User:Dave314159/Notes Sandbox

The Legends of the Jews The Legends of the Jews

by

Louis Ginzberg

V

Notes to Volumes I and II

From the Creation to the Exodus

Philadelphia

The Jewish Publication Society of America

5728―1968 Copyright © 1925, 1953 by

The Jewish Publication Society of America

Eleventh Impression, 1979

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher: except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review to be printed in a magazine or newspaper.

Printed in the United States of America To the memory of

Judge Mayer Sulzberger == PREFACE ==

The reader who wishes to acquaint himself with the aim and purpose of "The Legends of the Jews" and with the method and system followed by the author will find the necessary information in the Preface to the first volume. I desire, however, to supplement it by a few remarks which I hope will be useful as a guide to the two volumes of Notes.

Volumes one to four, containing the Bible as mirrored by Jewish imagination and phantasy, are intended chiefly for the general reader and not for the scholar. It is true, I flatter myself, that the latter too will welcome the opportunity offered him for the first time of reading hundreds of legends in connected form instead of being forced to hunt for them in the vast literature of the Jews spreading over a period of two thousand years and in Christian writings of many a century. In the arranging and setting of the material in order, however, my main effort was to offer a readable story and narrate an interesting tale.

Volumes five and six, on the other hand, which contain the notes to the previous four volumes, are meant primarily, if not exclusively, for the student. The material dealt with in them is of a nature which, in the opinion of the author, will interest not only students of the legendary lore of the Jews, but also students of many other fields of learning. The student of comparative folk-lore will be attracted not only by the rich material offered him for his studies, but also by the fact of its being Jewish. The Jews may well be described as the great disseminators of folk-lore. Many a legend that originated in Egypt or Babylonia was appropriated by the European peoples and many a European fairy tale found its way to Asia through the medium of the Jews, who on their long wanderings from the East to the West, and back from the West to the East, brought the products of oriental fancies to the occidental nations, and the creations of occidental imagination to the oriental peoples.

The danger of confounding popular beliefs with the belief of a people is great, and I have on more than one occasion strongly protested against the methodological error of a certain school of theologians, who attempt to draw a picture of the Jewish religion by the artificial light of popular fancies. But who will gainsay that the Volksfrömmigkeit is reflected in the legends of a people? If this be true of legend in general, how much more so of Jewish legend, and particularly of that part thereof in which Jewish imagination expressed itself with regard to biblical events, persons and teachings. Creation, the election of Israel, the Torah, the merits of the Fathers, reward and punishment, and many similar problems, engaged the attention, not only of Jewish thought, but also of Jewish imagination. It is a well known fact that one cannot know any one thing well unless he goes beyond it and apprehends its relation to other things. To understand a people, it is not sufficient to study its thought and imagination, but also the relation of the two to one another. Almost one half of this volume is therefore intended as much for the student of Jewish religious thought as for the Jewish folk-lorist.

One of the outstanding characteristics of "the popular mind" is its conservatism and adherence to old forms. Nothing perhaps illustrates this more clearly and convincingly than the close affinity that exists between the pseudepigraphic literature and the rabbinic Haggadah, notwithstanding the centuries that lie between some of the Pseudepigrapha and the Midrashim. Fascinating as the study of the relation between these two branches of Jewish literature is, it is barely in its infancy. Jewish scholars have sorely neglected the study of the Pseudepigrapha, and non-Jewish scholars that of Rabbinics, and consequently very little has been achieved in this field of learning. The two volumes of Notes contain, besides hundreds of parallels between the rabbinic sources and the pseudepigraphic writings, also a number of lengthy studies on the Pseudepigrapha, especially on their relation to the Haggadah. To mention only two examples. To the Books of Adam, i.e. the Vita Adae and the Apocalypse of Moses, ten pages are devoted (118-128), and an almost equal number of pages is given to the Books of Enoch (153-162).

What has just been said about the relation of the pseudepigraphic literature to the Haggadah might be applied mutatis mutandis also to the affinity between Philo and the Rabbis. There are few Jewish authors about whom so much has been written as about Philo. And yet the most important problem connected with Philo is not yet solved. Was he a Jewish thinker with a Greek education, or a Greek philosopher with Jewish learning? I hope that the very numerous references in the Notes to the frequent similarity of the views held by the Rabbis and by Philo will contribute something towards the solution of this problem. I call special attention to those Notes where apparently philosophic utterances of Philo reveal themselves on close scrutiny as sound rabbinic doctrine, the philosophical tinsel of which can be easily removed.

Notwithstanding the early claim of the Church to be the sole and true interpreter of the Bible, the products of later Jewish thought and imagination found their way into it. The channels through which they reached the Christian world were two. The Church had at its very beginning adopted the pseudepigraphic literature as well as the Hellenistic writings, especially those of Philo. Besides this literary influence of later Judaism upon the Church, cognizance must also be taken of the oral communications made by Jewish masters to their Christian disciples. Not only the Church Fathers, Origen, Eusebius, Ephraem and Jerome, of whom it is well known that they studied the Bible under the guidance of Jewish teachers, have appropriated a good deal of Jewish legendary lore, but also Tertullian, Lactantius, Ambrosius, Augustine and many other teachers and leaders of the Church have come under direct influence of Jews. It is true that the Church Fathers sometimes sneeringly refer to the fabulae Judaicae, but more often they accept these fabulae and even refrain from betraying the source from which they drew them. The large material culled from the writings of the Church Fathers to illustrate their dependence upon Jewish tradition will be, I hope, of some value to the student of the patristic literature. At the same time the student of Jewish literature will be interested to learn that many a Haggadah first met with in Jewish literature in a Midrash composed in the seventh or eighth century, and even later, was transmitted as Jewish tradition by the Church Fathers of the fifth or fourth or even the third century. Not infrequently the patristic literature throws also some light upon the origin of a Haggadah which often owes its existence to the desire of combating Christian interpretation of the Bible. An interesting example of such a Haggadah is pointed out in the very beginning of this volume on page 3, note 3.

The problems that presented themselves to the author were so manifold and diverse that it was quite impossible to deal fully with them. What I strove to achieve, and I hope that I have not failed, was to have the legendary material as complete as possible. There are very few Jewish legends bearing on biblical events or persons that will not be found, or at least referred to, in the seven volumes of this work. When a legend has several variants, I give them if they are essential, otherwise the student is referred to the sources for further minute study. I found it therefore advisable to give the reference to all parallel passages of the original sources, as in most cases some slight variants are not lacking. The order of the sources is the chronological one, i.e. the older source precedes the younger one, except when on account of its fullness or for some other reason the Text is based on the latter one, in which case it comes first.

I have purposely avoided references to secondary sources, and while one is frequently accustomed to be referred to Rashi, Yalkut and other mediaeval authors as sources for Jewish legend, these authors are mentioned in the Notes only when they offer either material not found in the older literature extant or some important variants.

I have also been very sparing with references to modern writers on the Haggadah or on general Folk-lore. There are a considerable number of doctoral dissertations, mostly in German, which attempt to give the lives of prominent figures of the Bible according to the Haggadah. At their best, they are correct translations of some sections of the Midrash Rabba, and there was no need to refer to translations, as the Notes are written for those who are able to make use of the original sources. For this very reason, I also refrained from giving explanations to the texts quoted if they are found in the commentaries. Explanations are given in the Notes only when the commentators fail to do so, or where I differ with their views. As I have a thorough dislike for polemics, I rarely gave my reasons for the refusal to accept the views of others.

As to the literature on general Folk-lore, I was guided by the consideration that a student of comparative Folk-lore is surely acquainted with the standard works of Bolte and Polivka, Cosquin, Child, Clouston, Hartland, Grasse, Hertz, Kéhler, Oesterley and other great masters of this field of study, and it would have been entirely superfluous to call attention to the very numerous parallels found in these works to Jewish legends. The relation of the legendary lore of the Jews to that of the other nations is of extreme interest to the student of Folk-lore, but the discussion of this relation does not fall within the scope of this work.

A folk-loristic motif often appears in a variety of legends which formally are quite distinct from one another. In cases like this, reference is made either to the Text of the related legend or to the Note pertaining thereto. The attention of the student is, however, called to the fact that it is necessary to examine both Text and Note to make clear the meaning of such a reference. To avoid multiplying the references, it was found advisable to refer to the Index, which will appear in the seventh volume, and which will contain under the subject headings all the passages of Text and Notes that are related to one another. The Index will also give a complete bibliography of the works quoted in the Notes. For the convenience of the reader, however, a list of abbreviated titles of books is attached to this volume. I have followed the usual forms of quoting, and no special directions are necessary for those who are able to make use of the sources in their original. The titles of the Hellenistic and patristic works are given in Latin, and the editions referred to are the critical ones, if there be any, otherwise the vulgate text is used. Most of the writings of the Church Fathers, for instance, are quoted according to the Patrology of Migne. In quoting the works of Philo the divisions of the older editions are retained for the benefit of those who have not the critical edition of Cohn and Wendland at their disposal. Almost all the Hebrew works made use of in the Notes were accessible to me in their first editions. In quoting, however, the Talmudim, Midrashim and similar works, the ordinary editions are referred to, except where critical editions exist.

The transliteration of Hebrew words is that of the Jewish Encyclopaedia, except that because of typographical difficulties, I did not make use of the diacritical points. Accordingly H stands for ה and ח, K for כ and ק, T for ט and ת, and Z for ז and צ.

The Notes were completely ready for the printer more than five years ago, and the delay of their publication is a matter for which the author must not be held responsible. I am glad, however, to be able to state that the sixth volume containing the Notes to volumes three and four is so far advanced in print that it will appear within a short time. I also hope that the seventh volume, which will consist of the Excursuses, Index and Bibliography, will not be delayed unduly.

In the concluding lines of the preface I can not help giving expression to the feeling of deep sadness that overcomes me at the thought that Dr. B. Halper, who greatly assisted me in seeing this work through the press, was snatched away from our midst before its completion. With the devotion of the friend and the interest of the scholar he did much more for this book than even the most conscientious editor could be expected to do. His untimely death was a great loss to Jewish scholarship and still more to his friends, who will always remember him with love and affection.

New York, April 24, 1925 Louis Ginzberg

== CONTENTS ==

			page
I.	The Creation of the World	(Vol. I, pp. 1-46) .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .	3
II.	Adam	(Vol. I, pp. 47-102) .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .	63
III.	The Ten Generations	(Vol. I, pp. 103-142) .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .	132
IV	Noah	(Vol. I, pp. 143-182) .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .	167
V.	Abraham	(Vol. I, pp. 183-308) .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .	207
VI.	Jacob	(Vol. I, pp. 309-424) .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .	270
I.	Joseph	(Vol. II, pp. 1-184) .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .	324
II.	The Sons of Jacob	(Vol. II, pp. 185-222) .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .	378
III.	Job	(Vol. II, pp. 223-242) .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .	381
IV.	Moses in Egypt	(Vol. II, pp. 243-375) .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .	391

== I. The Creation of the World (pp. 3–46)==

¹ Tehillim 90, 391. For further details relating to the pre-existent things, see Excursus I.

² The Torah is conceived as having emanated from God’s wisdom. Comp. Excursus I.

³ PRE 3. As to God’s taking counsel with the angels and the Torah, comp. also vol. I, pp. 51 and 55. Similarly both Talmudim and the Midrashim frequently speak of God’s court of justice, consisting of the angels as members. Comp. Yerushalmi Berakot 9, 14b; Sanhedrin 1, 18a, and Babli 38b; WR 24.2; BaR 3.4; BR 51.2; ShR 6.1 and 12.4; Shir 1.9; PR 42, 175b; Tan. Wa-Era 16; Tan. B. I, 96, 106; II, 36, 51; Tehillim 119, 497; Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shanah 2, 58b; ShR 30.18. Tertullian, Adversus Praxean, 16, clearly points to the fact that the legend that the angels were consulted by God with regard to the creation is due to an anti-Christian tendency. Its purpose is to exclude the possibility of assuming that the Trinity is implied wherever the Bible employs the plural in connection with the deity. Comp. notes 10 and 12 on vol. I, pp. 51–53.

⁴ Raziel 20b and Sode Raza in Yalkut Reubeni on Gen. 1.3, excerpted from an unknown but late midrashic source, since it is a further development of the Haggadot cited in notes 1 and 3 from Tehillim and PRE; comp. Luria on PRE 3, note 25, and vol. I, pp. 51–52.

⁵ BR 3.7 and 9.2; Koheleth 3.11; Tehillim 34, 245. This is a faint reflection of the view that God formed the world out of eternal chaos, since the legend could not question the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. Comp. Excursus I. The legend about the nine hundred and seventy-four generations which existed prior to the creation of the world (or cautiously expressed, the generations that God had intended to create), originally presupposed a pre-existent chaos; comp. BR. 28.4; Koheleth 1.15 and 4.3; Shir 4.4; Tehillim 90, 392, and 105, 459; Hagigah 13b; ARN 31, 91; Tan. Lek 11 and Yitro 9; ER 2, 9; 6, 33; 13, 68; 16, 130; EZ 10, 189. Subsequently the legend concerning the nine hundred and seventy-four generations was brought into relation with the Haggadah that the Torah was created one thousand years prior to the creation of the world. Comp. Excursus I. See also Shabbat 88b and Targum Job 22, 16, according to the manuscript reading recorded in Levy’s Chaldäisches Wörterbuch I, 186.

⁶ BR 12.15 and 21.7; Midrash Shir 39b; PR 40, 167a (instead of רע היא מתענג read עכבר היא מתגעג “he would act as a spoiled child”); Yelammedenu quoted by Sikli (comp. Poznanski in Hazofeh, III, 1b–17, and in Maybaum-Festschrift, as well as Ginzberg’s remarks in Hazofeh IV, 31; Ozar Midrashim 64); Yerushalmi Targumim on Gen. 1.2; a quotation from an unknown Midrash by R. Bahya in Kad ha-Kemah, Rosh ha-Shanah 68a, and by R. Aaron in Orehot Hayyim I, 99c. The goodness of God as underlying the principle of creation is very frequently mentioned by Philo; comp. De Mut. Nom., 5; De M. Opif., 5 (further references to Philo are cited by Siegfried, Philo, 205–206). Similarly Wisdom 11.24. The daily morning prayer (Yozer) reads: “And in His goodness He renews the creation every day continually.” God is often described as “the very good” (Yerushalmi Ta’anit 2, 65b; PK 25, 161a), and hence the maxim: “Only God is good” (Matthew 19.17; Alphabetot 83; the latter source was very likely used by R. Bahya, Gen. 1.31), is only a paraphrase of Ps. 149.9, as pointed out in the Alphabetot. Philo is accordingly dependent upon Jewish tradition, but the Jewish sources are independent of him, although it is rather striking that the rendering of אלהים by “God’s goodness” in the Targumim, loc. cit., coincides with that of Philo (Quis Haeres Sit, 6), while the Rabbis (see e.g. Sifre D., 27) maintain that the Tetragrammaton יהוה designates God’s attribute of goodness but His justice is expressed by אלהים. Comp. note 46 on vol. I, p. 164, as well as note 9.

⁷ As to Behemoth and Ziz, comp. vol. I, pp. 28, 29, 30.

⁸ Comp. Index, s.v. “Israel, Guardian Angels of”. Originally these two angels belonged to two different traditions: one considered Michael the guardian angel of Israel, while according to the other, contrary to Daniel 10.21, Gabriel occupied this position. The rivalry of these two angels is met with in Jewish legends throughout the centuries (comp. Index, s.v.) and the harmonizing tendency of our legend argues for its comparatively late date. Instead of Michael and Gabriel, in Hekalot 6, 179–180, the Serafim (two of them; comp. Sode Raza in Yalkut Reubeni,Gen. 1.26, 10a, which reads: There are two angels with whom God takes counsel, and these are the same with whom God took counsel at the time of the creation of Adam) are said to burn the books containing the accusations brought by Satan and the guardian angels of the Gentiles against Israel (in accordance with Yoma 77a, read דוביאל instead of דמואל and ברזי instead of בראיה). Comp, also Berakot 17a (בפמליא) and EZ 5, 182, as well as Rimze Haftarot, I Sheb'uot, concerning the accusations of the angels against Israel.

⁹ Konen 37–38; Midrash Behokmah 63–66; Pesikta Hadta 48–49. The distance of the angels of destruction, as well as all other evils, from God is alluded to in very old sources; comp. Yerushalmi Ta'anit 2, 65b; Tan. B. I, 95, and III, 39–40; Tan. Tazria’ 9; Tehillim 5, 54, and 87, 374; PK 24, 161b; Gittin 88a; Hagigah 12a; BR 3.6 and 51.31; MHG I, 22–25; see also note 54; note 176 on vol. II, p. 70, and note 766 on vol. III, p. 374. In all these and similar passages (Wa-Yekullu 17b–18a and Grünhut, ad loc.) the underlying idea is that God, the original source of good, would not come in close contact with evil. This view is related to, but not identical with, the doctrine of Philo that nothing but good emanates from God. To give a philosophic turn to a popular conception is one of Philo’s chief merits. A different opinion is expressed by Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, I, 70. Origen, Contra Celsum, 4, 66, is evidently based upon Philo. The fallen angels are found according to 2 Enoch 18, in the second heaven, i.e., far away from the throne of God. Attention, however, is to be drawn to the fact that in rabbinic sources the angels of destruction are not identified with the fallen angels, as in the Books of Enoch, and elsewhere in pseudepigraphic literature, but are the angels whose task it is to inflict punishment upon the wicked. The statement made in PR 22, 114a, that the angels of destruction, unlike all the others (comp. Friedmann, ad loc.), have “joints”, wishes to convey the idea that they do not stand before God’s throne, and do not fulfil their duties speedily like the other angels, but move about slowly, from one place to another, like human beings who move by means of “joints”.

¹⁰ The mystic passages in the earliest rabbinic sources already discuss the idea that God created the world by the means of “letters” (comp., e.g., Yerushalmi Hagigah 2, 77c; Menahot 29b; Berakot 55a; BR 1.9; Midrash Shir 39b; PR 21, 108b, and 33, 153a; ER 31, 164; Shir 5.11; see also the passages referred to by Theodor on BR 9, line 9), and in gaonic literature this neo-Pythagorean- gnostic theory plays an important part, especially in the Sefer Yezirah (see Ginzberg’s article on the Sefer Yezirah in the Jewish Encyclopedia, and the literature cited there, as well as Joel, Blicke, I, 121), and the literature dependent on this book, as Midrash ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 62, Konen 23–24, and many others. Along with these mystic speculations (Pesikta Hadta 36 asserts that God created the universe by means of the Sefer Yezirah; comp. also Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 1–5), the forms, names, and order of the Hebrew letters are a favorite theme of the “pedagogic Haggadot”, whose object it is to render the elementary instruction to the young interesting and attractive. Such Haggadot are, e.g., Shabbat 104a; Yerushalmi Megillah 1, 7 Id; BR 8.11 (see the numerous parallel passages cited by Theodor), as well as the non-mystic elements of the two versions of the Alphabet of R. Akiba. Darmesteter, R.E.J., IV, 259, seq., and Muller, Sitzungsberichte Wiener Akademie, Phil.-historische Klasse, CLXVIII, treatise 2, furnish a rich collection of parallels to these Haggadot from patristic as well as from later Christian literature. To these “pedagogic Haggadot” belong also the Tagin and Midrash R. Akiba, whereas Midrash ha-Shiloah (in Onkeneira’s Ayyumah Kannidgalot, 18) and Tikkune Zohar deal exclusively with the first word of the Bible, concerning which a great deal may be found in other parts of rabbinic literature; comp. BR 1.7; MGH I, 10–11; Alphabet of R. Akiba 19; Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 3–4; Midrash Aggada on Gen. 1.1; the commentaries Hadar, Da'at, Pa'aneah, and Toledot Yizhak on Gen., loc. cit. For interesting parallels in Christian literature relating to the forms of the Hebrew alphabet, comp, especially ps.-Matthew 31; Gospel of Thomas 6 (in both versions).

¹¹ An allusion to Ps. 145.15; comp. also Berakot 4b.

¹² There are different versions relating to the controversy of the letters about precedence&msash;originally a “pedagogic Haggadah”, it was later combined with the mystic theory of the letters. The text given is essentially based on 2 Alphabet of R. Akiba 50–55, with the omission of many biblical verses, which are quoted by God and by the letters. Other versions are found in MHG I, 12–13; ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 62; Midrash R. Akiba 23–24; Zohar I, 2b–3a and 205b.

¹³ This number, as Lekah, Gen. 1.1, correctly remarks, corresponds to God’s “ten words”. Comp. vol. I, p. 49 (beginning).

¹⁴ I.e., “time”, which is here mentioned as having been created simultaneously with the world. This is in agreement with Philo, who in De M. Opif., 7, rejects the view which assumes that “time” is older than the world; BR 3.7 and Koheleth 3.11 hold this very opinion rejected by Philo.

¹⁵ Hagigah 12a; PRE 3. The former passage mentions God’s ten attributes which were made use of at the creation of the world. So also in ARN, second version 43, 119, whereas the first version knows only of seven such attributes. This latter view corresponds to Jub. 2.2; Philo, De M. Opif., 7; Tadshe 6, which state that only seven categories of creation took place on the first day. Other sources ascribe three kinds of creation to each day; comp, vol. I, pp. 82–83. Quite instructive is the fact that the Talmud does not conceive רוח אלוהים (Gen. 1.2) as “God’s spirit”, but as “God’s wind”, which interpretation is certainly due to an anti-Christian tendency, since the Christians identified God’s spirit with the Holy Ghost; comp. Origen, Princip., I, 33, and Jerome, ad loc. The Jewish interpretation was later accepted by some of the Church Fathers, as e.g., by Ephraim, I, 8 B, F; Basilius, Hexaemeron, 3, and Theodoretus, Gen., loc, cit.; comp, also Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 14–15. The prevalent opinion of the Palestinian Midrashim is that by “God’s spirit” the spirit (=soul) of Adam is meant; according to others it implies the spirit of the Messiah; BR 8.1. The souls of all the pious, however, were likewise created at the same time as Adam, or, as others assert, the primordial light which came into being on the first day is the material out of which the souls have been formed; comp. Excursus I, where details are also given concerning the view of the Rabbis about the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, on which they insist to the extent of counting Tohu (“void”) and Bohu (“emptiness”) among the things created. As to God’s spirit in the form of a dove (Matthew 3.16), comp. Tosefta Hagigah 2.5; Yerushalmi 2, 77a; Babli 15a; BR 2.4.

¹⁶ The heavens, like all the beings dwelling therein, consist of a combination of fire (not of an earthly or physical nature) and water, whereas the earth was formed of the snow found under the heavenly throne; Konen 24; BR 4.7 (שמים “heaven” = אש ומים “fire and water”); Hagigah 12a; BaR 12.4. Comp. further Lekah, Gen. 1.1 (ארץ “earth” is derived from רץ “the running one”, i.e., the one around which everything moves), and note 18.

¹⁷ BR 1.15; Yerushalmi Hagigah 2, 77c; Babli 12a; Tamid 32a (the question is here discussed whether light or darkness was created first; to Philo, too, darkness is something positive, not merely the absence of light; comp. De M. Opif., 7 where darkness is identified with (ἀήρ air); WR 36.1; Tan. B. I. 10 and 15; PRE 18; Shemuel 5, 55–56; Mishle 60; Tosefta Keritot (end); Mekilta (beginning). In most of the passages just quoted mention is made of two more views in addition to the one given in the text. According to one, the heaven preceded the earth (so Philo), while according to the second, the earth preceded the heaven. Joel, Blicke, I, 112, remarks that in these speculations we have an echo of the Greek theories appertaining to cosmogony. Recognitiones, I, 27, agrees with the later Rabbis that heaven and earth were created simultaneously. Comp. Konen 24, where the old view is still retained. Although created simultaneously, nevertheless the heavens were created by God’s right hand, and the earth by His left; PRE 18; Zohar II, 18b, 65b; comp. Luria, PRE, ad loc. At the very beginning God created the world to come, which He, however, hid, so that not even the angels could see it, then He fashioned this world; Alphabetot 97; comp. Isa. 64.4.

¹⁸ PRE 3. But in the older sources (BR 3.4; PK 21, 145b; WR 31.7; ShR 15.22 and 50.1; Tan. B. I. 6, and II, 123; Tan. Wa-Yakhel 6; Tehillim 27,221, and 104,440) it is the light emanating from God’s splendor, that was the beginning of all creation. The view that snow was the primeval component of the earth is mentioned only in PRE and in the sources dependent on it (comp. Luria, ad loc.), whereas ShR 13.1 maintains that the world was created of the earth found under God’s throne; comp, however, BR1.6 and parallel passages, where it is proved by Job 37.7 that the earth was created of snow. Zohar III, 34b, however, is directly dependent on ShR, loc, cit. As to the account of the creation in Konen 24–25, comp. Excursus I. It may also be remarked that the statement in ShR 15.22, according to which the light emanated from fire (of a heavenly kind) occurs very likely already in 4 Ezra 6.40, where lumen aliquid luminis is based on the faulty reading אור מאור instead of אור מאש. It is however possible that 4 Ezra wishes to say the same as many of the Midrashim just quoted, according to which the primordial light was made of God’s splendor, in Hebrew “light from light.” Philo expresses this view in words similar to those of the Haggadah; comp. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 71; Weinstein, Genesis der Agada, 41. See also the following note.

¹⁹ BR 3.6, 11.2, 12.6, and 42.3; Hagigah 12a (only this passage and BHM VI, 59, give a detailed but rather obscure description of Tohu and Bohu comp. Joel, Blicke, I, 142); PR 5, 20a, and 46, 187a; EZ 21, 94; Tehillim, 97, 422. Comp, further ER 3, 14 and 16–17; EZ 12, 193; Nispahim 56; PRE 3 (here, in accordance with ARN, second version, 37, 95, should be read אורות צדיקים instead of ארחות צדיקים); comp. also vol. I, pp. 86, 262, 388; vol. IV, p. 234, with regard to the future light of the pious. On this light which is, however, not identified with the primordial light (but comp. 4 Ezra 6.40, which reads; lumen,…de thesauris tuis, which literally corresponds to the rabbinic אור הגנוז, since גנז = “preserved in the treasury”; see also the preceding note), comp. the Apocalypse of Baruch 51.3; Enoch 38.4 (numerous parallel passages are cited by Charles, ad loc.); 2 Enoch 66.3 and 9. Concerning Philo’s view on the primordial light, comp. De M. Opif., 8 and 18; Sachs, Beiträge, II, 34; Weinstein, Genesis der Agada, 38. For the further development of this light doctrine among the medieval philosophers and mystics, comp. Al-Barceloni, 18–22; Zohar I, 31b, 34a, 45b, and II, 158b.

²⁰ The Hebrew word for heaven שמןם (for its etymology see note 16; BR 4.7 and parallel passages cited by Theodor) looks like a plural though it is really a singular (see Barth, Z.D.M.G., 42; 346), hence the conception that there are several heavens is already met with in the Bible. But the exact fixing of their number belongs to a more recent date. Comp. the following two notes.

²¹ The significance of the number seven in Jewish legend may be seen by referring to the Index s.v. Seven. PK 23, 154b–155a; Tehillim 9,87 (comp. the parallel passages cited by Buber); PRE 18 and Tadshe 6, 19–20, maintain that from the history of mankind and that of Israel, as well as from nature, one may prove that this number plays an important part. Similar discussions on the importance of “seven” are found in Philo, De M. Opif., 30–34 (in a very elaborate form), and in 4 Maccabees 14.17. Yezirah 4, which is the source for Zohar I, 15b and 38a, as well as for MHG I, 11, points out that everything physical is determined by seven limitations: above and below, right and left, before and behind, and its own individual form. Similarly Philo, All. Leg., 1.2. Zohar I, 38a, derives the conception of seven heavens, seven hells, and other “sevens” from this fundamental idea, and this view of Zohar deserves serious attention. On the seven heavens comp. further the following note. The dependence of Tadshe, loc. cit., on Philo is not to be assumed (against Epstein, R.E.J., XXI, 87, seq.), in view of the fact that the conception of the seven stages of man’s age, though of Greek origin, occurs not only in Philo and Tadshe, but also in Koheleth 1.2.

²² Hagigah 12b. For the correct reading of this classic passage concerning the seven heavens, comp., besides Variae Lectiones, ad loc., MHG I, 14–15. The seven heavens are further mentioned in BR 19.7; PK 1, lb, and 24, 154b–155a (the names of the heavens are different here from those in the Talmud); PR 5, 17b–18b, and 15, 68b; Shir 5.1; Tan. B. III, 37–38; Tan. Pekude 6 and Naso 15; BaR 12.6 and 13.2; WR 29.11; Tehillim 9,88, and 109,471; Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 5–6 (read מעונןת instead of מעינות). The last-named source, 21–26, also gives a detailed description of the heavens (this is the only rabbinic passage which speaks of a heavenly ladder leading from one heaven to another; comp. note 49 on Vol. I, p. 70). See also ʿAseret ha-Dibrot 63–65 and the older version of this Midrash on the first commandment; ARN 37, 110; Midrash Shir 2b; Alphabetot 86–87; PRE 18; DR 2.32; comp. also PK 1,7b; PR 20,98b; Zohar I, 85b; II, 164b–165a, 172a; III, 9a–10a. That the idea concerning the seven heavens originated in the tannaitic period cannot be definitely proved. It is found in a statement by R. Meir (ARN, loc, cit.), but the authenticity of this source is not above suspicion. From DR 2.32; Tehillim 109, 471 (read רב for רבנןl), and 148, 538, it may be seen that even much later the prevailing view was that there were only three (according to some, two) heavens. This view is in agreement with the opinion of 12 Testaments, Levi 3, and 2 Cor. 15.6. 2 Enoch 3–31, whose cosmogony, however, is rather syncretistic, and the following pseudepigraphic works (which contain Christian revisions), 3 Baruch; Ascension of Isaiah 8.13; Testament of Abraham 19 (longer recension), as well as some versions of the 12 Testaments (containing Christian revisions), loc, cit., are the oldest passages referring to the seven heavens. The view of “ten heavens” (corresponding to the ten groups of angels; it may also be a learned combination of the views concerning the three and seven heavens, respectively) is found in some of the texts of 2 Enoch 22 and Zohar II, 164b–165a and 172a. The later popular view among Jews, Christians, and gnostics was that there were seven heavens. The learned classes, however, were not inclined to accept this view; they were of the opinion that two, or at most, three heavens, were sufficient. As to the rabbinic sources, comp. Hagigah, DR, Tehillim, loc, cit. As to the Church Fathers, see Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 10–14, as well as Siegfried, Philo., index, s.v. “Himmel”. In the description of the individual heavens, each of the sources follows its own way. As to the pseudepigraphic works, comp. 2 Enoch; 3 Baruch; Ascension of Isaiah; 12 Testaments, Levi. As to the rabbinic literature, see Hagigah; Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 21–26; Sode Raza in Yalkut Reubeni on Gen. 1.1, 3c–4a; Raziel 12a–13d, 19a–19c, and 27c–27d; Zohar II, 254a–263a, whose fantastic description of the seven “Hekalot” (the heavenly halls) is nothing more than an account of the seven heavens. Just as the gnostics speak of three hundred and sixty-five heavens (Tertullian, Haer., 1), even so do the Jewish mystics assert that besides the seven heavens there is still another great number of heavens; comp. BHM I, 132; Alphabetot 89; Sode Raza, loc. cit. With regard to the description of the heavens in the text according to Hagigah, the following is to be noticed. The manna is placed in the third heaven; comp. vol. III, p. 44, and Apocalypse of Baruch 29.8. As to the fourth heaven in which the heavenly temple is situated, comp. Zebahim 62a; Menahot 110a; Kebod Huppah, 11. For the literature apertaining to this subject, see Excursus I. PR 20, 98b, seems to locate the heavenly temple in the seventh heaven. As to the removal of the instruments of punishment from the sixth heaven, comp. Tan. B. I, 99; BR 51.3; Tehillim 5.54. With regard to this subject, i.e., on the idea that no evil is to be found in God’s proximity, see note 9. Comp. further Enoch 60.17, and vol. IV, p. 102. As to the dew for the purpose of quickening the dead, comp. vol. III, p. 95; vol. IV, p. 333, 336, 360. See also the Apocalypse of Baruch 29.7 and 73.2; 2 Enoch 22.9; as well as the “dew of light” of the gnostics in Preuschen, Adamschriften, 63. The old rabbinic sources where this is mentioned are the following: Yerushalmi Berakot 5, 9b; Ta'anit 1, 63d. This dew particularly plays a very important part in mystic literature; comp. PRE 34 (end) and the sources cited by Luria. As to the seventh heaven ʿArabot, comp. BHM I, 132, which is the source for Tolaʿat Yaʿakob (at the end of Asher Yazar).

²³ The sea and the water in Jewish legend, like Apsu and Tiamat in Babylonian mythology, are two different elements: the one is sweet water and the other salt water. To point out the exact nature of this difference, Konen 24 uses the phrase מים מתוקים (“sweet water”), in contrast to ים (“sea” = salt water).

²⁴ That is, counted from above downward.

²⁵ Seven names for hell are already given in ‘Erubin 19a, which in Tehillim 11, 100 (with some variants) appear as seven compartments of hell; comp. notes 55–57.

²⁶ Corresponding to the number of days of the solar year.

²⁷ Concerning these monsters, comp. note 34 on vol. I, p. 114. ²⁸ MHG I, 16–17. For a full account of the seven earths, see Konen 35–37; Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 5–28 (different versions); Raziel (מעשה בראשית), 27a–27b. Older sources speak of seven or ten names of the earth (comp. note 22 with reference to the seven or ten heavens), as well of the seven earths. It is, however, doubtful whether this does not really mean seven parts (zones); comp. PK 24, 155a; WR 19.11; Shir 6.4 (here, however, only six heavens are mentioned, the highest of which, where God dwells, not being included, and six earths; comp. PK 1, 7b, and ShR 15. 26); ARN 38, 110; second version 43, 119; Mishle 8, 59, and 9, 61; Tehillim 92, 402; PRE 8; see further Sode Raza in Yalkut Reubeni on Gen. 1.1, 2d–3a. Another sevenfold division of the earth is to be found in the following statement of Hagigah 12b and, with essential variants, in Yerushalmi 2, 77a; Leket 8b; Tehillim 104, 442; Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 11. Acording to this statement, the earth rests on pillars, which rest on water, which rests on mountains, which rest on the winds, which rest on storms, which rest on God's arm. The number of the pillars upon which the earth rests is variously given: seven, twelve, and even one, whose name is "Zaddik" (righteous). These seven pillars of the earth are personified in the Clementine writings as the seven saints Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. The view that there is a connection between the seven pillars of the earth spoken of by the Rabbis and the seven saints of the Clementine writings, first suggested by Ginzberg in the Jewish Encyclopedia, IV, 114, is now proved to be correct by Alphabetot 103, where the seven pillars are actually identified with the seven pious men: the three patriarchs and Moses, Aaron, David, and Solomon.

²⁹ BR 1. 13; Tan. B. I, 6. Comp. also Alphabetot 97.

³⁰ 30 Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 4–5; Alphabetot 89. A passage found at the end of the Mishnah which, however, does not belong to it, but is a later insertion (comp. Sanhedrin 100a; Tehillim 31, 239, and Schwarz, Die Controversen, 2) reads as follows: In the time to come God will bestow three hundred and ten worlds on every righteous person. Comp. further Petirat Mosheh 121 (where רבוא is to be struck out), and Ketoret ha-Sammim 4b, where a passage from ARN is cited concerning the three hundred and ten worlds. This passage does not occur in our texts of this Midrash, but it resembles the statement of BHM I, 132 (this is the source of R. Bahya, Gen. 1.1) with reference to the three hundred and ninety heavens. On these heavens see Derek Erez R. 2 (end) and Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 28. 30. Instead of three hundred and ten, Alphabetot of R. Akiba has three hundred and forty. In the same source, 29, the view regarding the distance between the angels and the Shekinah is very likely connected with the statement made in ‘Abodah Zarah 3b and Seder Rabba 4 concerning the eighteen thousands worlds. Comp. likewise note 97.

³¹ 31 BR 6.6 and numerous parallel passages cited by Theodor. Comp. likewise Ascension of Isaiah 7.18; vol. II, p. 307; vol. III, p. III; vol. IV, p. 334. See also the sources cited in the following note.

³² Ta'anit 10a; Pesahim 94a; Yerushalmi Berakot 1, 2c. Comp. the material collected by Hirschensohn, Sheba’ Hokmot, 1–13, on the views of the ancient rabbinic sources concerning the extension of the earth and other physical-meteorological observations found in these writings. On the thickness of the heavens comp. BR 6.6, and the Greek Baruch 3.

³³ Konen 27. Yalkut Reubeni on Lev. 2.13 quotes the following from an unknown Midrash: The world is divided into three parts: inhabited land, desert, and sea; the temple is situated in the inhabited land, the Torah was given in the desert, and salt from the sea is offered with every sacrifice. God’s power extends over all these three parts of the earth; He led Israel through the Red Sea, they wandered through the wilderness, and reached the inhabited land, Palestine; R. Bahya on Num. 10.35. According to 4 Ezra 42, a seventh part of the earth is water; but this bears no relation to Recognitiones 9, 26. This passage contains only the view that the world is divided into seven zones. Comp. the rabbinic parallel passages cited in note 28. The division into twelve zones, which is frequently found in non-Jewish sources (comp. Broil, Sphaera, 296, and Jeremias, AT AO 2, 50–51), is not unknown to rabbinic literature, where it is stated that according to Deut. 32.8 the earth consists of twelve parts corresponding to the twelve sons of Jacob. Comp. Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 4; Alphabet R. Akiba 24; Lekah, Gen. 1.14 (end, where it is said that the various zones correspond to the signs of the Zodiac). See further note 73 on vol. I, p. 173.—The view that paradise is situated in the east is based on Gen. 2.8. But מקדם in this verse was taken by very old authorities in the sense of “pre-existing” (comp. Excursus I). Thus many Rabbis assert that paradise was situated in the west, or to be more accurate, in the north-west. Comp. Tosafot Berakot 55b, caption ממרא; Enoch 32; vol. III, p. 161.

³⁴ Konen 28–31; Baba Batra 25a; vol. III, pp. 160, 232.

³⁵ Gittin 31b. On the winds comp. Hirschensohn, Sheba' Hokmot, 8–11; Derenbourg, Monatsschrift, XXX, 173–174. Comp. vol. III, p. 282.

³⁶ Gittin 31b; Konen 31. An interesting parallel to 2 Enoch 40.11, concerning the stilling of the wind in order that the world should not be destroyed, is found in BR 24.4 (comp. the parallel passages cited by Theodor).

³⁷ 37 PRE 3; Tehillim 2, 16. Comp. likewise Baba Batra 25b.

³⁸ This is the usual transliteration, whereas Shetiyyah is the only permissible form, if it is to be derived from שתי.

³⁹ Tan. B. III, 78; Tan. Kedoshim 10. We are here confronted with a legend which is composed of various elements. Palestine, God's favorite land, was created before all other parts of the world; Sifre D., 37; Mekilta RS, 168; Ta'anit 10a; Sibyl. 5.300. Comp. likewise Excursus I. Instead of Palestine in general, Jerusalem (Yoma 54b; Tehillim 50, 279; Targum Ps. 50.2), or the site of the temple (comp. the following note) is designated as the beginning of creation. The widespread popular notion that the earth came into being as a result of a stone which God had thrown into the water (comp. Dähnhardt, Natursagen, I, 4, and see further the remarks on water as the primeval first element in Excursus I) was subsequently brought into relation with the view that creation began with the site of the temple; hence the legend that creation began with the stone found in the holy of holies; see Tosefta Yoma 4.6; comp. also Babli 54b (ר׳ יצחק נפחא, in view of Tosefta 'Erubin 7.18, against Rabbinovicz, is to be retained); Yerushalmi 5, 42b; Tan., loc. cit., and parallel passages. Independent of, and partly contradictory, to this view is the opinion which maintains that Palestine is situated in the centre of the earth; Jub. 8.12; Enoch 26.1 (according to 90.20, Gehenna is likewise located in the centre of the earth, because an entrance thereof is found in Jerusalem, the centre of Palestine; see 'Erubin 19a; Preuschen, Adamschriften, 27, which is not anti-Jewish); PR 10, 34a, and many of the parallel passages in later Midrashim, cited by Friedmann (Yoma, loc. cit., on the contrary, distinguishes between the centre of the earth and Jerusalem), to which many more may be added; comp. e.g. Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 4; Zohar II, 151a; III, 161b and 221b. Jerusalem is already mentioned in Aristeas, 83 as the centre of Palestine, and this agrees with the later Midrashim, Tan., loc. cit., and parallel passages; Seder Rabba di-Bereshit, loc. cit. Since it was assumed that the ark was placed in the centre of the holy of holies (Meleket ha-Mishkan 53; not so Maimonides, Yad ha-Hazakah, Bet ha-Behirah 4.1, and RSBM on Baba Batra 99a) upon the Eben Shetiyyah, the legend, desirous of finding creation centres (comp. the elaborate account of such circles in Zohar II, 157, and III, 161b), quite naturally saw in this stone the centre of the earth. In view of the belief that the creation of the earth (and of everything; comp. Yoma 85a) began with its centre, the Eben Shetiyyah also became the beginning of creation. The oldest source (Yoma 5.2), where this stone is mentioned, leaves no doubt that it is considered to have come down there at the time of the first prophets (i.e., Samuel and David; comp. Sotah 48b and Yerushalmi 9, 24b; see, however, Yerushalmi Berakot 5, 8d), and it is therefore impossible to assume that the Mishnah identified it with the stone with which creation began. It is accordingly probable that {שתיה is the same as אשתיה, and א׳ שתיה is to be translated “fire-stone”, i.e., meteor. We have here, therefore, a tradition based upon 2 Samuel 24.16, seq., and 1 Chron. 21.26, according to which a meteor fell down at this place (note that the Mishnah does not read היה נתון), where subsequently the holy of holies was situated. Hadar on Exod. 19.19 quotes Targum Yerushalmi ad loc., in which אבני אישתא is employed in the sense of meteors. Later, however, א׳ שתיה was connected with שתי “loom” (creation as a spinning out of skeins of the warp is a favorite picture; comp. BR 10.5 and the parallels given by Theodor) and א׳ שתיה “foundation”; comp. Tosefta, Yerushalmi, and Babli Yoma, loc. cit.; Yerushalmi Pesahim 4, 30d; PK 28, 171a; Tan. B. III, 78; Tan. Ahare 3 and Kedoshim 10; WR 20.4; BaR 21.4; Shir 3, 9. In all these passages it is stated that the stone was called Eben Shetiyyah because the foundation of the world had been laid with it. A later development of the Eben Shetiyyah legend transferred to this stone all that which had originally been said concerning the foundation of the temple (comp. vol. IV, p. 96, and note 69 appertaining to it). It is therefore asserted that the “Ineffable Name” was engraved on this stone, whose power checks the Tehom from overflowing the earth; comp. Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 28.30; Targum Eccl. 3.11. This legend is further enlarged upon in Jewish Jesus tales. Since the knowledge of this name enabled anyone to accomplish all one desired, a device was necessary to prevent misuse. At the gate of the temple two brazen dogs were placed (on such magic dogs comp. vol. III, pp. 6–7), so that whenever a person who had acquired the knowledge of the Name would pass, they began to bark. Frightened by this sound, the person would forget the knowledge of the Name. Jesus, however, had written the Name on paper, which he hid under his skin. He forgot the Name while passing the dogs, but later learned it again from the paper which he pulled out from under his skin. By means of the Name he was able to perform all the miracles. Comp. Krauss, Leben Jesu, index s.v. “Grundstein.” The view that the Name of the Messiah is engraved upon a stone of the heavenly temple belongs likewise to the Eben Shetiyyah legend cycle. For further details concerning this legend, see vol. I, p. 352; Feuchtwanger in Monatsschrift LV, 43–47; Jeremias, Babylonisches im NT, 79–80, and AT AO 2, 49, 155, 372, 374, 585.

⁴⁰ Konen 24–25, based on old sources; comp. BR 3. 4–5; PK 21, 145b; WR 31.7; ShR 15.22 and 50.1; Tehillim 50, 279 (where it is said that also the destruction of this world as well as the creation of the new world will begin with Zion) and 104, 441; ER 5, 21; Tan. B. II, 96.

⁴¹ Originally a mythological conception of creation as a struggle between light and darkness (=chaos). In Jewish sources the prince of darkness is the angel of death (=Satan); comp. ShR 8.6; Yelammedenu in Ozar Midrashim 64b; Tan. Wa-Yakhel 4. He is, of course, considered to have been created by God.

⁴² PR 20, 95a–96b, and 203a. The allegorical interpretation of the sign of the Zodiac, although found in both versions of the Pesikta, does not belong to the original legend concerning the struggle between light and darkness, i.e., God and Satan, and is therefore rightly omitted in the manuscript made use of for the text. In this account water and darkness are identical, because water is conceived as the chaotic primeval substance. On the rebellion of the water comp. notes 50–53 and 71–73, as well as Konen 25 (read ונתרקמה מכבודו or ונתרקעה for ונתרקנה כבודו; the formation of solid bodies out of the fluid water will thus be explained), where, quite manifestly, the struggle between light and darkness, as the strife of the former against the water, is described, although just a little before (24) this struggle is given in quite a different form.

⁴³ 43 BR 5.8 and 46.3, where the Midrash refers to Aquila’s translation of שדי by “ikanos”; comp. Theodor on the second passage just referred to and Joel, Blicke, I, 147. As to the aspiration of created things to be infinite, see the utterance of R. Simeon b. Lakish in Hagigah 12a (combined with the myth of the rebellion of the waters; see note 42), and Dahnhard, Natursagen, I, 2. Comp. also Tan. B. I, 7-8, 80, 197, 202; Tan. Hayye Sarah 3. In the first passage of Tan, it is said that the heavens which were created out of the heap of snow (comp. note 18), in accordance with God’s blessing, “became fruiful and multiplied”.

⁴⁴ PRE 4; Konen 25, comp. note 98 on vol. I, p. 83, and Jub. 2.4, according to which the firmament only was created on the second day. See also Philo, De M. Opif. 10.

⁴⁵ 45 PRE 4; Theophil, 2.13. Comp. vol. III, p. 162.

⁴⁶ BR 4.2-7, which contains a number of remarks concerning the relation of the firmament created on the second day to the heavens created on the first day. See further Mekilta RS, 100, and Jerome on Is. 64.1.

⁴⁷ Tosefta Hagigah 2.6; Yerushalmi 2, 77a; Babli 15a; BR 2.4 and 4.3-5. Comp. the following note.

⁴⁸ Seder Rabba di-Bereshit (the text must be emended to read והמים שלקח למעלה כונן עליהם ז׳ מעונות . . . שנחן למטה). The waters above (comp. Greek Baruch 2) are found, however, according to another view at a “distance of five hundred years” from the firmament, where they are suspended at God’s command. The waters above are assumed in Seder Rabba di-Bereshit to be of an illuminating nature, while the waters below are of the opposite character. Accordingly, in 2 Enoch 27, light and darkness are identified with the waters above and the waters below, respectively. See also Konen 24 and note 42.

⁴⁹ BR 4.6. This is to serve as an explanation why the Bible does not use the phrase “and it was good” in connection with the creations of the second day; comp. note 54 where this subject is treated at full length.

⁵⁰ Hadar on Gen. 1.9 and thence in BHM V, 150-156; the text needs to be emended. The sentence from ונתן to בראשית certainly does not belong here, and instead of ותלאן וכו׳ read וקרלן בפלגןת באצבעא. Comp. Konen 25 and Sanhedrin 38b. Read also וקרען בפלגות and after נטה עליהם הקב״ל insert ידי. On the formula of incantation used by the “angel of the countenance” (שר הפנים) comp. Origen, Contra Celsum, 4.34. Quite a considerable number of versions of the legend of the rebellion of the waters (comp. note 42) are extant. The waters above, which are masculine, aspired to a union with the waters below, which are feminine, and had not God separated them by means of the firmament (read ונתן הרקיע . . . והמים הזכרים), their union might have destroyed the world. Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 6. As to other versions comp. the notes 52, 53, and 72.

⁵¹ Comp. notes 49 and 54.

⁵² Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 9 (the source for this paragraph is not identical with that of 6); Raziel 11b, 18a–18b, and 27d; Konen 25. God “tore” the mass of waters into two halves, the waters above and the waters below, and informed them that they would be divided again for Israel’s sake (as to these conditions, comp. also vol. I, pp. 50–51); ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 63; MHG I, 26; ShR 15.22; Hadar on Gen. 1.4: as compensation to the waters below, God commanded the water libation in the temple and the use of salt with all sacrifices. A similar source was used by Rashi; R. Bahya; R. Shem Tob b. Shem Tob; R. Isaac Caro, and Bertinora on Lev. 2.13; comp. Berliner, Raschi, 426. Comp. also ER 31, 161, concerning the weeping of the primeval elements of creation, which wished to remain all the time in God’s proximity. See further the following note, as well as note 72.

⁵³ ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 63; MHG I, 26; Raziel 27d. The song of praise to God by the waters originally belonged to another cycle of legends which state that the waters—the primeval element—praised God before any other thing had been created, and that they willingly submitted to His command to withdraw in order to render creation possible. Comp. BR 5.2–4; ShR 17.1 and 15.22 (the second passage, however, contains a mixture of myths, referring also to the rebellion of the waters at the same time); Tehillim 93, 415–416 (in Ma'asiyyot, Gaster’s edition, 8, it is Alexander the Great, not Hadrian, as in Tehillim, who hears the hymn of the waters); PR 192b; Alphabetot 82 (the hymn of the water induced God to create the world); Midrash quoted in Hadar on Gen. 7.5 and Exod. 15.8 (the waters praised God when Israel crossed the Red Sea); Yerushalmi ‘Abodah Zarah 3, 42a; PRE 5; Ta'anit 25b. Comp. notes 71–72; Tertullian, De Baptismo, 3.

⁵⁴ BR 4.16, where two other reasons are given why the Bible does not have the sentence “And He saw that it was good” with reference to the second day of creation: 1) because the things created on the second day were not completed on that day and were finished on the third; hence this sentence is repeated twice on the third day; 2) because God had foreseen that Moses would incur death on account of the “water”; comp. vol. 111, 307, seq. Two of the midrashic explanations are also cited by the Church Fathers; comp. Jerome on Gen. 1.8; Ephraim 1, 15 B-C; Albertus Magnus XIX, 1.731; Origen, Ad Africanum, 4. See Grünbaum, Gesammelte Aufsätze, 176, and Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv. 15-16. Midrash ha-Ne’elam on Gen. 1.9 reads: Only unity is good. This agrees almost verbatim with Philo, De Allegor., 2.1. That hell was created on the second day is also found in various other passages of rabbinic literature; comp. BR 11.9 and 31.9; Pesahim 54a; PRE 3; ShR 15.22; Tan. B. I, 12; Tan. Hayye Sarah 3; Tosefta Berakot 5 (6).7. Comp. Excursus I.

⁵⁵ In rabbinic sources the word ordinarily used for “hell” is Gehinnom, although this is at the same time the name of one of the parts of hell; comp. the passages quoted in note 25. The Rabbis, of course, knew that Gehinnom originally was the name of the valley near Jerusalem (Jer. 7.32), where Moloch had been worshipped in ancient times, and they therefore explained the meaning of this word, as well as its synonym Tofet, from its connection with the worship of Moloch. Comp. the vivid description of the worship of Moloch in Ge ben-Hinnom in Tan. B. V, 15; Ekah 1, 71-72; Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk, s.v. גיא and קנקל. See Krauss in ZDMG, LXVI, 273-274. The relation between Gehenna and Jerusalem is, however, of a closer nature, for one of the three gates of hell (the one is found in the inhabited land, the other in the wilderness, and the third at the bottom of the sea) is located in Jerusalem; ‘Erubin 19a (where the exact place of this gate is given); PK 29, 186b (bottom); comp. note 39. Tamid 32b cites two opinions: according to one, hell is found above the firmament (but not in heaven), while the other maintains that it is “beyond the mountains of darkness”. There is a widespread view that hell and paradise are situated side by side, so that it is possible to look from one place into the other; PK 30, 191b; Koheleth 7.14; Midrash Tannaim 224. On the enormous size of hell comp. Pesahim 94a; Ta'anit 10a; Shir 6.9 (the size of the entire world bears the same relation to hell as a lid to its pot); PR 41, 173b (hell expands according to its needs); PRK, Grtinhut’s edition, 71. As to the intensity of the fire of hell, comp. Berakot 57b and Shabbat 39a (bottom), which state that the heat of the hot springs of Tiberias is due to the fact that its waters pass the gates of Gehenna Comp. also Yerushalmi Berakot 6, 10d (end) where ב׳ דקלים have reference to the statement in ‘Erubin 19a.

⁵⁶ Sotah 10b (מדורי “habitations”, a play on the word מדורה “fire-place”); for the various descriptions of hell and paradise comp. Index, s.v. “Hell and Paradise”. The place where Moloch was worshipped (comp. the preceding note), according to the description in the older Midrashim, consisted of seven compartments (Ge ben Hinnom is thus modelled after Gehinnom). The allegoric interpretation of the seven compartments as symbolizing the sevenfold punishment is found not only in Ezra 7. 80–81, but also among the later Kabbalists; comp. Zohar II, 150b, and Azulai, Hesed le-Abraham, 51d. Rather strange is Mishle 7, 57, which speaks of fourteen compartments of hell (the text is not to be emended, as it is based on the interpretation of שבעתים as “two times seven”), whereas the rabbinic sources (in addition to those mentioned above, comp. also Tehillim 11, 100 and 101) and the Babylonian myth concerning the descent of Ishtar into hell know only of seven compartments.

⁵⁷ The names vary in the different versions; comp. ‘Erubin 19a; Tehillim 11, 100 and 101; PRK, Grünhut’s edition, 77, and vol. I, p. 10.

⁵⁸ Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 15; Konen 35 (bottom; read ע׳ אלפים פחות ת״ק); comp. further Alphabet R. Akiba 28; BHM V, 50; vol. I, p. 10. The numbers given in Konen concerning the dimensions of hell presuppose a “distance of 500 years” as a unit. Comp. vol. I, p. 11.

⁵⁹ Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 19–20; BHM V, 49–50. Comp. further vol. II, pp. 311–312, as well as vol. III, p. 37. On serpents which have venom instead of blood, see King, Creation Tablets, 16 and 50.

⁶⁰ Masseket Gehinnom 147. On the different kinds of fire comp. vol. II, p. 310; vol. III, p. 244; vol. IV, p. 199. See further Alphabet R. Akiba 81; PRK, 16a; Sefer Yezirah (not in our text) in Mahzor Vitry 319. On the Persian origin of this legend, comp. Darmesteter in R.E.J. I, 186, and Kohut, Angelologie, 32–33.

⁶¹ BR 1.3 and 3.8 (according to one opinion the angels were created as late as the fifth day, simultaneously with the other winged creatures), as well as 11.9; Tan. B. I, 1 and 12; ShR 15.22; PRE 4; Tehillim 24, 204; 76, 373–374; 104, 442; Konen 25. Reminiscences of the old view, according to which the angels were created on the first day (Jub. 2.2; 2 Enoch 29.3; Apocalypse of Baruch 21.6), have been preserved even in authoritative Midrashim, but particularly in the mystic literature. In the latter an attempt is made to harmonize the conflicting views concerning the day on which the angels were created by assuming that the higher ranks were created on the first day, and the lower ones later; comp. Tan. Wa-Yesheb 4 and Yelammedenu in Ozar Midrashim, I, 64 (where two contrary opinions are found besides one another); ER 1, 3, as well as 19, 160, and perhaps also BR 21.9 (ER, loc. cit., understands BR to say that the Cherubim were created first, taking מקדם to mean “in the beginning”); PRE 4; Konen 24 (in the two last-mentioned sources the archangels are differentiated from the other angels; comp. the words ז׳ מלאכים שנבראו תחלה, and Luria, note 1); Zohar I, 46a (the contrary opinion is given in III, 217); Ketab Tamim 59; Peletat Soferim 2; Zohar Hadash lib and 12a (mention is made here of angels who existed prior to the creation of the world; comp. Excursus I); R. Bahya on Gen. 38.12 The authoritative view maintaining that the angels were created on the second day (as to the reason given for this view, comp. also the statement in Alphabetot 89 and 103 concerning the disappearance of all the angels before the creation of the new world; see further Tertullian, Adversus Hermogenem 34) is also found in Tan. Hayye Sarah 3 and in the quotation from this Midrash in Makiri Is. 43, 141; Batte Midrashot IV, 33; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 1.26 Comp. also note 22 on vol. I, p. 59.

⁶² PRE 4; Konen 25 and 24 The fact that the angels were created of fire does not interfere with their incorporeality, for in legend fire, particularly the heavenly fire, is incorporeal (comp. Konen 24); see also Enoch, at the beginning and 20, which reads: “All the fiery hosts of great archangels and incorporeal powers” Although they are incorporeal, they are not eternal, since there are angels who come into being for a moment only and vanish immediately after Thus there are angels who spring up daily out of the stream Dinur (=“stream of fire”; comp. Dan. 7. 10); they praise God, and then disappear Out of every word uttered by God angels are created Comp. Hagigah 13b–14a; BR 78.1 (Michael and Gabriel are the only angels who do not vanish); Alphabetot 88; Trypho in Justin’s Dialogue, 128 Trypho’s remarks concerning angels are particularly important with respect to the attitude of the Synagogue towards angelology His remark, 60, that wherever Scripture speaks of the appearance of angels, it wishes to express symbolically God’s visible activity, is also found in BR 97.3; ShR 2.5 and 32.9 His other statement, 128, that the angels are borne by God’s power, corresponds to the view poetically expressed by the Rabbis that the splendor of the Shekinah sustains the angels. Comp. PK 6, 57a; ShR 32.4 and 47.5. A statement like that of Jub. 15.27 to the effect that certain classes of angels bear the sign of the Abrahamic covenant on them would have struck the Rabbis as blasphemy. Comp. the following note and note 6 on vol. I, p. 50.

⁶³ BR 21.9; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 69 and 925; ShR 25.2; PRE 4; Tehillim 104, 442 (in the two last-named sources the angels are wind when performing their duties, in God’s presence they are fire). Comp. also BR 50.1. On angels as shades, see BaR 10.5; perhaps also Baba Batra 91a. In WR 31.5 it is said that the angels are males and not females, i.e., they never assume the form of women; but comp. the parallel passages in Mishle 21, 89, and BR, loc. cit. It is, however, to be observed that Lekah, Gen. 3.24, in citing the last-named passage does not read the word נשים. Men, women, boys, and maidens among angels are mentioned in mystical literature, but this description has hardly anything to do with their forms; it merely expresses the different degrees of their ranks. Comp. Yalkut Hadash, s.v. מלאכים Nos. 63, 93; R. Moses ha-Darshan in Magazin, XV, 80; Hasidim 277. Although the rabbinic sources hardly offer any remarks concerning the forms of angels, many a statement is found in the older literature regarding their size and rapidity; comp. Enoch 40.1; Berakot 4b; Hullin 91b; BR 68.12 and 51.1. As to the material out of which the angels were created, comp. the preceding note, as well as PK 1, 3a–3b; ShR 3.11; BaR 15.8; DR 5.12; Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shanah 2, 58a; 2 ARN 24, 48–49; Tan. Wa-Yiggash 6; Targum Job 25.2; Pesahim, 118a (bottom). Along with fire which is the peculiar heavenly element, water and snow (also hail) are mentioned as the material out of which the angels were fashioned. On fire, water, and snow as the primeval elements, comp. Index, s.v. The statement found in many passages of rabbinic literature that Michael was created of fire and Gabriel of snow or water (see Index, s.v. “Michael”, “Gabriel”) implies the view that the former belongs to heaven and the latter to the earth. The idea that the residence of the angels is in heaven is unanimously expressed by the Rabbis, as well as by the authors of the pseudepigraphic writings. Philo’s view, De Gigant., 2, and De Somn., 22, that the angels inhabit the air is entirely unknown to the Rabbis (BR 26.5, to which Siegfried, Philo, 147, alludes, has nothing to do with the place inhabited by the angels; this passage was misunderstood by Siegfried; for the correct translation thereof, see note 1 on vol. I, 105). Similarly there is nothing nothing in the older sources of rabbinic literature in support of Philo's statement concerning the identity of the angels with the souls (Noë 4; De Gigan., and De Somn., loc. cit.), which is only found in the Kabbalah; comp., e.g., Zohar I, 7a, and note 444 on vol. II, p. 184.

⁶⁴ Enoch 20.1; Yerushalmi 'Erubin 1, 19d, and Shemuel 23 (for the two last mentioned passages see Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 243 note 2; concerning the presence of the Shekinah in the assembly of ten, comp. also Sanhedrin 39a; Berakot 6a); Adamschriften, 27, speaks of nine hosts of angels. On the names of the ten classes of angels, found only in medieval sources, comp. Azilut (beginning); Maimonides, Yad ha-Hazakah, Yesode ha-Torah, 2.7; Zohar II, 43a; R. Moses ha-Darshan (from a manuscript in Gross, Gallia Judaica, 411); Konen 25; Derek Erez 2. The last two sources know only of five (six?) classes of angels; comp. the following note. The division of angels into seven classes mentioned in Enoch 61.10 is an older view which makes the number of classes correspond to the number of archangels and to the heavens. On the other hand, there is one view which counts three heavens (comp. note 22), and hence knows only of three archangels (see note 13 on vol. I, p. 54). Accordingly the idea that there are ten classes of angels is based on a combination of two older views. On the number of angels comp. Sifre N., 42; Sifre D., 51; Tehillim 68, 319; ER 6, 32 and 34; 17, 84; 29, 156, and 160; EZ 12, 193; Alphabet R. Akiba 21; Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 28; a midrashic quotation (the source is a somewhat different version of the description of Solomon's throne given in BHM. V, 34.) by R. Bahya on Gen. (beginning). The statement "as great as is the multitude of the angels, so great is the race of man" (Revelation of John towards the end) has a parallel in Tehillim, loc. cit. All these classes of angels reside at a very great distance from the Shekinah, whereas God is near to those that are broken-hearted (Ps. 34.19), because He loves them more than the angels; Alphabet R. Akiba 29; Midrash Shir 16b (frequently quoted by the mystics, as, e.g., Rokeah, Hasidut, at the end; Teshubah 28; Orehot Hayyim I, 101a).

⁶⁵ PRE 4; Enoch 9.1; 40. 2–10 (here the reading is Phanuel instead of Uriel); 71.9. On these four archangels comp. vol. III, p. 232, and the note 440 appertaining to it. The very old view concerning the seven archangels (Enoch 20, 1–8; 81.5; 90.21–22: 12 Testaments, Levi 8.1, and in many other works of the pseudepigraphic literature, as well as rabbinic writings of the post-talmudic period as PRE, loc. cit., and particularly in mystic works; comp. Al-Barceloni, 247, which is indeed the oldest rabbinic source on the names of the archangels and their relation to the planets; Raziel 38a, 61a, where various sources are made use of) naturally supposes seven classes of angels. Along with the sevenfold and fourfold divisions of angels, found in pseudepigraphic and rabbinic literatures, we meet with the conception of twelve archangels, which is connected with the signs of the Zodiac; comp. Raziel 52a, 61a (which is based on another source than the two other passages referred to above). As to this view in pseudepigraphic literature, comp. Bousset, Religion, 374–376.

⁶⁶ Hullin 91a; 2 ARN 27, 55; 44, 124; Midrash Tannaim 71; Sifre D., 306 (end); BHM VI, 37; Mishle 9.75; BR 65.21; Tan. B. III, 74; Tan. Kedoshim 6; Nispahim 56. The last-named passage states that when the angels had complained of the fact that man was preferred to them, God replied: “What, ye wish to precede Is¬ rael in chanting songs of praise to Me? They, though ‘born of woman ' and subject to the evil inclination, conquer their evil inclination and daily proclaim Me as the one God and King, and wait for the coming of My Kingdom and the establishment of My house.”—Although man, who is a terrestrial being, is inferior to the angels, he surpasses them by overcoming the evil inclination, which the angels do not possess at all (BR 48.11). The pious are therefore greater than the angels (Sanhedrin 39a; BR 88.1; Tehillim 91, 398, and 103, 438). In the world to come the angels will try to find out from Israel the things taught to them by God; Yerushalmi Shabbat 3, 8d, and BR 1.12. Comp. Schechter, Aspects, 49; Singer, Das Buch d. Jubilden 98, note 6; vol. I, p. 334; vol. III, p. 32.

⁶⁷ The windows of heaven are frequently mentioned in Enoch (comp. Charles’ Index, s.v.) and likewise in rabbinic sources; comp. Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shanah 2, 58a; ShR 15.22; PRE 6; Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 78.

⁶⁸ On the defilement of the celestials by coming into contact with terrestrial beings, comp. note 105.

⁶⁹ This stream of fire is very likely the one which springs out of the perspiration of the Hayyot encircling God’s throne, and out of which the daily angels rise to chant songs of praise to God and disappear after their task has been accomplished; BR 78.1; ShR 15.6; Hagigah 14a. Comp. note 62.

⁷⁰ Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 28–30; 3 Hekalot 161–163. In other sources it is not Shamiel who appears as the master of heavenly song (probably the correct reading is Shammiel, since it is derived from שַׁמַּה “he summoned”), but Michael (comp. vol. I, p. 386), or rather Metatron; comp. Sefer ha-Heshek, 26, No. 13, and 8a, No. 61. The mystic literature knows also of a heavenly Hazzan; comp. Hagigah 13b and PR 20, 97a, concerning the function of the angel Sandalfon (on the text of PR see Ketab Tamim, 59). See also the account in the mystic literature of the gaonic period (Pirke Hekalot, Wertheimer’s edition, 31; comp. also Baer, Siddur, 120) concerning the angel Israel; comp. Zunz, Synagogale Poesie, 477. This angel is described as belonging to the order of the Hayyot; comp. note 253 on vol. I, 388. Originally the name Hayyot was used to designate the creatures with animal forms mentioned in Ezekiel 1.5, seq., as surrounding God’s throne. These were considered as a distinguished class of angels (Sifra 1.1 and Sifre N., 103; in these passages the life of the angels, or at least of this class, is assumed to be eternal; comp. note 62); subsequently, however, the Hayyot denoted a class of angels. Similarly Hashmal (Ezek 1.4) is taken to be as the name of a class of angels; comp. Hagigah 13a–13b. In this passage of the Talmud (comp. Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 28) the description of God’s throne in Is. 6.1–3 is said to be identical with that of Ezek. 1.5, seq., and the discrepancies are removed. Thus it is said, for instance, that the six wings of the Seraphim in Is, correspond to the four faces of the Hayyot of Ezek., since two of the wings with which they had formerly praised God were taken away from them after the destruction of the temple. PR 33, 155b–156a, reads somewhat differently. The bull image of the Hayyot (Ezek. 1.10), was changed by Ezekiel’s prayer to that of Cherubim, so that God should not be constantly reminded of Israel’s aberration in connection with the golden calf. The feet of the Seraphim (Is. 6.2) were concealed for the same reason because the calves’ feet (Ezek. 1.7) would have constantly served as a reminder of the golden calf; Hagigah 13b; WR 27.3. On the liturgical formulas which the angels employ in their doxology, comp. Hullin 91b—92a; Hagigah 14a; ER 31, 163; Hasidim 400; Seder R. Amram 18a. See also the quotations from medieval authors given in Baer’s Siddur, 120. Comp. also Hagigah 12b; Mahkim 119; Seder Troyes 26 (Moses caught the formula Baruk Shem, etc., from the whispering angels); DR 2.36. In all these legends the tendency is to trace back the origin of the essential parts of the liturgy, as the Shema’, Bareku, and Kedushah, to the angels; comp. also vol. III, pp. 256–257. Not all angels however are perfect; comp. the sources cited at the beginning of this note, according to which countless numbers of angels perish in the stream Dinur, whenever they do not chant their hymns at the exact moment. Comp. Zohar III, 64b; Ekah 3, 132–133.

⁷¹ PRE 5 (read, with the two last parallel passages, מקצת); Tehillim 93, 415; Aguddat Aggadot 7; MHG I, 29. A different version is given in Tehillim 90, 391, which reads: The mountains flew over the waters as birds, whereupon God distributed them in accordance with the nature of the earth. Other legends concerning the origin of the mountains are found in vol. I, pp. 79–80; see note 29 on vol. I, p. 112. הרים in BR 3.8 is based on an erroneous reading (comp. Theodor, ad loc.) and הדים is the correct reading, for the Midrash attempts to explain why Gen. 1.3 reads יום אחד) “one day”, and not יום ראשון) “the first day”, a difficulty to which also Josephus, Antiqui., 1, 1, calls attention. See also Hippolytus, ad loc.

⁷² PRE 5; Aguddat Aggadot 7. On the rebellion of the waters comp. vol. I, pp. 14–15, as well as the following note.

⁷³ Baba Batra 74b; Tan. IV, 97–98; Tan. Hayye Sarah 3 and Hukkat 1; BaR 18.22; ShR 15.22; Tehillim 1, 17 (ערותו של יום); Wa-Yosha’ 46; Hagigah 12a (הים היה מרחיב ובו׳). Comp. also vol. I, pp. 14–16, 27, and 40 (Leviathan, Rahab, and the angel of death are considered identical), as well as vol. III, p. 25, and Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 7, 25d, where the prince of the sea (שר של ים)) is mentioned twice. In the Midrashim cited above two entirely different elements are combined: God’s strife with Rahab (which is a reminiscence of an old Babylonian myth), taken from the Babylonian Talmud, loc. cit., and the weeping of the waters on account of the separation of the upper and lower waters (a mythological explanation of rain as tears), which is found in the Palestine sources (BR 5.4 and the Midrashim cited in note 52). The eagerness of the waters to obey God’s command is emphasized in PR 192b–193a and WR (according to a quotation from it found in Makiri on Ps. 33, 210) as a protest against the mythological account of the rebellion of the waters. A legend which is also composed of various elements is the one given in Tan. Hayye Sarah, loc. cit., and ShR, loc. cit., where the ocean and the “sea of death” are considered identical (a Babylonian view, comp. KAT 3, 576, note 2), and at the same time it is said that it will be “cured” in the time to come. The last statement is found in the old sources in connection with the Sea of Sodom (comp. note 184 on vol. I, p. 256), which was known to Pausanias and the Church Fathers as the “Dead Sea”. This name is unknown in Jewish sources; hence the above-mentioned Midrash confused the “Dead Sea” of his source—of Christian origin?—with the “Sea of Death” of Babylonian mythology, that is the ocean. In ‘Erubin 22b it is supposed that the ocean surrounds the earth (so also Herodotus II, 21 and 23), whereas according to PRE 5, the earth extends over the waters of the abyss as a ship in the midst of the sea. ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 63 speaks of the “Great Sea that encompasses the earth”. This corresponds to ‘Erubin, loc. cit., since the designation of “Great Sea” for the ocean is known in rabbinic literature; comp. the explicit statement concerning this identity made in Konen 32, as well as Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 9 and Luria, note 7 on PRE, loc. cit., and the statement (in Sifre D., 39; Mikwaot 5.4; BR 5.8) that there is only one sea; the Bible speaks of “seas”, because the sea differs in its peculiarities in different places. The reason why the ocean does not overflow, though all the waters enter into it, is because the salt waters “absorb” the sweet; BR 13.9; Bekorot 9a; Koheleth 1.7. A different view is given in Tikkune Zohar (end), which reads: The ocean derives its name (אוקינוס) from אוקי “he spat out”, because it “spits out” the water or the aquatic animals that come into it. Comp. Kohut’s essay in Jüdische Wochenschrift II, No. 5, on the ocean according to Jewish sources.—With regard to the strife of the waters, comp. also 4 Ezra 4.15–17, where it is said that the waves of the sea took counsel to wage war against the wood of the field that they win more territory; although the wood had been vanquished by fire, the counsel of the waves of the sea did not succeed because the sand kept them within their bounds. This is, however, not a mythological conception, as maintained by many, but a fable; comp. the following note. The reason why the waters of the seas and the abysses did not overflow the earth is due to the fact that God had sealed their boundaries with His name; Prayer of Manasseh 3. For details on this “sealing” comp. vol. III, p. 99, and vol. IV, p. 96.

⁷⁴ Konen 25, which essentially follows BR 5.9. Comp. further Sanhedrin 39b; ER 29, 143; Elleh Ezkerah (beginning). It is a legendary application of an old fable, which is already found in Ahikar; comp. Smend, Alter und Herkunft des Achikar-Romans, 77, seq. From Ahikar it was directly or indirectly borrowed by the Greeks; comp. Back, Monatsschrift XXV, 132–135, and XXXIII, 267. On the pride of the trees comp. Tub ha-Arez 93, which reads: The fruits of the ground thrive even when moistened by the feminine waters (on the sex of the waters comp. vol. I, p. 162), but not the trees, which, on account of their pride, would not thrive unless moistened by masculine waters. According to PRE 5 and Aguddat Aggadot 7, tne plants of paradise were created first and were afterwards utilized for the purpose of the cultivation of the earth. For the opposite view comp. BR 15.1, which reads: God took cedars of Lebanon, which were not larger than the tentacles of a grasshopper, and planted them in paradise. Comp. note 96 on vol. I, p. 82. The shooting up of the trees is only a special application of the view that the first things in creation were produced in their fully developed form (comp. note 21 on vol. I, p. 59). This view is especially emphasized by Philo, De M. Opif, 13, with reference to plants, which God brought forth out of the ground in their complete form, “as if the earth had been pregnant with them for a long time”. PRE 5 similarly speaks of the pregnancy of the earth, where, in connection with the conception of rain as the consort of the earth (comp. note 39 on vol. I, p. 162), the legitimate fecundation is differentiated from the illegitimate. When the earth is fructified by rain, it is considered a legitimate fecundation, whereas when it is artificially watered, it is an illegitimate fecundation. As to the statement made in PRE concernfrig the origin of rain, comp. also BR 13.9–10 and the parallel passages cited by Theodor, where various views are expressed on this point. The view that the clouds drew their water from the ocean, and the objection raised against it, is also found in the Slavonic version of III Baruch 10.8.

⁷⁵ Hullin 60a; comp. Back, Monatsschrift XXIX, 307, with reference to this talmudic passage. The Palestinian sources, BR 5.9, and Yerushalmi Kilayim 1, 27b, mention two views: according to one the earth did not follow God’s bidding; it only produced edible fruits, but not edible trees, which it was also commanded by God to produce. On account of this disobedience it was cursed by God after Adam’s fall. The opposite view maintains that the earth was so eager to obey God ’s orders that it went one step further and produced all trees bearing fruit; but after Adam’s fall the fertility of the earth was diminished, and it produced barren trees as well; comp. vol. I, p. 80 (top). “The prince of the world” mentioned in Hullin, loc. cit., bears no relation to the demiurge of the Gnostics, nor to Satan, “the prince of the earth” (John 12.31, and in many other places of the New Testament), but it signifies, here as elsewhere in rabbinic literature (comp. Index, s.v.)t the angel in charge of the world, or, to be more accurate, the earth. Comp. Joel, Blicke, I, 124–128. The identification of this angel with Metatron in the mystic literature of the gaonic period is not found in talmudic sources. In Ascension of Isaiah 2.4 “the ruler of the world” is Satan as the prince of the world in the New Testament.

⁷⁶ Jub. 2.7; BR 11.9, 12.5, 15.3, 21.9; 2 Enoch 21.1. The prevalent view in the rabbinic sources is that paradise was created before the world; comp. Excursus I. In Konen 25 paradise is differentiated from its plants, presupposing that paradise is pre-existent, while the plants were created on the third day. This is an attempt to harmonize two different views.

⁷⁷ On this gold, comp. Yoma 45a; BaR 11.3; Tan. B. IV, 33; Tan. Naso 9. In all these passages it is stated that this gold bears fruit. In this and in other accounts of paradise the description of the future Jerusalem and the temple by the prophets is transferred to paradise; for later on paradise was identified with the heavelny Jerusalem. Alphabetot 96–97 contains many points which are analogous to the description given in the text, with this essential difference that the reward of the pious is postponed for the future world. As to the site of the earthly paradise, comp. vol. I, p. 11. The old rabbinic sources hardly contain anything definite on the earthly paradise; but in the pseudepigraphic literature, particularly in the Books of Enoch (comp. Charles’ edition, index, s.v.) and in later haggadic works a good deal is said about it.

⁷⁸ According to Baba Batra 75a and PR 38, 163a, there are seven “canopies” given to each pious person.

⁷⁹ These four streams are frequently mentioned in the legends; comp. 2 Enoch 8.5; PR 38, 163a; Aggadat Shir 4, 83–84; see also vol. I, p. 132; vol. II, p. 315; Visio Pauli 23; Koran 47.16–17. While in the Koran the stream of oil is replaced by a stream of fresh water, it is just this stream of balsam which is frequently alluded to in rabbinic literature; BR 62 (beginning); Ta'anit 25a; Yerushalmi ‘Abodah Zarah 3, 42c; Tan. B. II, 131; Bacher, Agada der palastinensischen Amorder, II, 102, note 7; Jeremias, Babylonisches im NT, 47. On the wine preserved for the pious, comp. Sanhedrin 99a and Matthew 26.29; Targum Eccl. 9.7, where the Midrash given in the text was very likely made use of.

⁸⁰ This picture is mentioned in the Talmud, Baba Mezi'a 48a, with reference to the beauty of R. Johanan, upon which our source is based; comp. PK 1, 3b.

⁸¹ I.e., the branches of this tree extend to the farthest ends of paradise. On the joys of the four different ages, which the pious experience, see Zohar I, 140a, where it is explained allegorically.

⁸² Instead of מכין read מבין (“fanning”, from נבה “blew”); the variant מנשבין seems to be an explanation of the difficult מבין, which, as a lectio difficilior, deserves preference. On the seven clouds of glory see vol. II, p. 374.

⁸³ Comp. vol. IV, p. 205, with reference to the fragrance of paradise. Concerning the “canopies”, see note 78.

⁸⁴ Concerning these worlds see note 30. According to Zohar I, 125a, Eden is situated in the seventh heaven (according to another view, even above the seventh heaven), and paradise is situated on earth directly opposite to it. Comp. Berakot 34b; Sanhedrin 99a; No eye has ever seen Eden,… Adam dwelt in the garden (=paradise) of Eden; comp. note 17, end.

⁸⁵ The divisions of the dwellers in paradise (or Eden?) into seven classes is very frequently met with (Sifre D., 10 and 47; Midrash Tannaim 6; Tehillim 11, 10, and 16, 128; WR 30.20; PK 28, 197b; PRK, Schonblum’s edition, 36a). In one passage only is the number reduced to three (ARN 43, 120; comp. also note 97). Perhaps the difference of opinion on this point is in some way related to various opinions about the number of the heavens (comp. note 21); each heaven having a separate class of dwellers, the more pious one is, the higher the heaven in which he dwells. It is said in Shir 6.8 that sixty groups of the pious study the Torah under the shades of the tree of life, while eighty groups of the average men study the Torah within a short distance from that tree. Mention is often made of the habitations, or rather worlds, which every pious man receives according to his merit; comp. Shabbat 152a; Ruth R. 1, 16; PK 4, 75a; Tehillim 34 (end); ShR 42.2; Koheleth 12.5; Baba Batra 75a (שכל אכד ואכד); 2 Enoch 61.2; John 14.2. This view does not conflict with the division of the pious into classes, since the individual, though being one of a class, does not forfeit his independence.–The honor conferred upon R. Akiba and his colleagues as members of the first, i.e., the foremost division, is already mentioned in Baba Batra 10b.

⁸⁶ I.e., as martyrs during the religious persecutions; comp. Gittin 57b.

⁸⁷ Comp. Hagigah 14b where this Rabbi describes his disciples as belonging to the “third division”.

⁸⁸ Under these, the descendants of Moses (comp. vol. IV, p. 317) are to be understood. ⁸⁹ In Berakot 34b two views are cited; according to one, those who repent are considered superior to those who have never sinned, while the other view maintains the opposite case. As to the high esteem in which innocent youths are held, comp. Pesahim 113a. On the study of the Torah under God’s guidance, comp. note 194.

⁹⁰ Perek Gan ‘Eden, which is extant in many recensions: Yalkut I, 20 (from a poor text of Yalkut published by Jellinek in BHM II, 52–53, under the wrong title Seder Gan ‘Eden); Baraita di-Shemuel 25 (text in manuscript by Rachlin, Bar Levoi, New York, 1906, pp. 82–84); Mahzor Vitry 735. Aggadat Shir and Targum Eccl., and probably also Zohar (comp. notes 79 and 81), seem to have made use of this description of paradise. Most of the legends relating to paradise and hell are attributed to R. Joshua b. Levi, who, according to a well-known tradition, already mentioned in the Talmud (Ketubot 77b), was permitted to enter paradise during his life-time. Hence the description of paradise begins: “R. Joshua b. Levi said: There are eighty myriads of trees in every corner of paradise, etc.” In Baraita di-Shemuel, after this description of paradise, there follows in a second chapter another description of the seven divisions of the pious in paradise (comp. note 97). The entire tractate is headed Masseket Gan ‘Eden. It is, however, quite obvious from the contents that the two descriptions are of different origin. That a description of hell followed the one of paradise is quite probable, and the designation of the latter as Perek Gan ‘Eden clearly points to this direction; but the description of hell found in our text of Baraita diShemuel 30–32 (published in BHM I, 147–149), from another source, has been artificially attached to that of paradise. One of the descriptions is purely legendary, while the other is midrashic-haggadic; they therefore must be of different origin.

⁹¹ These seven divisions are obviously identical with those previously described. There are many other descriptions of these divisions; comp. note 97. Concerning the proselyte Obadiah, comp. vol. IV, pp. 240–241.

⁹² The views of the ancient authorities differ on the question whether the “generation of the wilderness” have a portion in the life to come (=paradise); comp. note 177 on vol. III, p. 79.

⁹³ The sentence וכל...מאבשלום is to be placed after הוא שם; hence the translation in the text.

⁹⁴ Read שבשמים instead of שמנים, and comp. Konen 28. On Chileab comp. Vol. II, p. 260 and vol. IV, p. 118. On Menasseh comp. Vol. IV, p. 280. On those who repent, see note 89 and Koheleth 1.8.

⁹⁵ Read בנוי מישפה ואדם (=Ezek. 28.13) instead of the meaningless בנוי ויפה כאדם הראשון. Comp. Konen 29. A scribe who misread אָדָם for אֹדָם added הראשון.

⁹⁶ According to Yoma 45a, fine gold (פז) is the third best among the seven kinds of gold, whereas Parvaim gold (comp. note 77, as well as Masseket Kelim 89) is the very best.

⁹⁷ Ma‘aseh de-R. Joshua b. Levi 48–49. This description is partly (not in its entirety, as Jellinek asserts) incorporated into Konen 28–30, which source is to be used for the establishing of a correct text of Ma‘aseh (comp. notes 94–95). Great caution must, however, be taken, since Konen had other sources, along with Ma‘aseh, at its disposal for the description of paradise. R. Joshua b. Levi’s description of paradise, found in Gaster’s Ma‘asiyyot 96–97, corresponds to ours in the introductory parts only, in which the adventure of this sage with the angel of death is mentioned (according to Ketubot 77b; comp. note 90), but not in the description of paradise proper. Very characteristic is the fact that this source knows only of three halls of paradise, one of glass, for proselytes; one of silver, for the righteous of Israel (instead of כל מלכי ישראל, p. 97, line 24, read כל אותם שהם מזרע ישראל); one of gold, in which dwell the three patriarchs and Moses, Aaron, David, “the weeping” Messiah, and Elijah comforting him. On the division of paradise into three, comp. note 85. The most elaborate description of paradise is that given by Jellinek in BHM III, 131–140 (comp. also the additions, 194–198), published under the title of Seder Gan ‘Eden. This description has been extensively made use of by kabbalistic authors (comp. Jellinek, Einleitung und Zusätze, as well as Zohar I, 41a; III, 167b) who describe it as a part of the Book of Enoch. It, however, shows traces of speculative mysticism (for instance, great emphasis is laid upon the difference between spirit and soul, on the union of the masculine with the feminine souls which result in the productions of new souls, and on many other views of speculative mysticism), and it therefore could not have originated earlier than the end of the twelfth century. The division of the pious into seven classes is also known to this source, but it differs from the divisions found elsewhere (Perek Gan ‘Eden 52–53 and Sha‘are Gan ‘Eden 42–43 = Baraita di-Shemuel 28–29; comp. note 90). This source is also acquainted with a portion of paradise assigned to women, who, like the men, are divided into seven classes, each of which is under the supervision of some famous woman from biblical times. These are: Bithiah, the foster-mother of Moses, Jochebed, Miriam, Huldah the prophetess, Abigail, the four matriarchs, Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Leah. As nine women are given here as heads of seven divisions, the text must therefore be corrected in accordance with Zohar III, 167b. The distinction drawn here between the garden (=paradise) and Eden is old (comp. note 84 and Sha’are Gan ‘Eden, loc. cit., where the dwellers of Eden are divided into twelve classes), but this source expresses this distinction in a different manner. To the old mysticism belongs the conception of the 390 heavens and 18000 worlds (comp. note 30), but this source gives a different interpretation of this mystic doctrine. Quite new is the conception of the secret chamber of the Messiah in paradise which is called here, as well as in Zohar II, 8a, by the peculiar name “bird’s nest”. On the whole, the Messiah plays an important part in this description of the life of the pious in paradise. Old is the view that the pious, particularly the patriarchs and the Messiah, grieve over Israel’s suffering, and pray to God for their redemption; Berakot 18b; ShR 15.26; BaR 19.15; Tehillim 14, 115; Ekah 2, 11 (in the two last-named passages it is Jacob especially who is most concerned about Israel’s suffering); Baba Mezi’a 85b (comp. this passage in vol. IV, p. 219); Mahzor Vitry 17; Pardes 54d; Seder Rashi 22; a kabbalistic source in Yalkut Reubeni on Deut. 23.3; Tosafot on Sotah 34d (caption אבותי), and the passages cited there from the Talmud; see further PR 12, 46b— 47a. Whereas Tehillim 30, 234 and 14 (according to the reading of Makiri, ad. loc., 79, bottom), and PR 2, 5b, state that the pious when dead continually praise God, later sources (PR 198a; BHM V, 43; Recanati on Gen. 3.24; R. Bahya on Exod. 20.8; Seder Gan ‘Eden 138) maintain that on the Sabbath, festivals, and new-moons the dead rise from their graves, behold the the Shekinah, and praise the Lord. Comp. also Zohar II, 8a (which very likely depends upon the Seder Gan ‘Eden, loc. cit.), Yalkut Reubeni Gen. 19.2; vol. III, p. 400. On Korah comp. vol. III, p. 300, and vol. IV, p. 234.—R. Joshua b. Levi is also the author of a description of hell which is given in vol. II, pp. 310, seq. For further details concerning the description of hell and paradise, comp. Gaster, Hebrew Version of Hell and Paradise in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1893, pp. 571 611; Rachlin, Bar Levoi, 70 86; Landau, Hölle und Fegfeuer (Heidelberg, 1909, passim). A fragment of a description of paradise is found in Steinschneider-Festschrift, Hebrew section, 55–56. Comp. also Abkat Rokel, II, 1.

⁹⁸ Hagigah 12a. The view that the light created on the first day is identical with that of the heavenly bodies is given as that of the majority of scholars. But there are some who maintain that the light of the first day is entirely different from all the other lights. Comp. vol. I, pp. 8–9. Philo, De M. Opif., 3–4, asserts that the ideal world was created on the first day (concerning this explanation of the expression יום אחד comp. note 71), whereas the material world appeared on the following days. Similarly a Tanna of the middle of the second century asserts: Everything was created on the first day, except that some things appeared earlier and others later; Tan. B. I, 2; BR 12.4; Origen on Gen. 2.2; Ephraim, I, 127C; Basilius Hexaemeron, 4. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 24. See also Ginzberg’s remarks in R.E.J., LXVIII, 148. On the same view by the philosophers of the middle ages, see Horovitz, Ueber den Einfluss… auf den Kalam, 22, note 2. Comp. also note 97 on vol. I, p. 82.

⁹⁹ God created the sun and the moon in order to give the lie to the heathen who worship them as deities; had God only created one of them, the heathen would have apparently had good reason for adoring it. Similarly Philo, De M. Opif., 14–15; Theophilus 2.15; Tadshe (beginning), which reads: God first created the plant world and then the heavenly bodies, in order that it should not be said that the latter produced the former; comp. also vol. I, p. 16, where the same idea is expressed with reference to the angels.

¹⁰⁰ Konen 25–26, which is based on older sources; comp. BR6. 3; Hullin 60b; Shebu’ot 9a (the sacrifice of atonement on the new-moon is God’s acknowledgement that He dealt too severely with the moon); PRE 4 and 51; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 1.16 and Num. 28.15. These sources, as well as others (Mekilta Bo 1, 3a; PK 5, 54a; PR 15, 78a; Tan. B. II, 47), also speak of the compensation received by the moon for its reduction in size: it became a symbol of Israel and the pious, whereas the sun represents Esau and the ungodly. More over the moon is sometimes seen also by day while the sun on the other hand is never seen by night. A reminiscence of the mythological conception of the diminution of the moon (the rationalistic explanation of the Haggadah by Back, Monatsschrift XXIX, 226, seq., must not be taken seriously) as a punishment for its rebellious conduct toward God may be found in Enoch 18.15, where mention is made of the chastisement of the stars which “did not come at their appointed times”. This corresponds to the reproach administered to the moon, mentioned in BR, loc. cit., for having encroached upon the province of its colleague (=the sun), i.e., for having shone during the day. The myth sought to explain the appearance of the moon by day, which, owing to the superiority of the sun over it, was rather baffling to the primitive mind. Hullin, loc. cit., as well as the later addition in BR (אני הוא שגרמתי), does not present the myth in its original form.—That the sun and moon are endowed with wisdom and passion like man is originally a mythological conception which had been maintained for a long time by Jews and Christians. On this conception in pseudepigraphic literature and Philo, comp. Psalms of Solomon, end (the prayer at the appearance of the new-moon, קדוש לבנה, in present use, which is already found in Sanhedrin 42a, partly corresponds to this psalm); Apocalypse of Baruch 48.9; Enoch 2, 1–5, 3 (it is more than a poetic description of the order reigning in nature and the lack of order displayed by man); Philo, De Plant. Noe, 3; Be Somn. 1, 4 and 2, 16. On the rabbinic sources containing this view, comp., besides the passages referred to at the beginning of this note, also those cited in notes 102, 104, 105, 112. For the Christian sources, see Origen, 1, 7; Visio Pauli 4–6. Like the heavenly bodies, even so the earth, the plants, in short, all existing things, were conceived more or less by analogy to man; comp. note 193.—Concerning the motions of the heavenly bodies, the Books of Enoch, as well as the old rabbinic sources, contain a good deal of material which is on the boundary line of mythology and astronomy; comp. Pesahim 94a; Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shanah 2, 58a; Baba Batra 25a; PK 29, 186a–186b; ER 2, 9–10; Hallel 89; Shir 3.11; see also the two writings Baraita di-Shemuel and Baraita di-Mazzalot, which are entirely devoted to this subject. Old material is found also in Raziel, which is particularly instructive for the history of astrology. Of interest is “the case” in which the disc of the sun is inserted (ναρθήκιον נרתיק “case”), a conception often mentioned in old rabbinic literature as well as in the writings of the Persians and Arabs (comp. Grünbaum, Gesammelte Aufsätze, 145–146). It is noteworthy that this “case” is known in rabbinic sources (BR 6.6; Koheleth 1.5; PK 29, 186a; Nedarim 8b; ‘Abodah Zarah 3b; Tehillim 19, 168 and 170; Tan. B. II, 98; Tan. Tezawweh 8; Hallel 89; Baraita di-Ma'aseh Bereshit 50) by the Greek word נרתיק—Concerning the darkness of the sun and the moon, which occupied the minds of the ancients, comp. Mekilta Bo 1.3a; Tosefta Sukkah 2.6 and Babli 29a; Derek Erez 2; Nispahim 10; see also the references in note 112, and Index s.v. Eclipse. The view that the light of the sun is seven times as intense as that of the moon (Enoch 72.37, 73.2, and 78.4, as well as 2 Enoch 11.2) is based on Is. 30.26. This opinion is also shared by the legend given in the text in accordance with Konen 24–25 concerning the restoration of the light of the moon and the sevenfold increase of the light of the sun in the future. The old midrashic sources (Midrash Tannaim 181; ShR 15.21; Targum, ad loc.), however, conceive the passage of Is., loc. cit., in a different manner, and according to them the relationship between the light of the sun and that of the moon is 1:49 or 1:343. That the sun and the moon had been of equal size, as stated by Enoch 72.37, is not stated explicitly in rabbinic literature, but the legend given in the text implies it. Similar is the view of modern scientists that the moon was originally an independent planet; comp. See, Researches, II. Like all first things created (comp. vol. I, p. 59), the moon was created in a fully developed form, so that there was full moon on the fourth day of creation; Seder ‘Olam 4.

¹⁰¹ PRE 6; Baraita de-Ma'aseh Bereshit 50. The metaphor of the sun as bridegroom is, of course, taken from Ps. 19.6. It is, however, questionable whether the crown and the wreath (in Hebrew these two things are represented by one word) belong to this conception. The wreath of the bridegroom is Jewish (comp. Sotah 9.14) but the wreath of the sun may have been borrowed from the Greeks, as the Jews have often seen the image of the sun-god wreathed. The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch knows of the crown of the sun, as well as of its chariot; so also Enoch 75.8; 2 Enoch 11.2. Many of the rabbinic sources cited above employ the word מרכבה “chariot”, which is, however, rendered “throne”, in order to retain the picture of the bridegroom.

¹⁰² MHG I, 41–42; PRE 6; Tehillim 19, 168–170; Baraita deMa‘aseh Bereshit 50; Kohcleth 86; ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 64; Zohar Hadash on Gen. 4, 19b; 2 Enoch 11.4; Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 6. Comp. also vol. I, p. 132. The song of praise of the heavenly bodies is partly based on Ps. 19, but presupposes also an acquaintance with the Pythagorean doctrine (perhaps of oriental origin) of the music of the spheres. The original text of Enoch 41.7 very likely read והם מודים ומפארים ושבתי אם לא ישבחו: “And they give thanks and they glorify; they would cease to exist if they would not praise.“In consequence of the similarity between the letters and , the translator was misled into making the text say just the opposite. With regard to the music of the spheres, Philo, De Car., 3, refers to it in the very words which remind one of the anonymous Midrash quoted in Hadar, Deut. 32.1. Comp. also DR 10.1 and 2; Yelammedenu in alkut I, 729. See further vol. I, pp. 44, seq. The song of praise of the sun and moon did not strike the naive mind as strange, in view of the fact that the surfaces of these luminaries resemble the human countenance; comp. R. Benjamin b. Zerah (about 1050) in his piyyut אלהינו אלוהים אמת in the Roman and German Mahzor (comp. Zunz, Literaturgeschichte, 121), who undoubtedly made use of a version of Midrash Konen different from ours, but which Treves still had before him in his commentary on the Roman Mahzor entitled Kitnha Dabishuna, ad loc. The human countenance of the sun is also referred to in the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 6. Comp. also the preceding note as well as note 112 and note 6 on vol. IV, p. 4.

¹⁰³ PRE 6; Baraita de-Ma‘aseh Bereshit. See also 2 Enoch 37.2. In the Midrashim (BR 5.6; Koheleth 1.5; Tehillim 19, 170; Baraita de-Ma‘aseh Bereshit, loc. cit.) it is said that the sun is led through a stream, which is put up for that purpose in heaven, before it starts its revolution, to cool off its heat; otherwise it might consume the earth.

¹⁰⁴ PRE 51 and 6; Baraita de-Ma‘aseh Bereshit 50. The moon and the stars have light but no heat, and hence the “bath of hail”. On the stream of fire in which the sun bathes, comp. also Enoch 17.4 and Baba Batra 84a. The latter passage reads: The sun passes paradise in the morning and hell in the evening. Dawn is a reflection of the roses of paradise; the evening twilight of the fire of hell. The stream of fire in which the sun bathes, is identical with the Nehar di-Nur; comp. Luria on PRE 51 and note 62.

¹⁰⁵ WR 31.9; Tehillim 19, 169; ER 2, 11; MHG I, 42; Alphabetot 118; Baraita de-Ma'aseh Bereshit 50. Quite similar is the statement of the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 8 to the effect that the angels remove the crown of the sun in the evening, bring it to heaven, and “renew” it there (the “renewing” of creation every day is also alluded to in the morning prayer, at the end of Yozer, comp. note 6), because the sun and its rays are becoming defiled on earth. With regard to the compulsory motion of the heavenly bodies, which do not wish to shed their light upon a sinful world, comp. vol. III, pp. 197–298; vol. IV, p. 309. In Visio Pauli 4–6, the sun, moon, stars, and the sea implore God to grant them the power to destroy the sinners. There is a widespread view, which is based on Deut. 31.28, to the effect that the earth, the heaven, and the heavenly bodies bear witness for and against man, according to his actions; comp. Enoch 1.7; Sifre D., 306; ‘Abodah Zarah 3a. The following legend is quoted by many medieval authors (Mahzor Vitry 373; Zohar III, 275a; Sefer Mizwot Gadol, 42nd positive precept; Kaneh in Yalkut Reubeni I, 16, 8b) from an unknown midrashic source which reads: Whenever Satan brings accusations against Israel on the New Year, the day when God sits down to judge the whole universe, God commands him to produce witnesses in support of his accusations. But he can only secure one witness on that day, the sun, because the moon is invisible at that time; but when Satan appears ten days later, on the Day of Atonement, with his second witness, he is informed by the Lord that Israel repented of their sins during the ten days of penitence and that they were pardoned. Satan fares still worse in the legend given in PR 45, 185b–186a, according to which, while Satan is searching for more sins, God removes sins from the balance in which the good and evil deeds are weighed. On the appearance of the heavenly bodies, before and after their daily course, before God, comp. Baba Batra 25a and vol. III, p. 116.

¹⁰⁶ Zohar Hadash Bereshit 4, 23a (on Gen. 2.8); that God’s name is engraved in the sun is already mentioned in PRE 6, as well as in the Baraita de-Ma'aseh Bereshit 50; whereas according to the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 6, the bird running before the sun (comp. vol. I, p. 32) bears on its body an inscription of golden letters. In the old Midrashim (Tan. B. II, 112; Kinyan Torah; introduction to Ekah 2; Tan. Ki-Tissa 16; PK 15, 121a; ShR 41.6) it is said that a heavenly voice proclaims daily on mount Horeb: “Woe to mankind for contempt of the Torah.” The revelation which took place on Sinai-Horeb is a constant accusation against mankind for not walking in God’s path, despite the Torah that was given to them. Similarly the daily appearance of the sun also is a constant accusation against the sinners who do not recognize their Creator.

¹⁰⁷ 107 BR 6.7; ShR 5.9; Koheleth Z. 86; Shemuel 9, 74; Yoma 20b–21a; PRE 34. On the grating of the sun against its wheel, comp. Sachs, Beiträge, I, 50; Perles, Etymologische Studien, 72; Grunbaum, Gesammclte Aufsätzet 145. This has nothing to do with the music of the spheres, despite the statement of Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, II, 8, and Zohar Hadash Bereshit 4 (caption תני ר״ שמעון). The old Jewish sources are not acquainted with the conception of the music of the spheres; comp. note 102. As to the noises which resound throughout the universe but are nevertheless inaudible to man, a good deal more is mentioned in the sources just quoted. These noises are at the birth and death of man, at the first sexual intercourse, as well as at the time of divorce, the felling of a fruitful tree and the sloughing of the skin of a serpent, the falling of rain (Yoma loc. cit., reads more accurately: the roaring of the taurine angel when he causes the water from the lower abyss to be poured into the upper abyss; comp. Ta'anit 25b; Baraita de-Ma'aseh Bereshit 49; Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 10; Responsen der Geonim, Harkavy’s edition, No. 289, p. 142); finally there resounds out of Rome such a loud voice, that were it not for the grating of the sun, it would have been audible all over the world. In these sources mythological conceptions, as, for instance, the roaring of the taurine angel of the abyss, which is merely the Jewish recast of the Babylonian belief about the god “Ea”, are found side by side with purely poetical images. As to the loud voice which resounds at the time of a divorce, comp. Index s.v. Divorce. See also vol. I, p. 59.

¹⁰⁸ Nedarim 8b; Yoma 20b, which reads: These motes are named לא “la” in Aramaic, according to which לא (Dan. 4.32) is explained. On the grating of the sun, comp. Löw in Orientalische Literaturzeitung, XV, 305.

¹⁰⁹ 109 Yerushalmi Ta'anit 4, 68b; Babli 27b; Soferim 7.5. One should not go out of doors on Wednesday night (i.e., on Wednesday eve, for according to the Jewish conception the day belongs to the preceding night) because the demon Agrat the daughter of Mahlat (=אגרת בת מחלת; the transliteration is doubtful, and Kohut’s Persian etymology in Angelologie, 88, is certainly untenable) with her eighteen myriads of malicious throngs come out on this night (also on Saturday night) to inflict evil on man. See Pesahim 111a and 112b; PRK (Grünhut’s edition) 73; BaR 12.3. Comp. further Sifra 26.4; Geiger, Kebuzzat Maamarim, 167, and Ginzberg’s note in the supplement. In the middle ages Monday (comp. vol. I, p. 15) and Wednesday were considered as unlucky days, and there is an accepted rule אין מתחילין בב״ד “one should not begin any undertaking on Monday or Wednesday”. Brüll, Jahrbücher, IX, 5 (comp. also ibid., 66), accepts the explanation found in a manuscript, according to which the belief is due to the fact that 13 in Persian signifies “bad”; but this explanation is rather far-fetched.

¹¹⁰ Comp. vol. I, pp. 23–24.

¹¹¹ It is not on earth but in heaven where the moon slipped in its terror of the punishment which was pronounced.

¹¹² Hadar on Gen. 1.16, which cites an unknown midrashic source; Toledot Yizhak on Gen., loc. cit., which is very likely based on Hadar. According to this legend, the word כוכבים “stars” is connected with the word כבה “was extinguished”; the light of the moon was dimmed because some of her parts fell off. On the etymology of שמש “sun”, ירח and סהר “moon”, see Konen 25–26. The text of this passage is to be corrected in accordance with Zohar Hadash Bereshit 4, 19b: שמש=שַׁמָּשׁ “servant of man”. Jellinek emended it correctly without having known the parallel passage.—In the legends concerning the sun, moon, and the stars it is presupposed that these luminaries are endowed with consciousness and intelligence. This idea, as pointed out in note 100, was so widespread among the ancients that Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, II, 5 (comp. also Yad haHazakah, Yesode ha-Torah, 3.9), was justified in referring to the Haggadah as support for his doctrine which he borrowed from the Greeks, that the heavenly bodies were endowed with intelligence. Philo, De Plan. Noe, 3 and De Somn., 4, likewise calls attention to the agreement among the Jews and the Greeks concerning this view. It should, however, be observed that in the liturgy, at least as far as the old prayers are concerned, the conception of the heavenly bodies as intelligent or animate beings is entirely ignored, though the opportunity has frequently presented itself to make use of this idea, as, for instance, in the morning and evening prayer, in the passages of Yozer and Ma‘arib ‘Arabim. On the passages in pseudepigraphic literature stating that the heavenly bodies are endowed with life and senses, comp. note 100, as well as Enoch 41.5, and the passages cited by Charles. Not only Enoch 18.13–16, but also the Talmud (Mo’ed Katan 16a) speaks of “rebellious” stars; comp. also vol. IV, p. 36, on Meroz (Jud. 5.23). On the eclipse of the moon and sun comp. note 100. See further Philo, De M. Opif., 19, and Steinschneider in Magazin für Literatur d. Auslands, 1845, No. 80. Concerning the material of which the sun and moon were made very little is found in the Haggadah; according to Konen 25 the moon consists of light, the sun of fire. The statement made in the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 9 to the effect that the moon has the likeness of a woman (in the original myth she must have been the wife of the sun) is unknown in Jewish sources. On the human form of the moon, however, see note 102. Comp. further Index, s.v. “Man in the Moon”.

¹¹³ Konen 26, where אש should probably be read instead of אור; comp., however, Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 114, note 2, as well as PRE 9.

¹¹⁴ Konen 26. On the three elements, light, fire, and water, by the combination of which all the heavenly and earthly bodies have been formed, comp. Konen 24.

¹¹⁵ Hullin 127a; Yerushalmi Shabbat 14, 14c; Tehillim 104, 445; PR 23, 117a. The creation of the sea shows God’s might as much as that of all the other creatures taken together. Similarly God’s power is manifested in the creation of Leviathan as in that of all the other creatures taken together. See Mekilta Bahodesh 7, 69b (read שהים instead of שהיום), and Mekilta RS, 109.

¹¹⁶ Midrash Jonah 98; comp. also vol. I, p. 40, and vol. IV, p. 249, as well as Mekilta RS, 109. A vast collection of passages from rabbinic literature, which treat of Leviathan, is given by I. Low in Judaica (Cohen-Festschrift, Berlin, 1912), 338–340. Comp. also Löw in Orientalische Studien, 555; Grünbaum, Gesammelte Aufsätze, 127–130.

¹¹⁷ Baba Batra 74b; BR 7.4; Konen 26; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 1.20. In all these passages, תנינים (Gen., loc. cit.) is identified with Leviathan (so BR 11.9, and the parallel passages cited by Theodor, ad loc.), תנין is indeed the proper word for Leviathan, since by looking at it man is induced to relate (=תנן) God’s wonders. Comp. Lekah, Gen., loc. cit. According to another view תנינים means the “sea-gazelle”; comp. Baba Batra, loc. cit., and note 132.

¹¹⁸ Baba Batra 74b; Zohar II, 108b. Konen 26 mentions the creation of the female Leviathan, but not its slaying; it thus assumes the existence of a pair of these monsters which have no sexual desire, so that they do not multiply. This is explicitly stated in BR 7.4 with reference to Behemoth; this source quotes the dissenting view that neither Leviathan nor Behemoth exists as a “pair”. In Baba Batra, loc. cit., however, it is stated that God not only slew the female, but also castrated the male. Comp. also Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 1.20. The Leviathan “pair” may be compared with the Babylonian myth concerning Tiamat and her only mate Kingu, according to which the latter is vanquished by Marduk and made harmless, while the former is slain.

¹¹⁹ Baba Batra 74b. The Midrashim (PK 6, 58; PR 16, 81a; WR 22.9; BaR 21.18; Tan. Pinehas 6) describe, in still more glowing colors, the enormous quantities of water needed by Behemoth, and quote a view according to which a river comes out from paradise in order to quench the thirst of this monster. Comp. note 142.

¹²⁰ PK 29, 188a; Baba Batra 74b; Midrash Jonah 98; PRE 9. Comp. vol. I, p. 40; vol. IV, p. 249.

¹²¹ Baba Batra 74b–75a. Comp. also the Midrashim cited in note 119.

¹²² Shabbat 77b; PRK (Grünhut’s edition) 74; Iggeret Ba'ale Hayyim 3, 12. According to I. Löw, Orientalische Studien, 565, כלכית which causes terror to the Leviathan, is the Greek χαλκίς “lizzard”.

¹²³ PK 29, 188a. Comp. also vol. I, p. 2S, with regard to the illuminating canopy over the heads of the pious made of the hide of Leviathan. The clothes of the first “human couple” which were “garments of light”, were made of the hide of the female Leviathan (comp. Index, s.v. “Adam, Garments of”). Comp. the unknown Midrash in Hadar and Da’at (מנחת יהודה) on Gen. 3.21. In the Babylonian myths of creation the heavens are formed of the upper parts of the body of Tiamat.

¹²⁴ ‘Abodah Zarah 3b; PRE 9; Midrash Jonah 98; Hasidim 476. Comp. further Septuagint and Targum on Ps. 104.26, both of which understand this passage to say (very likely on the basis of Job 40.27, as already remarked by Rashi on Ps., loc. cit., which escaped the notice of Grünbaum, Gesammelte Aufsätze 128) that God sports with Leviathan. In ‘Abodah Zarah, loc. cit., the following account is given of God’s occupation during the twelve hours of the day. He studies the Torah during the first three hours; He judges the world for three hours; during the next three hours He provides for the needs of all living creatures; the last three hours He spends sporting with Leviathan. This Haggadah is allegorically explained in ER 2, 61–62, where Leviathan is taken symbolically to represent the power of the heathen (comp. Tehillim 104, 445). It is accordingly stated there that nothing pleases God so much as the failure of the designs of the heathen against Him (comp. Ps. 2.1–4). On the plan of God’s daily occupation comp. further ER 17, 84; 18, 90; 26, 130; 31, 162. On Leviathan=evil, comp. note 127, end.

¹²⁵ Baba Batra 75a, which literally reads: If Leviathan were not to put his head into paradise and become perfumed by its fragrance, no creature could exist on account of the awful odor he emits. This statement has nothing to do with the medieval legend concerning the offensive odor of the devil, but it is related to the ancient identification of Leviathan with the sea. The latter has an offensive odor. Comp. vol. III, p. 25 (end of paragraph).

¹²⁶ Baba Batra 74b, where a reason is given why the female monster and not the male was put to death. Comp. note 118 and the following note.

¹²⁷ PK 29, 188a–188b; Baba Batra 75a; Alphabetot 98. The contest between the angels and the monsters is variously described in the sources quoted above, and especially noteworthy is the description of Alphabetot. Gabriel receives the order from God to drag out Leviathan from the Great Sea (=Ocean, or the Mediterranean Sea; comp. Baba Batra 74b and note 73), for which purpose the angel provides himself with the necessary implements. He succeeds in hooking Leviathan, but is swallowed up in his attempt to drag him out on dry land. Whereupon God Himself is obliged to seize Leviathan, and He slays him in the presence of the pious. Then Michael and Gabriel are sent against the male and female Behemoth, but being unable to carry out God's command (this is the way the fragmentary text is to be emended), He Himself is then obliged to accomplish it. For further details concerning Leviathan and Behemoth, comp. Pirke Mashiah, 76; BHM VI. 150; WR 13.3; Kalir in the piyyut ויכון עולם (end of Lamentations in Roman Mahzor), who made use of old sources which are no longer extant, in his description of the two monsters and of their contest which ends with the annihilation of both. Comp. further vol. I, pp. 29 and 30 with reference to Ziz and Behemoth. It is noteworthy that the tannaitic literature does not contain anything concerning Leviathan and Behemoth (the remark in Sifra 11.10 that Leviathan is a clean fish has hardly anything to do with the view that it will be eaten at the Messianic banquet, comp. also Hullin 67b and note 139, beginning), nor concerning the Messianic banquet. The word used in Abot 3.25 need not be taken literally, as may be seen from Tosefta Sanhedrin 8.9. Only in post-tannaitic literature, especially in later Midrashim, does the Messianic banquet play a great part. Comp., besides the sources already quoted, Nistarot R. Simeon 80; BHM V, 45–46; VI, 47; Alphabet R. Akiba 33. Comp. also vol. IV, pp. 115–116 and 249. Luzzatto, in his notes on the Roman Mahzor II, 212b, correctly remarked that the legend about the Messianic banquet wants to convey the view that this will be the

last feast, after which the pure spiritual life will begin, when there will be no bodily needs or pleasures. Those who interpret the Leviathan-Behemoth legends allegorically conceive the Messianic banquet in a spiritual sense. Comp. further below. Targum Yerushalmi Num. 11.26 reads: And they will enjoy the good things which were prepared for them in the pristine times. This is not to be translated, as is done by Bousset, Religion, 327: And they will… to enjoy the meat of the steer. This mistranslation is due to the fact that Bousset incorrectly read תורא for טובא. Comp. also note 79 with regard to the wine of the Messianic banquet. The pseudepigraphic literature already knows the essential elements of the highly developed Leviathan-Behemoth legends found in the later Midrashim. In Enoch 60.7–10 it is asserted, in agreement with BR 7.4, that Leviathan and Behemoth (alluding to Job 40.20 and Ps 50.10–11, Behemoth was described in the Hebrew text of Enoch as בהמות שדה, which the translator, however, misunderstood and instead of שָׂדֶה “field”, i.e., “the dry land”, has שַׁדֹּה “his breast”) were created on the fifth day, and of these two the former was the female and the latter the male. But they were separated (comp. vol. I, p. 27, with regard to the female of the Leviathan), the male monster, Behemoth, received the desert Dudain for his abode (undoubtedly identical with the desert Dudel, Enoch 10.4; that the latter is situated in the proximity of Jerusalem, the former east of paradise, cannot be urged as an objection to this identification, as the holy city is east of paradise; comp. PRE 20 20, beginning. See further notes 119 and 141 on the habitation of Behemoth in the proximity of paradise), whereas the female Leviathan lives in the depth of the sea. Both, however (verse 24), will serve as food (for the pious; but the text is not very clear here). In 4 Ezra 6.49–52, Enoch is made use of, but at the same time an attempt is made to explain how it happens that the male monster Behemoth lives on the dry land, while his mate, Leviathan, is in the water. The mates of Leviathan and Behemoth are spoken of in rabbinic sources (comp. note 118). Nowhere, however (Targum Yerushalmi I, 21, is based on Baba Batra 74b, and does not maintain, as Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos, p. 54, incorrectly asserts, that Behemoth is the wife of Leviathan), is the idea expressed that both monsters are “a mated pair”; nor does it occur in BR 7.4; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 16. The Apocalypse of Baruch 29.4 knows of the legend that both monsters are destined to be the food of the pious in the time to come, but does not offer any additional information on the subject. The Apocalypse of Abraham 10 speaks of Leviathans (i.e., the male and female monsters), which the archangel Jaoel holds in check; in another passage (21; the text is not quite clear) Leviathan and his possession are spoken of, where, perhaps, the Leviathan and his mate should be read. In case this apocalyptic work was originally composed in Hebrew, the present text can easily be explained as being due to the translator’s confusion of קניתו=קנעחו “his mate” with קניתו=קנינו “his possession”. Comp. Kiddushin 6a, where instead of the reading קנויה, as is found in our texts, we should read, with the Geonim in Sha’are Zedek 17a, No. 4, קניתי=קנעתי “my mate”. In the last passage of the Apocalypse referred to above the remark is made that the world rests upon Leviathan. This shows the high antiquity of the similar statement found in rabbinic sources; PRE 9; Konen 26; ’Aseret ha-Dibrot 63; Baraita de-Ma’aseh Bereshit 47 (the whole world, as well as the “Great Sea” which compasses it, rests on four pillars, and these pillars rest on one of the fins of Leviathan); Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 9; Zohar III, 279. Comp. also the numerous quotations from Kabbalistic writings by Luria on PRE, loc. cit., as well as Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 19, where a quotation from a New Testament apocrypha is given concerning the “divos pisces (i.e., Leviathan and his mate) jacentes super aquas … tenentes totam terram”. Rather obscure is the statement of Jerome on Is. 27.1 that, according to a Judaica Fabula, the monster spoken of by the prophet lives under the ground and in the air, whereas the monsters mentioned in Gen. 1.21 have their habitation in the sea. As an explanation of these obscure words of Jerome, attention should be called to the fact that next to the view mentioned above which sees in Leviathan a monster which encircles the whole earth, there is also another which identifies him with the vault of heaven to which the signs of the Zodiac are affixed. Comp. the quotation from PRE by Kimhi on Is., loc. cit.; Kafir, loc. cit. (it has 365 eyes = days of the year); Kaneh 30c and 32c–32d; Rokeah in the commentary on Yezirah 14c. Comp. also Harkavy תלי אתליא in the Hebrew periodical Ben ‘Ammi, January 1887, 27–35. That Leviathan was not identical with the תנינים mentioned in Gen., loc. cit., is also presupposed by the Haggadah which asserts that Leviathan was created first (this is based on Job 40.19, which rather applies to Behemoth; thus the two monsters are taken to be a “pair”; comp. above), and afterwards the rest of the world. Comp. Ibn Ezra’s introduction to his commentary on the Pentateuch, and פרוש על איוב ed. Sulzbach, Job, loc. cit. All these legends concerning Leviathan and Behemoth point to the fact, which has already been observed by several authors (comp. especially Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos, 41–69), that a good deal of old mythological material has been preserved in them. Nevertheless one must not look exclusively for Babylonian myths, and one is not warranted to identify, on the basis of Enoch, loc. cit., Behemoth and Leviathan with Tiamat and Kingu, respectively, of the Babylonian mythology, since not only the rabbinic sources but also Job 40 clearly describes Behemoth as a land monster. It may therefore be said that Behemoth belongs to quite another cycle of myths, but owing to learned combinations, the pseudepigraphic authors made it the consort of Leviathan, whereas the rabbinic sources retain the original conception of it as a land monster. The allegorical interpretation of the Leviathan-Behemoth legends originated at a very early date, and is found not only among the Gnostics (comp. the Jewish gnostic Apocalypse of Abraham, loc. cit., and Hippolytus 5.21, on Leviathan as a bad angel in the system of Justinus), but also in rabbinic sources. Comp. ER 2, 61–62 (partly quoted in note 124); Guide of the Perplexed, III, 23; Kimhi on Is. 27.1, and particularly in kabbalistic literature in which Leviathan is identified with “Evil” which will disappear in Messianic times, when the righteous as purely spiritual beings like the angels, will enjoy life in paradise. See Ma‘areket 8, 102–103b; Nefesh ha-Hayyim 1, 17; the numerous passages cited from Zohar by Heilpern, ’Erke ha-Kinnuyim, s.v. לויתן. See also the remark of R. David b. R. Judah he-Hasid in Shitah Mekubbezet on Baba Batra 75a. On Leviathan as the serpent encircling the world, comp. Grünbaum, Gesammelte Aufsälze, 129, and note 275 on vol. I, p. 394.

¹²⁸ Hullin 27b; PK 4, 35a; Tan. B. IV, 112 (the feet of the hen therefore resemble the scales of the fish); Tan. Hukkat 6; BaR 19.3; Koheleth 7.23; Konen 26. Philo, De M. Opif., 20, finds the relationship between birds and fishes in that these two kinds of animals swim, the former in the air (νήΧειν “to swim” may also be used for the flight of birds), the latter in the water. On the view of PRE 9 concerning the origin of birds and fishes, comp. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 114. See further Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 1.20.

¹²⁹ The name Ziz is derived from Ps. 50.11 (זיז שדי), which is taken by the Haggadah as a proper name. Johann Heinrich Wolfius wrote a monograph on Ziz under the title “Dissertatio de portentosae magnitudinis ave זיז שדי”, which appeared in Leipzig, 1683.

¹³⁰ WR 22.10; Tehillim 80, 363. Comp. further PK 6, 58a; PR 16, 81a; Tan. Pinehas 12; BaR 21.18, with regard to Ziz; see also vol. I, pp. 4–5.

¹³¹ Targum on Ps. 50.11, which is very likely based on Baba Batra 73b. Comp. the following note. It is stated in Konen 26 that Ziz rests its feet on the fins of Leviathan (comp. note 127), and that his head reaches the throne of glory. On this passage comp. note 139.

¹³² Baba Batra 73b. Comp. further Ma‘asiyyot (Gaster’s edition 8), where in the Alexander legend an allusion is made to this axe.

¹³³ WR 22.10; BR 19.4.

¹³⁴ Gittin 31b and Baba Batra 25b. In both of these talmudic passages the winged בן נץ is none other than Ziz, as may be seen by comparing the talmudic statement with that found in the sources referred to in the preceding note. The commentators, however, take בן נץ to be a winged angel; comp. Rashi, ad loc., as well as in his commentary on Job 39.26.

¹³⁵ Bekorot 57b and Menahot 66b, as an explanation of Job 39.13.

¹³⁶ Targum Job 3.6, 38.36, 39.13. In all these targumic passages this bird bearing the name תרנגול ברא “the wild cock” (comp. שור הבר “wild ox”, as a name for Behemoth, note 143; it is nevertheless doubtful whether the word ברא is to be translated by “wild” in these cases) is undoubtedly to be identified with Ziz, although in the legend of Solomon (comp. vol. IV, p. 168 and note 86 appertaining to it) תרנגול ברא is employed to describe an entirely different bird. Comp. note 139.

¹³⁷ On Sekwi (שכוי) comp. Targum on Job 38.36 (according to Rosh ha-Shanah 26a and Yerushalmi Berakot 9, 13c, it signifies “cock”); comp. note 139. On בר יוכני “son of the nest”, see the following note.

¹³⁸ The attempt to explain בר יוכני as Persian must not be taken seriously; comp. Ginzberg in Jewish Encyclopedia, II, 512 s.v. “Bar Yokni,” where reasons are given for the translation “son of the nest”. The talmudic passages where this gigantic bird is mentioned are: Sukkah 5a (bottom); Yoma 80a; Bekorot 57b. Comp. also Menahot 66b and Sifra 1.14. Comp. Ginzberg in Schwarz-Festschrift, 360.

¹³⁹ WR 22.10, where it is explicitly stated that Ziz and Leviathan belong to the “clean animals” (comp. note 127 with reference to Leviathan), whereas in 13.3 and Tehillim 146, 535, it is emphasized, with reference to the use of these animals, that in the time of

the Messiah a new Torah will be given which will dispense with the present dietary laws. Nistarot R. Simeon 8 reads: Behemoth will be slaughtered, Leviathan (a fish does not require to be killed ritually) will be torn by Ziz, and the latter slaughtered by Moses. In view of the description of the contest between Behemoth and Leviathan (comp. vol. I, p. 28), we should probably read in Nistarot ובהמות לויתן שוהטו, “and Behemoth will be slain by Leviathan”, i.e. by the points of his fins, which may be used as instruments for ritual slaughtering; comp. Hullin 1.2. On the disposal of the three monsters, Leviathan, Behemoth, and Ziz, that is, the representatives of the three animal kingdoms, at the Messianic banquet, see Tehillim 18, 153, and 23, 202, whence the statement found in later writings (Kad ha-Kemah, end of letter ח, 93a; Levita, Tishbi, s.v. יוכנה) that the bird Bar Yokni will be used as food for the pious in Messianic times. No trace is found in older sources of the identity of this bird with Ziz; but since רננים (Job 49.13) is according to Bekorot 57b, the same as Bar Yokni, and in the opinion of Targum, ad loc., it is the same as תרנגול ברא i.e., Ziz (comp. Targum Ps. 50.11), it was quite natural for the later authorities to identify Bar Yokni with Ziz. In most of the Ziz legends the dependence upon Iranic mythology is evident. The “heavenly singer and seer” is naturally the sacred cock of Avesta (Vendidad 18, 33, seq .); comp. Grünbaum, Gesammelte Aufsätze, 37, seq.; Rubin, Kabbala und Agada, 23–25; Ginzberg in Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Cock”, as well as note 194. Of Iranic origin is also the conception that the wings of Ziz eclipse the sun. With this should be compared the sun birds of the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 6–8 and the Chalkidri in 2 Enoch 15; comp. Bousset, Religion, 568. Highly instructive is the following passage in Konen 26, which precedes the description of the creation of Ziz (comp. note 131): And He created an Ofan (a kind of angel) on earth, whose head reaches the holy Hayyot who is the mediator between Israel and their heavenly Father. He bears the name Sandalfon and fashions out of the prayers wreaths (or crowns) for God’s majesty, which ascend upon the head of the Lord at his uttering the holy name. Whatever is said here concerning Sandalfon is taken from Hagigah 13b (comp. also PR 20, 97a). The connection, however, between Sandalfon and Ziz can only be understood when one considers the fact that Ziz was originally taken as the heavenly singer; he is hence identical with Sandalfon. To quite a different cycle of legends belongs the conception of the gigantic bird Ziz, which will be eaten by the pious in the world to come.

¹⁴⁰ Hullin 27b; PRE 11. For a different view see Konen 26, which reads: He took water, earth, and light, out of which He created Behemoth; comp. notes 113 and 128.

¹⁴¹ Baba Batra 74b, where it is said that the male monster was castrated, and the desire to propagate its kind was taken away from the female. Konen 26 reads: He created Behemoth of the thousand mountains, as well as the ox who uproots thousand mountains daily, and both appear daily in paradise to make merry in the presence of the Lord. That Behemoth is a female monster disagrees with the view of the older rabbinic sources, as well as that of the pseudepigraphic writers (comp. notes 117–118, as well as note 127). Moreover Konen made two monsters out of the two names of the monster. The older rabbinic sources speak of Behemoth, or following Ps. 50.10, of “Behemoth upon a thousand hills,” but sometimes they use שור הבר or, in Aramaic sources, its equivalent תור בר, instead of Behemoth (comp. e.g. Targ. Ps. loc. cit.) and hence in Konen the female Behemoth of the thousand mountains (hills) is found alongside of the ox who uproots thousand mountains daily. Comp. also Kalir in the Piyyut (end of Lamentations in the Roman Mahzor) who speaks of the two consorts of Leviathan. Comp. note 127, and on the sports of the monsters in paradise see note 124.

¹⁴² PK 6, 58a; PR 16, 80b, and 194 (here it is also stated that Leviathan lies on the abyss, which otherwise would flood the earth; since the water of the ocean is salty, he is compelled to raise his fins whenever he wants to drink, in order that the water of the abyss should come up); WR 22.10; BaR 21.18; Tan. Pinehas 12; PRE 11. Comp. also Baba Batra 74b. The last-named Midrash understands Ps. 50.10 to say that the grass of the thousand mountains grows anew every night, whereas in the older Midrashim a view is cited, according to which the meaning of this verse is that thousand animals grazing on the thousand mountains serve as food for Behemoth. On Behemoth in the close proximity of paradise, comp. note 127 and Konen 26. For an allegorical interpretation of this legend, comp. Zohar I, 18b, 223a (bottom), as well as III, 217a, 240b.

¹⁴³ WR 13.3; PRE 11. Concerning Behemoth as food for the pious, comp. further notes 127 and 139. On the prejudice against attending a theatre, comp. ‘Abodah Zarah 10b, where, like Tertullian, De Spectaculis 4, Ps. 1.1 is said to refer to the pious who keep away from the theatre and circus.

¹⁴⁴ A quotation from a manuscript Midrash in Midbar Kedemot ק׳, No. 12, and Aguddat Aggadot 39. A similar statement is found MHG I, 95–96 concerning a certain serpent related to the one which seduced Eve. Comp. also Rashi on Is. 30.6 and Herodotus III, 109.

¹⁴⁵ Baba Batra 73b; comp. also ibid. 74b, where a view is quoted which declares the monsters תנינים (Gen. 1.21) to be אורזלי דימא, which is very likely a kind of Re’em.

¹⁴⁶ Tehillim 22, 195, where one view is also cited to the effect that the circumference was about one hundred cubits; comp. vol. IV, p. 83. On a frightful kind of tiger comp. Hullin 59b; a passage which was strangely misunderstood by the author of the article “Leviathan and Behemoth” in Jewish Encyclopedia, VIII, 39.

¹⁴⁷ This species is known as Adne [Sadeh], or more accurately Idne; the singular is Adan. Comp. the following note.

¹⁴⁸ Tan. Introduction 125. Comp. further R. Simeon of Sens on Kil'ayim 8.5 and Ma’asehbuch 201; Magen Abot 35b and 68a (women who grow on trees); Eshkol 24b; the references to non-Jewish writings (Mas'udi, Ibn Tufail, and Pseudo-Calisthenes) given by Steinschneider, Pseudo-Epigraphische Literatur, 25, and Hebräische Uebersetzungen, 12, 360. On the plant-man comp. further note 150, and note 89 on vol. I. 360. Kil'ayim 8.5 speaks of אדני השדה (it is plural of אדן which occurs frequently in correct manuscripts instead of אדם), which Yerushalmi, ad loc., 31c, renders in Aramaic by בר נש דטורא), “the man of the mountain” (שדה) is also found in the Bible in the sense of “mountain”). It is undoubtedly a certain species of ape. The Yerushalmi continues that this species is vulnerable only in its navel; later authors, however, found in this remark of the Yerushalmi a reference to the plant-man which is fastened by its navel to the ground. Comp. Fink, Monatsschrift, LI, 173–182; Nathan, ibid., 501. Comp. Ginzberg in Schwarz-Festschrift, 327–333, who deals at length with the meaning of אדני השדה, which Rashi identifies with the Werewolf and believes to be referred to in Job 5.23.

¹⁴⁹ Tan. Introduction 125.

¹⁵⁰ Responsa of R. Meir of Rothenburg (Lemberg edition, No. 160), and through the literary channels, namely, the writings of the Franco-German scholars of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, who often discussed the “legal status” of the barnacle-goose, scholars of other countries became acquainted with this legend, though there it failed to engage the popular fancy. Christian authors, at the same time, discussed the question whether it was permissible to eat these birds during Lent. Comp. Geraldus Cambiensis (1154–1189), whose zeal burned against the rashness of those who indulged in the enjoyment of this bird during the Lent season. It appears, however, that his zeal was not of much avail, since Duran, in his Magen Abot, 35b, confirms the persistence of the “rashness and indulgence” of the Frenchmen of his time, two hundred years after that “zeal for the observance”. Comp. Oppenheim, Monatsschrift, XVIII, 88–93; Gtidemann, Erziehungswesen II, 117, 213, and III, 129; Steinschneider, Hebräische Bibliographie V, 116–117; Steinschneider in Gosche’s Archiv III, 8; Ha-Goren IV, 99; Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Barnacle-goose.”

¹⁵¹ BR 19.5: Shemuel 12.81; Tan. Introduction 155; 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 27a, 28b, 29a–29b; Bereshit Rabbeti cited by Jellinek, Einleitung to BHM VI, 12, note, 4. The older sources name the phoenix חול, and find in Job 29.18 a reference to this bird; in the two last-named sources the immortal bird is called מלחם or תלתם, a word of obscure origin which is very likely corrupt. Ben Sira 27a adds that this bird and its species, after the fall of man, was locked up in a city to which no one, not even the angel of death, has access. Here the very old legend concerning Luz is made use of (vol. IV, pp. 30 and 175). The Church Fathers, as well as the Rabbis, refer to the phoenix as a proof for the resurrection of the dead. The discrepancies of the sources in the description of the rejuvenation of the dead represents different dogmatic opinions relating to the doctrine of resurrection; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 52–55; Gtidemann, Religionsgeschichte, 55–65. See further note 37 on vol. I, p. 161, and note 67 on vol. I, p. 74. The description of the rejuvenation of the pious in the world to come, found in Alphabetot 107, which was probably made use of in Mahzor Vitry 317, line 11 (טל ילדות צומח) presupposes the phoenix legend. On the phoenix legend in patristic literature, comp. the vast collection of material given by Charles, 2 Enoch 12.

¹⁵² Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 6; comp. notes 133–134. On a similar idea in rabbinic literature, comp. the legend concerning Ziz vol. I, 29, and notes 134, 139.

¹⁵³ On this inscription comp. note 106.

¹⁵⁴ The etymology of the word “Chalkidri” is very obscure; comp. Forbes and Charles on 2 Enoch 12.1; Bousset, Religion, 568. The latter conjectures that it is to be regarded as an Iranic word.

¹⁵⁵ 2 Enoch 12 and 15. The ordinary angels have six wings (Is. 6.2), but these sun-birds are higher beings, and therefore possess twelve wings; comp. PRE 13, where the important place of Sammael in the heavenly hierarchy, before his fall, is characterized by the fact that he possesses twelve wings.

¹⁵⁶ This is only found in Rashi on Hullin 127a.

¹⁵⁷ Hagigah (end); Sanhedrin 63b; Hullin 127a (comp. Rashi, ad loc., and ‘Aruk, s.v. סלמנדרא), Tan. Wa-Yesheb 3; Sifra 11.29; ShR 15.28. A vast collection of material relating to Salamander in Jewish literature is given by Löw in Krauss’ Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter, s.v. סלמנדרא. See also Löw in Florilegium, in honor of De Vogüe’s seventieth birthday 399–406. Comp. further Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds, 227–230; Straschun in Ha-Maggid IX, No. 14. It is noteworthy that Philo, Quaestiones, Exod. 28, likewise mentions πυρίγενες, which could move about in fire without suffering any harm. Philo surely had Salamander and similar creatures in mind. Hullin and Sifra, loc. cit., likewise speak of creatures in the plural which live in the fire, that is, Salamander and others. The statement of Aristotle, Historia Animalium, V, 19, and that of Pliny, Historia Naturalis, X, 68 and 87, concerning the Salamander essentially agrees with the view of the rabbinic sources. On the use of the myrtle in the producing of the Salamander (comp. note 156), see Hippolytus, Haereses 4.33. Comp. also the following three notes.

¹⁵⁸ Zohar II, 211; Hadassi, Eshkol 24d; Abkat Rokel 2, 1. These assertions concerning the clothes of Salamander, slightly differing from one another, are not found in the talmudic-midrashic literature, but are, however, known, in non-Jewish writings of the Middle Ages; comp. Jellinek, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbala, I, 48, and Grässe, Beiträge zur Literatur und Sage des Mittelalters, 81.

¹⁵⁹ Sanhedrin 108b, where עליתא (the reading is doubtful) is the Semitic name for Salamander. In Tan. Wa-Yiggash 3 עכבית “spider” is the correct reading, since according to Aristotle, Historia Animalium, V, 19, the size of the Salamander is like that of the house-fly and the difference between the latter and the spider is not very great.

¹⁶⁰ Sanhedrin 63b. Comp. Bacher, ZDMG XXVII, 15, and vol. IV, p. 226.

¹⁶¹ Abot 5.6; Sifre D., 355; Midrash Tannaim 219; Pesahim 54a; 2 ARN 37, 95; PRE 19. Comp. further note 99 on vol. I, p. 83.

¹⁶² Tosefta Sotah 15.1; Babli 48b; Yerushalmi 9, 20d. It is stated in PR 33, 155a, that the Shamir was also applied to the building of the temple for the purpose of splitting the rock-like hard wood (so is גלומי to be translated; comp. Syriac גלמא “rocky ground”).

¹⁶³ Tosefta Sotah 15.1; Babli 48b; Yerushalmi 9, 20d. Comp. note 166.

¹⁶⁴ Tehillim 77, 351, which was incorporated in Yalkut II, 182. Another legend on the procuring of the Shamir is given in vol. IV, p. 166.

¹⁶⁵ Sotah 9.2 (it is the first temple which is meant here, contrary to the view of Tosafot on Zebahim 54b, caption אבנים); Tosefta 15.1; Babli 48b; Yerushalmi 9, 20d. In the talmudic-midrashic sources it is never explicitly stated that the Shamir was a living creature. Nevertheless, as a matter of fact, the opinion of medieval authors that it was a worm (Rashi Pesahim 54a; Maimonides, commentary on Abot 5.6; Mahzor Vitry 540 and many others) is undoubtedly correct. In Babli Sotah, loc. cit., and PR 38, 153a, the expression מראה וכו׳, used in connection with the Shamir, clearly shows it was the glance of a living being which effected the splitting of wood and stones. A caper-spurge, to which the non-Jewish sources of the Middle Ages ascribed the characteristic of the Shamir, is also known in Jewish literature (WR 32.4; Koheleth 5.9); but it is not identical with the Shamir. The view of the tannaitic sources that the Shamir was only accessible to man at the time of the building of the temple, while the caper-spurge could be found in later times, proves that these two must not be confused with one another. Comp. Cassel, Shamir, in Denkschriften der Kgl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Erfurt, 1854; Grünbaum, Gesammelte Aufsätze, 41, seq.; Löw, Graphische Requisiten, 181, seq. (he justly refutes Cassel’s assertions that Shamir was a stone); Salzberger, Salomos Tempelhau und Thron, 36–54.

¹⁶⁶ Shabbat 28b; Yerushalmi 2, 4d; PR 33, 154d; Koheleth 1, 9. Comp. vol. III, p. 164. On the one-horned animal see note 108 on vol. I, p. 98. PR, 155a, states that the wood used by Solomon (1 Kings 10.12) was also created with this end in view; it therefore disappeared as soon as it had fulfilled its purpose.

¹⁶⁷ Baba Batra 74a. Comp. Löw, Aramaische Fischnamen, No. 19, in Nöldeke-Festschrift 550.

¹⁶⁸ Tosefta Bekorot 1.11 and Babli 8a, where instead of דולפינין of the Tosefta, the Aramaic בני ימא is used, which Rashi renders by “sirens” while ps.-R. Gershon explains it as “seamen”. In our text of the Talmud nothing is said about a union of the sirens and men, and it is uncertain whether this statement of Rashi is based on a different text (עם for כבני) or whether, influenced by the belief in fays and naiads, prevalent in the Middle Ages, all through Europe, Rashi ascribes to the Talmud something which is alien to it. According to the Tosefta and the Talmud, the dolphins give birth to their children in the same manner as human beings do. The assertion of Duran, Magen Abot, 68a, concerning the dolphins belongs rather to European folklore, although it pretends to be Jewish. Comp. Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds, 153–155; Löw, Aramaische Fischnämen, No. 49, in Nöldeke-Festschrift; Grünbaum, Gesammelte Aufsätze, 101. According to Enoch 19.2, the women who caused the fall of the angels were transformed into sirens; comp. Apocalypse of Baruch 10.8.

¹⁶⁹ Comp. vol. I, pp. 26, 28, 30; further note 322 on vol. I, p. 424.

¹⁷⁰ Comp. vol. I, pp. 23–24, concerning the fall of the moon. But in none of the sources is it mentioned (comp. notes 100, 110–112) that the light taken from the moon was added to the sun.

¹⁷¹ 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 25a and 34a. Perek Shirah (cat and mouse) very likely alludes to this legend.

¹⁷² 2 Alphabet of Ben Sirah 25a–25b. The other legend of the origin of the enmity between the cat and the mouse which is found in Iggeret Ba’ale Hayyim 2, 6, is derived from Arabic sources, since these animals are brought into relation with the descendants of Cain and Abel, whereas according to Jewish and Christian legends Abel died childless; comp. Index s.v. Abel.

¹⁷³ The text of 2 Ben Sira does not seem to be in proper form.

¹⁷⁴ 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 26a–26b; see also 34b, where it is said that Noah stole the hair which he needed for his work, from a sleeping swine. The story told in this source (25a–34b) concerning the donkey, which was shocked at having to serve man without any compensation, practically agrees with the Sicilian legend by Dahnhardt, Natursagen, III, 178. The characteristics of these animals to scent their excrement and to urinate, as soon as one of them starts to do it, is explained in the following manner. They threatened God that they would stop to propagate their species in case they were not to receive their reward for their work. They received the following answer: “Ye will receive your reward for your labor as soon as your urine will flow as a stream big enough to work a mill and when your excrement will smell as perfume.” Hence the donkeys wish to ascertain whether they have fulfilled the conditions under which a reward was promised to them.

¹⁷⁵ As the cause of this, Noah remarks: “The inhabitants of the city of Ai” (עי; ע׳=עורב “raven”; י׳=יונה “dove”) will slay Jair, because he permitted the use of the meat of the raven, but prohibited that of the dove (comp. Sanherdin 100a, top) in contradiction to the Torah”. Comp., however, vol. IV, p. 8 with reference to the piety and learning of Jair.

¹⁷⁶ This suspicion against Noah is already found in older sources, comp. note 46 on vol. I, p. 164. See further PRK (Schönblum’s edition), 32b.

¹⁷⁷ This supposed peculiarity of the raven is already mentioned in Aristotle’s Historia Animalium, V, 47, and by many classical authors; comp. Bochart, Hieroz., III, 818, as well as Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds, 173. According to Barnabas, 10.8, it is the weasel which is impregnated through the mouth. This, however, inaccurately reproduces the statement of Aristeas 165, according to which the Bible has prohibited the enjoyment of this animal because it is impregnated through the ears and gives birth through the mouth. This widespread view is also mentioned by Aristotle in De Generatione Animalium, III, 6.5 who, however, scoffs at it. A statement similar to that of Barnabas concerning the annual change of sex of the hyena is found in medieval Jewish writings, but not in the old rabbinic literature. Concerning the hare (ארנבת), comp. Ibn Ezra on Lev. 11.6. Related to this view is the quotation in Pa‘aneah, Lev. 12.2 from PRE (not found in our text) that the stomach of a hare is a cure for sterility. R. Eleazar, Rim e Haftarot, Naso, explicitly states that this cure, which the women recommended to Samson’s mother, and against which the angel warned her (Jud. 13.7), is due to the peculiarity of this species to change its sex. It is highly probable that Pa‘aneah introduced the quotation with the words בפ׳ ר׳ אליעזר, that is “in the commentary [on the Haftarot] by R. Eleazar [of Worms]”; but the scribe misread the abbreviation בפ׳ (=בפרוש) as בפרקי, and hence בפרקי ר׳ אליעזר. For further remarks on the raven, comp. the following note.

¹⁷⁸ 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 26b–27a and 34a–35a. The older sources (Sanhedrin 108b; BR 36.7; Yerushalmi Ta‘anit 1, 64d; Tan. Noah 12) state that three were punished because they did not observe the law of abstinence while in the ark (comp. vol. 1, p. 166): Ham, the dog, and the raven. Ham became the ancestor of the black (colored) race; the dog remains attached to the body of his mate after cohabitation; the raven conceives through his mouth. Comp. further note 46 on vol. I, p. 164, and note 54 on vol. I, p. 166.

¹⁷⁹ Ketubot 49b; WR 19.1; Shemuel 5, 57; Shir 5.11.

¹⁸⁰ Pesahim 113b.

¹⁸¹ WR 19, Shemuel 5.57; PRE 21. Comp. vol. I, p. 113. Makiri on Ps. 147, 286, quotes, from PRE, the statement that shebears have no breasts with which to nurse their young, but God makes the young bears suck their paws, and this sustains them until they grow up and are able to provide for themselves. Concerning the sucking of paws or fingers, comp. vol. I, p. 189. The jackals hate their young, and abandon them as the ravens do; they would even devour them if they could see them. For this reason God ordained that when the female jackal nurses her young ones, their faces are covered as if with a veil, so that she cannot see them. Ekah 4, 144. Comp., on the other Hand, Tan. Behukkotai 3 and Tan. B. III, 111, where the opposite view is given to the effect that these animals are devoted to their young.

¹⁸² 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 24a (read לְבָנִים for לְבֵינִים) and 33b. Comp. PRE 21, and the quotation from the latter in Makiri on Ps. 147, 286, as well as in Aguddat Aggadot 38, note 4.

¹⁸³ 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 26b. The proverb, “he who is dissatisfied, etc.” (most likely the word לא fell out before נמצא) is a variant of the proverb already found in Tosefta Sotah 4.16 and in the parallel passages (comp. note 34 on vol. I, p. 78). Sanhedrin 106a reads: The camel looked for horns, and lost his ears which he had possessed. This is allusion to the fable found in Pend-Nameh 207.

¹⁸⁴ 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 25a (בריא is used here in the sense of the English “strong”, “stout”). Comp. Duran, Keshet u-Magen for the similar Arabic legend concerning Mohammed.

¹⁸⁵ BR 19.1. On the original superior qualities of the serpent, comp. further vol. I, pp. 71–72.

¹⁸⁶ Tehillim 58, 300. On the mole, comp. also Mo’ed Katan 6b, and Yerushalmi I, 80c.

¹⁸⁷ The angel of death occurring often in rabbinic literature, in which he is identified with Satan (Baba Batra 16a), is also well known in pseudepigraphic literature; comp. the Apocalypse of Baruch 21.25; Ascension of Isaiah 9.16. See also note 317 on vol. I, p. 300. The relationship between Leviathan and the angel of death clearly points to the assumption that the view prevalent in the Kabbalah concerning the identity of Satan with Leviathan (comp. note 127) goes back to an ancient tradition. According to a legend handed down from a different version, there are several angels of death. Thus PRK 14b (Schönblum’s edition) states that there are six angels of death. Gabriel is in charge of taking away the lives of young persons; Kazfiel is appointed over kings; Meshabber over animals; Mashhit over children; Af over the other kinds of men; Hemah over domestic animals. On the relation of Gabriel to the angel of death, comp. Ma'aseh Torah 98; Huppat Eliyyahu 6; Zohar I, 99a.

¹⁸⁸ According to ancient sources (comp. note 115), it is the weasel, which lives on the dry land, and if we want to be accurate, we ought to read “weasel” instead of “cat” in the text.

¹⁸⁹ The heart, according to the Hebrew idiom, signifies the intellect. The conception that one can acquire the characteristics of an animal by eating it is well known among all primitive peoples.

¹⁹⁰ 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 27a–28b and 36a. The text requires many emendations. 28a, line 8, read: אִמְרוּ לי האמת; 28a, line 15: לכאן ולכאן; 36a, 1.15: ושם נכון. On the origin of this animal fable, comp. Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, II, 680; s.v. “Ben Sira”, Abrahams, Book of Delight, 159, seq. It should be further noted that although MHG II, 45, Sekel, Exod. 29, Imre No'am and Hadar on Exod. 7.14 give different versions of the similar fable found in Yalkut I, 182 (in the first edition מדרש is given as source) concerning the lion, the ass, and the fox, there can be no doubt that the origin of our fable is to be found in that about the ape and the crocodile (Pantchatantra IV, 1), which has found its way also into the Alphabet of Ben Sira, where, however, it was combined with other elements. Whether the author of the Alphabet had directly made use of the Indian-Arabic fable literature, or whether he had adapted fables known to him from older Jewish writings, is a moot question. The first alternative, however, is the more likely, since the author knows a number of animal fables, which are not extant in the older Jewish literature. Some animal fables are also given in 1 Alphabet 5a–5b and 7a–7b; but those are found also in the older rabbinic literature, so that the priority of this source is more than questionable. The account of the pious son who was compensated by Leviathan because he had fulfilled his father’s last wish (on this motive comp.. vol. 1, pp. 118, seq.) is known not only to 1 Alphabet (5a–5b), but is also found in Hibbur ha-Ma'asiyyot, fifth commandment, and is very likely borrowed from there in the Ma'asehbuch 194. In these sources the following stories are welded into one: The story from 1 Alphabet 7a 7b, with the lesson “not to do any good to the wicked, so that one should not suffer from them”; the story given in vol. IV, pp. 138 141, concerning the man who understood the language of the animals; as well as the one about the pious son. This, of course, proves that the sources are quite new. WR 22.4 and Koheleth 5.4 must certainly have been made use of by Alphabet and the two other sources mentioned.—The Talmudim, like the Midrashim, contain very extensive material of animal folk-lore, a very small part of which is to be found in Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds (350 358). As to the post-talmudic period, see Duran, Magen Abot (comp., e.g., 35b37b) and Shebet Musar (particularly chapter 22), which contains vast material on this subject. The following contains material taken from the older sources. The propagation of animals is usually the result of cohabitation, but there is also spontaneous generation, i.e., animals springing forth as the result of the putrefaction of animals or vegetables. Man, fish, and serpent are the only species whose mates face each other during cohabitation, because they are the only living creatures to whom God spoke (Gen. 3.14; Jonah 2.11); hence this distinction is conferred upon them; Bekorot 8a; BR 20.3. Once in seven years God transforms nature, as a result of which the hornet springs forth from the remains of the horse; bees from the cattle; the wild boar from the mountain-mouse; the multipede from the backbone of the fish; the serpent from the backbone of the human body which did not formerly bow down at the time of prayer; Yerushalmi Shabbat 1, 3b. The beginning of this passage is badly corrupted, part of it, however, may be restored in accordance with Baba Kamma 16a (bottom) and with the text of R. Hananel, Baba Kamma loc. cit. One may read, with certainty, קמושה מיתעבר חוח...אפא מיתעבד שד ממוחו דרישא...ודמעיא סממא. It is questionable whether קמוש and חוח in Yerushalmi and Babli are to be taken as bramble-bushes. Targum on Is. 34.13 and Hos. 9.6 takes these nouns to be certain species of animals, as has been rightly observed by Duran, Magen Abot, 58b; comp. also Kimhi on the first passage. Both Yerushalmi and Babli speak in this connection of the sexual metamorphosis of the hyena (comp. note 177 with respect to the peculiarity of giving birth through the mouth, comp. Huppat Eliyyahu 3, where this is ascribed to the raven), and Babli knows of a long process of transformations of this animal, which finally becomes a demon. Concerning the splendor of the color of this animal, it is said that it possesses 365 different colors; see BR 7.4; Tan. Tazria’ 2; Tehillim 103, 432. Comp. also Berakot 6a, where this is stated with reference to the bird Kerum.—The serpent is the wicked among the animals (Bekorot 68a; Yerushalmi Berakot 2, 9a; accordingly MHG I, 95, הרשע=the serpent), and despite his punishment after the fall, this animal retained his weakness for the feminine sex; comp. Shabbat 109a, and note 60 on vol. I, p. 72. A remedy against serpents is the fumigation of the places frequented by them with the horns of a hind (this is also found in Pliny, Historia Naturalis, VIII, 32, 50), which is the “pious one“ among the animals. Whenever a drought occurs, the other animals apply to the hind to pray to God, who will listen to its prayers on account of its piety. It digs a pit in the ground into which it sticks its horns, and prays to God for rain. Whereupon God causes water to come up from the abyss. See Tehillim 25, 187. The attribute “pious” is shared by the hind with the stork which is called in Hebrew Hasidah, “the pious one”, because the animals of this species are kind to one another; Hullin 63a; Tehillim 104, 144; Philo, De Decalogo, 12, who is very likely dependent upon Aristotle, Historia Animalium, 9.13. Comp. also Hasidim 240–241, and the passages referred to by the editor, as well as Shebet Musar 25 (end), concerning the family purity of the stork. The heron, though it is closely related to the stork, is possessed of a different nature; it is a very unkind animal, and its name in Hebrew is therefore Anafah, “the wrathful one”; Hullin, loc. cit. The stork and the heron both belong to the family of birds that are distinguished for their keen sight, so that from Babylon they can see any object in Palestine; Hullin 63a–63b; PK 29.187b. The ostrich like the heron is also a cruel bird, which does not even care for its young; Lekah, Lev. 11.16 (it is very likely based on a reading very different from our texts of Hullin 64b). On the hyena, jackal, and bear comp. note 181. The lowest and least developed mind is attributed to the fishes; Philo, De M. Opif., 22 (it is very likely based on Plato, Timaeus, 92a), and this view is connected with the statement that the fishes did not receive any names from Adam; Tosafot on Hullin 66b; and Pa’aneah, Lev. 11 (end). Philo, however, Quaestiones, Gen. 12, makes Adam name every living thing. Descriptions of fabulous animals are found in the Hebrew version of the Alexander legend (comp. Lèvi in Steinschneider-Festschrift 145, seq.); Hadassi, Eshkol 24b–24c, and Zel ‘Olam, II, 5, seq. The following account by R. Akiba goes back to an Indian fable. R. Akiba saw once a lion, a dog, and a lizard (אנקקניתא is akin to Hebrew אנקה); the lion wanted to attack the dog, but could not carry out his plan out of fear of the lizard (read צדי), which is the protector of the lion, whereas the dog is the protector of the lizard. Tehillim 104, 445.

¹⁹¹ Shabbat 77b. The sentence “Whatever, etc.” literally agrees with that of Aristotle, De Coelo, I, 4: Ό δἐ θεὀς καἰ ἡ φύσις ούδἐν πάτην ποιοῦσιν. Many a species of animal was only created on account of a single specimen to which some special historical mission was assigned. For instance, the gnat that lives only one day was destined to cause the death of Titus (it crept through his nose into his brains); Gittin 56b; 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 24a; BR 10.7; WR 22.1; Koheleth 5.8; Koheleth Z., 104; BaR 18.22; Tan. B. IV, 98, seq.; Tan. Hukkat 1; ShR 10.1. Comp. also Ecclu. 39.28–34. The emphasis frequently laid on the statement that everything in nature has a mission to perform, so that even the bad may be applied as a means to attain the good, is directed against the view of the Persians, according to which all noxious animals are the creation of the god Ahriman. See Lactantius, Institutiones, 7.4, who like the Rabbis emphasized the usefulness of all created things.

¹⁹² ‘Erubin 100b, where the monogamous life of the dove is pointed out as a moral lesson which may be derived from nature. The statement concerning grasshoppers, storks, and frogs are found in Shebet Musar 22, 70b and 73c, as well as 31, 98a (comp. also note 190), the source or sources of which are not known. On the frog, comp. Löw in Florilegium…M. de Vogue, 398, and below, note 194. A description of the superiority of many animals over man in moral and physical respects is contained in part 15 of Ben ha-Melek. On the ant comp. DR 5.2.

¹⁹³ Tosefta Yoma 2.5 and Babli 38a, as well as ShR 17.1, where this idea, derived from the Bible (Is. 43.7 and Prov. 16.4), is fully developed. The creation is the revelation of God’s majesty and splendor in nature; comp. vol. I, p. 3, and note 2 on vol. I, p. 49.

¹⁹⁴ Perek (Pirke) Shirah. On the oldest source where this small treatise is made use of and on its history, comp. Steinschneider, Hebräische Bibliographie, XIII, 103, 106, and Zunz, Magazin, XVIII, 301–302. It is questionable whether, as Steinschneider maintains, this treatise was influenced by the fable of the contest of animals which plays an important role in the writings of the Pure Brethren. The conception that the animals and all created things chant praise to God is genuinely Jewish, and is not only poetically expressed in the Bible (Ps. 65.14, etc.), but occurs quite frequently in talmudic and midrashic literature, where the “singing” and praise of the animals and trees are spoken of; comp. Rosh ha-Shanah 8a; Hullin 54b; ‘Abodah Zarah 24b; BR 13.2; Tehillim 104, 442–443 (read אין אני עומד; the words ואיני יודע are an explanatory gloss), and 148, 538. That animals chant praise seems quite natural in legends, since they originally spoke in human language (comp. vol. I, p. 71), and after the fall of man they were still in possession of languages which many a wise man understood; Gittin 45a. Comp. also vol. IV, p. 138, seq. The language of trees was understood not only by R. Johanan b. Zaccai (Sukkah 28a; Baba Batra 184a; Soferim 16.9), but also by the Gaon R. Abraham; comp. ‘Aruk, s.v. סח 1, and the parallels cited by Kohut, as well as Toratan shel Rishonim I, 63. If we further find that in Perek Shirah inanimate objects also praise God, we have to bear in mind that Hippolytus, Haeres., 9, 25 explicitly states (comp. also 5, 2, where the same assertion is made concerning the gnostic sect of the Naasenians) that according to the Jewish view, “all things in creation are endowed with sensation, and that there is nothing inanimate”. In mystic literature the angels of animals, trees, rivers, etc., praise God; comp. Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 7–8; Tosafot on ‘Abodah Zarah 17a (bottom); Hullin 7a (bottom). Comp. notes 102, 105, 112, and Grünbaum, Gesammelte Aufsätze, 340. The Christian legend knows not only of talking animals, trees, or other inanimate objects like ships, water, pictures, etc. (comp. Günter, Christliche Legende, s.v. “Redend”; Acts of Xantippe, 30; Narrative of Zosismus II), but is also familiar with the chants of praises of all things, which are divided into twelve classes, and utter their praise in turn one hour every day. Comp. the Testament of Adam, and the literature appertaining to it, cited by Bezold, Das Arabisch-Aethiopische Testamentum Adami in Orientalische Studien, 893–912, and James, The Lost Apocrypha 2–4. 2 Enoch 2.5 is a reminiscence of Ps. 150.6, while the Testament of Abraham 3 speaks of the human language of the trees; comp. Hagigah 14b.—In connection with the praises enumerated in Perek Shirah the following is to be noted: On the earth comp. Sanhedrin 37b and 94a (“the prince of the earth”, alluded to in this passage, refers to the angel of the earth; comp. note 75); on the sea and the water comp. note 53; concerning the trees see Hagigah 14b. God’s visit paid to the pious in paradise, with which the song of the cock is to be connected, is frequently mentioned in later Midrashim, especially in the mystic literature; comp. Midrash Shir 42a; midrashic quotation in the anonymous commentary on Song of Songs, published in Steinschneider-Festschrift, Hebrew section, 55–56, where the song of praise of the trees in paradise is brought in connection with God’s visit; Seder Gan ‘Eden 132–133; Zohar I, 10b, 40b, 72a, 77a–77b, 82b, 92a, 92b, 178b, 218b; II, 46a, 57a, 173b, 175b, 196a; III, 22a, 22b, 23a, 52b, 193a; Zohar Hadash Bereshit 3, 17b. On the cock as the herald of light, and the one who admonishes man not to forget to chant praise to God, comp, the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 7, and for further details, see Grünbaum, Gesammelte Aufsätze, 77, seq., and Ginzberg in Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Cock”, and note 39. As to the song of praise of the vulture, comp. Hullin 63a. Concerning the song of the mouse, comp, note 171. On the hymn of the frog see vol. IV, pp. 101–102, and Löw Lurchnatnen 7 in Florilegium in honor of M, de Vogüe, 398. In connection with the Hebrew name of the first letter of the alphabet, God is made to say: “I open the tongue and mouth of all men אלף = אפתח לשון פה, so that they shall praise Me daily and recognize Me as King over the four corners of the earth. Were it not for the daily hymns and songs of praise, I should not have created the world.” The heavens, the earth, the rivers, the brooks, the mountains, and the hills, in brief, the entire order of creation, chant hymns to the Creator. Adam too intoned a hymn to the Lord saying, (comp, vol. I, 83–85): “It is a good thing to give thanks to the Lord, and to sing praise to His name.” With these words he referred to the songs of praise intoned by the celestials and terrestrials; Alphabet R. Akiba 12–13.