific way to understand this relationship: the Old Testament harmoniously foreshadowing the New Testament. Church Fathers employed philosophical allegory, typology, and other forms of interpretation to establish this conception. As the focus of this chapter concerns figural interpretation, I explore examples in what follows of figural interpretation from the works of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Jacob of Serug. I have chosen these exemplars because they represent the use of figural interpretation across the linguistic (Greek, Latin, and Syriac) and geographical distribution of early Christianity (from the Mediterranean basin to the Near East).

24   

my perfect one

Justin Martyr, born in what is now Nablus in the early second century c.e., developed the nascent figural interpretation found in the New Testament into an elaborate system for understanding the relationship of the Old Testament to the advent of Jesus. As he says to his Jewish interlocutor, Trypho, in his Dialogue, “if I were to enumerate all the other Mosaic precepts . . . I could show that they are types, symbols, and prophecies of what would happen to Christ . . . and, similarly, of the deeds of Christ himself.”49 Justin repeats and elaborates typological associations already present in Paul’s writings. He describes the Passover lamb as “a type of Christ.”50 Similarly, he expands upon Jesus’s association in the Gospel of John of the serpent sign erected by Moses in the wilderness to protect the Israelites from the effects of serpent bites with the saving power of Jesus’s own ­crucifixion.51 Mosaic ordinances such as “the offering of flour” prefigure, for e­ xample, the contemporary early Christian practice of “the bread of the Eucharist.”52 Finally, Jacob’s marriage to two wives (Leah and Rachel) prefigures Jesus’s ongoing relationship to Synagogue and Church.53 Although these four examples are only a small sampling of Justin’s expansive program of figural interpretation of the Old Testament, they disclose, nevertheless, the greater contours of his program of figural interpretation. Typology links Jesus to the story of the Old Testament and helps Gentile Christians such as Justin make sense of their ongoing relationship to the Old Testament and the Jewish people.54 Tertullian (ca. 160–ca. 220 c.e.) also employs figural interpretive methods in his apologetic writings. He composed Adversus Marcionem in the first decades of the third century to counter the teachings of Marcion, the secondcentury figure who was denounced by Church Fathers for his teachings regarding the relationship of the Old and New Testaments and the nature of God. In a mode similar to Justin’s, Tertullian uses figural interpretations in the New Testament to advance his argument against Marcion’s teachings. For instance, he explores the typological association of Jesus and the Passover first made by Paul in 1 Cor 5:7.55 Similarly, Moses’s changing of Oshea’s name to Joshua (the Hebrew and Greek name of Jesus) in Num 13:16 typologically points to the coming of Jesus because it is “in figure with the Lord’s name.”56 Tertullian’s contribution to the development of figural interpretation, as Auerbach notes, lies in his description of the relationship between prefiguration or antitype and its realization: “The fulfillment is often designated as veritas . . . and the figure correspondingly as umbra [‘shadow’] or imago.”57 This seeming abstraction of the technical terms for figural interpretation belies the fact that Tertullian understands both the figure and its realization as concrete, historical realities.

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?    25

The figural interpretation seen in Greek and Latin Christianity also emerged as an important hermeneutical tool among those Christian communities in the Near East who employed Syriac as their primary theological and liturgical language. The mēmrā (or non-stanzaic metrical verse homily) on Jonah by Jacob of Serug (ca. 451–521 c.e.) presents an expansive reading of the story of Jonah in figural relationship to Jesus.58 Although Jesus already makes allusion to Jonah in the gospels (such as in Matt 12:39–40, 16:4; Luke 11:29–32), Jacob develops a much more substantial description of the relationship of Jesus and Jonah beyond the explicit New Testament references. For instance, Jacob juxtaposes Jonah with the account in the gospels of Jesus sleeping during a sea-crossing and upon being awakened to calm the stormy sea (Mark 4:35–41; Matt 8:18, 23–27; Luke 8:22–25; see Jonah 1:4–5). “[Jonah] typified that sleep which our Lord had slept on the sea. He typified the burial of the Son in the depths when he was brought down. [Sleep] cast him down into the ship and he slept for a long time.”59 Jacob’s typological comparison of Jonah and Jesus is notable on two accounts. First, it is programmatic. Almost the entirety of Jonah’s story prefigures the story of Jesus. As Kitchen notes, “Jonah’s and Jesus’ mission become virtually one.”60 Second, Jacob consistently employs the technical vocabulary of figural interpretation common to Greek and Latin sources.61 While typological interpretation can be found in the earliest Syriac works such as the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian (306–73 c.e.), Jacob’s work, like that of other Syriac exegetes from the late fifth century on, is heavily influenced by the exegetical tradition stemming from Antioch and mediated through the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350–428 c.e.).62 Writers like Jacob came in the fifth century to share with their Greek and Latin counterparts the same well-developed conceptual and linguistic approach to figural interpretation.63 The writers of the New Testament as well as the Church Fathers developed the language of typology and figural interpretation they received into an elaborate system of which interpreted the advent of Jesus in juxtaposition to the story of Israel recorded in the Old Testament. Whereas philosophical allegory focuses on reading Scripture through the lens of trans-historical representational forms, a concern to identify correspondences between historical events motivates Christian figural interpretation.64 In this regard, both philosophical allegory and typology exist on the same continuum. They both read the text as signifying something other than what modern scholars might understand as its literary-historical meaning. Typology is, in this sense, “a certain kind of allegorical reading,” as David Dawson argues.65 Typology’s concern for the historical differentiates it, however, from philosophical allegory at the fundamental level of its approach to reading a text. With these

26   

my perfect one

examples of figural interpretation as a background, I now turn to two additional examples from the tannaitic midrashim to illustrate further the use of figural interpretation in early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs.

Figural Interpretation in Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs As I argued earlier, the interpretation of Song of Songs evinced in the tannaitic midrashim reads Song of Songs neither as a philosophic allegory nor as a mashal but more specifically as a figuration.66 In the tannaitic midrashim, the sages correlate Song of Songs to ideal expressions of Israel’s relationship with God. This aim goes hand-in-hand with their association of Song of Songs with the exodus and the Sinai theophany as the ideal stage in Israel’s relationship with God. This approach to Song of Songs enabled the early sages to use its language to give voice to their construction of the ideal relationship between Israel and her God as one marked by affective covenantal love expressed through mitsvot, or commandments. A famous example from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael illustrates how figural interpretation of Song of Songs aids in shaping the piety of the early rabbinic community.67 Rabbi Akiva says, “I shall speak of the beauties68 and the praises of the-one-who-spoke-and-the-world-came-into-being before all the nations of the world.” For all the nations of the world ask Israel, “How is your beloved better than another beloved that you place us under an oath” (Song 5:9), i.e., that you are ready to die on his behalf and that you are being killed on his behalf?” For it is said, “Therefore do maidens [alamot] love you” (Song 1:3), i.e., they love you even unto the point of death [ad mavet]. And it is also written, “It is for your sake that we are slain,” etc. (Ps 44:23). “You are handsome, you are mighty. Come and intermingle with us.” But Israel responds to the nations of the world, “Are you able to recognize him? Let us relate to you a little of his praiseworthy features: ‘My beloved is clear-skinned and ruddy,’” etc. (Song 5:10). As soon as the nations of the world hear a little of the praiseworthy features of the-one-who-spoke-and-the-world-came-intobeing, they said to Israel, “Let us join you, as it is said, ‘To where has your beloved gone, O fairest of women? To where has your beloved turned? Let us seek him with you’ (Song 6:1).” Israel responds to the nations of the world, “You have no share in him. Rather, ‘My beloved is mine and I am his’ (Song 2:16), ‘I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine,’” etc. (Song 6:3).

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?    27

This passage contains the highest concentration of quotes from Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim and is part of a longer section in which the editor of Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishamel draws together a number of interpretations of the enigmatic verb ve’anvehu from Exod 15:2.69 The passage itself takes the form of a dialogue between Israel and the nations of the world. In this version, the dialogue is associated with Rabbi Akiva. The dialogue begins with Rabbi Akiva declaring his intent to emphasize the unique renown of the God of Israel, the one who created the world. In the ensuing dialogue, Israel’s lines are those of the female protagonist of Song of Songs (1:3, 5:10, 2:16, 6:3). The nations of the world draw their lines from those of the daughters of Jerusalem or those that the daughters might say to the female protagonist (5:9, 6:1). This dialogue exploits the relationship between the female protagonist of Song of Songs and the daughters of Jerusalem and their competition for the affections of the male beloved in Song of Songs (e.g., 6:1). In this passage, we see a more developed strategy for reading Song of Songs. Here, the anonymous interpreter historicizes not merely individual verses from Song of Songs as in other examples from the tannaitic midrashim, but the entire Song of Songs. Song of Songs as a whole becomes a statement of Israel and her God’s unique and reciprocal love expressed in sight of the nations and all of creation. Another way in which this dialogue draws upon Song of Songs as a whole is its implicit adoption of a key sentiment of Song of Songs: “love is fierce as death”—azzah kammavet ahavah (Song 8:6). While the anonymous rabbinic interpreter does not quote this statement by the female protagonist, he does insert a similar sentiment into Israel’s mouth through punning exegesis of Song 1:3: “For it is said, ‘Therefore do maidens [alamot] love you’ (Song 1:3), i.e., they love you even unto the point of death [ad mavet].”70 This interpretation employs the classic rabbinic reading strategy of (mis)reading a consonant or vocalization of the biblical text in order to highlight a particular interpretation.71 In this case, the rereading of Song 1:3 points to the extent of Israel’s love for God. The declaration of the quality of Israel’s love for God provokes an invitation from the nations of the world for Israel to join them and save themselves from this dangerous love. The invitation implicitly questions the value of any love relationship that can result in death. But Israel questions whether the nations of the world really understand the beauty and uniqueness of her God. Israel then recites a snippet of Song 5:10, which would undoubtedly have caused the ancient hearer to recall the entirety of the women’s paean of praise in Song 5:10–16.72 Martyrdom is worthwhile because Israel loves this incomparably beautiful God with a love that far exceeds the limitations of death.73 Israel’s litany of praise then compels the nations of the world to ask to join

28   

my perfect one

Israel (quoting Song 6:1), but Israel rejects their request. Apparently, from Israel’s perspective, if all the nations of the world were to join Israel, this universalistic union would obliterate the unique status of Israel in relationship to God. Israel alone among the nations of the world is in spousal relationship with her God (Song 2:16, 6:3).74 This statement of Israel’s exclusive relationship with God is correlated to the events of the crossing of the sea through its placement in a discussion of Exod 15:2.75 Essentially, the early rabbinic sages viewed the exodus, Sinai, and the wilderness wanderings as model events in Israel’s relationship with God that bespoke covenantal fidelity and limited marital acrimony in either party (cf. Jer 2:2). Likewise, this fantastical dialogue between Israel and the nations evokes the ideals of Israel’s unique relationship with God, the extent to which this love will carry Israel, and the jealousy of the surrounding nations over this relationship (cf. Exod 15:14–17). The typological correlation in this interpretive dialogue to an ideal period of Israel’s relationship with God instantiates a world of renewed covenantal fidelity marked by Israel’s unrestrained devotion to God. The interpretations of Song of Songs in the other works of tannaitic midrash consistently employ the same figural mode of interpretation when correlating verses of Song of Songs with ideal expressions of Israel’s relationship with God. To illustrate this more widespread practice of tannaitic figural interpretation of Song of Songs, I offer an excerpt from a section of Sifre Bemidbar that addresses the rabbinic practice of making fringes (tsitsit) on the corners of a garment in fulfillment of the command in Num 15:37–41. Rabbi says, “Why is it read there ‘tsitsit’ (Num 15:38)? Because the Omnipresent One looked out [hetsits] on the houses of our ancestors in Egypt. Just as it is said, ‘The sound of my beloved, behold, he comes . . . Behold he stands behind our wall, [gazing through the window] peering [metsits] [through the lattice]’ (Song 2:8–9).”76 In the section of Sifre Bemidbar from which this excerpt comes, the editor offers a variety of interpretations of the word tsitsit, a word that refers to the fringes on the hem of a four-cornered garment.77 In a characteristic midrashic move, the interpretation attributed to Rabbi, the late second-century/early third-century figure Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, exploits the sound of the word, tsitsit, juxtaposing it with a similar sounding word, metsits, from Song 2:9. This correlation generates an expanded understanding of the meaning of the commandment to wear tsitsit.78 The Torah supplies its own reason for the practice, both as a reminder of one’s obligation to keep the commandments

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?    29

and as a memorial (implicitly) of God bringing Israel out of Egypt (Num 15:40–41). The juxtaposition of tsitsit with metsits, however, heightens the emphasis on the exodus.79 God, as the male lover of Song of Songs, gazes through the windows upon his seemingly inaccessible love, Israel, held captive in Egypt. The juxtaposition of Song 2:8–9 with Num 15:37–41 transforms the mention of the exodus in Numbers from a statement about abstract divine action, to an allusion to the loving concern and longing portrayed in Song of Songs. God does not merely bring about redemption; God goes in and physically rescues his captive beloved. Viewed in this light, the wearing of tsitsit, the fulfillment of this explicit command from the Torah, does not simply remind one of the obligations of Torah obedience or memorialize the exodus. Rather, it also transforms the act into a memento of an intimate encounter of God and Israel. This reinvigoration of the practice of wearing tsitsit as an act of intimacy can serve to renew and intensify this practice for the early rabbinic reader of this text. More important for our immediate discussion is that this text further evinces the basic features of the figural interpretation employed in tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs. Read typologically, Song of Songs serves as a figuration of the redemption God brings about for Israel. It is generally assumed that the Tannaim understood Song of Songs to be a composition of Solomon.80 Given this point, it is reasonable to conclude that their temporal correlation of Song of Songs is bi-focal. On the one hand, they link Song of Songs to the historically antecedent events of the exodus, the crossing of the sea, and the Sinai theophany as seen in the three examples from the tannaitic midrashim I discussed in this chapter.81 On the other hand, they correlate Song of Songs to historically later experiences and practices of the Jewish people, such as the encounter with the nations of the world in the dialogue associated with Rabbi Akiva. In contrast, Christian typology characteristically looks forward from the type found in the Old Testament to the historically later realization of that type in the person of Jesus and, to a more limited extent, in the contemporary experience of the Church. The contrast between these two temporal perspectives should pose a problem to my assessment that early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs is figural, if the chronological precedence of the type to its realization is understood as essential to a definition of typology.82 The argument that I advance herein is not that tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs is identical to Christian typology. Rather, I contend that early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs shares with Christian figural interpretation a concern for interpreting one biblical text as having the same form or figura as is found in an ideal, historical personage or event. For early Christianity, the ideal is Jesus. For the nascent rabbinic community, this ideal is the period of Israel’s exodus, the Sinai

30   

my perfect one

theophany, and the wilderness wanderings. This distinction is implicit in my use of “figuration” in describing tannaitic readings of Song of Songs and the more standard “prefiguration” in discussing early Christian typology. These two modes of typology share a common distinction from philosophical allegory in that they both focus on connecting the biblical text to a historical event or personage rather than a trans-historical form or ideal.83

Figural Interpretation and the Rabbinic Reading of Other Biblical Books My discussion of the character of typological interpretation of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim raises an important question. What are the ways in which the interpretation of Song of Songs is distinct from, or the same as, tannaitic interpretation of other biblical books? To put it slightly differently, do the Tannaim only use typology to interpret Song of Songs, or do they employ this method to interpret other works as well? The following interpretation of Abram’s dream in Gen 15 found in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael will help address this question. He showed him the four empires that would oppress his children. For it is said, “As the sun was about to set, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a great dark dread fell upon him” (Gen 15:12). “A dread,” refers to the Babylonian Empire. “Darkness,” refers to the empire of Media. “Great,” refers to the Greek Empire. “Fell,” refers to the fourth empire, wicked Rome. There are some who reverse the order: “fell,” refers to the Babylonian Empire, as it is said, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon” (Isa 21:9). “Great,” refers to the empire of Media, as it is said, “King Ahasuerus made great” (Esth 3:1). “Darkness,” refers to the Greek Empire that darkened the eyes of Israel with fasting. “A dread,” refers to the fourth kingdom, as it is said, “Terrible, dreadful, and exceedingly strong” (Dan 7:7).84 In this passage, the anonymous interpreter correlates the onset of Abram’s dream in Gen 15 to the four empires motif, a historiographic schema employed most famously in the visions of chapters 2 and 7 of the book of Daniel. The passage contains two interpretations of Gen 15:12. Both interpretations correlate specific words in this verse to the sequence of the four empires: Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome. The second differs from the first in that it reverses the order of the four words correlated to these empires and employs biblical proof texts to justify this interpretation. What is important

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?    31

for my discussion is that the interpreter uses a typological mode of historicization analogous to that used in interpreting Song of Songs elsewhere in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael and in other tannaitic midrashim. In this passage, the four words from Gen 15:12 provide figurations, and, perhaps more accurately in this case, prefigurations, of later imperial rulers of the Jewish people. What is most interesting about the use of figural interpretation in this passage is that there is precious little to connect the four empires motif to the verse other than the fact there are four words that describe Abram’s dream experience. The second interpretation does provide some proof texts from other biblical sources, but only in three of the four cases. Nevertheless, this passage is a cogent example of typology. It provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Tannaim did not restrict their use of figural interpretation to their reading of Song of Songs but rather employed it in interpreting other biblical books. Despite their use of typology as one of a number of interpretive tools, my study of the interpretation of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim suggests that there is little evidence that they employed any method other than figural analysis to interpret Song of Songs. As I noted earlier in the introduction, there are limited examples of non-figural interpretations of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim, all in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, but in these examples they simply employ verses from Song of Songs for philological explication. The near-exclusivity of typology in the interpretation of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim raises the question of whether there is something about Song of Songs that inhibits or precludes other modes of reading. One way to address this question would be to focus on questions of canonicity or the status of the work in the life of the Jewish community in the Second Temple and tannaitic periods. As I noted in the introduction and have discussed more fully elsewhere, investigations of this type are overly speculative and do not yield much clear evidence regarding how or why Song of Songs came to be interpreted as a divine love song using figural approaches by the Tannaim.85 Presumably, the reading of Song of Songs as a divine love song goes along with the work’s figural interpretation. But this point does not address my question about whether there is something about the text itself that precluded the implementation of non-figural interpretive methods. I suggest that at least two features of the text of Song of Songs contribute to the absence of non-figural interpretations of this work among the early rabbinic sages. The first factor is the absence of historical and explicit mythic referents in Song of Songs.86 Certainly, Song of Songs is famous for its evocation of toponyms such as Ein-Gedi (1:14) and its frequent references to Solomon (1:1, 5, 3:7, 9, 11, 8:11–12). But, as I note in the next chapter, Song of Songs

32   

my perfect one

lacks explicit references to historical events such as the exodus as well as to mythic archetypes such as the combat myth in Exod 15. Shared lexemes and figural interpretation provide the only avenues for connecting Song of Songs to other verses of Scripture. As in the interpretation of Gen 15:12, the Tannaim certainly employ figural interpretation in some of their interpretations of other biblical books. But, they only seem to employ figural interpretation when interpreting Song of Songs. The second textual factor that contributes to the absence of non-figural interpretation of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim is the archetypal nature of the text and, in particular, the characters themselves. The various figures of farm girl and shepherd, king and royal maiden reflect idealized figures and contexts for love and lovemaking in the tannaitic imagination. As J. Cheryl Exum describes it, “The Song’s lovers are archetypal lovers— composite figures, types of lovers rather than any specific lovers.”87 This archetypal dimension of the characters of Song of Songs suggests a “timeless” character to their love that, to quote Exum again, “makes it easier for readers to relate the Song’s lovers’ experience to their own experience of love, real or fantasized.”88 When the Tannaim excluded or avoided reading Song of Songs as a work of secular love, the archetypal and timeless character of its love and lovers enabled them to read the text as a divine love song. Because of the absence of specific historical allusions or references to ancient Near Eastern myths in Song of Songs, perhaps the only way for them to read this work was as a divine love song. Thus, the uniqueness of rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs rests not in that this work is the only work that the Tannaim interpreted figurally. They likely employed figural reading more broadly than we, perhaps, have noticed. The uniqueness of tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs is rather to be found in the fact that because of their hermeneutical commitments and the archetypal character of this work, no other method of interpretation was available to them.

Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation: Conclusions As seen in the three representative examples from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael and Sifre Bemidbar, the early sages interpreted verses from Song of Songs typologically as idealized figurations of God’s loving relationship with Israel and correlate them to the history of her redemption. In particular, this mode of interpretation juxtaposes the utterances of Song of Songs with the ideal period of Israel’s exodus from Egypt and experience of divine revelation at

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?    33

Sinai—a period that the early sages understood as the time of Israel’s betrothal to God. By using the terminology of typology and figuration, I have sought to describe more accurately the hermeneutical perspective utilized by the early sages in their interpretation of Song of Songs. This terminology better accounts for the approach of the early sages and sets their hermeneutic apart from the monolithic category of allegorical interpretation of Song of Songs. While tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs shares thematic similarities with allegorical interpretation of Song of Songs pursued in early Christian interpretation, the mode of interpretation is distinctive. The Tannaim do not use a technical vocabulary unique to their practice of figural interpretation, as do Christian interpreters. Rather, they draw upon exegetical techniques and terminology common to midrashic interpretation. Additionally, tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs, in contrast to the proleptic horizon of Christian typology, has a dual time horizon, looking simultaneously backward to the history of Israel and forward to the contemporary experiences of the Jewish people. Ultimately, this bi-focal perspective aims to shape the contemporary life of the nascent rabbinic community and, by extension, the entire Jewish community. Despite the similarity between tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs and Christianity typology, interestingly there is little or no evidence in the tannaitic material on Song of Songs of concern or contact with the early Christian movement. Certainly, as others have shown, by the third century and later, traces of the encounter with early Christianity begin to appear in rabbinic literature.89 As I discussed in the introduction, the rabbis do not innovate an interpretation of Song of Songs as a divine love song, but instead adapt what they have received from a broader, late Second Temple period tradition of interpreting Song of Songs as a divine love song to their particular context.90 They read Song of Songs as a divine love song through a mode of figural interpretation in order to craft a vision of Jewish society in the wake of the loss and destruction of late first and early second centuries c.e. The early rabbinic reading of Song of Songs thus performs the historical ideal of Jewish history in order to renew the ongoing covenantal relationship of God and Israel in the wake of the destruction, dislocation, and loss of the first two centuries of the common era. In the next chapter I will examine in more detail how the early rabbinic sages “historicized” this work and read it as a portrait of Israel’s ideal national narrative. As we have seen in this chapter, the interpretation of Song of Songs as a divine love song in early rabbinic interpretation does what all rabbinic interpretation does—it idealizes and rabbinizes Scripture in order to cast a vision for rabbinic society. In the case of Song of Songs, this approach helps cultivate the social and hermeneutical

34   

my perfect one

space for a rabbinic piety marked by affective devotion to God through the mitsvot, a piety figured and shaped by the divine love song that is Song of Songs.

Notes 1. Jon Whitman, Allegory: The Dynamics of an Ancient and Medieval Technique (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987), 4. 2. Robert Lamberton, Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1986), 31–43; Whitman, Allegory, 3; and Philip Rollinson, Classical Theories of Allegory and Christian Culture (Pittsburgh, Pa.: Duquesne University Press, 1981), 3–28. 3. For example, in Plato’s Republic, Socrates decries the reading of certain traditional literature from the likes of Homer, even if it is interpreted allegorically: “But Hera’s fetterings by her son and the hurling out of heaven of Hephaestus by his father when he was trying to save his mother from a beating, and the battles of the gods in Homer’s verse are things that we must not admit into our city either wrought in allegory or without allegory.” Plato, Rep. II, 378d (Shorey, LCL). The allusions to Homer are from Iliad I.586–94, XX.1–74, XXI.385–513. See Lamberton, Homer the Theologian, ix, 16–19, for a discussion of the evidence for the emergence of allegorical interpretation. See also Dirk Obbink, “Early Greek Allegory,” in The Cambridge Companion to Allegory (ed. Rita Copeland and Peter T. Struck; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 17–22. 4. ᾽Υπόνοια in Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (rev. Sir Henry Stuart Jones; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940). Emphasis is Liddell and Scott’s. 5. Rita Copeland and Peter T. Struck, “Introduction,” in The Cambridge Companion to Allegory, 2. See also Obbink, “Early Greek Allegory,” 16. 6. G. R. Boys-Stones, “Introduction,” in Metaphor, Allegory, and the Classical Tradition: Ancient Thought and Modern Revisions (ed. G. R. Boys-Stones; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 2–3; Copeland and Struck, “Introduction,” 2, 4. Allēgoria, a compound of the words allos (“other”) and agoreuein (“to speak in public”), means essentially “otherspeaking.” For a similar definition of allēgoria, see Heraclitus, Homeric Problems 4 (ed. D. A. Russell and David Konstan; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 9. 7. Lamberton, Homer the Theologian, 20; Obbink, “Early Greek Allegory,” 18–19; cf. Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1990), 108. As Copeland and Struck (“Introduction,” 4) note, “The word allegoria as we find it used by the Latin church fathers would typically refer to a spiritual sense of scripture, either the whole of the

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?    35 spiritual meaning that is latent in the literal sense, or one division of a tripartite spiritual sense.” Lamberton’s description of the elasticity of “allegory” in antiquity is remarkably similar to the generic use of the term “midrash” to describe Jewish interpretation of the Bible in modern times. 8. It is hard to determine whether early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs proceeds out of a similar dissatisfaction with its “literal” meaning as has been suggested in contemporary historical-critical interpretation. E.g., J. Cheryl Exum, Song of Songs, A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 74; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7c; New York: Doubleday, 1977), 114; cf. Roland E. Murphy’s pointed critique of this understanding (The Song of Songs: A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or the Song of Songs [Hermeneia; ed. S. Dean McBride Jr.; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1990], 16). 9. Lamberton, Homer the Theologian, 45. In fact, Philo approached the Torah as an allegory penned by Moses. On this point, see Boys-Stones, “Introduction,” 3; Adam Kamesar, “Biblical Interpretation in Philo,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo (ed. Adam Kamesar; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 77; and David Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1992), 71. On Origen and the rabbis, see, for example, Ephraim E. Urbach, “Homiletical Interpretations of the Sages and the Exposition of Origen on Canticles, and the JewishChristian Disputation” (Hebrew), Tarbiz 30 (1960): 148–70; Reuven R. Kimelman, “Rabbi Yoh.anan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-Century Jewish-Christian Disputation,” HTR 73 (1980): 567–95; Marc G. Hirshman, A Rivalry of Genius: Jewish and Christian Biblical Interpretation in Late Antiquity (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1996), 67–94; Emmanouele Grypeou and Helen Spurling, eds., The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 18; Leiden: Brill, 2009); and Anna Tzvetkova-Glaser, Pentateuchauslegung bei Origenes und den frühen Rabbinen (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2010). 10. Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1.1 (Colson and Whitaker, LCL). 11. Copeland and Struck, “Introduction,” 3. 12. For detailed treatments of Philo’s approach to allegory, see Jean Pépin, Mythe et allégorie: Les origines grecques et les contestations judéo-chretiennes (Aubier: Éditions Montaigne, 1958), 231–44; and Dawson, Allegorical Readers, 73–126. 13. On this point, see Boyarin, Intertextuality, 108. As Kamesar shows, this concern for universal ideals derives from Platonism (“Biblical Interpretation in Philo,” 90). See also Lamberton, Homer the Theologian, 45. 14. Philo’s interpretation of Gen 2:1 also highlights what David Dawson (Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision, 98) notes is “the principle nonliteral meaning . . . in scripture,” i.e., “the moral education of the human soul” or the cosmological structure in which “the soul’s progress from vice to virtue” takes place.

36   

my perfect one

Philo’s interpretation of Gen 2:1 focuses on the structural layout of the universe in which the individual soul develops. Philo’s motivations for employing allegoric interpretation in interpreting the Pentateuch are complex. See Kamesar (“Biblical Interpretation in Philo,” 77–85) for a discussion of why Philo employed allegorical interpretation. 15. Much of the original Greek of these works is lost to history. The remaining, extended sections of Origen’s work on Song of Songs are the free translation of Rufinus (ca. 345–410 c.e.) of the first three of ten books of his commentary and the more literal rendering by Jerome (ca. 347–419/420 c.e.) of two of the homilies. R. P. Lawson, trans., Origen: The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies (ACW 26; New York: Newman: 1957), 4, 16–19. All translations of Origen’s commentary and homilies to Song of Songs are taken from this volume. Lawson’s translation is based on the critical edition: W. A. Baehrens, ed., Origenes Werke, vol. 8 (GCS 33; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1925). 16. Prologue to his Commentary, section 1 (Lawson, Origen, 21). 17. Lawson, Origen, 58–61 (excerpts). 18. Daniel Boyarin proposes that Origen’s Logos theology and his appropriation of the Platonic allegorical mode of textual interpretation are intimately interrelated. See Boyarin, “Origen as Theorist of Allegory: Alexandrian Contexts,” in The Cambridge Companion to Allegory (ed. Rita Copeland and Peter T. Struck; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 47. 19. Certainly, as Jean Daniélou argues quite forcefully, Origen intermingled typological and allegorical modes of interpretation. Origen’s emphasis on the trans-historical, universal meaning of Song of Songs is akin to Philo’s use of philosophical allegory in interpreting the Torah. See Daniélou, Origen (trans. Walter Mitchell; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955), 133–73, here 165. See also Henri Crouzel, Origen (trans. A. S. Worrall; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), 61–84. 20. Bah. odesh 9 (Lauterbach, vol. 2, pp. 269–70, lines 44–53; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 236, lines 12–17). Lauterbach’s translation was consulted in producing this and other translations from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael for this volume. 21. Reading ‫ רדו‬instead of ‫ דדו‬as the former (more preferable) reading is attested in ms. Oxford no. 151 (no. 2), ms. Munich, Cod. Hebr. 117, the 1545 Venice edition of Mekilta, various printed editions, and Yalqut Shemoni. 22. Note that the consonantal MT reads ‫“( מלכי צבאות‬kings of hosts” or “kings of armies”) while the interpretation in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael suggests that the anonymous rabbinic interpreter understands the verse from Ps 68 as if it read ‫“( מלאכי צבאות‬angels of hosts”). As Lauterbach notes, “This rendering is required by the Mekilta” (Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael, vol. 2, pp. 269–70); note that he produces the MT reading in his edition while translating it “angels of hosts.” ‫ מלאכי צבאות‬is the preferable reading based both on the context of this midrash and the manuscript evidence in ms. Oxford no. 151 (no. 2) and ms. Munich, Cod. Hebr. 117, as well as numerous printed editions.

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?    37 23. Cf. b. Shab. 88b where Rabbi Joshua ben Levi argues that the consonantal text ‫ ידדון‬be read as yĕdaddûn (“they lead”; from the root ‫ )דדה‬instead of the pointing in the MT, yiddôdûn (“they march”; from the root ‫)נדד‬. Notably the reading in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael follows the MT. Another variant of this tradition occurs in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Bah. odesh 2 (see also later in Bah. odesh 9) but without the intertextual elaborations based on Ps 68:13 and Song 2:6. 24. Boyarin, Intertextuality, 106, see also 39–56. A version of this section of Intertexuality was also published as “The Song of Songs: Lock or Key? Intertextuality, Allegory and Midrash,” in The Book and the Text: The Bible and Literary Theory (ed. Regina M. Schwartz; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 214–30; and in the recent Hebrew edition of Intertextuality: Tannaitic Midrash: Intertextuality and the Reading of Mekilta (Hebrew; trans. David S. Luvish and Ruti Bar-Ilan; Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2011), 169–84. An earlier and more extended version of this section appears in “Two Introductions to the Midrash on the Song of Songs” (Hebrew), Tarbiz 56 (1986): 479–500, in particular 479–93. On the mashal as a literary form, see David Stern, Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991) and “Forms of Midrash I: Parables of Interpretation,” in Midrash and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary Studies (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1996), 39–71. See the recent contribution of Alan Appelbaum to the analysis of rabbinic parables: The Rabbis’ King-Parables: Midrash from the Third-Century Roman Empire (Judaism in Context 7; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2010). 25. E.g., “as it is said” in this example from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael (see also Sifre Devarim 10 introducing Song 6:10 et al.); “and it (Scripture) says” in Sifre Bemidbar 115 (introducing Song 2:8–9). 26. See Boyarin, Intertextuality, 83–84, 105–16. Tamar Kadari has explored a number of purportedly tannaitic traditions in Song Rab. See “‘Within it was Decked with Love’: The Torah as the Bride in Tannaitic Exegesis on Song of Songs” (Hebrew), Tarbiz 71 (2002): 391–404. Note also her work on editorial activity in Song Rab.: “On the Redaction of Midrash Shir HaShirim Rabbah” (Hebrew; Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2004). 27. David Stern, “Ancient Jewish Interpretation of the Song of Songs in a Comparative Context,” in Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Cultural Exchange: Comparative Exegesis in Context (ed. Natalie B. Dohrmann and David Stern; Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 87–107, 263–72. 28. Ibid., 92. 29. Michael Fishbane, “Torah and Tradition,” in Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament (ed. D. A. Knight; London: SPCK/Fortress, 1977), 294–95. 30. Stern, “Ancient Jewish Interpretation,” 92. 31. Ibid., 89. In doing so, Stern re-enters a long-standing debate about whether there existed a mystical mode of interpretation of Song of Songs in antiquity.

38   

my perfect one

See Gershom G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965), 36–43; Saul Lieberman, “Mishnat Shir ha-Shirim” (Hebrew), in Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition by Gershom G. Scholem (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965), 118–26. Stern (“Ancient Jewish Interpretation,” 96–98) draws together a list of five references that suggest an esoteric interpretation of Song of Songs in antiquity: Mishnah Yad. 3:5; Song Rab. ad Song. 1:4, Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Shirta 3 (cf. parallels in Sifre Devarim 343, Finkelstein, ed., 399 and Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, Epstein and Melamed, eds., 79); Origen’s comments on the restrictive practice of the Jews in terms of reading Song of Songs; and the comments of the fourteenth-century Spanish preacher Joshua ibn Shuaib. 32. Describing the interpretive framework of early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs must attend to what Steven D. Fraade calls the “double-facing character of ancient scriptural commentary.” See Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy (SUNY Series in Judaica; Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 14–15 (author’s emphasis); and idem, “The Torah of the King (Deut 17:14–20) in the Temple Scroll and Early Rabbinic Law,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. James R. Davila; Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2003), 25–27. Such attention combines both the investigation of the hermeneutic shape of early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs with the description of the social-religious world this interpretation seeks to instantiate. 33. That Song of Songs yields such a diversity of interpretations stems in all likelihood from the archetypal character of its characters and the scenes portrayed in the work. On this point, see Exum, Song of Songs, 78. Such features of Song of Songs raise the question of whether or not Song of Songs was itself written as some sort of allegory. Notably, as John Barton points out, “there is no evidence at all that any serious interpreters in antiquity ever read the Song ‘literally’ anyway.” See Barton, “The Canonicity of the Song of Songs,” in Perspectives on the Song of Songs (ed. Anselm C. Hagedorn; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 5. This issue, while important, is beyond the scope of the present discussion of tannaitic interpretive practice. For a fuller discussion of these issues, see Jonathan Kaplan, “A Divine Love Song: The Emergence of the Theo-erotic Interpretation of the Song of Songs in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2010), 1–36. 34. Erich Auerbach, “Figura,” in Scenes from the Drama of European Literature, Six Essays (Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1973), 11–76, here 14. 35. Ibid., 11. 36. Ibid., 14–15. Auerbach points, for example, to the pairing of typos (“outlines of the subjects”) with nomikōs (“general principles”) in Aristotle, Politics, VIII, 7,

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?    39 1341b, 32 (Rackham, LCL). See also Aristotle, De memoria et reminiscentia, 450a, 31; see the recent edition of David Bloch: Aristotle on Memory and Recollection: Text, Translation, Interpretation, and Reception in Western Scholasticism (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 30–31. 37. Auerbach, “Figura,” 12. 38. Ibid., 12–14. Auerbach locates the first hints of a transformation of the meaning of figura in the writings of Varro. See Varro, De lingua latina, IX, 52 (Kent, LCL): et eni dicunt ipsi alia nomina, quod quinque habeant figuras, habere quinque casus “For as they themselves say that some nouns, because they have five forms ( figuras), have five cases.” 39. Auerbach, “Figura,” 21. 40. Elizabeth Achtemeier, IDBSup, 926; cf. John E. Alsup, “Typology,” ABD 6:682– 85; See also Jean Daniélou, From Shadows to Reality: Studies in the Biblical Typology of the Fathers (trans. Wulstan Hibberd; London: Burns & Oates, 1960); David L. Baker, “Typology and the Christian Use of the Old Testament,” SJT 29 (1976): 137–57; and Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism (3d ed.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 203. 41. A more extensive survey of the use of typology in the writings that make up the New Testament would, by necessity, include substantial reflection on the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. Because of space considerations, I will not survey this material herein. See the classic study of Leonhard Goppelt for a dated, though comprehensive, survey of the topic: Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (trans. Donald H. Madvig; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982). Additionally, see K. J. Woollcombe, “The Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology,” in G. W. H. Lampe and K. J. Woollcombe, Essays on Typology (SBT 22; Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, 1957), 39–75. 42. Paul does not elaborate in detail but should be interpreted as referring to the events of Gen 3:1–24, understood in similar terms as in the interpretations in Sir 14:17, 25:24; Wisd 2:23–24; Adam and Eve 44; Apoc. Mos. 14, 32; 4 Ezra 3:7, 21–22, 4:30, 7:116–18; 2 Apoc. Bar. 17:23, 23:4, 48:42–43, 54:15, 19, 56:5–6. See the discussions in James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC 38A; Waco, Tx.: Word, 1988), 300; Brendan Byrne, Romans (SP 6; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996), 173–87; and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 405–28. See also Jon D. Levenson, “Did God Forgive Adam? An Exercise in Comparative Midrash,” in Jews and Christians: People of God (ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), 148–70. 43. This verse should be regarded as an allusion to the eschatological significance of the resurrection of Jesus. On this point, see J. R. Daniel Kirk, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 100–107.

40   

my perfect one

4 4. Paul describes the positive moral example of himself and coworkers in Phil 3:17: “Brothers and sisters, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us (kathōs exete typon hēmas).” See also 1 Thess 1:7; 2 Thess 3:9; 1 Tim 4:12; Tit 2:7; 1 Pet 5:3. These passages, however, do not exhibit the nascent typological reading of Israel’s Scriptures seen in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 10. 45. See a similar interpretation in Acts 7:44. Cf. Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.28 (Colson and Whitaker, LCL), where he makes a more literal and less polemical interpretation of Exod 25:40. See also b. Menaḥ. 29a. 46. J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter (WBC 49; Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1988), 214. 47. In De catechizandis rudibus 4.8, Augustine writes, Quapropter in veteri Testamento est occultatio novi, in novo Testamento est manifestatio veteris. 48. Origen, Hom. Gen. 10.5, in Homilies on Genesis and Exodus (trans. Ronald E. Heine; FC 71; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 167; as cited in Jocelyn McWhirter, The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God: Marriage in the Fourth Gospel (SNTSMS 138; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 1. 49. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (hereinafter Dial.), 42.2; see also 90.2, 91.2–4, 114.1. All translations are taken from Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (trans. Thomas B. Falls; rev. Thomas P. Halton; ed. Michael Slusser; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003). 50. Dial. 40:1; cf. 111:3; see Exod 12:7, 21–22; 1 Cor 5:7. On this passage, see Oskar Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile (NovTSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1987), 299–303. 51. Dial. 91.4; cf. 131.4; Num 21:8–9; John 3:14. 52. Dial. 41.1; see Lev 14:10. On this passage, see Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy, 179–80, 304–5. 53. Dial. 134.3. 54. Justin identifies his Gentile lineage in Dial. 120.6. 55. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 5, 7, as cited in Auerbach, “Figura,” 29. 56. Adversus Marcionem 3, 16, as cited in Auerbach, “Figura,” 28–29. See also Justin Martyr, Dial. 75.2, 113.1 for an earlier example of this interpretation. 57. Auerbach, “Figura,” 34. 58. For the critical edition of the Syriac text, see mēmrā 122, P. Bedjan, ed., Homiliae Selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis (with additional material by Sebastian P. Brock; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2006), vol. 4, 368–490. For a recent treatment of this mēmrā, see Robert A. Kitchen, “Jonah’s Oar: Christian Typo­­logy in Jacob of Serug’s Mēmrā 122 on Jonah,” Hugoye 11 (2011): 29–62, available online at http:// syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol11No1/HV11N1Kitchen.html, accessed 2/23/2011. For a systematic treatment of Jacob’s thought, see Tanios Bou Mansour, La théologie de Jacques de Saroug (2 vols.; Kaslik, Liban: L’Université Saint-Esprit, 1993, 2000).

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?    41 59. Bedjan, vol. 4, 387, lines 16–18; all translations of Jacob’s homily are from Kitchen, “Jonah’s Oar.” 60. Kitchen, “Jonah’s Oar.” 61. Syriac uses both a native term for type or figuration (ṣûrtā’) as well as an appropriation of the Greek typos into Syriac: ṭûpsā’. E.g., Bedjan, vol. 4, 369, lines 18–19. The noun ṭûpsā’ is attested already in the earliest Syriac; on this point, see Sebastian P. Brock, “Greek Words in the Syriac Gospels (vet and pe),” Le Muséon 80 (1967): 389–426, here 422. It occurs several times in Aphrahat (1.93.19, 1.148.4, 1.344.23, 1.445.16, 1.532.11; ed. Parisot) and frequently in Ephrem. As Aaron Michael Butts pointed out to me, ṭûpsā’ also occurs in a number of other Aramaic dialects (e.g., Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, Mandaic, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, etc.) with the meaning of “mold, form” (email correspondence, 3/21/11). The other native Syriac term used in typological interpretation is rāzā’, which can mean both “mystery” or “symbol.” See also Sebastian P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (Gorgias Handbooks 7; 2d rev. ed.; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2006), 67. 62. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, 74–75. The exegetical writings of Theodore of Mopseuestia (ca. 350–428 c.e.) are marked by an explicit, antiallegorical polemic. He argued that Song of Songs should only be understood as a love song between two human lovers, particularly Solomon and his beloved. His position was later condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 c.e. See Richard Price, ed., The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553 (2 vols.; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009), vol. 1, 264–67. 63. The Antiochene exegetical tradition tended to favor typological methods of interpretation over what it considered to be the more speculative allegorical mode of interpretation developed in Alexandria in Egypt and found in the works of Origen and others. Of course, it would be a misstatement to characterize the Antiochene school as practicing solely figural interpretation and the Alexandrian school as practicing purely symbolic interpretation. In reality, various modes of figural and symbolic interpretation were employed by figures in both schools. The sharp distinction between the two is largely polemical and originates in inter-group competition. Dawson, Allegorical Readers 12, 15–16; Stefan Nordgaard Svendsen, Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews (WUNT 2.269; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 55–59; Frances Young, “Alexandrian and Antiochene Exegesis,” in A History of Biblical Interpretation, Volume 1: The Ancient Period (ed. Alan J. Hauser and Daune F. Watson; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), 334–54; and Jon Whitman, “Perspectives: Antiquity to Late Middle Ages,” in Interpretation and Allegory: Antiquity to the Modern Period (ed. Jon Whitman; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 33–70, here 41–46. Arguing for a sharp distinction of typology and allegory based on different epistemological horizons, see Auerbach, “Figura,” 11–76; Daniélou, Origen, 133–73; R. P. C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance

42   

my perfect one

of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 63; and Lampe and Woollcombe, Essays on Typology. In fact, as Benjamin J. Ribbens notes, following a strong consensus among patristics scholars, the sharp distinction between typology and allegory as the substance of the dispute between Antioch and Alexandria is an anachronistic distinction based on modern hermeneutical categories. See Ribbens, “A Typology of Types: Typology in Dialogue,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 5 (2011): 81–96, here 86. 64. Auerbach, “Figura,” 54. 65. Dawson, Allegorical Readers, 16; interestingly Lampe distinguishes between two kinds of typology, rather than various modes of allegory, one concerned with the historical and the other with “quasi-Platonic doctrine” (Essays on Typology, 30). 66. Note that H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger also point out that the exegesis of Song of Songs in Song Rab. is typological but do not elaborate on this observation. See Introduction the Talmud and Midrash (trans. and ed. Markus Bockmuehl; 2d ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 315. See also Stemberger, “Midraschim zum Hoheslied und Geschichte Israels,” in Rashi 1040–1990: Hommage à Ephraïm E. Urbach, Congrès européen des Études juives (ed. Gabrielle Sed-Rajna; Paris: Cerf, 1993), 313–19. 67. Shirta 3 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, pp. 26–27, lines 49–63; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 127, lines 10–19). This passage is also one of the most famous passages in early rabbinic literature. See the parallel in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai (Epstein and Melamed, eds., 79). A parallel version also appears in connection with Exod 15:2 in Sifre Devarim 343 but is not attributed to Rabbi Akiva. See Fraade’s discussion of this passage in From Tradition to Commentary, 42–45. 68. Following the reading of ‫ בנאותיו‬in the Horowitz and Rabin edition following the 1545 Venice edition contra the reading adopted in Lauterbach, vol. 2, p. 26. Cf. Lieberman, “Mishnat Shir ha-Shirim,” 123 n. 25; Judah Goldin, The Song at the Sea: being a Commentary on a Commentary in Two Parts (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971), 115. 69. Rabbi Akiva understands the underlying meaning of ‫ ואנוהו‬in similar terms to the preceding discussion, which interprets it as “I will beautify him.” See William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 514 for a recent discussion of the interpretive complexities associated with this verb. Absent the introductory statement of Rabbi Akiva, the only other apparent lexical connection to Exod 15:2 in our passage occurs in the quotation of Song 2:16 and 6:3. As Judah Goldin suggests, the consonants of two words ‫“ אני והוא‬I and he,” which appear exactly or in a different form in these verses, are virtually the same as those of ve’anvehu: ‫( ואנוהו‬The Song at the Sea, 117). Additionally, as Daniel Boyarin (“‘Language Inscribed by History on the Bodies of Living Beings’: Midrash and Martyrdom,” Representations 25 [1989]: 139–51, here 143) notes, Song 5:16 (“This is my beloved, this is my darling”) parallels Exod 15:2 in syntax and form.

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?    43 70. As Daniel Boyarin points out, this pun is based on an unspoken co-text from Ps 48:15 that evokes both Exod 15:2 and Song 1:3: “For this is God [‫]כי זה אלהים‬. . . he will guide us unto death [‫“ ;”]על מות‬Language Inscribed,” 144–45; see also idem, Intertextuality, 123–24. 71. The pun between the word ‫( עלמות‬alamot) and ‫( עד מות‬ad mavet) is more apparent in the consonantal text. Note that the parallels in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai (Epstein and Melamed, eds., 79) and Midrash Ḥakamim read ‫על מות‬ (al mavet) at this point. Here the anonymous rabbinic interpreter employs an implicit al tiqrei reading. Generally, this hermeneutic technique would be introduced by the imperative “do not read (al tiqrei) X but rather Y.” The al tiqrei reading strategy is explicitly used in a similar interpretation of Song 1:3 in b. Abod. Zar. 35b. 72. As seen in Shirta 1 (see Goldin, The Song at the Sea, 116–17); the parallel to our text that is found in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai also makes this citation explicit. 73. The association of this dialogue with Rabbi Akiva, the prototypical martyr of rabbinic literature, reinforces this point. See Daniel Boyarin’s discussion of martyrdom in this passage in Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Judaism and Christianity (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1999), 110–14. 74. Cf. Judah Goldin, “Toward a Profile of the Tanna, Aqiba ben Joseph,” in Studies in Midrash and Related Literature (ed. Barry L. Eichler and Jeffrey H. Tigay; Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society, 1988), 322. 75. The version in Sifre Devarim uniquely juxtaposes this dialogue with the events at Sinai. See Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary, 43. Boyarin (“Language Inscribed by History,” 146) understands the association of this dialogue with the crossing of the sea in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael’s version to be a typological association. Note that Boyarin considers this to be “one of the few examples of true typology in midrash” (151 n. 23). Boyarin makes this argument because the lack of a clear historical period during which both large numbers of gentiles wished to convert to Judaism and Jews died “en masse” as an expression of their love for God creates a paradox in the time reference for this dialogue (ibid., 143). The paradox of this time reference leads him to conclude that this text must be speaking of an ideal circumstance at the end of time, an argument Fraade vociferously rejects (Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary, 205 n. 81). I also disagree with Boyarin’s location of this dialogue in the eschaton. 76. Sifre Bemidbar 115; the translation here is based on the text found in the recent critical edition of Menah. em I. Kahana, ed., vol. 1, p. 17 (Hebrew numeration), lines 35–37. See also the earlier Hebrew edition of Horowitz, ed., p. 125, lines 16–19. 77. The word ‫ ציצת‬is also known from Akkadian. See Jacob Milgrom’s important discussion of the origins and social valence of the word in the ancient Near East and Jewish tradition: Milgrom, Numbers (JPS Torah Commentaries; Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 410–14.

44   

my perfect one

78. The word ‫ מציץ‬in Song 2:9 is derived from the root ‫ צוץ‬II, a rare root that only occurs in this verse in biblical Hebrew. The root of ‫ ציצת‬is more difficult to discern. The juxtaposition of these two verses based on similar lexemes is known as syntagmatic citation. On syntagmatic citation, see Boyarin, Intertextuality, 26–28. 79. Note that Song 2:8–9 is also read as a figuration of the exodus in Mekilta deRabbi Yishmael, Pish.a 7. 80. A point made explicit in the later amoraic work, Song. Rab. For a discussion of the association of Solomon, Song of Songs, and later rabbinic interpretation, see Birke Rapp-de Lange, “The Love of Torah: Solomon Projected into the World of R. Aqiba in the Song of Songs Rabbah,” in Recycling Biblical Figures: Papers Read at a NOSTER Colloquium in Amsterdam, 12–13 May 1997 (ed. Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem Van Henten; Leiden: Deo Publishing, 1999), 272–91. See also eadem, “Partnership between Heaven and Earth: The Sage as Religious Role Model in Canticles Rabbah,” in Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity (ed. Marcel Poorthius and Joshua Jay Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 139–62. Note also Rapp’s dissertation “Rabbinische Liebe: Untersuchungen zur Deutung der Liebe des Hohenliedes auf das Studium der Tora in Midrasch Shir haShirim Rabba” (Ph.D. diss., Katholieke Theologische Universiteit in Utrecht, 2003). 81. A point made forcefully already by Lieberman in “Mishnat Shir ha-Shirim.” This approach is, however, non-systematic, and thus is not the same as the historical allegory typified by the Targum to Song of Songs; there verses of Song of Songs are sequentially and systematically mapped onto a defined narrative of Israel’s history. On the Targum, see Philip S. Alexander, “The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory: Notes on the Development of an Exegetical Tradition,” in Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara (ed. Kevin J. Cathcart and Michael Maher; JSOTSup 230; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 14–29, here 23; idem, The Targum of Canticles (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2003), 27–28; and Esther M. Menn, “Targum of the Song of Songs and the Dynamics of Historical Allegory,” in The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition (ed. Craig A. Evans; JSPSup 33; SSEJC 7; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 423–45, here 426–27. 82. In fact, temporal perspective is not essential in more recent scholarly discussions of Christian typology. For instance, Ribbens (“Typology of Types,” 89) defines typology in the following terms: “Thus, I am suggesting that a type, broadly defined, is ikonic mimēsis, which includes any type (τύπος) that can demonstrate correspondence in both fact and significance. Typology, then, is a study of these types, and symbolic mimesis stands outside the purview of typology.” In fact, not all early Christian figural interpretation is forward looking and in some cases looks backward. For instance, Barn. 8 correlates the boys who sprinkle the ashes of the red heifer (see Num 19) to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Note that the involvement of children in this ritual, though not mentioned in

Allegory, Mashal, or Figuration?    45 Num 19, is also attested in m. Parah 3:2 and is prohibited in 4Q277 frg. 1, line 7. For commentary on the latter text, see Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Red Cow Purification Rites in Qumran Texts,” JJS 46 (1995): 112–19. 83. Note that Ribbens (“Typology of Types,” e.g., 86) uses the term “symbolic mimēsis” to describe what I am calling philosophical allegory. 84. Bah. odesh 9 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, pp. 268–69, lines 31–41; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 236, lines 5–11). For a fuller discussion of this passage and tannaitic interpretation of the four empires motif, see Jonathan Kaplan, “Imperial Dominion and Israel’s Renown: ‘The Four Empires’ in Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael,” in Imagination, Ideology, and Inspiration: Echoes of Brueggemann in a New Generation (ed. Jonathan Kaplan and Robert Williamson Jr.; Hebrew Bible Monographs 72; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015). 85. See also Kaplan, “A Divine Love Song,” 1–76. 86. Scholars have long noted the presence of cosmological imagery in Song 6–8 though have avoided making connections to broader ancient Near Eastern mythic traditions. See the forthcoming article by Aren M. Wilson-Wright (“Love Conquers All: Song of Songs 8:6b–8:7a as a Reflex of the Northwest Semitic Combat Myth,” JBL 134 [2015]), in which he argues that the cosmological imagery in Song 8 evokes the Combat Myth. 87. Exum, Song of Songs, 8. 88. Ibid. 89. E.g., Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1988). See also the citations in n. 9. 90. Jonathan Kaplan, “The Song of Songs from the Bible to the Mishnah,” HUCA 81 (2010/2013): 43–66. Additionally, they do not interpret Song of Songs as a divine love song in order to accommodate it to the canon of Scripture. On this point, see idem, “A Divine Love Song,” 41–76; and Barton, “The Canonicity of the Song of Songs,” 5.

2

Song of Songs and Israel’s National Narrative a figural approach to the interpretation of Song of Songs in early rabbinic interpretation entails a concern for historicizing this work of love poetry. Song of Songs reflected, in the imaginations of these sages, an ideal expression of God’s loving relationship with Israel, and thus should be read as a figuration of other ideal portrayals of this bond in Israel’s scriptural history. In the previous chapter, I examined three passages from the tannaitic midrashim containing interpretations of Song of Songs, two from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael and one from Sifre Bemidbar. Each passage focused on a different way the early rabbinic sages interpreted Song of Songs to advance an ideal vision of God and Israel’s relationship. The first passage correlated Song of Songs to the giving of the Torah at Sinai. The second excerpt used the female protagonist’s rumination on her male beloved to extol the exclusivity of their union. The third employed Song of Songs in order to give new dimensions of meaning to a Jewish ritual practice. All three passages interpreted Song of Songs figurally using a uniquely rabbinic mode of typology. In this chapter, I will focus on the first of these three uses (turning to the other two in subsequent chapters). In what follows, I will expand upon the ways in which the Tannaim employed figural interpretation to historicize Song of Songs and to correlate it with the narrative of Israel’s past and present experience. Saul Lieberman, in a brief and dense nine-page essay appended to Gershom Scholem’s volume on Jewish Gnosticism, argued that the Tannaim employed a “consistent” program of interpreting Song of Songs.1 The primary aim of Lieberman’s appendix was to provide evidence from rabbinic sources for Scholem’s contentions about the antiquity of the rabbinic mystical reading of Song of Songs. Scholem’s larger program need not concern us here. What is of greater relevance to my discussion is Lieberman’s claim that the Tannaim employed a “consistent” and sustained interpretive approach to Song of the adoption of

48   

my perfect one

Songs, while the later Amoraim adopted a more eclectic approach to this work.2 His understanding is framed around two core convictions: (1) Rabbi Akiva correlated Song of Songs to the events at Sinai, and (2) Rabbi Eliezer correlated it to the crossing of the Reed Sea.3 Alon Goshen Gottstein has rightly and roundly critiqued Lieberman’s analysis on a number of levels. 4 Most notably, he points out that it departs from rabbinic interpretation’s standard approach to biblical books by being perhaps the only work that “is subject to sustained and systematic interpretation.”5 Goshen Gottstein finds evidence in both tannaitic and amoraic sources of “hermeneutical plurality” in tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs.6 In his analysis, “both sages [i.e., Akiva and Eliezer] can apply verses from the Song to different contexts. . . . Hermeneutical appropriateness, rather than a fixed theory of interpretation, determined the pattern of interpretation.”7 It is important to note that both Lieberman’s and Goshen Gottstein’s essays are concerned with addressing tannaitic interpretive traditions found in tannaitic literature as well as embedded in later rabbinic works. The focus of this volume, as I have noted, is primarily on analyzing the interpretations contained in the tannaitic midrashim with some reference to relevant passages in the Mishnah and Tosefta. Despite this difference, I regard Goshen Gottstein’s methodological cautions as apt. Nevertheless, I do believe there is a degree of consistency in the tannaitic midrashim in the ways in which the early rabbinic sages historicize Song of Songs. This consistency is not to be found, as in Lieberman’s analysis, in a simple x = y correlation between specific verses and two major events in the narrative of the Torah. Rather, as I will argue in this chapter, the early rabbinic sages’ approach to historicizing Song of Songs led them to read this work not through “a fixed theory of interpretation,” but rather through “hermeneutical appropriateness”—as describing the paradigmatic events and institutions of Israel’s ideal national historical narrative. In doing so, they sought to valorize Israel’s past, to interpret and shape the present circumstances of their community, and to imagine the future relationship of the Jewish people with their beloved.

Dramatis Personae: Heroes and Villains in Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs Song of Songs is full of characters: protagonists, antagonists, and a supporting cast. We already met a number of characters and discussed their tannaitic interpretation in the last chapter. In the two examples from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael and the one from Sifre Bemidbar, the early rabbinic sages interpreted the male character of Song of Songs (both the shepherd and the urbane royal)

Israel’s National Narrative    49

as God and the female protagonist as Israel.8 Tamar Kadari has recently challenged this standard understanding of the relational dynamics in rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs and suggests that in tannaitic sources the Torah is also portrayed as the female protagonist.9 To support her contention she offers evidence from a putative tannaitic tradition preserved in the later amoraic work, Song of Songs Rabbah, from another tannaitic tradition in the Babylonian Talmud, from an excerpt from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, and from an excerpt from the Tosefta.10 Kadari notes that the female protagonist is also correlated with the Torah in certain tannaitic traditions, although her interpretation of the passage from the Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael misses the point that in this passage two verses from Song of Songs are cited not to link the Torah to Song of Songs but to illustrate paired objects (breast, hands) that, like the two tablets given to Moses by God, are identical in composition and ornamentation.11 So while there may be some evidence for the correlation of the bride to the Torah in other tannaitic traditions preserved outside of the corpus of tannaitic midrashim, the interpretations found in this corpus consistently correlate the female protagonist of Song of Songs to Israel and the male beloved to God. The early rabbinic sages not only assigned the lead roles of Song of Songs to Israel and God but also cast other figures from Israel’s history in key roles. As they historicized this work, they looked beyond the binary relationship of God and Israel to correlate other heroes and villains in Israel’s scriptural history with characters and figures in Song of Songs. We have already seen one example of this phenomenon in the last chapter where, in Rabbi Akiva’s dialogue, the nations of the world were correlated with the daughters of Jerusalem.12 In what follows, I will offer other examples from the tannaitic midrashim which map archetypal opponents of Israel (Egyptians, Sihon) onto the textual landscape of Song of Songs. By drawing these opponents into the narrative world of Song of Songs, the Tannaim sought to enrich their historicization of Song of Songs and provide a richer context for their portrayal of the affective relationship of God and Israel. Given the focus of rabbinic figural interpretation of Song of Songs on the exodus, the Sinai theophany, and the wilderness wanderings as the ideal period of Israel’s relationship with God, it is not surprising that the Egyptians were given the role of the archetypal, national villain. In the last chapter, I mentioned that the daughters of Jerusalem pose a challenge to the female protagonist for the attention of the male beloved. Similarly, foxes serve as a metaphor for potentially destructive forces that threaten the union of the lovers, as the male beloved says to his lover, “Catch us the foxes, the little foxes that ruin the vineyards—for our vineyard is in blossom” (Song 2:15).

50   

my perfect one

In the following example from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, the sages portray the foxes of Song 2:15 as a figuration of the most archetypal of all peoples who threaten Israel and her covenantal relationship with God: the Egyptians. And when Scripture speaks figuratively of the empires, it always compares them to beasts, as it is said, “And four mighty beasts, etc.” (Dan 7:3). But when it speaks figuratively of the Egyptians, it only compares them to foxes, as it is said, “Catch us the foxes” (Song 2:15).13 In its context, the verse from Song of Songs refers to the “foxes” that disrupt the metaphorical vineyard of love where the two lovers hold their trysts. In the context of this midrash, the verse is a figuration of the Egyptians, who sought to prevent the union of God and Israel. This excerpt comes from a longer section in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael that explores the significance of the metaphorical description of the Egyptians as stubble in Exod 15:7. This discussion leads into a series of comparisons that highlight the diminutive status of the Egyptians in correlation to the other empires mentioned in Scripture. The other kingdoms (Assyrians, Amorites, etc.) are described as cedars of Lebanon (Ezek 31:3; Amos 2:9; Dan 4:17), silver and gold (Dan 2:32) and mighty beasts (Dan 7:3). In contrast, the Egyptians are described as stubble (Exod 15:7), lead (Exod 15:10), and foxes (Song 2:15). Except for the quotation from Song of Songs, all other scriptural references explicitly mention or implicitly refer to other empires or the Egyptians. The description of the Egyptians as foxes seems to proceed from an exegetical need for a fifth beast beyond the four beasts mentioned in Dan 7:3.14 It could also be that the fox was viewed as emblematic of Egypt because of the prominence of the jackal, another canid similar in appearance to the fox, in ancient Egyptian iconography.15 The fox of Song 2:15 provides an apt metaphor for the Egyptians because it disrupts the union of the two lovers. For the lovers of Song of Songs, this disruption seems to occur during a nighttime tryst. For Israel, the confrontation occurs as the Israelites are crossing the Reed Sea on their way to their encounter with God at Sinai. Another example of the Tannaim interpreting a verse from Song of Songs as a figuration of the Egyptians also appears in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael. Another interpretation: “Pharaoh and his servants had a change of heart” (Exod 14:5). They said, “Has not good come to us on their account?” Rabbi Yose the Galilean gave a parable: “To what can this be compared? To a man to whom there has been left an inheritance of a bet-kor of land that he sold for a trifle. The buyer, however, went and dug

Israel’s National Narrative    51

wells in it and planted gardens, trees, and orchards in it. The seller began to choke. So it happened to the Egyptians who let go without knowing what they let go.” Of them it is stated in the traditional sacred writings, “Your limbs16 are an orchard of pomegranates, etc.” (Song 4:13).17 This passage appears as part of a longer section that collects interpretations about Israel’s initial departure from Egypt and the crossing of the sea. Exodus 14:5 describes the change of heart that Pharaoh and his courtiers experienced after they freed the Israelite slaves (Exod 13:17). The text of Exodus does not, however, relate exactly how they underwent this change of heart. This narrative gap creates an opportunity for aggadic expansion.18 The anonymous rabbinic interpreter places a question in the mouth of Pharaoh and his courtiers that highlights the narrative lacuna: “Has not good come to us on their account?” The presumption of this rhetorical question is that the Egyptian court has lost substantial economic benefit with the departure of the Israelites. The realization of this loss provokes their change of heart. The editor then moves to provide an illustration for this phenomenon through a parable attributed to Rabbi Yose the Galilean.19 The parable describes the grief and regret experienced by an individual who sells an inherited piece of land. The land is transformed under its new ownership into a lush and verdant garden full of fruit trees and water. The parable highlights the amount of effort required to cultivate this land and turn it into a paradise by describing it as originally requiring a kor of seed to cultivate.20 This substantial measure of seed either speaks of the land’s large size or the difficulty faced in cultivating the land, which required such a quantity of seed for cultivation. The original owner’s realization of the land’s true value provokes his regret over its sale. Rabbi Yose the Galilean describes the original owner graphically as “beg[inning] to choke” (hitḥil . . . neḥnaq). He uses the experience of this original owner to illustrate the verse from Exodus 14: “So it happened to the Egyptians who let go [sheshilleḥu] without realizing what they let go [shilleḥu].” The Egyptians did not realize the true value of the Israelite slaves whom they let go. They only came to realize the value of this loss after their departure. Rabbi Yose thus fills in the narrative gap left by Exod 14:5 and elaborates on the motivation for the change of heart by Pharaoh and his courtiers. The editor of this passage then appends a verse from Song of Songs to illustrate further this dynamic: “Your limbs are an orchard of pomegranates” (Song 4:13). The citation of Song 4:13 is probably occasioned by the double use of the verb shilleḥu (“they let go”) in the concluding statement of Rabbi Yose the Galilean’s mashal. The use of this root as the key descriptor of the action of the

52   

my perfect one

Egyptians triggers an oral association with the first word of Song 4:13: shelaḥayik. As Lauterbach notes, shelaḥayik could be interpreted to mean “those whom thou hast sent away.”21 In this new context, Song 4:13 expresses the central message of the parable. The midrash understands it as meaning, “those whom you have sent away are an orchard of pomegranates.” This interpretation of Song 4:13 again correlates a verse from Song of Songs to Israel’s experience in the exodus. In this reading, the editor who appended this verse to Rabbi Yose’s mashal highlights the value of Israel as a pardes, a verdant expanse (a luxury in the ancient Near East) full of pomegranates (an expensive fruit). The female character of Song of Songs again provides a figuration of Israel. Egypt fails to recognize what God, as the male lover in Song of Songs, understands: Israel is a unique treasure, which one should not hastily relinquish. The Tannaim also saw in Song of Songs figurations of other key enemies from Israel’s early national history. Two such dastardly figures are Sichon, the Amorite King, and Og, King of Bashan. In the Torah, they are described as recalcitrant kings who would not allow Israel to pass through their borders unmolested on the way to the promised land (Num 21:21–35). Israel overcomes these two kingdoms, and their lands become the abode of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh (32:33). In the Bible, they are frequently paired with the Egyptians as paragons of opposition to Israel that are overcome by divine intervention (Josh 2:10; Pss 135:8–12, 136:10–24). Tannaitic interpretation appraises them similarly and, in the following example from Mekilta le-Devarim, even derives a moral lesson from their failures and defeat. “Sichon, king of the Amorites, . . . and King Og of Bashan” (Deut 1:4). For what reason are these two presented individually? In order to teach you that they were arguing with each other and not assisting one another in battle. Concerning them it is said, “From the dens of lions, from the lairs of leopards” (Song 4:8).22 In characteristic rabbinic fashion, Mekilta le-Devarim derives exegetical significance from the fact that Deuteronomy does not describe them as “Sichon and Og, Kings of the Trans-Jordan” but as individual kings of particular places and peoples. Deuteronomy’s presentation, from the perspective preserved in Mekilta le-Devarim, indicates that Sichon and Og did not present a united front against Israel. Instead, each acted on their own to attack Israel as they crossed Sichon and Og’s territories. The interpretation of Deut 1:4 in Mekilta le-Devarim accords well with the presentation of events in the Torah. Numbers 21:21–35 describes Sichon and Og as attacking Israel in succession

Israel’s National Narrative    53

and each being defeated in succession. Mekilta le-Devarim goes beyond the biblical narrative by describing Sichon and Og’s lack of unified military action as arising from a conflict between the two kings. In this interpretation, they did not wage a united campaign against Israel because of disagreements between them. Their bickering and failure to unite against a common enemy leads to their defeat. By highlighting the disunity of Sichon and Og, Mekilta le-Devarim implicitly highlights the unity of Israel in their conquest of the land of Canaan. Even the two-and-one-half tribes who settle in Sichon and Og’s captured lands join the rest of Israel in conquering the land of Canaan proper (Num 32). The moral force of this interpretation is obvious: unity enables victory; disunity leads to defeat. With all of the resonances from elsewhere in the Torah, Joshua, and the Psalms to reinforce its point, Mekilta le-Devarim could have easily ended this interpretation of Deut 1:4 here. Instead, the editor appeals to the closing part of Song 4:8, “From the dens of lions, from the lairs of leopards,” to buttress his interpretation of Deut 1:4. Elsewhere in the tannaitic midrashim, the first part of Song 4:8 is interpreted as referring to Israel’s return from exile.23 The snippet quoted in Mekilta le-Devarim evokes the female protagonist’s escape from similar dangerous forces into the arms of her beloved. Viewed through the lens of reading Song of Songs as a divine love song, there is a point of comparison between Song 4:8 and Deut 1:4; both verses refer to Israel’s escape from forces that threaten her very survival. Additionally, the two verses share another point of similarity. Just as Deut 1:4 describes Sichon and Og separately as kings of distinct territories, so too does Song 4:8 portray the lions and leopards living apart in separate areas, in “dens” and “lairs.” The editor of this text thus highlights that Deut 1:4 and the closing snippet of Song 4:8 are structurally the same. The juxtaposition of these two verses further highlights that the disunity of Sichon and Og thus prevents them from overwhelming Israel. By corollary, Israel’s unity in the face of these threats assures divine intervention on her behalf and her resultant victory. In the tannaitic midrashim the nations are not always portrayed in an entirely negative light. The following example from Sifre Devarim takes on a rather neutral tone in describing Israel’s relationship to the nations. “He fixed the boundaries of peoples [in relation to Israel’s numbers]” (Deut 32:8). Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, “Behold it [Scripture] says, ‘There are sixty queens and eighty concubines’ (Song 6:8). Sixty and eighty equal one hundred and forty, but our ancestors only went down to Egypt seventy in number, as it is said, ‘Your ancestors went down to Egypt seventy persons in all’ (Deut 10:22).

54   

my perfect one

Thus it says, ‘the boundaries of peoples.’ ‘The boundary24 of peoples’ is not written here but ‘the boundaries of peoples.’ [This indicates] that nations merited taking double the portion given to the children of Israel.”25 This passage opens with a snippet of a verse drawn from the long poem near the end of Deuteronomy known as Ha’azinu (Deut 32:1–43). The poem recounts the drama of Israel’s relationship with God. The verse comes from a section of the poem that affirms God’s sovereignty over the nations of the world by virtue of God having established appropriate geographical borders for all of the nations of the world in relationship to the size of Israel. The verse from Deut 32 leaves, however, a numerical gap: the nations may be defined in relationship to Israel, but we do not know how big either one of them is. Rabbi Eliezer fills this gap first by citing Song 6:8: “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines.” He adduces that the two numbers in this verse added together equal a total of one hundred and forty. This number contrasts, however, with the numbering of Israel in Deut 10:22, where the entirety of Israel amounts to seventy. If Deut 10:22 refers to Israel, Song 6:8 must then refer to the nations in the logic of this midrash.26 The nations thus outnumber Israel by a ratio of two-to-one and thus “merited taking double the portion given to the children of Israel.” What is noteworthy about this passage is that it does not draw negative conclusions about the larger portion of the nations in relationship to Israel and does not seek to obscure their apparent numerical superiority. The interpreter merely seeks to define the relationship between Israel and the other nations mentioned in Deut 32 more clearly. Ultimately, what really matters for Israel is not that God might bequeath more territory to other nations or even be in relationship with these other nations. For the sages, it is the quality and uniqueness of Israel’s relationship with God, rather than its quantity, that matters. A passage from Sifra highlights the point implied in the preceding excerpt from Sifre Deuteronomy: the uniqueness of Israel’s relationship to God in contrast to the other nations.27 “You shall not follow the practices of the nation” (Lev 20:23) these are the Egyptians. “That I am driving out before you” (ibid.) these are the Canaanites. “For it is because they did all these things” (ibid.) this teaches that the Canaanites were flooded by these things. I am exiling them only because of these things. “I abhorred them” (ibid.): just like a person who is repelled by his food. “And said to you, ‘You shall possess their land, [for I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with

Israel’s National Narrative    55

milk and honey. I the Lord am your God who has set you apart from other peoples]’” (Lev 20:24). You are worthy of dispossessing them because you were the first to be disposed [to this task]. And thus it says, “A garden locked is my own, my bride, a fountain locked, a sealed-up spring” (Song 4:12).28 This excerpt follows a well-established midrashic technique of reading each part of a verse as signifying something distinct.29 Modern readers might read Lev 20:23 as referring to a single people or a group of peoples. The anonymous rabbinic interpreter, however, takes the verse as referring to the people whom the Israelites just left (the Egyptians), on the one hand, and the people whom the Israelites were about to face in the conquest of the land (the Canaanites), on the other. Quickly, the passage turns to the question of why God would allow the people of Israel to displace the Canaanites. The answer lies in the very logic of the verse: they engaged in practices that God “abhorred.” What Lev 20:24 does not disclose is why God would choose Israel to dispossess the distasteful Canaanites. The interpreter justifies God’s election of Israel by contending that they were “worthy of dispossessing them [i.e., the Canaanites] because [they] were the first to be disposed [poteḥim teḥillah] [to this task].” He then justifies his judgment by appealing to Song 4:12, wherein the male beloved repeatedly describes the female protagonist as inaccessible, “locked” (na‘ul) and “sealed-up” (ḥatum). In citing this verse, the anonymous rabbinic interpreter evokes a tension between the assertion that Israel is “open” (poteḥim) to the task of dispossessing the Canaanites and the characterization that she is inaccessible. But the irony of this juxtaposition rests precisely in this tension. Because Israel has been sealed up and protected from the corruption of abhorrent practice, she is disposed and prepared for the task of dispossessing the Canaanites and claiming her inheritance. Here, the early rabbinic sages’ interpretation of Israel’s enemies serves to define the ideal vision of who Israel should be. Throughout these examples of interpretations of Song of Songs in these various works of tannaitic midrashim, the other nations and their kings emerge as foils to points the interpreter makes about Israel. Like “foxes” they seek to disrupt the inevitable union of God and his beloved Israel. The nations too hastily dispatch Israel because they do not realize the unique treasure in their grasp. The disunity of their kings (Sichon and Og) leads to their defeat in face of the unity that ideal Israel lives out. God loves Israel not because they begin as a huge nation or merited a larger portion of land. Rather, God loves Israel because they are a unique and special possession. And, in our last excerpt, we saw that Israel’s purity and distance from abhorrent corruption led to her election. Through these interpretations of Song of

56   

my perfect one

Songs, the early rabbinic sages sought to map ideal Israel onto the landscape of her ideal national narrative by contrasting her with other nations. This quintessential portrait provided the Tannaim with a renewed vision of what it meant to be Israel, an issue to which I will return in more detail in the next chapter. This portrait was essential in shaping a renewed vision of Jewish community when the evidence of the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e., and the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 c.e., as well as the subsequent devastation in Roman Palestine, might lead one to conclude that God had abandoned the Jewish people, as Justin Martyr and undoubtedly others thought.30

Typology, Historicization, Song of Songs, and Israel’s National Narrative In the preceding discussion of the dramatis personae of Song of Songs from the interpretive perspective found in the tannaitic midrashim, we saw that the traditions in these works correlated Song of Songs to a number of ideal events in Israel’s history. These events include the exodus, the Sinai theophany, and various events that occurred during the forty years of Israel’s wanderings in the wilderness. As I noted in the last chapter, the Tannaim historicized verses from Song of Songs by correlating them with events in Israel’s history. What makes this process unique is that they employed a form of figural interpretation of Song of Songs in order to achieve this correlation. Ultimately, the sages sought to shape their present experience through interpreting this short work as describing Israel’s national historical narrative. In doing so, they looked both to the past and to their present situation to retell the story of Israel’s and God’s love relationship through the language of Song of Songs. In what follows, I look more closely at how they engaged in this process of typological historicization and examine my contention that their approach, while consistent, is not as rigidly schematic as Lieberman argued.

Typological Correlation to Singular, Past Events A prominent kind of typological historicization of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim is the correlation of Song of Songs to events during the exodus, the Sinai theophany, and the subsequent wilderness experience. The following example of this phenomenon comes from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael: “On the third day, as morning dawned” (Exod 19:16). This teaches that God had come there [i.e., to the mountain] early on account of him [i.e.,

Israel’s National Narrative    57

Moses].31 Thus is confirmed what has been said, “While the king was on his couch, my nard gave forth its fragrance” (Song 1:12).32 This brief and slightly enigmatic interpretation of Song 1:12 serves to prove the assertion that “God had come there [i.e., to the mountain] early on account of him [i.e., Moses].” In making this assertion, the anonymous interpreter has the fuller context of Exod 19:16 in mind. In this verse, the cloud of glory is described as resting heavily over the mountain. God’s appearance on the mountain precedes Moses’s leading of “the people out the camp toward God” in Exod 19:17. As Judah Nagar (d. 1830) describes the situation in Shevut Yehuda, his commentary on Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, God was waiting for Moses in the firmament (raqi‘a) just above the peak of the mountain.33 For the interpreter, this understanding of Exod 19:16 confirms the narrative described in Song 1:12. In Song of Songs, the female protagonist utters these words to indicate that her lover’s waiting for her elicits her odoriferous response. In the interpretation of this verse in this passage, Israel describes God’s waiting for her on the mountain. The juxtaposition of Exod 19:16 and Song 1:12 shifts the narrative perspective from that of the outside, omniscient narrator looking on the situation from above, to the perspective of Israel, through the words of the female protagonist of Song of Songs, coming out to meet her waiting king. This interpretation historicizes Song of Songs by correlating it to a specific event in Israel’s history. Song 1:12 then serves as a figuration of the ideal type that is actualized in Israel’s history. Another example of this mode of typological historicization also appears in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael. After discussing Israel’s fulfillment of God’s command to plunder the Egyptians (Exod 12:36; cf. 3:21–22, 11:2–3), the editor appends a comparison of the plunder of the Egyptians that occurred on the eve of the exodus, and Israel’s acquisition of additional plunder at the shore of the sea after God drowned the Egyptian army.34 The placement of this discussion seems associative, as the plunder at the sea has not yet been discussed in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael. And how do we know that the plunder at the sea was greater than the plunder in Egypt? It is said, “And you did increase and grow up and come into the ornament of ornaments” (Ezek 16:7). “Into the ornament,” refers to the plunder in Egypt. “Of ornaments,” refers to the plunder at the sea. “Wings of a dove sheathed in silver” (Ps 68:14), refers to the plunder in Egypt. “Its pinions in fine gold” (ibid.), refers to the plunder at the sea. “We will add wreaths of gold” (Song 1:11), refers to the plunder at the sea. “To your spangles of silver” (ibid.), refers to the plunder in Egypt.35

58   

my perfect one

The anonymous interpreter locates the scriptural basis for his contention “that the plunder at the sea was greater than the plunder in Egypt” in Ezek 16:7. In Ezek 16, the prophet details Jerusalem’s life (as a metonym for the people of Israel) through the image of a female child growing into womanhood and her subsequent betrothal to God in a covenant ceremony. Verse 7 describes Jerusalem’s maturation immediately prior to God’s betrothal of her in v. 8. The interpreter correlates v. 7 with the narrative of the exodus. He focuses on the superlative phrase ba‘adi ‘adayim—a phrase which is difficult to translate but refers to the maturation of Jerusalem—as the basis for the comparison of the two events of plunder. The NJPS renders the phrase as “to womanhood,” but Lauterbach suggests it means “excellent beauty.”36 The anonymous interpreter sees in the repetitious phrase a comparison between two events in Israel’s exodus experience. He correlates ba‘adi—“into the ornament” (grammatically marked as a singular)—with the first instance of plunder. He then correlates ‘adayim—“of the ornaments” (grammatically marked as a dual)—as referring to the second instance of plunder. The second instance is greater than the first because its number is greater. In this way the superlative phrase in Ezekiel is read as a comparison of two different quantities of ornamentation and thus is a comparison of the two occasions of plunder immediately prior to and during the exodus. The comparison of the superior plunder at the sea with the plunder of the Egyptians continues through a similar reading of Ps 68:14 and Song 1:11. Psalm 68:12–14 describes a similar despoiling of armies in the face of an army of female heralds. The context of the psalm could suggest a plunder that occurs after God led Israel into the desert (Ps 68:8). Among the spoil are “wings of a dove sheathed in silver, its pinions in fine gold.” The interpreter associates the silver with the plunder of the Egyptians and the gold of this verse with the plunder at the sea, presumably because gold is more valuable than silver.37 Song of Songs 1:11 employs gold and silver in a similar fashion. The interpreter reads the parallelism of gold and silver in Song 1:11 as another example of the superiority of the plunder at the sea. The correlation of Song 1:11 with Ps 68:14 and Exod 12:36 brings this verse from Song of Songs into the historical world of the exodus. But this association does more than just historicize Song 1:11. By connecting Song 1:11 typologically to Exod 12:36, the interpreter locates the two events of plunder in the relational context of a lover and her beloved. These acts of plunder do not simply produce the spoils of war, or payment for Israel’s service to Egypt.38 Through this intertextual reading they become the affectionate gifts of the divine lover to his bride Israel. In the next chapter, I will return to this correlation of Song 1:11 and Ps 68:14 with the despoiling of the Egyptians and the despoiling at the sea, but from the version

Israel’s National Narrative    59

in Sifre Devarim. We shall also see in that discussion how God’s loving gift to his beloved Israel shapes their piety and how they in turn provide for others. The use of Song of Songs to highlight God’s affection for Israel appears in a passage that typologically correlates Song 4:16 to the crossing of the sea. In this excerpt from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, we encounter an interpretation of Exod 15:8 that contrasts the experience of the Egyptians and the Israelites in the sea. Another interpretation of “They stood upright as a skin bottle [of streams (nozelim)]” (Exod 15:8). Just as a skin bottle, when it is tied up, does not let anything escape or come in, so was the breath of the Egyptians tied up within them. They could not inhale nor exhale, being overcome with the smell of the sea, as it is said, “He makes the depths seethe like a cauldron” (Job 41:23). But for the Israelites the sea became like spices of various kinds, as it is said, “He makes the sea [boil] like a pot of ointment” (ibid.). And it also says, “Awake, O north wind, come, O south wind! Blow upon my garden, that his spices39 may waft [yizzelu] from there” (Song 4:16). 40 The anonymous interpreter use the two halves of Job 41:23 to set-up the juxtaposition between the Egyptian and Israelite experiences of traversing the sea. 41 The interpreter understands the first half of the verse as referring to the breathlessness faced by the Egyptians as they were bound up like a skin bottle submerged in the waves. He correlates the second half of the verse, with its reference to the sea as being turned into a “pot of ointment,” to Israel’s experience in the sea. He then quotes a line uttered by the female protagonist of Song of Songs. Whereas the water choked the Egyptians, the Israelites were able to delight in the smell of spices during the crossing of the sea (Song 4:16). In the narrative context of Song of Songs, the woman invokes the winds to send forth the fragrance of her fumigated garden in order to entice the man to enter. In the midrash, the verse is linked to the previous material because the verb “waft” (yizzelu) in Song 4:16 is formed from the same root as the participle nozelim in Exod 15:8. Through this juxtaposition of Song 4:16 and Exod 15:8, the sea becomes a fragrant garden sheltering the fleeing Israelites on their way to union with God. In this interpretation, the fragrance of the garden does not waft forth to entice the male. Instead, it becomes spices given by God to Israel in the midst of the sea in order to sustain them. The correlation of Job 41:23 with Exod 15:8 and the crossing of the sea is not typological in the same manner as is Song 4:16. For the interpreter, the reference to “sea” and “deep” in Job 41:23 evokes the same myth of God’s subjugation

60   

my perfect one

of the primordial waters that underpins Exod 15. The interpreter’s reading certainly historicizes Job 41:23 by making explicit potential historical connections. In contrast, while Song 4:16 shares verbal resonances with Exod 15:8 (nozelim/ yizzelu), it lacks any hint that it is referring to the same events that are described in Exod 15:8, as Job 41:23 does. This point highlights a distinction between early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs and early rabbinic interpretation of other biblical works, which I discussed in more detail in the last chapter. Unlike Job and other works from the Writings, Song of Songs lacks explicit references to historical events such as the exodus or mythic archetypes such as the combat myth in Exod 15. The only way it can be linked to other verses in Scripture is through shared lexemes and figural interpretation. As I showed in the last chapter, the early rabbinic sages did employ figural interpretation in some of their interpretations of other biblical books. They make use, however, of a consistent and nearly exclusive program of figural interpretation when interpreting Song of Songs. Verses from Song of Songs not only are linked in tannaitic midrashim to events that occurred during the exodus and the Sinai theophany but also are connected to verses from throughout the period of the wilderness wanderings. In the following example from Sifre Zuta, the anonymous rabbinic interpreter correlates Song 4:16 and 5:1 to the day of the erection of the Tabernacle, its consecration for service, and the beginning of the dedicatory offerings from the chieftains of the twelve tribes (Num 7ff). “This is the offering of Naḥshon [son of Amminadav]” (Num 7:17). From where do you derive that each of them volunteered themselves and that the offering of each of them were the same. Scripture says, “This is the offering of Naḥshon.” “This is the offering of Netanel.” “This is the offering of Eliav.” “This is the offering of Elizur.” On that day Elisheva, daughter of Amminadav, saw four occasions for rejoicing and one for mourning: she saw her husband’s brother become king, her brother as chieftain, her husband as high priest, and her two sons as deputies to the high priest. And the one occasion for mourning: concerning her two sons. Concerning that same day, it [Scripture] says, “Arise, O north wind, Come, O south wind! Blow upon my garden that its spices may spread. [Let my beloved come to his garden and enjoy its luscious fruits!] I have come to my garden, my sister, [my] bride” (Song 4:16; 5:1). 42 The first part of the passage attempts to address the significance of the formula that organizes the offerings of each of the chieftains of the twelve tribes:

Israel’s National Narrative    61

“this is the offering of X.” The interpreter understands this repetitive formula as indicating both that the offering for each day was a voluntary offering of the respective chieftain and that the offering on each day was the same as any other day’s dedicatory offering. The citation of Num 7:17 occasions the appending of a tradition about Elisheva, daughter of Amminadav and sister of Naḥshon, the first chieftain of Judah. This narrative passage sees the day of the dedication of the Tabernacle as a day that marked for her four significant events of rejoicing and one of mourning. The erection of the Tabernacle legitimates the appointment of Moses, her brother-in-law, as ruler over Israel. It also occasions the inauguration of her brother’s service as chieftain over the tribe of Judah (Num 7:12), the service of Aaron, her husband, as high priest, and of her two sons as deputies to the high priest (Lev 8–9). 43 This auspicious day also occasions the memory of the death of her two older sons Nadav and Avihu for presenting an inappropriate incense offering (described as “alien fire”) to God (Lev 10:1–2). 44 In the third section of this passage, the anonymous interpreter also correlates the day of the Tabernacle’s dedication to adjoining verses from Song of Songs spoken in turn by the female protagonist and her male beloved (Song 4:16, 5:1). These verses describe the woman’s declaration that she has prepared her garden to receive her beloved who then announces his arrival in the next verse. Juxtaposed with the erection of the Tabernacle, these verses chronicle Israel’s preparation of the garden (i.e., the Tabernacle) wherein she will encounter her beloved. In contrast to the tradition from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael about Song 4:16, the “spices” emanating from the garden do not in Sifre Zuta belong to God but rather are the pleasing odor of Israel’s sacrificial offerings. The correlation of Song of Songs to the erection of the Tabernacle further enhances the tannaitic portrayal of the wilderness experience as an idyllic period in Israel’s relationship with God. The interpretation of Song of Songs as describing Israel’s national historical narrative thus served the wider tannaitic aim of painting a portrait of the ideal relationship between God and Israel. The early rabbinic sages also correlated verses from Song of Songs to the close of the wilderness period and the beginning of the settlement of the promised land. In the following example, which appears in identical versions in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael and Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, the anonymous interpreter sees in Song 1:8 a figuration of God’s leading of his beloved Israel into the promised land. “You will bring them and plant them” (Exod 15:17). The fathers uttered a prophecy and did not realize what they had prophesied. “You

62   

my perfect one

will bring us and plant us” is not written here, but “You will bring them and plant them.” They thus were saying that the children will enter and the fathers will not. And thus it says, “If you do not know, O fairest of women, go follow the tracks of the sheep and graze your kids,” etc. (Song 1:8), [that is to say], the young [i.e., the kids] will enter and the adult goats will not. 45 Here the interpreter correctly reads the verbal forms of Exod 15:17, tevi’emo vetiṭṭa‘emo, as future in tense. In this reading, these verbs refer to the future entrance of the children of the generation of the exodus into the land. The interpreter further emphasizes this interpretation by highlighting the presence of third-person masculine plural pronouns in lieu of first-person plural pronouns in Exod 15:17. He then utilizes the man’s invitation to the female protagonist from Song 1:8 as a proof text for this reading. He typologically correlates “the children” of Exod 15:7 to the “kids” of Song 1:8. In this interpretation, Song 1:8 is read as another instance of God disclosing to Israel that it will not be the generation of the exodus who will enter into the land but rather their progeny. Ultimately, it is the offspring belonging to Israel, the female protagonist’s “kids,” who will enter the land—not the “adult goats” of the generation of the exodus. The Tannaim also interpret Song of Songs in such a way as to highlight the quality of Joshua, who was the leader of this generation of “kids” who would settle the land of Canaan. In the following excerpt from Sifre Devarim, Song 8:8 serves as a figuration of Israel’s immaturity made manifest historically through the ascendance of wicked or inept rulers. The appointment of Joshua, however, exemplifies the quality of leadership that unifies Israel and enables their ascendancy among the other nations of the world. Moses responded to the blessed Holy One, “Master of the world, since I am about to leave this world in great agony, show me a trustworthy man who might lead Israel, so that I might be released peacefully.”46 And thus it says, “Who shall go out before them and come in before them” (Num 27:17). And it says, “And the Lord answered Moses, ‘Single out Joshua son of Nun’” (Num 27:18). And it says, “We have a little sister, whose breasts are not yet formed” (Song 8:8). This verse means that four empires will rule over Israel during a time when she lacks a wise and discerning [leader] as in the days of Ahab, king of Israel, and Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, [when] “all Israel scattered over the hills like sheep without a shepherd” (1 Kings 22:17) “so that the Lord’s community may not be like sheep that have no shepherd” (Num 27:17). 47

Israel’s National Narrative    63

This excerpt begins with a paraphrase of Moses’s petition to God in Num 27:15–17 for a leader to replace him and lead Israel into the promise land. 48 Numbers 27:17a and 27:18 reflect the ideal transmission of leadership to Joshua, a paradigm for transition to wise and discerning leaders. The anonymous interpreter understands Num 27:17b as reflecting prophetically a later historical reality, that is, the ascendance of inept leaders over Israel. He uses the language of Song 8:8 in order to portray Israel’s immaturity, pictured metaphorically as prepubescent breasts. The maturation of female Israel signals the emergence of wise and discerning leaders. The absence of such figures signifies her continued immaturity. The reigns of Ahab and Jehoshaphat, ninth century b.c.e. rulers of Israel and Judah, respectively, whose monarchies preconditioned Israel’s domination by foreign powers beginning in the following century, typify such unwise and impious leadership. 49 The interpreter points to the domination of Israel by the four empires, which I discussed in more detail earlier, as resulting from her immaturity. Israel is like the prepubescent girl of Song 8:8, not only in her immaturity but also in the fact that she is dominated by others. In the case of Song of Songs, these others are the girl’s brothers who dominant her (aḥot lanu qetannah “we have a little sister”; Song 8:8a). In the case of Israel’s history as refracted through the four empires motif of Dan 7, it is her repeated subjugation to foreign domination. Elsewhere in the tannaitic midrashim, Joshua is also connected to Song of Songs. An anonymous tradition in Mekilta le-Devarim employs Song of Songs in order to communicate the intensity of Joshua’s grief after the death of Moses. Joshua was pained concerning Moses. When the Pillar of Cloud went down and separated them, Joshua cried and said, “Let me be a seal upon your heart, like the seal upon your hand. [For love is fierce as death, passion is mighty as Sheol; its darts are darts of fire, a blazing flame.] Vast floods cannot quench love, [nor rivers drown it]” (Song 8:6–7). When he [Moses] disappeared [or was hidden], he [Joshua] arose, let out a great wail, rent his clothes, and said, “My father, my father! Israel’s chariots and horsemen!” (2 Kings 2:12). “But where can wisdom be found” (Job 28:12). The blessed Holy One said to Joshua, “How long will you inquire concerning Moses? ‘My servant Moses is dead’ (Josh 1:2). [It does not say] ‘To you Moses is dead.’ Nor ‘Moses is dead’ but ‘to me.’”50 This excerpt appears in the context of a larger discussion about the death of Moses that is recorded in the closing chapters of Deuteronomy. At the

64   

my perfect one

moment in which the Pillar of Cloud separates Moses from Joshua, Joshua cries out using language drawn from Song 8:6–7. This language expresses Joshua’s conviction that his affection for and devotion to Moses cannot be overcome by the latter’s death. As Song 8:6 states in a part not explicitly quoted here but understood to be in the mind of the anonymous interpreter: “For love is fierce as death, passion is mighty as Sheol.” The passage concludes with a dialogue between God and Joshua regarding the limits of Joshua’s grief. At some point, from God’s perspective, Joshua should come to the realization that Moses’s death represents a rupture in his relationship with Joshua but not with God. For my purposes here, this passage provides another example of connecting Song of Songs to Israel’s ideal historical narrative found in the Torah in the events surrounding the exodus, the Sinai theophany, and the wilderness wanderings. While verses from Song of Songs are generally correlated in the tannaitic midrashim to events related to the exodus, Sinai, and the wilderness wanderings, the following passage shows a rare example in this corpus of juxtaposing Song of Songs with the lives of the patriarchs and matriarchs. This trajectory of interpretation develops further in amoraic literature.51 “With the best from the ancient mountains” (Deut 33:15). This teaches that the mountains of Joseph are older than the hills of the Sanctuary, and the mountains of the Sanctuary are older than the mountains of the Land of Israel. “And the bounty of hills immemorial” (Deut 33:15). This teaches that the patriarchs and matriarchs are called mountains and hills, as it is said, “I will go to the mountain of myrrh, to the hill of frankincense” (Song 4:6).52 This passage offers distinct interpretations of the two halves of Deut 33:15. In the first interpretation, the anonymous interpreter draws a lesson from a verse that is a part of Moses’s blessing of the tribes of Joseph (Deut 33:13–17). The second interpretation seems a bit distant from the contextual meaning of Deut 33:15. While Song 4:6 seems to be correlated at first only to the second half of the verse, the mention of “the patriarchs and matriarchs” being “called mountains and hills” suggests that the interpreter has both parts of the verse in mind. The mention of “mountain” and “hill” in Song 4:6 serves as the lexical hook to connect it to Deut 33:15. In Hebrew, “mountains” is grammatically marked as masculine and “hills” as feminine. Similarly, in Song 4:6, “myrrh” is masculine, and “frankincense” is feminine. Thus, both verses mention the same geographical terms and produce a pairing of masculine and feminine objects. Unlike in the first interpretation, the second interpretation moves to

Israel’s National Narrative    65

understand both Deut 33:15 and Song 4:6 as figurations of the generations that preceded Joseph and the rest of the twelve tribes—“the patriarchs and the matriarchs.”

Proleptic Historicization The interpretation of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim is not limited to correlating its verses to events in Israel’s classical, ideal history. Several examples interpret Song of Songs proleptically as signifying a return to an idyllic vision of God’s relationship with Israel in the eschatological future. Two examples, one from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael and the other from Sifre Devarim, illustrate this interpretive approach. The first example, from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, focuses on the eschatological return of Israel from exile. And you also find that the people of the Diaspora will be assembled again in the future only as a reward for trust. For it says, “From Lebanon come with me; from Lebanon, my bride, with me! Look from the pinnacle of trust [mr’š ’mnh]” (Song 4:8). And it is also written, “And I will espouse you forever . . . and I will espouse you because of trust” (Hos 2:21–22).53 This brief excerpt is part of a longer discussion of the nature of Israel’s trust in God. The mention of Israel’s believing (vayya’aminu) God and Moses during the crossing of the sea provokes the discussion (Exod 14:31). The editor cites Song 4:8 along with Hos 2:21–22 as proof texts for the assertion that the eschatological ingathering of Israel will be a reward for their faith.54 The basis for this correlation is the phrase mr’š ’mnh in Song 4:8. The MT apparently interprets this phrase as a toponym, “the pinnacle of Amanah.” In Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, the anonymous interpreter also reads the consonants ’mnh as amanah but understands the word not as a toponym but as a rare biblical word meaning “trust” or “support” (Neh 10:1, 11:23; see LXX Song 4:8 pisteos). This amanah is the means by which Israel merits redemption from exile.55 The eschatological ingathering of Israel is an ideal experience in Israel’s historical imagination marked by a renewal of the spousal relationship between God and Israel spoken of in Hos 2:21–22. Song of Songs 4:8 then functions in this interpretation as a typological prefiguration of this ideal future experience in Israel’s history. As we will see in chapter 5, the early rabbinic sages also read the first half of Song 4:8 (“From Lebanon come with me; from Lebanon, my bride, with me!”) as referring to the eschatological return of Israel to the promised land.

66   

my perfect one

A similar reading of Song of Songs as pointing to God’s eschatological return of Israel back to their homeland from exile appears in Sifre Devarim in the section that collects interpretations of the poem Ha’azinu (Deut 32:1–43). Another interpretation of “Like an eagle who rouses his nestlings” (Deut 32:11): this refers to the future time, as it is said, “The sound of my beloved, behold this one comes” (Song 2:8). “He will spread his wings” (Deut 32:11) corresponds to that which is said, “I will say to the North: ‘Give back!’ And to the South: ‘Do not withhold!’” (Isa 43:6). “He will bear him on his pinions” (Deut 32:11) corresponds to that which is said, “And they shall bring your children in their bosoms” (Isa 49:22).56 This excerpt appears at the end of a series of interpretations of Deut 32:11. This verse is successfully correlated to the ideal events of Sinai and Israel’s journey through the wilderness. In the third interpretation offered, the anonymous interpreter describes it as referring to “future time.” Deuteronomy 32:11 clearly refers to God’s relationship with Israel, and its historicization and correlation to Sinai and Israel’s wilderness journey seem plausible. In this regard, the interpreter assumes that Deut 32 refers to a specific narrative of Israel’s history; proper interpretation of this poem is only a matter of decoding the metaphors to determine their referents. The use of Song 2:8 to justify an eschatological reading of Deut 32:11 depends upon a reading of Song of Songs as a divine love song and an interpretation of Song 2:8 as a figuration of Israel’s relationship with God. In this mode of interpretation, Song 2:8 refers to the eschatological coming of God to bear Israel “on eagles wings” as he returns her to their marital home, the land of Israel (Exod 19:4). The interpreter reads the references from Second Isaiah not as prophecies of Israel’s return from the Babylonian exile in the late sixth century b.c.e. but as describing Israel’s future return. Through this interpretation, the verses from Isaiah buttress the reading of Deut 32:11 as describing eschatological events in Israel’s relationship with God. Readers will note that, until this section of the chapter, I have carefully avoided describing early rabbinic readings of Song of Songs as prefigurations but rather have used the term figuration to describe the tannaitic reading of Song of Songs. In other words, their interpretations generally do not connect Song of Songs to something temporally later. Such an approach to figural interpretation is more characteristic of Christian typology. As we saw in the last chapter, Christian interpretation saw in the Old Testament prefigurations that are realized in the life of Jesus. In the case of these two excerpts from Mekilta

Israel’s National Narrative    67

de-Rabbi Yishmael and Sifre Devarim, I think it is appropriate to describe them as reading Song of Songs as prefiguring something that has yet to be realized in the life of the Jewish people. Of course, this reading of Song of Songs as prefiguring the eschatological future should not be understood as minimizing its contemporary import. These instances of proleptic historicization help shape the Jewish people’s reading of Song of Songs as an archetypal expression of Israel’s national historical narrative. Just as correlations of Song of Songs to events in Israel’s classical history are understood by the early rabbinic sages as prescriptive for the ongoing conduct of her life as God’s chosen people, so too are readings of Song of Songs as eschatological prefigurations meant to encourage the fidelity of contemporary Israel in her relationship with God.

Contemporizing Historicization The reading of Song of Songs as a prefiguration of later events is not limited in early rabbinic interpretation to eschatology. An underappreciated mode of interpreting Song of Songs is as prefiguring contemporary rabbinic experience and practice. Through this mode of interpretation, the Tannaim map contemporary rabbinic experience onto the landscape of Song of Songs and by extension the classical period of Israel’s history. Perhaps the most wellknown instance of this mode of interpretation appears outside the corpus of tannaitic midrashim in the Mishnah in tractate Ta‘anit. In m. Ta‘an. 4:8, the closing mishnah of the tractate, the following descriptive passage appears: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel used to say, “There were no better days for Israel than the fifteenth of Av and the Day of Atonement. For on those days the daughters of Jerusalem used to go out in borrowed white garments, so as not to embarrass whoever did not have any. All the garments required immersion. And the daughters of Jerusalem would go out and dance in the vineyards. What would they say? ‘Young man, lift up your eyes and see, what do you choose for yourself? Do not set your eyes toward beauty, [but] set your eyes toward family.’ ‘Grace is deceptive, beauty is illusory, it is for her fear of the Lord that a woman should be praised’ (Prov 31:30). And it says, ‘Extol her for the fruit of her hand, and let her works praise her in the gates’ (31). And thus it says, ‘O daughters of Zion, go forth and gaze upon King Solomon, wearing the crown that his mother gave him on his wedding day, on his day of bliss’ (Song 3:11). ‘On his wedding day,’ this refers to the giving of the Torah. ‘His day of bliss,’ this refers to the building of the Temple, may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, Amen!”

68   

my perfect one

In this mishnah, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel describes Jewish women— “the daughters of Jerusalem”—appearing in public on the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur in borrowed, white garments that had been ritually purified, then proceeding to the vineyards and dancing in order to attract a spouse (on the Day of Atonement no less!). The prospective suitor was not supposed to base his evaluation of his potential mate on physical beauty but on the quality of her family. Appeal to the closing verses of Prov 31 and its contrast of beauty and character buttresses this advice. The connection of family and character leads to a figural reading of Song 3:11. This passage already hints at Song of Songs when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel describes the young women as going out into the vineyards, a common location for trysts in Song of Songs. The verse he cites from Song of Songs describes, however, an appeal for the “daughters of Zion” to go out and see King Solomon dressed in all his royal finery (3:11). The directive to the “daughters of Zion” is understood in this case as a contemporary directive for the daughters of Jerusalem. Rabban Shimon Gamliel reads the concluding temporal description of Song 3:11 as figurations of two significant events in Israel’s history: the giving of the Torah and the erection of the Temple. Whether Solomon should be correlated to God or Israel in this interpretation is not clear. But the interpretation of this verse does make clear that Torah piety, referenced through the giving of the Torah and care for the Temple, should define any suitable mate for the daughters of Jerusalem. So when the daughters of Jerusalem go out to dance, they should evaluate potential mates based on the same criteria as do the men who judge them. Just as the men are to appraise them based on the quality of their works and not their beauty, so too will they assess the men based not on their looks but on how they adorn themselves with Torah piety. This example of contemporization highlights how Song of Songs was read not only as a prefiguration of contemporary Jewish practice and experience but also as a national historical narrative designed to shape the nature of that practice. Another example of contemporization appears in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael. In this example, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai reads Song 1:8 as prefiguring the contemporary experience of dislocation and suffering faced by Jews in Roman Palestine in the late first century c.e. The following excerpt presents a prefatory interpretation of Song 1:8 by an anonymous rabbinic interpreter with the story about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai appended to it by the editor. They were not satisfied to count according to their own era so they had to count according to the era of others, as it is said, “In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar had a dream” (Dan 2:1),

Israel’s National Narrative    69

and it says, “In the sixth month, in the second year of King Darius” (Hag 1:15). And thus it says, “If you do not know, O fairest of women,” etc. (Song 1:8), and it also says, “Because you would not serve the Lord your God . . . you shall have to serve your enemies” (Deut 28:47–48). Once Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai was going up to Emmaus in Judea, and he saw a girl who was picking barley out of the excrement of a horse. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said 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. Then Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to his disciples, “All my life I have been reading this verse, and I have not realized its full meaning, ‘If you do not know, O fairest of women,’ etc. [i.e.,] you were unwilling to be subject to God, behold now you are subjected to the most inferior of the nations, the Arabs.”57 This excerpt comes in the middle of an exploration of the way in which Israel reckoned time. The midrash is provoked by the dating of the time of the Sinai theophany “in the third month” after the exodus (Exod 19:1). The anonymous interpreter describes how Israel continued to count by significant national events until the return from exile when they began to reckon time “according to the era of others.”58 This change in counting methods is substantiated by appeal to Dan 2:1 and Hag 1:15.59 The interpreter then quotes Song 1:8, a verse which is addressed to the bewildered female protagonist of Song of Songs in search of her lover. The addressee in our excerpt is Israel. The citation highlights the woman’s inability to reckon time according to significant events in her own life and relationship with God because of her apparent lack of orientation and knowledge of God. The anonymous interpreter next quotes verses from Deut 28 that highlight a different reason for this change in manner of reckoning time: Israel’s choice to serve her enemies.60 In this interpretation, Deut 28:47–48 are read as a prophecy fulfilled in Israel’s post-exilic experience. Song of Songs 1:8 is also cast into this context by typological correlation with Israel’s post-exilic experience. The typological correlation of Song 1:8 shifts in the story of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s dialogue with his disciples, appended by the editor to the preceding excerpt. This story puts the interpretation of Song 1:8 into a time after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 c.e. It is ­irrelevant whether or not this dialogue actually occurred or even if such an ­interpretation can be attributed to Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. What matters is that the citation of this story serves to illustrate the anonymous interpreter’s rather abstract juxtaposition of Dan 2:1, Hag 1:15, ­

70   

my perfect one

Song 1:8, and Deut 28:47–48. Israel, represented by the Jewish girl, is graphically portrayed in this story as receiving her sustenance from the undigested husks of barley found in the excrement of a horse. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai does not interpret this situation as an exemplar of Israel’s immediate post-exilic experience, as in the preceding interpretation of Song 1:8. Rather, he views it as descriptive of the poverty faced by Israel after the destruction of the Temple and her economic subjugation to the local non-Jewish population. Produced in the century following the traumatic events of the destruction of the second Temple and failure of the Bar Kokhba rebellion of 132–35 c.e., this pairing of Song 1:18 with Deut 28:47–48 would have served as a theological interpretation of a later national tragedy in the history of the Jewish people. Another variant of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai interpreting Song 1:8 as reflecting contemporary Jewish experience based on his encounter with a destitute Jewish woman appears in Sifre Devarim. As we will see, this example is a more literarily developed form of the story frame that appears in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael. It happened that while Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai was riding on the back of an ass and his disciples were walking behind him, he saw a young woman gathering barley [śe‘orah] from under the feet of Arab cattle. When she saw Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, she wrapped herself in her hair [śe‘arah], stood before him, and said to him, “Master, provide for me sustenance.” He said to her, “Daughter, who are you?” She said to him, “I am the daughter of Nakdaimon ben Gurion.” She said to him, “Rabbi, you certainly remember when you signed my marriage contract!” Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to his disciples, “I did sign the marriage contract of this woman, and I read on it that one million gold dinar were payable by her father-in-law and her father. They would not enter to worship at the Temple unless they would spread out fine woolen carpets for them under their feet. Only then would they enter, worship, and return joyfully to their homes. All my life I have inquired about the meaning of this verse and have not understood it: ‘If you do not know, O fairest of women, go follow the tracks of the sheep, and graze your kids by the tents of the shepherds’ (Song 1:8). Do not read ‘your kids’ [gediyotayik] but ‘your bodies’ [geviyotayik]. As long as the people of Israel do the will of the Omnipresent, no people or empire can rule over them. But when the people of Israel do not do the will of the Omnipresent, he hands them over to the lowliest of nations, but not merely into the hands of the lowliest of nations, but under the feet of the cattle of the lowliest nations.”61

Israel’s National Narrative    71

As in the example from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai and his disciples encounter a young Jewish woman collecting barley under the feet of Arab cattle (i.e., deriving sustenance from barleycorn). The version in Sifre Devarim is longer and more elaborate. The first noticeable difference is the inclusion of an actual encounter between the sage and this young woman, which highlights the contrast between her current destitute circumstance and her former status of wealth and privilege. First, the young woman wraps herself in her hair when she sees the learned sage, presumably as an act of shame at her current situation.62 The passage intensifies the circumstance of her shame through a pun. The woman gathers barley (śe‘orah) and then gathers her hair (śe‘arah) in indignity. Second, though Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai does not recognize her at first, when he hears her name he remembers the extreme wealth from which she came. In fact, he even signed her marriage contract, which included requirements of excessively large payments between the families. Presumably, now her husband is gone and she no longer has access to the wealth of either family. After highlighting the precipitous fall of the woman from privilege, the passage then turns to ben Zakkai’s typological interpretation of Song 1:8. While both versions employ contemporizing historicization to interpret Song 1:8 as a figuration of Israel’s current experience, the version in Sifre Devarim is slightly different than the version in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael. This version expands upon the tradition of reading Song 1:8 as a sign of Israel’s subjection to foreign powers through a creative misreading. The Jewish people are not merely to shepherd flocks (gediyotayik) among the nations of the world but their very existence (i.e., “bodies” geviyotayik) will be as subject to these now ascendant nations.

Multiple Signification in Typological Historicization The examples of typological historicization we have seen thus far in this chapter generally correlate a single verse in Song of Songs to a single referent in Israel’s national experience. Ultimately, however, the early rabbinic sages are non-schematic in their correlations. Unlike the later Aramaic Targum to Song of Songs, there is not a one-to-one correlation of a verse in Song of Songs to an event or personage in Israel’s national history.63 We have already seen in this chapter alone Song 1:8 used to characterize both Israel’s experience of entering the promised land after the exodus and Israel’s subjugation to foreign powers in the first centuries of the common era. These correlations are inherently archetypal. The archetypal language of Song of Songs corresponds in the early rabbinic imagination to archetypal experiences in Israel’s national experience. As I proposed in the last chapter and will explore in more detail in the next two

72   

my perfect one

chapters, the Tannaim cultivated a renewed, archetypal narrative of Israel’s relationship with God in the wake of the tragedies of the first centuries of the common era. In practice, this process of correlation was selective in that some events were highlighted and others seemingly forgotten. The archetypal reading of Jewish history through the language of Song of Songs would become more prominent in later amoraic collections of midrashim. In the reading of Song of Songs found in the tannaitic midrashim, we see a nascent move both toward reading Song of Songs as corresponding to archetypal events and toward regarding a single verse within a single midrashic passage as having multiple significant referents. The primary example of this phenomenon in the tannaitic midrashim appears in parallel passages in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael and Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, which I reproduce in succession: “Below the mountain” (Exod 19:17). Scripture teaches that the mount was pulled up from its place and [the people] came near and stood under it, as it is said, “You came forward and stood under the mountain” (Deut 4:11). Of them it is stated in the traditional sacred writings, “O my dove that is in the clefts of the rock” etc. (Song 2:14). “Let me see your appearance” (Song 2:14), these are the twelve pillars corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel [see Exod 24:4]. “Let me hear your voice” (Song 2:14), these are the Ten Commandments [when they were received]. “For your voice is sweet” (ibid.), after having received the Ten Commandments. “And your appearance is beautiful” (ibid.), when “the whole community came forward and stood before the Lord” (Lev 9:5). Rabbi Eliezer says, “This may be interpreted as referring to the occasion at the Reed Sea, ‘Let me see your appearance’ (Song 2:14), when ‘Stand by and witness the deliverance of the Lord’ (Exod 14:13). ‘Let me hear your voice’ (Song 2:14), when ‘Greatly frightened, the children of Israel cried out to the Lord’ (Exod 14:10). ‘For your voice is sweet’ (Song 2:14), when ‘And they cried out, and their cry for help rose up’ (Exod 2:23). ‘And your appearance is beautiful’ (Song 2:14), when ‘And he performed the signs in the sight of the people, and the people were convinced’ (Exod 4:30–31). Another interpretation, “For your voice is sweet” (Song 2:14), when beside the Reed Sea, “I will sing unto the Lord for he is highly exalted” (Exod 15:1). “And your appearance is beautiful” (Song 2:14), when “out of the mouth of infants and sucklings you have founded strength” (Ps 8:3).64 “And they stood below the mountain” (Exod 19:17). [I.e.,] They huddled together. Of them it is stated in the traditional sacred writings, “O

Israel’s National Narrative    73

my dove that is in the clefts of the rock, hidden by the cliff” (Song 2:14). Rabbi Eliezer says, “This verse may only be interpreted as referring to the occasion at the Reed Sea, ‘Let me see your appearance’ (Song 2:14), in accordance with what is said, ‘Stand by and witness the deliverance of the Lord’ (Exod 14:13). ‘Let me hear your voice’ (Song 2:14), in accordance with what is said, ‘As Pharaoh drew near . . . the children of Israel cried out to the Lord’ (Exod 14:10). ‘For your voice is sweet’ (Song 2:14), [in accordance with what is said,] ‘and their cry for help rose up to God’ (Exod 2:23). ‘And your appearance is were convinced’ (Song 2:14), [in accordance with what is said,] ‘and the people were convinced’ (Exod 4:31).” Rabbi Akiva says, “This verse may only be interpreted as referring to the occasion of Mt. Sinai, ‘Let me see your appearance’ (Song 2:14),65 in accordance with what is said, ‘Early in the morning, he set up an altar at the foot of the mountain’ (Exod 24:4). ‘Let me hear your voice’ (Song 2:14), in accordance with what is said, ‘And the people answered as one, saying, All that the Lord has spoken, we will do, etc.’ (Exod 19:8). ‘For your voice is sweet’ (Song 2:14), [in accordance with what is said,] ‘They did well to speak thus’ (Deut 5:25). ‘And your appearance is beautiful’ (Song 2:14), [in accordance with what is said] ‘in the Tent of Meeting . . . the whole community came forward and stood before the Lord’ (Lev 9:5).” Rabbi says, “This verse may only be interpreted as referring of the coming generations, ‘O my dove that is in the clefts [ḥgwy] of the rock’ (Song 2:14), in accordance with what is said, ‘The one sitting enthroned above the vault [ḥwg] of the earth’ (Isa 40:22). ‘Hidden by the cliff’ (Song 2:14), these are Israel, who dwell in the distress of [other] empires until their time has arrived. ‘Let me see your appearance’ (Song 2:14), this refers to legal precedent. ‘Let me hear your voice’ (Song 2:14), this refers to scriptural reasoning. ‘For your voice is sweet and your appearance is beautiful’ (Song 2:14), to make known how many steps there are ­between scriptural reasoning and precedent.”66 In both Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael and Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, the editor records anonymous traditions and named sages correlating Song 2:14 to various events in Israel’s national memory. The list of named sages consists of prominent Tannaim of the late first and second centuries c.e.: Rabbi Eliezer,67 Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi (known here as Rabbi). Both versions begin with Exod 19:17. The version in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai lacks the citation of Deut 4:11 while still correlating Exod 19:17 to Song 2:14. Both Exod 19:17 and Deut 4:11 suggest that Israel stood at the base

74   

my perfect one

of the mountain during the Sinai theophany. The anonymous interpreter, however, understands the phrases betaḥtit hahar in Exod 19:17 and taḥat hahar in Deut 4:11 hyper-literally and interprets them as describing Israel actually standing under the mountain rather than at its base. The interpreter applies the first part of Song 2:14 to this interpretation: “O my dove that is in the clefts of the rock.” In this section, this verse serves as God’s description of Israel’s predicament “under the mountain.” God’s beloved, “the dove,” seems in danger, inaccessibly sequestered in the cleft of a rock.68 In both versions, the correlation of Song 2:14 to the Sinai theophany occasions the correlation of other clauses of this verse to significant events in Israel’s early history. In Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, the list includes the twelve pillars Israel erected at Sinai to represent the totality of the twelve tribes after the Sinai theophany (Exod 24:4), the giving of the Ten Commandments, the dedication of the Tabernacle, and the drama of Israel’s fidelity at the Reed Sea.69 The list in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, similar but slightly different, includes the drama of Israel’s fidelity at the Reed Sea, Israel’s actions at Mt. Sinai, the dedication of the Tabernacle, an eschatological reading highlighting Israel’s protection in “the clefts of the rock” (i.e., “in the distress of [other] kingdoms” until the time of redemption), and Israel’s practice of scriptural interpretation. This version of the tradition seems, in its final form, to represent a coherent description of paradigmatic events and institutions in Israel’s national history. Together, they represent definitive salvation (the Reed Sea), exemplary commandment keeping (Mt. Sinai), archetypal national travail (the nations), and model rabbinic legal culture. Despite the seemingly higher degree of redactional coherence in this version, both versions share a common interpretive approach to Song 2:14 in which this verse is understood by the early sages as an archetypal figuration of Israel’s experience that signifies multiple events and institutions in Israel’s ideal national narrative.70 Since the heyday of midrashic studies in the 1980s, scholars, particularly literary critics, have been interested in the frequency of multiple, often conflicting, interpretations of the same phrase or verse in midrashic works, particularly in those sections concerned with the non-legal portions of the Hebrew Bible.71 They have termed this phenomenon polysemy, in reference to the capacity of these phrases or verses, “signs” in semiotic terms, to have multiple meanings (“sememes”).72 While this phenomenon certainly occurs in Midrash and is seen in the interpretation of Song 2:14 that I just discussed, it would be a mistake to define it as an essential feature of rabbinic interpretation.73 As Azzan Yadin rightly notes in his treatment of the hermeneutics of the midrashim associated with Rabbi Ishmael, there are a number of instances and exegetical formulae that “suggest that the Mekhilta and Sifre

Israel’s National Narrative    75

Numbers do not subscribe to the idea that scriptural verses can bear multiple, even contradictory interpretations, a premise that enjoys wide currency in scholarly literature.”74 In a series of debates between Rabbi Akiva and Pappias (or Pappus), a figure accorded rabbinic status through later editorial insertions, we can observe a discussion of the meaning of Song 1:9 that rejects the notion that verses can bear multiple interpretations.75 The earliest version of this series of debates between Akiva and Pappias appears in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael.76 The debates continue to attract the interest of editors of later rabbinic works as evidenced by the appearance of excerpts of them in the amoraic works Genesis Rabbah, Song of Songs Rabbah, and Exodus Rabbah.77 The version in Mekitla de-Rabbi Yishmael details Akiva’s hermeneutical conflicts with Pappias over the interpretation of Song 1:9, Hab 3:15, Job 23:13, Gen 3:22, and Ps 106:20. Earlier scholarship regarded these passages as authentic reports of actual debates between the two figures.78 While they may reflect traditions about actual debates between these two sages, addressing their historicity is unimportant for my purposes here. More immediately relevant to my interests in this chapter is exploring the debate between them over the meaning of Song 1:9 in its context in this section of Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael as well as its attendant implications for our understanding of the limits of acceptable interpretation of Song of Songs among the Tannaim. The editor of Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael locates the disagreement between Pappias and Akiva over the meaning of Song 1:9 at the beginning of their series of debates. Immediately preceding this excerpt is a discussion of what enabled the Israelites, in their flight from Egypt, to escape the anger-filled seas they found surrounding them (based on Exod 14:29). The anonymous interpreter offers two answers, building on the phrase “on their right and on their left” from the end of this verse. The first answer interprets “their right” as referring to the merit of the Torah and supports this answer by citing Deut 33:2. The second correlates the right and the left to the pair mezuzah and tefillin.79 The interpretation of the right and left as the means by which Israel was delivered through the sea (irrespective of the precise correlation of right and left) ties Pappias’s debate with Akiva into this section. As we see in the following excerpt, the dispute of the meaning of Song 1:9 concludes with a reference to Exod 14:29.80 Rabbi Pappias expounded, “‘To a mare in Pharaoh’s chariots’ (Song 1:9). When Pharaoh rode on a stallion, God, as it were, also appeared to him on a stallion, as it is said, ‘You will make your steeds tread the sea’ (Hab 3:15). When Pharaoh rode on a mare, God, as it were, also appeared to

76   

my perfect one

him on a mare, as it is said, ‘To a mare in Pharaoh’s chariots’ (Song 1:9).” Rabbi Akiva said to him, “That is enough, Pappias.” He, then, said to him, “And how do you interpret ‘To a mare in Pharaoh’s chariots?’” Rabbi Akiva said to him, “The word as written (i.e., the unvocalized text) reads lssty,81 which means: The Holy One said, ‘Just as I delighted [šeśaśti]82 to destroy the Egyptians, so I almost delighted [śaśti]83 in destroying the Israelites.’” But what helped them to be delivered? “On their right and on their left” (Exod 14:29).84 This debate is clearly located in the context of Israel’s flight from Pharaoh and the Egyptian armies through the divided sea. Pappias reads Song 1:9 in syntagmatic association with Hab 3:15 as describing God in anthropomorphic terms.85 God matches Pharaoh’s choice of mount, stallion for stallion and mare for mare. Akiva rejects Pappias’s interpretation with an emphatic interjection, dayyeka “enough of you,” and when prompted offers an alternate reading of Song 1:9.86 Akiva’s interpretation calls for reading the vocalization of Song 1:9 in a manner different from the one underlying Pappias’s reading (and attested in the MT): lesusati “to a mare.” Akiva offers an alternate reading of the consonantal text as šeśaśti. Akiva’s “misreading” builds on a pun on the similar sounding, but graphically different, roots s.w.s, “horse,” and ś.w.ś, “to exult, rejoice.” Based on this pun Akiva interprets Song 1:9 as a figuration of God’s near destruction of the Israelites along with the Egyptians when God was caught up in the delight of total destruction. Akiva offers no justification for Israel’s deliverance. The editor wonders, “But what helped them to be delivered?” The editor then quotes Exod 14:29 (“On their right and on their left”) as the answer to this query. The citation of the theme verse for this section ties the debate between Akiva and Pappias back to the flow of this section of Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael. It is unclear, however, what is meant by this citation. Perhaps, as in the first interpretation of Exod 14:29 offered earlier in this section, God’s anger is averted by Israel’s covenant fidelity. The sight of Israel’s keeping of the material commandments of mezuzah and tefillin seemingly shocks God into the realization that he should not also destroy the Israelites in the waves of the closing sea. Perhaps, the piling up of the seas on either side of the passing Israelites preserved them before the Egyptians were lured to their doom in the crashing wake. Opinions vary in the history of scholarship regarding the substance of the debate between Akiva and Pappias. Louis Finkelstein described Akiva as representing a seminal move in Jewish thought away from an older, “peasant,” and “provincial” theology of anthropomorphism of which Pappias is representative.87 Ephraim E. Urbach understands the debate as less reflective of an

Israel’s National Narrative    77

evolution in rabbinic thought or a conflict between provincial and urbane thought. He locates it, instead, in the context of a larger rejection of mediated theophany in favor of direct, divine revelation. In Urbach’s reading, Pappias’s apparent anthropomorphic reading of Song of Songs contrasts with Akiva’s association of Song of Songs with Mt. Sinai and his commitment to understanding that seminal event as an unmediated theophany.88 Interestingly, Arthur Marmorstein understands this unit as the product of a heavy editorial activity in which the views ascribed to Pappias should have been correlated to Akiva and vice versa.89 These readings exhibit a consensus that the fundamental debate between Pappias and Akiva is over the degree of anthropomorphism that is acceptable in Jewish thought. For my purposes in this volume, the major deficits in these earlier readings of this debate lie in their failure to contextualize this passage within the flow of this section of Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael. Instead, earlier scholarship focused on their implications for our understanding of the development of Jewish thought at the expense of addressing their immediate literary context. In addition, they also did not situate the debate over the meaning of Song 1:9 within the larger context of tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs. While the statements of Pappias and Akiva may have circulated before their inclusion in this passage, it is important to locate them in this context in order to understand their immediate rhetorical function. Based on my explication earlier, it is fair to argue that their primary function in this passage is to provide an additional interpretation of the final phrase of Exod 14:29: “On their right and on their left.” The debates over the meaning of Job 23:13, Gen 3:22, and Ps 106:20 that follow (and perhaps were constructed by the editor of Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael) were perhaps appended here by association with Pappias and Akiva and because of their common focus on the topic of anthropomorphism.90 Given these points, I would argue that we should not overstate the significance of this debate for understanding tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs, let alone the larger question of the role of anthropomorphism and resistance to it in rabbinic thought. These points are all the more salient when one notes that Pappias and Akiva are assigned precisely the other’s opinions in the version of this debate that appears in the later Amoraic work, Song of Songs Rabbah.91 In addition, the opinion accorded to Pappias in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael is rewritten in the much later Exodus Rabbah, with some tempering of its anthropomorphism. But in this later version, there is no sign of vehement rejection of Pappias or his interpretive approach as there is in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael.92 Despite these caveats I think it is important to explore the significance of Pappias’s and Akiva’s disagreement about Song 1:9 for our appreciation of the

78   

my perfect one

shape of tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs. What is remarkable is that Akiva (or the editor speaking in Akiva’s voice) suggests that there are limits to acceptable interpretation. In this case, the dispute between Pappias and Akiva is better understood as being not about the multiplicity of interpretations but rather about their acceptability. Multiple interpretations are welcome in rabbinic exegesis, though not an essential feature of rabbinic interpretation. Not all interpretations are acceptable, however. Akiva’s interruption of Pappias’s interpretation of Song 1:9 with the interjection “enough of you” raises the question of the purpose of his rejection of Pappias’s interpretation. Is he rejecting Pappias’s basic approach to Song of Songs as a divine love song? Or is he more narrowly focused on Pappias’s anthropomorphic reading of Scripture? It should be noted that both Pappias and Akiva interpret Song 1:9 as a figuration of God’s and Israel’s actions during the crossing of the sea that is consistent with the predominant mode of reading Song of Songs in tannaitic interpretation—as a divine love song between God and Israel. Given this point it is better to understand Akiva’s concern as addressing the question of anthropomorphism rather than Pappias’s basic approach to Song of Songs.

Israel’s National Narrative, Epic Literature, and the Cultivation of Early Rabbinic Society As I have sought to show in this chapter, the early rabbinic sages did employ a consistent approach to interpreting Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim. They did not follow the overly schematized approach that Lieberman proposed, in which Rabbi Akiva correlates Song of Songs to Sinai and Rabbi Eliezer links it to the Reed Sea. But they do consistently employ Song of Songs to help construct an ideal national narrative for Israel. In this chapter, I have mapped the basic lines of their interpretive approach. I have shown how they consistently correlated Israel to the female protagonist of Song of Songs and the male beloved to Israel’s God. The sages also saw other paradigmatic figures of Israel’s history such as the Egyptians or Sichon and Og in the poetry of Song of Songs. In historicizing Song of Songs, they mapped it onto key events from the exodus, to the Sinai theophany, to the dedication of the Tabernacle, and to Israel’s settlement of the promised land. Additionally, they used the language of Song of Songs to describe their contemporary experience of loss and suffering after the destruction and dislocation of the first two centuries of the common era. Finally, Song of Songs, for them, disclosed words of comfort that envisioned the nature of Israel’s eschatological return to a honeymoon-like relationship with her beloved God.93 They achieved this reading of Song of Songs through using a form of typological interpretation

Israel’s National Narrative    79

through which Song of Songs provided them with figurations of ideal events in Israel’s history. Like all historiography their approach is selective. As Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi describes the rabbinic approach to history, “As for the sages themselves—they salvaged what they felt to be relevant to them, and that meant, in effect, what was relevant to the ongoing religious and communal (hence also the ‘national’) life of the Jewish people.”94 In the case of tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs, the Tannaim do not dwell on Israel’s foibles or missteps but instead focus on the “good times.” Through their anamnetic retelling of Israel’s early history with God figured in Song of Songs, they seek to renew ideal Israel’s relationship with God by constructing the rhetorical and interpretive space for its renewal. By recounting these moments of marital fidelity, they created a typological schema of archetypal events. The ideal Israel of their day, if they wanted to return to such a relationship, could then cultivate this renewed relationship by patterning their life on these archetypal examples. My examination of the process of historicizing Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim discloses to some degree the assumptions of the early sages regarding the social function of Song of Songs in early rabbinic society. By exploring the social function of Song of Songs in early rabbinic interpretive culture, I am asking a question that pertains to Form or Genre Criticism. It is important to note that the Tannaim showed little concern about the types of generic distinctions one finds in Aristotle’s Poetics. Nevertheless, they understood Song of Songs as having a specific social function. Because of this point, briefly comparing how the Tannaim interpreted Song of Songs to the major categories of Greek poetry—drama, lyric, and epic—will help illuminate the role they understood Song of Songs to play in their culture of interpretation. This approach is particularly salient given that scholars have frequently employed the categories of drama and lyric to describe the purpose of Song of Songs. My primary interest, however, is not in specific formal comparison but in phenomenological comparisons and how they help illuminate the role of Song of Songs in rabbinic society. Beginning with Origen’s third-century commentary, scholars from antiquity through today have employed the category of dramatic poetry to appr­ eciate Song of Songs.95 Song of Songs has a number of features that commend this approach to understanding its genre. Like the dramatic poetry that arose out of the cult of Dionysus in Athens, it celebrates core themes present in the earliest dramatic forms such as erotic embrace, delight found in feasting, and the pangs of unrequited love.96 Likewise, it could be understood as sharing the conventional personnel used in staging a Greek drama, including primary actors (the female protagonist and her male beloved) and a chorus

80   

my perfect one

(the daughters of Jerusalem).97 The only thing that Song of Songs does not share with classical drama, both tragedy and comedy, is the use of iambic verse.98 As the dominance of the dramatic theory waned in the twentieth century, a number of scholars began to view Song of Songs as a form of lyric poetry. Lyric poetry’s discontinuous form and lack of a linear plot typifies its genre, which focuses on expressing emotions instead of portraying the development of a story as in dramatic poetry.99 While the lyric is a basic poetic unit found in ancient Greek poetry, Alexandrian scholars writing in the Hellenistic period were the first to identify it as a distinct genre of poetry. These scholars defined a canon of nine masters of the lyric genre, which included Sapho and Pindar.100 In the ancient world, the music of a lyre (and sometimes also a flute) accompanied the performance of a lyric poem. Although it would be hard to imagine that Song of Songs was written as an example of lyric poetry as defined by the Alexandrians, nevertheless, looking back on Song of Songs through the lens of the lyric genre, we can see strong similarities between it and the features of this genre. Like lyric poetry, it presents the emotions of its characters, particularly the lovesickness of the female protagonist. In addition, Song of Songs has largely resisted, as I noted earlier, all attempts at determining its plot.101 When one compares the historicizing interpretations of Song of Songs contained in the tannaitic midrashim to the broad features of the genres of dramatic and lyric poetry, one can see the strongest points of commonality between tannaitic interpretations and the features of dramatic poetry. As we have seen in this chapter, the Tannaim focus on correlating the characters of Song of Songs with Israel and God in the ideal historical space of the exodus and Sinai. This period serves as the stage for the torrid romance of Israel (the female protagonist) and God (the male lover) carried out on a world stage in the eyes of nations of the world (the daughters of Jerusalem). Indeed, as I will discuss more fully in the next two chapters, a deep emotional commitment marks this relationship. While the early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs shares with dramatic poetry a concern for the development of dramatis personae, and with lyric poetry an emphasis on the power of emotions, one never gets the sense that the Tannaim imagined that this poem and their interpretation of it was to be staged. In fact, as a classic text attributed to Rabbi Akiva in the Tosefta, another Tannaitic work, suggests, the rabbis (or at least Rabbi Akiva) had a deep anxiety about the public performance of Song of Songs and how this performance might demean its status as a sacred text. There, Rabbi Akiva includes among those “who have no portion in the world to come” the one “who warbles [hammena‘ane‘a] his voice with Song of Songs in a banquet hall and makes it into a kind of zemer.”102 Clearly for the early

Israel’s National Narrative    81

rabbinic sages, Song of Songs was not to be dramatized or performed with the accompaniment of music. Another significant category of ancient poetry, which bears the strongest phenomenological affinities with the approach of the Tannaim to valorizing Israel’s glorious past through their reading of Song of Songs, is epic poetry. Although, the Tannaim did not describe Song of Songs as a work of epic poetry nor does Song of Songs itself share any significant features with examples of epic poetry from the ancient Mediterranean basin and near east, the approach of the early rabbinic sages to correlating Song of Songs to Israel’s idealized national narrative is analogous, however, in many ways to how epic poetry was read in neighboring cultures.103 While epic poetry has culture-specific generic conventions, it shares a number of features across cultures that delineate a “super-genre” of epic, to use Richard P. Martin’s terminology.104 As he argues, “many societies may share a functionally similar category” of epic.105 First, as J. B. Hainsworth notes, all epic has narrative at “its formal root.”106 In other words, myths, folk tales, and stories are constitutive of the genre of epic. Often these stories emerge out of a local hero cult and the desire to celebrate the exploits of a famous individual.107 Another type of narrative that is fundamental to epic is the recounting of the significant and heroic events of a country’s past. Second, the epic works that result from the joining and editing of these locals tales and myths provided narrative vehicles through which to ponder more universal questions.108 As Katherine Callen King observes about epic poems, “They speak to hearts and minds concerned about human potentiality and limitation, about the consequences of passion (righteous anger, sexual love, intense grief, or desire for honor), and about the competing claims of civilization, the environment, and the need to reconcile self-interest with the common good.”109 Third, epic works communicate the values of a particular culture to its audience.110 This point is more than an accidental feature of epic works. Rather, epic intentionally seeks to shape the culture of the present through a retelling of the heroic events of the past. In the same manner as works of epic poetry might have been read in the ancient world, the Tannaim understood Song of Songs as disclosing the heroic and significant events of Israel’s history. Also, they used this reading of Song of Songs in order to portray and to shape the piety and values of their civilization. In this regard, tannaitic figural interpretation of Song of Songs shares with the epic genre a concern for looking back to the past to inform the present. On the one hand, they look back nostalgically on the ideal period of Israel’s history. On the other hand, their interpretation of this past shapes their present and ideal communal life. Their distinctive historicization of Song of

82   

my perfect one

Songs shares the greatest affinities not with dramatic or lyric poetry but with epic poetry. Of course, the early rabbinic sages did not understand Song of Songs to be a work of epic poetry, but they read it, however, as if it were a work of Jewish epic poetry that chronicled Israel’s ideal national historical narrative. In doing so, they read Song of Songs for the purpose of valorizing the past, describing their present circumstance, and imagining Israel’s future. As in other ancient societies with epic literature, the Tannaim read Song of Songs as an ideal national narrative in order to instantiate ideal behavior. We have seen hints of this interest already in this chapter. For instance, in the passage from Mekilta le-Devarim treated earlier, the sages characterize Sichon and Og as not moving against Israel in unity. The implication is clear: disunity prevents national success—a moral message that has meaning for Israel as well as their Canaanite foes. In the same fashion, in Sifre Devarim, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai draws moral force from the example of the daughter of Nakdaimon ben Gurion regarding the rewards Israel will enjoy for obedience to God and the punishments they will endure for disobedience. Both these passages exemplify a desire to read Song of Songs not only in order to provide a coherent rabbinic strategy for reading this text but also in order to shape contemporary communal life and practice. In the next chapter, I expand upon this theme and explore in more detail how the Tannaim’s historicizing reading of Song of Songs sought to influence the ideal contemporary practice and piety of the Jewish community of their day.

Notes





1. Saul Lieberman, “Mishnat shir ha-Shirim” (Hebrew), Appendix D, in Gershom Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (2d ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965), 118–26. 2. Ibid., 122. 3. Ibid., 118, 121. 4. Alon Goshen Gottstein, “Did the Tannaim Interpret the Song of Songs Systematically?” in Vixens Disturbing Vineyards: Embarrassment and Embracement of Scriptures, Festschrift in Honor of Harry Fox (leBeit Yoreh) (ed. Tzemah Yoreh, Aubrey Glazer, Justin Jaron Lewis, and Miryam Segal; Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2010), 260–71. 5. Ibid., 264. 6. Ibid., 267. 7. Ibid., 271. 8. Perhaps, one exception to this phenomenon is Sifre Bemidbar 139, which contains an interpretation of Song 1:7–8. There, the midrash correlates Moses

Israel’s National Narrative    83 with the female protagonist. When I discuss this passage more extensively in chapter 5, I will argue that Moses functions as a kind of symbolic exemplar for Israel. Thus, in the end, this passage accords with the general approach to Song of Songs found in the tannaitic midrashim. 9. Tamar Kadari, “‘Within It Was Decked with Love’: The Torah as Bride in Tannaitic Exegesis on Song of Songs” (Hebrew), Tarbiz 71 (2002): 391–404. See also Deborah A. Green, The Aroma of Righteousness: Scent and Seduction in Rabbinic Life and Literature (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2011), 238 n. 168. 10. The specific sources Kadari cites are Song Rab. 3:21; b. B. Bat. 14a; Mekilta deRabbi Yishmael, Baḥodesh 8 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, p. 264, lines 98–104; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 234, lines 10–12), and t. Kippurim 2:15 (Lieberman, 238). 11. Kadari writes (“The Torah as Bride,” 401), “In Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, the verses that describe the appearance of the bride are understood as describing the physical appearance of the tablets.” She is correct that Song 4:5 does ­describe the physical appearance of the female protagonist and that the Tannaim employ this verse to characterize the two tablets. But they also employ Song 5:14, a description of the male beloved’s hands, for exactly the same purpose. Does this mean that the Torah is also equated with the male protagonist of Song of Songs in this passage? Here, Kadari’s interpretation does not hold. The sages quoted in this interpretation are not interpreting verses from Song of Songs as figurations. They employ these verses in order to provide illustrations of paired objects that are identical with each other in composition and ornamentation. 12. See David Stern (“Ancient Jewish Interpretation of the Song of Songs in a Comparative Context,” in Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Cultural Exchange: Comparative Exegesis in Context [ed. Natalie B. Dohrmann and David Stern; Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008], 104–7) for a discussion of the expansion of the use of the daughters of Jerusalem as a marker of the “other” in amoraic midrashim and in Origen. 13. Shirta 6 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, p. 50, lines 96–99; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 137, lines 13–15). 14. It is also possible that the Tannaim are drawing on a pre-existent tradition, which links the Egyptians to foxes, perhaps in association with Song 2:15. The four empires motif is found elsewhere in tannaitic literature, e.g., Mekilta deRabbi Yishmael, Baḥodesh 9; Sifre Devarim 304. For more extended discussions of the four empires in rabbinic literature, see Jonathan Kaplan, “Four Empires (Rabbinic Judaism),” in The Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception, vol. 9 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 522; idem, “Imperial Dominion and Israel’s Renown: ‘The Four Empires’ in Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael,” in Imagination, Ideology, and Inspiration: Echoes of Brueggemann in a New Generation (ed. Jonathan Kaplan and Robert Williamson Jr.; Hebrew Bible Monographs 72; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015); Rivka Raviv, “The Talmudic Formulation of

84   

my perfect one

the Prophecy of the Four Kingdoms” (Hebrew), Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 5 (2006): 1–20; and W. J. van Bekkum, “Four Kingdoms Will Rule: Echoes of Apocalypticism and Political Reality in Late Antiquity and Medieval Judaism,” in Endzeiten: Eschatologie in den monotheistischen Weltreligionen (ed. W. Brandes and F. Schmieder; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 101–18. 15. The word for “fox” in Song 2:15, ‫שועל‬, is used in biblical Hebrew for both fox and jackal. On the confusion of the two, see Othniel Margalith, “Samson’s Foxes,” VT 35 (1985): 224–29; and Jonathan Kaplan, “Fox (Bible),” in The Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception, vol. 9 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 565–66, and “Jackal (Bible),” in The Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception (Berlin: de Gruyter, forthcoming). The jackal is most prominently associated with the Egyptian deity of mummification, Anubis, who is portrayed with the head of an Egyptian jackal. 16. The exact meaning of ‫ שלחיך‬has troubled interpreters since antiquity. Translators have either rendered it as “shoots/branches” (e.g., LXX) or “water-courses/ streams” (as in Mishnaic Hebrew; cf. Neh 3:15; Isa 8:6 etc.). See J. Cheryl Exum (Song of Songs [OTL; Louisville, Ky.: WJKP, 2005], 176–77) for a more extensive discussion of the term’s meaning. The precise meaning of the term is not ­important for our discussion, as I will show in my analysis. 17. Beshallaḥ 2 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, pp. 197–98, lines 142–48; Beshallaḥ 1, Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 87, lines 19–20; p. 88, lines 1–3). 18. On narrative gaps and midrashic gap-filling, see Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1990), 41–49. 19. On the mashal as illustration, see David Stern, Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991), 48–49. Note Max Kadushin’s observation (A Conceptual Approach to the Mekilta [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1981], 255 [see also 252]) that this parable, like all midrashic parables, is an incomplete analogy. This incomplete analogy highlights the point of comparison. 20. A kor is defined as a unit of measure equal to 30 se’ah (see b. b. Bat. 86b, 105a; b. b. Metzi’a 105b). 21. Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, p. 198 n. 7. 22. Hoffmann, ed., Midrash Tannaim, 4. N.B.; Michael V. Fox (The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs [Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985], 135) rightly suggests amending ‫“( הררי‬hills”) to ‫“( חרי‬lairs”) “for the sake of tighter parallelism” and comparison with Nah 2:13 wherein ‫ חר‬appears synonymously with ‫“( מענה‬lion’s den”). 23. E.g., Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Beshallaḥ 7 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, p. 254, lines 156–59; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 115, lines 11–13), which is discussed later in this chapter. 24. Reading ‫ גבול‬instead of ‫גבולי‬. This judgment is based on manuscript evidence from Midrash Haggadol, Oxford (Neubauer 151), Yalqut Shemoni, London

Israel’s National Narrative    85 (Margoliouth 341, Add 16,406), and the Venice printed edition as well as the context of the passage. Finkelstein (353) prefers ‫ גבולי‬based on Berlin (Acc. Pr. 1928, 328) and Midrash Ḥakamim. 25. Sifre Devarim 311 (Finkelstein, ed., p. 352, lines 14–16; p. 353, lines 1–2). 26. Interestingly in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishamel, Shirta 9 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, p. 69, lines 28–34; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 145, lines 17–19; p. 146, lines 1–2), the anonymous interpreter understands Song 6:8 as referring to Israel. I will treat this passage in detail in chapter 3. The parallel version to this passage from Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Shirta 9 is in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai (Shirta 35:2; Ms. Firkovich II A 268; Epstein and Melamed, eds., 96; Nelson, ed., 151–52). 27. Though in an area of Sifra that contains many interpolations from Mekilta da‘Arayot, a purportedly Yishmaelan midrash on Leviticus, this passage is generally regarded as part of Sifra itself, despite its thematic and hermeneutical similarities with other Yishmaelan midrashim on Song of Songs. Aaron Ibn Ḥayyim inserted Mekilta da‘Arayot in his Qorban Aharon from Yalqut Shemoni. It is absent from our earliest printed edition of Sifra. In Codex Assemani 66, it was added from another source. On this point, see Finkelstein, 370–87; Jacob N. Epstein, Introduction to Tannaitic Literature: Mishnah, Tosephta and Halachic Midrashim (Hebrew; ed. E. Z. Melamed; Jerusalem: Magness, 1957), 640f.; and H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (trans. and ed. Markus Bockmuehl; 2d ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 261. 28. Qedoshim 9.4 (Kolednitzky, ed., 93a). 29. On this point, see James Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 101. 30. For instance in Dial. 1, Trypho identifies himself as a refugee from the 132–35 b.c.e. war now residing in Corinth. By having his prime interlocutor as a refugee from the war, Justin emphasizes his characterization of the Jewish people as forlorn and abandoned by God. 31. Note that ‫ שהקדים‬is the preferable reading and is attested in ms. Oxford no. 151 (no. 2), ms. Munich, Cod. Hebr. 117, the 1545 Venice edition of Mekilta, Rashi’s commentary ad loc. and is reproduced in the Horowitz and Rabin edition and the Lauterbach edition. The variant ‫שהסכים‬, “to come early,” appears in various printed editions of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, in Yalqut Shemoni, an early sixteenth-century midrashic anthology, and Midrash Ḥakamim. 32. Baḥodesh 3 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, p. 217, lines 100–102; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 214, lines 6–7). 33. Ḥayyim Palache and others, Qovets Mefarshe Ha-Mekilta: Mishmerot Kehunah; Shevut Yehudah; et al. (Jerusalem: Vagshal, 1988), ad loc. 34. Cf. Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Shirta 7. 35. Pisḥa 13 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, p. 106, lines 143–49; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 47, lines 8–11).

86   

my perfect one

36. Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, p. 106. 37. The parallel version of this passage in Num. Rab. 13:20 makes explicit this assumption: “because the gold is more beautiful and resplendent than the silver.” The pairing of gold and silver appears frequently in the Hebrew Bible and in texts exhibiting similar poetic parallelism to Ps 68:14 (e.g., Job 28:15; Prov 25:11; Song 3:10). 38. On the theme of the plunder of the Egyptians as back payment for labor, see Philo, Moses 1.141–42; Ezekiel the Tragedian 162–66; Jub. 48:18; and b. Sanh. 91a. 39. Note that I am translating ‫ בשמיו‬as “his spices” rather than “the spices,” contra Lauterbach and Judah Goldin (The Song at the Sea, being a Commentary on a Commentary in Two Parts [New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971], 169), because I believe this rendering is the intention of the interpreter based upon the juxtaposition of Song 4:16 with Job 41:23. 40. Shirta 6 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, pp. 51–52, lines 118–24; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 138, lines 4–8). 41. The parallelism of Job 41:23 should rightly be understood, using James L. Kugel’s categories, as the second clause (B) supporting or going beyond the first clause (A). Classic rabbinic exegetical strategies, as exemplified by this text, generally (though not exclusively) tend to ignore this structure in parallelistic lines, as Kugel notes, because of a commitment to understanding the two halves of a line as having distinct signification. See Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 1–58, 101. 42. Naso 7:17 (Horowitz, ed., p. 252, lines 18–23). N.B.: this passage is the only one in Sifre Zuta that contains a citation from Song of Songs. 43. Exodus 6:23 describes Elisheva as giving birth to four sons to Aaron. Note that here the interpreter seems to understand the events described in Num 7 as occurring on the same day as those described in Lev 8–9, which recounts the consecration of her husband, Aaron, and sons, Nadav and Avihu, to the office of the high priest and his deputies, respectively. Her two younger sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, would take over the role of deputies to Aaron after the death of Nadav and Avihu in Lev 10. 44. Here the word ‫ יום‬seems to encompass both the first day of the dedicatory festival and the entire period. 45. Shirta 10 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, pp. 76–77, lines 1–6; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 149, lines 5–8). Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, Shirta 36:1 (ms. Firkovitch II A 268; Epstein and Melamed, eds., 98; Nelson, ed., 155). 46. See Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi, and Midrashic Literature (New York: The Judaica Press, 1996), 587, col. 1 for the idiom ‫ ידי‬+ ‫ יצא‬+ pro. sfx. 47. Sifre Deuteronomy 304 (Finkelstein, ed., p. 323, lines 4–10).

Israel’s National Narrative    87 48. The anonymous interpreter perhaps paraphrases Moses’s original prayer ­because of a need to explain and to contemporize its elliptical language. This trend continues today, e.g., the NJPS offers the following paraphrase in its notes: “who shall lead them in all matters and whom they shall follow in all matters.” 49. While Ahab’s perfidy is legendary in the Bible (e.g., 1 Kgs 16:29–33), Jehoshaphat is generally regarded well by the various biblical authors except for his marriage of his son Jehoram to Ahab’s daughter, Athaliah (2 Kgs 8:18), an alliance that would lead to prophetic condemnation (2 Chr 19:1–3). 50. Hoffmann, ed., Midrash Tannaim, 225. 51. E.g., Song Rab. 4:16 wherein Song 4:6 is apparently connected with the Patriarchs (specifically Abraham and Isaac, and in Isaac’s case to the Aqedah). 52. Sifre Devarim 353 (Finkelstein, ed., p. 414, lines 1–3). 53. Beshallaḥ 7 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, p. 254, lines 156–59; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 115, lines 11–13). 54. N.B.: Song 4:8 is also interpreted in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Pisḥa 14 in reference to the eschatological ingathering of Israel. 55. In fact “trust” or “faith” is repeatedly spelled in this section of Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael with the defective spelling ‫ אמנה‬as in Song 4:8 rather than the plene spelling ‫אמונה‬. This spelling emphasizes the interpretation of Song 4:8 offered in this pericope. For a fuller treatment of the import of this spelling in this section, see Norman J. Cohen, “Analysis of an Exegetic Tradition in the ‘Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael’: The Meaning of ’Amanah in the Second and Third Centuries,” AJSR 9 (1984): 1–25. 56. Sifre Devarim 314 (Finkelstein, ed., p. 357, lines 2–5). 57. Baḥodesh 1 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, pp. 193–94, lines 14–27; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 203, lines 8–16). A parallel version of this text appears in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, Baḥodesh 48:1 (Epstein and Melamed, eds., 136; Nelson, ed., 213). 58. Whereas the version in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael accounts for this change because of Israel no longer being satisfied (‫)לא רצו למנות‬, the version in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai frames this change in temporal reckoning in terms of Israel lacking sufficient merit (‫ )לא זכו למנות‬to reckon time according to native events. 59. The parallel version of this section in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai also cites Dan 2:1 in order to substantiate the initial claim of the anonymous interpreter (see Baḥodesh 48:1; Epstein and Melamed, eds., 136; Nelson, ed., 213). 60. The version in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai elaborates the logic of the midrash more fully: “They did not merit to count according to themselves so they had to count according to other monarchies, as it is said, ‘In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, etc.’ (Dan 2:1). And it says, ‘In the second year of Darius’ (Hag 1:1). And it says, ‘If you do not know, O fairest of women, etc.’ (Song 1:8). And it says, ‘because and because’ (Lev 26:43). ‘Because and because’ only means an eye for an eye, measure for measure. As it is said,

88   

my perfect one

‘Because you would not serve the Lord your God . . . you shall have to serve your enemies’ (Deut 28:47–48).” 61. Sifre Devarim 305 (Finkelstein, ed., p. 325, lines 4–15); compare the parallel versions in y. Ket. 5; t. Ket. 11–12; b. Ket. 66b–67a; Lam. Rab. 1:16 § 48; Pes. R., Nahamu 140a; ARNa 17. For a discussion of the various versions of this story and their interrelationships, see Ofra Meir, “The Story as a Hermeneutic Device,” AJSR 7/8 (1982/1983): 231–62. 62. On uncovered hair as a sign of immodestly, see Lev. Rab. 20:11 = Num. Rab. 2:26. Unloosed hair could also be regarded as a sign of suspected adultery (see Num 5:18; Exod. Rab. 8:2), idolatry (Num. Rab. 9:16), or mourning (Esther Rab. 8:7). 63. Note Jacob Neusner’s apt point concerning the limits of list making, i.e., that this exegetical process is not “proposition[al]” or “harmonious,” but rather an effort to define “attitudes” toward a subject. See Neusner, Israel’s Love Affair with God: Song of Songs (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press, 1993), 8. 64. Baḥodesh 3 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, pp. 219–20, lines 123–36; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 214, lines 17–20; p. 215, lines 1–7). 65. At this point, the manuscript in the Epstein and Melamed edition (143; see also Nelson, ed., 228–29) changes from Midrash Haggadol to Ms. Cambridge T-S C 4a.5. 66. Baḥodesh 48:1 (Epstein and Melamed, eds., 143; Nelson, ed., 228–29). 67. Traditionally understood to be the fifth generation Tanna (70–135 c.e.) Rabbi Elazar (or Eliezer) ben Shamu‘a. 68. This interpretation departs from the general consensus of historical-critical analysis of Song of Songs that views this verse as evoking the inaccessibility of the female protagonist to her lover (e.g., Exum, Song of Songs, 128). 69. This verse is also correlated to Israel’s experience in traversing the sea in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Beshallaḥ 3. 70. A similarly vivid example of the multiple correlations of a verse from Song of Songs is preserved in the later text Song of Songs Rabbah. In Song Rab. 1:12, the editor draws together numerous interpretations that locate God’s kissing of Israel in the subjunctive language of Song 1:2 at the Reed Sea, Mt. Sinai, and in connection with the Temple. See Michael Fishbane, “Anthological Midrash and Cultural Paideia: The Case of Songs Rabba 1:2,” in Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century (ed. Peter Ochs and Nancy Levene; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 32–51. 71. E.g., Boyarin, Intertextuality, 57–79. 72. E.g., David Stern, “Midrash and Midrashic Interpretation,” in The Jewish Study Bible (ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Brettler; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 1863–75, here 1869–70. 73. For recent discussions of this phenomenon and the point at which it develops in rabbinic literature, see Steven D. Fraade, “Response to Azzan YadinIsrael on Rabbinic Polysemy: Do They ‘Preach’ What They Practice?,” AJSR 38 (2014): 339–61; Azzan Yadin-Israel, “Rabbinic Polysemy: A Response to

Israel’s National Narrative    89 Steven Fraade,” AJSR 38 (2014): 129–41; Richard Hidary, Dispute for the Sake of Heaven: Legal Pluralism in the Talmud (Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2010); Steven D. Fraade, “Rabbinic Polysemy and Pluralism Revisited: Between Praxis and Thematization,” AJSR 31 (2007): 1–40; Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004); and Azzan Yadin, “The Hammer on the Rock: Polysemy and the School of Rabbi Ishmael,” JSQ 10 (2003): 1–17. 74. Azzan Yadin, Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash (Divinations; Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 68. 75. On the confusion of Pappias with Pappus (son of Judah), see Strack and Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, 69. 76. Beshallaḥ 7 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, pp. 247–49, lines 58–84; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 112, line 4–16; p. 113, lines 1–3). 77. E.g., Gen. Rab. 21:5; Song Rab. 1:46, 47, 48, 49; Exod. Rab. 23:14. 78. E.g., Louis Finkelstein, Akiba: Scholar, Saint and Martyr (New York: Atheneum, 1970), 196; idem, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith (3d rev. ed.; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1966), 322–23; Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1987), 146–47; cf. Arthur Marmorstein, Essays in Anthropomorphism (vol. 2 of The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God; New York: KTAV, 1937; reprint 1968), 44. 79. The correlation of paired hands to the fulfillment of various commandments is a common exegetical technique (e.g., Song Rab. 2:19). 80. It is not clear whether this question and answer is an editorial addition or actually part of the earlier tradition of the debate. Its presence at the end of the pericope either served to tie the debate into the preceding discussion or instigated its association with the preceding discussion. Note that the following passage that includes the debate of Pappias and Akiva over the meaning of Job 23:13 lacks any clear connection to the preceding discussion of Exod 14:29. It is most likely appended here as an additional example of the various debates between Pappias and Akiva. 81. ‫לססתי‬. 82. ‫שששתי‬. 83. ‫ששתי‬. 84. Beshallaḥ 7 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, pp. 247–48, lines 58–67; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 112, lines 4–9). 85. Sytagmatic citation involves the juxtaposition of two or more verses on the basis of common linguistic features to generate a new narrative structure. On syntagmatic citation, see Boyarin, Intertextuality, 26–28. 86. I have yet to find an instance of the use of this rhetorical formula in tannaitic literature outside of these debates. The formula is not, however, unknown in rabbinic literature (e.g., Gen. Rab. 36:1).

90   

my perfect one

87. Finkelstein, Akiba, 195–97. 88. Urbach, The Sages, 146–47. 89. Marmorstein, Essays in Anthropomorphism, 43–46; see David Stern’s helpful discussion of Marmorstein’s views in the development of rabbinic thought: “Imitatio Hominis: Anthropomorphism and the Character(s) of God in Rabbinic Literature,” Prooftexts 12 (1992): 151–74, here 154–55. 90. On the anthological character of rabbinic literature, see Martin S. Jaffee, “Rabbinic Authorship as a Collective Enterprise,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature (ed. Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 17–37, here 32–34. 91. Song. Rab. 1:49; on this reversal, see Marmorstein, Essays in Anthropomorphism, 43–46. 92. Exod. Rab. 23:14. 93. On the use of the typological reading of scripture in later Jewish eschatological schemas, see Amos Funkenstein, “Nachmanides’ Typological Reading of History” (Hebrew), Zion 45 (1980): 35–59; and David Berger, “Three Typological Themes in Early Jewish Messianism: Messiah Son of Joseph, Rabbinic Calculations, and the Figure of Armilus,” AJSR 10 (1985): 141–64. 94. Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996), 25. 95. Origen, himself, argued that Solomon used the form of a marriage-song (an epithalamium) to describe the union of divine and human; see The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies (trans. R. P. Lawson; New York: The Newman Press, 1956), 21. Origen, in fact, understood Song of Songs as the original epithalamium upon which later Greek and Latin poets based their works (see ibid., 268). Two of the earliest Greek manuscripts of Song of Songs, Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century c.e. and Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century c.e., included notes that informed the reader about who was speaking and who was being addressed in the recitation of the poem (Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 7c; New York: Doubleday, 1977], 34). Of course, these notations could have easily been designed to help the reader recognize who was saying what in the, at times difficult to dissect, speech of Song of Songs. Pope derives similar evidence for the dramatic arrangement of Song of Songs from the Ethiopic translation, which arranges the work into five parts. He suggests that one could regard this arrangement perhaps as evidence “that it is a drama in five acts.” This arrangement could also be seen as parallel to the organization of the Torah and the Psalter into five books. A prominent variation of the dramatic approach emerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and was known as the two-character hypothesis, built on the notion that the two principle dramatis personae are the female protagonist and her beloved (e.g., Franz Delitzsch, Das Hohelied [Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1851]). Building

Israel’s National Narrative    91 on traditions stemming from the twelfth century, scholars in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries formulated a three-character hypothesis (female protagonist, shepherd, and king) as a more dynamic alternative to the two-character scheme. Pope (Song of Songs, 35), perhaps following C. D. Ginsburg, attributes the initial suggestion to the twelfth-century Jewish biblical commentator Ibn Ezra. Baruch Alster has shown that this approach does derive from traditions dating back to the twelfth century or earlier but that its attribution to Ibn Ezra is false. As Alster argues, Ibn Ezra actually used a twocharacter schema in his analysis of Song of Songs. See Alster, “Human Love and its Relationship to Spiritual Love in Jewish Exegesis on the Song of Songs” (Hebrew; Ph.D. diss.; Bar Ilan University, 2006), 8 n. 28, 19 n. 70, 31–35. 96. On the origins of drama as a form of literature in ancient Greece, see Peter Wilson, “Powers of Horror and Laughter: The Great Age of Drama,” in Literature in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A New Perspective (ed. Oliver Taplin; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 88–132, here 88–92. 97. Ibid., 91–92. 98. Ibid., 92. 99. Exum, Song of Songs, 42. Northrop Frye, “Approaching the Lyric,” in Lyric Poetry: Beyond New Criticism (ed. Chaviva Hošek and Patricia Parker; Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985), 31–37, here 31. See also W. R. Johnson, The Idea of Lyric: Lyric Modes in Ancient and Modern Poetry (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1982). 100. Maurice Balme, “Lyric Poetry,” in Greek and Latin Literature: A Comparative Study (ed. John Higginbotham; London: Methuen, 1969), 24–62, here 24–25. 101. Exum, Song of Songs, 42–45. 102. Tosefta Sanh. 12:10. Whether or not Rabbi Akiva actually uttered these words or they were placed in his mouth by an editor harmonizing them to Abba Saul’s words in the next sentence is unclear. Notably, a version of the statement here attributed to Rabbi Akiva appears anonymously in b. Sanh. 101a. 103. Some form of epic poetry may be found in many cultures throughout the world. For instance, the Epic of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia, the tale of King Gilgamesh and his companion Enkidu, is one of the earliest works of epic poetry, dating in its earliest form (itself drawing upon earlier materials) to the early second millennium b.c.e. Similarly, the Greek tradition of epic poetry dates back to the beginning of the first millennium b.c.e. The writer Homer and his works, the Iliad and the Odyssey, endure as the most notable exemplars of this tradition. In terms of Israelite literature, a number of scholars have charted connections between biblical works and the genre of epic poetry. For instance, Umberto Cassuto and Frank Moore Cross each have utilized the category of epic to describe the emergence of the Israelite literary tradition (see Cassuto, “The Israelite Epic,” in Biblical and Oriental Studies [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975], ii. 69–109; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew

92   

my perfect one

Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997]; and idem, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel [Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000]). Philo the Epic Poet, a Jewish writer perhaps working in Alexandria in the late third or early second centuries b.c.e., consciously employed the literary conventions of Greek epic poetry, such as hexameter, to recast paradigmatic events in Israel’s past in epic form. The work of Philo the Epic Poet only survives in fragmentary form. For an English translation and introduction, see Harold Attridge, “Philo the Epic Poet (Third to Second Century B.C.): A New Translation and Introduction,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1985), vol. 2, 781–84. Ezekiel the Tragedian also employs the conventions of Greek poetry, in his case tragic drama, to retell the first fifteen chapters of Exodus in his poem Exagoge. See R. G. Robertson’s translation and introduction in Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, 803–19. 104. Richard P. Martin, “Epic as Genre,” in A Companion to Ancient Epic (ed. John Miles Foley; Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 9–19, here 17. Each society in the ancient Mediterranean basin and Near East had culture-specific conventions for their own form of epic poetry, and these features developed and changed over time. For instance, hexameter, repeated lines and phrases, and a focus on the heroic mark the early Greek epics of Homer. Already by the fourth century b.c.e., Aristotle attempted to enumerate the unique formal features of Greek epic poetry including the use of metaphorical language and heroic meter (i.e., hexameter). See Aristotle, Poetics 1447b. As time moved on, epic developed in Greek society from a largely oral genre into a written genre with increasingly diverse permutations of the basic epic form. On this point, see Katherine Callen King, Ancient Epic (Blackwell Introductions to the Classical World; Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 4–5. Cassuto, in “The Israelite Epic,” also noticed similar features in early Israelite poetry, which led him to argue for the existence of an ancient tradition of Israelite epic poetry that formed the foundation of the biblical narrative. Interestingly, Song of Songs shares with Homeric verse the formulaic repetition of words, phrases, and lines. See Scott B. Noegel and Gary A. Rendsburg’s treatment of alliteration and repetition in Song of Songs in Solomon’s Vineyard: Literary and Linguistic Studies in the Song of Songs (Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2009). 105. Martin, “Epic as Genre,” 9. Martin’s observation concerning the transcultural applicability of epic is part of his larger program of arguing for a functional category of epic, as opposed to a formal, generic definition. See, however, Bruce Louden’s recent volume, which explores a dialogic relationship between Homer’s Odyssey and biblical literature: Homer’s Odyssey and the Near East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 106. J. B. Hainsworth. The Idea of Epic (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1991), 5.

Israel’s National Narrative    93 107. Charles Rowan Beye, Ancient Epic Poetry: Homer, Apollonius, Virgil (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993), 21. See also Brian R. Doak, The Last of the Rephaim: Conquest and Cataclysm in the Heroic Ages of Ancient Israel (Ilex Series 7; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2013), 153–99; and Gregory Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry (rev. ed.; Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 67–210. 108. King, Ancient Epic, 8. Interestingly, as Hainsworth notes (The Idea of Epic, 2), Aristotle used the universal concern of epic poetry to distinguish it generically from history, which is concerned with particulars. 109. King, Ancient Epic, 2. 110. Ibid., 5.

3

Female Beauty and the Affective Nature of Rabbinic Piety n a r r a t i v e o f Song of Songs relishes extended and provocative descriptions of the lovers and their encounters (imagined, thwarted, or real). In the previous chapter, I explored how the early rabbinic sages correlated Song of Songs and its characters to an ideal national narrative of Israel’s history. They reshaped the exodus, the Sinai theophany, and the wilderness wanderings into a national narrative that described Israel’s betrothal to, marriage to, and honeymoon with her beloved, God. This approach to reading Song of Songs aimed to influence contemporary perceptions of national values and ideal behavior in the wake of the events of the late first and early second centuries c.e. In this chapter, I turn to explore how the Tannaim used the descriptions of the female protagonist’s beauty in order to describe ideal rabbinic practice and piety. I begin first by examining how the female protagonist’s appearance is described in Song of Songs, with particular focus on the description song in Song 4:1–7 (often called in modern scholarship by the later Arabic term waṣf ). I then turn to look at how the Tannaim painted an idealized picture of Israel through these passages. In doing so, as I will describe, they shaped rabbinic piety through their portrayal of particular biblical commandments using the language of Song of Songs. As I note, their interpretations of the descriptions of the female protagonist lack the erotic tenor that these passages have in Song of Songs. Nevertheless, the juxtaposition of these descriptions with a wide range of rabbinically interpreted biblical commandments does, as I argue, infuse the affection present in the relationship in Song of Songs into early rabbinic conceptions of Israel’s relationship with God. In doing so, the traditions present in the tannaitic midrashim utilize Song of Songs in order to shape rabbinic thought and practice characterized by intense, affectionate, and reciprocal devotion between model Israel and her beloved. the

96   

my perfect one

Female Beauty in Song of Songs The description of the female beloved takes on three basic forms in Song of Songs. The first of these forms is self-description, although this form appears infrequently. The first example occurs in the opening chapter of Song of Songs: “I am dark, but comely, O daughters of Jerusalem—like the tents of Kedar, like the pavilions of Solomon. Don’t stare at me because I am swarthy, because the sun has gazed upon me” (1:5–6). The second brief occurrence of self-description happens in the female protagonist’s apparent response to her brothers’ portrayal of her in the last chapter of Song of Songs: “I am a wall, my breasts are like towers” (8:10). The second of these forms of description are the limited instances in which her male beloved characterizes her physical form through metaphor. He likens her “to a mare in Pharaoh’s chariots” (1:9) and describes her as having “dove-like eyes” (1:15, 4:1). These two shorter forms of description highlight how Song of Songs characterizes the female protagonist’s physical form. First, these descriptions juxtapose physical features with culturally specific metaphors, locations, and objects of material cultural from ancient Israelite society such as “the tents of Kedar,” “walls,” “towers,” and “the pavilions of Solomon.” As we have seen in the first two chapters, these culturally specific referents often enable the typological correlation of Song of Songs to figures, events, and practices described elsewhere in authoritative literature from ancient Israel. Second, by using similes and metaphors to characterize physical appearance, Song of Songs portrays physical appearance through indirect description, the exact meaning of which can be opaque. For instance, in what sense are the female protagonist’s breasts “towers” or how is she “dark, but comely . . . like the tents of Kedar?” By far the most elaborate details of the female protagonist’s physical ­appearance occur in a series of descriptive passages (Song 4:1–7, 6:4–10, and 7:2–10a) and one admiration song (Song 4:9–15).1 As my focus here is not on the particulars of each one of these passages but rather on the general character of physical description in Song of Songs, I offer only the first of these passages in order to illustrate this longer mode of description. Ah, you are fair, my darling, Ah, you are fair. Your eyes are like doves Behind your veil. Your hair is like a flock of goats Streaming down Mount Gilead. 4:1

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    97

Your teeth are like a flock of ewes Climbing up from the washing pool; All of them bear twins, And not one loses her young. 3 Your lips are like a crimson thread, Your mouth is lovely. Your brow behind your veil [Gleams] like a pomegranate split open. 4 Your neck is like the Tower of David, Built to hold weapons, Hung with a thousand shields— All the quivers of warriors. 5 Your breasts are like two fawns, Twins of a gazelle, Browsing among the lilies. 6 When the day blows gently And the shadows flee, I will betake me to the mount of myrrh, To the hill of frankincense. 7 Every part of you is fair, my darling, There is no blemish in you. 2

This passage, like the other two examples from chapters 6 and 7 of Song of Songs, characterizes physical appearance in the same manner as the shorter examples of self-description and description-by-another discussed earlier. Physical form is again portrayed using opaque metaphor and simile that describe the physical beauty of the female protagonist using culturally specific imagery. For instance, the woman’s hair is compared to “a flock of goats” and her teeth “a flock of ewes.” These juxtapositions often leave the reader uncertain about the precise point of these characterizations. Nevertheless, this longer descriptive form is more than just a catalog of physical features. The reader is invited by the male beloved to join him in examining and reveling in the female protagonist’s beauty. He begins at her eyes (4:1) and seductively examines her face and hair (vv. 2–3) then moves to her neck (v. 4) and finally to her breasts (v. 5) before trailing off into a fantasy (v. 6) and a final general declaration of her overall perfect beauty (v. 7). Similar sequential and seductive patterns of description are found in the other longer descriptive passages in chapters 6 and 7 of Song of Songs as well as in the admiration song in the second part of chapter 4. Beginning in the nineteenth century, scholars identified correspondences between this basic form and a poetic form found in Arabic poetry known as

98   

my perfect one

waṣf.2 Waṣf, in its most basic meaning, can be translated as “description.” Michael V. Fox defines the form of the waṣf as “a song in which one lover praises the other’s body part by part.”3 The basic formal designation waṣf continues to be employed liberally by biblical scholars to describe these passages in Song of Songs. 4 Scholars in the earlier twentieth century began to look broadly in ancient Near Eastern literature for other parallel examples of this form. Beginning with the work of Adolf Erman in the first quarter of the twentieth century, scholars noticed parallels between Song of Songs and ancient Egyptian love poetry as well as between Song of Songs and the Sumerian sacred marriage ritual.5 The general scholarly consensus looks primarily to the Egyptian material as bearing the most fruitful parallels to Song of Songs: direct speech (though the Egyptian material employs the first person, as well as the third person, which is dominant in Song of Songs), verbal mood that begins in the indicative and culminates in the optative, and systematic description and comparison of body parts.6 We should not be delayed, however, with this ongoing discussion about the formal features of descriptive language in Song of Songs or the debate about the poem’s social function.7 Ultimately, my purpose has been to elaborate the features of this poetic form as a prelude to the discussion of the early rabbinic interpretation of the waṣfs in Song of Songs. As is easily noticed, the Tannaim display no concern for the different formal features of descriptive language in Song of Songs. The remainder of this chapter examines instead how they imagined the descriptive poems in Song 4:1–7, 6:4–10, and 7:2–10a as figurations of model Israel’s unique beauty and ideal rabbinic piety.

Portraying Israel’s Unique Beauty and the Feminization of the Jewish Man The Tannaim utilize the language of the descriptive poems to emphasize the unique beauty of Israel among all the other nations of the world. This emphasis serves a larger rhetorical aim of reinforcing the particularity of Israel’s relationship with God, which this excerpt from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael illustrates: “This people whom you redeemed” (Exod 15:13). For the whole world is yours, and yet you have no people other than Israel, as it is said, “This people whom I formed for myself” (Isa 43:21). And it also says, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines” (Song 6:8). “There are sixty queens” refers to the sixty myriads. “And eighty concubines” refers to

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    99

those of the age of twenty and above. “And maidens without number” refers to the young ones who have not been counted. And yet, “My dove, my perfect one, is but one” (Song 6:9). This [verse] refers to Moses who was equal to all of them together.8 The phrase am zu (this people) from Exod 15:13 evokes for the anonymous interpreter a co-text from Isa 43:21 wherein the same phase appears. The verse from Isaiah emphasizes the particularity of God’s relationship with Israel. Taken together, God’s creative and redemptive activity for Israel bespeaks the exclusivity of their relationship. The interpreter next turns to an interpretation of Song 6:8–9, which extends the theme of God’s exclusive relationship with Israel by correlating phrases in this section of the descriptive poem from Song 6 to the different divisions within Israel.9 There are no explicit co-texts cited to establish this correlation. Earlier scholarship found this passage and the exact nature of the correlation between Song 6 and the different divisions within Israel “exasperatingly difficult,” as Judah Goldin describes it.10 Louis Finkelstein sought to solve these interpretive difficulties by suggesting that the text of Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael be emended to read, “‘And eighty concubines,’ refers to those of the age of sixty and above.”11 A simpler and, I argue, more plausible explanation understands the anonymous interpreter to be viewing Song 6:8 as a figuration of Israel through an implicit and synchronic reading of verses that describe the composition of the Israelite community during the exodus. Exodus 12:37 provides the basic framework for the correlation: “And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot, who were men, aside from children.” The “sixty myriads” of Song 6:8 equals the “six hundred thousand on foot” who are “men” (gevarim). The equation of “eighty concubines” to “those of the age of twenty and above” by the interpreter appears odd. Why not specify that the “eighty concubines” are “those between the ages of twenty and sixty,” as Lev 27:3 does? A more plausible solution would be that the six hundred thousand “men” (gevarim) of Exod 12:37 refers to “men” who are between the ages of thirty and sixty, based on the more narrow range found in 1 Chr 23:3 for defining who is a “man,” albeit specifically Levites.12 If the “men” who number six hundred thousand are between the ages of thirty and sixty, that suggests there are approximately two hundred thousand per each ten-year period. Seen in this light the correlation of “eighty concubines” to “those of the age of twenty and above” makes more sense. In defining this phrase in this way, the anonymous interpreter draws Lev 27:3 into the discussion of the meaning of Song 6:8. If “sixty myriads” equals six hundred thousand Israelite men between the ages of thirty

100   

my perfect one

and sixty (based on Exod 12:37 and 1 Chr 23:3), “eighty concubines” equals eight hundred thousand Israelite men between the ages of twenty and sixty (based also on Lev 27:3). “The maidens without number” refers, from the perspective of the anonymous interpreter, to the “children” of Exod 12:37, or, in his terms, “the young ones who have not been counted.” Song of Songs 6:8, thus, refers to Israel in its most inclusive sense. After the treatment of Song 6:8 as a figuration of Israel, the interpreter correlates Song 6:9, “My dove, my perfect one, is but one,” to Moses, “who was equal to all of them together.” As we have seen, the early rabbinic sages generally understand the female protagonist of Song of Songs, metaphorically referred to as “my dove,” as Israel. Here, Israel is associated with the masses of women, and Moses receives the unique designation “my dove.” This reading of Song 6:8–9 does not diminish Israel’s unique status as seen in the earlier interpretation of Exod 15:13 and Isa 43:21, as Moses is considered “equal to all of them together.”13 This identification highlights Moses’s unique status within Israel and has the pedagogical value of exalting Moses to the status of Israel par excellence.14 The elevation of Moses within Israel serves an important pedagogical end. If the reader of this text emulates the piety of Moses, then he (and I assume that the first readers of rabbinic texts were men) can fulfill the ideal of God’s covenant with Israel. My correlation of the term “sixty myriads” from Song 6:8–9 with Exod 12:37 receives further support from the following excerpt from another section of Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael. “About six hundred thousand men on foot” (Exod 12:37). Sixty ­myriads—these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael. For when it says, “Behold, it is the litter of Solomon, encircled by sixty warriors,” it means, behold the litter of the One who is the possessor of peace, sixty myriads of mighty men encircle it, “of the warriors of Israel, all of them trained in warfare, skilled in battle” (Song 3:7–8).15 This passage offers Rabbi Ishmael’s interpretation of “six hundred thousand” as being equivalent to shishim ribbo “sixty myriads,” or “sixty ‘ten thousands.’” The use of shishim enables the connection of Exod 12:37 to a co-text from Song 3:7–8. In these verses the word shishim is also used to describe a quantity of Israelite soldiers surrounding the litter of Solomon. The interpretation correlates Solomon with God through a creative etiology of Solomon’s name, which exploits a pun on its root.16 Through this reading, Solomon (Heb. shelomoh; perhaps meaning “his peace”), in Song 3:7, refers to “the one who is the possessor of peace” (mi shehashalom shelo). The sixty men surrounding

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    101

the litter of Solomon also present a figuration of the six hundred thousand Israelite foot soldiers leaving Egypt. Importantly, Solomon’s sixty are warriors (gibborim), corresponding to the men (gevarim) of Exod 12:37. In Song 3:7–8, the interpreter sees a picture of Israel’s army, six hundred thousand strong, escorting God through the wilderness (cf. Song 3:6). Israel’s position alongside their beloved God portrays them as a unique royal retinue. In addition to using the descriptive poems of Song of Songs in order to evoke the uniqueness of Israel’s relationship with God, the Tannaim also employ them in order to characterize the emotional intensity of this relationship and each party’s deep commitment to the other. The following passage from Mekilta le-Devarim builds on the covenantal ascription of Israel as having a “treasured” (segullah) status in her relationship with God in order to highlight the depth of God’s commitment to her.17 “To be his treasured people [am segullah]” (Deut 14:2). If a person were to enter the garden of a king in order to take his treasured possession, would they not kill him? And likewise the garden of the Omnipresent, as it is said, “I went down to the nut grove” (Song 6:11). Or if a person were to enter the house of a king in order to take his treasured possession, would they not kill him? Thus Israel is the treasured possession of the blessed Holy One, as it is said, “To be his treasured people” (Deut 14:2).18 This passage elucidates the meaning of Israel’s treasured status through a common rabbinic technique of comparing God to a human king. The anonymous interpreter describes the king as imposing a capital sentence upon a person who has transgressed the boundaries of his private garden in order to steal his most treasured possession. The nature of that possession is irrelevant for the composer of this tradition: all that matters is its status as “treasured.” In the logic of the midrash, the heavenly king would act in like fashion against someone who attempted to steal or harm his most prized possession. The interpreter appeals to Song 6:11 in order to illustrate this comparison. This verse appears immediately following the male beloved’s description of the female protagonist’s beauty in Song 6:4–10. In fact, this descriptive poem is preceded by another reference to the male beloved’s entrance into his garden (v. 2) and the female protagonist’s description of her encounter with him (v. 3.). It is reasonable to assume that the interpreter understands this encounter as occurring in the male beloved’s garden. The thief who thus trespasses in the garden to steal the heavenly king’s most treasured possession is attempting to steal the king’s lover, Israel.

102   

my perfect one

The notion of Israel being God’s “treasured” possession has a number of valences. First, Israel’s most favored nation status in the divine economy is rooted in the language of ancient Near Eastern loyalty oaths made by vassals to their suzerains. As has been widely noted in comparison with extrabiblical material, the biblical expression of the obligatory covenant between Israel and God builds on formulae that establish kinship between suzerain and vassal.19 In these texts the suzerain often refers to his vassal as “son” as well as “slave/servant.” In addition, the suzerain will, in some cases, accord special status (using words similar to segullah) to one vassal over other vassals.20 Second, segullah appears in late biblical texts as a term for the treasure acquired by kings (Eccl 2:8; 1 Chr 29:3).21 This meaning suggests that there is more to the use of the king-parable to link Deut 14:2 and Song 6:11 than simple formal convention. Segullah was used in Hebrew by the time of the tannaitic period to refer to property that is of the status of a family relic or royal treasure.22 Finally, as I discussed more fully in the introduction, the correlation of Song of Songs to Sinai furthers a transformation in the understanding of Israel’s covenant with God that was first found in prophetic literature. Again, as we have seen, already in works such as Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, the covenant cannot simply be understood as a relationship between a father (suzerain) and son (vassal). In those works, the covenant is portrayed as the shattered relationship of a husband and his adulterous wife. Reading Song of Songs as a divine love song reimagines that covenant relationship in more positive terms. In this brief midrash, these valences collide in the use of segullah. God simultaneously fills the role of king-protecting-his treasure, suzerain, and the male lover of Song of Songs. Likewise, Israel plays the parts of royal treasure, favored vassal, and the female protagonist of Song of Songs. The anonymous interpreter consistently imagines God-as-Israel’s husband not through the metaphor of the scorned spouse of the prophets but as the jealous and protective lover hoped for by the female protagonist of Song of Songs. This divine lover guards his most treasured possession, his beloved Israel, from any encroachment because of their unique and favored relationship. Early rabbinic interpretation also emphasizes Israel’s unique relationship to God through cosmological imagery. The following selection from Sifre Devarim draws upon an exegetical tradition that enumerates the “seven delightful things” that the righteous will resemble “in the eschatological future.” Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says, “The faces of the righteous will resemble seven delightful things in the eschatological future: the Sun, the Moon, the firmament, the stars, lightning, lilies, and the Temple

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    103

menora.” From where do we derive scriptural support for the Sun? Just as it is said, “But may his friends be as the sun rising in might” (Judg 5:31). The Moon? Just as it is said, “Beautiful as the Moon” (Song 6:10). The firmament? Just as it is said, “And the knowledgeable will be radiant like the bright expanse of the firmament” (Dan 12:3). The stars? Just as it is said, “and those who lead the many to righteousness will be like the stars” (Dan 12:3). Lightning? Just as it is said, “Like lightning they dart back and forth” (Nah 2:5). Lilies? Just as it is said, “For the leader, upon the lilies” (Ps 45:1). The Temple Menorah? Just as it is said, “And by it are two olive trees, one on the right of the bowl and one on its left” (Zech 4:3).23 In this version in Sifre Devarim and in parallels, the tradition of the righteous resembling “seven delightful things” is associated with Deut 1:10. In a parallel version of this passage in Mekilta le-Devarim, these resemblances will enable the righteous “to greet the Divine Presence.”24 In this verse, Moses describes God multiplying Israel so that they number “as the stars in the sky.” In the Torah, Moses’s description serves as a fulfillment of God’s hyperbolic promise to Abraham in Genesis that his descendants would be innumerable like the stars (Gen 15:5–6, 22:17). Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai does not, however, focus on how Deut 1:10 confirms the Abrahamic promise, at least in the immediate narrative of Deuteronomy. Rather, he understands Moses’s description as an eschatological characterization of Israel, and more particularly of the righteous in her midst. This characterization leads to comparing Israel to a list of seven things, perhaps corresponding to the seven known celestial bodies of the time (the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). This list consists largely of things that have heavenly proximity to the Divine Presence in the ancient Jewish cosmographic imagination, or that stood proximate to the Divine Presence in the Temple. The items from the Temple, perhaps, symbolize all of the furnishings of the inner sanctum of the Temple, if not the Temple itself, during the Second Temple period (e.g., the Temple Menorah). The unifying feature of the list is not, however, the specific items to which the righteous will be likened in the eschatological future. Rather, this list is generated because each of these verses mentions, in some cases more subtly than others, the resplendent countenance of the righteous, who, in the language of Ps 34:6, gain their radiance by gazing upon God. Judges 5:31 compares “his friends” to “the sun rising in might.” Song 6:10 similarly describes the female protagonist, “who is she that shines through [hannishqafah] like the dawn, beautiful as the Moon, radiant as the Sun.”

104   

my perfect one

The anonymous interpreter exploits the internal parallelism of Dan 12:3 to describe the righteous as both the firmament which is “radiant” (zohar) and the stars which shine in the sky. Nahum 2 describes the Lord overcoming marauding hordes that invade Israel and Judah and God’s restoration of “the Pride of Jacob” and “Israel.” Verses 4–5 describe God’s warriors, specifically his charioteers as “flaming torches,” “torches,” and “streaks of lightning.” Psalm 45:1 introduces a royal wedding song, which was understood in antiquity, much like Song of Songs, as a divine love song describing the union of a divine figure and the beloved community.25 The introductory term “for the instructor” (lamnaṣṣeaḥ) could also be understood as relating to light. The Hebrew root for this term has as its base meaning the idea “to shine,” “to be victorious,” or “to be eminent.”26 Zechariah 4:3 describes Zechariah’s visionary encounter with “the Angel” in the inner sanctum of the Temple immediately following a prediction of divine restoration for Persian-period Yehud (3:1–10). The two trees, figurative representations of the high priest and governor in Persian-period Yehud, bask in the light of the Temple Menorah. In short, the seven passages all speak of radiant figures identified in some way with Israel and correlated to a specific object. The collocation of passages, thus, generates the list of “seven delightful things.” The inclusion of Song 6:10 in this list of passages coheres with the standard reading of Song of Songs in early rabbinic literature as a divine love song. Israel is paired with the female character and extolled as “beautiful as the moon.” For the purposes of the discussion in this chapter, it is important to note that Song of Songs again appears in service of expressing Israel’s uniqueness; only Israel is accorded the honor of greeting the Divine Presence in the eschatological future. As we have seen in the four excerpts in this discussion, the particularity of Israel’s relationship with God is a consistent theme in the tannaitic reading of Israel’s history. The Tannaim draw upon language from the descriptions of the female protagonist’s unique beauty in Song of Songs in order to help shape their statement of this theme. As I noted earlier, this reading of the descriptive material in Song of Songs participates in a broader reading tradition stemming back to biblical prophetic literature in which Israel’s relationship with God is imagined as a relationship between a husband and a wife. This reading strategy certainly, as David Carr rightly notes, “harness[es]” the “mutually passionate relationship” of Song of Songs in order “to redescribe the divine–human relationship in less violent and hierarchical terms.”27 But at the same time, it also transforms Israel from the faithful son and vassal imagined by traditions building on the Sinai narrative. Although certainly Israel was subordinate in the suzerain-vassal schema, in this reading strategy Israel is feminized: Israel becomes a “she,” the object of

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    105

the male beloved’s amorous fidelity and devotion. Yet, despite this feminization, the prominent and socially transgressive words and actions of the female protagonist in Song of Songs perhaps make this relationship one of greater equality and reciprocity, as Carr’s comments and the observations of other scholars suggest.28 Nonetheless, many of the excerpts from the tannaitic midrashim we have looked at so far in this chapter suggest that the male character, God, still maintains a dominant position in this relationship. For instance, the excerpt concerning the king and his treasured possession from Mekilta le-Devarim imagines Israel not as God’s egalitarian partner, but as his treasured possession. Israel is God’s wife, whom he adores, but his possession nonetheless. While this reimagining of Israel’s unique relationship with God through husband-and-wife relational categories does not subvert God’s essential dominance over Israel, it does afford Israel the opportunity to reimagine itself. The identification of Israel with the female protagonist of Song of Songs cultivates an alternative model of masculinity for the Jewish male, as Daniel Boyarin has argued regarding constructions of gender in rabbinic society.29 The male sages who compiled and studied the tannaitic midrashim were undoubtedly already dedicated to learning and family. But as these texts suggest, the early rabbis utilized Song of Songs to re-envision Israel as gentle and receptive. Israel was not to be warlike or capricious, because she was the treasured possession kept safe by her jealous king. God formed Israel for himself, and Israel would escort him from Sinai to Zion, characterized using the language of Song of Songs. God would continue to redeem and protect his beloved Israel, as the six texts quoted in the tradition by Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai suggest, until the righteous come to greet the Divine Presence in the eschatological future. Seen in the context of the late second and early third centuries c.e., these traditions helped shaped the identity of that period’s rabbinic community in Roman Palestine. Though the Jewish people lived under imperial domination and had faced humiliating and dislocating defeats, the rabbinic community could continue to affirm their unique relationship with God and trust that their beloved would care for and protect his treasured possession.

Song of Songs and the Shape of Rabbinic Piety Through the descriptive language of Song of Songs, God’s commandments to Israel became not merely the obligations of a vassal to his suzerain but also the expressions of loving and affective devotion between two lovers. The shape of tannaitic practice and its consequent relationship to early rabbinic identity formation has been examined in detail in a number of recent focused

106   

my perfect one

studies.30 The discussion here will focus more narrowly on how the Tannaim use Song of Songs to describe and shape rabbinic practice and mark the boundaries of Jewish life. I will examine in turn the use of Song of Songs to stiffen resolve in the face of martyrdom as well as characterize the role of Torah in Jewish society, various ritual commandments, the practice of charity, kingship in Jewish society, and intermarriage. The Tannaim deployed Song of Songs as part of a larger program designed to buttress the Torah’s central role in Jewish life. The following passage from Mekilta da-‘Arayot, a section of tannaitic midrash interpolated into Sifra, illustrates the extent of the truly committed individual’s devotion to Torah.31 “. . . and live by them” (Lev 18:5), i.e., that a person should not die by them. Rabbi Ishmael would say, “From where do you derive that if they might say to a person who is alone, ‘transgress the commandment against idolatry, and you will not be put to death,’ and the person should transgress, and he will not be put to death?” Scripture teaches, “and live by them,” i.e., that a person should not die by them. So only if in public, should they obey them? [No!] For Scripture teaches, “You shall not profane my holy name, that I may be sanctified, etc.” (Lev 22:32). If you sanctify my name, I will sanctify my name through you. For just as Ḥannaniah, Misha’el, and Azariah did when all the nations of the world at that time prostrated themselves before the idol, they would stand [‘omdim] [upright] like palm trees. Of them it is stated in the traditional sacred writings, “Your stately form [qomatek] is like a palm . . . I say, ‘let me climb the palm, let me take hold of its branches’” (Song 7:8–9). Today I will be exalted through them [i.e., those who stand upright] before the nations of the world, who declare the Torah false. Today I will exact vengeance on their behalf upon those who hate them. Today I will resurrect the dead among them. I am the Lord. I judge in order to exact vengeance and am faithful to reward [the righteous].32 This passage begins with a typical exegetical gloss designed to delimit the meaning of the phrase “and live by them” from Lev 18:5. In the context of Lev 18, this phrase follows the twice-made injunction in verses 4–5 that Israel fulfill the requirements of God’s “laws” (mishpatai) and “rules” (ḥuqotai). In its context in Leviticus, the phrase implies that Israel should structure their lives around the stipulations of these commandments. The anonymous interpreter,

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    107

however, understands the phrase as referring to issues of mortality. The commandments are meant to bring life and should not result in death. The issue of mortality and the keeping of the commandments likely arises from the connection between Torah observance and martyrdom in Jewish society that emerged in antiquity.33 The anonymous interpreter appeals to a tradition attributed to Rabbi Ishmael in order to raise the question whether one can violate the commandment against idolatry in private in order to preserve their own life while obeying it in public. The distinction between the private domain (reshut hayyaḥid) and the public domain (reshut harrabbim) is employed in tannaitic literature in order to lessen restrictions related to particular commandments such as the one against carrying on the Sabbath or the transmission of corpse impurity (e.g., m. Ṭehar, 6:6–9; m. Shab. 1:1).34 In this passage, the tradition attributed to Rabbi Ishmael explores the applicability of this distinction for determining whether one has violated the restriction against idolatry. The suggestion that one might violate the commandment against idolatry in private in order to save his or her life seems to be based on the mandate of Lev 18:5 that the purpose of the commandments are to bring life and not to result in death. The answer put forward in response to this suggestion is that one should obey the commandment against idolatry in both private and public based on Lev 22:32: “You shall not profane my holy name, that I may be sanctified, etc.” Thus, there is no qualification on where one sanctifies the name of God, either in private or public. Likewise one cannot violate the commandment against idolatry in private while observing it in public. The anonymous interpreter then turns to the story of the near martyrdom of Ḥannaniah, Misha’el, and Azariah in Dan 3 in order to highlight an example of people who resisted the commandment against idolatry. While the story from Dan 3 focuses on their observance of the commandment in public, the midrashic interpretation of it seems to assume that they consistently observed the commandment in both public and private settings of worship. These three figures provide, along with Daniel, paradigmatic examples of fidelity to the Torah under imperial hegemony (e.g., Dan 1), serving as officials within the Babylonian and the Persian empires according to the narrative of Daniel and surviving immolation as punishment for their failure to prostrate themselves before imperial idols (Dan 3:12–30). The anonymous interpreter uses the language of Song of Songs to characterize their stiff resolve in the face of imperial domination. There is a slight word play in the use of Song of Songs to characterize the posture of the three friends of Daniel that is not as apparent in English translation. The word rendered “stately form” (qomah) in Song 7:8 derives from a root (q.w.m) that is synonymous with the root used to

108   

my perfect one

describe the posture of the three friends (“standing” ‘omdim; ‘.m.d).35 Using the language of a waṣf from Song of Songs, the interpreter characterizes ideal Jewish piety in the face of imperial persecution. All Israel, understood as the female protagonist of Song of Songs, is supposed to emulate the behavior of Ḥannaniah, Misha’el, and Azariah—the very best of Israel. The description of ideal Israel through the superlative imagery of a poem from Song of Songs also enables the anonymous interpreter to express the extent of reciprocal devotion that Israel’s fidelity elicits from the male beloved. In his use of the metaphor of Song 7:9, God is exalted through Israel’s martyrdom, raised high in the branches of the palm tree. Israel’s dedication to God leads to God’s reciprocal and loving fidelity, as God desires to take hold of Israel’s “branches.” The interpreter understands this active expression of love and desire as God’s support of Israel in the face of imperial hegemony and oppression. This passage views compulsory devotion to foreign idols as a cipher for a more totalizing program. God will vindicate Israel “before the nations of the world who declare the Torah false . . . exact vengeance on their behalf upon those who hate them . . . and resurrect the dead among them.” In other words, faithful Israel maintains her “stately form” and upright posture in the face of commands to commit acts of idolatry that will likely lead to their martyrdom and thereby God’s exaltation. They may not survive the pyre, but God will reciprocate their devotion even to the point of raising them from the dead. Indeed, God will be the one who “exact[s] vengeance” on those who persecute Israel. Israel can trust these promises because, as the anonymous interpreter declares, God can be trusted “to reward” the righteous for their fidelity (vene’aman leshallem śekar). Rabbinic observance, like love, truly is as strong as death (Song 8:6). The idealization of Israel’s fidelity to God and Torah through the language of Song of Songs also appears prominently in a long section in Sifre Devarim. Behold it says, “Your eyes like pools in Ḥeshbon by the gate of Batrabbim” (Song 7:5). “Your eyes” refers to the elders appointed over the community. And thus it says, “The Lord has spread over you a spirit of deep sleep, and has shut your eyes, [the prophets, and covered your heads, the seers]” (Isa 29:10). “Pools,” just as no one is able to discern what is in this pool, so also no one is able to supersede the teachings of the sages. “In Ḥeshbon,” i.e., in calculations [ḥeshbonot] that result from counsel and consideration. Where are they completed? In houses of rabbinic study. “By the gate of Bat-rabbim,” Why does it say, “your nose is like the tower of Lebanon looking towards Damascus?” If you are faithful to keep the Torah, you may look forward to [qavvu] the

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    109

coming of Elijah. For I said to him, “go back by the way you came, [and] on to the wilderness of Damascus” (1 Kings 19:15). And it says, “Remember the teaching of my servant Moses. . . . Behold, I will send to you [the prophet Elijah before the coming of the awesome, fearful day of the Lord] and he shall reconcile [parents with children]” (Mal 3:22–24).36 This anonymous tradition follows a widely used midrashic technique of reading each word or phrase in a verse as holding unique signification. In this case, the anonymous interpreter understands the description of the female protagonist’s eyes and nose in Song 7:5 as corresponding to authority structures in rabbinic society involved with the study and teaching of Torah. The woman’s eyes are a figuration of the elders of the community. The interpreter makes this correlation because the phrase “your eyes” appears in both Song 7:5 and Isa 29:10. In the latter verse, Isaiah uses the phrase as a metaphor for “prophets” and, by virtue of parallelism, “seers.” In early rabbinic thought, the sages are considered the legitimate inheritor of this prophetic mantel.37 The passage continues by defining the “pools” to which the male beloved compares the female protagonist’s eyes as indicating the preeminence of the teaching of the rabbinic sages. The interpreter justifies this rather confident assertion of rabbinic authority by pointing to the way in which these interpretations are carried out through the locative terms “Ḥeshbon” and “Bat-Rabbim” (which is understood in this passage as Bet Rabbim) that appear at the end of Song 7:5a. The anonymous interpreter reads the town Ḥeshbon as a reference not to a place but to the type of rabbinically informed and sanctioned decisions (ḥeshbonot) made in the rabbinic house of study (bet rabbim, lit. “public house”). Taken together these correlations of the various phrases in the first half of Song 7:5 reinforce rabbinic authority. Here Israel’s leaders, the rabbis, serve as the exemplary expression of Israel, a motif we have already seen in several other midrashic passages in this chapter. Israel’s ideal beauty is realized when the proper modes of interpretation of Torah and the dissemination of rabbinic teaching are in place. The anonymous interpreter’s reading of the male beloved’s description of the female protagonist’s neck in the second half of Song 7:5 further reinforces the authority of the Tannaim in the life of the Jewish community. He appeals in the second half of this passage to the geographical referent “Damascus” in order to substantiate his point. He correlates Song 7:5 to the co-text 1 Kgs 19:15 wherein Damascus is mentioned as the location to which Elijah should go after encountering God at Horeb. In addition, he understands the posture of the woman “looking towards” (tsofeh penei) Damascus in Song 7:5 as a posture

110   

my perfect one

of hope, in which she “look[s] forward to [qavvu] the coming of Elijah,” presumably from Damascus, as we learn in 1 Kgs 19:15. The word qavvu is from the same root as the word tiqvah (“hope”). Thus, the anonymous interpreter understands the woman’s posture of “looking towards” as one of “expectant waiting.”38 The return of Elijah is also evoked by the citation of another text, Mal 3:22–24, that links Elijah to the themes of national return to devotion to God, a verse which adds the dimension of Torah piety to the mix. Elijah’s future return signals Israel’s impending return to devotion to the Lord expressed through their commitment to “the Torah of Moses” (Mal 3:22). Thus, through the hypertext of “Damascus,” the interpreter understands Song 7:5 as a description of Israel’s true beauty, which is seen in their devotion to God and commitment to the Torah, a beauty exemplified in the practice of the rabbis. At first, this passage from Sifre Devarim may seem a little haphazard and perhaps forced in its correlation of snippets of the description poem in Song 7 to the rabbinic sages, the house of rabbinic study, and obedience to Torah (rabbinically interpreted). But when one steps back and looks at this passage in terms of the values it seeks to communicate, the interpretation it offers appears quite deft. In effect, the anonymous rabbinic interpreter links three different realities central to rabbinic piety and authority to a poem from Song of Songs that describes, in rabbinic understanding, the very nature of ideal Israel. The interpreter reads the paean to the woman as indicating the type of actions Israel should perform in an ideal rabbinic society. Certainly the assertion of this correlation is an internal judgment based on preconceived notions of the pillars of rabbinic society, but, in making these connections, the interpreter links ideal Israel to model rabbinic society on the level of Israel’s very being. Ideal Israel is manifest through the practice of the Tannaim, who perceive themselves as her leaders. Thus, Israel’s performance of these ideals will express her very nature; any other practice of piety or polity would seem a betrayal of her very being. Tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs also employs the male beloved’s description of the female protagonist as a figuration of the idealized devotion of Israel to the Torah through the expression of other rabbinic values such as prayer and good deeds. The following excerpt from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael illustrates the use of Song of Songs to solidify further the connection between Song of Songs and rabbinic society. “Stand by, and witness, etc.” (Exod 14:13) . . . To what may the Israelites at that moment be compared? To a dove fleeing from a hawk and about to enter a cleft in the rock where there is a hissing serpent. If she enters, there is the serpent. If she stays out, there is the hawk. The Israelites were in a similar predicament at that moment: the sea forming

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    111

a bar and the enemy pursuing. Immediately they set their mind upon prayer. Of them it is stated in the traditional sacred writings, “O my dove that is in the clefts of the rock, [hidden by the cliff]” (Song 2:14). And when it further says, “For sweet is your voice and your appearance is beautiful” (ibid.), it means, “for your voice is sweet in prayer,” and “your appearance is beautiful” in the study of the Torah. Another interpretation: “For your voice is sweet” in prayer, and “your appearance is beautiful” in good deeds.39 Exodus 14 describes Israel encamping at Pi-Hahirot, a site adjacent to the Reed Sea, following their initial departure from Egypt (14:2). Militarily, Israel would be pinned down in the face of Pharaoh’s army (as God predicts Pharaoh will notice; 14:3). In the narrative of Exodus, this moment of dramatic tension provides an opportunity for God to save Israel through the agency of Moses and by making a dry path for them in the sea. The verse that begins this midrash appears at the start of Moses’s narration to Israel of the salvation they are about to witness (14:13–14). After a brief excursus on the timing of God’s act of salvation, the anonymous interpreter compares Israel to a dove fleeing from a hawk and seeking refuge in a rock face where a serpent resides. Likewise Israel is pursued by Egypt (i.e., the hawk) and has her back up against the sea (i.e., the serpent). The anonymous interpreter then cites a phrase from Song 2:14a: “O my dove that is in the clefts of the rock.” The narrative context of Song 2 suggests that the male lover’s description of the female protagonist as a “dove . . . in the clefts of the rock, hidden by the cliff” is made to evoke her inaccessibility, not her predicament of being stuck between two forms of danger. 40 Despite his apparent overlooking of the broader narrative context of Song 2:14a in his intertextual reading of this verse with Exod 14:13, the interpreter’s correlation of the dove in the first half of the verse with Israel enables him to extend the comparison into the second half of the verse. He offers two interpretations of Song 2:14b, “For sweet is your voice and your appearance is beautiful.” In both interpretations, the pleasant voice of the female character is understood as describing the sweetness of Israel’s voice in prayer. The interpretations differ in that one correlates Israel’s countenance to the study of Torah (talmud torah), and the other to her performance of good deeds (ma‘aseh hattov). The offering of these two formulations seems like an attempt by the interpreter to correlate the bi-cola of Song 2:14b with the rabbinic triad of study, prayer, and good deeds (see m. Avot 1:2). Instead of correlating Song 2:14b to particular events in Israel’s history, as we saw in the last chapter, this verse provides figurations of ideal expressions of Israel’s corporate and covenantal existence. Inasmuch as the

112   

my perfect one

exodus, the experiences at Sinai, and the wilderness represent the ideal time of Israel’s relationship with God, 41 the performance of the commandments sustains Israel’s relationship with God. The typological correlation of Song 2:14b to Israel’s corporate experience thus serves a broader program of elevating rabbinic piety as the ideal, ongoing expression of Israel’s love for God.

Song of Songs and the Practice of Piety The tannaitic midrashim also correlate Song of Songs to various rituals and practices from the religion of ancient Israel and later rabbinic piety. The following excerpt from Baraita de-Meleket ha-Mishkan provides an example of the reading of a verse from Song of Songs as a figuration of the construction of the Ark of the Covenant (Exod 25:10–22, 37:1–9). Concerning it [the ark], it is stated in the traditional sacred writings, “King Solomon made him a palanquin [of wood from Lebanon. He made its pillars of silver, its back of gold, its seat of purple, its interior inlaid with love by the daughters of Jerusalem]” (Song 3:9[–10]). 42 Baraita de-Meleket ha-Mishkan is a midrashic work detailing tannaitic interpretations of the sections of Exodus related to the construction of the Tabernacle and its accouterments (see Exod 25–27, 35–40). 43 This passage is the only one in this work in which a citation from Song of Songs appears. The interpreter understands the description of Solomon’s construction of a palanquin in Song 3:9–10 as a figuration of the construction of the Ark. Scholars have long noted the similarities between a palanquin or sedan chair and the Ark (both are carried on poles and are employed for the transport of royal or important figures). 44 As we have seen in more detail in the last chapter, the rabbis frequently correlate Song of Songs to the locus of divine presence, whether at Sinai or in the Temple. The uniqueness of this passage lies in that it sees in Song of Songs a more elaborate descriptive figuration of this locus. The previous example is fairly atypical, however, in the tannaitic midrashim. Most passages that correlate Song of Songs to various rituals and practices connect it instead to practices that Jews observed after the destruction of the Temple. The following passage illustrates this tendency by linking Song of Songs to the commandments of tefillin (phylacteries), mezuzah, and tsitsit (ritual fringes). Beloved is Israel for Scripture [hakkatuv45] has surrounded them with commandments: tefillin on their heads, tefillin on their arms, mezuzah on their doors, tsitsit on their clothes. About them David said, “I praise

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    113

you seven times each day for your just rules” (Ps 119:164). He went into a bathhouse and saw himself naked. He said, “Woe is me for I am naked of commandments.” When he saw the mark of his circumcision, he began reciting praise regarding it. Just as it is said, “For the leader; on the eighth. A psalm of David” (Ps 12:1). A parable of a king of flesh and blood who said to his wife, “Bedeck yourself in all your finest jewelry in order that you be desirable to me.” In a similar manner, the blessed Holy One said to Israel, “My children, mark yourself with commandments in order that you will be desirable to me.” And thus it says, “You are beautiful, my darling, as Tirṣah” (Song 6:4), i.e., you are beautiful when you are desirable to me. 46 This passage appears in sections of both Sifre Devarim and Mekilta le-Devarim wherein Deut 6:4–9 are discussed. This passage, along with Deut 11:13–21 and Num 15:37–41, form the scriptural core of a major section of the rabbinic prayer service, the Shema and its accompanying blessings (m. Ber. 2:2). At the heart of these scriptural passages is the confession of the singularity of Israel’s God and Israel’s consequent obligation to serve her God. These passages connect these statements with the injunctions to “bind these words on your hands, affix them as frontlets between your eyes, and inscribe them on the doorposts of your houses and your gates,” as well as to manufacture fringes on the corners of the garments of male Israelites. In Second Temple and later Rabbinic Judaism, these commandments were concretized into the legal obligations to bind phylacteries or tefillin containing parchments with four scriptural passages (Exod 13:1–10, 11–16; Deut 6:4–9, 11:13–21) on one’s hand and one’s head, to affix parchments to one’s doorposts with two scriptural passages on them (Deut 6:4–9, 11:13–21), and to place fringes (tsitsit) on the four corners of one’s outer garment in fulfillment of the commandment in Num 15:37–41 (m. Menaḥ. 3:7). 47 After this statement about the role of these three commandments for Israel, the anonymous interpreter turns to a brief story about David. Israel is embodied in this midrash through David. Their receipt of the commandments bestowed by Scripture (hakkatuv) marks them as “beloved.” David evokes this point when he extols God’s “righteous ordinances” in Ps 119, understood by the interpreter to refer to the material commandments of tefillin, mezuzah, and tsitsit. Here the interpreter deftly links the psalm to these commandments by the number seven. David “praise[s]” God “concerning [his] righteous ordinances” when he puts on two tefillin, one mezuzah, and fringes on the four corners of his garments, or in four places. When David appears nude in a Roman bathhouse he looks upon his nudity

114   

my perfect one

and feels unadorned by God’s commandments. At this point he sees his circumcised member and recalls that it too is a mark of the covenant (Gen 17:11) and hence an eighth place of adornment, presumably inscribed on his body on the eighth day of his life (17:12). 48 David’s moment of realization of an eighth place of covenantal adornment leads the interpreter to point to Ps 12, which is attributed to David, in which the number eight appears in the first verse. 49 The interpreter appends a mashal lemelekh, or king parable, to this section. In this parable, Israel is placed in the role of the wife bedecking herself in order to gain the favor of her husband. She adorns herself with the commandments in order to make herself appealing to the Holy One. Song 6:4 provides scriptural support for this description. Through this verse, rabbinically interpreted, the husband (God/King) declares to her that she is beautiful like the town of Tirṣah, former capital of the northern kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 14:17, 15:21, 33, 16:6, 8–10, 15–18, 23–24; 2 Kgs 15:14). The word Tirṣah is built on the root r.ṣ.h, which is understood by the interpreter as meaning, “to desire.” Adorned with these material commandments, Israel becomes “desirable” (reṣuyah) and beautiful to her husband. In this interpretation, Song of Songs provides a figuration of Israel’s ideal state through her observance of the commandments. Its use here further reinforces rabbinic commitment to the commandments of tefillin, mezuzah, tsitsit, and circumcision. The correlation of Song of Songs to a post-70 c.e. rabbinic institution is also seen in this brief excerpt from Mekilta le-Devarim. In this passage, the giving of charity serves as an action on par with Israel’s sacrificial donation to God. And thus the blessed Holy One said to Israel, “My children, every time that you provide for the needy, I credit you as if you are providing for me.” As it is written, “My offering, my bread for fire offerings” (Num 28:2). For they are before him as food and drink. “Yet, every time that you provide for the poor, I credit you as if you are providing for me.” As it is written, “My sister, my darling [ra‘yati]” (Song 5:2). And “my darling” only means “my supporter.”50 In effect, charity for the poor replaces the now inoperable Temple cult. While the passage does not comment on the present absence of the Temple cult, it textually demonstrates the equality of charity to sacrificial donation through the juxtaposition of Num 28:2 and Song 5:2.51 The anonymous interpreter cites Num 28:2 to prove that sacrificial donation is basically the provision of food and drink to the Divine. In this verse, God describes Israel’s offering as

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    115

“my offering, my bread” through the repetition of first-person singular possessive suffixes attached to the words “offering” and “bread” (qorbani laḥmi). This repetition not only affirms God’s claim over these offerings but also establishes the equivalency of “offering” and “bread.” In the rabbinic lexicon, “bread” (leḥem) is a metonym for the more extensive category of “food and drink.”52 In this reading of Num 28:2, all offerings are bread—or rather food and drink—for God. The interpreter next restates the assertion that provision for the poor equals sacrificial donation. In order to support this assertion, he appeals to a snippet of Song 5:2, “My sister, my darling.” At first blush, these verses have absolutely nothing to do with one another. But for the rabbinic composer of this passage, these verses share a deep affinity because the nouns in them appear in apposition to each other with first-person pronominal suffixes on both words: “my offering, my bread” (qorbani laḥmi) and “my sister, my companion” (aḥoti ra‘yati).53 The interpreter understands the word ra‘yati, which I have rendered as “my darling,” as meaning “my provider” (zayyenti). The interpretation probably arises from the fact that the root from which ra‘yati comes is homophonous with the root meaning, “to shepherd, tend, graze.” Thus, the anonymous interpreter understands ra‘yati as meaning “my tender” or “my shepherd.” In effect, the female protagonist of Song of Songs, understood as Israel, is described as God’s provider.54 Thus, Israel’s tending to the needs of others is accounted as if it is provision for God. While the final move of this midrash may seem, and rightly so, to stretch beyond the bounds of logic, this mode of interpretation is consistent with other passages in Second Temple Jewish and later rabbinic literature that envision personal actions of piety such as Torah study, prayer, and charity as appropriate equivalents to Temple sacrifice. For instance, in the second century b.c.e. work Sirach, the thank offering is described as equivalent to the giving of charity (35:4). In rabbinic literature, charity, along with prayer and Torah study, serve as formal, required, and regular actions of Jewish piety that are equivalent to the Temple service.55 For instance, in tractate Sukkah of the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Elazar describes the one who gives charity, based on Prov 21:3, as “greater than the one who offers all the sacrifices” (49b).56 In the particular case of our excerpt from Mekilta le-Devarim, the evocation of rabbinic charity serves a specific purpose. Here, the comparison between offerings to God and the practice of charity reinforces the conception that Israel’s piety expresses her unique relationship with her divine lover, God. Israel’s unique relationship with God and her practice of piety also extend to the structure of her polity. In this brief excerpt from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, an anonymous interpreter employs Song 6:9 in order to highlight the selection of a native Israelite king for Israel.

116   

my perfect one

“A kingdom” (Exod 19:6). I will only enthrone one of your own as king, not one from the nations of the world. And thus it says, “Only one is my dove, my perfect one” (Song 6:9).57 Here Song 6:9 is taken as a proof of the assertion that Israel’s king must be an Israelite. The interpreter does not cite the well-known commandment from the law of the king in Deuteronomy that enjoins this restriction upon Israel (Deut 17:15). Rather he cites Song 6:9 to highlight the “homogeneity” of Israel, to use Lauterbach’s terminology, and to suggest that the introduction of a non-Israelite king would defile God’s beloved dove.58 The identification of the dove with Israel, and by extension her king, perhaps builds upon the correlation of the dove with Moses as representative of all Israel in Shirta 9 discussed earlier. By extension Moses, as the dove, represents the ideal of Israel. Only a native Israelite king has the capacity to live up to this ideal, whereas a foreign king would only pollute Israel. Here a verse from Song of Songs provides an ideal type that is correlated to the reality of Israel’s institutions. In this case a verse from Song of Songs provides further scriptural support for theoretical rabbinic ideals of Israel’s polity and social institutions. The use of social institutions to protect Israel’s uniqueness extends also to early rabbinic conceptions of sexual and marital norms, and the Tannaim employ Song of Songs to reinforce these norms.59 In a section of Meklita deRabbi Yishmael that explores what Israel has done to merit their redemption from Egypt, an anonymous question is raised: how would God have been able to keep his promises to Abraham to redeem his descendants “as yet they had no religious duties to perform by which to merit redemption?”60 The editor next inserts a brief discussion of how Israel secured redemption by keeping the commandments of circumcision and the paschal lamb four days before the Exodus. This discussion concludes with the rabbinic statement: “For one cannot obtain a reward except for deeds.”61 The editor then turns to a discussion commenced by Rabbi Eliezer ha-Kappar on the four most meritorious virtues in the world by which Israel is denoted: “that they were above suspicion regarding chastity and in regard to tale bearing, that they did not change their names and that they did not change their language.”62 Presumably the editor appended this extended discussion of pre-exodus Israel to the explication of what deeds enabled their redemption through the means of associative logic. Guarding the paschal lamb and practicing circumcision clearly evince Israel’s obedience to God in the first section. The four characteristics that exemplify Israel in this second section are suggestive of their fidelity and piety, though clear scriptural evidence of specific commandment keeping is not immediately evident.

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    117

The citation of a verse from Song of Songs comes up in the discussion of chastity that is introduced by Rabbi Eliezer ha-Kappar’s comments. This passage begins with a query posed by the anonymous editor. And how do we know that they were above suspicion in regard to chastity? It is said, “There came out . . . one whose mother was Israelite and whose father was Egyptian” (Lev 24:10). This verse actually proclaims the excellence of Israel. This instance was the only one among them of unchastity; hence Scripture makes special mention of it. Of them it is stated in the traditional sacred writings, “A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a fountain locked, a sealed-up spring” (Song 4:12). “A garden locked,” refers to the men; “a fountain locked,” refers to the women. Rabbi Nathan says, “a garden locked,” refers to the married women, “a sealed-up spring,” refers to the betrothed women. Another interpretation: “a garden locked, a fountain locked,” signify two modes of cohabitation.63 The proof of Israel’s lack of reproach regarding chastity begins with a verse from Lev 24. In this verse, the Torah reveals the identity of an individual who blasphemes the name of God while contending with another Israelite. The blasphemer’s parentage is half-Israelite and half-Egyptian. For the anonymous interpreter (and perhaps the priestly writer of Lev 24), the mixed parentage of the blasphemer seems to account for his misuse of the divine name. This detail is also exegetically significant for the anonymous interpreter because it is the only instance in the Torah that records the violation of restrictions on intermarriage (see Deut 23:4–9). It may also be the case, as is made explicit in the expansive parallel text in Leviticus Rabbah, that this unnamed blasphemer was thought to have been sired through the adulterous union of his Israelite mother, Shelomit daughter of Dibri, with an Egyptian.64 In either case, from the perspective of this midrashic text, Lev 24:10 is the only instance of a possible aberration of Israel’s practice of marital fidelity during the exodus generation. The aberration recorded in Lev 24:10 contrasts with the norm that the anonymous interpreter understands to be figured in Song 4:12, “A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a fountain locked, a sealed-up spring.” The editor offers three interpretations of this verse. In the first two (the first anonymous and the second by Rabbi Nathan), various components of the verse are correlated to different groups in Israelite society: men, women, married women, and betrothed women. There is no elaboration on these correlations. The reader is left with the impression that the language of “locked” and

118   

my perfect one

“sealed” in the verse refers to the chastity or fidelity of these respective groups and by extension all of Israel. The third interpretation focuses on the repetition of the verb na‘ul (“locked”) in the verse as signifying two different types of cohabitation. There is no elaboration in our passage on the types of cohabitation alluded to here.65 All three interpretations share a common framework in which the verse refers to Israel, the female character of Song of Songs. Additionally, the verse is interpreted in idealized terms as an example of the covenant fidelity for which Israel generally strived prior to their redemption from Egypt and the giving of the commandments at Sinai. Through the contrast with Lev 24:10, the verse’s referent is linked firmly to the time of Israel’s wilderness wanderings, when the generation of the exodus continued to nurture their relationship with God. These interpretations correlate Song 4:12 to an ideal time in Israel’s history when God and Israel were experiencing a period of marital bliss after their union at Sinai. The idealized figurations of Song of Songs have pedagogic value for the rabbis in that they serve to instantiate a particular mode of affective covenantal love expressed through the mitsvot, or commandments, or, in the case of this passage, through striving for one of the virtues that marked the generation of the exodus. They also serve to reinforce rabbinic ideals of both the virtue of chastity and of refraining from sex with gentiles.

Song of Songs and the Affective Character of Rabbinic Piety The purpose of this chapter has been to explore the ways in which the Tannaim made use of the descriptive poetry in Song of Songs, specifically the portrayals of the female protagonist, in order to characterize Israel as God’s beloved and to shape rabbinic practice. They employed this poetry in order to frame their understanding of the relationship between God and Israel as unique (in contrast to God’s relationships to other peoples and nations), reciprocal, and marked by a deep regard for Israel as having treasured, covenantal status (segullah). Through the descriptive language of Song of Songs, God’s commandments to Israel become not only the obligatory actions of a vassal to his suzerain but also the expressions of devotion between two lovers. The Tannaim further deploy these poetic descriptions of Israel’s beauty in order to secure the Torah as the guiding force of rabbinic practice. Song of Songs buttresses their portrayal of rabbinic piety, particularly as forming a basis for the justification of Israel’s performance of a wide range of divine commandments. Now that the textual corpus of tannaitic interpretation of Song of

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    119

Songs has been more fully set out, the next issue to address is the degree to which the tannaitic interpretations of Song of Songs preserve the erotic character of this poetry, which, to the modern reader, drips with lusty sensuality. Scholars of the Hebrew Bible generally appraise pre-modern readings of Song of Songs, such as those found in the tannaitic midrashim, as sublimating its erotic intensity. Biblical scholars largely regard these readings as an artifice erected by ancient interpreters to accommodate this apparently bawdy book to a canon of sacred scripture or to provide a theologically acceptable interpretation of Song of Songs for the exegete’s community of faith.66 For instance, Ariel and Chana Bloch argue: These men genuinely believed that in reading the text allegorically they were serving a higher purpose. They sought to spiritualize the Song, to purge its mortal grossness, the way some Greek philosophers interpreted away the carnality of the Homeric gods, or Philo converted the legends of Genesis into a series of philosophical and moral truths.67 In their popular presentation of the manuscripts of Song of Songs from Qumran in The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich similarly contend: Because of its frankness and unabashed celebration of sexual love, some of the early Rabbis and early church fathers were disturbed by this delightful little book, interpreting it in a variety of ways that played down its sexuality. Some early Jewish and Christian sages found the contents plainly unacceptable and attempted to block its acceptance into the canon of the Hebrew Bible. Certain Rabbis, however, recognized the Song of Songs as Scripture but sought to interpret its contents in terms of the relationship between God (the lover or bridegroom) and Israel (the beloved or bride). Many church fathers who also accepted this book as Scripture interpreted it as depicting the relationship between Christ and his church.68 These evaluations raise the important question of whether or not the early rabbinic sages sublimated the erotic dimension of Song of Songs. James A. Sanders, among others, has noted that there was no aversion among early Jews and Christians “to ascrib[ing] sensuality to God.”69 Certainly, we have no evidence from antiquity that the first interpreters of Song of Songs were embarrassed by its explicit sexuality.70 Although early interpreters may have foreclosed the legitimacy of a non-theological interpretation of Song of Songs,

120   

my perfect one

as Rabbi Akiva does in t. Sanh. 12:10 when he forbids its intoning in a banquet hall,71 the only apparent evidence of any embarrassment or ambivalence on the part of early interpreters regarding the sexuality of Song of Songs occurs in two passages: m. Yad. 3:5 and Avot de-Rabbi Natan version A. As David Stern points out regarding these two passages, they constitute limited evidence for which one finds little corroboration in the larger corpus of rabbinic literature.72 Given the difficulty of determining how the Tannaim felt about Song of Songs from these passages, a safer course of action is to infer their understanding of Song of Songs from how they actually interpret the text, as I seek to do in this volume. The dominant narrative of the sublimation of the erotic in Song of Songs by ancient interpreters has not, however, figured prominently in discussions of rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs by scholars of classic rabbinic literature. In fact, quite to the contrary, scholars of rabbinic literature either have ignored the question altogether or have articulated an understanding of rabbinic interpretation that points to the rabbis’ appreciation of the erotic character of the poetry. For instance, Daniel Boyarin, in his discussion of a famous passage attributed to Rabbi Akiva in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, writes, The midrash represents the relationship of God and the Jewish People as an erotic one—through the reading of Song of Songs into Exodus. However, Thanatos also introduces itself into this erotic idyll— formally and thematically: “For, lo, the Nations of the World keep asking Israel, ‘What is thy Beloved more than another beloved, O most beautiful of women’ (Cant. 5.9), that for His sake you die, for His sake you are slain, as it is said, We have loved you unto death [‘ad mwt], ‘for thus to the maidens [‘almwt] love Thee’ (Cant. 1.3)—and it is said, ‘for Your sake we have been killed all the day’ (Ps. 44:23).”73 Gerson Cohen similarly highlights the endurance of the sensual dimensions of the poetry in rabbinic interpretation. He writes, “In all likelihood, the allegorizing activity took place not long after the Song itself was compiled and both the book (understood quite sensually) as well as the religious interpretation of it reflect two sides of the identical cultural temper. The motif underlying both of these is Love.”74 The history of scholarship on this question need not detain us. Suffice it to say the contrast between biblical and rabbinics scholars on this question suggests that the degree to which the rabbis preserve the erotic intensity of Song of Songs in their interpretation remains, in part, an open question.

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    121

The survey and analysis I have undertaken in this book, and this chapter in particular, clearly shows that the tannaitic midrashim betray no signs of ambivalence or embarrassment on the part of the early rabbis regarding the sensual and erotic character of Song of Songs. Did the rabbis, then, preserve the sensual dimension of “this erotic idyll” and simply translate it into a religious interpretation? The material discussed in this chapter suggests that the answer to this question is “not quite.” The largely anonymous interpretations in the tannaitic midrashim are anything but sensual and erotic. It is doubtful that they would ever tickle the prurient imagination of anyone. Yet, these interpretations preserve the prophetic marriage metaphor employed most frequently by the prophets to describe the relationship between Israel and God. As we saw in chapter 2, the Tannaim employ Song of Songs in order to characterize the ideal and affective, dare I say “honeymoon,” phase of Israel’s relationship with God before it devolved into adultery and abuse (e.g., Hos 2:4–17).75 As I noted in the introduction, Jeremiah describes this idyllic stage in their relationship, “Thus said the Lord: ‘I accounted to your favor the devotion of your youth. Your love as a bride—how you followed me in the wilderness in a land not sown’” (2:2).76 Though this verse is never connected to Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim, it is as if the rabbis are filling in the back story of this verse by correlating Song of Songs to the exodus, the Sinai theophany, and the wilderness wanderings. Whether they intended to do so or not, correlating Song of Songs with this period in Israel’s history resuscitates the prophetic marriage metaphor and helps to shape rabbinic piety in terms of obedience animated by love and affection. In addition to revitalizing the marriage metaphor through their interpretation of Song of Songs, the Tannaim also firmly link this metaphor with the conception that God as Israel’s king makes a covenant with his people at Sinai. The fusion of these two understandings of their relationship was most clearly seen at work in the interpretation of Deut 14:2. In this passage from Mekilta le-Devarim, the anonymous interpreter quotes the description of Israel as God’s “treasured possession” (segullah). He goes on to correlate this description with Song 6:11 in order to highlight God’s monarchic devotion to Israel. In this brief passage, the interpreter joins the marriage metaphor to the description of God as Israel’s suzerain. Certainly, the union of these two metaphors is present already in the prophetic literature and implicit in the canonical juxtaposition of the Prophets with the Torah. However, the correlation of Song of Songs to this material by the Tannaim inextricably links these two metaphors in Jewish thought and makes their union important to the conceptualization of rabbinic piety.77 While the rabbinic piety that emerges in the wake of Song of Songs lacks the explicit eroticism of the poetry, it has

122   

my perfect one

utilized this work in creative ways to shape rabbinic thought and practice that is characterized by intense and reciprocal devotion and affection. It is hard to imagine that such portrayals of God’s relationship with Israel could emerge without the descriptions of mutual affection and reciprocity portrayed in Song of Songs. In the next two chapters, I turn to examine how the Tannaim employ the language of Song of Songs to describe the nature and character of Israel’s beloved. In much the same way as we have seen in this chapter, the correlation of Song of Songs with the idyllic narrative of the exodus, the Sinai theophany, and the wilderness wanderings tempers the motif of God-as-king who bestows a covenant to his people with the affectionate interplay of the two lovers of Song of Songs. In this portrayal, the divine warrior-king also takes on the characteristics of the devoted, faithful, and affectionate lover of Song of Songs.

Notes 1. These formal distinctions are taken from Michael V. Fox’s work. He writes (The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs [Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985], 272): “In Canticles the theme of Praise of the Beloved takes three forms: 1. The waṣf or ‘Description Song’ (Beschreibungslied), which is composed mainly of simple, item-by-item praise of parts of the beloved’s body or other qualities (4:1–7; 5:10–16; 6:4–10; 7:2–10a). 2. The Admiration Song (Bewunderungslied), in which one lover speaks and in which most of the declaration and metaphors apply to the beloved’s beauty as a whole and its effect on the onlooker (4:9–15). 3. Admiration Dialogue, in which statements of praise and admiration are spoken by both lovers (1:9–16a; 2:1–3).” See also the recent articles of Anselm C. Hagedorn, who utilizes the theoretical insights of Jacques Lacan in order to interpret the Description Songs: “Die Frau des Hohenlieds zwischen babylonisch-assyrischer Morphoskopie und Jacques Lacan,” ZAW 122 (2010): 417–30 (part 1), 593–609 (part 2). For a recent comprehensive treatment of descriptive language in Song of Songs, see Brian P. Gault, “Body Concealed, Body Revealed: Shedding Comparative Light on the Body in Song of Songs” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 2012). 2. Fox (The Song of Songs, 232) notes the work of J. G. Wetzstein (“Die syrische Dreschtafel,” Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 5 [1873]: 270–302), who pointed out similarities between Song of Songs and waṣfs sung at Syrian weddings. This observation gave support to the theory that Song of Songs was originally a wedding song (see my discussion of Origen’s understanding of Song of Songs as an epithalamium in chapter 1). There is a hint that some forms of descriptive poems were sung by some Jews in late antiquity before a bride (see b. Ketub. 17a). Wilhelm Rudolph (Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klagelieder

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    123 [KAT, XVII, 1–3; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1962], 103–105) notes, however, that waṣfs were employed as a poetic form at events other than weddings. 3. Fox, The Song of Songs, 128. 4. Another example of this literary form from ancient Jewish literature appears in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGenar 20:2–7). An edition and translation of this passage is available in Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20), A Commentary (3d ed.: BibOr 18b; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2004), 101. Given the generic similarities between this passage and the exemplars in Song of Songs and the lack of concrete linguistic parallels, it is probably most appropriate to see Hirqanos’s description of Sarai as another example of a waṣf but not necessarily an interpretation of Song of Songs per se. On this point, see Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, “Philologische Miszellen zu den Qumrantexten,” RevQ 2 (1959–60): 46–48; Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 193; and Sara Japhet, “The ‘Description Poems’ in Ancient Jewish Sources and in the Jewish Exegesis of the Song of Songs,” in A Critical Engagement: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of J. Cheryl Exum (ed. David J. A. Clines and Ellen van Wolde; Hebrew Bible Monographs 38; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011), 216–29, here 217–19. For a consideration of the methodological issues attendant to discerning allusions to Song of Songs in later literature, see Jonathan Kaplan, “The Song of Songs from the Bible to the Mishnah,” HUCA 81 (2010/2013): 43–66. A similar survival of the descriptive poem also appears in the longer version of Joseph and Asenath; see Jos. Asen. 18:7–9. Ross Shepard Kraemer argues for strong literary dependence between this section and the descriptive poem in Song 4. See her discussion of the connections between these two pericopes in When Asenath Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 70–73, 260–61. See also Othmar Keel, The Song of Songs, A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1994), 20–21. 5. See Adolf Erman, The Literature of the Ancient Egyptians (trans. Aylward M. Blackman; London: Methuen, 1927), 242–43; John Bradley White, A Study of the Language of Love in the Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Poetry (SBLDS 38; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1978), 67–68. Note also Fox, The Song of Songs; Keel, The Song of Songs, 20–24; and Roland E. Murphy, The Song of Songs: A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or the Song of Songs (Hermeneia; ed. S. Dean McBride Jr.; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1990), 42–53. As White notes (p. 68), “There are four substantial collections of ancient Egyptian love poems which have come down to us: the Papyrus Harris 500; the Turin Papyrus; the Cairo love songs; and the Chester Beatty Papyrus.” Fox undertakes a comprehensive study of the Egyptian materials in his commentary on Song of Songs. See also Alfred Hermann, “Beiträge zur Erklärung der ägyptischen Liebesdichtung,” Ägyptologische Studien 29 (1955): 118–39; idem, Altägyptische Liebesdichtung (Wiesbaden, 1959). There is a debate about whether this material has cultic

124   

my perfect one

origins. Keel (The Song of Songs, 22–24) and Hermann (Altägyptische Liebesdichtung) see the roots of this material in Egyptian cultic poetry. Fox forcefully rejects this association (The Song of Songs, 271). 6. On similar formal features in the two bodies of literature, see Keel (The Song of Songs) and Fox (The Song of Songs). Note Keel’s point that Song of Songs lacks the repetitive litanies common to the Sumerian sacred marriage ritual (20; see also Murphy, Song of Songs, 53). On the use of first-person speech in the Egyptian materials, see Murphy, The Song of Songs, 47, and Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 2 (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1976), 181. 7. As Richard N. Soulen aptly asks, “To what end is this type of poetic imagination?” See Soulen, “The Waṣfs of the Song of Songs and Hermeneutic,” in A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs (The Feminist Companion to the Bible 1; ed. Athalya Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 214–24, here 215; reprinted from JBL 86 (1967): 183–90. Soulen (ibid., 222–24), as well as Othmar Keel (Song of Songs, 19), locates these poems in the context of the larger project of Song of Songs and argues that they serve both to evoke the expected experience of love and embrace and to invite the listener into that experience. Note Marcia Falk’s critique that Soulen’s analysis reduces the metaphors of Song of Songs to their emotional referent and, in doing so, “deprives the relationship between tenor and vehicle of meaning.” See Falk, “The waṣf,” in A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs, 225–33, here 228–29; reprinted from Love Lyrics in the Hebrew Bible: A Translation and Literary Study of the Song of Songs (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982), 80–87. Note that the symbolic and emblematic characteristics of the waṣf is discussed in treatments of classical Arabic poetry. On this point, see Akiko Motoyoshi Sumi, Description in Classical Arabic Poetry: Waṣf, Ekphrasis, and Interarts Theory (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 5, 17. Athalya Brenner has observed the parodying quality of Song 7:2–10a, an observation that calls into question a uniform evaluation of Song of Songs as simply expressing unrequited love and imagining its consummation as suggested by Soulen and Keel’s interpretations. See Athalya Brenner, “‘Come Back, Come Back the Shulamite’ (Song of Songs 7:1–10): A Parody of the Waṣf Genre,” in A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs, 234–57, here 239; reprinted from A. Brenner and Y. T. Radday, eds., On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990), 251–76. In contrast Fiona C. Black has challenged the dominant approach of biblical scholarship, which she critiques as smoothing over the rough spots of Song of Songs. She adopts instead Mikhail Bakhtin’s notion of the “grotesque” for her reading of body imagery in Song of Songs. See Fiona C. Black, “Beauty or the Beast? The Grotesque Body in the Song of Songs,” BibInt 8 (2000): 302–23, here 307 n. 17. See also idem, The Artifice of Love: Grotesque Bodies and the Song of Songs (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 392; London: T & T Clark, 2009) and Mikhail M. Bakhtin,

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    125 Rabelais and his World (trans. Hélène Iswolsky; Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2009). Black’s suggestive reading of Song of Songs notwithstanding, the descriptive poems in Song of Songs tend to resist analysis of their genre and hence their poetic function because scholars far too often, as Scott B. Noegel and Gary A. Rendsburg (Solomon’s Vineyard: Literary and Linguistic Studies in the Song of Songs [Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2009], 136) rightly observe, describe the waṣf as a genre category rather than as a poetic form. As they note, “technically speaking, the waṣf does not constitute a ‘genre’ of Arabic poetry. Rather . . . it is a term that describes a poetic feature, or the way in which certain genres of poetry proceed, such as the nasīb.” They argue that the waṣfs in Song of Songs function as poetic features of a genre analogous to the later Arabic genres of hijāʾ and tašbīb; these later genres are employed to criticize monarchic power through satirizing royal excess and lewdly characterizing figures in the royal household (ibid., 133–34). They argue that Song of Songs originally served as a political invective written in the northern kingdom of Israel during the ninth century B.C.E. against the excesses of the House of David in the southern kingdom of Judah. While not all will agree with their analysis of the social function of Song of Songs, their corrective to our understanding of the waṣf as a poetic feature rather than a genre category challenges interpreters to consider more carefully the genre of Song of Songs and its social function. 8. Shirta 9 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, p. 69, lines 28–34; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 145, lines 17–19; p. 146, lines 1–2). 9. Note that a tradition that correlates Song 6:8 to the nations of the world is attributed to Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean, in Mekilta le-Devarim (Hoffmann, ed., Midrash Tannaim, 190). 10. Judah Goldin, The Song at the Sea, being a Commentary on a Commentary in Two Parts (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971), 212. 11. Louis Finkelstein, “The Mekilta and its Text,” PAAJR 5 (1933): 31. Cf. the suggested emendations of Shevut Yehudah in the Leghorn edition of Mekilta and I. H. Weiss in his commentary to Mekilta, Madut Soferim (Vienna, 1865); as referenced in Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, p. 69, n. ad line 31. Goldin (The Song at the Sea, 212–13; cf. Avot deRabbi Natan 12) finds Finkelstein’s explanation plausible but suggests, “I cannot escape the feeling that the Mekilta text as it stands is in some way connected with the statement about the 80,000 young men named Aaron.” 12. I am indebted to Tzvi Novick for this suggestion; personal email correspondence 6/4/13. See m. Avot 5:21, wherein age thirty is given as the age “for strength.”   The phrase ‫ שהיה שקול כנגד הכל‬should not be understood as indicating Moses’s superiority to Israel but rather his preeminence. The formula is used elsewhere in the tannaitic midrashim to indicate the equivalence of two groups, one being a subcategory of the other, while highlighting the preeminence of

126   

my perfect one

the sub-category in relationship to the meta-category: e.g., study of Torah (subcategory) and the performance of religious duties (meta-category), in contrast to circumcision (sub-category), which is not pre-eminent among the performance of religious duties (meta-category; see Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Pisḥa 18 [Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, pp. 164–66, lines 89–113; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 72, lines 10–17; p. 73, lines 1–6]; compare Sifre Devarim 48 [Finkelstein, ed., 112]). The phrase is also used to justify the importance of “peace” at meals (Sifra, Beḥuqotai 1). See also the use of the root ‫ שקל‬to indicate equivalency in the phrases ‫ ששניהם שקולין זה כזה‬and ‫( ששלשתן שקולין כאחד‬e.g., Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Pisḥa 1 [Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, p. 2, lines 19, 23; p. 3, lines 27, 31, 34; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 1, lines 12, 14; p. 2 lines 1, 3, 5]); the parallel version to the passage from Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Shirta 9 is in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai (Shirta 35:2; Ms. Firkovich II A 268; Epstein and Melamed, eds., 95–96; Nelson, ed., 151–52). This parallel text (see n. 13) is markedly different. It focuses less on the correlation of Song 6:8 to Israel and more on Israel’s equivalence to Moses. 13. “This people” (Exod 15:13). Although the whole world is yours, you have no people other than Israel, as it is said, “This people whom I formed for myself” (Isa 43:21). Already Rabbi sat and interpreted that an Israelite woman gave birth to 600,000 in one womb. His disciples inquired of him at that moment, and they said, “Who is greater? A righteous person or all of humanity?” He said to them, “A righteous person.” They said to him, “How?” He said to them, “We find that Yochebed, the mother of Moses, gave birth to Moses, who is equal to all Israel. And thus we find that Moses was equal to all Israel at the moment that they said a certain song, just as it says, ‘Then Moses and the children of Israel sang’ (Exod 15:1).” “Never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses, etc.” (Deut 34:10). And it says, “Just as the Lord had commanded his servant Moses, etc.” (Josh 11:15). And it says, “There are sixty queens, etc.” (Song 6:8). And it says, “My dove, my perfect one, is but one” (Song 6:9). 14. A similar pattern occurs in Matt 4:1–11, wherein Jesus exemplifies Israel. 15. Pisḥa 14 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, pp. 108–9, lines 23–27; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 48, lines 12–14). 16. Solomon himself may be figuratively identified with the male lover in Song 3:6–11. On the figurative identification of Solomon with the male lover of Song of Songs and other interpretations of Solomon in Song 3:6–11, see J. Cheryl Exum, Song of Songs, A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 140–42. 17. Deut 14:2; compare, e.g., Exod 19:5; Deut 7:6, 26:18. 18. Hoffmann, ed., Midrash Tannaim, 73. 19. E.g., William L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87; Frank Moore Cross, “Kinship

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    127 and Covenant in Ancient Israel,” in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 3–21; and Jacqueline Lapsley, “Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 65 (2003): 350–69. 20. On this material, see, among others, George Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA 17 (1954): 50–76; Klaus Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (WMANT 4; 2d ed.; Kreis Moers: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964); Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (AnBib 21; 3d ed.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981); Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972); idem, Deuteronomy 1–11 (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 4–9. Weinfeld (Deuteronomy 1–11, 368) notes a letter (KTU 2.39, 7, 12) written by the Hittite emperor to his vassal, the last king of Ugarit, Ammurapi, in the end of the thirteenth century b.c.e. In the letter, the emperor refers to the king as his servant and sglt. This letter confirms that ‫ סגולה‬serves as a covenantal term describing unique status on the part of the vassal. 21. As noted by Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 368. Note that both instances are associated with David and Solomon either explicitly (in the case of 1 Chr 29:3) or implicitly through the final form of the text (Eccl 2:8; see 1:1). 22. See Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Baḥodesh 2. 23. Sifre Devarim 10 (Finkelstein, ed., p. 18, lines 7–12). A parallel version of this tradition also appears in Sifre Devarim 47 (Finkelstein, ed., p. 105, lines 1–5). Parallel versions to both of these texts can be found in Mekilta le-Devarim (Hoffmann, ed., Midrash Tannaim, 6, 40). This tradition also survives in later ­midrashic compilations (e.g., Leviticus Rabbah 30:2). 24. Hoffmann, ed., Midrash Tannaim, 6, see also 40. 25. E.g., Heb 1:8–9; Justin Martyr, Dial. 38:3; Targum Ketuvim Ps 45:3; and T. Jud. 24:1. For a more detailed discussion of these materials, see Jocelyn McWhirter, The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God: Marriage in the Fourth Gospel (SNTSMS 138; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 107–10. 26. ‫ ;למנצח‬While the root ‫ נצח‬focuses primarily on ideas of military victory, the same root in Syriac frequently means “to shine.” I would like to thank Tzvi Novick for drawing my attention to this point. 27. David M. Carr, “Gender and the Shaping of Desire in the Song of Songs and its Interpretation,” JBL 119 (2000): 233–48, here 244. 28. Ibid.; see also David M. Carr, The Erotic Word: Sexuality, Spirituality, and the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 129–34; Exum, Song of Songs, 25–28. Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (OBT; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1978), 144–65. 29. See Daniel Boyarin, Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1997).

128   

my perfect one

30. See, for instance, Gregg E. Gardner, “Giving to the Poor in Early Rabbinic Judaism” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 2009); idem, The Origins of Organized Charity in Rabbinic Judaism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015). Jordan D. Rosenblum, Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); and Tzvi Novick, “Charity and Reciprocity: Structures of Benevolence in Rabbinic Literature,” HTR 105 (2012): 33–52. 31. On the origins and extent of Mekilta da-‘Arayot, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (trans. and ed. Markus Bockmuehl; 2d ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 261; Günter Stemberger, “The Redaction and Transmission of Sifra,” in Melekhet Mahshevet: Studies in the Redaction and Development of Talmudic Literature (ed. Aaron Amit and Aharon Shemesh; Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2011), 51–67, here 51–52 (English section); and Avraham Shammah, “The Mekhiltot that are Appended to the Sifra: Mekhilta De-Miluim and Mekhilta Da-‘Arayot” (Hebrew; Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008), 185–99. 32. Sifra, Aḥarei Mot 13.14 (ed. Weiss 86a). 33. E.g., 1 Macc 2; 2 Macc 7. 34. On the topic of the eruv and its development and significance in ancient Judaism, see Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, “Diaspora Cartography: On the Rabbinic Background of Contemporary Ritual Eruv Practice,” Images 5 (2011): 14–25; eadem, “The Political Symbolism of the Eruv,” Jewish Social Studies 11 (2005): 9–35; eadem, “From Separatism to Urbanism: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Rabbinic ‘Eruv,’” DSD 11 (2004): 43–71; Alex P. Jassen, “Tracing the Threads of Jewish Law: The Sabbath Carrying Prohibition from Jeremiah to the Rabbis,” ASE 28 (2011): 253–78; idem, “Law and Exegesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Sabbath Carrying Prohibition in Comparative Perspective,” The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (ed. L. H. Schiffman, S. Tzoref; STDJ 89; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 115–56. For a comprehensive discussion of the rabbinic categories of “private” and “public” in the context of the Greco-Roman world, see Catherine Hezser, “‘Privat’ und ‘öffentlich’ im Talmud Yerushalmi und in der griechisch-römischen Antike,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture I (ed. Peter Schäfer; TSAJ 71; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 423–579. 35. N.B.: the root ‫ קום‬is used consistently in Palestinian Aramaic texts to translate both of the Hebrew roots ‫ עמד‬and ‫קום‬. On this point, see Michael Sokolof, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (2d ed.; Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University Press; Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 481 col. 2. 36. Sifre Devarim 41 (Finkelstein, ed., p. 86, line 14; p. 87, lines 1–7). A parallel version of this tradition appears in Mekilta le-Devarim (Hoffmann, ed., Midrash Tannaim, 34).

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    129 37. E.g., m. Avot 1. On the philosophical nature of rabbinic authority, see Michael S. Berger, Rabbinic Authority: The Authority of the Talmudic Sages (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). For a recent discussion of various theories of pre-rabbinic conceptions of the relationship between prophecy and interpretation in Second Temple Judaism, see Jonathan Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 137–79. 38. On the meaning of “hope” as “expectant waiting,” see Tzvi Novick, “Wages from God: The Dynamics of a Biblical Metaphor,” CBQ 73 (2011): 708–22, here 712–15. 39. Beshallaḥ 3 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, pp. 210–11, lines 81, 86–94; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 94, lines 2–3, 8–13). 40. On the theme of inaccessibility in Song of Songs, see Murphy, The Song of Songs, 141; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7c; New York: Doubleday, 1977), 400; Exum, Song of Songs, 127–28. 41. E.g., Jer 2:2–3. 42. Baraita de-Meleket ha-Mishkan 6.17–18 (Kirschner, ed., 178). 43. On the relationship of Baraita de-Meleket ha-Mishkan to Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, see Jacob N. Epstein, Introduction to Tannaitic Literature: Mishnah, Tosephta and Halachic Midrashim (Hebrew; ed. E. Z. Melamed. Jerusalem: Magness, 1957), 549; Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 253. See Chaim Milikowsky’s extensive review of Kirschner’s edition: “On Editing Rabbinic Texts: A Review Essay,” JQR 86 (1996): 409–17. See also Menaḥem I. Kahana, “Initial Observations Regarding the Baraita deMelekhet haMishkan: Text, Redaction and Publication” (Hebrew), in Melekhet Mahshevet, 55–67 (Hebrew section). 4 4. In the case of the Ark, there is some suggestion in the narrative of the Torah that the Ark served as a throne for God and its movement through the wilderness indicates the transport and progress of God with Israel. See the so-called Song of the Ark (Num 10:35–36) as well as 1 Sam 4:5. Murphy (The Song of Songs, 149) notes that meaning of ‫אפריון‬, which I have translated as palanquin, is obscure because the word is a hapax legomena. Suggestions for the origins of this word include the Greek word phoreion, the Sanskrit paryanka, and the Persian upari-yana. See the recent discussion of this topic in F. W. ­Dobbs-Allsopp, “Late Linguistic Features in the Song of Songs,” Perspectives on the Song of Songs [Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung] (ed. Anselm C. Hagedorn; BZAW 346; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 27–77, here 67–71. Murphy notes also the suggestion of Gillis Gerleman that it was derived from the Egyptian pr (“house”), which he rendered as “Thronhalle.” Gerleman’s suggestion is notably similar to the interpretation of the meaning of the word offered in Baraita de-Meleket ha-Mishkan; see Gerleman, Ruth Das Hohelied (BKAT 18; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965), 139.

130   

my perfect one

45. On the personification of the written text of Scripture (hakkatuv) and its role in delineating the view of Scripture and interpretive character of the Rabbi Ishmael midrashim, see Azzan Yadin, Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 11–33. 46. Sifre Devarim 36 (Finkelstein, ed., p. 67, line 12; p. 68, lines 1–7). A parallel version of this text can be found in Mekilta le-Devarim (Hoffmann, ed., Midrash Tannaim, 29). 47. For a more extensive discussion of the history of tefillin in the ancient world, see Yehudah B. Cohn, Tangled up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World (BJS 351; Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2008). 48. For an analysis of the visual dimensions of this passage, see Rachel Neis, The Sense of Sight in Rabbinic Culture: Jewish Ways of Seeing in Late Antiquity (Greek Culture in the Roman World; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 126–27. 49. One might be tempted to see in the correlation of this verse something more than a proof text for the number eight and a connection to David. The psalm, however, is an appeal made to God in the face of enemies and lacks extensive laudatory content. 50. Hoffmann, ed., Midrash Tannaim, 83. 51. On the role of the Temple in tannaitic rhetoric, see Naftali S. Cohn, The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis (Divinations; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012). 52. On bread as a staple food in the rabbinic (and also in the Mediterranean) diet, see Peter Garnsey, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 13–17; Gardner, “Giving to the Poor in Early Rabbinic Judaism,” 54; idem, “Let Them Eat Fish: Food for the Poor in Early Rabbinic Judaism,” JSJ 45 (2014): 250–70. Rosenblum, Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism, 17–22. 53. The apposition of successive nouns with first-person pronominal suffixes is not an uncommon occurrence in the Hebrew Bible: e.g., Gen 26:5; Exod 4:22; 2 Kgs 17:13. 54. Of course, the psalmist makes a similar declaration of God’s provision for him most famously in Ps 23:1. 55. E.g., b. Suk. 49b; see also b. Ber 26b; ARN 4:5. 56. For a discussion of the emergence of rabbinic understandings of charity and almsgiving, see Gardner, “Giving to the Poor in Early Rabbinic Judaism.” See also Gary A. Anderson, “Redeem Your Sins through Works of Charity,” in To Train his Soul in Books (ed. Robin Darling Young and Monica J. Blanchard; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 57–65; idem, Sin, A History (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009), 135–51. 57. Baḥodesh 2 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, p. 205, lines 57–58; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 208, lines 17–18).

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    131 58. Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, p. 205 n. 4. 59. For a comprehensive treatment of rabbinic ideas about sexuality, see Michael L. Satlow, Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality (BJS 303; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholar Press,1995). 60. Pisḥa 5 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, p. 33, lines 6–7; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 14, line 8). 61. Pisḥa 5 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, pp. 33–34, lines 8–14; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 14, lines 9–13). This tradition is also found in Rashi’s (Rabbi Shlomo Yitsḥaqi; 1040–1104) commentary to Exod 12:6. It is repeated and elaborated on in Naḥmanides’s (Rabbi Moses ben Naḥman or Ramban; 1194–1270) commentary to Exod 15:25 in conversation with Rashi’s commentary on the same verse. 62. Pisḥa 5 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, p. 34, lines 16–17; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 14, lines 14–15). 63. Pisḥa 5 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, pp. 34–35, lines 18–25; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 14, lines 15–19; p. 15, line 1). Note that Lauterbach renders the last interpretation “means, shut up with respect to the two modes of cohabitation.” 64. Lev. Rab. 32:5; see also Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, p. 35 n. 2. 65. Song Rab. 4:25 attributes to Rabbi Nathan a similar interpretation of Song 4:12 that defines these two modes of cohabitation as being two ways of engaging in intercourse with a woman: in the customary manner (kedarkah) and in the noncustomary manner (šelo kedarkah). 66. See also David Carr’s (“Gender and the Shaping of Desire,” 233–35) important summary of this scholarly narrative. John Barton (“The Canonicity of the Song of Songs,” in Perspectives on the Song of Songs [Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung] [ed. Anselm C. Hagedorn; BZAW 346; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005], 1–7, here 1) describes this narrative as reflecting “the general consensus” of scholars. 67. Ariel Bloch and Chana Bloch, The Song of Songs, A New Translation (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1995), 31. Fiona C. Black, writing from a feminist perspective, takes a slightly different approach and argues that classical as well as modern literary-historical interpretation express “scholarly . . . unease” that ultimately distorts and compromises the descriptions of the female body in Song of Songs; see Black, “Unlikely Bedfellows: Allegorical and Feminist Readings of Song of Songs 7.1–8,” in The Song of Songs: A Feminist Companion to the Bible 6 (Second Series) (ed. Athalya Brenner and Carole R. Fontaine; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 104–29, here 104. In her essay, she goes on to chart a more appreciative appraisal of the phenomenological parallels between allegorical and feminist interpretation. Cf. Chana Bloch’s recent discussion of her position in “Translating Eros,” in Scrolls of Love: Ruth and the Song of Songs (ed. Peter S. Hawkins and Lesleigh Cushing Stahlberg; New York: Fordham University Press, 2006), 151–61, 340–41, here 152; see also David Stern’s succinct summary of the position typified by Bloch’s statement in David

132   

my perfect one

Stern, “Ancient Jewish Interpretation of the Song of Songs in a Comparative Context,” in Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Cultural Exchange: Comparative Exegesis in Context (ed. Natalie B. Dohrmann and David Stern; Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 87–107, 263–72, here 89. 68. Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1999), 611; note that Barton (“The Canonicity of the Song of Songs,” 1) also reproduces this quote. Aage Bentzen (“Remarks on the Canonisation of the Song of Solomon,” Studia Orientalia Ioanni Pedersen [Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1953], 41–47, here 45–47) argues similarly to Abegg et al., “when a number of such songs [including the Song of Songs and Psalm 45] had gained canonical status, the theologians step in to protect the holy texts against ‘improper’ use.” Cf. David J. A. Clines, “Why is There a Song of Songs, and What Does It Do to You if You Read It?” in Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 94–121, here 112–13. 69. James A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (2d ed.; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2005), 135. 70. As David Carr (“Gender and the Shaping of Desire,” 247) notes, “For the ancient Israelites, the jump from human male-female gender to divine-human gender was smaller than it is for us.” 71. See also Stern, “Ancient Jewish Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” 90. In fact as Baruch Alster notes, the earliest rabbinic interpretations of Song of Songs preserve no indication of an independent “literal” level to the text in their interpretations. See Alster, “Human Love and Its Relationship to Spiritual Love in Jewish Exegesis on the Song of Songs” (Hebrew; Ph.D. diss.; Bar-Ilan University, 2006), 9. 72. Stern, “Ancient Jewish Interpretation of the Song of Songs,” 91. 73. Daniel Boyarin, “‘Language Inscribed by History on the Bodies of Living Beings’: Midrash and Martyrdom,” Representations 25 (1989): 139–51, here 144. See also idem, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1999), 109–11. 74. Gerson Cohen, “The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religious Mentality,” in Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures (JPS Scholar of Distinction Series; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 1–17, here 13–14; reprinted from The Samuel Friedland Lectures, 1960–1966 (ed. Louis Finkelstein; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1966). Cohen argues that this portrayal is essential and emerged because the prophetic characterizations of Israel’s relationship with God as a marital relationship are primarily negative. As Stern (“Ancient Jewish Interpretations of Song of Songs,” 91) notes, “It was this absent

Female Beauty and Rabbinic Piety    133 positive figure, Cohen argued, that the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs provided as a dialogue of the mutual longing and desire that Israel and God express for each other.” 75. For a recent treatment of the prophetic marriage metaphor, see Carleen R. Mandolfo, Daughter Zion Talks Back to the Prophets: A Dialogic Theology of the Book of Lamentations (Semeia Studies 58; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), particularly 29–54. 76. See also a similar idea expressed in Prov 2:17. 77. E.g., note the evocation of Deuteronomistic language of covenant blessing (e.g., Deut 11:13–17) in the context of the re-betrothal scene in Hos 2:18–25.

4

Israel’s Ideal Man the female protagonist in Song of Songs provided a ready resource for the Tannaim in charting their vision of what it meant to exemplify ideal Israel, as we saw in the last chapter. In this chapter, I turn to examine how descriptions of the male beloved in Song of Songs were utilized in order to characterize God. In the examples found in the tannaitic midrashim, the descriptive language from Song of Songs, frequently appealing to the waṣf, or descriptive poem, in Song 5:10–16, is employed in order to highlight the uniqueness and exemplarity of Israel’s God. Two primary interpretive strategies are used in service of this descriptive program. First, the Tannaim highlight God’s character in contradistinction to the attributes of the nations of the world and their gods. Second, they describe God’s attributes in correspondence to the features of ideal Israel. These two strategies have the combined effect of describing God’s attributes not as abstract ideals but as conditioned by the particular relationship of God and Israel. The result of these two interpretive strategies enables the Tannaim to articulate two additional points about the import of God’s uniqueness and exemplarity. First, they employ descriptions of the male beloved in order to depict the Torah as an expression of God’s love. Second, as we will see in an example from Sifre Devarim, they interpret Song of Songs to help shape Jewish piety through a rabbinic expression of imitatio Dei, in which the Jewish people imitate divine practice and character. the descriptions of

The Ideal Man of Song of Songs The description of the female protagonist’s beloved in Song of Songs follows two of the three formal patterns discussed in the last chapter: short description of the other and extended description of the other (waṣf  ). Notably, self-description by the male figure is lacking in Song of Songs. We are, nevertheless, treated to a variety of descriptions of the male beloved by the female protagonist. The first example is the female protagonist’s longing

136   

my perfect one

appeal to her beloved: “Oh, give me of the kisses of your mouth, for your lovemaking is more delightful than wine. Your ointments yield a sweet fragrance, your name is like finest oil” (1:2–3). These verses do not focus purely on his physical features but include also his prowess in lovemaking, his scent, and the mere utterance of his name. Similarly evocative descriptions comparing the male beloved to pleasant scents occur later in the chapter (12– 14).1 A notable feature of this passage is its association of the male beloved with royalty: “While the king was on his couch” (12). This description begins a leitmotif throughout Song of Songs of identifying the male beloved as a royal figure and perhaps one like Solomon, an association which is appropriate given the biblical description of Solomon’s prodigious appetite for women (1 Kings 11:1–5).2 The one example of an extended description, or waṣf, of the male beloved by the female protagonist is Song 5:10–16. As we shall see later in this chapter, this poem plays a central role in the early rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs to characterize God. Because of its prominence, it is impor­ tant to introduce the passage briefly before turning to the main focus of this chapter. My beloved is clear-skinned and ruddy, Preeminent among ten thousand. 11 His head is finest gold, His locks are curled And black as a raven. 12 His eyes are like doves By watercourses, Bathed in milk, Set by brimming pool. 13 His cheeks are like beds of spices, Banks of perfume His lips are like lilies; They drip flowing myrrh. 14 His hands are rods of gold, Studded with beryl; His belly a tablet of ivory, Adorned with sapphires. 15 His legs are like marble pillars Set in sockets of fine gold. He is majestic as Lebanon, Stately as the cedars. 10

Israel’s Ideal Man    137

His mouth is delicious And all of him is delightful. Such is my beloved, Such is my darling, O daughters of Jerusalem! 16

The female protagonist makes her top-to-bottom description of her beloved in response to the daughters of Jerusalem’s inquiry about what makes him so special (9). Her response follows the same pattern of the other descriptive poems in Song of Songs. In general, she begins at the top of his head and works her way down to his legs. Her portrait of her beloved, like the other examples of the form, builds on a series of culturally and geographical located metaphors. The man is so special because he is comparable to the most exemplary objects known to the female protagonist and her companions. For example, “his legs are like marble pillars set in sockets of fine gold” (15). She breaks form at the end of the poem by returning from her top-to-bottom description to his head and briefly stating, “his mouth is delicious [mamtaqqim]” (16). The break in form is not surprising given the female protagonist’s stated desire for the male beloved’s kisses at the start of Song of Songs (1:2). She concludes her verbal portrait with the short summary statement “all of him is delightful” (5:16). As with the various descriptions of the female protagonist discussed in the last chapter, tannaitic interpreters pay no apparent attention to the formal differences between the various types of description in Song of Songs. Instead, their purpose in interpreting this language is to give expression to their understanding of God’s relationship with ideal Israel, embodied in the practices and culture of nascent rabbinic Judaism. In Song of Songs, the female protagonist’s descriptions of the male beloved portray her beloved as a unique and ideal man. The Tannaim utilize these descriptions and their context in Song of Songs in order to express their convictions regarding the uniqueness and superlative character of the God of Israel.

What Provokes Such Love? The female protagonist’s conviction that her beloved is the ideal man carries over into rabbinic interpretation. The interpretations of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim highlight the uniqueness and superiority of Israel’s God, an emphasis corollary to the assertion that Israel is God’s treasured possession. The following example from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael illustrates

138   

my perfect one

their basic approach to describing the exemplarity of the God of Israel through the language of Song of Songs. “I will sing to the Lord” (Exod 15:1). For he is excellent, he is majestic, he is praiseworthy and there is none to compare with him, as it is said: “For who in the skies can equal the Lord.” And it says, “A God greatly dreaded in the council of the holy ones,” etc. And it says, “O Lord, God of hosts [ṣeva’ot], who is mighty like you” (Ps 89:7–9). What is the meaning of ṣeva’ot? He is an ensign [’ot] among his host [ṣava]. And thus it says, “And he approached [’ata]3 from Ribeboth-kodesh” (Deut 33:2), [meaning] and he is exemplary [’ot] in the midst of the myriads holy [betok revavot qodesh]. And thus David says, “There is none like you among the gods, O Lord,” etc. (Ps 86:8). And it says, “My beloved is clear-skinned and ruddy [preeminent among the ten thousand (dagul merevavah)],” and it says, “His head is finest gold,” and it says, “His eyes are like doves by watercourses,” and it says, “His cheeks are like beds of spices,” and it says, “His hands are rods of gold,” and it says, “His legs are like marble pillars” (Song 5:10–16). 4 This passage appears in a series of texts that explore the meaning of the first phrase of the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:1–19): “I will sing to the Lord.” Our particular text explores the motivation for Moses and the children of Israel to praise God. The reader might expect, given the narrative context of this poem, to hear about God’s miraculous work of delivering Israel from Egypt in reply. Instead, the anonymous rabbinic interpreter offers a series of abstract qualities: “excellence,” “majesty,” “praiseworthiness,” and “uniqueness.” The interpreter supports this assertion with phrases from Ps 89:7–9. The use of these proof texts makes sense given that both Exod 15 and Ps 89 draw on broader ancient Near Eastern traditions of celebrating the enthronement of one’s God among the divine council.5 The citation of Ps 89:9 leads to further elaboration of the theme of God’s uniqueness among the divine council and all of creation. The interpreter reads the feminine plural form ṣeva’ot, which is part of the divine name “Lord, God of hosts [ṣeva’ot],” as a word play on the terms ’ot “sign, ensign” and ṣava’ “army, host.” For the interpreter, this designation evokes God’s exemplary status among his heavenly host. This word play enables the anonymous interpreter to engage in a creative reading of Deut 33:2: “And he approached [’ata’] from Ribeboth-kodesh.” The Aramaic cognate of the Hebrew form ’ot “sign, ensign” is ’ata’, a homonym of the Aramaic verbal root meaning “to come.” In addition, he reads Ribeboth-kodesh not as a name for an unidentified place in the Negev or Sinai.

Israel’s Ideal Man    139

Rather, he employs a tradition common in antiquity of reading this phrase as a reference to the divine assembly of angelic beings.6 Building on these two interpretations, he understands Deut 33:2 as meaning “he is exemplary [’ot] in the midst of the myriads holy [revavot qodesh]” rather than indicating God’s journeying from a mountainous spot in one of the deserts between Israel and Egypt. He then cites Ps 86:8 as a supporting example of God’s uniqueness among the divine assembly. The anonymous interpreter next appeals to Song 5:10–16, the descriptive poem in which the female protagonist declares her lover’s uniqueness. This citation’s expression of the beloved’s uniqueness and the appearance of the word revavah “myriad, ten thousand” in both Song 5:10 and Deut 33:2 leads to the citation of this descriptive poem.7 The appearance of this word in both texts also provides further support for the interpreter’s intertextual reading of Ps 86:8 and Deut 33:2. Through the juxtaposition of Song 5:10–16, Ps 86:8, and Deut 33:2 as co-texts, the woman’s praise of her beloved among all the other candidates for her affection becomes Israel’s praise for her beloved among all the other gods who might garner her love and devotion. In this context, the use of Song 5:10–16 buttresses the interpreter’s argument for the uniqueness and exemplarity of the God of Israel among the heavenly host. This point suggests that the anonymous interpreter understands his interpretation as a metaphorical description of God’s uniqueness rather than a literal description of God’s physical attributes. The juxtaposition of Deut 33:2 and Song 5:10–16 also occurs in a passage from Sifre Devarim and its parallel in Mekilta le-Devarim. In this context, the interpretation is joined to the dialogue between Israel and the nations of the world that also appears in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael. In that version, the dialogue is associated with Rabbi Akiva’s interpretation of the enigmatic verb ve’anvehu from Exod 15:2, a verse at the start of the Song of the Sea. While the version of this dialogue is associated, at least in Sifre Devarim, with Exod 15:2, both of these midrashic works on Deuteronomy include the dialogue in their interpretation of Deut 33:2 and employ the tradition distinctively to emphasize the unique and ideal character of Israel’s God. As a basis for my discussion, I will quote the version from Sifre Devarim.8 Another interpretation, “And he approached from Ribeboth-kodesh” (Deut 33:2). When an earthly king sits enthroned among his entourage,9 there are men more handsome than he, more renowned than he, and mightier than he. But it is not the case with the-one-whospoke-and-the-world-came-into-being. [Thus] “And he approached [’ata’] from Ribeboth-kodesh” (Deut 33:2), [means] and he is exemplary

140   

my perfect one

[’ot] in the midst of the myriads holy [betok revavot qodesh]. And when he revealed himself at the sea, they immediately recognized him, as it is said, “This is my God, and I will glorify him; the God of my father, and I will exalt him” (Exod 15:2). Thus all the nations of the world ask Israel, “How is your beloved better than another beloved” (Song 5:9) that you are being killed on his behalf? As it is said, “Therefore do maidens [= alamot = al mavet = unto death] love you” (Song 1:3).10 And it says, “But for your sake we are killed all day long” (Ps 44:23). “All of you are handsome, all of you are mighty. Come and intermingle with us.” But Israel responds [to the nations of the world], “Let us relate to you a little of his praiseworthy features so that you may recognize him,11 ‘My beloved is clear-skinned and ruddy’ . . . ‘His head is finest gold’ . . . ‘His eyes are like doves by watercourses’ . . . ‘His cheeks are like beds of spices’ . . . ‘His hands are like rods of gold’ . . . ‘His legs are marble pillars’ . . . ‘His mouth is delicious, and all of him is delightful’ (Song 5:10–16).” As soon as the nations of the world heard the beauty and the praise of the blessed Holy One, they said to Israel, “Let us join you, as it is said, ‘To where has your beloved gone, O fairest of women? To where has your beloved turned? Let us seek him with you.’” (Song 6:1). What does Israel respond to them? [Israel says,] “They have no share in him. Rather, ‘I am my beloved’s, and my beloved is mine; he that pastures among the lilies’” (Song 6:3). In this passage, the interpretation of Deut 33:2 as describing God’s exemplarity and uniqueness provides an explanation of a mashal le-melek, or king parable. The parable describes a human royal court, in which there are always members of the court who exceed the king in beauty, bravery, or other form of renown. The anonymous interpreter points out that this reality contrasts with the heavenly court, in which no one exceeds the creator in any area. The interpretation of Deut 33:2 provides scriptural support for this analysis. No one is more exemplary than God because “he is exemplary in the midst of the myriads holy.” The interpreter links this interpretation of Deut 33:2 to a statement concerning Israel’s capacity to “immediately recognize” God “when he revealed himself at the sea.” The assumption operative in this assertion is that God appeared at the Reed Sea in the company of his holy retinue, as is suggested in the song Israel recites after crossing the sea (Exod 15:11). The first declaration of the Song of the Sea provides proof that Israel recognized God at the Sea: “This is my God, and I will glorify him; the God of my father, and I will exalt him” (2).12 As in the version in Mekilta de-Rabbi

Israel’s Ideal Man    141

Yishmael, the dialogue between the nations of the world and Israel follows on the citation of this verse. The dialogue is decoupled here, however, from Rabbi Akiva, suggesting that the tradition may originally be independent of him. Despite Israel’s capacity to recognize God “in the midst of the myriads holy,” the degree to which God’s uniqueness and exemplarity are particular to Israel or have a universal dimension remains an open question at this point in the passage. The role of the dialogue between the nations of the world and Israel in this passage is to answer this open question. The version in Sifre Devarim is basically the same as the one in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael. It does, noticeably, shorten the explication of Song 1:3: “Therefore do the maidens love you.” It leaves out the interpretive gloss on the verse found in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael that explains that the consonants of the word alamot should be read not as vocalized in the MT, where it means “maidens,” but should be re-vocalized as al mavet, meaning “unto death.” The absence of this interpretive gloss makes the juxtaposition of Song 1:3 with Ps 44:23 a bit obscure to an uninitiated reader. The logic of this gloss appears, in shorthand, in the translation quoted earlier, but it is nowhere to be found in the text of Sifre Devarim. Its absence may have some interpretive import. Taken together with the lack of association of this passage with Rabbi Akiva, the absence of this gloss suggests that the real point of citing the dialogue is not primarily to highlight the degree of dedication that God’s uniqueness and exemplarity engenders in Israel or to provide a rabbinic justification for martyrdom. Rather, this shortened form highlights the universality of God’s uniqueness and exemplarity, which are the themes of the dialogue’s second half. After the nations of the world point out the seeming conundrum of dying for a god, they invite Israel to intermingle with them and lose their distinctiveness. Israel recognizes that the nations do not seem to understand fully the nature of her God or what about him warrants such dedication. Israel then goes on to quote “a little of his praiseworthy features,” a shortened form of the descriptive poem in Song 5:10–16. This extensive quotation and the context of the dialogue indicate that the anonymous interpreter is essentially duplicating the context in which the poem appears in Song of Songs. As I discussed earlier, the descriptive poem is the female protagonist’s response to the query of the daughters of Jerusalem regarding what makes her beloved so special (v. 9). Here, the effect is the same. Israel describes God’s features metaphorically through the language of this descriptive poem. The nations of the world now know what makes Israel’s God so unique and exemplary. Like the male beloved of Song of Songs, he is the perfect specimen, distinguished among all other gods and heavenly beings. Or to quote the interpretation of

142   

my perfect one

Deut 33:2 offered at the beginning of this passage, “he is exemplary in the midst of the myriads holy.” As in Song of Songs, Israel’s description of her beloved’s features leads the nations of the world to change their mind and to petition instead to join Israel. Their appeal is made using the language of the daughters of Jerusalem: “To where has your beloved gone, O most fairest of women? To where has your beloved turned? Let us seek him with you” (6:1). Israel’s response is terse: “They have no share in him.” The shift in person is noticeable. Whereas the earlier part of the dialogue adopted the first-to-second-person direct address of the conversation between the female protagonist and the daughters of Jerusalem, here the language shifts to third person. Israel no longer addresses the nations; rather, she simply states that despite their request to partake of Israel’s God by joining them, that this option is not available to them. Israel justifies this judgment by appeal to Song 6:3, the paradigmatic statement of exclusivity in Song of Songs: “I am my beloved’s, and my beloved is mine.” The effect of this statement and the use of the dialogue in this context answer the question of whether God’s uniqueness and exemplarity are features appertained only by Israel or are available to everyone. The answer is twofold. On the one hand, both Israel and the nations of the world behold the uniqueness and exemplarity of God. On the other hand, beholding the full extent of such glory, of seeing more than “a little of his praiseworthy features” is exclusive to Israel alone. Only Israel may partake of God’s full glory because their relationship is mutually exclusive. Thus, God’s uniqueness and exemplarity are universal in appeal but particular in their full disclosure. God’s exemplarity is not a rabbinic innovation. Arguably it extends back to the earliest strata of the Bible (e.g., Exod 15:11) and serves as a central component in exilic reflections on the nature of divinity, such as the anti-idol polemics in Isa 44:9–22 and Ps 115.13 An anonymous tradition in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai utilizes the parts of Ps 115 that mock the idols of the nations in order to frame an intertextual exposition of God’s exemplarity. “They have ears, but cannot hear” (Ps 115:6). But the-one-who-spokeand-the-world-came-into-being is not thus. Rather, “all humanity comes to you, you who hear prayer,” (Ps 65:3). And it says, “You will listen to the entreaty of the lowly, O Lord, etc.” (Ps 10:17). And it says, “O you who linger in the garden, the companions [are listening. Let me hear your voice] etc.” (Song 8:13). And it says, “those who revere [the Lord] have been talking, [. . . the Lord has heard and noted it] etc.” (Mal 3:16). And it says, “And before they pray, [I will answer], etc.”

Israel’s Ideal Man    143

(Isa 65:24) . . . “They can make no sound in their throats” (Ps 115:7). But the-one-who-spoke-and-the-world-came-into-being is not thus. Rather, “His mouth is delicious, etc.” (Song 5:16). And it says, “To the sound that comes out of his mouth” (Job 37:2).14 These excerpts appear in a larger passage that explores the meaning of the declaration of exemplarity from the Song of the Sea: “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods” (Exod 15:11). This larger passage from Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai follows the progress of Ps 115:6–7. It develops the contrast between the nations’ idols and Israel’s God by juxtaposing God’s capacities with their infirmities. The verses from Song of Songs appear as proof texts in the sections that extol God’s abilities to listen and to speak. The first section begins with the formulaic contrast between the idols’ inability to hear, using the words of Ps 115:6, and the matter-of-fact statement, “But the-one-who-spoke-and-the-world-came-into-being is not thus.” The anonymous interpreter supports his contention that God listens by appealing to two verses from the Psalms (65:3, 10:17), one from Song of Songs (8:13), and two from the prophets (Mal 3:16; Isa 65:24). The first citation asserts that God both “hear[s] prayer” and “all humanity comes to [him].” This second phrase further undercuts the viability of the idols by suggesting that even their devotees recognize the idols’ inability to hear prayer and go instead to Israel’s God. The quotation from Ps 10:17 repeats the assertion that God will listen to prayers, particularly petitionary prayers. Song of Songs 8:13, the next verse cited, is the last statement uttered by the male beloved in Song of Songs before the closing statement of the female protagonist. Here, the focus shifts and the passage transitions from declarations about God’s auditory capacity to God’s invitation to Israel to speak and even to causing God to hear Israel’s words (8:13). In the context of this passage, the verse is important because its shift in focus leads to the next two citations, both of which describe Israel’s speech resulting in God’s attentiveness. In the case of Isa 65:24, God pays attention even before the first hint that Israel might speak. Song of Songs plays a less pivotal role in the progress of the citations made to support the assertion that God can speak while the idols of the nations are mute. The section begins with a quotation of the next verse in Ps 115: “They can make no sound in their throats” (v. 7). The anonymous interpreter appeals to Song 5:16 and Job 37:2 to make the countervailing case that God has the capacity to speak and does indeed do so. Song of Songs 5:16, which appears in the midst of the poem describing the male beloved, provides evidence for the assertion that God has the capacity to speak. “His mouth is delicious.” In other words, God has the faculty with which to respond to Israel’s petitions.

144   

my perfect one

The interpreter next quotes Job 37:2, “To the sound that comes out of his mouth.” This verse highlights the point that God, in contrast to the silent idols, both can and does speak. In this passage, the interpreter employs both Song 8:13 and Song 5:16 in order to chart differences between God and the idols of the nations. Only the second of these citations comes from a part of Song of Songs in which the male beloved is described. Nevertheless, the combination of these citations reflects a consistent theme in the interpretation of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim. The Tannaim interpret Song of Songs and its descriptions of the male beloved in order to highlight the point that Israel’s God is unique, ideal, and exemplary. In the next section, I turn to examine how this theme of divine exemplarity dovetails with the conception of the exclusivity of God’s relationship with Israel.

Exemplarity in Dialogue In the tannaitic midrashim, Israel does not limit its dialogues concerning her understanding of God’s exemplarity and uniqueness to conversations with the nations of the world. The following passage from Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai utilizes Song of Songs in order to highlight the uniqueness and exemplarity of God in a conversation between the Holy Spirit and Israel. “The song of the Lord” (Exod 15:2). You are the subject of song for everyone who comes into the world, but for me especially. For behold the nations of the world sing the delight and the praise of the-one-whospoke-and-the-world-came-into-being, but mine are delightful before him. Just as it says, “The songs of Israel are delightful” (2 Sam 23:1). He made me special, and I considered him special. He made special, “The Lord has affirmed you this day” (Deut 26:18). And also I consider him special, “You have affirmed the Lord this day” (Deut 26:17). Israel says, “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?” (Exod 15:11). And the Holy Spirit bears good news to them and says, “O Happy Israel! [Who is like you]” (Deut 33:29). Israel says, “Who is ‘so close at hand as is the Lord our God whenever we call upon him?’” (Deut 4:7). And the Holy Spirit bears good news to them and says, “And ‘who is such a great nation, etc.’” (Deut 4:8). Israel says, “Hear O Israel! The Lord is our God, etc.” (Deut 6:4). And the Holy Spirit bears good news to them and says, “And who is like your people Israel, etc.” (1 Chr 17:21). Israel says, “Like an apple tree among trees of the forest, so is my beloved, etc.” (Song 2:3). And the Holy Spirit bears good news to them

Israel’s Ideal Man    145

and says, “Like a lily among [thorns], etc.” (Song 2:2). Israel says, “This is my God, and I will glorify him, etc.” (Exod 15:2). And the Holy Spirit bears good news to them and says, “The people I formed for myself [that they might declare my praise]” (Isa 43:21). Israel says, “You are their strength in which they glory” (Ps 89:18). And the Holy Spirit bears good news to them and says, “Israel in whom I glory” (Isa 49:3).15 This passage begins with the phrase zimrat yah, “The song of the Lord,” from the beginning of the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:2), which is the focus of this section of Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai. The phrase appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in contexts involving the praise of God (Isa 12:2; Ps 118:14). Though modern scholars have come to understand zimrah as deriving from a Semitic root meaning ‘to be strong,’ it is clear from this context that the anonymous rabbinic interpreter understands zimrah to mean the contents of a celebratory song that recounts God’s actions on behalf of Israel.16 The interpreter opens the explication of Exod 15:2 with two first-person statements ascribed to Israel. The first one asserts that though God is the focus of song for everyone in the world, Israel’s songs about God have a higher degree of focus and intensity. The second one claims that though the nations of the world have the capacity to praise God, God only receives Israel’s praises as delightful. The effect of these assertions is the same as in the dialogue between Israel and the nations of the world discussed earlier. Other nations in the world may have the capacity to appreciate God and speak of God’s renown, but only Israel is in a unique relationship with God. In the context of this relationship, Israel’s songs focus more on God than those of the other nations. In contrast to those other nations, Israel’s songs delight God. The anonymous interpreter provides support for these arguments in 2 Sam 23:1: “The songs of Israel are delightful.” Recognizing that this verse-snippet does not provide strong support for such grandiose claims, the interpreter grounds this argument by offering evidence. The evidence he presents are the statements of mutual covenant fidelity made between Israel and God at the conclusion of the enumeration of laws in Deuteronomy, where Israel and God “affirm” each other (26:17–18). The obscure word translated here as “affirm” is a hiphil form of the root “to say.” As Jeffrey Tigay suggests, it probably means “proclaim” or “formally state.”17 The language is similar to the use of the same root in Hos 2:25. The verse from Hosea is part of a larger passage wherein God and Israel renew their relationship, described in marital terms, through mutual reaffirmations of covenant fidelity and exclusivity (18–25).18 In the second half of the passage, the description shifts from a series of first-person statements made by Israel about her exclusive relationship with

146   

my perfect one

God to a third-person account of corresponding affirmations made by the Holy Spirit and Israel.19 The juxtaposition of the statements by the anonymous interpreter builds on the citation of Deut 26:17–18 earlier in the passage. As in that quotation, Israel and the Holy Spirit utter similar statements to each other drawn from a variety of passages in the Hebrew Bible. While this collocation of verses also appears in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, the version in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai alone includes verses from Song of Songs. “Israel says, ‘Like an apple tree among trees of the forest, so is my beloved, etc.’ (Song 2:3). And the Holy Spirit bears good news to them and says, ‘Like a lily among [the thorns], etc.’ (Song 2:2).” The compiler of these verses reverses their order in Song of Songs to accord with the pattern throughout the passage in which Israel speaks first followed by the Holy Spirit’s response. Both verses are part of the passage in Song of Songs in which the female protagonist and her beloved in turn declare the uniqueness and renown of the other. In their new context, and interpreted as part of a divine love song, these verses cohere with the overall theme of this passage by highlighting the uniqueness and exemplarity of both Israel and God. The use of a dialogue between the Holy Spirit and Israel also appears in a passage from Mekilta le-Devarim. The passage parallels the collocation of verses seen in the passage from Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai just discussed. I offer only the opening section and the relevant section related to Song of Songs as well as the verse to which the dialogue is correlated. “There is none like God, O Jeshurun” (Deut 33:26). Israel says, “There is none like God.” And the Omnipresent one says to them, “except Jershurun.” Israel says, “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?” (Exod 15:11). And the Holy Spirit replies to them, “O Happy Israel! Who is like you” (Deut 33:29). Israel says, “Hear O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one” (Deut 6:4). And the Holy Spirit replies to them and says, “And who is like your people Israel, a unique nation on earth” (1 Chr 17:21). Israel says, “My beloved is clear-skinned and ruddy, preeminent among ten thousand” (Song 5:10). The Holy Spirit replies and says, “How lovely are your feet in sandals, O daughter of nobles!” (Song 7:2). Israel says, “Like an apple tree among trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the youths” (Song 2:3). The Holy Spirit replies and says, “Like a lily among thorns, so is my darling among the maidens” (Song 2:2). Israel says, “Who is ‘as the Lord our God whenever we call upon him?’ (Deut 4:7).” And the Holy Spirit replies to them and says, “For what great nation is there that has a god so close at hand” (Deut 4:7). Israel says, “This is my God, and I will glorify him,

Israel’s Ideal Man    147

etc.” (Exod 15:2). And the Holy Spirit replies to them and says, “The people I have formed for myself [that they might declare my praise].” (Isa 43:21). Israel says, “You are their strength in which they glory” (Ps 89:18). And the Holy Spirit replies to them and says, “Israel in whom I glory” (Isa 49:3).20 In this version of the dialogue between Israel and God, the editor connects the collocation of verses to Deut 33:26, “There is none like God, O Jeshurun.” This verse consists of a declaration about God followed by a vocative address to Jeshurun, an archaic appellation for Israel. The anonymous interpreter reads the disjunction in the line between the declaration and the vocative address as reflecting a dialogue between God and Israel. In this reading Israel first declares God’s singularity: “There is none like God.” The interpreter then modifies the second half of the verse by inserting “except” before Jershurun. In this reformulation, God responds to Israel’s affirmation of his singularity by declaring Israel’s uniqueness: “except Jeshurun.” This interpretive move should not be misunderstood as simply the playful misreading of the sensus literalis of this verse fragment. In its context in Deuteronomy, this verse opens the closing section of Moses’s final blessing over the twelve tribes of Israel (26–29). This concluding section ends with a vivid declaration of Israel’s uniqueness, “O happy Israel! Who is like you” (29). Notably, this verse does appear in the collocation of verses that precedes the quotations from Song of Songs, in which context it serves as the Holy Spirit’s response to Israel’s declaration of Exod 15:11: “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?” This point lends weight to my contention that the entirety of Deut 33:26–29 underlies the interpreter’s explication of Deut 33:26. This point also suggests that Deut 33:26–29 provides impetus for the dialogue between Israel and the Holy Spirit. After the brief exchange between Israel and God, the dialogue shifts to a series of reciprocating statements between Israel and the Holy Spirit. As in the version in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, the excerpt in Mekilta leDevarim includes verses from Song of Songs read as utterances of Israel and the Holy Spirit (2:2, 3). The juxtaposition of Song 2:2 and 2:3 mimics the reciprocal praise offered by the female protagonist and her beloved. The version in Mekilta le-Devarim also adds two verses not seen in the other versions of the dialogue between Israel and the Holy Spirit (5:10, 7:2). As I discussed earlier, both of these verses are used elsewhere in the tannaitic midrashim to highlight both God’s and Israel’s exemplarity. Notably both Song 5:10 and 7:2 begin the final two waṣfs in Song of Songs (5:10–16, 7:2–10a). As we have already seen in the case of Song 5:10, it is highly likely that the citation of Song

148   

my perfect one

7:2 would also evoke the entirety of that descriptive poem. In any case, the use of these four verses from Song of Songs here is meant to parallel the same dynamic found in Deut 33:26 and 29. Both God and Israel view each other as unique and exemplary. The use of Song of Songs here differs from the other citations in the passage in that it employs the language of human love to reflect this dynamic. Though, as I argued in the last chapter, such an interpretation dispenses with the erotic tenor of Song of Songs, it does preserve the affective character of the love between the female protagonist and her beloved. In doing so, it places reciprocal affection front-and-center in the tannaitic discussion of the mutually exclusive covenant between God and Israel.

The Torah as an Expression of Divine Love As I discussed in chapters 2 and 3, the interpretation of Song of Songs is repeatedly linked to the Torah. According to some traditions discussed in those chapters, Song of Songs was even given alongside the Torah to Israel at Sinai. In the corpus of tannaitic midrashim, Song of Songs is also connected repeatedly to particular actions of piety (mitsvot) described in the Torah. I turn now to what I propose is a third presentation of the Torah in relationship to Song of Songs in this corpus. In the following example from Sifre Devarim, the anonymous interpreter employs Song of Songs in order to characterize the Torah as an expression of God’s love.21 Or one might think that just as water does not make the heart rejoice, thus words of Torah do not make the heart rejoice. But Scripture teaches, “For your love is more delightful than wine” (Song 1:2). Just as wine causes the heart to rejoice so to do the words of Torah cause the heart to rejoice. For it is said, “The precepts of the Lord are just, rejoicing the heart” (Ps 19:9) . . . Or one might think that just as it is possible that wine is sometimes bad for the head and the body, so also words of Torah. But Scripture teaches, “Your ointments yield a sweet fragrance” (Song 1:3). Just as ointments are good for the head and good for the body, so are words of Torah good for the head and for the body. For it is said, “For they will be a graceful wreath upon your head and a necklace about your throat, etc.” (Prov 1:9). And it says, “She will adorn your head with a graceful wreath” (Prov 4:9).22 These excerpts come from a longer passage attributed to Rabbi Akiva.23 Throughout this passage, the Torah is compared to a series of material

Israel’s Ideal Man    149

objects (cisterns, water, wine, fragrant oil, honey). The use of each of these objects enables the interpreter to explicate the characteristics of the Torah through both positive and negative depiction. For instance, the Torah, like water, endures forever, cleanses uncleanness, restores a person’s soul, is available for free, and is priceless. The fact that water, at least to the author of this passage, does not “make the heart rejoice” enables a transition to comparing the Torah to wine. The same rhetorical move occurs when the positive comparisons to wine are exhausted and the interpreter wants to move on to likening Torah to fragrant oils.24 In these excerpts, the passage employs fragments of verses from the very start of Song of Songs, in the female protagonist’s opening overture to her beloved (1:2, 3), in order to characterize the Torah as “caus[ing] the heart to rejoice” and ensuring the well-being of both a person’s head and body.25 The use of Song 1:2 to establish the comparison of the Torah and wine locates the Torah as God’s “love” for which the female protagonist hopes throughout Song of Songs. The interpreter next appeals to Ps 19:9, a psalm that extols the Torah and is cited several times in this section of Sifre Devarim: “The precepts of the Lord are just, rejoicing the heart.” This verse forms the basis for the juxtaposition of the Torah and wine. The passage exhibits the following logic: If we know from quotidian experience that wine delights the heart and that the Torah is greater than wine, then it is only logical to assume that the Torah also delights the heart. Psalm 19:9 proves the veracity of that assumption. The interpreter employs a similar pattern to associate the Torah with fragrant ointments and cites Song 1:3 to support this correlation. While Song 1:3 establishes a correspondence between the Torah and fragrant oils, more is required to prove the interpreter’s contention that both the Torah and ointments are good for the body and the head. In the ancient world, as also today, ointments were known as “good for the head and the body” as they served both as perfume and as salves for wounds.26 To support a similar conception regarding the Torah, the interpreter appeals to two verses from Proverbs (1:9, 4:9) where various aspects of wisdom are compared to adornment for one’s head and body. Though the interpreter does not explicitly make the correlation between wisdom and the Torah, the passage participates in a broader ancient Jewish tradition that links the Torah to the figure of Lady Wisdom from Proverbs.27 The interpreter assumes the connection between wisdom and Torah. In this context, citing these two verses from Proverbs thus supports the conception that the Torah, like ointments, benefits both the head and the body. As we have seen, the descriptions of the male beloved in Song of Songs are primarily used to highlight the exclusivity and mutuality of the relationship

150   

my perfect one

between God and Israel. In this example, we see quite a different, though related, use. Those things given by the male beloved to his love provide figurations of the Torah. One aspect of these interpretations that I have not addressed is the perspective of the speaker in Song of Songs and Sifre Devarim. In Sifre Devarim, the interpreter adopts the persona of the female protagonist. Again, as we saw in the last chapter, the female protagonist is a figuration of ideal Israel. As with the female protagonist, the voice of the interpreter in Sifre Devarim characterizes the Torah in these terms not simply as a philosophical exercise of cataloging the features of an object. Rather, the interpreter describes the features of the Torah because he, like the female protagonist of Song of Songs, has a heartfelt desire to appreciate his beloved and all his gifts. Thus, Song of Songs serves in this passage not only to enable the juxtaposition of Torah with wine and ointments but also to express the longing that ideal Israel, in the guise of the female protagonist, has for the gift of Torah.

Rabbinic Piety and Divine Imitation As we have seen in the preceding discussion, the Tannaim primarily employ the descriptions of the male beloved in Song of Songs in order to highlight the exclusivity and reciprocity of the relationship between God and Israel. This language is also used in the tannaitic midrashim, albeit in a minor way, in order to describe the Torah as an expression of God’s love for Israel. In addition, the early rabbinic sages utilize the descriptions of the male beloved in order to engender rabbinic piety by cultivating an ethic of divine imitation or imitatio Dei. As Michael Brocke notes, the idea that people could and should imitate God had already developed in Judaism by the emergence of the Tannaim.28 The rabbis assimilate the concept to conform to their conceptions about the nature of God. A passage from the Babylonian Talmud in tractate Sotah is the locus classicus for the rabbinic conception of divine imitation. In this passage, the Palestinian Amora, Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina, queries how it is possible for a human being to walk after the Divine Presence as enjoined by Deut 13:5, especially when God is described as a “devouring fire” in Deut 4:24.29 Rabbi Ḥama argues that the commandment is metaphorical. One “walks” after God by imitating God’s attributes and moral behavior, not by impersonating God. He goes on to show how one can express his imitation of God’s attributes of mercy and grace through imitating God’s own actions in clothing the naked, visiting the sick, comforting mourners, and burying the dead. The passage demonstrates God’s performance of these deeds through appeal to his actions on behalf of exemplary

Israel’s Ideal Man    151

figures from the Torah: Adam and Eve (Gen 3:21), Abraham (Gen 18:1), Isaac (Gen 25:11), and Moses (Deut 34:6).30 While the passage attributed to Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina presents a coherent expression of rabbinic understandings of divine imitation as well as rabbinic concerns that divine imitation not lead to divine impersonation, these ideas are already nascent in the tannaitic midrashim. For instance, in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Abba Shaul famously enjoins, “Just as he (God) is merciful and gracious so also must you be merciful and gracious.”31 Another prominent example of God’s actions serving as examples of exemplary rabbinic piety appears in Sifre Devarim. For my purposes in this book, this passage noticeably appeals to Song of Songs in support of this conception. “Bear in mind that you were slaves in the land of Egypt [and the Lord your God redeemed you]” (Deut 15:15). Just as I again and again provided for you in Egypt, so you must again and again provide for him. Just as in Egypt I gave to you with a generous hand, so you must give to him with a generous hand. And thus it says, “Wings of a dove sheathed in silver” (Ps 68:14). This refers to the despoiling of the Egyptians [in their homes]. “And its pinions in fine gold” (ibid.). This refers to the plunder at the sea. “We will add wreaths of gold” (Song 1:11). This refers to the plunder at the sea. “To your spangles of silver” (ibid.). This refers to the despoiling of the Egyptians [in their homes].32 This passage parallels a passage from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael that I discussed in chapter 2. In both versions the description of jewelry in Song 1:11 provides a figuration of the two instances of Israel’s despoiling of the Egyptians during the exodus (Exod 12:36; cf. 3:21–22, 11:2–3).33 As we saw in chapter 2, the version in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael employs this anonymous tradition in order to compare the plunder of the Egyptians that occurred on the eve of the exodus with Israel’s acquisition of additional plunder at the shore of the sea after God drowned the Egyptian army. The version in Sifre Devarim makes use of this tradition in order to engender ongoing generosity by the Israelites by characterizing it as an imitation of God’s acts of material beneficence. The version of this tradition in Sifre Devarim is attached to Deut 15:15. This verse is a part of a section dealing with how an Israelite should treat other Israelites enslaved to him, whom he manumits (12–15). The slave owner is required not to let the freed slave go “empty handed” but rather provide him “out of the flock, threshing floor and vat, with which the Lord your God has blessed you” (13–14). Deuteronomy 15:15 articulates the motivation for the

152   

my perfect one

slave owner’s benevolence: Israel’s experience of slavery in Egypt should engender kindness on their part to their own manumitted slaves. The anonymous interpreter understands this section of Deuteronomy as referring not only to God’s act of freeing Israel from Egyptian bondage but also to God’s provision for them with Egyptian riches. God’s beneficence should inspire Israel’s beneficence toward their bondsmen. When they free their slaves, they should “provide for [them] . . . with a generous hand.” The interpreter supports his reading of Deut 15:15 by quoting Ps 68:14. Psalm 68 mirrors the experience of the exodus in that God victoriously confronts earthly imperial power. The report of God’s victory leads the kings and their armies to flee. Included in the spoils collected are “wings of a dove sheathed in silver, and its pinions in fine gold” (v. 14). While Psalm 68 lacks clear historical referents, it is easy to imagine how ancient interpreters could have and did connect the poem with the events of the exodus.34 In the case of this passage, the anonymous interpreter reads verse 14 as hinting at the two events of Egyptian despoiling. Song of Songs 1:11 is even more disconnected from the exodus. The verse is part of the male beloved’s promise to enhance the female protagonist’s beauty by adorning her further with “wreathes of gold” in addition to her “spangles of silver.” Strictly speaking, this verse does not constitute an interpretation of a verse from Song of Songs that describes the male beloved’s features or characteristics. But it is a verse that describes the intended actions of the male beloved. In this respect, it is similar to the interpretation of Song 1:2–3 in Sifre Devarim that I discussed earlier. There, the anonymous interpreter read the description of the male beloved’s love and ointments as figurations of God’s gift of Torah to Israel. Here, the male beloved’s actions in giving jewelry to his love provide figurations of God provisioning the Israelites as they left Egypt. This reading of both Ps 68 and Song of Songs offers a model of piety in imitation of divine actions and character traits. As in the more fully articulated expression associated with Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina, Israel should imitate, rather than impersonate, their ideal man, their beloved God. The notion that Israel should imitate God’s behavior and character traits could not have emerged apart from a robust expression of God’s uniqueness and exemplarity. Crucial to this understanding of the special beauty of Israel’s God is the conception that these traits can only be appertained in the context of God’s exclusive, elective, and reciprocal relationship with Israel. As we have seen in this chapter, Song of Songs plays an important role in the articulation of these points. In particular, the Tannaim appeal to the descriptive poem in Song 5:10–16 as key language with which to advance their understanding of God and the nature of ideal Israel’s relationship with her ideal beloved.

Israel’s Ideal Man    153

They appeal to the poem’s narrative context, wherein the female protagonist highlights the beauty of her beloved to the daughters of Jerusalem. The daughters, as we have seen, both in this chapter and in chapters 1 and 2, are correlated to the nations of the world in tannaitic interpretation. In this contextualization of Song of Songs, God’s character stands in contradistinction to that of the gods of the world, as does the nature of his relationship with Israel when compared to his association with the nations of the world. In this context, the Torah serves as a unique expression of God’s love for the Israel. The Tannaim also employ the relationship between God and Israel both to highlight the affinity between the two and to delineate further the uniqueness and exemplarity of Israel’s beloved. This second strategy for emphasizing God’s uniqueness and exemplarity is important, because it, as I discussed in the last section of this chapter, supports the articulation of a distinctive rabbinic piety of imitatio Dei. In the next chapter, I turn to examine how the Tannaim employ these convictions about God’s uniqueness and exemplarity to reinterpret the perceived absence of the male beloved in Song of Songs. As I will show, the principal themes of longing and absence are subverted and reconfigured in interpretations of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim in order to affirm the fidelity and presence of God in the life of Israel.

Notes 1. For a discussion of fumigation practices in biblical literature, see Deborah A. Green, The Aroma of Righteousness: Scent and Seduction in Rabbinic Life and Literature (University Park, Pa.: Penn State University Press, 2011), 64–115. 2. See my discussion in chapter 2 regarding the royal lover as a character in Song of Songs and the history of interpretation regarding whether Song of Songs depicts two male protagonists (one royal and one pastoral) or one character who takes on the features of both figures. Solomon appears or is alluded to throughout Song of Songs (1:1, 5, 3:9, 11, 8:11–12). 3. Note that all manuscripts of Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael (compare also Sifre Devarim 343) read ‫ ואתה‬in contrast to the MT, which reads ‫ואתא‬. 4. Shirta 1 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, pp. 10–11, lines 130–39; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 120, lines 9–16). An abbreviated version of this passage also appears in Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, Shirta 27:1, MS Paris, Alliance Collection (Epstein and Melamed, eds., p. 73, lines 16–20; Nelson, ed., 123). 5. See Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (rev. ed.; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), 14–25. 6. E.g., LXX, Syr, and various Targumim (Tg. Pseudo Jonathan, Tg. Neofiti, and the fragmentary Targumim).

154   

my perfect one

7. Note that no manuscript of Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael or the parallel text in Sifre Devarim 343 includes the phrase “preeminent among ten thousand” (‫)דגול מרבבה‬ from Song 5:10. I include it under the assumption that in an oral culture the citation of one part of the verse would have evoked the rest of the verse in the mind of the hearer. 8. Sifre Devarim 343 (Finkelstein, ed., p. 398, lines 14–17; p. 399, lines 1–10); Mekilta le-Devarim (Hoffmann, ed., 210–11). A parallel version of this text is found in both editions of Mekilta: see Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Shirta 3 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, pp. 26–27, lines 49–63; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 127, lines 15–19) and Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai (Epstein and Melamed, eds., 79). 9. Contra Finkelstein who follows and prefers ‫( פלטיא‬Greek: plateia), which means “open street” or “open place.” The translation here is based on the reading ‫( פמיליא‬Latin: familia). This reading follows MS London, Geniza fragment TS C2 211, Yalqut Shimoni, and the Editio Princeps. Context also supports this reading. The reading adopted here is also made by Steven D. Fraade (From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy [SUNY Series in Judaica; Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1991], 42, 202 n. 67). Note that Reuven Hammer’s translation reads “palace” here, suggesting that he may be following the reading in Midrash Haggadol, ‫( פלטין‬Greek: “palace”; Hammer, Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy [New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986], 354). 10. See my discussion in chapter 1 of the fuller form of this part of the midrash in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael. 11. I am following Steven D. Fraade (From Tradition to Commentary, 42, 203–204 n. 72; see also Judah Goldin, The Song at the Sea, being a Commentary on a Commentary in Two Parts [New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971], 116) in rendering ‫ נאמר‬as the first-person plural active form nō(’)mar rather than the third-person singular passive form ne’ĕmar. Reuven Hammer (Sifre, 355) prefers the passive reading and translates the sentence: “You have been told only a fraction of His praise, yet you think that you know Him!” 12. As I noted in chapter 1, Judah Goldin (The Song at the Sea, 117) points out that the consonants of two words ‫“ אני והוא‬I and he,” which appear exactly or in a different form in these verses, are virtually the same as those of ve’anvehu: ‫ואנוהו‬. 13. See Nathaniel Levtow’s monograph on idol polemics in the Hebrew Bible: Images of Others: Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel (Bible and Judaic Studies 11; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008). 14. Shirta 34:2, ms. Firkovich II A 268 (Epstein and Melamed, eds., 92; Nelson, ed., 147). 15. Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, Shirta 29:1 (Ms. Paris, Alliance Collection and Add. to 1180 MS New York; Epstein and Melamed, eds., 77–78; Nelson, ed., 128–29). A parallel version of this passage appears in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishamel,

Israel’s Ideal Man    155 Shirta 3 but without the verses from Song of Songs (see Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, pp. 23–24, lines 8–23; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 126, lines 6–17). 16. E.g., William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 512. 17. Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 245, 393 n. 47. 18. Note also that Deut 26:17–18 is frequently understood as espousal (e.g., Tg. Onk. ad loc.). See Tigay (Deuteronomy, 393 n. 47) for a list of references and more discussion of the history of interpretation. 19. Generally, the Holy Spirit indicates prophetic inspiration in rabbinic literature. It is also used as a metonym for God or the Shekinah in rabbinic literature. In the case of this passage, the Holy Spirit seems to be serving as a metonym for God. For a fuller treatment of these issues, see, in part, Jonathan Kaplan, “God (Rabbinic Judaism),” in The Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception vol. 10 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 399–401. Notably, Arthur Marmorstein views the use of the Holy Spirit as a Divine Name or metonym for God as a later, amoraic development, and points specifically to this dialogue form, as found in Sifre Devarim 355, as exemplary of the absence of the concept in tannaitic literature. Marmorstein’s relevant assertion that the Holy Spirit functions simply as prophetic inspiration in this passage notwithstanding, I argue that the line between prophetic activity and the use of the Holy Spirit as a Divine Name is not as sharp as Marmorstein argues. See Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, Volume 1: The Names and Attributes of God (New York: KTAV, 1968), 100. For a more recent discussion of the relationship of the Shekinah and God, see David Stern, “Imitatio Hominis: Anthropomorphism and the Character(s) of God in Rabbinic Literature,” Prooftexts 12 (1992): 151–74, here 159. 20. Hoffmann, ed., 221. 21. Tamar Kadari has explored a fourth connection between Song of Songs and the Torah in putative tannaitic traditions found in Song Rab. 3:21. As she notes, the Torah itself takes the role of God’s beloved in this passage and therefore the character of the female protagonist in Song of Songs. See Kadari, “‘Within it was Decked with Love’: The Torah as the Bride in Tannaitic Exegesis on Song of Songs” (Hebrew), Tarbiz 71 (2002): 391–404. As I discussed in the introduction and in chapter 2, I have excluded from discussion in this volume material attributed to the Tannaim in later rabbinic sources such as Song of Songs Rabbah. 22. Pisqa 48 (Finkelstein, ed., p. 111, lines 5–7, 12–15). A full translation of this section is available in Hammer, Sifre on Deuteronomy, 102–3. A parallel version of this text appears in Mekilta le-Devarim (Hoffmann, ed., 42). 23. See Fraade’s discussion of this passage in From Tradition to Commentary, 111–12. 24. As Fraade notes (From Tradition to Commentary, 251 n. 155), this rhetorical strategy also appears at the beginning of Pisqa 48 (Finkelstein, ed., p. 107, line 13–14; p. 108, lines 1–5) and in Pisqa 306 (ibid., p. 336, lines 12–13).

156   

my perfect one

25. A similar pairing of Song 1:2–3 to emphasize the superlative uniqueness of Israel’s God appears in m. Abod. Zar. 2:5. Notably, however, this passage uses the mention of wine and oil in Song 1:2–3 to contrast God and the cheese, wine, and oil of Gentiles. For recent discussions of this passage, see Amit Gvaryahu, “A New Reading of the Three Dialogs in Mishnah Avodah Zarah,” JSQ 19 (2012): 207–29, here 211–14; David Henshke, “‘For Your Love is More Delightful than Wine’: Concerning Tannaitic Biblical Traditions” (Hebrew), Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 10 (2012): 1–24; David M. Freidenreich, Foreigners and Their Food: Constructing Otherness in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Law (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2011), 56; Jordan D. Rosenblum, Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 87–88; and Shlomo Naeh, “‘Your Love is Better than Wine’: A New Look at Mishnah ‘Abodah Zara 2:5” (Hebrew), in Studies in Talmud and in Midrash: A Memorial Volume for Tirtsah Lifshitz (ed. Mosheh Bar-Asher, Joshua Levinson, and Berachyahu Lifshitz; Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2005), 411–34. 26. On this point, see Green, The Aroma of Righteousness, 31; see also Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 280. 27. This tradition reaches its classic formulation in rabbinic literature in the intertextual reading of Gen 1:1 and Prov 8:22 in Genesis Rabbah, the fifth century c.e. midrashic work on Genesis; see Gen. Rab. 1:1. A similar association appears in John 1:1–18. See also 4Q184, 185, 525. On Lady Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Sidnie White Crawford, “Lady Wisdom and Dame Folly at Qumran,” DSD 5 (1998): 355–66. 28. Michael Brocke, “The ‘Imitation of God’ in Judaism,” in Three Ways to the One God: The Faith Experience in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (ed. A. Falaturi, J. J. Petuchowski, and W. Strolz; New York: Crossroad, 1987), 55–75, here 56–60. Translated and adapted from Drei Wege zu dem einen Gott: Glaubenserfahrung in den monotheistischen Religionen (Freiburg: Herder, 1976). For other treatments of divine imitation in rabbinic literature, see Arthur Marmorstein, “The Imitation of God in the Haggadah,” in Studies in Jewish Theology: The Arthur Marmorstein Memorial Volume (ed. J. Rabbinowitz and M. S. Lew; London: Oxford, 1950), 106–21; originally published in Jeschurun 14 (1927); and Jonathan Kaplan, “Imitation of God (Rabbinic),” in The Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception (Berlin: de Gruyter, forthcoming). 29. Bavli Sot. 14a; see also Sifre Devarim 49 (Finkelstein, ed., p. 114, lines 7–13); and Lev. Rab. 25:3. 30. This tradition also appears in the various Palestinian Targumim: see Fragment Targum to Gen 35:29 and Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan to Deut 34:6. As Marmorstein notes, these individual figures come to serve as the archetype of the ṣaddiq, or pious holy man (see “The Imitation of God,” 115).

Israel’s Ideal Man    157 31. Shirta 3 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, p. 25, lines 43–44; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 127, lines 6–7). A similar aphorism, which is also attributed to Abba Shaul, appears in Sifra, Qedoshim 1. 32. Pisqa 120 (Finkelstein, ed., 179, lines 1–5). 33. Pisḥa 13 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, p. 106, lines 143–49; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 47, lines 8–11). 34. Famously, William Foxwell Albright noted, “Psalm 68 has always been considered with justice as the most difficult of all the Psalms.” Albright, “A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalm LXVIII),” HUCA 23 (1950–51): 1–39, here 7. We already saw Ps 68 correlated with the exodus in a passage from Mekilta deRabbi Yishmael discussed in chapter 1 (see Baḥodesh 9, Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, 269–70, lines 44–53; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 236, lines 12–17).

5

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder? domesticating the elusive lover of song of songs modern notions of love and romance is Sextus Propertius’s (ca. 54–16 b.c.e.) statement that “absence makes the heart grow fonder.”1 Distance and difference can somehow deepen one’s affection for the one whom, at that particular moment, cannot be grasped. As Kathryn Harding notes, “absence is simply a fundamental aspect of desire.”2 One can easily point to the strong influence of absence on our understanding of love, romance, and the erotic.3 Western literature is replete with this motif. The lover kept from embracing his beloved is a trope older than Rome and dates back, at least, to Sumerian love poetry. 4 The focus of this chapter is on the expression of this theme in Song of Songs and its reception and subversion in the tannaitic midrashim.5 As I will show, the Tannaim built on trajectories stemming from Ezekiel, and also seen in the literature of the sectarian movement associated with Qumran, in order to reconfigure their experiences of exile and foreign subjugation. Through their rereading and subversion of the motif of the absent lover from Song of Songs, they transformed exile and foreign subjugation from being experiences of punishment and divine abandonment into opportunities for Israel to renew her relationship with God in ways analogous to Israel’s experience with God following the exodus and the Sinai theophany. They sublimate, subvert, and refocus the themes of absence, longing, and pursuit that characterize many of the descriptions of the interrelationships in Song of Songs. In their hands, these verses bespeak fidelity, presence, and surety—an ideal vision for God’s relationship with Israel. Before examining how the early rabbinic sages transform the meaning of Song of Songs, I turn first to discuss the themes of absence and longing that permeate the book. a cliché of

160   

my perfect one

The Elusive Lover of Song of Songs The first hint of the female protagonist’s fear of absence comes in the initial chapter of Song of Songs. After her opening invitation to her beloved to join in the merriment of love (Song 1:2–4) and the young woman’s odd selfdeprecation of her own appearance (1:5–6), she pleads with her beloved to tell her of his whereabouts when he is not with her: “Tell me, you whom I love so well; where do you pasture your sheep? Where do you rest them at noon? Let me not be as one who strays beside the flocks of your fellows” (1:7).6 While her beloved presumably responds in the next verse with a treasure map to his location, the female protagonist’s anxiety is palpable. The progress of this work of lyric poetry is, at least in one dimension, about the female protagonist’s efforts to address her apprehension about the absence—perceived, impending, or real—of her beloved.7 Even the female protagonist’s companions are concerned about finding the beloved, although probably in an effort to steal him from her (6:1). The woman’s concern about her beloved’s absence also serves the important narrative feature of heightening the experience of his return. For instance, in Song 2:8, the female protagonist is jubilant at his return and ascribes to him superman-like powers. “Hark! My beloved! There he comes, leaping over mountains, bounding over hills.” This leaping lover is able to break into the young woman’s family compound and to stand “behind our wall, gazing through the window, peering through the lattice” (2:9). Her repeated invitations to her beloved to come with her to various secluded locations highlight a desire on her part to secure his presence with her. Early in the poem she urges her lover, “Draw me after you, let us run! . . . Let us delight and rejoice in your love” (1:4). Later, she offers another invitation to her beloved, “Let my beloved come to his garden and enjoy its luscious fruits!” (4:16). She beseeches him similarly, “Come, my beloved, let us go into the open; let us lodge among the henna shrubs. Let us go early to the vineyards; let us see if the vine has flowered . . . there I will give my love to you” (7:12–13). Finally, she concludes Song of Songs by imagining her beloved’s return to her, “O you who linger in the garden, a lover is listening; let me hear your voice. Hurry, my beloved, swift as a gazelle or a young stag, to the hills of spices!” (8:13–14). Through these hyperbolic descriptions of his return, or her invitation for him to return, the absent lover is powerfully present in the rhetorical world constructed by the female protagonist. Physical space or social convention no longer constrain him. The most profound ruminations on the theme of what Kathryn Harding describes as the “elusive behaviour of the male protagonist” occur in the

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?    161

extended descriptions by the female protagonist in chapters 3 and 5.8 The first of the two night visions, as these descriptions are known, is in Song 3:1–5: Upon my couch at night I sought the one I love— I sought, but found him not. 2 “I must rise and roam the town, Through the streets and through the squares; I must seek the one I love.” I sought but found him not. 3 The watchmen found me9 Who patrol the town. “Have you seen the one I love?” 4 Scarcely had I passed them When I found the one I love. I held him fast, I would not let him go Till I brought him to my mother’s house, To the chamber of her who conceived me. 5 I adjure you, O maidens of Jerusalem, By gazelles or by hinds of the field: Do not wake or rouse Love until it please! 3:1

The first night vision begins pointedly on the young maiden’s couch, presumably a location where she hoped to meet and to cleave to her lover. His absence impels her to look for him in the streets of the town, a quest that appears reckless and socially transgressive when one realizes that “good girls” in antiquity did not roam the streets at night unaccompanied.10 When her quest ends in futility, she repeats the concluding line of verse one, “I sought, but found him not.” Twice she has looked for him, and he is not to be found. In contrast, she is “found” by the watchmen of the city (3:3). Unlike her violent encounter with the watchmen in Song 5:7, this encounter is relatively benign. She inquires of them regarding the location of her beloved, but they are of little help. Fortunately for her, she discovers her beloved in short order and returns with him to her “mother’s house,” presumably with amorous intentions. The scene concludes with her parting adjuration, thrice made in Song of Songs, for the daughters of Jerusalem to restrain love until the appropriate time (3:5; cf. 2:7, 8:4). The second of the night visions, in Song 5:2–8, begins with the female protagonist again on the edge of sleep.

162   

my perfect one

I was asleep, But my heart was wakeful. Hark, my beloved knocks! “Let me in, my own, My darling, my faultless dove! For my head is drenched with dew, My locks with the damp of night.” 3 I had taken off my robe— Was I to don it again? I had bathed my feet— Was I to soil them again? 4 My beloved took his hand off the latch, And my heart was stirred for him. 5 I rose to let in my beloved; My hands dripped myrrh— My fingers, flowing myrrh— Upon the handles of the bolt. 6 I opened the door for my beloved, But my beloved had turned and gone. I was faint because of what he said. I sought, but found him not; I called, but he did not answer. 7 The watchmen found me Who patrol the town; They struck me, they bruised me. The guards of the walls Stripped me of my mantle. 8 I adjure you, O maidens of Jerusalem! If you meet my beloved, tell him this: That I am faint with love. 5:2

Like the first vision, the second takes place in the liminal space between sleep and wakefulness. It also shares the same narrative tropes with the first vision: nighttime setting, going out into the night to look for the beloved, encounter with the beloved, encounter with the watchmen of the town, and concluding adjuration to the daughters of Jerusalem. The second vision, however, is different from the first in a number of notable ways. To begin with, the female protagonist has some form of encounter with her beloved, most likely imagined as she describes herself as both “asleep” and “wakeful” (Song 5:2). Her encounter with her beloved also slips

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?    163

between imagined coitus and the restrictive barrier of a door that keeps the two apart.11 The phrase, shalaḥ yado min haḥor in 5:4, which the NJPS renders as “took his hand off the latch,” could, following Marvin Pope, also be rendered “thrust his ‘hand’ into the hole.”12 (Pope bases his translation on comparative evidence of metaphorical meanings of the Hebrew yad or “hand” from Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scroll Serekh ha-Yachad.13) This variant translation makes clear that “hand” in Song 5:4 refers to some form of vaginal penetration. As in the first night vision, following their “encounter,” the man disappears into the night. The woman follows and once more meets the watchmen. But violence mars their second meeting. The text does not yield a reason why she suffered this assault. Perhaps the watchmen attacked her in retaliation for her transgression of appropriate gender roles—for pursuing her beloved, outside of the house, let alone at night.14 Perhaps, they tragically raped her, as some scholars suggest.15 The text is vague. After her assault, she again adjures her fellow maidens. This time her appeal is not that they refrain from stirring up love. Rather, she orders them to communicate her desperation to her beloved. At the end of the scene she is “faint with love,” either from being overwhelmed by desire for her beloved or from fatigue from being assaulted (5:8). The violence the woman faces and her desperate adjuration to the other maidens heightens the theme of absence in this section. As Harding rightly notes, it “underscores the seriousness of the man’s elusive behaviour for her and reveals her considerable anxiety focused around the possibility of his absence.”16 His continued absence threatens her very life, either at the hands of others or through the palpable heartache that sickens and perhaps will kill her. While both of these passages appear to be narratives of actual events, and most pre-modern commentators have understood them this way, the modern commentary tradition views them as being almost dreamlike and fantastic. The inability of the woman to find her lover in both passages mirrors a common trope of dreams in which one is unable to achieve what one seeks.17 The blurring of the lines between the man reaching into the lock and sexual activity in the woman’s description in Song 5 gives this passage, in particular, the air of an erotic fantasy. If we take seriously that Song of Songs has affinities with the genre of lyric poetry, concern about the line between fantasy and reality in this passage may be overdrawn. As J. Cheryl Exum points out, “indeed, whether something represents ‘reality’ or ‘fantasy’ is a curious kind of distinction to press when it comes to a lyric poem whose artistic hallmark is the blurring of boundaries between wishing for, desiring, anticipating, and experiencing sexual gratification.”18 As I discussed in chapter 2, the Tannaim view Song of Songs not as a work of lyric poetry but as something more akin

164   

my perfect one

to epic poetry in that it chronicles events that portray idealized national history. Because of their concern for the national historical character of Song of Songs, their primary interest is not the degree to which the female protagonist pines for her absent lover or the imaginary quality of this narrative. Rather, they focus on affirming that the Divine Lover is no longer elusive, but fully present in the life of the Jewish people. As I will show in greater detail, this stunning and daring rereading of Song of Songs enables them to reimagine exile and their current experience of dislocation, loss, and foreign subjugation as an opportunity for renewing their relationship with God.

Subverting the Night Visions As I noted, the female protagonist struggles in chapters 3 and 5 of Song of Songs to find her elusive lover. Tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs subverts this notion of the male lover’s intractable absence. To explore this subversion, I turn to two passages, both of which quote verses from Song 3 and 5, and explore the presence of God with Israel during their sojourn in Egypt. The first of these passages appears both in Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael and in a parallel version in the other major tannaitic commentary on Exodus, Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai. Both versions of this passage occur immediately following the famous dialogue between Israel and the nations of the world treated in chapter 1 and to which I returned in the last chapter. I present the shorter version from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael and will note any salient differences with the parallel text in the following discussion. And the sages say, “I will accompany him until I come with him into his Temple.” To give a parable, a king had a son who went away to a far away country. He went after him and stood by him. The son went to another country, and the king again went after him and stood by him. So also, when Israel went down to Egypt, the Shekinah went down with them, as it is said, “I myself will go down with you to Egypt” (Gen 46:4). When they came up from Egypt, the Shekinah came up with them, as it is said, “And I myself will also bring you back” (ibid.). When they went into the sea, the Shekinah was with them, as it is said, “And the angel of God . . . journeyed,” etc. (Exod 14:19). When they went out into the wilderness, the Shekinah was with them, as it is said, “And the Lord went before them by day” (Exod 13:21) until they brought him with them to his holy Temple. And so it says, “Scarce had I passed them,” etc. (Song 3:4).19

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?    165

In both versions, this passage appears as one of a number of interpretations of the enigmatic verb ve’anvehu.20 The NJPS renders this verb as “I will enshrine him,” an interpretation consonant with the one offered in this excerpt. The statement of the sages in this passage suggests that they understand ve’anvehu as a declaration of Israel that they will journey with God until his enthronement on the cosmic mountain—first at Sinai, then on Zion in the Temple—and ultimately until his return to the Temple after the conclusion of Israel’s current dislocation and exile (see Exod 15:17).21 The focus of the midrash shifts with the king parable, or mashal lemelek, to emphasize God’s, rather than Israel’s, role in this journey. The parable as a whole explores God’s presence (i.e., the Shekinah) with Israel into and out of Egypt until they arrive together at the Temple.22 The parable illustrates this dynamic through the example of a king following after his son.23 The parable is brief. The king’s son simply departs for a country far away, and the king follows him, taking up residence with him. The parallel version is fuller.24 The king follows his son only for his son to depart for another country. The son’s wanderings are met with the king’s continued pursuit and presence. The next section treats the moral force of this parable. The interpreter marshals three verses from the Torah to illustrate God’s stick-to-it-ive presence with Israel. Genesis 46:4 points to God’s commitment to “go down with [Israel] to Egypt,” and God’s promise to bring them up from Egypt. Exodus 14:19 evokes the presence of Shekinah (known as “the angel of God” in this verse) during the exodus. Finally, the interpreter cites a verse to highlight God’s resolute presence through the wilderness wanderings until they arrive at the Temple (Exod 13:21), which symbolizes the culmination of Israel’s settlement of the promised land, when God is finally enthroned in his eternal, earthly palace in the Jerusalem Temple.25 Song of Songs 3:4 appears at the end of this narrative as a summary of God’s abiding presence with Israel during this period. The narrative context of this verse is the female protagonist’s description of her departure from the watchmen of the city before finding her beloved and her intent to consummate her relationship with him in her mother’s house. The citation of this verse shifts the focus from God back to Israel. As in the beginning, where Israel declares her intention to enshrine God, here Israel declares that she will escort her beloved to his true place of sojourn in the Temple. The Temple and its precincts become the bridal chamber where they fully consummate their mutual fidelity and longing. Just as the verses from the Torah serve to highlight the surety of God’s presence with Israel, so Song 3:4 expresses Israel’s passionate commitment to relationship with God. The parallel version of the text drives this point home by seeing exegetical

166   

my perfect one

import to the ending of Song 3:4: “to the chamber of her who conceived me [horati].” Neither version cites the end of Song 3:4, but the parallel version assumes the reader of this text would know this clause. The phrase “conceived me” (horati) from Song 3:4 sounds like another word for Torah, hora’ah. The midrash concludes, “This refers to the Tent of Meeting for there Israel was held accountable for the Torah [hora’ah].” Thus, Israel reciprocates God’s presence and affection with the keeping of Torah, which is envisioned using the language of that most intimate of occurrences, conception. In neither version does the interpreter cite Song 3:1–5 let alone all of Song 3:4. One gets the sense, however, that he has the entirety of this night vision in mind. By choosing to focus only on Song 3:4, the interpreter subverts the sense of anxiety, absence, and longing that predominates the first three verses of Song 3. Three verses from the Torah that bespeak God’s presence with Israel replace and subvert these three anxiety-filled verses in the midrash. In this rewriting of the night vision, Israel’s beloved is neither elusive nor absent; his presence is certain. Taken together with the verses from the Torah, Song 3:4 expresses an assuring picture for readers of this text. The figuration of divine presence envisioned here could certainly assure Israel of the reality of God’s presence in later situations of geographical dislocation that might suggest divine abandonment (cf. Deut 32:22–26). Israel’s experience of God’s presence in the past becomes a paradigm of the surety of God’s presence with Israel in the present as well as in the future, when Israel and God will be reunited in the Temple. The notion of the Shekinah’s presence with Israel in Egypt also appears in another tradition in the tannaitic midrashim, which through its assertion of God’s presence also subverts the anxiety of absence found in Song 3. Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael preserves a shorter version of this tradition. A longer, more elaborate form appears in Mekilta le-Devarim. For the sake of comparison, I cite both versions. Hence, what must Scripture refer to by saying, “And you shall eat it in haste [beḥippazon]?” (Exod 12:11). To the haste of the Israelites. Abba Ḥannin in the name of Rabbi Eliezer says, “It refers to the haste of the Shekinah.” And though there is no proof for this, there is a hint of it, “Hark! My beloved! There he comes, . . . There he stands behind our wall” (Song 2:8–9). And also it is possible [to see this] in the coming world. Thus Scripture teaches, “For you will not depart in haste (beḥippazon), nor will you leave in flight; for the Lord is marching before you, [the God of Israel is your rear guard]” (Isa 52:12).26

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?    167

“For you departed from the land of Egypt in haste [beḥippazon]” (Deut 16:3). This refers to the haste of the Egyptians. You say this refers to the haste of the Egyptians. Should it rather not be interpreted as referring to the haste of the Israelites? And when it says, “since they had been driven out of Egypt and could not delay; [nor had they prepared any provisions for themselves]” (Exod 12:39), behold the haste of Israel is spoken of here. What does Scripture teach? “For in haste [beḥippazon] you departed Egypt.” This refers to the haste of the Egyptians. Rabbi Joshua ben Qorchah says, “This refers to the haste of Israel.” Abba Ḥannin in the name of Rabbi Eliezer says, “It refers to the haste of the Shekinah.” And though there is no proof for this, there is a hint of it, “Hark! My beloved knocks” (Song 5:2). “There he stands behind our wall” (Song 2:9). And also it is possible [to see this] in the coming world. Thus Scripture teaches, “For you will not depart in haste [beḥippazon], nor will you leave in flight; [for the Lord is marching before you, the God of Israel is your rear guard]” (Isa 52:12).27 Both versions of this tradition center on an exploration of the referent of the adverb beḥippazon, “in haste.” In Exod 12:11, this adverb applies to the way the Israelites are to eat the Passover offering. In Deut 16:3, the adverb appears as part of the justification for eating unleavened bread for seven days. In the longer form found in Mekilta le-Devarim, the meaning of beḥippazon provokes the collection of a number of opinions regarding its referent: the Egyptians, the Israelites, or the Shekinah. The nuances of these different opinions need not detain us, as the focus of our discussion is the latter half of this passage, the part common to both versions. Abba Ḥannin mediates a tradition of Rabbi Eliezer in claiming that beḥippazon refers to the haste of the Divine Presence (the Shekinah). The anonymous interpreter is quick to point out that this assertion is not simply a plausible alternative of the verse as one might see offered in so many midrashic texts; his assertion cannot be firmly substantiated by the citation of any verse. He does suggest, however, that there is a hint (zeker) for it in Song of Songs. As Michael Chernick describes the employment of the formula “and though there is no proof of this, there is a hint of it” to introduce a verse from Song of Songs, “The verse cited could only function as an allusion to the aggadic matter by means of highly poetic interpretation.”28 Interestingly, the two versions diverge regarding where in Song of Songs one finds a hint for this interpretation. Both conclude with Song 2:9, “Behold he stands behind our wall,” an affirmative assertion that the male beloved stands in the courtyard of the female protagonist’s familial home. (As I noted earlier, this

168   

my perfect one

assertion of presence counters the perceived absence of the elusive lover elsewhere in Song of Songs.) The version in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael precedes its quotation of Song 2:9 with a snippet of Song 2:8, “Hark! My beloved! There he comes, etc.” The version in Mekilta le-Devarim quotes Song 5:2 instead, “Hark! My beloved knocks!” As is common in Song of Songs, both verses share a repeated phrase—qol dodi “Hark! My beloved”—while varying the conclusion of the verse.29 The important point for my analysis is that the version in Mekilta le-Devarim cites not Song 2:8 but Song 5:2 to support its assertion of the resolute presence of God among the Israelites in Egypt. As with the reading of Song 3:4 discussed earlier, this citation of Song 5:2 subverts any assertion that the male beloved might fly away into the night. The Divine Presence is with Israel throughout her journeys. She will not suffer the abuse of the watchmen (i.e., the Egyptians). God is steadfast in his commitment to his darling beloved, Israel.

Exile and Divine Absence in Tannaitic Interpretation of Song of Songs In addition to the hints of the subversion of the night visions in these readings of Song 3:4 and 5:2, the interpretations of Song of Songs contained in the tannaitic midrashim also place a strong premium on God’s presence with Israel. We have already seen this mode of interpretation earlier in the use of Song 2:8–9 to hint at God’s presence with Israel in Egypt. I wish now to look at two more examples of this theological trajectory. The first example comes from Sifre Bemidbar, a tannaitic commentary on Numbers. “And the congregation of the Lord will not be [like a flock that has no shepherd]” (Num 27:17). Concerning it, it is disclosed in the traditional sacred literature, “Tell to me whom my soul loves, [where do you pasture your sheep, where do you rest them at noon lest I be as an ‘oṭyah beside the flocks of your fellows]” (Song 1:7). This corresponds to that which is said, “He will fold up [ve‘aṭah] the land of Egypt just as a shepherd folds [ya‘ṭeh] his garment” (Jeremiah 43:12). “Lest I be as an ‘oṭyah [beside the flocks of your fellows]” i.e., beside the flocks of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Go and see what the Holy One replies, “If you do not know, O fairest of women” (Song 1:8), i.e., O most distinguished among the prophets, “go follow the tracks of the sheep” (Song 1:8), i.e., in the tracks I have made with them. “And graze your kids” (Song 1:8). From where do you say that the Omnipresent showed to Moses all the

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?    169

forthcoming provisions for Israel from the day that the world was created until the dead would be resurrected? Just as it is said, “go follow the tracks of the flock” (Song 1:8).30 This excerpt begins with the conclusion of a passage that elaborates Moses’s anxiety about there being a leader who will take over for him when he dies. He does not want Israel, like a flock, to lack a shepherd to lead, to guide, and to protect them. The absence of a replacement for Moses would suggest that God no longer wishes to continue his relationship with Israel. One might expect the anonymous interpreter to appeal to language from a passage elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, such as Ps 23, which affirms God’s shepherd-like provision, or another verse such as Deut 31:7 or 23, which points to Joshua’s leadership over Israel. Instead, the interpreter takes the route of exploring God’s role as shepherd of Israel through the language of Song 1:7–8.31 Song of Songs 1:7, in particular, shares with Num 27:17 a hint of possible, perceived abandonment by one party in the relationship. In the case of Numbers, the verse alludes to the possibility that Israel could face a future as an abandoned flock without a shepherd. In the instance of Song of Songs, the female protagonist is anxiously searching for her beloved. The teasing language of Song 1:7 concludes with the odd assertion “lest I be as an ‘oṭyah beside the flocks of your fellows.”32 There has been ample uncertainty about the meaning of ‘oṭyah since antiquity that I need not rehearse here.33 The interpreter appeals to a verse from Jeremiah where the same root as in ‘oṭyah—‘.ṭ.h—occurs twice. He employs the verbs in Jeremiah to help determine the meaning of ‘oṭyah in Song of Songs. In Jeremiah, the root is used to describe God’s facile obliteration of Egypt, just like a shepherd easily folds his garments. The implication is clear. Moses fears that Israel will be lost, like Egypt, if leadership is simply folded up, ‘oṭyah, among the people of Israel. The interpreter makes the point more obvious when he interprets “the flocks of his [i.e., God’s] friends” as “the flocks of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” or the people of Israel. God responds to the misplaced anxiety of both the female protagonist and Moses (as symbolic exemplar of Israel) through the words of the male beloved’s response.34 The male beloved’s invitation for the maiden to “go follow the tracks of the flock” is read as God’s disclosure to Moses of “all the forthcoming provisions for Israel from the day they went out from the wilderness until the resurrection from the dead.” If Moses would only look amidst Israel, he would see that God has already provided leadership for Israel to the end-of-days. As it says in the next verse in Numbers, “And the Lord answered Moses, ‘Single out Joshua son of Nun, an inspired man, and lay your hand upon him’” (Num 27:18).

170   

my perfect one

This brief passage brilliantly exploits the anxiety of both Moses and the female protagonist concerning God/the male beloved’s presence with her/ Israel to reassert God’s careful, ongoing, and eternal provision for Israel. In the case of Numbers and Song of Songs, both Moses’s and the female protagonist’s concerns are short-term, and they look only for immediate resolution. Here the anonymous interpreter counters their short-term anxiety with long-range surety. God will indeed provide for Israel; she only need look closer at her own situation in order to see the signs of that provision. It is useful to pause briefly to reflect on this passage and its possible cultural situation. One can imagine this interpretation speaking volumes in the late second and early third centuries of the common era, after the Jewish people had suffered the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e. as well as the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 c.e. Who might lead Israel? Who might provide for Israel? Would Israel even have a future? While I am not suggesting that this passage was composed in the immediate aftermath of 70 c.e. or 135 c.e., it was preserved, as I will discuss in more detail in the conclusion, in texts edited in the century and a half after these tragic episodes. To the readers of this text, this interpretation powerfully reaffirms that God will provide for Israel now and in the future. Another example of the surety of God’s presence with Israel, with eschatological overtones, appears in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael in a discussion of Exod 12:41. And when they return in the future, the Shekinah, as it were,35 will return with them, as it is said, “Then the Lord your God will return with your captivity”36 (Deut 30:3). Note that it does not say, “The Lord will bring back [veheshiv],” etc., rather, “He will return [veshav].” And it is said, “With me from Lebanon, my bride” (Song 4:8). Was she coming from Lebanon? Was she not rather going up to Lebanon? What then does Scripture mean by saying, “With me from Lebanon?” Merely this, as it were, you and I were exiled from Lebanon;37 you and I will go up to Lebanon.38 This passage appears at the end of a long section exploring the presence of the Shekinah with Israel in all of her various exiles and returns to the land of Israel.39 The narrative of Exodus describes “all the ranks of the Lord depart[ing] from the land of Egypt” on the day of the exodus (Exod 12:41). In the context of the narrative, this verse highlights that all those identified as Israelites, i.e., “all the ranks of the Lord,” departed Egypt at the same time. The interpreter, however, reads “all the ranks of the Lord” as referring not to

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?    171

carnal Israel but to the “ministering angels” who indicate the presence of God with Israel. We already saw this pairing of the ministering angels and the Shekinah in chapter 1 in the discussion of the figural interpretation of Song 2:6 in relation to the giving of the Ten Commandments. In the section under discussion here, the interpreter understands the Shekinah’s departure and the whole host of heaven with Israel from Egypt as an indication that the Shekinah had been enslaved with Israel in Egypt. This understanding enables him to conclude expansively, “And thus you find that whenever Israel is enslaved, as it were, the Shekinah is enslaved with them.”40 Similarly, the interpreter declares, “And thus you find that into every place that Israel goes into exile, as it were, the Shekinah goes into exile with them.”41 He then supports these paradigmatic assertions by enumerating the scriptural evidence for the Shekinah’s enslavement and exile with Israel throughout her history. The interpreter highlights both personal (Joseph—Gen 39:21) and communal (Egypt—1 Sam 2:27; Babylon—Isa 43:14; Elam—Jer 49:38; Edom—Isa 63:1) examples of the Shekinah’s co-suffering of exile and foreign subjugation. As Jacob Neusner rightly describes the relationship of God and Israel in this passage, Israel “and God” are “a single complementary entity in the world.”42 Through this reading of Israel’s national history and affirming the Shekinah’s presence with Israel, the interpreter subverts the theme of the absent lover from Song of Songs and asserts the unwavering presence of God with them in their current experiences of dislocation and loss. The citation of Song 4:8 occurs at the very end of this section and serves to justify the assertion that the Shekinah will return with Israel “when they return in the future.” The anonymous interpreter supports this interpretation through close attention to the form of the verb veshav. 43 The verb has both a future temporal aspect and refers to the simple commission of an action (rather than causing someone to perform an action, as would be the case if the verb were the causative form veheshiv). He thus understands this verbal form as referring to God’s future return with Israel rather than God causing Israel’s return. Notably, he does not choose to emphasize God’s presence with Israel through the closing phrase of Deut 30:3, “with your captivity.” Rather, he turns to a phrase from Song 4:8 that describes the female protagonist’s presence with the male character of Song of Songs: “with me from Lebanon, my bride.” The phrase, however, raises a problem. The male character of Song of Songs, interpreted as God, is pictured as returning “from Lebanon.” Lebanon evokes the common motif of the Temple (e.g., Isa 14:13, 60:13; Pss 48:3, 92:13–14), but if this verse is to describe properly Israel’s return from exile with the Shekinah, it should read “to Lebanon.” The interpreter subverts this apparent conundrum by reading the phrase as referring to the Temple

172   

my perfect one

from which Israel and the Shekinah were exiled and to which they both will return in the future. 44 The theological assertion of this passage, that the Shekinah accompanies Israel into and out of exile, raises the profound question of the nature of exile. Exile, classically understood, entails a rupture in Israel’s relationship with God. 45 As the Tannaim undoubtedly knew, the Torah describes this rupture as including a separation of Israel from God’s presence. Indeed, the rabbis formalized this concept as Histalkut ha-Shekinah, or “the departure of God’s indwelling presence” from the Temple, the land of Israel, and from among the people. 46 This concept builds on earlier biblical notions of exile. As Deuteronomy tells us just before the verse quoted in our selection from Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Israel’s violation of the covenant results in her banishment from the land. “The Lord uprooted them from their soil in anger, fury, and great wrath, and cast them into another land, as is still the case” (Deut 29:27). Despite the interpretation offered in our passage, Deuteronomy does not envision God’s presence with Israel in the midst of exile, but only God “gathering” and “fetching” them from their place of exile when they “return to the Lord” (Deut 30:2–5). Elsewhere in Deuteronomy, God declares the extent of divine withdrawal from the people of Israel: “I will hide my countenance from them, and see how they fare in the end” (32:20). The vision of exile in Leviticus is even more horrific for recalcitrant Israel. In chapter 26, God relates to Israel a series of progressive punishments that Israel will incur if they fail to “obey me and do not observe all these commandments” (26:14). The punishments escalate from “consumption and fever” among the populace to the land “not yield[ing] its produce” to the destruction of her herds to Israelites consuming their children and on and on (26:15–38). The punishments culminate with Israel held captive among the nations who overwhelm her in battle. She is fated to “perish among the nations; and the land of [her] enemies shall consume” her (26:38). Thus, for both Deuteronomy and Leviticus, exile is not a place of eternal respite enjoyed in the company of the Shekinah; it is a place of torment and divine absence. The sixth century b.c.e. prophet Ezekiel offers a slightly different vision of exile. In Ezekiel, the prophet does not describe Judah’s exile in Babylonia purely as an act of divine abandonment, as the Torah might lead one to believe. Certainly, Babylonia is not Jerusalem, the place to which the Jewish people are to return one day, but it is also not a domain of unmitigated divine absence. The book opens with “the hand of the Lord,” coming upon Ezekiel beside the Kevar Canal (Ezek 1:3). 47 Throughout the work, Ezekiel repeatedly receives divine revelation while in exile, revelation he uses to admonish and encourage his fellow exiles (e.g., 15:1, 16:1). In fact, at the close of one vision,

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?    173

Ezekiel describes “the Presence of Lord” (kevod Hashem) departing Jerusalem and taking up station “on the hill east of the city” in precisely the same direction the exiles travel when they leave the city for Babylon (11:23). In a sense, the Divine Presence in Ezekiel enters into a state of exile just as Israel does. The Divine Presence as described in Ezekiel echoes “the Presence of Lord” who appeared to Israel in the wilderness and guided them on their journey from Egypt to the land of promise (e.g., Exod 16:7, 24:16; Lev 9:6; Num 14:10; 1 Kings 8:11). The core of the book (Ezek 1–39) closes with a defining promise from God, evoked also earlier in the book, to renew his relationship with his people and “now restore the fortunes of Jacob and take the whole House of Israel back in love” (39:25; compare e.g., 11:19–20). The book as a whole concludes with an extended vision for the restoration of the city itself and Temple worship in her midst (40–48). The closing of this vision describes the renaming of the city as “The Lord is there.” In other words, Israel’s future for Ezekiel will be defined by the perpetual and sure presence of God in her midst. Ezekiel’s vision of exile shares with Leviticus and Deuteronomy a construction of exile as punishment, but differs in that it views God going into exile and one day returning to a renewed relationship with Israel characterized by perpetual presence in her midst. Exile then for Ezekiel is a place akin to the wilderness where Israel renews her relationship with God and learns again what it means to be God’s covenant partner, God’s beloved bride (see Ezek 16:60–62). As I noted earlier, the rabbinic interpreters of these texts enumerate various examples of the Shekinah suffering exile and foreign subjugation along with individuals and the whole community of Israel. As we have seen, many of these examples result from a subversion of the contextual meaning of a particular verse or from a (mis)reading of the biblical text. Certainly for the Tannaim, exile was for Israel a place of punishment and chastisement for violating her covenant with God. But their vision of exile is more akin to the one portrayed in the book of Ezekiel than it is to the one in Deuteronomy, and certainly than it is to the horrific description in Leviticus. Divine absence does not mark this vision of exile. The approach of the Tannaim to reading Song of Songs as evoking God’s presence with Israel in exile is consistent with a broader tendency in the tannaitic midrashim to show, in the words of Gary G. Porton, “that God’s exiling the Israelites is not as bad as it might have been.”48 The early sages’ employment of the concept of the Shekinah’s presence with Israel in exile (Shekinta ba-Galuta) buttresses their programmatic reconfiguration of exile. While some earlier scholarship argued that the concept of Shekinta ba-Galuta was a tannaitic innovation, I suggest that it has an important precursor in the vision of exile described in Ezekiel, just as the

174   

my perfect one

notion of Histalkut ha-Shekinah is rooted in the theology of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. 49 As in Ezekiel, the tannaitic subversion of the themes of absence in Song of Songs recasts exile as a space for renewal of relationship with God, space God shares with Israel. Exile, then, is like the wilderness. It is a place for restoration of relationship, for the bridegroom to renew his relationship with the bride before they return from exile to the Temple. As I noted earlier, the Tannaim, however, are not unique in viewing exile as a time of covenant renewal akin to Israel’s experience with God in the wilderness following the exodus. In a similar fashion, the sectarian movement associated with the settlement at Qumran understood exile to be an opportunity for national renewal through the agency of a righteous remnant. The following excerpt comes from columns 5–6 of the Damascus Document, a document that describes both the community’s history and one version of its polity and rules of discipline. And the land became desolate, for they spoke rebellion against the commandments of God [given] by the hand of Moses and also 6.1against his holy anointed ones. They prophesied deceit in order to turn Israel from following God. 6.2But God remembered the covenant of the forbearers. And he raised from Aaron, men of understanding, and from Israel, 6.3men of wisdom. And he caused them to obey. And they dug the well. “The well which the chieftains dug, 6.4which the nobles of the people started with maces” (Num 21:18). The “well” refers to the Torah. “Those who dug it” refers to 6.5the repentant of Israel who went from the land of Judah and resided in the land of Damascus, 6.6all of whom God called princes, for they sought him and their renown 6.7has not ceased from anyone . . . 50 5.21

In this passage, the writer interprets the eighth century b.c.e. prophet Amos’s prediction in Amos 5:27 of the northern kingdom of Israel’s exile “beyond Damascus” as foretelling the situation of national Israel during their own time. This excerpt illustrates quite clearly their understanding of how exile is a transformative time of renewal for their community and ultimately for all of Israel. The Damascus of which Amos had spoken earlier becomes a cipher in this text for the present exilic experience of this community and indeed all Israel. The Damascus Document views exile as a national tragedy of dislocation for all Israel and their separation from God. Geza Vermes and, more recently, John J. Collins, have pointed out that this exile is only metaphorical and not spatial.51 The laws detailed later in the Damascus Document seem to describe living with other people who have not chosen the “true” path as the

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?    175

community understands it. Exile for this community is a state of dislocation from relationship with God that can even be experienced within the bounds of the land of Israel.52 Through a form of contemporizing interpretation common among the sectarian texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls known as pesher, the writer of the Damascus Document interprets Num 21:18—“The well which the chieftans dug, etc.”—as referring to their own experience. The interpretation of the well that the Israelites dug in the wilderness to provide water for themselves as allegorically referring to the Torah is a common one in antiquity.53 In digging the well, that is properly interpreting the Torah and following its precepts, the community associated with Qumran and described in this document maps themselves onto the wilderness experience of Israel. As in the early rabbinic reading of Song of Songs, exile “beyond Damascus” becomes a place for spiritual renewal, for drinking from the well of Torah and reigniting Israel’s relationship with God. This renewal then becomes a precursor of and exemplar for national renewal much as in the rabbinic understanding of Israel’s wilderness experience.

A Theology of Presence In the examples from the tannaitic midrashim I have discussed in this chapter, the male character of Song of Songs serves as a figuration of the Shekinah or God while Israel or Moses, as a symbolic exemplar of Israel, is correlated to the female protagonist of Song of Songs. The emphasis in these examples on the surety of God’s presence with Israel sublimates the themes of absence, longing, and pursuit that characterize the descriptions of the interrelationships in Song of Songs. Instead, the Tannaim focus on verses of Song of Songs that hint at the permanence of the male character’s presence with the female protagonist. They also subvert the night visions by rereading them as statements of God’s presence, or by focusing more narrowly on the parts of them that bespeak the presence of the male beloved, God, in the life of his lover Israel. In these interpretations, Song of Songs offers a paradigm of Israel’s relationship with God. The source of this paradigm is undoubtedly the ideal that God hears Israel in exile because God is with Israel in exile as is reflected in the examples discussed earlier. The hermeneutical approach of the Tannaim looks in Scripture, and Song of Songs in particular, for a deep, cyclical, and paradigmatic structure that assures the reader of the constancy and consistency of God’s relationship with Israel. The typological correlation of Song of Songs to Israel’s experiences of return from Egypt, the Babylonian

176   

my perfect one

Exile, and their current experience of subjugation to Rome reassures the reader of the ongoing and unbreakable presence of the Shekinah with Israel, wherever and in whatever situation Israel may find herself.

Notes 1. Semper in absentes felicior aestus amantes; Elegies, II, xxxiii, 43. 2. Kathryn Harding, “‘I sought him but I did not find him’: The Elusive Lover in the Song of Songs,” BibInt 16 (2008): 43–59, here 48. 3. Of course, this assertion ignores the question of whether this notion of absence’s positive effect on relationships is empirically verifiable; one can easily imagine situations where absence has destroyed relationships. 4. See the exclusus amator in Lucretius, De rerum natura 4.1177–79 and the Sumerian material discussed in Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite: Aspects of Faith, Myth, and Ritual in Ancient Sumer (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1969), 97–99. 5. As Harding (“The Elusive Lover in the Song of Songs,” 47–49) rightly points out, there has heretofore been only limited exploration of this important theme in Song of Songs. 6. J. Cheryl Exum notes that even the woman’s invitation exists in the realm of the imagined and is never actualized. See Exum, “In the Eye of the Beholder: Wishing, Dreaming, and Double Entendre in the Song of Songs,” in The Labour of Reading: Desire, Alienation, and Biblical Interpretation (ed. Fiona C. Black, Roland Boer, and Erin Runions; Semeia Studies 36; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 1999), 71–86, here 71. 7. On the interweaving of multiple motifs and themes in Song of Songs, see Harding, “The Elusive Lover in the Song of Songs,” 45–47. On Song of Songs as lyric poetry, see Tod Linafelt, “The Arithmetic of Eros,” Int 59 (2005): 244–58, here 251. 8. Harding, “The Elusive Lover in the Song of Songs,” 49. 9. Here the Jewish Publication Society version renders this part of the verse as “I met the watchmen.” This rendering downplays the repetition of the verb “to find” in verses 1 and 2. The repetition of this verb creates an ironic reversal where the woman looking for her beloved is found by the watchmen. 10. As Marvin H. Pope (Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 7c; New York: Doubleday, 1977], 419) points out, “The search is reminiscent of . . . Hosea 2:7.” 11. The door lock referred to in this passage differs from the rotary locks common today. The lock from this passage, known today as an “Egyptian” lock because of their continued use in Egypt, was the only type of lock used in ancient Israel. It involved a tumbler lock and wooden bolt mounted on the inside of the door.

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?    177 One entering from the outside would place a bent, wooden key (twenty-five to fifty centimeters long) through a hole (ḥor) in order to actuate the lock (see Judg 3:25; Isa 22:22; 1 Chr 9:27). For a more detailed description and illustration of these locks, see Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 31, 33. 12. Pope (Song of Songs, 518) translates the partitive preposition ‫ מן‬as “into” following the Vulgate, which reads per, and more recent English translations. As Ariel Bloch and Chana Bloch (The Song of Songs, A New Translation [Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1995], 154) note in reference to the appearance of the preposition ‫ מן‬in Song 2:9, 4:1, and 5:4, “min thus acquires a secondary sense of ‘through.’” See also J. Cheryl Exum, Song of Songs, A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 185; Michael V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs (Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 144; and Roland E. Murphy, The Song of Songs: A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or the Song of Songs (Hermeneia; ed. S. Dean McBride Jr.; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1990), 165. 13. Compare the appearance of ‫ יד‬in Isa 57:8, 10. See also 1QIsaa 65:3; 1QS 7:13; 4QSe 1 I, 9. The Ugaritic cognate for ‫ יד‬also refers to phallus. Richard S. Hess (Song of Songs [Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2005], 172) points to El’s use of his yd in impregnating two females in the text “Birth of the Gracious Gods” (KTU 1.23, 33–35). 14. The female protagonist imagines a situation where her relationship with her beloved does not transgress social norms: “If only it could be as with a brother . . . then I could kiss you when I met you in the street, and no one would despise me” (Song 8:1). 15. See Fiona C. Black, “Nocturnal Egression: Exploring Some Margins of the Song of Songs,” in Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible, A Reader (ed. A. K. M. Adam; St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice Press, 2001), 93–104, here 100–101, for a discussion of the possibility that the watchmen raped the female protagonist of Song of Songs. Recent treatments of rape narratives in the Hebrew Bible include Frank M. Yamada, Configurations of Rape in the Hebrew Bible: A Literary Analysis of Three Rape Narratives (Studies in Biblical Literature 109; New York: Peter Lang, 2008); Susanne Scholz, Sacred Witness: Rape in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2010); and Robert S. Kawashima, “Could a Woman Say ‘No’ in Biblical Israel? On the Genealogy of Legal Status in Biblical Law and Literature,” AJSR 35 (2011): 1–22. 16. Harding, “The Elusive Lover in the Song of Songs,” 51. 17. See Bloch and Bloch, The Song of Songs, 180; Exum, Song of Songs, 45–47, 190; Hess, Song of Songs, 166; Keel, The Song of Songs, 188; Murphy, The Song of Songs, 169–70; and Naphtali H. Tur-Sinai, The Language and the Book (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1950), 364.

178   

my perfect one

18. Exum, Song of Songs, 136. 19. Shirta 3 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, p. 27, lines 64–73; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., 127, line 19; p. 128, lines 1–6). The parallel from Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai 29:1 can be found in Epstein and Melamed, eds., 79–80 (Add. to 1180 Ms New York). 20. See the discussion of this verb in chapter 1. 21. For an introduction to the enthronement and cosmic mountain motifs, see Jon D. Levenson, Sinai & Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987). 22. On the Shekinah accompanying Israel to Egypt, see Gary G. Porton, “The Idea of Exile in Early Rabbinic Midrash,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions (ed. James M. Scott; JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 249–64, here 258. 23. On parable as illustration, see David Stern, Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991), 48–49. 24. It reads, “A king had a son who went away to a far away country. They said to him, ‘Behold your son is in such-and-such a country.’ He went after him and stood by him. He [the son] entered a certain country. They said to him [the king], ‘Behold your son is in such-and-such a country.’ He went after him and stood by him.” 25. The versions differ, however, regarding which verse supports this narrative vision. Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael cites Exod 13:21 while Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai points to Deut 1:31. Deuteronomy 1:31 seems the better proof text because it explicitly mentions the wilderness, God’s carrying of Israel, and the metaphor of a father carrying his son. 26. Pisḥa 7 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, pp. 52–53, lines 13–20; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 22, lines 16–18; p. 23, lines 1–2). 27. Hoffmann, ed., 91. Though Hoffmann reconstructed Mekilta le-Devarim from Geniza fragments and appended Sifre Devarim 1–54 to the beginning of the fragments, this passage undoubtedly comes from a part of the work that is verifiably part of Mekilta le-Devarim and tannaitic in provenance. This second judgment is supported by the close parallel to this text in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, another work of tannaitic midrash associated with Group I or the so-called “school of Ishmael.” For more on these issues, see H. L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (trans. and ed. Markus Bockmuehl; 2d ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 273–75. 28. Michael Chernick, “A Great Voice that Did Not Cease”: The Growth of the Rabbinic Canon and Its Interpretation (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 2009), 42–43. 29. A phenomenon Scott B. Noegel and Gary A. Rendsburg (Solomon’s Vineyard: Literary and Linguistic Studies in the Song of Songs [Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2009], 107–27) have called “polyprosopon.”

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?    179 30. Sifre Bemidbar 139 (Kahana, ed., vol. 1, p. 65 [Hebrew enumeration], lines 19–25; Horowitz, ed., p. 186, lines 1–8). 31. I have already discussed in chapter 2 an interpretation of these verses found in identical form in Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Shirta 10 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 2, pp. 76–77, lines 1–6; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 149, lines 5–8) and Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, Shirta 36:1 (ms. Firkovitch II A 268; Epstein and Melamed, eds., 98; Nelson, ed., 155). 32. Murphy, The Song of Songs, 133; Exum, Song of Songs, 108. On the meaning of ‫שלמה‬, see Na’ama Pat-El, “Short Note: Traces of Aramaic Dialectal Variety in Late Biblical Hebrew,” VT 58 (2008): 650–55. While Pat-El is probably correct in positing that ‫“ שלמה‬may be understood as the West Aramaic adverb,” the reading in Sifre Bemidbar seems to understand it as an adversative particle. 33. See Exum, Song of Songs, 107–8 for a recent summary of the discussion. 34. David Stern (“Ancient Jewish Interpretation of the Song of Songs in a Comparative Context,” in Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Cultural Exchange: Comparative Exegesis in Context [ed. Natalie B. Dohrmann and David Stern; Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008], 93) also describes Moses in this midrash as “a kind of symbolic representative of the larger community of Israel.” 35. The use of the phrase “as it were” ‫ כביכול‬in this discussion is significant. As Michael Fishbane notes regarding the use of this phrase, it marks the “theologoumenon . . . [as] based upon an exegetical possibility presumed of the cited Scripture.” In other words, the use of this phrase tells the reader that the speculative nature of this theological assertion has strong basis in Scripture. As Fishbane notes, many commentators, beginning with Rashi, have viewed the use of ‫ כביכול‬as a “pious qualification” of a theologically speculative assertion about divinity. See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 325–401, here 326, 399. 36. Note that I am including ‫“ את שבותך‬your captivity” against the standard printed edition and in accordance with the critical judgment of both the Horowitz and Rabin (52) and Lauterbach (vol. 1, p. 115) editions. 37. Note that the phrase “you and I were exiled from Lebanon” is absent from the manuscripts but that both the Horowitz and Rabin (52) and Lauterbach (vol. 1, p. 115) editions include it based on the version found in Midrash Ḥakamim. 38. Pisḥa 14 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, p. 115, lines 106–12; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 52, lines 5–8). 39. See Norman J. Cohen, “Shekhinta ba-Galuta: A Midrashic Response to Destruction and Persecution,” JSJ 13 (1982): 147–59, here 150–59; Reuven Hammer, “The Exile and the Suffering of the Shekinah” (Hebrew), in Tura: Studies in Jewish Thought, the Simon Greenberg Jubilee Volume (ed. Meir Ayali, et al.; Tel Aviv: Ha-Kibbutz Ha-Meuchad, 1989), 20–27; and Chaim Milikowsky, “Notions of Exile, Subjugation and Return in Rabbinic Literature,” in Exile,

180   

my perfect one

265–96, here 267–68, for discussions of a parallel to this section in Sifre Bemidbar 161 (Horowitz, ed., 83). Milikowsky proposes provocatively that the notion of exile expressed in the Sifre Bemidbar passage is not one of exile as necessarily indicating physical dislocation. Rather, being exiled into one of the four empires (here Egypt, Babylonia, Elam, and Edom [i.e., Rome]) means a continuous subjugation to foreign domination (“Notions of Exile,” 278). For more extended discussions of the four empires in rabbinic literature, see Jonathan Kaplan, “Four Empires (Rabbinic Judaism),” in The Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception, vol. 9 (Berlin: de Gruyter), 522; idem, “Imperial Dominion and ­Israel’s Renown: ‘The Four Empires’ in Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael,” in Imagination, Ideology, and Inspiration: Echoes of Brueggemann in a New Generation (ed. Jonathan Kaplan and Robert Williamson Jr.; Hebrew Bible Monographs 72; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015); Rivka Raviv, “The Talmudic ­Formulation of the Prophecies of the Four Kingdoms” (Hebrew), Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 5 (2006): 1–20; and W. J. van Bekkum, “Four Kingdoms Will Rule: Echoes of Apocalypticism and Political Reality in Late Antiquity and Medieval Judaism,” in Endzeiten: Eschatologie in den monotheistischen Weltreligionen (ed. W. Brandes and F. Schmieder; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 101–18. 40. Pisḥa 14 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, p. 113, lines 86–87; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 51, lines 10–11). 41. Pisḥa 14 (Lauterbach, ed., vol. 1, p. 114, lines 99–100; Horowitz and Rabin, eds., p. 51, line 19; 52, line 1). 42. Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1988), 79. 43. The form of the verb is a qal we-qatal. 4 4. On the motif of Lebanon representing the Temple in tannaitic literature, see Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (StPB 4; 2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 26–39. 45. For recent important treatments of exile in biblical and post-biblical literature, see Jill Middlemass, The Templeless Age: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the “Exile” (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2007); Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile (OBT; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2002); and James M. Scott, ed., Exile. 46. For a brief, comprehensive treatment of this concept, see Cohen, “Shekhinta ba-Galuta,” 147–48. Cohen points to Eichah Rabbati 24 as the locus classicus for this concept in rabbinic literature (147 n. 4). 47. The Tannaim understood the disclosure of divine revelation to Ezekiel outside the land of Israel as theologically problematic and strive to fit Ezekiel and other similar experiences of divine revelation into their theological model; see Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Pisḥa 1. 48. Porton, “The Idea of Exile in Early Rabbinic Midrash,” 251.

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?    181 49. Avraham Kariv (Mi-sod ḥakamim bi-netive agadot Ḥazal [Hebrew; Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1976], 171–72) suggested that this concept was an innovation of Rabbi Akiva. See Cohen’s discussion of this issue in “Shekhinta baGaluta,” 152–53. An important example of this tradition is found in b. Meg. 29a, which is a parallel to the Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael passage from Pisḥa 14 discussed earlier. 50. CD-A, col. 5, line 21–col. 6, line 7. 51. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 44; John J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 30. 52. For a fuller discussion of this material and other related material on wilderness traditions, see Hindy Najman, “Towards a Study of the Uses of the Concept of Wilderness in Ancient Judaism,” DSD 13 (2006): 99–113; and Timothy Langille, “Old Memories, New Identities: Traumatic Memory, Exile, and Identity Formation in Damascus Document and Pesher Habakkuk,” in Memory and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity: A Conversation with Barry Schwartz (ed. Tom Thatcher; Semeia Studies 78; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 57–88. 53. E.g., Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan on Num 21:18; cf. 1 Cor 10:4. See also later Zoharic traditions that the well represents the Shekinah and is a nexus point for the divine realm and this realm (e.g., 3:62a).

Conclusion on the premise that it is possible to draw together the interpretations of Song of Songs scattered throughout the tannaitic midrashim and speak meaningfully about tannaitic interpretation of this work of love poetry. In the preceding chapters I have endeavored to build the case that these interpretations consistently employ a distinctively rabbinic mode of figural interpretation in order to correlate this work to Israel’s national narrative. This approach to interpreting Song of Songs helped to shape rabbinic conceptions of the character and practice of model Israel as well as of an idealized vision of their beloved, God. Certainly, other seminal passages in Scripture, such as the crossing of the sea or the giving of the Torah at Sinai, offer equally important narrative contexts for describing this renewed relationship. But the archetypal and idealized language of Song of Songs provides a unique textual arena in which to consider Israel’s relationship with God. In this context Song of Songs serves the larger tannaitic program of constructing an exemplary portrayal of Jewish life, centered on rabbinic conceptions of proper Jewish practice and appropriate communal authority. Refracted through the lens of tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs, God becomes Israel’s beloved (dod), and Israel becomes God’s companion (ra‘yah), God’s perfect one (tamah). For the tannaitic midrashim Song of Songs provides a landscape in which to imagine an idyllic construction of Israel’s relationship to her beloved, marked by mutual devotion and fidelity sealed in Israel’s observance of the commandments. Through this approach to Song of Songs, the Tannaim helped lay the foundations for a robust theology of intimacy in God’s relationship with the Jewish people that would reach a fuller expression in the amoraic midrashim. In chapter 1, I pointed out that the current state of scholarly discussion regarding the interpretation of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim lacked significant appreciation of its hermeneutical features. I pressed to move beyond the generic description of these interpretations as allegory. I proposed instead that our appreciation of tannaitic interpretation of Song of this volume rests

184   

my perfect one

Songs would be better served if we adopted the technical vocabulary of figural interpretation in order to describe the Tannaim’s process of reading this work. I provided a brief overview of the use of typology to interpret texts in Greco-Roman and early Christian literature. I also differentiated typology or figural interpretation from philosophical allegory. Whereas philosophical allegory focuses on connecting a text to abstract philosophical ideals, figural interpretation displays a marked historical concern to correlate a given text to other parts of Scripture. In this chapter I explored representative texts from the tannaitic midrashim that exhibit various features of its mode of interpreting Song of Songs. In doing so, I laid out the basic framework of chapters 2 through 5 of this volume. In these chapters, I examined, respectively: how the tannaitic midrashim correlate Song of Songs to Israel’s ideal national narrative of the exodus, the Sinai theophany, and the wilderness wanderings (chapter 2); how the tannaitic midrashim interpret the descriptions and actions of the female protagonist in order to characterize ideal Israel and shape Jewish practice (chapter 3); and how the tannaitic midrashim employ the descriptions of the male beloved in order to describe an idealized expression of Israel’s beloved, God (chapters 4 and 5). In chapter 2, I outlined the various processes of figuration and prefiguration employed in the tannaitic midrashim in order to correlate Song of Songs to archetypal events in Jewish history, particularly the exodus, the Sinai theophany, and the wilderness experience. In addition, I examined the correlation of Song of Songs in these midrashim to the experience of the Jewish people in the first two centuries of the common era. I argued that in correlating Song of Songs to the paradigmatic events and institutions of Israel’s national historical narrative, the tannaitic midrashim display neither a rigid approach to the interpretation of Song of Songs as Saul Lieberman argued nor a rejection of a consistent program of interpretation as Alon Goshen Gottstein has more recently contended. While there is, as I noted, a degree of fluidity in the interpretations of Song of Songs in this corpus, all of the texts fall under the broad rubric of interpreting this work as referring to Israel’s ideal national historical narrative. In doing so, the early rabbinic sages sought to valorize Israel’s past, to interpret and shape their community’s present circumstances, and to imagine the future relationship of exemplary Israel with her beloved. In chapter 3, I examined how the tannaitic midrashim painted an idealized picture of Israel and her practices and piety through the descriptions of the female protagonist’s appearance in Song of Songs. In particular, I focused on the interpretations of the longer descriptive songs, or waṣfs. After my exploration of the ways in which Song of Songs was interpreted in this

Conclusion    185

corpus, I turned to the question of how the early rabbinic sages dealt with the erotic tenor of these passages. While the interpretations found in the tannaitic midrashim of the descriptions of the female protagonist lacked the erotic tone of the original text, I argued that they do infuse the affection present in the relationship in Song of Songs into their conceptions of Israel’s relationship with God. This fusion helped shape rabbinic thought and practice characterized by intense, affectionate, and reciprocal devotion between model Israel and her beloved. In chapter 4, I continued my examination of tannaitic interpretation of descriptive language in Song of Songs, focusing there on the portrayals of the male beloved. In their reading of these passages and Song 5:10–16, in particular, the interpretations of the early sages highlight God’s character in contradistinction to the attributes of the nations of the world and their gods and in correspondence with the features of ideal Israel. These points contributed to their understanding of the Torah as an expression of God’s love as well as their efforts to shape Jewish piety through a rabbinic expression of imitatio Dei, in which the Jewish people imitate divine practice and character. In chapter 5, I discussed how the interpretations found in the tannaitic midrashim reread and subverted the motif of the absent lover found in Song of Songs. These interpretations sublimated and refocused the themes of absence, longing, and pursuit that characterize the descriptions of the interrelationships in Song of Songs into an ideal vision of God’s relationship with Israel marked by fidelity, presence, and surety. Unlike the female protagonist of Song of Songs, Israel, in the readings found in the tannaitic midrashim, has found the elusive lover, her beloved, God. A crucial component of the assertion of the divine beloved’s presence in the interpretation of Song of Songs is the intention to support the rabbinic conception that the divine presence is with Israel throughout her experiences of exile and dislocation, known as Shekinta ba-Galuta. I pointed out that this theology of presence has an important precursor in Ezekiel, as well as an analogue in the thought of the community associated with Qumran, expressed in the Damascus Document. These exemplars, like the tannaitic midrashim, affirm God’s presence in support of a broader effort to renew Israel’s relationship with God and to strengthen their particular conceptions of what it means to be model Israel. As I noted in the introduction and have discussed in more detail elsewhere, our first hints of the interpretation of Song of Songs appear in the late first century apocalyptic works 4 Ezra and Revelation.1 As in the interpretations recorded in the tannaitic midrashim, these works point to an interpretation of Song of Songs as a divine love song. Both 4 Ezra and Revelation were written in the wake of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and in

186   

my perfect one

response to the hegemonic claims of the Roman Empire and, in the case of Revelation, in response to the predominance of Roman Imperial cults in Asia.2 In these works, allusions to Song of Songs join other more prominent textual allusions as a resource for reaffirming God’s fidelity to the beloved community and assuring them of God’s ultimate triumph in the face of destruction and imperial subjugation. For instance, as Michael E. Stone has argued, clear allusion to Song of Songs can be found in 4 Ezra 4:36–37.3 There, in the archangel Uriel’s interpretation of the statement of the archangel Jeremiel that God will act at the right time to redeem Israel, it echoes the language of the female protagonist’s adjuration, thrice made in Song of Songs, that the daughters of Jerusalem restrain love until the appropriate time (3:5; cf. 2:7, 8:4). It is also likely that 4 Ezra 5:24, 26 draw upon the Song 2:1–2 and Song 2:14, 5:2 as sources for the lily, dove, and sheep imagery used there to describe Israel’s elect status. Similarly, the author of Revelation variously evokes Song of Songs. In a rich complex of allusions to the description of the Ancient of Days in Dan 7, the mighty angel in Dan 10, and the lampstands from Zech 4, the author of Rev 1 echoes Song of Songs in his use of language describing the male beloved in Song 1:2 to depict the sash wrapped around the exalted Son of Man’s “breast.” He also echoes Song of Songs repeatedly in his description of the woman in Rev 12 (Song 6:10 in Rev 12:1; Song 8:6–7 in Rev 12:11, 15–16) and the bride later in the book (Song 4:8–12, 5:1, 7:12 in Rev 19:7, 21:2, 9, 22:17). These echoes increase the likelihood that the writer of Revelation also subverts the night vision from chapter 5 when, in Rev 3:20, the exalted Son of Man says to the angel of the church of Laodicea, “Listen! I am standing at the door knocking; if you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to you and eat with you, and you with me.” The strong phenomenological parallels between the interpretive approaches to Song of Songs found in Revelation, 4 Ezra, and the tannaitic midrashim suggest that the authors of these various texts drew on a common Second Temple Jewish approach to interpreting Song of Songs as a divine love song. As in these earlier works, the interpretation of Song of Songs found in the tannaitic midrashim seeks to assert radically the resolute presence of God in the life of Israel. In doing so, these first rabbinic interpreters not only highlight verses of Song of Songs that bespeak the male lover’s powerful presence but also transform passages (such as the night visions from chapters 3 and 5) that point to the elusive behavior and even absence of the male beloved. This mode of interpretation assured the early rabbis of God’s abiding covenant with the Jewish people following the profound social, cultural, and geographical dislocation of the first centuries of the common era. In the later, amoraic period (middle of the third century c.e. through the end of the fifth

Conclusion    187

century c.e.), these interpretations provided a ready theological counterpoint to the charge of the Church Fathers that the destruction of the Temple and the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem was a sign that God had abandoned Israel because of her rejection of Jesus. 4 But the genesis of the rabbinic reading of Song of Songs is not in the contestation with emerging Christianity.5 Rather, their interpretations arise out of the broader experience of subjugation to empire and the attendant implications of this situation for the cohesion of Jewish community. The tannaitic interpretations of Song of Songs predominantly correlate this work to archetypal Jewish events such as the exodus, as well as to idealized conceptions of God and Israel and to rabbinic practice. This focus on the ideal, mythic, and archetypal can give a sense that the Tannaim show little concern for contemporary experience. As I noted in chapter 2, we occasionally receive hints in tannaitic interpretation of the contemporary application of verses from Song of Songs such as Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s contemporizing interpretation of Song 1:8 as referring to the poverty of a woman who was wealthy before the first Jewish revolt in 68–70 c.e. Normally, however, the focus is on Israel’s idealized past and the hope for the future. But these once-and-future temporal horizons should not blind us to the fact that these interpretations were composed and subsequently recorded in the aftermath of great upheavals in Jewish history, including the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e. and the failure of the Bar Kokhba rebellion in 135 c.e. In the aftermath of the 135 c.e. revolt, Judea faced near-absolute destruction. The second century c.e. Roman historian Cassius Dio records in his Roman History that the Roman military quashed the rebellion with approximately 50,000 soldiers, razing 985 villages, and selling substantial numbers of captives into slavery.6 The province of Judea, Provincia Judaea, was renamed Provincia Syria Palestina. As the late Israeli archaeologist Hanan Eshel notes, “Although Dio’s figure . . . seems hyperbolic, without exception all Judean villages excavated appear to have been razed following the Bar Kokhba Revolt.”7 Eshel takes this fact as evidence of regional destruction. In the wake of this near total devastation, the center of Jewish life shifts after 135 c.e. from Judea to the north, to the Galilee, and Judea itself is virtually depopulated. Since the nineteenth century and the work of Heinrich Graetz, scholars have viewed this period, with a particular emphasis on 70 c.e., as an epochal period in Jewish history that saw dramatic changes in Jewish society.8 These shifts included national and religious transitions from society with a national center (albeit under Roman control) to a center-less diaspora, and from Temple to synagogue worship. Since the late-twentieth century, scholarship on ancient Jewish history has rightly moved away from the conception that

188   

my perfect one

this period was a watershed in Jewish history, let alone in the history of the ancient Mediterranean. This volume is not the place to retrace fully the lines of the debate over the significance of this period for the progress of Jewish history. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the importance of this context for the emergence of tannaitic interpretation of Song of Songs. My purpose in briefly retracing the history of this sixty-five-year period and highlighting the changes faced by the Jewish population in Judea during this period is to draw attention to the context in which tannaitic interpretation of Song of Song emerges. Though, as I noted, we only occasionally receive hints of this social and historical context in passages in which they employ Song of Songs, it is in the shadow of these events that the tannaitic reading of Song of Songs and its consequent vision for the future of Judaism is shaped. While scholars have undertaken sustained analyses of amoraic as well as later rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs, the primary focus of this volume has been on the first stage of rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs, when the Tannaim received the earlier Second Temple framework of interpretation and integrated it with the emerging rabbinic system of interpretation.9 I leave to other scholars, however, the important task of tracing the diachronic development of the rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the interpretation of Song of Songs in the tannaitic midrashim as a divine love song proved in the coming centuries to be a powerful way for the rabbinic tradition to understand Israel’s past and imagine Judaism’s future. Rabbinic commentary on Song of Songs, to say nothing of the liturgical poetry written based on Song of Songs, proliferates in the following millennium (e.g., Song of Songs Rabbah, Ibn Tibbon’s commentary on Song of Songs, the Zohar) at a rate that is perhaps disproportionate to the size of this poetic work and to the comparable commentaries on other works of Jewish Scripture. This growth illustrates the impact of Song of Songs on the development of Jewish thought and represents the legacy of tannaitic interpretation of this idyllic love song for the rabbinic tradition. Through their typological interpretation of Song of Songs, the Tannaim lay the foundations for a theology of intimacy that reaches its fullest expression in the more expansive interpretations of rabbinic Judaism that follow in the coming centuries.

Notes 1. See Jonathan Kaplan, “The Song of Songs from the Bible to the Mishnah,” HUCA 81 (2010/2013): 43–66.

Conclusion    189 2. On this point, see Steven J. Friesen, Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). 3. Michael E. Stone, “The Interpretation of Song of Songs in 4 Ezra,” JSJ 38 (2007): 226–33. 4. E.g., Justin Martyr, Dialog. See Norman J. Cohen’s discussion of this issue in “Shekhinta ba-Galuta: A Midrashic Response to Destruction and Persecution,” JSJ 13 (1982): 147–59, here 157–58; and Arthur Marmorstein, Studies in Jewish Theology: The Arthur Marmorstein Memorial Volume (ed. J. Rabbinowitz and M. S. Lew; London: Oxford University Press, 1950), 192–93. 5. Jacob Neusner (The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism [Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1988], 43, see also 50) rightly refers to the documents of the tannaitic period as “‘Judaism without Christianity,’ because the issues found urgent in the documents representative of this phase address questions not pertinent to the Christian défi of Israel at all.” 6. Cassius Dio, Roman History, 69.12–14. 7. Hanan Eshel, “The Bar Kokhba Revolt,” EDEJ, 421–25, here 424. On this point, see also Eric M. Meyers and Mark A. Chancey, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Volume 3: Alexander to Constantine (AYBRL; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2012), 172–73. 8. See Heinrich Graetz, The Structure of Jewish History, and Other Essays (trans. and ed. I. Schorsch; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1975). Translated from idem, Die Konstruktion der jüdischen Geschichte (Berlin: Schocken, 1936). For important discussions of the use of 70 c.e. to demarcate historical development, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “Introduction: Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? Three Stages of Modern Scholarship, and a Renewed Effort,” in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple (ed. Daniel R. Schwartz and Zeev Weiss with Ruth A. Clements; Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 78; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 1–19; and idem, “Jews, Judaeans and the Epoch that Disappeared: H. Graetz’s Changing View of the Second Temple Period” (Hebrew), Zion 70 (2004/5): 293–309. Interestingly, Graetz places more emphasis on later amoraic texts in the formation of rabbinic interpretation of Song of Songs in his commentary; see Schir ha-schirim oder, das Salomonische Hohelied: übersetzt und kritisch erläutert (Vienna: W. Braumüller, 1871), 115–18. 9. On the amoraic collections, see Birke Rapp-de Lange, “Rabbinische Liebe: Untersuchungen zur Deutung der Liebe des Hohenliedes auf das Studium der Tora in Midrasch Shir haShirim Rabba” (Ph.D. diss., Katholieke Theologische Universiteit in Utrecht, 2003) and Tamar Kadari, “On the Redaction of Midrash Shir HaShirim Rabbah” (Hebrew; Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2004).

Bibliography

r a b b i n ic t e x t s Albeck, Chanoch, editor. Shisha Sidrei Mishnah. Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik and Dvir, 1952–59. Epstein, Jacob Nahum, and Ezra Zion Melamed, editors, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. Jerusalem: Meqitze Nirdamim, 1955. Finkelstein, Louis, editor. Siphre ad Deuteronomium. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993. ———. Sifra on Leviticus. 5 vols. New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1983–91. Goldin, Judah, editor. The Munich Manuscript of the Mekilta. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1980. Hammer, Reuven. Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986. Hoffmann, David Zvi, editor. Midrash Tannaim zum Deuteronomium. Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1908. Horowitz, H. S., editor. Siphre D’be Rab: Fasciculus primus: Siphre ad Numeros adjecto Siphre zutta. 2d ed. Jerusalem: Shalem Books, 1992. Horowitz, H. S., and I. A. Rabin, editors. Mechilta d’Rabbi Ismael. Jerusalem: Shalem, 1997. Kahana, Menaḥem I., editor. Sifre on Numbers: An Annotated Edition. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2011. ———. Sifre Zuta on Deuteronomy: Citations from a New Tannaitic Midrash. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2002. Kirschner, Robert, editor. Baraita de-Melekhet ha-Mishkan: A Critical Edition with Introduction and Translation. Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992. Koleditzky, Shachne, editor. Sifra with the Commentary of Rabbenu Hiilel. Jerusalem: Sifriyah Toranit, 1992.

192    Bibliography Lauterbach, J. Z. Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition on the Basis of the Manuscripts and Early Editions with an English Translation. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933. Lieberman, Saul, editor. The Tosefta. 5 vols. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955–88. Nelson, W. David. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2006. Palache, Ḥayyim, et al. Qovets Mefarshe Ha-Mekilta: Mishmerot Kehunah; Shevut Yehudah; et al. Jerusalem: Vagshal, 1988. Weiss, I. H., editor. Sifra: Commentar zu Leviticus. Vienna: Schlossberg, 1862. Zuckermandel, M. S., editor. Tosephta. Rev. ed. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1970.

non -r a b b i n ic a nc i e n t s ou rc e s Alt, A., et al. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967. Aristotle. Translated by H. Rackham et al. 23 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932–2011. Augustine. De catechizandis rudibus. Translated by Goulven Madec. Paris: Institut d’études augustiniennes, 2001. Baehrens, W. A., editor. Origenes Werke. 13 vols. Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte 33. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899–1976. Bedjan, P., editor. Homiliae Selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis. With additional material by Sebastian P. Brock. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2006. Bloch, David. Aristotle on Memory and Recollection: Text, Translation, Interpretation, and Reception in Western Scholasticism. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Charlesworth, James H., editor. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Dietrich, M., O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, editors. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. 3d enl. ed. Münster: Ugarit, 2013. ———. Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. AOAT 24/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1976. Dio Cassius. Roman History. Translated by Earnest Cary and Herbert B. Foster. 9 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914–27. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20), A Commentary. 3d ed. BibOr 18b. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2004. Heraclitus. Homeric Problems. Translated by D. A. Russell and David Konstan. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Lucretius. On the Nature of Things. Translated by W. H. D. Rouse and M. F. Smith. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1924. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. Revised by Thomas P. Halton and edited by Michael Slusser. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003.

Bibliography    193 Nestle, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle, Barbard Aland, Kurt Aland, et al. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Origen. Homilies on Genesis and Exodus. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. FC 71. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1982. ———. The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies. Translated by R. P. Lawson. ACW 26. New York: Newman: 1957. Parisot, J. Patrologia Syriaca. 3 vols. Paris: Firmin-Didot et socii, 1894–1926. Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson, J. W. Erp, G. H. Whitaker, and Ralph Marcus. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929–62. Plato. Translated by Harold North Fowler et al. 15 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1921–2013. Price, Richard, editor. The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553. 2 vols. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009. Sextus Propertius. Elegies. Translated by G. P. Goold. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990. Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem. Edited and translated by Ernest Evans. Oxford Early Christian Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Varro. On the Latin Language. Translated by Roland G. Kent. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938.

s e c on da r y s ou rc e s Abegg, Martin, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1999. Achtemeier, Elizabeth. “Typology.” Pages 926–27 in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Edited by K. Crim. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1976. Albeck, Chanoch. Untersuchungen über die halakischen Midraschim. Berlin: Akademieverlag, 1927. Albright, William Foxwell. “A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalm LXVIII).” HUCA 23 (1950–51): 1–39. Alexander, Philip S. “The Song of Songs as Historical Allegory: Notes on the Development of an Exegetical Tradition.” Pages 14–29 in Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara. Edited by Kevin J. Cathcart and Michael Maher. JSOTSup 230. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. ———. The Targum of Canticles. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2003. Alster, Baruch. “Human Love and its Relationship to Spiritual Love in Jewish Exegesis on the Song of Songs” (Hebrew). Ph.D. diss., Bar Ilan University, 2006. Alsup, John E. “Typology.” Pages 682–85 in vol. 6 of ABD. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Anderson, Gary A. “Redeem Your Sins through Works of Charity.” Pages 57–65 in To Train his Soul in Books. Edited by Robin Darling Young and Monica J. Blanchard. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2011.

194    Bibliography Anderson, Gary A. Sin, A History. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009. ———. A Time to Mourn, a Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991. Anisfeld, Rachel A. Sustain Me with Raisin-Cakes: Pesikta deRav Kahana and the Popularization of Rabbinic Judaism. JSJSup 133. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Appelbaum, Alan. The Rabbis’ King-Parables: Midrash from the Third-Century Roman Empire. Judaism in Context 7. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2010. Auerbach, Erich. “Figura.” Pages 11–76 in Scenes from the Drama of European Literature, Six Essays. Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1973. Baker, David L. “Typology and the Christian Use of the Old Testament.” SJT 29 (1976): 137–57. Bakhtin, Mikhail M. Rabelais and his World. Translated by Hélène Iswolsky. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2009. Balme, Maurice. “Lyric Poetry.” Pages 24–62 in Greek and Latin Literature: A Comparative Study. Edited by John Higginbotham. London: Methuen, 1969. Baltzer, Klaus. Das Bundesformular. WMANT 4. 2d ed. Kreis Moers: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964. Barton, John. “The Canonicity of the Song of Songs.” Pages 1–7 in Perspectives on the Song of Songs [Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung]. Edited by Anselm C. Hagedorn. BZAW 346. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The Red Cow Purification Rites in Qumran Texts.” JJS 46 (1995): 112–19. Ben-Eliyahu, Eyal, Yehudah Cohn, and Fergus Millar. Handbook of Jewish Literature from Late Antiquity, 135–700 CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Bentzen, Aage. “Remarks on the Canonisation of the Song of Solomon.” Pages 41–47 in Studia Orientalia Ioanni Pedersen. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1953. Berger, David. “Three Typological Themes in Early Jewish Messianism: Messiah Son of Joseph, Rabbinic Calculations, and the Figure of Armilus.” AJSR 10 (1985): 141–64. Berger, Michael S. Rabbinic Authority: The Authority of the Talmudic Sages. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Beye, Charles Rowan. Ancient Epic Poetry: Homer, Apollonius, Virgil. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993. Black, Fiona C. The Artifice of Love: Grotesque Bodies and the Song of Songs. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 392. London: T & T Clark, 2009. ———. “Beauty or the Beast? The Grotesque Body in the Song of Songs.” BibInt 8 (2000): 302–23. ———. “Nocturnal Egression: Exploring Some Margins of the Song of Songs.” Pages 93–104 in Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible, A Reader. Edited by A. K. M. Adam. St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice Press, 2001. ———. “Unlikely Bedfellows: Allegorical and Feminist Readings of Song of Songs 7.1–8.” Pages 104–29 in The Song of Songs: A Feminist Companion to the

Bibliography    195 Bible 6 (Second Series). Edited by Athalya Brenner and Carole R. Fontaine. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Bloch, Ariel, and Chana Bloch. The Song of Songs, A New Translation. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1995. Bloch, Chana. “Translating Eros.” Pages 151–61, 340–41 in Scrolls of Love: Ruth and the Song of Songs. Edited by Peter S. Hawkins and Lesleigh Cushing Stahlberg. New York: Fordham University Press, 2006. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. ———. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Judaism and Christianity. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1999. ———. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1990. ———. “‘Language Inscribed by History on the Bodies of Living Beings’: Midrash and Martyrdom.” Representations 25 (1989): 139–51. ———. “On the Status of the Tannaitic Midrashim: A Critique of Jacob Neusner’s Latest Contribution to Midrashic Studies.” JAOS 112 (1992): 455–65. ———. “Origen as Theorist of Allegory: Alexandrian Contexts.” Pages 39–54 in The Cambridge Companion to Allegory. Edited by Rita Copeland and Peter T. Struck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. ———. “The Song of Songs: Lock or Key? Intertextuality, Allegory and Midrash.” Pages 214–30 in The Book and the Text: The Bible and Literary Theory. Edited by Regina M. Schwartz. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990. ———. Tannaitic Midrash: Intertextuality and the Reading of Mekilta. Hebrew. Translated by David S. Luvish and Ruti Bar-Ilan. Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2011. ———. “Two Introductions to the Midrash on the Song of Songs” (Hebrew). Tarbiz 56 (1986): 479–500. ———. Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1997. Boys-Stones, G. R., editor. Metaphor, Allegory, and the Classical Tradition: Ancient Thought and Modern Revisions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Brenner, Athalya. “‘Come Back, Come Back the Shulamite’ (Song of Songs 7:1–10): A Parody of the Waṣf Genre.” Pages 234–57 in A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs. The Feminist Companion to the Bible 1. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Reprinted from pages 251–76 in On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by A. Brenner and Y. T. Radday. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990. Brock, Sebastian P. The Bible in the Syriac Tradition. Gorgias Handbooks 7. 2d rev. ed. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2006. ———. “Greek Words in the Syriac Gospels (vet and pe).” Le Muséon 80 (1967): 389–426.

196    Bibliography Brocke, Michael. “The ‘Imitation of God’ in Judaism.” Pages 55–75 in Three Ways to the One God: The Faith Experience in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by A. Falaturi, J. J. Petuchowski, and W. Strolz. New York: Crossroad, 1987. Translated and adapted from Drei Wege zu dem einen Gott: Glaubenserfahrung in den monotheistischen Religionen. Freiburg: Herder, 1976. Byrne, Brendan. Romans. SP 6. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996. Carr, David M. The Erotic Word: Sexuality, Spirituality, and the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ———. “Gender and the Shaping of Desire in the Song of Songs and its Interpretation.” JBL 119 (2000): 233–48. Cassuto, Umberto. “The Israelite Epic.” Pages 69–109 in volume 2 of Biblical and Oriental Studies. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975. Ceresa-Gastaldo, Aldo. “Nuove ricerche sulla storia del testo, le antiche versioni e l’interpretazione del Cantico dei Cantici.” ASE 6 (1989): 31–38. Chernick, Michael. “A Great Voice that Did Not Cease”: The Growth of the Rabbinic Canon and Its Interpretation. Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 2009. Clines, David J. A. “Why is There a Song of Songs, and What Does It Do to You if You Read it?” Pages 94–121 in Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Cohen, Gerson. “The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religious Mentality.” Pages 1–17 in Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures. JPS Scholar of Distinction Series. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991. Reprinted from The Samuel Friedland Lectures, 1960–1966. Edited by Louis Finkelstein. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1966. Cohen, Norman J. “Analysis of an Exegetic Tradition in the ‘Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael’: The Meaning of ’Amanah in the Second and Third Centuries.” AJSR 9 (1984): 1–25. ———. “Shekhinta ba-Galuta: A Midrashic Response to Destruction and Persecution.” JSJ 13 (1982): 147–59. Cohn, Naftali S. The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis. Divinations. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012. Cohn, Yehudah B. Tangled up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World. BJS 351. Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2008. Collins, John J. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Copeland, Rita, and Peter T. Struck. “Introduction.” Pages 1–11 in The Cambridge Companion to Allegory. Edited by Rita Copeland and Peter T. Struck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Crawford, Sidnie White. “Lady Wisdom and Dame Folly at Qumran.” DSD 5 (1998): 355–66.

Bibliography    197 Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997. ———. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Crouzel, Henri. Origen. Translated by A. S. Worrall. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000. Daniélou, Jean. From Shadows to Reality: Studies in the Biblical Typology of the Fathers. Translated by Wulstan Hibberd. London: Burns & Oates, 1960. ———. Origen. Translated by Walter Mitchell. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955. Davis, Ellen F. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000. ———. “Reading the Song Iconographically.” Pages 172–84, 342–44 in Scrolls of Love: Ruth and the Song of Songs. Edited by Peter S. Hawkins and Lesleigh Cushing Stahlberg. New York: Fordham University Press, 2006. Dawson, David. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1992. Delitzsch, Franz. Das Hohelied. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1851. Doak, Brian R. The Last of the Rephaim: Conquest and Cataclysm in the Heroic Ages of Ancient Israel. Ilex Series 7; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2013. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. “Late Linguistic Features in the Song of Songs.” Pages 27–77 in Perspectives on the Song of Songs [Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung]. Edited by Anselm C. Hagedorn. BZAW 346. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1–8. WBC 38A. Waco, Tx.: Word, 1988. Epstein, Jacob N. Introduction to Tannaitic Literature: Mishnah, Tosephta and Halachic Midrashim. Hebrew. Edited by E. Z. Melamed. Jerusalem: Magness, 1957. Erman, Adolf. The Literature of the Ancient Egyptians. Translated by Aylward M. Blackman. London: Methuen, 1927. Eshel, Hanan. “The Bar Kokhba Revolt.” Pages 421–25 in EDEJ. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Exum, J. Cheryl. “In the Eye of the Beholder: Wishing, Dreaming, and Double Entendre in the Song of Songs.” Pages 71–86 in The Labour of Reading: Desire, Alienation, and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Fiona C. Black, Roland Boer, and Erin Runions. Semeia Studies 36. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 1999. ———. Song of Songs, A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Falk, Marcia. “The Waṣf.” Pages 225–33 in A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs. The Feminist Companion to the Bible 1. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Reprinted from Love Lyrics in the Hebrew Bible: A Translation and Literary Study of the Song of Songs. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982. Finkelstein, Louis. Akiba: Scholar, Saint and Martyr. New York: Atheneum, 1970.

198    Bibliography Finkelstein, Louis. “The Mekilta and Its Text.” PAARJ 5 (1933): 3–54. ———. The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith. 3d rev. ed. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1966. Fishbane, Michael. “Anthological Midrash and Cultural Paideia: The Case of Songs Rabba 1:2.” Pages 32–51 in Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century. Edited by Peter Ochs and Nancy Levene. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. ———. Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ———. “Torah and Tradition.” Pages 275–300 in Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament. Edited by D. A. Knight. London: SPCK/Fortress, 1977. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Fonrobert, Charlotte Elisheva. “Diaspora Cartography: On the Rabbinic Background of Contemporary Ritual Eruv Practice.” Images 5 (2011): 14–25. ———. “The Political Symbolism of the Eruv.” Jewish Social Studies 11 (2005): 9–35. ———. “From Separatism to Urbanism: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Rabbinic ‘Eruv.’” DSD 11 (2004): 43–71. Fox, Michael V. The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. Fraade, Steven D. “Response to Azzan Yadin-Israel on Rabbinic Polysemy: Do They ‘Preach’ What They Practice?” AJSR 38 (2014): 339–61. ———. “Rabbinic Polysemy and Pluralism Revisited: Between Praxis and Thematization.” AJSR 31 (2007): 1–40. ———. “The Torah of the King (Deut 17:14–20) in the Temple Scroll and Early Rabbinic Law.” Pages 25–60 in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by James R. Davila. STDJ 46. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2003. ———. From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy. SUNY Series in Judaica. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1991. Freidenreich, David M. Foreigners and Their Food: Constructing Otherness in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Law. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2011. Friesen, Steven J. Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Frye, Northrop. “Approaching the Lyric.” Pages 31–37 in Lyric Poetry: Beyond New Criticism. Edited by Chaviva Hošek and Patricia Parker. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985. Funkenstein, Amos. “Nachmanides’ Typological Reading of History” (Hebrew). Zion 45 (1980): 35–59. Gardner, Gregg E. “Giving to the Poor in Early Rabbinic Judaism.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 2009. ———. “Let Them Eat Fish: Food for the Poor in Early Rabbinic Judaism.” JSJ 45 (2014): 250–70.

Bibliography    199 ———. The Origins of Organized Charity in Rabbinic Judaism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Garnsey, Peter. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Gault, Brian P. “Body Concealed, Body Revealed: Shedding Comparative Light on the Body in Song of Songs.” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 2012. Gerb, Ignace J., et al. The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. Chicago, Ill.: Oriental Institute, 1956–. Gerleman, Gillis. Ruth Das Hohelied. BKAT 18. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965. Goldberg, Abraham. “Chanokh Albeck: Mavo la-Talmudim,” Kiryat Sefer 47 (1972): 9–19. Goldin, Judah. The Song at the Sea, being a Commentary on a Commentary in Two Parts. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971. ———. “Toward a Profile of the Tanna, Aqiba ben Joseph.” Pages 298–323 in Studies in Midrash and Related Literature. Edited by Barry L. Eichler and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society, 1988. Goppelt, Leonhard. Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Translated by Donald H. Madvig. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982. Goshen Gottstein, Alon. “Did the Tannaim Interpret the Song of Songs Systematically?” Pages 260–71 in Vixens Disturbing Vineyards: Embarrassment and Embracement of Scriptures, Festschrift in Honor of Harry Fox (leBeit Yoreh). Edited by Tzemah Yoreh, Aubrey Glazer, Justin Jaron Lewis, and Miryam Segal. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2010. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. “Philologische Miszellen zu den Qumrantexten.” RevQ 2 (1959–60): 43–51. Graetz, Heinrich. Schir ha-schirim oder, das Salomonische Hohelied: übersetzt und kritisch erläutert. Vienna: W. Braumüller, 1871. ———. The Structure of Jewish History, and Other Essays. Translated and edited by Ismar Schorsch. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1975. Translated from Die Konstruktion der jüdischen Geschichte. Berlin: Schocken 1936. Green, Deborah A. The Aroma of Righteousness: Scent and Seduction in Rabbinic Life and Literature. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2011. Grypeou, Emmanouele, and Helen Spurling, editors. The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 18. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Gunkel, Hermann. Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1895. Translated by K. William Whitney Jr. Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: A Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006.

200    Bibliography Gvaryahu, Amit. “A New Reading of the Three Dialogs in Mishnah Avodah Zarah.” JSQ 19 (2012): 207–29. Hagedorn, Anselm, C. “Die Frau des Hohenlieds zwischen babylonisch-assyrischer Morphoskopie und Jacques Lacan.” ZAW 122 (2010): 417–30 (part 1), 593–609 (part 2). Hainsworth, J. B. The Idea of Epic. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1991. Hammer, Reuven. “The Exile and the Suffering of the Shekinah” (Hebrew). Pages 20–27 in Tura: Studies in Jewish Thought, Simon Greenberg Jubilee Volume. Edited by Meir Ayali, et al. Tel Aviv: Ha-Kibbutz Ha-Meuchad, 1989. Hanson, R. P. C. Allegory and Event: A Study of Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Harding, Kathryn. “‘I sought him but I did not find him’: The Elusive Lover in the Song of Songs.” BibInt 16 (2008): 43–59. Henshke, David. “‘For Your Love is More Delightful than Wine’: Concerning Tannaitic Biblical Traditions” (Hebrew). Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 10 (2012): 1–24. Hermann, Alfred. Altägyptische Liebesdichtung. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1959. ———. “Beiträge zur Erklärung der ägyptischen Liebesdichtung.” Ägyptologische Studien 29 (1955): 118–39. Hess, Richard S. Song of Songs. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2005. Hezser, Catherine. “‘Privat’ und ‘öffentlich’ im Talmud Yerushalmi und in der griechisch-römischen Antike.” Pages 423–579 in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture I. Edited by Peter Schäfer. TSAJ 71. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Hidary, Richard. Dispute for the Sake of Heaven: Legal Pluralism in the Talmud. BJS 353. Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2010. Hirshman, Marc G. A Rivalry of Genius: Jewish and Christian Biblical Interpretation in Late Antiquity. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1996. Jacobsen, Thorkild. “Sumerian Mythology: A Review Article.” JNES 5 (1946): 128–52. ———. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1976. Jaffee, Martin S. “Rabbinic Authorship as a Collective Enterprise.” Pages 17–37 in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Japhet, Sara. “The ‘Description Poems’ in Ancient Jewish Sources and in the Jewish Exegesis of the Song of Songs.” Pages 216–29 in A Critical Engagement: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of J. Cheryl Exum. Edited by David J. A. Clines and Ellen van Wolde. Hebrew Bible Monographs 38. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011.

Bibliography    201 Jassen, Alex P. “Law and Exegesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Sabbath Carrying Prohibition in Comparative Perspective.” Pages 115–56 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref. STDJ 89. Leiden: Brill, 2010. ———. “Tracing the Threads of Jewish Law: The Sabbath Carrying Prohibition from Jeremiah to the Rabbis.” ASE 28 (2011): 253–78. Jastrow, Marcus. Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi, and Midrashic Literature. New York: The Judaica Press, 1996. Johnson, W. R. The Idea of Lyric: Lyric Modes in Ancient and Modern Poetry. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1982. Kadari, Tamar. “On the Redaction of Midrash Shir HaShirim Rabbah” (Hebrew). Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2004. ———. “‘Within it was Decked with Love’: The Torah as the Bride in Tannaitic Exegesis on Song of Songs” (Hebrew). Tarbiz 71 (2002): 391–404. Kadushin, Max. A Conceptual Approach to the Mekilta. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1981. Kahana, Menaḥem I. “The Critical Editions of Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael in the Light of the Genizah Fragments” (Hebrew). Tarbiz 55 (1985): 489–524. ———. “The Halakhic Midrashim.” Pages 3–105 in The Literature of the Sages, Second Part: Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Shmuel Safrai and others. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2006. ———. “Initial Observations Regarding the Baraita deMelekhet haMishkan: Text, Redaction and Publication.” Pages 55–67 (Hebrew section) in Melekhet Mahshevet: Studies in the Redaction and Development of Talmudic Literature. Edited by Aaron Amit and Aharon Shemesh. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2011. Kamesar, Adam. “Biblical Interpretation in Philo.” Pages 65–91 in The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Edited by Adam Kamesar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Kaplan, Jonathan. “A Divine Love Song: The Emergence of the Theo-erotic Interpretation of the Song of Songs in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 2010. ———. “Four Empires (Rabbinic Judaism),” vol. 9, 522; “Fox (Bible),” vol. 9, 565–66; “God (Rabbinic Judaism),” vol. 10, 399–401; “Imitation of God (Rabbinic),” forthcoming; and “Jackal (Bible),” forthcoming. In The Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009–. ———. “Imperial Dominion and Israel’s Renown: ‘The Four Empires’ in Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael.” In Imagination, Ideology, and Inspiration: Echoes of Brueggemann in a New Generation. Edited by Jonathan Kaplan and Robert Williamson Jr. Hebrew Bible Monographs 72. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015. ———. “The Song of Songs from the Bible to the Mishnah.” HUCA 81 (2010/2013): 43–66.

202    Bibliography Kariv, Avraham. Mi-sod ḥakamim bi-netive agadot Ḥazal (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1976. Kawashima, Robert S. “Could a Woman Say ‘No’ in Biblical Israel? On the Genealogy of Legal Status in Biblical Law and Literature.” AJSR 35 (2011): 1–22. Keel, Othmar. Le Cantique des cantiques: introduction et commentaire. Fribourg, Suisse; Paris: Editions universitaires; Cerf, 1997. ———. Das Hohelied. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1986. ———. The Song of Songs, A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1994. Kimelman, Reuven R. “Rabbi Yoḥanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A ThirdCentury Jewish-Christian Disputation.” HTR 73 (1980): 567–95. King, Katherine Callen. Ancient Epic. Blackwell Introductions to the Classical World. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. King, Philip J., and Lawrence E. Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Kirk, J. R. Daniel. Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008. Kitchen, Robert A. “Jonah’s Oar: Christian Typology in Jacob of Serug’s Mēmrā 122 on Jonah.” Hugoye 11 (2011): 29–62, available online at http://syrcom.cua.edu/ Hugoye/Vol11No1/HV11N1Kitchen.html, accessed 2/23/2011. Klawans, Jonathan. Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Kraemer, Ross Shepard. When Asenath Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Kramer, Samuel Noah. The Sacred Marriage Rite: Aspects of Faith, Myth, and Ritual in Ancient Sumer. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1969. Kugel, James L. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. LaCocque, André. “‘I Am Black and Beautiful.’” Pages 162–71, 341–42 in Scrolls of Love: Ruth and the Song of Songs. Edited by Peter S. Hawkins and Lesleigh Cushing Stahlberg. New York: Fordham University Press, 2006. ———. Romance, She Wrote: A Hermeneutical Essay on Song of Songs. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1998. Lamberton, Robert. Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1986. Langille, Timothy. “Old Memories, New Identities: Traumatic Memory, Exile, and Identity Formation in Damascus Document and Pesher Habakkuk.” Pages 57–88 in Memory and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity: A Conversation with Barry Schwartz. Edited by Tom Thatcher. Semeia Studies 78. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014.

Bibliography    203 Lapsley, Jacqueline. “Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 65 (2003): 350–69. Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. Rev. ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994. ———. “Did God Forgive Adam? An Exercise in Comparative Midrash.” Pages 148–70 in Jews and Christians: People of God. Edited by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003. ———. Sinai & Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Levtow, Nathaniel. Images of Others: Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel. Biblical and Judaic Studies 11. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volume 2. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1976. Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised by Sir Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940. Lieberman, Saul. “Mishnat Shir ha-Shirim” (Hebrew). Pages 118–26 in Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition by Gershom G. Scholem. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965. Linafelt, Tod. “The Arithmetic of Eros.” Int 59 (2005): 244–58. Louden, Bruce. Homer’s Odyssey and the Near East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Mandolfo, Carleen R. Daughter Zion Talks Back to the Prophets: A Dialogic Theology of the Book of Lamentations. Semeia Studies 58. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Mansour, Tanios Bou. La théologie de Jacques de Saroug. 2 vols. Kaslik, Liban: L’Université Saint-Esprit, 1993, 2000. Margalith, Othniel. “Samson’s Foxes.” VT 35 (1985): 224–29. Marmorstein, Arthur. “The Imitation of God in the Haggadah.” Pages 106–21 in Studies in Jewish Theology: The Arthur Marmorstein Memorial Volume. Edited by J. Rabbinowitz and M. S. Lew; London: Oxford, 1950. Originally published in Jeschurun 14 (1927). ———. The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, Volume 1: The Names and Attributes of God. New York: KTAV, 1968. ———. The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, Volume 2: Essays in Anthropomorphism. New York: KTAV 1937, reprint 1968. Martin, Richard P. “Epic as Genre.” Pages 9–19 in A Companion to Ancient Epic. Edited by John Miles Foley. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. AnBib 21. 3d ed. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981. McWhirter, Jocelyn. The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God: Marriage in the Fourth Gospel. SNTSMS 138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

204    Bibliography Meir, Ofra. “The Story as a Hermeneutic Device.” AJSR 7/8 (1982/1983): 231–62. Melamed, Ezra Zion. Pirqe mavo le-sifrut ha-Talmud. Jerusalem, 1973. Mendenhall, George. “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.” BA 17 (1954): 50–76. Menn, Esther M. “Targum of the Song of Songs and the Dynamics of Historical Allegory.” Pages 423–45 in The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition. Edited by Craig A. Evans. JSPSup 33. SSEJC 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Meyers, Eric M., and Mark A. Chancey. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Volume 3: Alexander to Constantine. AYBRL. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2012. Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. WBC 49. Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1988. Middlemass, Jill. The Templeless Age: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the “Exile.” Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Milgrom, Jacob. Numbers. JPS Torah Commentaries. Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Milikowsky, Chaim. “Notions of Exile, Subjugation and Return in Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 265–97 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———. “On Editing Rabbinic Texts: A Review Essay.” JQR 86 (1996): 409–17. Moran, William L. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87. Muffs, Yochanan. “Love and Joy as Metaphors of Willingness and Spontaneity in Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related Literatures: Part I, Divine Investitures in the Midrash in the Light of Neo-Babylonian Royal Grants.” Pages 121–38 in Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. Originally published as pages 1–36 in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty: Part Three, Judaism Before 70. Edited by Jacob Neusner. SJLA 12; Leiden: Brill, 1975. ———. “Love and Joy as Metaphors of Willingness and Spontaneity in Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related Literatures: Part II, The Joy of Giving.” Pages 165–93 in Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. Murphy, Roland E. The Song of Songs: A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or the Song of Songs. Hermeneia. Edited by S. Dean McBride Jr. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1990. Naeh, Shlomo. “‘Your Love is Better than Wine’: A New Look at Mishnah ‘Abodah Zara 2:5” (Hebrew). Pages 411–34 in Studies in Talmud and in Midrash: A Memorial Volume for Tirtsah Lifshitz. Edited by Mosheh Bar-Asher, Joshua Levinson, and Berachyahu Lifshitz. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2005. Najman, Hindy. “Towards a Study of the Uses of the Concept of Wilderness in Ancient Judaism.” DSD 13 (2006): 99–113.

Bibliography    205 Neis, Rachel. “Eyeing Idols: Rabbinic Viewing Practices in Late Antiquity.” JQR 102 (2012): 533–60. ———. The Sense of Sight in Rabbinic Culture: Jewish Ways of Seeing in Late Antiquity. Greek Culture in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. ———. “‘Their Backs Toward the Temple and Their Faces Toward the East’: The Temple and Toilet Practices in Rabbinic Palestine and Babylonia.” JSJ 43 (2012): 328–68. Neusner, Jacob. The Incarnation of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1988. ———. Israel’s Love Affair with God: Song of Songs. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press, 1993. Noegel, Scott B., and Gary A. Rendsburg. Solomon’s Vineyard: Literary and Linguistic Studies in the Song of Songs. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2009. Novick, Tzvi. “Charity and Reciprocity: Structures of Benevolence in Rabbinic Literature.” HTR 105 (2012): 33–52. ———. “Wages from God: The Dynamics of a Biblical Metaphor.” CBQ 73 (2011): 708–22. Nulman, Macy. The Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer: The Ashkenazic and Sephardic Rites. Lanham, Md.: Jason Aronson, 1993. Obbink, Dirk. “Early Greek Allegory.” Pages 15–25 in The Cambridge Companion to Allegory. Edited by Rita Copeland and Peter T. Struck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Pat-El, Na’ama. “Short Note: Traces of Aramaic Dialectal Variety in Late Biblical Hebrew.” VT 58 (2008): 650–55. Pépin, Jean. Mythe et allégorie: Les origines grecques et les contestations judéochretiennes. Aubier: Éditions Montaigne, 1958. Pope, Marvin H. Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 7c. New York: Doubleday, 1977. Porton, Gary G. “The Idea of Exile in Early Rabbinic Midrash.” Pages 249–64 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Propp, William H. C. Exodus 1–18, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Rapp-de Lange, Birke. “The Love of Torah: Solomon Projected into the World of R. Aqiba in the Song of Songs Rabbah.” Pages 272–91 in Recycling Biblical Figures: Papers Read at a NOSTER Colloquium in Amsterdam, 12–13 May 1997. Edited by Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem Van Henten. Leiden: Deo Publishing, 1999. ———. “Partnership between Heaven and Earth: The Sage as Religious Role Model in Canticles Rabbah.” Pages 139–62 in Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Marcel Poorthius and Joshua Jay Schwartz. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

206    Bibliography Rapp-de Lange, “Rabbinische Liebe: Untersuchungen zur Deutung der Liebe des Hohenliedes auf das Studium der Tora in Midrasch Shir haShirim Rabba.” Ph.D. diss., Katholieke Theologische Universiteit in Utrecht, 2003. Raviv, Rivka. “The Talmudic Formulation of the Prophecies of the Four Kingdoms” (Hebrew). Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 5 (2006): 1–20. Ribbens, Benjamin J. “A Typology of Types: Typology in Dialogue.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 5 (2011): 81–96. Rollinson, Philip. Classical Theories of Allegory and Christian Culture. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1981. Rosenblum, Jordan D. Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klagelieder. KAT, XVII, 1–3. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1962. Sanders, James A. Torah and Canon. 2d ed. Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2005. Satlow, Michael L. Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality. BJS 303. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholar Press, 1995. Scholem, Gershom G. Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965. Scholz, Susanne. Sacred Witness: Rape in the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2010. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Introduction: Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? Three Stages of Modern Scholarship, and a Renewed Effort.” Pages 1–19 in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and a fter the Destruction of the Second Temple. Edited by Daniel R. Schwartz and Zeev Weiss with Ruth A. Clements. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 78. Leiden: Brill, 2012. ———. “Jews, Judaeans and the Epoch that Disappeared: H. Graetz’s Changing View of the Second Temple Period” (Hebrew). Zion 70 (2004/5): 293–309. Scott, James M., editor. Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions. JSJSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Shammah, Avraham. “The Mekhiltot that are Appended to the Sifra: Mekhilta DeMiluim and Mekhilta Da-‘Arayot (Hebrew).” Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008. Skarsaune, Oskar. The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile. NovTSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. A Biblical Theology of Exile. OBT. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2002. Sokolof, Michael. Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Prophecies of the Byzantine Period. 2d ed. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University Press; Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

Bibliography    207 Soulen, Richard N. “The Waṣfs of the Song of Songs and Hermeneutic.” Pages 214–24 in A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs. The Feminist Companion to the Bible 1. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Reprinted from JBL 86 (1967): 183–90. Soulen, Richard N., and R. Kendall Soulen. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. 3d ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Stemberger, Günter. “Die Datierung der Mekhilta.” Kairós 21 (1979): 81–118. ———. “Midraschim zum Hoheslied und Geschichte Israels.” Pages 313–19 in Rashi 1040–1990: Hommage à Ephraïm E. Urbach, Congrès européen des Études juives. Edited by Gabrielle Sed-Rajna. Paris: Cerf, 1993. ———. “The Redaction and Transmission of Sifra.” Pages 51–67 (English section) in Melekhet Mahshevet: Studies in the Redaction and Development of Talmudic Literature. Edited by Aaron Amit and Aharon Shemesh. Ramat-Gan, Israel: BarIlan University Press, 2011. Stern, David. “Ancient Jewish Interpretation of the Song of Songs in a Comparative Context.” Pages 87–107, 263–72 in Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Cultural Exchange: Comparative Exegesis in Context. Edited by Natalie B. Dohrmann and David Stern. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. ———. “Imitatio Hominis: Anthropomorphism and the Character(s) of God in Rabbinic Literature.” Prooftexts 12 (1992): 151–74. ———. “Midrash and Jewish Interpretation.” Pages 1863–75 in The Jewish Study Bible. Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Brettler. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. ———. Midrash and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary Studies. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1996. ———. Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991. Stone, Michael E. “The Interpretation of Song of Songs in 4 Ezra.” JSJ 38 (2007): 226–33. Strack, H. L., and Günter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated and edited by Markus Bockmuehl. 2d ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996. Sumi, Akiko Motoyoshi. Description in Classical Arabic Poetry: Waṣf, Ekphrasis, and Interarts Theory. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Svendsen, Stefan Nordgaard. Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews. WUNT 2.269. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy, The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Toohey, Peter. Reading Epic: An Introduction to the Ancient Narratives. London: Routledge, 1992. Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. OBT. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978.

208    Bibliography Tur-Sinai, Naphtali H. The Language and the Book. Hebrew. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1950. Tzvetkova-Glaser, Anna. Pentateuchauslegung bei Origenes und den frühen Rabbinen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2010. Urbach, Ephraim E. “Homiletical Interpretations of the Sages and the Exposition of Origen on Canticles, and the Jewish-Christian Disputation” (Hebrew). Tarbiz 30 (1960): 148–70. ———. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1987. van Bekkum, W. J. “Four Kingdoms Will Rule: Echoes of Apocalypticism and Political Reality in Late Antiquity and Medieval Judaism.” Pages 101–18 in Endzeiten: Eschatologie in den monotheistischen Weltreligionen. Edited by W. Brandes and F. Schmieder. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. StPB 4. 2d ed. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Wacholder, Ben Zion. “The Date of the Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael.” HUCA 39 (1968): 117–44. Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East.” JAOS 90 (1970): 184–203. ———. Deuteronomy 1–11. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. ———. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Weiss, Isaac H. Dor dor ve-dorshav: hu sefer divre ha-yamim la-torah shebe-‘al peh ‘im qorot sofreha u-sefareha. 2 vols. Vilna: Bidfus ha-almanah vehe-aḥim Rom, 1904. Wetzstein, J. G. “Die syrische Dreschtafel.” Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 5 (1873): 270–302. White, John Bradley. A Study of the Language of Love in the Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Poetry. SBLDS 38. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1978. Whitman, Jon. Allegory: The Dynamics of an Ancient and Medieval Technique. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987. ———. “Perspectives: Antiquity to Late Middle Ages.” Pages 33–70 in Interpretation and Allegory: Antiquity to the Modern Period. Edited by Jon Whitman. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Wilson-Wright, Aren M. “Love Conquers All: Song of Songs 8:6b–8:7a as a Reflex of the Northwest Semitic Combat Myth.” JBL 134 (2015). Wilson, Peter. “Powers of Horror and Laughter: The Great Age of Drama.” Pages 88–132 in Literature in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A New Perspective. Edited by Oliver Taplin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Woollcombe, K. J. “The Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology.” Pages 39–75 in G. W. H. Lampe and K. J. Woollcombe. Essays on Typology. SBT 22. Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, 1957. Yadin, Azzan. “The Hammer on the Rock: Polysemy and the School of Rabbi Ishmael.” JSQ 10 (2003): 1–17. ———. Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash. Divinations. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.

Bibliography    209 Yadin-Israel, Azzan. “Rabbinic Polysemy: A Response to Steven Fraade.” AJSR 38 (2014): 129–41. Yamada, Frank M. Configurations of Rape in the Hebrew Bible: A Literary Analysis of Three Rape Narratives. Studies in Biblical Literature 109. New York: Peter Lang, 2008. Yerushalmi, Yosef Hayim. Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996. Young, Frances. “Alexandrian and Antiochene Exegesis.” Pages 334–54 in A History of Biblical Interpretation, Volume 1: The Ancient Period. Edited by Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003.

Index of Ancient Sources

Note: locators followed by n refer to notes. Hebrew Bible Genesis 1:1, 156 n. 27 1:16–17, 156 n. 27 2:1, 16–17 2:24, 5 3:1–24, 39 n. 42 3:21, 151 3:22, 75, 77 4:8–9, 6 15:5–6, 103 15:12, 30–31, 32 17:11–12, 114 18:1, 151 22:17, 103 25:11, 151 26:5, 130 n. 53 38:15, 5 39:21, 171 46:4, 164–65 Exodus 2:23, 72–73 3:21–22, 57, 151 4:22, 130 n. 53 4:30–31, 72–73

6:23, 86 n. 43 11:2–3, 57, 151 12:7, 40 n. 50 12:11, 166–67 12:21–22, 40 n. 50 12:36, 57–58, 151 12:37, 99–101 12:39, 167 12:41, 170 13:1–10, 113 13:11–16, 113 13:17, 51 13:21, 164–65, 178 n. 25 14:2, 111 14:3, 111 14:5, 50–51 14:10, 72–73 14:13–14, 111 14:13, 72–73, 110–11 14:19, 164–65 14:29, 75–77, 89 n. 80 14:31, 65 15:1–19, 138 15:1, 72, 126 n. 13, 138 15:2, 27–28, 42 n. 69, 43 n. 70, 139–40, 144–47, 164–65

212    Index of Ancient Sources Exodus (continued ) 15:7, 50 15:8, 59–60 15:10, 50 15:11, 140, 142–43, 144, 146–47 15:13, 98–100, 126 n. 13 15:14–17, 28 15:17, 61–62, 165 16:7, 173 19:1, 69 19:4, 66 19:5, 126 n. 17 19:6, 116 19:8, 73 19:16, 56–57 19:17, 57, 72–74 20:5, 5 20:15, 18–19 24:4, 72–74 24:16, 173 25–27, 112 25:10–22, 112 25:40, 23, 40 n. 45 34:14, 5 35–40, 112 37:1–9, 112 Leviticus 8–9, 61, 86 n. 43 9:5, 72–73 9:6, 173 10, 86 n. 43 10:1–2, 61 14:10, 40 n. 52 18:4, 106 18:5, 106–7 20:23–24, 54–55 22:32, 106–7 24:10, 117–18 25:25, 6 26, 172 26:14, 172

26:15–38, 172 26:38, 172 26:43, 87–88 n. 60 27:3, 99–100 Numbers 5:14, 5 5:18, 88 n. 62 5:29, 5 5:30, 5 7, 60–61, 86 n. 43 7:12, 61 7:17, 60–61 10:35–36, 129 n. 44 13:16, 24 14:10, 173 14:26–35, 22 15:37–41, 28–29, 113 15:38, 28–29 19, 44–45 n. 82 20:23–24, 54–55 21:8–9, 40 n. 51 21:18, 174–75 21:21–35, 52–53 27:15–18, 62–63 27:17, 168–69 27:18, 169 28:2, 114–15 32, 53 32:33, 52 Deuteronomy 1:4, 52–53 1:10, 103 1:31, 178 n. 25 4:7, 144, 146 4:8, 144 4:11, 72–74 4:24, 5, 150 5:9, 5 5:25, 73 6:4–9, 4, 113 6:4, 144, 146

Index of Ancient Sources   213 6:14, 5 6:15, 5 7:6, 126 n. 17 10:12, 11 n. 11 10:22, 53–54 11:13–21, 113 11:13–17, 133 n. 77 11:22, 5, 11 n. 11 13:5, 4, 150 14:2, 101–2, 121 15:12–15, 151 15:13–14, 151 15:15, 151–52 16:3, 167 17:15, 116 19:9, 11 n. 11 23:4–9, 117 26:17–18, 144–46 26:18, 126 n. 17 28:47–48, 69–70, 87–88 n. 60 29:27, 172 30:2–5, 172 30:3, 170–71 30:16, 11 n. 11 31:7, 169 31:16, 5 31:23, 169 32:1–43, 54, 66 32:8, 53 32:11, 66 32:20, 172 32:22–26, 166 33:2, 75, 138–42 33:13–17, 64 33:15, 64–65 33:26–29, 147 33:26, 146–48 33:29, 144, 146–48 34:6, 151 34:10, 126 n. 13

Joshua 1:2, 63 2:10, 52 11:15, 126 n. 13 22:5, 11 n. 11 Judges 3:25, 176–77 n. 11 5:31, 103–4 1 Samuel 2:27, 171 4:5, 129 n. 44 2 Samuel 23:1, 144–45 1 Kings 3:3, 11 n. 11 8:11, 173 11:1–5, 136 14:17, 114 15:21, 114 15:33, 114 16:6, 114 16:8–10, 114 16:15–18, 114 16:23–24, 114 16:29–33, 87 n. 49 19:15, 109–10 22:17, 62–63 2 Kings 2:12, 63 8:18, 87 n. 49 15:14, 114 17:13, 130 n. 53 Isaiah 8:6, 84 n. 16 12:2, 145 14:13, 171 21:9, 30 22:22, 176–77 n. 11 29:10, 108–9 40:22, 73 43:6, 66

214    Index of Ancient Sources Isaiah (continued ) 43:14, 171 43:21, 98–100, 126 n. 13, 145, 147 44:9–22, 142 49:3, 145, 147 49:22, 66 52:12, 166–67 54:4–8, 4 57:8, 177 n. 13 57:10, 177 n. 13 60:13, 171 62:4–5, 4 63:1, 171 65:24, 142–43 Jeremiah 2:1–3:13, 4 2:2–3, 129 n. 41 2:2, 28, 121 2:8–9, 28 13:20–27, 4 43:12, 168–69 49:38, 171 Ezekiel 1–39, 173 1:3, 172 11:19–20, 173 11:23, 173 15:1, 172 16, 4, 57–58 16:1, 172 16:7, 12 n. 23, 57–58 16:8, 58 16:60–62, 173 23, 4 31:3, 50 39:25, 173 40–48, 173 Hosea 2:4–17, 4, 5, 121 2:7, 176 n. 10 2:18–25, 133 n. 77, 145 2:21–22, 12 n. 23, 65

Amos 2:9, 50 5:27, 174 Jonah 1:4–5, 25 Nahum 2:4–5, 104 2:5, 103–4 2:13, 84 n. 22 Habakkuk 3:15, 75–76 Haggai 1:1, 87–88 n. 60 1:15, 69 Zechariah 3:1–10, 104 4, 186 4:3, 103–4 Malachi 3:16, 142–43 3:22–24, 109–10 Psalms 8:3, 72 10:17, 142–43 12:1, 113–14 19:9, 148–49 23, 169 23:1, 130 n. 54 34:6, 103 44:23, 26, 120, 140–41 45:1, 103–4 48:3, 171 48:15, 43 n. 70 65:3, 142–43 68:8, 58 68:12–14, 58 68:13, 18–19, 37 n. 23 68:14, 57–58, 151–52 86:8, 138–39 89:7–9, 138–39 89:18, 145, 147 92:13–14, 171

Index of Ancient Sources   215 106:20, 75, 77 115, 142 115:6–7, 142–43 118:14, 145 119:164, 112–13 135:8–12, 52 136:10–24, 52 Proverbs 1:9, 148–49 2:7, 133 n. 76 4:9, 148–49 8:22, 156 n. 27 21:3, 115 25:11, 86 n. 37 31:30–31, 67–68 Job 23:13, 75, 77, 89 n. 80 28:12, 63 28:15, 86 n. 37 37:2, 143–44 41:23, 59–60 Song of Songs 1:1, 31, 153 n. 2 1:2–4, 160 1:2–3, 136, 152, 156 n. 25 1:2, 18, 137, 148–49, 186 1:3, 26–27, 43 nn. 70–71, 120, 140–41, 148–49 1:4, 160 1:5–6, 96, 160 1:5, 31, 153 n. 2 1:7–8, 82–83 n. 8, 168–69 1:7, 160, 169 1:8, 61–62, 68–71, 87–88 n. 60, 186 1:9, 75–78, 96 1:11, 57–58, 151–52 1:12–14, 136 1:12, 57 1:15, 96 2, 111 2:1–2, 186 2:2, 145–47

2:3, 144, 146–47 2:6, 18–19, 21, 37 n. 23, 171 2:7, 161, 186 2:8–9, 28–29, 44 n. 79, 166, 168 2:8, 66, 160, 167–68 2:9, 28, 44 n. 78, 160, 167–68, 177 n. 12 2:14, 72–74, 111–12, 186 2:15, 49–50, 83–84 nn. 14–15 2:16, 10 n. 1, 26–28 3:1–5, 161, 166 3:4, 164–66, 168 3:5, 186 3:7–8, 100–1 3:7, 31 3:9–10, 112 3:9, 31, 153 n. 2 3:10, 86 n. 37 3:11, 31, 67–68, 153 n. 2 4:1–7, 95–98 4:1, 96, 177 n. 12 4:5, 83 n. 11 4:6, 64–65, 87 n. 51 4:8–12, 186 4:8, 52–53, 65, 87 nn. 54–55, 170–71 4:9–15, 96 4:12, 55, 117–18 4:13, 51–52 4:16, 59–61, 160 5:1, 60–61, 186 5:2–8, 161–63, 186 5:2, 2, 114–15, 162, 167–68, 186 5:4, 163, 177 n. 12 5:7, 161 5:8, 163 5:9, 26–27, 120, 137, 140–41 5:10–16, 8–9, 27, 135–44, 147, 152, 185 5:10, 26–27, 146–47 5:14, 83 n. 11 5:16, 42 n. 69, 143–44 6:1, 26–28, 140, 142, 160

216    Index of Ancient Sources Song of Songs (continued) 6:2, 101 6:3, 26–28, 42 n. 69, 101, 140, 142 6:4–10, 96–98, 101 6:4, 113–14 6:8–9, 98–101, 126 n. 13 6:8, 53–54, 85 n. 26, 125–26 n. 12 6:9, 2, 115–16 6:10, 103–4, 186 6:11, 101–2, 121 7, 110 7:2–10a, 96–98, 147 7:2, 146–48 7:5, 108–10 7:8–9, 106–8 7:12–13, 160 7:12, 186 8, 45 n. 86 8:1, 177 n. 14 8:4, 161, 186 8:6–7, 63–64, 186 8:6, 27, 108 8:8, 62–63 8:10, 96 8:11–12, 31, 153 n. 2 8:13–14, 160 8:13, 142–44, 160 Ecclesiastes 1:1, 127 n. 21 2:8, 102, 127 n. 21 Esther 3:1, 30 Daniel 1, 107 2, 30 2:1, 68–69 2:32, 50 3, 107 3:12–30, 107 4:17, 50 7, 30, 63, 186

7:3, 50 7:7, 30 10, 186 12:3, 103–4 Nehemiah 3:15, 84 n. 16 10:1, 65 11:23, 65 1 Chronicles 9:27, 176–77 n. 11 17:21, 144, 146 23:3, 99–100 29:3, 102, 127 n. 21 2 Chronicles 19:1–3, 87 n. 49 Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Moses 14, 39 n. 42 32, 39 n. 42 2 (Apocalypse of) Baruch 17:23, 39 n. 42 23:4, 39 n. 42 48:42–43, 39 n. 42 54:15, 39 n. 42 54:19, 39 n. 42 56:5–6, 39 n. 42 Ezekiel the Tragedian 86 n. 38 4 Ezra 3:7, 39 n. 42 3:21–22, 39 n. 42 4:30, 39 n. 42 4:36–37, 186 5:24, 186 5:26, 186 7:116–18, 39 n. 42 Joseph and Asenath 18:7–9, 123 n. 4 Jubilees 48:18, 86 n. 38

Index of Ancient Sources   217 Life of Adam and Eve 44, 39 n. 42 1 Maccabees 2, 128 n. 33 2 Maccabees 7, 128 n. 33 Sirach 14:17, 39 n. 42 25:24, 39 n. 42 35:4, 115 Wisdom of Solomon 2:23–24, 39 n. 42 Dead Sea Scrolls CD-A (Damascus Document) col. 5, line 21–col. 6, line 7, 174–75 1QapGenar 123 n. 4 1QIsaa 65:3 177 n. 13 1QS (Serekh ha-Yachad) 7: 13, 163, 177 n. 13 4Q184 156 n. 27 4Q185 156 n. 27 4Q259 = 4QSe 1 I, 9 177 n. 13 4Q277 frg. 1, line 7 44–45 n. 82 4Q525 156 n. 27 New Testament Matthew 4:1–11, 126 n. 14 8:18, 25 8:23–27, 25 Mark 4:35–41, 25

Luke 8:22–25, 25 John 1:1–18, 156 n. 27 3:14, 40 n. 51 Acts 7:44, 40 n. 45 Romans 5, 40 n. 44 5:12–21, 22 1 Corinthians 5:7, 24 10, 40 n. 44 10:1–5, 22 10:4, 181 n. 53 10:6, 22 10:11, 22 Philippians 3:17, 40 n. 44 1 Thessalonians 1:7, 40 n. 44 2 Thessalonians 3:9, 40 n. 44 1 Timothy 4:12, 40 n. 44 Titus 2:7, 40 n. 44 Hebrews 1:8–9, 127 8:5, 23 9:24, 23 1 Peter 3:21, 23 5:3, 40 n. 44 Revelation 1, 186 3:20, 186 12:1, 186 12:11, 186 12:15–16, 186 19:7, 186 21:2, 186

218    Index of Ancient Sources Revelation (continued) 21:9, 186 22:17, 186 Ancient Christian Literature Augustine of Hippo De catechizandis rudibus 4.8, 23 Barnabas 8, 44–45 n. 82 Jacob of Serug Mēmrā 122, 25 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 24, 85 n. 30, 127 n. 25 Origen Homilies on Genesis 10.5, 23 The Song of Songs Commentary Book 1, 18 Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 24 Rabbinic Literature Avot of Rabbi Nathan version A, 120 4:5, 130 n. 55 17, 88 n. 61 Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 26b, 130 n. 55 Shabbat 88b, 37 n. 23 Sukkah 49b, 115, 130 n. 55 Megillah 29a, 181 n. 49 Ketubot 17a, 122–23 n. 2 Ketubot 66b–77a, 88 n. 61 Sota 14a, 150–51 Baba Batra 14a, 83 n. 10 Baba Batra 86b, 84 n. 20 Baba Batra 105a, 84 n. 20 Baba Metzi’a 105b, 84 n. 20 Sanhedrin 91a, 86 n. 38 Sanhedrin 101a, 91 n. 102 Abodah Zara 35b, 43 n. 71 Menaḥot 29a, 40 n. 45

Baraita de-Meleket ha-Mishkan 6.17–18, 112 Eichah Rabbati 24, 180 n. 46 Esther Rabbah 8:7, 88 n. 62 Exodus Rabbah 8:2, 88 n. 62 23:14, 89 n. 77, 90 n. 92 Fragment Targum to Gen 35:29, 156 n. 30 Genesis Rabbah 1:1, 156 n. 27 21:5, 89 n. 77 36:1, 89 n. 86 Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 5, 88 n. 61 Lamentations Rabbah 1:16 § 48, 88 n. 61 Leviticus Rabbah 20:11, 88 n. 62 25:3, 156 n. 29 30:2, 127 n. 23 32:5, 117 Mekilta le-Devarim (=Midrash Tannaim) to Deut 1:10, 103, 127 n. 23 to Deut 1:4, 52–53 to Deut 11:21, 103, 127 n. 23 to Deut 14:2, 101–2 to Deut 15:9, 114–15 to Deut 16:3, 166–68 to Deut 33:2, 139–42 to Deut 33:26, 146–48 to Deut 34:4, 63–64 Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai Beshallaḥ 24:2, 13 n.28 Shirta 27:1, 153 n. 4, 154 n. 7 Shirta 29:1, 144–46, 154 n. 8, 164–66, 178 nn. 19, 24–25 Shirta 34:2, 142–44

Index of Ancient Sources   219 Shirta 35:2, 85 n. 26, 125–26 nn. 12–13 Shirta 36:1, 61–62, 179 n. 31 Baḥodesh 48:1, 72–74, 87–88 nn. 57–60 Mekilta de-Rabbi Yishmael Pisḥa 1, 125–26 n. 12, 180 n. 47 Pisḥa 5, 116–18 Pisḥa 7, 44 n. 79, 166–68 Pisḥa 13, 12 n. 23, 57–58, 151 Pisḥa 14, 87 n. 54, 100–1, 170–72, 181 n. 49 Pisḥa 18, 125–26 n. 12 Beshallaḥ 2, 50–51, 116 Beshallaḥ 3, 88 n. 69, 110–12 Beshallaḥ 5, 13 n. 28 Beshallaḥ 7, 12 n. 23, 65, 75–78, 84 n. 23 Shirta 1, 43 n. 72, 138–39 Shirta 3, 26–28, 37–38 n. 31, 120, 139–41, 146, 151, 154 nn. 7–8, 154–55 n. 15, 157 n. 31, 164–66, 178 n. 25 Shirta 6, 13 n. 28, 50, 59–60 Shirta 7, 85 n. 34 Shirta 9, 85 n. 26, 98–100, 116 Shirta 10, 61–62, 179 n. 31 Baḥodesh 1, 68–70 Baḥodesh 2, 37 n. 23, 115–16, 127 n. 22 Baḥodesh 3, 56–57, 72–74 Baḥodesh 8, 13 n. 28, 49, 83 nn. 10–11 Baḥodesh 9, 18–19, 30–31, 37 n. 23, 83–84 n. 14, 157 n. 34 Mishnah Berakhot 2:2, 113 Shabbat 1:1, 107 Ta‘anit 4:8, 67–68 Abodah Zara 2:5, 156 n. 25 Avot 1, 129 n. 37 Avot 1:2, 111 Menaḥot 3:7, 113

Parah 3:2, 44–45 n. 82 Ṭeharot 6:6–9, 107 Yadayim 3:5, 37–38 n. 31, 120 Numbers Rabbah 2:26, 88 n. 62 9:16, 88 n. 62 13:20, 86 n. 37 Pesiqta Rabbati Nahamu 140a, 88 n. 61 Sifra Aḥarei Mot 13.14, 106–8 Qedoshim 1, 157 n. 31 Qedoshim 9.4, 54–55 Beḥuqotai 1, 125–26 n. 12 Sifre Bemidbar 115, 28–29, 37 n. 25 139, 82–83 n. 8, 168–70 161, 179–80 n. 39 Sifre Devarim 10, 37 n. 25, 102–5 36, 112–14 41, 108–10 47, 127 n. 23 48, 125–26 n. 12, 148–49, 155 n. 24 49, 156 n. 29 120, 151–52 304, 62–64, 83–84 n. 14 305, 70–71 311, 53–54 314, 66 336, 155 n. 24 343, 37–38 n. 31, 42 n. 67, 43 n. 75, 139–42, 154 n. 7 353, 64–65 355, 155 n. 19 Sifre Zuta Naso 7:17, 60–61 Song of Songs Rabbah 1:12, 88 n. 70 1:8, 20 1:46–49, 89 n. 77 1:49, 90 n. 91

220    Index of Ancient Sources Song of Songs Rabbah (continued) 2:19, 89 n. 79 2:45, 10 n. 1 3:21, 83 n. 10, 155 n. 21 4:16, 87 n. 51 4:25, 131 n. 65 Targum Jonathan to Judg 24:1, 127 n. 25 Targum Ketuvim to Ps 45:3, 127 n. 25 Targum Psuedo-Jonathan to Num 21:18, 181 n. 53 to Deut 34:6, 156 n. 30 Tosefta Kippurim 2:15, 83 n. 10 Sanhedrin 12:10, 80, 119–20 Ketubot 11–12, 88 n. 61 Zohar 3:62a, 181 n. 53 Other Ancient Writers Aristotle Poetics 1447b, 92 n. 104 Politics VIII, 7, 1341b, 32, 38–39 n. 36

De memoria et reminiscentia 450a, 31, 38–39 n. 36 Cassius Dio, Roman History 69.12–14, 187 Heraclitus, Homeric Problems 4, 34 n. 6 Homer, Iliad I.586–94, 34 n. 3 XX.1–74, 34 n. 3 XXI.385–513, 34 n. 3 KTU 1.23, 33–35, 177 n. 12 2.39, 7, 12, 127 n. 20 Lucretius, De rerum natura 4.1177–79, 176 n. 4 Philo Allegorical Interpretation 1.1, 16–17 3.28, 40 n. 45 On the Life of Moses 1.141–42, 86 n. 38 Plato, Republic II, 378d, 34 n. 3 Sextus Propertius, Elegies II, xxxiii, 43, 159 Varro, De lingua latina IX, 52, 39 n. 38

General Index

Abba Ḥannin, 166–67 Abba Shaul, 151, 157 n. 31 Abegg, Martin, Jr., 119 Ahab, 62–63, 87 n. 49 Akiva, Rabbi, 26–27, 29, 42 n. 67, 42 n. 69, 43 n. 73, 48–49, 73, 80, 91 n. 102, 119–20, 139–41, 148, 181 n. 49 debates with Pappias, 75–78, 89 n. 80 Albeck, Chanoch, 12–13 n. 27 Albright, William Foxwell, 157 n. 34 allegory definition of, 34 n. 6, 34–35 n. 7 Greek terms for, 16, 34 n. 6 midrashic, 20 philosophical, 16–18, 19, 30, 184 Alster, Baruch, 90–91 n. 95, 132 n. 71 Amoraim, 3 Anderson, Gary, 6 Anisfeld, Rachel A., 3 anthropomorphism, 76–78 Antiochene and Alexandrian schools, 41–42 n. 63 antitype, 23 Anubis, 84 n. 15 Aphrahat, 41 n. 61 Aristotle, 22, 38–39 n. 36, 79, 92 n. 104, 93 n. 108 Ark of the Covenant, 112, 129 n. 44

Auerbach, Erich, 17, 22, 24, 38–39 n. 36, 39 n. 38 Augustine of Hippo, 23, 40 n. 47 Bakhtin, Mikhail, 124–25 n. 7 Bar Kokhba revolt, 56, 70, 170, 187 Barton, John, 4, 38 n. 33, 131 n. 66, 132 n. 68 Bentzen, Aage, 132 n. 68 Black, Fiona C., 124–25 n. 7, 131–32 n. 67, 177 n. 15 Bloch, Ariel, 119, 177 n. 12 Bloch, Chana, 119, 131–32 n. 67, 177 n. 12 Boyarin, Daniel, 12–13 n. 27, 15, 19–20, 36 n. 18, 42 n. 69, 43 n. 70, 43 n. 75, 105, 120 Brenner, Athalya, 124–25 n. 7 Brocke, Michael, 150 Butts, Aaron Michael, 41 n. 61 Canaanites, 54–55 Carr, David M., 5, 11 n. 10, 104–5, 132 n. 70 Cassius Dio, 187 Cassuto, Umberto, 91–92 nn. 103–4 Ceresa-Gastaldo, Aldo, 10–11 n. 7 Chernick, Michael, 167 Cicero, 22

222    General Index circumcision, 113–14, 116 Cohen, Gerson, 5, 120, 132–33 n. 74 Cohen, Norman J., 180 n. 46 Collins, John J., 174 combat myth, 32, 59–69 Copeland, Rita, 17, 34–35 n. 7 cosmology, ancient Jewish, 103 Cross, Frank Moore, 5–6, 91–92 n. 103 crossing of the sea, 28, 29, 48, 59–60, 76, 78 Damascus Document, 174–75, 185 Daniel and his three companions, 106–8 Daniélou, Jean, 36 n. 19 daughters of Jerusalem, 26–27, 49, 67–68, 80, 83 n. 12, 137, 141–42, 153, 161–62, 186 David, 112–14, 127 n. 21 Dawson, David, 25, 35–36 n. 14 Dionysus, 79 domain, private versus public, 107 Egyptians, 49–52, 54, 55, 76, 83 n. 14 plunder of, 57–59, 86 n. 38, 151–52 Elazar, Rabbi, 115 Eliezer (ben Hyrcanus), Rabbi, 166–67 Eliezer ha-Kappar, Rabbi, 116–18 Eliezer (or Elazar), Rabbi, ben Shamu‘a, 48, 72–73, 78, 88 n. 67 Eliezer, Rabbi, son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean, 53, 125 n. 9 Elijah, 109–10 Ephrem the Syrian, 25 Epic of Gilgamesh, 91–92 n. 103 epithalamium, 90–91 n. 95, 122–23 n. 2 Erman, Adolf, 98 eschatology, 65–67 Eshel, Hanan, 187 exile Babylonian, 66 concept of, 168–75

exodus, 4, 22, 26, 28, 29, 52, 58, 62 Exum, J. Cheryl, 32, 163, 176 n. 6 Ezekiel the Tragedian, 91–92 n. 103 Falk, Marcia, 124–25 n. 7 figural interpretation. see typology Finkelstein, Louis, 76, 99, 125 n. 11, 154 n. 9 Fishbane, Michael, 20, 179 n. 35 Flint, Peter, 119 Form Criticism, 79 four empires, 30–31, 50, 62–63, 83–84 n. 14, 179–80 n. 39 Fox, Michael V., 84 n. 22, 98, 122 n. 1, 123–24 n. 5 Fraade, Steven D., 38 n. 32, 43 n. 75, 154 n. 11, 155 n. 24 Gerleman, Gillis, 129 n. 44 Ginsburg, C. D., 90–91 n. 95 Goldberg, Abraham, 12–13 n. 27 Goldin, Judah, 42 n. 69, 86 n. 39, 99, 125 n. 11, 154 nn. 11–12 Goshen Gottstein, Alon, 48, 184 Graetz, Heinrich, 187, 189 n. 8 Ha’azinu, 54, 66 Hainsworth, J. B., 81, 93 n. 108 Ḥama bar Ḥanina, Rabbi, 150–52 Hammer, Reuven, 154 n. 9, 154 n. 11 Harding, Kathryn, 159, 160, 163, 176 n. 5 Hermann, Alfred, 123–24 n. 5 Hesiod, 15 Histalkut ha-Shekinah, 172, 174 historicization, 20 contemporizing, 67–71 multiple signification, 71–78 proleptic, 65–67 Hoffmann, David Zvi, 178 n. 27 Holy Spirit, 155 n. 19 Homer, 15–16

General Index   223 Ibn Ezra, 90–91 n. 95 Ibn Tibbon, 188 Idolatry, 106–8, 142–44 imitatio Dei, 135, 150–53, 185 intermarriage, 117–18 Ishmael, Rabbi, 100, 106–7 Jacob of Serug, 23, 25 Japhet, Sara, 13 n. 29 Jehoshaphat, 62–63, 87 n. 49 Jerome, 36 n. 15 Joshua ben Levi, Rabbi, 37 n. 23 Joshua ben Qorchah, Rabbi, 167 Judah ha-Nasi, Rabbi, 28, 73, 126 n. 13 Judah Nagar, 57 Justin Martyr, 23–24, 56, 189 n. 4 Kadari, Tamar, 37 n. 26, 49, 83 nn. 10–11, 155 n. 21 Kadushin, Max, 84 n. 19 Kahana, Menaḥem I., 7, 12–13 n. 27 Kamesar, Adam, 35 n. 13 Kariv, Avraham, 181 n. 49 Keel, Othmar, 10–11 n. 7, 123–25 nn. 5–7 Ki anu ameka, 1, 10 n. 1 King, Katherine Callen, 81 Kugel, James L., 86 n. 41 Lady Wisdom, 149 Lamberton, Robert, 16, 34–35 n. 7 land, settlement of, 61–62, 165 Lapsley, Jacqueline E., 5–6 Lauterbach, J. Z., 52, 58, 86 n. 39, 118 Lieberman, Saul, 47–48, 184 locks, Egyptian, 176–77 n. 11 Lucretius, 22 ma‘aseh hattov, 111 Marmorstein, Arthur, 77, 155 n. 19, 156 n. 30

Martin, Ralph P., 81, 92 n. 105 martyrdom, 27, 106–8 mashal, 15, 19, 37 n. 24, 84 n. 19 mashal lemelek, 114, 140, 165 Mekilta da‘Arayot, 85 n. 27, 106, 128 n. 31 mēmrā, 25 metaphor, 96–97 mezuzah, 75–76, 112–14 Michaels, J. Ramsey, 23 midrash, 2 Milikowsky, Chaim, 179–80 n. 39 Mishnah, 7 mitsvot, 2, 26, 34, 118, 148 Moran, William, L., 5–6 Moses death of, 63–64 as exemplary figure, 99–100, 116, 125–26 nn. 12–13, 168–70, 175, 179 n. 34 Muffs, Yochanan, 6 Murphy, Roland E., 129 n. 44 Naḥmanides, 131 n. 61 Nakdaimon ben Gurion, daughter of, 70, 82 Nathan, Rabbi, 117–18, 131 n. 65 nations of the world, 26–29, 140–42, 144–45 Neusner, Jacob, 88 n. 63, 171, 189 n. 5 Noegel, Scott B., 124–25 n. 7, 178 n. 29 Novick, Tzvi, 125–26 n. 12, 127 n. 26 Origen, 16–18, 23, 35 n. 9, 36 n. 19, 37–38 n. 31, 79, 90–91 n. 95, 122–23 n. 2 dramatic theory, 90–91 n. 95 Logos theology, 36 n. 18 Pappias, 75–78 parable, see mashal

224    General Index pardes, 52 Pat-El, Na’ama, 179 n. 32 pater familias, 6 peshat, 21 pesher, 175 Philo of Alexandria, 16–17, 35 n. 9, 35–36 n. 14 Philo the Epic Poet, 91–92 n. 103 physical form description of, 96–98, 135–37 extended description, 96–97 self-description, 96, 135 Pindar, 80 Plato, 22 poetry Arabic, 124–25 n. 7 dramatic, 79–80 Egyptian love, 98, 123–24 n. 5 epic, 81–82 genres of, 79 lyric, 80, 160, 163 Sumerian love, 159 polyprosopon, 178 n. 29 polysemy, 74 Pope, Marvin H., 90–91 n. 95, 163, 176 n. 10, 177 n. 12 Pythagoreans, 15 Rapp-de Lange, Birke, 10 n. 3 Rashi, 131 n. 61 Rendsburg, Gary A., 124–25 n. 7, 178 n. 29 resurrection from the dead, 106, 108 Ribbens, Benjamin J., 41–42 n. 63, 44–45 n. 82, 45 n. 83 Rufinus, 36 n. 15 ṣaddiq. 156 n. 30 Sanders, James A. 119 Sapho, 80 Scholem, Gershom, 47

segullah, 101–2, 118, 121, 127 n. 20 sememes, 74 sensus literalis, 21 Sextus Propertius, 159 Shekinah, 155 n. 19, 164–65 Shekinta ba-Galuta, 170–76, 185 Shimon bar/ben Yoḥai, Rabbi, 102–5 Shimon ben Gamaliel, Rabban, 67–68 Shi‘ur Qomah, 8–9 Sichon and Og, 52–53, 55, 82 Sinai theophany, 19, 21, 26, 29, 48, 73–74 Solomon, 126 n. 16, 127 n. 21, 136, 153 n. 2 Song of Songs absence, theme of, 159, 174–75, 185 archetypal character of, 32, 38 n. 33 canonization of, 4, 25 n. 90 composition by Solomon, 29, 44 n. 80 descriptive language in, 96–98, 135–37 elusive lover of, 160 mystical interpretation of, 37–38 n. 31 night visions, 160–64 origins of interpretation, 3–4, 33, 35 n. 8, 119–20, 186 sensuality, interpretation of, 118–21 Targum of, 44 n. 81, 71 Song of Songs Rabbah, 9, 10 n. 1, 44 n. 80, 188 Soulen, Richard N., 124–25 n. 7 spousal metaphor, 4–6 Stemberger, Günter, 12–13 n. 27, 42 n. 66 Stern, David, 15, 20–21, 37–38 n. 31, 120, 131–32 n. 67, 132–33 n. 74, 179 n. 34 Stone, Michael E., 186 Struck, Peter T., 17, 34–35 n. 7 Sumerian sacred marriage ritual, 98, 124 n. 6

General Index   225 Tabernacle, erection of, 60–61, 112 talmud torah, 111 Tannaim, 2 tannaitic midrashim corpus of, 7 and early Christianity, 33 relationship with amoraic midrashim, 2–3, 8, 186–88 and theology of intimacy, 3, 183, 188 tefillin, 75–76, 112–14 Temple, destruction of, 56, 69–70, 170, 185–87 Tertullian, 23–24 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 25, 41 n. 62 Tirṣah, 114 Torah, 148–50, 166, 175 Tosefta, 7 tsitsit, 28–29, 43 n. 77, 44 n. 78, 112–14 typology, 21, 25, 30, 184 figuration, in contrast to prefiguration, 66–67 Greek terms for, 22, 38–39 n. 36 interpretation of biblical books other than Song of Songs, 30–32, 59–60 Latin terms for, 22, 24 in the New Testament, 22–23, 25 Syriac terms for, 41 n. 61

temporal horizon, 29–30, 33, 44–45 n. 82, 186 in the writings of the Church Fathers, 23–25, 66 Ulrich, Eugene, 119 Urbach, Ephraim E., 76–77 Varro, 22, 39 n. 38 vassal treaties, ancient Near Eastern, 5–6, 102, 118, 127 n. 20 Vermes, Geza, 174 Wacholder, Ben Zion, 12–13 n. 27 waṣf, 95, 97–98, 108, 122 n. 1, 124–25 n. 7, 135–37 Weinfeld, Moshe, 5–6, 127 nn. 20–21 Weiss, Isaac H., 12–13 n. 27 Wetzstein, J. G., 122–23 n. 2 White, John Bradley, 123–24, n. 5 wilderness wanderings, 28, 118, 165 Wilson-Wright, Aren M., 45 n. 86 Yadin-Israel, Azzan, 74–75 Yerushalmi, Yosef Hayim, 79 Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, Rabban, 68–71, 82, 187 Yose the Galilean, Rabbi, 50–52 Zohar, 188