Notes: Abraham

V. ABRAHAM (pp. 183-308) ® Abot 5. 3; ARN 32 (36 of the second version). The number ten is obtained by including Noah, who, at the same time, is the tenth after Adam; comp. vol. I, 105. According to a quotation from an unknown midrashic source, mankind, up to the appearance of Abraham, was poor in good deeds; comp. Poznanski, Kommentar zu Ezechiel von Eleazar aus Beaugency, Einleitung, 228. In a passage found in an old liturgy Abraham is described as one whom God chose out of twenty generations (beginning with Adam); see Hemdah Genuzah, 161, and Warnheim, Kebuzat Hakamim, 107. 7 BR 12. 9; Tan. B. I, 11 and 62; Tehillim 104, 444. Despite the statement found in tannaitic sources that the three patriarchs were of equal rank (Mekilta, beginning; Tosefta Keritot, at the end; BR 1. 15), in the legends Abraham is regarded as the favorite, and ranks above his son and grandson; comp. the numerous statements exalting him; Yelammedenu cited in Yalkut, Joshua 15 (God had performed all the miracles for Israel on account of the merits of Abraham); Abot 6.10; EZ 9, 187 and 17, 20, as well as 25, 45-46; ShR 28. 1; Berakot 7b; Tan. Toledot 4; WR 31. 4; Shir 7. 6. At the same time, however, there are passages in which the view is expressed that Jacob was the most prominent of the patriarchs; comp. note 35 on vol. I, 317, and also Beer, Leben Abrahams, p. 87ff. 3 Ps.-Philo 4D. Serug’s mother is called Milcah in this pseudepigraphical work (comp.

Genesis 11. 26); in Jub. 11. 7 she is named Ora. 4 Already in 2 Chron. 20.7 Abraham is styled the friend of God; but in post-biblical Hebrew literature the adjective 11 not IMR® is employed; the former word is probably preferred on account of Jeremiah 11.15, "P14 m0, which is taken as an allusion to Abraham. Comp. Menahot 53b; Tosefta Berakot 7. 13 (see Tosafot on Menahot 53b and Shabbat 137b); Sifre N. 115 and D. 352; Mekilta Bo 18, 22a (Jams on7a8 in Mekilta Shirah 10, 44a, is obviously a quotation from an old liturgy; see morning prayer, Baer’s edition, 45); Ekah, 207 5-6] The Legends of the Jews Introduction, 24, 26; ER, introduction, 80, and 24, 127. This appellation occurs also in the Hellenistic and pseudepigraphic writings as well as in Christian literature; comp. Jub. 21. 15, 20; 4 Ezra 3. 14; Prayer of Azariah 12; Philo, De Abrahamo, 17; I, 401 (as a quotation from Gen. 18. 17=Targum Yerushalmi °9n7 07738); James 2.23; Clemens, Instructor, III. 2; Stromata IJ. 5; Clemens, First Epistle, 10. 1. One is therefore inclined to read in Sibyll. II. 245: Abraham the great friend of the Most High and the great Moses; comp., however, Origen, Princip., III, 2.5, where Moses is styled the friend of God; see also ARN 43, 121 (second version), where five bear the title of friend of God (77): Abraham, Israel, Benjamin, Solomon, and Jerusalem; to a similar number is applied the title “beloved of God” (o°2In8): Abraham, Jacob, Israel, Solomon, and Jerusalem.

In the Ethiopic Mota Muse, Moses bears the title of friend of God; but among the Arabs (already in the Koran 4. 124) this title is exclusively applied to Abraham; comp. Beer, Leben Abrahams, notes 427, 431, and 950; Griinbaum, Neue sBeitrdge, pp.118, 121; Malter, Monatsschrift 51, 713; Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 14—15. See also Gedulat Mosheh 3b (’”? DIN wD). 5 Jub. 11. 1-14. The beginning of the monarchy dates from Nimrod (comp. vol. I, 176-177), hence not long after the birth of Abraham. The name Serug is taken to be a contraction of 10 and 1D turned away, that is, from God. Comp. Ps. 14. 3 and 53. 4. According to ps.—Philo 4A, Serug and his sons were God-fearing, despite the wickedness of their generation. The meaning ascribed to the name Terah in Jub. is obscure, and is probably connected with the Aramic °1N was emaciated. For other explanations see Charles, Jub., ad loc., and Baer, op. cit., 95-96. 6 Baba Batra 91a, which is the source for Yashar Noah, 18a and Yerahmeel 27. 7; but the Palestinian Midrash PRE seems to be independent of the Babli passage, which does not have the statement that she died in Haran. The name is written אמתלאי, אימתלאי (the variant אימתלאי given by Rabbinowicz, Variae Lectiones to Baba Batra, loc. cit., is of no value); it is uncertain whether the first part of the name is אמא (mother) or אמתא (servant); the first explanation seems more probable. Comp.

Beer, Leben Abrahams., 96, 97: Güdemann, Religionsgeschichtliche Studien, 41-49, where additional literature is cited; Kohler, Testament of Job, 288. The explanation of this name as well as its relation to Greek Ἀμάλθεια is quite obscure; it is probably of Babylonian origin, like the name כרנבו (possibly ברנבו, i. e., Bar- 208 Abraham * [7-13 nabas, the son of Nebo; comp. 12372, Tosefta Pesahim 2.20, and Rabbinowicz, Variae Lectiones, Pes. 57a as well as Yashar, loc. cit.). Some other names are assigned to Abraham’s mother and grandfather in Jub. 11. 14. 7 For further details concerning the appearance of Abraham’s star, comp. vol.I, p.207, and note 48. On the source of the following legends see note 34. 8 The story of the slaughter of innocent children is modelled after the story of Moses, and is not influenced by the New Testament story about the birth of Jesus. 9 Pregnancy becomes outwardly noticeable after the third month; comp. Tosefta Niddah 1. 7; BR 85. 10; comp. note 88 on vol. II, p. 34. *° The same is described as oxxdip (but the manuscript reads »pdip), which seems to be Spanish. Griinbaum, Neue Bettrdge, 128, compares it with the Italian calcinaccio, that is, a hardening of the belly. 2 SCompyOlaelar peg Se *2 Tn consequence of an inaccurate translation of the Arabic word Wadi, which signifies both brook and valley, the word 17) (stream) instead of bm (valley) occurs a few times in the printed text as well as in the manuscript of this legend.

This supposition is attested by the words 7737 72 ANN MY (27, line 10), since it is impossible that a cave should be in a river. The legend speaks below of a spring whose water Abraham used; but no mention is made of a stream; comp. also 27, line 16 1727 mb nav which is hardly possible, while Smr nb would suit admirably. ™3 PRE 26 reads: When Abraham was born, Nimrod’s courtiers wanted to put him to death; so he was kept in a hiding-place beneath the ground for thirteen years, during which time he did not see the sun nor the moon. A different account of Abraham’s youth is given in Yashar; comp. vol. IJ, p. 209. Still another version of this story is found in 2 ‘A seret ha-Dibrot 2; Ma‘as.,G. 3; Ma‘aseh Abraham, Horowitz edition, 43. According to the latter sources, Abraham lived in a cave for three years. Comp. Nedarim 32a; BR 30, 8; BaR 18. 21; Shir 5. 16; PR 21, 105a; Tan. Lek 3 and Behar 1; Tan. B. IJ, 60; III, 105; Esther R 2.5. In almost all of these passages two views are given, one that Abraham had recognized his Creator at the age of three, the other that this took place in Abraham’s fortyeighth year (Maimonides, Yad, ‘Abodah Zarah, 1. 3, seems to have read “forty”, which is perhaps based on Pirke Abot 5, at the end). 209 14-17] The Legends of the Jews A statement in Rokeah (Hasidut, Zakuyyot ‘Arum), which is apparently derived from an unknown version of the Sefer Yezirah, maintains that Abraham, at the age of forty-eight, was moved by the deeds of the generation of the Tower of Babel to reflect on God and the universe.

He first studied three years by himself, afterwards, by the command of God, he was taught by Shem, until he became so wise that he composed the Sefer Yezirah. Then God appeared unto him, took him unto Himself, kissed him, called him His friend, and made a covenant with him and his descendants forever. A similar statement is quoted by Judah b. Barzillai (in his commentary on the Sefer Yezirah, 268) from an old text of the Sefer Yezirah. *4 In the Abraham legend in BHM II, 118, we read that two spouts (read mnbo instead of mnbn) sprang up, one flowing with honey, the other with milk. *S Comp. above, note 12. Other heroes, too, like Abraham, are supposed to have been able to walk, talk, and think in their infancy. See Index under ‘‘Cain”’, “‘Noah’’, and ‘‘Moses”. Such ‘‘ wonder children” are also known in the Christian legends, and unusual precocity is ascribed to Jesus and others; comp. Giinter, Christliche Legende, 134 seq. ' *6 That Abraham discovered the true faith by meditating on nature we are told in so early a source as the Apocalypse of Abraham (comp. vol. I, pp. 212-213), and about six versions of this legend are extant. Comp. BR 38. 13; 2 ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 2; Ma‘aseh Abraham (Hor. edition, 43-44); Ma‘aseh Abraham (BHM II, 118); Yashar Noah, 20a—20b; Ma‘as. G. 3, 4; MHGI, 189. The oldest form seems to be that of BR, where we are told that Abraham, by observing how one element subdues another, becomes convinced of the error of worshipping the elements.

But even this form is not the original one, as can be seen by comparing it with the statement of R. Judah (about 150 C.E.) in Baba Batra 10a, and Koheleth 7.26. Benfey, Pantschatantra I, 376, 377, attempts to trace this legend to a kindred Indian fable. This is, however, not likely, as the Jewish sources recording this legend are extremely old. Recognitiones, 7, as well as Aristides, 3-6, seems to have known it, and it is quite probable that Josephus (Antiqui. I, 7. 1) gives a rationalistic interpretation of it. *7 Comp. above, note 15, and Ginzberg in Jewish Encyclopedia, II, 608A. 210 Abraham {18-27 *8 Fabulous numbers of a similar character are also found elsewhere; comp. vol. IV, p. 267. *9 The verb fon is here used, as sometimes in biblical Hebrew, in the sense of ‘‘being horror-struck”, whereas in mishnic Hebrew it denotes ‘‘was astonished, marvelled.” 2° No mention is made in this legend of the place where Abraham and Nimrod were until now; comp. Eupolemus in Eusebius, Praep. Evang., YX. 17,418d, who gives ‘‘Camarinu, a city also known as Uria’’ as Abraham's birthplace. Uria is the biblical Ur, which the Talmud (Baba Batra 91a) identifies with a Babylonian locality in talmudic times (the text of that passage is in a bad condition; but SM5 is very likely the name borne by that place; see Rabbinowicz, Variae Lectiones); this name is likewise found in Arabic sources, Istahri M., 54; Maras II, 519.

According to the Talmud, Abraham was kept prisoner by Nimrod for ten years, first in NMD and then in 1779p or 1995; Beer, Leben Abrahams, notes 5 and 108. 2% For a similar legend, comp. vol. IV, p. 348. 22 As may be seen from p. 28,1.2 from below, where the gates of Babylon are spoken of, the reference is to the city, not the land of Babylon; 72D instead of Vy is very frequently found in works which were influenced by Arabic; this use of 73°70 is also found in the Bible; comp. Ginzberg, Geonica, I, p. 26. 73 Despite the agreement of the manuscripts with the printed text, the reading "oxy for ]DxY (p. 29, |. 2. from below) is presupposed here; the latter can hardly be correct. 24 That idols fall to the ground at the command of the righteous is frequently recorded in Jewish as well as in Christian legends; comp. ps.—Matthew 23; Gospel of the Saviour’s Infancy 10; vol. IV, p. 165. 25 For Abraham’s native town, comp. above, note 20. 26 The episode relating to the age of the idols as compared to that of the purchaser is excerpted from ER 5. 27 (it was taken over verbatim in Yerahmeel, 71-72; Zohar I, 77; this was overlooked by Gaster, ad loc.) and in the text it is interwoven in the account of Ma‘aseh Abraham; other versions of this episode occur in BR 38. 13; Ma‘as. G. 3; MHG I, 188; EZ 25, 47-48. Comp. also vol. I, p. 210 and Philo, De Decalogo, 14. 192. 27 J read 13°y sDD (p. 32, line 4) instead if ry av.

According to Baba Kama 8. 1, the correct reading of this passage is: 1 NX yup 211 28-34] The Legends of the Jews yYy ROD yb. 12¥. The printed text as well as the manuscript, which offers some variants, is corrupt, as pb is repeated. 28 The imprisonment of Abraham is already mentioned in the Talmud (comp. above, note 20) and PRE 25; according to these sources the imprisonment lasted ten years. 29 Christian legends, too, frequently tell of angels bringing food and drink to needy saints; comp. Protevangelium of James 8.1. Despite the manuscript, bn instead of 17) (p. 32, 1. 22) is to be read, as may be seen from the word m2 which follows. 3° There is a similar incident in the Moses legend; comp. vol. Lip ae2o2. 3% According to the manuscript, 722n xb is to be read instead of MDD 18 of the printed edition (p. 34, line 16). 32 The text is somewhat obscure. Abraham, fastened to the catapult, prays to God, and the angels intercede in his behalf; then follows the scene in which Abraham's mother takes part; and then come the words: ‘‘And when it came to pass, that they threw him into the catapult”. Own? should probably be read instead of Ww. The entire passage would then become quite clear. 33 Literally: May cooling and comfort, be granted to My servant Abraham; this is a literal translation of Koran 21. 69, as has already been observed by Griinbaum, Neue Beiirdge, 129.

In the old sources (Pesahim, 118a; BR 44. 13; ShR 8. 5; DR 2. 29; Shir 1. 12; Tan. B. II, 100=Introduction 144; Tan. Tezawweh 12; Tehillim 119. 48) it is stated that Gabriel (according to some, Michael) hastened to come to Abraham’s assistance, but God checked the angel, and He Himself delivered Abraham. But according to one view given in BR it was Michael who delivered Abraham. In Ma‘aseh Abraham (Horowitz’s edition) the latter part of the text is corrupt, as two conflicting versions of Abraham’s deliverance are given. The text may be emended in accordance with 2 ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 2, by adding the sentence which fell out through homoioteleuton. 34 Ma‘aseh Abraham, published by Jellinek in BHM, I, 25-34; this edition, which is rather inaccurate, is taken from Shebet Musar of Elijah ha-Kohen who used a Constantinople edition of this Midrash; comp. Porges, Zeitschrift ftir hebrdische Bibliographie, X ,159, and Ginzberg, ibid., IX, p. 125.'“I cannot state with certainty whether the MS. of this Midrash, found in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (No. 33 Steinschneider), goes back to the Constantinople edition or not, as only Elijah ha-Kchen’s ed212 Abraham y [35-36 ition is accessible to me. The MS. teéxt differs from that given in Shebet Musar, but is not always superior to it. As was already remarked by Jellinek, op. cit., Einleitung, 16, and Griinbaum, Neue Bettrdge, 130, seg.,this Midrash is a translation from the Arabic.

This supposition may be proved by the phrase 719 DN (= byxpbs bp) which is of frequent occurrence, and many other Arabisms. The author of the original, however, was a Jew, and not a Mohammedan, since parallels from rabbinic literature might be given to a great part of this booklet. Some of these parallels have already been pointed out in the preceding notes (see, e. g., note 9). It may be further observed that the scene in the furnace is most likely a reminiscence of the Haggadah concerning the three youths in the furnace; comp. vol. IV, pp. 328-330, and the notes referring to them. Attention is drawn to the following details: The light at the birth of Abraham (p. 188) has its parallel in the birth of Moses and other heroes (comp. vol. II, p. 262). Gabriel appears to Abraham to show him a well of water which he needed for an ablution before praying; this is genuinely Jewish and not Mohammedan, as has been maintained by many; comp. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 112. The appearance of Satan in human form (pp. 192 and 200) is frequently met with in Jewish legends; comp. note 226. The dark cloud, which separated Abraham from his enemies (p. 192), naturally goes back to Exodus 14. 19; comp. also vol. I, p. 420. The description of God as ‘‘He who sees but cannot be seen”’ (p. 199), though found in the Koran (6.100), is of frequent occurrence in rabbinic literature; comp:, e. g., Yerushalmi Peah 21b (towards the end); Hagigah 5b; Targum Yerushalmi, Gen.

4. 2; 2 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 22. 14; Sibyll., Prooemium 8, and 4. 12. Recently an Arabic text closely related to that of the Ma‘aseh Abraham has been published in R.E.J., LXIX, 86 seqg—LXX, 36, seg., by Shapira who claims Kob al-Ahbar as the author of this Abraham legend. 35 The building of the tower, a veritable rebellion against God (comp. vol.I, p.179), took place ten years after the death of Noah; comp. Seder ‘Olam I. 36 This is a midrashic explanation of Gen. 10. 11; comp. BR 37. 4; ER 20, 114; EZ 24, 45. Targum Yerushalmi, Gen., Joc. cit., takes 1s to refer to Assyria, and accordingly maintains that Nimrod emigrated to Assyria, because he did not want to participate in the building of the tower; God rewarded him for this pious act. In view of the fact that Targum Yerushalmi, in a preceding verse, des213 37-40] The Legends of the Jews cribed Nimrod as a very wicked man, the sentence mmn...*ya xd is very likely to be regarded as a later insertion, based on the above mentioned Midrashim, and refers not to Nimrod but to Asshur. Comp., however, Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 1, 88-89, as well as Targum Yerushalmi, ad loc. (WN=nN7)NN Asshur!), and PR 34, 156a. Comp. note 77 on vol. I, p. 177. 37 Comp. vol. I, p. 200, and note 34. 38 Tscah (Gen. 11. 29) is taken as another name for Sarah, who was so called on account of her prophetic gift (from n3¥=n20 to look); comp.

Josephus, Antiqui. I, 6. 5.; Sanhedrin 69a; Megillah 14a; Seder ‘Olam 21; Jerome, Quaestiones, ad loc.; Ephraim I, 59E. 39 Tehillim 118, 484; Hallel 107. The text of the first-named source is very corrupt (Buber misunderstood it entirely); nor is the second quite correct. A good text of Tehillim is found in Sikli’s Talmud Torah; comp. Hazofeh III, 18, and Ginzberg, zbid., IV, 32. Comp. also Yalkut I, 77, where the correct reading is found at the beginning and at the end of the quotations from Tehillim: twice ina bata by. According to these sources, Haran was the younger brother of Abraham, and this is in agreement with the prevalent view of the Haggadah (comp. Seder ‘Olam II; BR 38. 14; Sanhedrin 69b), which maintains that Abraham was one year older than Nahor, who was one year older than Haran; the latter, at the age of eight, begot Sarah. Yashar Noah, 17a and 18a, regards Nahor and Haran as twin-brothers who were much older than Abraham. BaR 4. 8 seems to agree with the latter view. The death of Haran, as a punishment for his vacillation, is already mentioned in BR 38. 13. 4° Recognitiones, 1, 31 (a Midrash on Gen. 11. 28) gives the explanation that Haran’s death was a punishment for an ‘‘incestuous crime”. This legend makes Haran suffer for the crime of his son Lot, or presupposes that the latter only followed in the footsteps of his father. The Midrashim (MHG I, 191; Ma‘as. G.

5; Yelammedenu, according to the extract published by Ginzberg in Hazofeh, IV, 32, from Sikli’s Talmud Torah; Zohar I, 77b; Lekah Gen. Joc. cit.) explain Haran’s premature death (Abel was killed by his brother, and his death cannot be regarded as a precedent to that of Haran who died by the hand of God) in different ways. He was punished for not being steadfast in his religion; comp. the preceding note; Yashar Noah, 25b; Targum Yerushalmi Gen., loc cit. People believed that Abraham was delivered from the fire by means of Haran’s witch-craft—or on account of the latter’s piety—and his premature death 214 Abraham ; [41-45 proved that they were wrong; comp. Yelammedenu, Joc. cit.; Zohar, loc. cit.; Targum Yerushalmi, Joc. cit. Haran attempted to extinguish the flames into which Abraham was cast, and thereby lost his life; comp. Lekah Gen. Joc. cit. Jub. 12. 12 narrates that Abraham burned all the idols of his father; when Haran attempted to rescue them, he was himself consumed by the flames; comp. also Ephraim, I, 156D157A, who very likely borrowed this legend from Jub. According to the Apocalypse of Abraham 8, Terah and his entire household were burned by a fire which came down from heaven as a punishment for their idolatry, which they did not renounce in spite of Abraham’s exhortations to mend their ways. Yerahmeel 35. 1 reads: The Chaldeans came to immerse both Haran and Abraham in fire, for it was their custom to immerse their children in fire, as some mothers immerse their babies in water.

Gaster refers to Comestor, Gen. 41, who has the same statement. Comp. also ps.—Philo 5A, where it is said that shortly before Abraham’s birth mothers began to throw their children into the fire. Jerome, Quaestiones, 11. 28, says: Haran was burned because he refused to worship fire which the Chaldeans regarded as their god; Abraham, however, was saved by God. BarHebraeus’ statement concerning Haran (Historia Dynastiarum, 13) is directly borrowed from Ephraim, loc. cit., which goes back to Jub., loc. cit., and Charles on Jub. is to be corrected accordingly. Comp. note 76 on vol. I, p. 176. 41Yashar Noah, 27a. Ogi—so in editio princeps, but in later editions it was corrupted to ’NY—is no-one else but Og, who, already in old sources, is identified with Eliezer, while Yashar considers Ogi and Eliezer as companions. Comp. Index, s. v. “Og”’ and vol. III, p. 344. 4? BR 40. 14; PR 43, 181a; Tan. Lek 12; Shir 1. 3; ARN 12, 53, and second version 26, 54; Onkelos and the Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 15. 5; Sifre D. 32; Midrash Tannaim 25; BaR. 14. 11. 43 Tan. Shemot, at the beginning. 44 See the references given in note 38, to which is to be added Shu‘aib, Hayye Sarah, 10d, who quotes an unknown midrashic source: Sarah who is also called Iscah, on account of her prophetic gift, foresaw Israel’s history, and prayed to God to assist them in their tribulations. 45 Yashar Noah, 27b-28a. Anoko (pis) is very likely identical with the poet-philosopher wp’, mentioned in Musare ha-Pilosofim (Loewenthal’s edition 3, 4); the latter is none other than Ib215 46-48] The Legends of the Jews icus (2 was misread as }) who is famous in Greek legends.

The comparatively favorable opinion of Terah agrees with ER 5. 27, 28, where it is related that Terah left his native country in the north because its inhabitants were idolatrous; comp. note 47. This view is also found in Augustine’s Civit. Dei, 17. 13; but a different opinion prevails in rabbinic sources. Comp. notes 50, 54 and end of 119. On Abraham’s missionary activity, comp. the references given in notes 42 and 61, as well as Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 296, on Jer. 17, and Zohar I, 79a. On the identity of Nimrod with Amraphel and on his death by the hand of Esau, alluded to in this legend, see note 85, as well as vol. I, pp. 229, 318, 319, and the notes referring to them. 46 ER 5. 28. On the coins struck by Abraham, comp. Baba Kamma 97b and BR 12. 11. In the latter passage mention is also made of the coins struck by Joshua (a steer on the obverse and an antelope on the reverse), by David (a shepherd’s crook, a bag, and a tower), and by Mordecai (a sack, ashes, and a golden crown). On Abraham as king, see Josephus, Antiqui. I, 7. 2, who quotes Nicolaus of Damascus to the effect that Abraham was king of Damascus, in the neighborhood of which there is a place called ‘‘The Habitation of Abraham.” Comp. also BR 55. 1; BaR 15. 4; DR 3. 33; Tan. B. IV, 52; Tan. Beha‘aloteka 9; Kohelet 2. 14. Philo, De Nobilit. 5, says: Abraham is designated as king (Genesis 23. 6), not because of the external circumstances, for he was really a private individual, but on account of the greatness of his soul, as he was possessed of a kingly mind.

The Rabbis similarly remark that scholars are called kings; comp. Gittin 62a. See vol. J, p. 232, where it is related that Abraham declined the royal throne offered to him by the nations. 47 Comp. note 114. MHG I, 188, adds that Terah decided to go to Palestine before God had instructed Abraham to do so; comp. note 45. 48 Yashar Noah, 18a-19a; Ma‘aseh Abraham, ed. Horowitz, 43; Ma'‘aseh Abraham in BHM, II, 18; 2 ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot, 2; Ma'‘as. G. 2, 3; MHG I, 188; see also the references given in note 13. The proverbial phrase of p. 208, line 9, is already found in Sifre N., 95. Yashar and 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 22b recast the form of this phrase, and this rather shows the poor taste of these writings. Baraita di-Masseket Niddah 23 reads: In olden times children were brought up by their grandparents. When Abraham was four years old, his father Terah entrusted him to the care of Nahor, who attempted to teach him to worship idols; but in vain, for Abraham was 216 Abraham ; [49 destined to devote himself to the service of God. Comp. Jub. 15. 8, where the wickedness of Abraham’s grandfather is spoken of; comp. also note 5. 49 Apocalypse of Abraham 1-7. On the text comp. Ginzberg, in Jewish Encyclopedia, 1, 91, seg. On Marumath (9970) =np MN), see ZDMG 66, 590; Zucheus is very likely to be derived from m was magnificent, SMI splendid, magnificent (Syriac). Similarly Joauv (variants: Joavon, Juav, and Jav; comp.

Bonwetsch, ad loc.) is connected with Hebrew °5° deauty, and has nothing to do with Gnostic Jao (= iv; comp. Irenaeus, Haer. I, 30; 4. 5). In Sefer ha-Tappuah the name of the idol that was chiseled by Terah was D’3N’, which is described as the moon god (Juno?), to whom children were sacrificed. On the last point comp. note 40. Instead of ‘‘was rooted in the earth” (p. 212, line 12) the text reads: ‘‘was uprooted from the earth’’, which gives no satisfactory sense, and is very likely due to a faulty translation of the Hebrew wnw which signifies both rooted and uprooted. The description which the Apocalypse gives of Abraham’s discovery of God’s existence and of his making the belief in idols appear ridiculous is very closely related to the midrashic legends dealing with the same incident (comp. vol. I, p. 189, seg., and the notes referring to them, especially note 16) and in Jub. 11. 16-12. 21. In the lastmentioned source we are told that Abraham, while yet a child (see above, note 13), became convinced of the wickedness of idolatry, and in order not to be forced to worship idols, he left his father at the early age (comp. PRE 26) of fourteen. It was then that, at Abraham’s command, the ravens (comp. vol. I, p. 186; this is only found in Jub. and in Ephraim; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv. 97, 98) ceased to despoil the earth. He also invented an instrument, by which the seeds were made safe against the ravens.

After that he began to preach to his father and brothers about the wickedness of idolatry. Terah admitted that Abraham’s arguments were sound, but at the same time admonished him to keep quiet, in order not to arouse the hostility of the people against himself. His brothers, however, became enraged against Abraham on account of his free speech. And in the night when Abraham threw his father’s idols into the fire, Haran his brother (comp. note 40) attempted to rescue them, and thus lost his life. Whereupon Terah left the land of the Chaldeans, to settle in Palestine (comp. note 47), and on his way he stopped for some time in Haran. It is noteworthy that in all the sources (comp. the references given in notes 16 and 108) stress is laid upon the fact 217 : 50-53] The Legends of the Jews that Abraham came to know God through his own reasoning about the universe and its ruler who must necessarily exist. BaR 14. 2 (comp. also PR 33, 150) enumerates three men who acquired the knowledge of God “by themselves”. They are: Abraham, Job, Hezekiah, and the fourth will be the Messiah. This Haggadah probably wishes to call attention to the fact that although these pious men lived during a godless age, they did not succumb to the influence of their surroundings. Bonwetsch, Apocalypse Abrahams, 49-53, Charles, in his notes on Jub., loc. cit., and Ginzberg, Haggada bet den Kirchenv., 95-98, give many references to Christian sources where Abraham legends of Jewish origin are made use of.

On Mohammedan parallels to these legends, see Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, 90 seq. 5° Yashar Noah, 23b-26b. The incident concerning the biggest idol with the hatchet in its hand (p. 215) is very frequently referred to in the Midrashim; comp. BR 38. 13, and the numerous parallels given by Theodor, ad. loc.; EZ 25. 47-48. Absaham, who, as a vendor of idols, nearly ruined his father’s business (comp. vol. I, pp. 195-196) was made a priest by Terah. When, however, the idols refused to partake of the food offered to them, Abraham broke them in pieces, which he. burned. Brought before Nimrod, Abraham asked him to change the course of the sun as a proof of his divinity, and this request not having been granted, he declared him an impostor. Nimrod ordered Terah to pronounce sentence upon Abraham, and death by fire was the verdict. In this legend Abraham is represented as a breaker of idols not as an iconoclast, while in the later legend he is both and this is an attempt to combine two different Abraham legends. On Terah comp. notes 45, 47, 54, and end of 114. comp. also note 76 on vol. I, p. 76. 5° Yashar Noah, 27a. The continuation of this narrative is given in the first two paragraphs of vol. I, p. 203. 5? Pirke Abot 5. 2; Jub. 19. 8. Opinions differ as to the events in Abraham’s life which are to be considered as the temptations; comp. PRE 26; ARN 34, 94-95 (second version, 37, 94; here the Nimrod legend is disregarded!); Tehillim 18, 153, and 95, 420; for full details see Schechter’s notes on ARN, loc.

cit.; comp. further Ecclesiasticus 44.20. I Maccabees 1. 52 is very likely dependent upon the last-named source. In 12 Testaments, Joseph 1.7, it was Joseph who was tempted with ten temptations. 53 MHG I, 201-202, partly after BR 39. 7; Philo, De Abrahamo, 218 Abraham ; [54-60 14, also dwells on the great sacrifice made by Abraham in leaving his native country at the command of God. 54 BR 39. 7 and 11. The opinion prevailing in rabbinic sources is that Gen. 12, seg., refers to Abraham’s emigration from Haran where he left his father. It is true that according to the Bible (Gen. 11.23), Terah died prior to Abraham’s departure; but this statement of Scripture is taken figuratively, for the wicked are regarded as dead, even while they are yet alive; comp. BR, loc.cit., and the parallels given by Theodor. See also Tan. B., II, 69; Tan. Yitro 1; MHG I, 527; Midrash Tannaim, 101; Mekilta RS, 127; note 72 on vol. I, 76. Acts 7.5 understands Scripture to speak of Abraham’s emigration from the land of the Chaldeans, and this view is shared by Ibn Ezra, ad loc; comp. note 114. Jub. 12.16 agrees with the rabbinic view, but remarks that Terah remained in Haran until Abraham had found a desirable residence in Palestine. Syncellus 1, 176, 18, seg., accepts the rabbinic view in all its details. 55 BR 39. 11; MHG I, 202-203; Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 12. 2, seg., is dependent on BR, loc.

cit. Comp. also Theodor, ad Joc. Philo, De Somniis, 28, says: The wise and virtuous is not only a blessing to himself, but is also beneficial to all men, etc. Comp. also Philo, De Migratione Abrahami, 19. 5° Pesahim 117b; BR 39. 11; Tan. B. I, 62; Tan. Lek 4; BaR 1i. 2. The legend refers to the fact that the first benediction of the ‘Amidah concludes with the words: ‘‘Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the Shield of Abraham.” 57 MHG, I, p. 204, excerpted, perhaps, form Yelammedenu; comp. Sabba, Wayyera, 32a. Against the Christological interpretation of Gen. 12. 3 (see Galatians 3. 8) comp. the explanation of 73 in BR 39. 12 and MHG, I,203. Shu‘aib, Lek, 6b, quotes from an unknown Midrash a lengthy explanation of Gen. 12. 2. 3, according to which Abraham received three crowns; the crown of the Torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of kingdom (comp. Pirke Abot 4. 17, and parallel passages). Israel inherited them later from him. 58 BR 39. 10; comp. note 230. 59 MHG, I, 202. Ziyyoni, Gen. 12. 7, on the other hand, maintains that God revealed Himself unto Abraham in the Holy Land fer the first time; comp. Mekilta at the beginning; Mo‘ed Katan 25a, Itdex s. v., ‘‘Revelation’’. 60 BR 39. 8. In the extract from Yelammedenu published by Gitzberg in Hazofeh, IV, p. 33, it is stated that the inhabitants of Haran 219 1-68] The Legends of the Jews were very wicked, despite Abraham's preaching and exhortations; whereupon God commanded him to depart from the sinners and go to Palestine.

6x BR 39. 15, 16; Sanhedrin 44b; MHG I, 213. On the missionary activity of Abraham, comp. above, notes 42 and 43. To the references given in those two notes the following are to be added: Zohar III, 168a; II, 147b and 198a; ARN 33, 94. Abraham is contrasted with David: The former was first for love and then for justice, while the latter was the reverse. 62 Jub. 10. 29-34. Midrash Aggada I, 27, and Rashi on Gen. 11. 6 quote a similar statement from a midrashic source; comp. note 73 on vol. I, p. 173. 63 BR 41. 5; comp. note 228. 64 BR 25. 3 and 40. 3; Ruth R. 1. 1; Shemuel 28; Targum Ruth 1. 1. In all these sources, except in the first-named, it is stated that the second famine occurred in the time of Lemech (the father of Noah; comp. vol. I, pp. 146, 147, and the notes referring to them), while in BR it is at first assumed that the second famine took place in Abraham’s time (OMA °9'2'3 is the reading in MS w!), and then a dissenting opinion is cited, according to which: 'R 305 Ppzslmass ‘938 °p’a. The commentators, whom Theodor follows, take the first passage to mean that two famines took place in Abraham’s days. This interpretation is, however, unlikely. Probably ‘a stands for °3™ and accordingly the second statement is an explanation of the first. PRE 26 maintains that the very first famine occurred in the time of Abraham; comp. also Tan. Lek 5. 65 PRE 26; BR 40. 2; MHG I, 207; comp.

Schechter’s notes on the last-named source. 66 Josephus, Antiqui. I, 8. 1, and Zohar I, 81b. In the latter passage Abraham is blamed for travelling to Egypt, and Israel’s servitude in that country is said to be a punishment for that sin. Nahmanides on Gen. 12. 10 is of the opinion that Abraham’s sin consisted in his lack of trust in God; for, out of fear of the inhabitants he did not acknowledge Sarah as his wife. In Baba Kamma 60b Abraham is praised for his going to Egypt, and on the strength of this actior of his the rule is given: When a famine is in a city, move quickly away therefrom. °7 Tan. Lek 5; Yashar Lek, 3la: “Fohae th 81b; comp. also Baa Batra 16a; Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 12. 11. 68 Tan. Lek, 5; BR 40. 5; Tan. B I, 65-66; Zohar I, 82b; Yasar, 220 Abraham + [69-77 Lek 31b. The sensuality of the Egyptians is frequently referred to in Jewish literature; comp. Sifra Kedoshim (end); Yerushalmi Sotah I (p. 17a); WR 23.7 and 25. 7; Zohar I, 117a. On Sarah's beauty and its relation to that of Eve, see vol. I, p. 60. and the note appertaning thereto, as well as note 78. 69 BR 40. 15; Tan. B. I, 66; Tan. Lek 5S. 7° Josephus, Antiqut, I, 8. 1. 7* Yashar Lek, 31b. i2-tangelvels Sani. 1.66: 73 Yashar Lek, 32a. Philo, De Abrahamo, 19, likewise mentions that Sarah prayed to God to save her from Pharaoh; the old Midrashim, too, refer to this incident; comp. BR 41.

2; Tan. B I, 66; Tan. Lek, 5. On Philo’s remark that Sarah was the most beautiful of her sex, comp. above, note 68. 74 PRE 26; Yashar Lek, 32a, 32b; BR 45. 1; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 26.1. Ephraim I, 65, says that Hagar was given to Abraham by Pharaoh; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada by den Kirchenv., 108; Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, 102, refers to similar statements concerning Hagar in Mohammedan writings. The expression 7nNw 2010 (BR) is also found in Sanhedrin 99b with reference to Timna. On Goshen comp. vol. II, pp. 122, 123, and note 325 referring to them, as well as MHGI, 208. 75 BR 40. 2 and 52. 13; Tan. B. I, 66-67; Tan. Lek, 5; Zohar I, 82a. Pharaoh deserved his punishment’ because, though he was informed by Sarah of the true facts, he did not keep back from his sinful intentions; BR, Joc. cit. MUHG I, 207, on the other hand, maintains that the Egyptians would rather commit murder than adultery. Philo, De Abrahamo, 19, remarks that the Egyptians were punished for not having protested against Pharaoh’s actions. Comp. below note 290 on vol. I, p. 403. 76 PRE 26. In Zohar I, 82a, and III, 52, many more parallels are pointed out between Pharaoh’s punishment and that of the Egyptians ‘‘in the night of redemption.’’ The view that many important events in the history of the patriarchs and that of Israel took place during the first night of Passover is very old (comp. Index, s. v. “Nisan, Fifteenth of’’) and is a favorite topic with the paitanim; comp.

e. g. Yannai’s (about 600) piyyut 0°D) 217 I8 in the liturgy of the Great Sabbath in the Ashkenazic Mahzor. Comp. also ShR 18. 12 and BaR 20. 12. Comp. note 170. 77 Josephus, Antigqui, I, 8. 1. Similar statements in the writ221 78-81] The Legends of the Jews ings of the Church Fathers are either directly derived from Josephus or are based on oral communications made to them by Jews; comp. Jerome and Theodoretus, Gen. 12. 17, as well as Ginzberg, Haggada bet den Kirchenv., 100. 78 Seder ‘Olam I; Jub. 13. 11. The duration of Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt is given as five years; but Artapanus (Eusebius, Praep. Evang., 9. 18, 420b), states that Abraham stayed twenty years in that country. 79 BR 41. 3; ‘Arakin 16b. This explanation of yyoo> accords with Septuagint and Vulgate, though Jerome on Gen. 13. 3 rejects it. See Ginzberg, Haggada bet den Kirchenv., 101. 80 Josephus, Antiqui., I, 8. 2; Artapanus (see above, note 78). The Kabbalists, on the contrary, maintain that Abraham learned witchcraft from the Egyptians, as ‘“‘one appreciates the benefit of light after having been in darkness”. See ‘Emek ha-Melek, 135c; Maggid, Lek 7b, and comp. note 313. In ‘Abodah Zarah 14b it is stated, on the authority of an old tradition, that Abraham composed a book on the laws concerning idolatry containing four hundred chapters, while the Mishnah tractate dealing with the same subject consists only of five chapters.

Sotah 46b reads: Pharaoh accompanied Abraham four steps (comp. the same phrase in Sanhedrin 96a) and for this kind act the Egyptians were the masters of Israel for four hundred years. PK 7, 65b contains a view concerning Pharaoh’s relation to Sarah which differs from the one expressed in the legend given in our text. According to that source, when Sarah arrived in Egypt, she was impressed into service as a handmaid, and was made to work like ‘‘a donkey in a mill’. Buber attempted to emend the text of this Midrash, but there is absolutely no need for corrections. The expression 127) orm > corresponds exactly to the English expression ‘“‘like a horse in a mill”, except that in Hebrew the donkey takes the place of the horse. Comp. also PR 17, 80c. 81 Yashar Lek, 29b-31a, which was incorporated in BHM VI, 121-123. A slightly different version of this legend was published from a MS. (R. Joseph Kimhi’s commentary on the Pentateuch is given as its source) by Berliner (Hoffmann— Festschrift, 283-285), who was evidently unaware that he was dealing with a well-known legend. Kaufmann, R.E.J., XVI, 144-146, ‘and Lévi, ibid., XVIII, 130-131, called attention to the fact that al-Biruni (Sachau’s edition, p. 280) has the same story, except that Haman takes the place of Rakyon, and in all likelihood this legend is of Arabic origin. Beer, Leven Abra222 Abraham, [82-85 hams, note 223, connects Rakyon with’ Naracho, the name ascribed to this Pharaoh by Malala, Chronologia, 71; but this identification seems rather far-fetched.

On other names supposed to have been borne by this Pharaoh, comp. Beer, Joc. cit. See further Theophilus 2. 31, who, in agreement with Yashar, maintains that this ruler of Egypt was the first to assume the title of Pharaoh. Comp. also note 430 on vol. II, p. 169. 82 BR 41, 5-16; PR 3, 9b-10a; Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 13. 7; Yashar Lek, 32b. The claim of the Canaanites to Palestine is here recognized as legitimate; see a different view in vol. I, p. 220, and comp. also p. 173. Shu‘aib Lek, 7a, quotes the following passage from Yerushalmi (not found in our edition): ‘Strangers profit when brothers quarrel’; the quarrel between Abraham and Lot (not only between their servants alone; comp. loc. cit.) caused the Holy Land to remain in the possession of strangers. Comp.alsoAstruc, Midreshe haTorah 15, who used a similar source to that of Shu‘aib. On Lot comp. note 171; on the comparison of Israel to sand see BaR 2.13. The four kingdoms, ¢. e., Assyria-Babylon, Media-Persia, Macedonia-Greece, Rome, are very often spoken of by the Rabbis; comp. the very instructive study by Senior Sachs, Shire ha-Shirim, 70, seg., and Epstein, Mi-Kadmoniyyot, 31-35. Later the fourth kingdom was a designation of Edom and Ishmael, 7. e., Christianity and Islam; comp. Tehillim 6. 59. The four diasporas among the eight kingdoms are: 1) Babylon-Chaldea, 2) Media-Persia, 3) Macedonia-Greece, 4) Edom (=Rome) and Ishmael (=Arabia).

Differently in Mekilta RS 118 (not tannaitic); BR 85. 8 (six kingdoms); Hallel 101; Midrash Aggada I, 20 and 155; Hadar 37a, where six, seven, and eight kingdoms are referred to. 83 Zohar I, 108a; very likely dependent on an earlier source. 84 MHG I, 215-216; very likely the same source made use of in Zohar I, 86, but not identical with BR 41. 3, where it is said that the war against Abraham was in truth a war against God. Comp. PR, 196b; Kallah 3, 7a, and Beer, Leben Abrahams, note 251. 85 Yashar Noah, 29a, and Lek, 33a. The identification of Amraphael with Nimrod is already found in old sources; comp. ‘Erubin 53a; BR 41. 1; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 14. 1; Tan. Lek 6; PR 33, 15ia. These passages give several etymologies of the name Amraphel. On Amraphel = Nimrod, see also note 82 on vol. I, p. 178. Augustine, Civit. Dei, 16. 17, identifies Amraphel with Ninus who is supposed to have been the grandson of Nimrod; comp. Yerahmeel 32. 3 and Gaster, ad loc. 223 86-95] The Legends of the Jews 86 Bahya Gen. 14. 5, whose remarks are based on lost midrashic sources. On the meaning of the proper names occurring in Gen. 14, and the attempt of Jewish and Christian authors to identify them, see BR 41. 6; Kallah 3. 7a; Beer, Leben Abrahams, 248; Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 101-103. 87 BR 41. 5-7; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 14. 2, seg.; Jerome, Quaestiones, 14. 2-7. 88 MHG I, 216; Zohar I, 86b; comp.

note 84. The statement in Zohar that Lot looked like Abraham is very likely based on BR 14. 6. 89 BR. 41. 7-8; DR. 1. 25; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 14.13. 9° PRE 27, where it is also stated that ‘‘the escaped” in Ezekiel 33. 21 likewise refers to the archangel Michael. Another legend identifies ‘‘the escaped’’, who brought Abraham the report about Lot’s capture, with Og. Comp. vol. III, p. 343. On the designation of Abraham as “‘the Hebrew’’, comp. BR 41.8; Lekah 2, 144; comp. also note 31 on vol. I, p. 181. = 9% Tan. B. I, 72; Tan. Lek 13; Aggadat Bereshit 13. 28. Josephus, Antiqut., I, 10. 1, says: Abraham undertook the war on account of his friendship with his neighbors, the inhabitants of Sodom, and in behalf of Lot. Comp. Zohar I, 112b. 9? Nedarim 32a and BR 42. 2—two originally different explanations of yan (Gen. 14. 14). PRE 27 says: His three disciples (=Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre). 93 Tan. B I, 73; Tan. Lek 13; Aggadat Bereshit 13. 29; BR 42. 2; Nedarim 32a; Yelammedenu in supplement to Yalkut (=BHM VI, 79); PK 8, 70a (below); PR 18, 91b; WR 28.4; BaR 18. 21; PRE 27; Targum Yerushalmi. Gen. 14. 14; Tehillim 110, 466; ER 5. 28. Philo, De Abrahamo, 39, speaks of the three hundred warriors, all of whom were born in the house of Abraham (he had no other servants than these) and with whom, despite their small number, he undertook the compaign, trusting that God would help him. Following the method of the Jewish legend which, on the basis of the numerical value of the name Eliezer (a1y>x =318), identifies the three hundred and eighteen with this pious servant of Abraham, the Christian legend maintains that in these warriors there is an allusion to Jesus, the numerical value of whose name is three hundred and eighteen; see Barnabas, 9.

8, and Clemens, Stromata, 6. 11. 94 PRE 17; comp. above, note 76. 95 BR 42. 3; Tehillim 110, 466. Jewish tradition takes Ps. 110 224 Abraham [96-102 to refer to Abraham (another view makés it refer to Hezekiah; comp. note 69 on vol. IV, p. 272), and hence the statement that Abraham, in order to be protected, was placed at the right hand of God (Tan. B. I, 74; Aggadat Bereshit 13. 29; Sanhedrin 108b; Tan. Lek 13). 96 Sanhedrin 108b; Ta‘anit 21a; BR 42. 3; Tan. B. I/6; Tan. Lek 15; comp. vol. IV, p. 203. 97 Tan. B. I, 73-74. Tan. Lek 13; BR 42.3; Sanhedrin 96a; PRE 27; Aggadat Bereshit 13. 29; Soferim 20; PR, 196b. The Testament of Abraham also presupposes that Abraham was a giant; comp. the extract from this source on vol. I, p. 304. 98 BR 42. 3; Shabbat 196b (God moved, for Abraham's sake, the star Jupiter from the west to the east); Sanhedrin 96a (on the angel Lailah, comp. note 20 on vol. I, p. 59); ER 5. 28. WR 1.4seems to be of the opinion that Abraham’s victory was due to the direct intervention of God and not to the help of the angels. Zohar I, 86a, is very likely based on WR. Reminiscences of long-forgotten legends and myths which bring Abraham in some relation with the sun, are to be found in Tehillim 1. 5; PR 20, 96b and Baba Batra 16b. 99 BR 42. 4-5; comp. ER 25. 128; Tan. B. I, 74, and see also note 46. roo Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 14. 20; BR 43. 9; Tan.

B. I 74; Tan. Lek 13. Abraham was the first to declare God ‘‘the possessor of heaven and earth’; comp. Berakot 7a and EZ 25, 45. ror BR 43. 9; Lekah I, 66, and IJ, 279, with the additional remark that this law, promulgated by Abraham and Moses, had become obsolete in later times, and was restored in its full force by David; comp. I Sam. 30. 22-25. pos eban bs lio sOombannlek Sasenhe identity of Melchizedek with Shem is presupposed in many Jewish and Christian sources; comp. Nedarim 32b (in a statement by a teacher who flourished about 100); BR 26. 4 and the parallel passages given by Theodor; Tehillim 76, 340; PRE 8 and 27; Yelammedenu quoted in Yalkut Nahum (here 05w=perfect, free from any blemish); Midrash Aggada I, 23 (read ]m> INvyw, ‘he appointed him priest’’); Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 14. 18. Zohar Hadash Noah, 29b (from there in Gabai’s ‘Abodat ha-Kodesh II, 31, where the source is not given. On the study of Abraham in the Academy of Shem-Melchizedek mentioned in this source, comp. note 13), tells us that Shem received the name Melchizedek from God when He appointed him priest; comp. note 51 on vol. I, 166. The Church Fathers Jerome, Quaestiones, 14. 18. 225 103-106] The Legends of the Jews Ephraim I, 61 E and 79D as, well as Epiphanius, Haer., 55. 6, speak of Shem-Melchizedek. The last-mentioned Church Father attributes this identification to the Samaritans, whereas ‘‘the Jews declare Melchizedek to have been the son of a prostitute.’ Later Christian authors somewhat modified the rabbinic view concerning Melchizedek and considered him a descendant of Shem.

This latter view is shared by Mohammedan writers. Comp. Beer, Leben Abrahams, note 300; Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 103-105; Friedlaender, Chadhir Legende, 258, seg. On the gnostic legends concerning Melchizedek, see the gnostic fragment published by Murfil-Charles as supplement to their edition of the Slavonic Enoch, 85-93. That the mysterious personality of Melchizedek occupied the fancy of the people at very early times may be seen from the 12 Testaments which, in its pre-Christian parts (Levi 17. 7), speaks of him in the highest terms of praise. The identity of Salem, Melchizedek’s city, with Jerusalem, presupposed in the rabbinic sources enumerated above, is known also to Josephus, Wars, VI, 10; Theophilus 2. 3 (his dependence on Josephus may be proved by the phrase ‘“‘the first priest’’ which he copied from Josephus); Clemens}: Siromata, 1. 5; Jerome, Epistola ad Evargium, 73. Comp. also Thomsen, Loci Sancti I, 10. On the etymological explanation of the name Jerusalem and Salem see note 253. The Samaritans identify Salem with Shechem; comp. Eupolemus 9. 17 (p. 419) and Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, I, pp. 85 and 87. The remark in ARN 2, 2, that Shem-Melchizedek was born with the sign of the Abrahamic covenant on him is directed against the Christian polemics concerning circumcision. Comp. Note 318. O03 BR 43. 6, 7, and the parallel passages given by Theodor; BaR 4.

8. 104 Nedarim 32b; WR 25. 6. This Haggadah is very likely directed against the Christians who took Melchizedek to be a type of Jesus, the everlasting priest; comp. Hebrews 7. 1-3 and especially Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 33 and 96. MOD NDI A Reh 6 Sotah 17a; BR 43. 9; Tan. B. I, 75; Tan. Lek 13. The Midrashim mentioned differ from the Talmud with regard to the nature of the two commandments which Israel received as a reward for Abraham’s good deed. Sotah, loc. cit.; Hullin 88b; BaR 4. 8 mention two commandments which Israel received as a reward for Abraham’s 226 Abrahan [107-110 humility in saying to God: ‘And I am but dust and ashes.”” Comp. Gen. 18. 27. *°7 BR 44, 4-5; comp. Yelammedenu in supplement to Yalkut (=BHM, VI, 79) and note 102. According to another view given in BR, God revealed Himself to Abraham (the first revelation ever granted to a human being; comp. MHG I, 324) long after the war against the kings. The Midrashim (BR, loc. cit.; Yelammedenu, loc. cit.; MHG, I, 225, 226) find in the words “‘thy reward is very great’’ (Gen. 15. 1) a hint of the reward which Abraham and his descendants are to receive in the world to come. 708 BR 44. 8-12; Tehillim 2, 10, and 21, 179; 2 ARN 43, 122; Aggadat Shir 1. 5. The statement that God commanded Abraham not to rely on astrology is very frequently met with in rabbinic literature. Comp. Shabbat 150a; Nedarim 32a; Tan.

Shofetim 11; PR 43, 179a; ShR 38. 6; BaR 2. 12; Aggadat Bereshit 28, 58, and 37, 73; see further Yoma 88b and Baba Batra 16a, as well as Philo, Abraham, 15 (in paraphrasing Gen. 15. 5 the expression MY]WY’ND RX found in the rabbinic sources mentioned above is employed here almost literally), De Nobilitate, 5 and Quis rer. divin. haeres sit, 20; Jub. 12.16. PR 11,45, and BaR 2. 14 explain Gen. 15. 5 in a different manner from that of the sources referred to, and in contrast to BR it is stated in DR 2. 7 that Abraham prayed to God to give him children. 109 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 15. 6; Mekilta Beshallah 6, 33b; Tan. Beshallah 10; Tan. B. IJ, 59; Shir 4. 8. Comp. next note. Against the Christian doctrine of justification by faith alone (Romans 4, 3) Zohar III, 148a, and Nahmanides on Gen. 15. 6 explain this verse as follows: And Abraham considered it as an act of grace. 110 BR 44, 14. Owing to the uncertainty of the meaning of the word nwdwo, Gen. 15. 9 (comp. R.E.J., 31, 176, and Monatsschrift, 41, 109) the Targumim and Midrashim differ as to the number of sacrifices brought on this occasion by Abraham; comp. Onkelos and Targum Yerushalmi, ad loc., as well as BR, loc. cit.; WR 3. 3; PRE 28. Opinions also differ with regard to the question whether or not lack of trust in God is implied in Abraham’s words: ‘‘Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?’”? (Gen. 15. 8). The Church Fathers agree with the view favorable to Abraham given in our text in ac.

cordance with BR. Comp. Origen and Theodoretus, ad Joc., as well ae Ephraim I, 64B-C, and Augustine, Civitas Dei, 16. 24. The Church Fathers are perhaps directly dependent on Philo, Quis rer. divin. haeres 227 Tii—fY12] The Legends of the Jews sit, 20, who remarks that he—Abraham—trusted God, but wished to know in what manner the promise made to him would be fulfilled. A somewhat different view is expressed by Philo in his Quaestiones, Gen. 2. 2. The view prevalent among the Rabbis is that Abraham is greatly to be blamed for his lack of trust in God. They even go further and assert that Israel’s servitude in Egypt is the punishment for Abraham’s sinful words; comp. Nedarim 32a; Tan. B. III, 79; Tan. Kedoshim 13; ER 13, 65, and EZ 2, 174; ShR 5. 22 and 30. 16; WR 11. 5; PRE 48; PR 47, 190a; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 819, on Psalm 78. Jerome, Is. 43. 27, accepts this view which, as may be seen from Yelammedenu, was known to the Tannaim. Shu‘aib, Wa-Yesheb, 21, quotes an unknown Midrash to the effect that Abrabam committed three sins: He emigrated from Palestine at the time of the famine (comp. note 66); he exposed Sarah to a great moral danger by stating that she was his sister; he further showed lack of trust in God by saying: ‘‘Whereby shall I know, etc.’” Comp. also vol. II, pp. 226 and 338, as well as vol. III, pp. 19, 89, and 480. Til Megillah 31b; Ta‘anit 27b; WR 7.

3; PK 6, 60b; somewhat different in Berakot 17a, where fasts take\the place of sacrifices; Tan. Zaw 14 (additions); Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 382 on Ezekiel 43 (almost identical with Tan. Joc. cit.) and 321 on Jeremiah 33. AJBarceloni, 159, quotes the following passage from the Midrash: God said to Abraham: Make thy children occupy themselves with the study of the Torah which will give them light in this world and in the world to come. Comp. also Zohar IJ, 100a. All these passages are a defence of Judaism against the attacks of the Christian polemical writers who maintain that after the destruction of the temple, Israel is no longer in possession of the means of atonement. The judge, who, in a controversy with a Jewish scholar, insisted that after the destruction of the temple Israel’s sins can no longer be forgiven (second Yelammedenu passage) was undoubtedly a Christian. Comp. also Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 97, to whose polemics the remark in BaR 14. 4 (prayers take the place of sacrifice) seems to be a direct answer. See further Menahot 110a and PK 15, according to the reading of Makiri Malachi 1. II. Rabban Johanan b. Zaccai, without any polemical or apologetical bias, remarks: We have something that secures atonement as much as the temple service, and this is loving-kindness (ARN 4, 21; Ma‘as. G., 133). ™t2 BR 44, 14-22; PRE 28 (on the text comp. Tosafot Gen. 15. 10 seq.); Targum Yerushalmi Gen., loc.

cit. In John 8. 5& 228 Abraham [r13—-114 and Acts 7. 7 it is presupposed that the course of Israel's history was revealed to Abraham on this occasion. Comp. also note 114. *™3 MHG I, 240, very likely from a version of PRE different from ours. Sa‘adya Gaon was acquainted with a source similar to or identical with the one quoted in MHG; comp. Ginzberg’s remarks in Geiger’s Kebuzat Maamarim (edited by Poznanski), 414, and Davidson, Saadia’s Polemic against Hiwi, 64. The reviving of animals is also mentioned in another Abraham legend (Testament of Abraham A 6) and in Christian legends, comp. e. g. Acts of Pilate 2 (MS. C.). In midrashic fashion this legend in MHG is derived from aw (Gen. 15. 11), which is read as if its object were a’, hence ‘‘and he made them fly.”” Another explanation of this word is ‘‘and he made them repent”; comp. BR, Joc. cit., 15, and Ephraim I, 64 B-C. 774 BR 44, 21 and 49. 2; Mekilta ba-Hodesh 9, 71b; ShR 51.7; Tan. B. II, 130; Tan. Pekude 5 and 8; PK 5, 42b; PR 15, 67a; Tehillim 38, 254, and 52, 286; Targumim Yerushalmi Gen. 15. 17; Midrash Tannaim 84; Zohar III, 299; Hadar, 6b; Apocalypse of Baruch 4. 4, God showed Abraham the paradise at night between the pieces of the slain animals. 4 Ezra 3. 15 says: Thou revealedst to him—Abraham—the end of the times secretly by night; comp. note 112. On the explanation of the “smoking furnace’ as Gehenna comp.

Revelation 9. 2; 4 Ezra 7. 3; 12 Testaments, Joseph 2. 2 (but, perhaps, a false rendering of Hebrew nya (71s “a foolish woman” as Mya ws “burning fire’”’); Kiddushin 40a and 81b. Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 3. 15, sees in the smoking furnace the heavenly fire which came down to consume the sacrifices. In agreement with the Rabbis Theodoretus, ad /Joc., considers the flaming torch an allusion to the revelation on Sinai. The most detailed description of the vision at the ‘‘covenant between the pieces”’ is that of the Apocalypse of Abraham, the main part of which (11-32) is a Midrash on Gen. 15. 9-14, with pronounced gnostic features. The archangel Jaoel (= Sim, the chief of the Seraphim in Masseket Azilut 21) leads Abraham to the highest heaven and shows him the glory of God reigning there. Clad in the garment of glory (comp. note 93 on vol. I, p. 80), Abraham becomes like ‘‘one of the glorified beings and takes part in the song of praise chanted by them in heaven to God.’”’ After Abraham has been shown the heavens and all that they contain, the angel Jaoel points out to him, from the heights of the heavens, the stars and the entire earth (similarly BR 44. 12 and parallel passages given by Theodor) with all that it contains, the abyss with its tortures (that is Gehenna), 229 115] The Legends of the Jews paradise with the joys of the pious, as well as the leviathan and its abode.

At the same time the angel reveals to Abraham the course of human history in the present aeon (comp. BR 44. 22, where two views are given; according to one, God showed him only this world, while according to the other also the world to come was shown to him; comp. Ginzberg, Journal of Bibl. Soc., 1922 p. 133) from the fall of Adam to the advent of the Messiah. Peculiar to this book is the interpretation that the smoking furnace refers to Azazel =Satan, who attempted to lead Abraham astray. From chapter 12 we infer that this interpretation is partly based on the explanation that w’y (Gen. 15. 11) means “‘counsellor’’(=seducer), and accordingly, it may be safely assumed that this pseudepigraph is of Semitic—Hebrew or Aramaic—origin. Comp. Ginzberg in Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. Abraham, Apocalypse of. On the 400 years of the Egyptian servitude, comp. II, p. 318, and note 124 referring to it. On Terah comp. BR 39. 7 (he died as a sinner), 30. 4, and 38. 12; Tan. B. II, 9; Tan. Shemot 18; SkR 2. 6; Ruth R. (end); Zohar I, 77b and 78b; Midrash Aggada 2.6; Bahya on Gen. 11. 32; see further notes 45, 47, and 54, as well as vol. II, p. 314; vol. IV, pp. 264 and 281. On Ishmael, comp. sources referred to in connection with Terah, and further 2 ARN 27, 54; Baba Batra 16b; ER 13, 65 (Friedmann’s explanation of this passage is faulty, as may be seen from EZ 2, 174, which passage makes it quite clear as to what is meant by the honorshown by Ishmael to his father) ; comp.

also Hashkem, 3a—4a, where, in contrast to the views of the older sources (comp. Schechter on ARN, ad Joc.), it is maintained that pious children sometimes save their wicked parents from Gehenna. ™tS According to Seder ‘Olam and BR 39. 7 (see the parallel passages given by Ratner and Theodor), God made this covenant with Abraham when the latter was seventy years old. He then returned from Palestine to Haran, where he remained for five years until he settled permanently in the Holy Land. The war with the kings took place in the year when he returned to Palestine, and ten years later he married Hagar. The Apocalypse of Abraham is also of the opinion that the ‘“‘covenant between the pieces” took place at the very beginning of Abraham’s career, when he separated himself from his kinsfolk. Nedarim 32a, BR 44. 5, and in many other sources (comp those referred to in note 102) give a different view, according to which this covenant took place after the war against the kings; this latter opinion, based on the order in which the events are narrated in the Bible, is also shared by Jub. 13. 17-14. 1. The covenant took place 230 Abraham [116-120 on the first night of Passover; see PRE 28; Panim Aherim, 74; PR, 196b (Friedmann’s explanation, ad Joc., is untenable, as the parallel passages, just quoted, show); but according to Jub. 14. 1, it was on the new moon of the third month, 7.

e. Siwan, the month in which the revelation at Sinai occurred. Comp. note 76. 116 Vebamot, Tosefta 8. 4; Yerushalmi 6, 7c, and Babli 64a; BR 45. 2-3. The Haggadah assigns a number of causes for ‘‘the sterility of the mothers.’”” The most favored explanation is that God in His love tried the pious fathers, in order that they, in their suffering, should pray to Him for help. Comp. BR 45. 4; Shir 2. 14; Tan. Toledot 9 and Wa-Yeze 7; Yebamot 64a; ER 18, 99. In later mysticism the doctrine that God ‘‘desires” the prayers of the pious plays an important part; this conception, however, is very old; comp. Hullin 60b. According to ER, loc. cit., Abraham and Sarah were married for 75 years before the birth of Isaac; comp. also the preceding note. 717 MHG I, 241, 242. Here also we have the statement that a childless woman is able to tell whether she or her husband is the cause of sterility, and accordingly Sarah knew that Abraham would beget children with another wife. In BR 45. 2 the sentence ‘\>) yiap was entirely misunderstood and therefore corrupted in the ‘editions and MSS,.; it is to be translated: I know that it is my fault that we have no issue and not as they say: She—the childless woman— needs only a cup of meon (meum athamaticum) to be cured. wap or perhaps yap is the masculine of biblical nyap; comp. the phrase D-7py bw o> very often found in rabbinic literature. That meon is a cure for barrenness does not seem to be known to any other source.

According to BR 25. 1, Sarah’s barrenness was due to pathological defects—she had no womb. 118 BR 45. 6; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 16. 3. 119 BR 45. 2; Yashar Lek, 34a; Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 16. 3. On Hagar, the daughter of Pharaoh, comp. above, note 74. The statement of Targum Yerushalmi that Nimrod was the father of this Pharaoh is not found elsewhere, and, on account of its strangeness, 2 Targum Yerushalmi saw it advisable to modify it. We ought, perhaps, to read 127) or sayi, i. e., Eliezer who is said to have been a slave (son?) of Nimrod; comp. above, note 41. On the piety of Hagar see also BR 61. 4 and Philo, De Abrahamo, 42. 120 BR 45, 2-4; Yashar Lek, 34a. Philo, De Abrahamo, 43, quotes the view of “thorough exegetes’”’, according to which Abraham ab231 I2I—122] The Legends of the Jews stained from having any conjugal relations with Hagar as soon as she became pregnant; this was due to his natural abstemiousness and to his respect for Sarah. The statement 7729 ANWNIT ANID that Hagar became pregnant on the bridal night (BR 45. 4), very likely implies this view. Comp. also vol. I, p. 298, where it is stated that Abraham remarried Hagar after Sarah’s death. Comp. MHG. I, 244. *2% Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 16. 5 (comp. note 119); a different view is given in Yashar Lek, 34, according to which Sarah blamed Abraham for not having specified, when praying to God for children, that the children should be the offspring of his marriage with her.

Had the prayer been formulated in this manner, God would have granted it. 122 BR 45, 5-8. On the expression n’2) 0°57 employed here, comp. ‘Erubin 27b and parallel passages on margin, as well as Kiddushin 22b. According to these sources, only slaves attend on a person in the bath-room, and Sarah, by making Hagar attend on her while bathing, wanted to show her that she was still a bondwoman; comp. also Mishle 26. 99. Opinions differ as to the number of angels that appeared to Hagar; comp. BR 45. 7 (five or four) and ‘Arakin 17b (only three). On the pious who received their names from God, comp. Mekilta Bo 16, 19; BR, Joc. cit.; PRE 32; Pirke Rabbenu haKadosh, ed. Griinhut 35; Tan. B. I, 21, 22; Yerushalmi Berakot, I, 4a. The name of Isaac was never changed, because it had been given by God, whereas the names of his father and son (JacobIsrael) were changed. With regard to Abraham, it is maintained that it is unlawful to call him by his original name, Abram; comp. Berakot, loc. cit., and Babli 12b; another view is offered by Philo, De Mut. Nomin, 13, 14. The Haggadah has a good deal to tell us about the meaning of the names Abram and Abraham and about the reason for changing the former into the latter. Abram means “The father of Aram”, whereas Abraham denotes ‘‘The father of nations”’, 7. e., Ab (AN) =father, and Ham (jmm=no7, while is disregarded) =‘“‘nations’’. Comp. Berakot, Tosefta 1.

13, and Babli 13a; Shabbat 105a (each letter of the name Abram is explained); BR 46. 7. Many explanations of the change of the names Abram and Sarai are given by Philo, De Abrahamo, 18; De Mut. Nom., 8, 9; Cherubim, 2; De Gigant. 14, 15; Quaestiones, Gen., ad loc. The change of names brought about a change in the fortunes of Abraham and Sarah: it had been decreed that Abram should have no offspring, but this did not apply to Abraham. Comp. Rosh ha-Shanah 16b (this is explained ration232 Abraham {123-126 alistically by Maimonides, Yad, Teshubah, 2. 4); BR 4. 10 and the numerous parallel passages given by Theodor. A different view is found in Mekilta Yitro I, 57a, and Mekilta RS, 85, where it is stated that the lengthening of a name is a mark of honor, while its shortening is a sign of degradation. Abraham, ‘‘the father of nations”, is really the father of proselytes; comp. Matthew 3. 9; Yerushalmi Bikkurim I, 64a; see also Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, note 3 on page 124. The numerical value of the word Abraham (O7798=248) corresponds to the number of the members of the human body; by being circumcised he became master of his entire body, and from that time on he was called Abraham (Nedarim 32b). 123 BR 46. 3; Tan. B. I, 80; Tan. Lek 19. 724 BR 41 [42]. 8; Tan. Wa-Yera 3; Aggadat Bereshit 19. 39; Huppat Eliyyahu, 15; comp. Ginzberg in Hazofeh, IV, 31. Mamre was rewarded for giving Abraham pious advice, as it was in Mamre’s field that God appeared to Abraham (Gen.

18. 1). The legend sees no difficulty in the fact that Abraham consulted men concerning the fulfilling of a command given by God; but to later authorities it was incomprehensible that Abraham could for a moment hesitate in complying with a divine order, and they therefore attempted to invest this legend with a meaning which is entirely foreign to it; comp. Hadar and Da‘at on Gen. 18. 1; and see also Zohar I, 98b. 125 BR 22. 8 and 48. 9; PRE 28; see also Sifre D., 339. 126 PRE 28. In the older sources the thirteenth or fifteenth of Nisan is the day on which Abraham’s circumcision took place; comp. BR 48. 12 and the parallel passages given by Theodor, as well as Beer, Leben Abrahams, note 361. According to PRE, Joc. cit. (comp. Luria, ad loc.), the operation was performed by Shem; but another view has it that Abraham circumcised himself with the assistance of God; comp. Tan. B. 1,80; Aggadat Bereshit 16, 35; and, as a later addition, BR 49. 2. Al-Barceloni, 58, quotes the last view from Ycrushalmi (Palestinian Midrash?). According to Tan. Lek 17, the foreskin was removed by the bite‘of a scorpion. When giving Abraham the command of circumcision, God only hinted at the part of the body on which it should be performed; Abraham, however, on the basis of logical reasoning, drew the correct conclusion. Comp. BR 46. 4; Tan. B. 81; Tan. Lek 18, and see also Tosefta Shabbat 15. 9 and Bab.

li 108a; WR 25. 6. MHadasi’s quotation (Eshkol, No. 82, 36a), from a Midrash, concerning that point is not found in the extant midrashic literature, and is perhaps a Karaitic fabrication. Opinions differ as 233 127-136] The Legends of the Jews to whether Abraham, along with the command of circumcision, received also that of 7y’7D (the uncovering of the corona) or not. Comp. BR 46. 12 and parallel sources given by Theodor; but in Yebamot 71b it is stated that AYD was first introduced by Joshua. 127 PRE 29; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 18. 1; Tan. Wa-Yera 2; Baba Mezi‘a 86b. 128 Tan, B. I, 85; Tan. Wa-Yera 2; Aggadat Bereshit 19; Tan. B. I, 84. 129 Baba Mezi‘a 86b; BR 48. 8; Tan. B. I, 85; Tan. Wa-Yera 3; BREW29:; 139 Baba Mezi‘a 86b; BR 48. 8, 9. Abraham feared lest travellers should no longer make use of his hospitality because he had separated himself from the rest of the world through the sign of the covenant. 131 Tan. Wa-Yera 2 and Ki-Tissa 15; Tan. B. I, 86 and 177, BR 48. 1; ShR 41. 4; Aggadat Bereshit 19. 39; Tehillim 18, 156. An allusion to this legend is to be found in the remark of Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shanah I, 57a, (top): God said: I was the first to observe the command of standing up before an old: man (Lev. 19. 32); the old man is Abraham. Comp. also PR 15, 72a. In PRE 29 it is said that as long as Abraham was uncircumcised he was unable to stand erect in the presence of the divine Glory; comp.

note 43 on vol. IV, p. 146. 732 Baba Mezi‘a 86b; BR 50. 2; Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 18. 2. Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 56, also refers to this Haggadah; comp. also Kallah 6, 13b. Josephus, Antiqui., I, 11. 2, speaks of the three angels who appeared to Abraham, but he does not give their names. 33 BR 48. 9; comp. vol. I, p. 270. %34 Shabbat 127a. MHG I, 267, quotes the following passage from an unknown Midrash: He who receives his fellow-man kindly is regarded as though he had received the Shekinah, and accordingly in Mekilta Yitro I, 59a, we ought to read Wan with MS. instead of oman of the editions. The Church Fathers quote an almost identical proverb from the Bible! Comp. Tertullian, De Oratione, 26. 155 BR 48. 9-10; DE. 4; Philo, De Abrahamo, 22 and 25. ™36 Baba Mezi‘a 86b, with the additional remark that because Abraham suspected the strangers in this manner, his descendants, the Ishmaelites (=the Arabs), as a punishment, practice this kind of 234 Abraham [137-141 idolatry. BR 48.9: One of the angels appeared disguised as a Saracen, the second as a Nabatean, and the third as an Arab. *37 Zohar I, 102b, and thence by Sabba, Wa-Yera, 18b, without giving his source. The tamarisk of Abraham (Gen. 21. 33) came to him from paradise; see Ba‘al ha-Turim, Gen. 9. 20. The oak (?) of Abraham formed a subject for popular fancy as early as the time of Josephus (comp. Bell.

IV, 9. 7, and Antiqui. 1. 10), the belief having been prevalent that it was created at the beginning of the world. Yerahmeel 35. 5 quotes from Josippon that the oak of Abraham in the plain of Mamre existed until the reign of Theodosius, when it withered. Yet even then whoever took of its wood did not experience illness until the day of his death. Comp. also Jepp, Jerusalem und das heilige Land, J, 611-622, as well as Palestine Exploration Fund (Quarterly Statement, 1899, 39, 40). 138 Baba Mezi‘a 87a; Nedarim 21b; Tan. Wa-Yera 4; ARN 13, 57. In these Midrashim, as well as in BR 48. 10, it is shown in detail how God’s kind acts towards Abraham’s descendants corresponded exactly to Abraham’s kind acts towards the three travellers. ‘‘Measure for measure’’ (comp. note 44 on vol. I, p. 163, and vol. II, p. 341 seq.) is God’s guiding rule for reward and punishment; comp. 2 ARN 23, 47; ER 12, 59, 60, and Tosefta Sotah 4 (end). 739 Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 18. 5; comp. J, 271. 14° Baba Mezi‘a 86b; BR 48. 12-14; ARN 13, 57; Tan. WaYera 4. Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 4. 10, likewise dwells upon the lavish hospitality of Abraham, who, though possessing many slaves, prepared the meal himself for his guests. The old sources admit that, though Abraham observed the Torah before it had been revealed (comp. note 275), he nevertheless served meat and milk to the travellers, despite the later prohibition of this kind of food.

Later, when the angels protested against the presentation of the Torah to Israel, requesting God to give it to them, (comp. vol. III, pp. 109-114, and note 248 appertaining to them) they had to admit that as Abraham’s guests they partook of the forbidden food. Comp. PR 25, 128a-128b; Tehillim 8. 75. Later authorities maintain, on the contrary, that Abraham, in strict conformity to the commandments of the Torah, served first milk and then meat; comp. Da‘at and Sekel Tob on Gen. 18. 8. Ziyyoni, Exod. 24. 21, quotes from the Midrash a statement bearing upon this point which is not found in the extant midrashic literature; comp. also Yashar Wa-Yera, 35b. 141 BR 48, 13; ARN 13, 57. 235 142-147] The Legends of the Jews 142 Baba Mezi‘a 87a; BR 48. 14; PRE 26; Tan. Wa-Yera 13. The defilement of the bread was caused by Sarah (comp. Gen. 18. 12) who busied herself with the kneading of the dough. Astruc (Mzdveshe ha-Torah, 25) quotes from an unknown Midrash the statement that instead of the fresh bread prepared by Sarah stale bread was served. On the uncomplimentary remark about the niggardliness of women, see also vol. IV, p. 242. 143 Baba Mezi‘a 86b; BR 48. 11 and 14 (paraphrased in MHG I, 269); Josephus, Antiqui, I, 11. 2; Philo, De Abrahamo, 23; Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 18. 8; Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 57; Theodoretus, Gen, loc. cit., and many other Church Fathers. Comp.

Ginzberg, Haggadak bet den Kirchenv. 108. The old view was that angels may sometimes partake of food, and that they subsist on manna; comp. R. Akiba’s explanation (Yoma 75b) of Ps. 78. 85, which agrees with the Septuagint, where owas on> is rendered by &prov ayyé\wv; Tobit 12. 19 (comp. Miiller, Bettraége, ad loc.); ER 12, 59 and the legends, vo}. III, p. 142 and vol. IV, p. 147, as well as Zohar I, 102a, 104a, and 144a. Sa‘adya in his Polemic against Hiwi 70, is very severe on those who maintain that angels partake of food. The omission of the visit of the angels is Jub. is very likely due to the strong anthropomorphic coloring of the biblical narrative in Gen. 18. 1-10. In many rabbinic passages the statement occurs that the angels subsist on the glory of the Shekinah; comp. PK 6, 57a (also with regard to Moses during his stay in heaven, 18, 173b); PR 16, 80a; Tan. Pinehas 12; BaR 21. 16. The last-mentioned source 10. 5 reads: The angels who visited Abraham partook of the food offered to them; but not the one who visited Manoah. Koran 11. 73 gives a clumsy representation of the view prevalent in Jewish sources concerning these three angels. ™44 MHG I, 272; Da‘at and Ziyyoni Gen. 18. 8; comp. also the extract from Testament of Abraham, given in vol. I, p. 303, where it is likewise said that a fire devoured the food; this view is very likely shared by Sa‘adya in the passages quoted in the preceding note.

Jud. 13. 16 probably gave rise to this view; comp. preceding note towards the end. ™45 BR 48. 19. ™46 Baba Mezi‘a 87a; with reférence to the dots over yor (Gen. 18. 9), comp. BR 48. 15, and the numerous parallel passages given by Theodor. , ™47 Baba Mezi‘a 86b (comp. note 132); MHG I, 274; Tan. B. I, 107; Tan. Wa-Yera 13; PR 6, 24b, and the numerous para!lel pas236 Abraham’ [148-155 sages given by Friedmann, ad Joc. The angel’s promise to return (Gen. 18. 10) refers to his presence at the ‘Akedah; see Pardes 22d. 748 BR 48. 16; Yerushalmi Targumim, Gen. 18. 10. ¥49 Tan. Shofetim 18; comp. also BR 48. 17. ™5° BR 48. 17. These words were spoken by God Himself, and not by the angels who know not the thoughts of man; see Sekel Tob 27. Zohar I, 101b limits the knowledge of angels still more, and from this point of view explains the question of the angels about Sarah; comp. Gen. 198. 9. See also the sources referred to in note 146. 181 MHG I, 276; a different view is given by Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 4. 17: Abraham rejoiced over the good tidings (he thus renders pny, Gen. 17. 17), whereas Sarah laughed at them because she did not believe them. As a punishment for her lack of faith in the message brought by the angels concerning the birth of Isaac, her death was caused by the message that Isaac was sacrificed by his father (comp. vol. I, p. 287); see Haszdim, 80. Women are disqualified from appearing in court as witnesses (Baba Kamma 1.

3; Josephus, Antiqut., IV, 8. 15; Evangel of Nicodemus 7), because they are of a mendacious nature, for even one of the best of them, Sarah, attempted to tell an untruth; see Yelammedenu in supplement to Yalkut =BHM VI, 80 and MHG I, 276. 152 BR 48. 18; Sifre N. 42; Yerushalmi Peah 1, 16a; Yebamot 65b; WR 9. 9; BaR 11. 7; Tan. B. III, 6. 18; Tan. Zaw 7 and Shofetim 18; Perek ha-Shalom. ™53 MHG I, 276; comp. Schechter, ad: loc. 154 BR 50. 2; Baba Mezi‘a 86b; Tan. B. I, 96. An angel attends to one task only, and accordingly three angels had to be sent: Michael to bring the glad tidings of Isaac’s birth, Gabriel to destroy the sinful cities, and Raphael to save Lot. Philo, De Abrahamo, 28, is acquainted with a similar Haggadah; comp vol. I, p. 241, and the sources referred to in note 132. 53 Yashar Wa-Yera, 35b-38a; the last paragraph, concerning the riches and misery of the inhabitants of the sinful cities, reproduces the statement found in the older sources. Comp. Tosefta Sotah 3. 12; Sifre D., 43; Mekilta Shirah 2, 35b; Mekilta RS 58; Sanhedrin 109a; WR 4 and 5. 2; PK 27, 170, and 19, 187b; MHG I, 282; PRE 25. With the exception of the story about Hedor, which is probably of Arabic origin, Yashar hardly added anything new on this subject to the material contained in the older sources mentioned 237 156-159] The Legends of the Jews above (comp. especially Sanhedrin 109a, 109b).

On the wickedness of the Sodomites, see also ER 15, 74 and 21, 158; ARN 26, 106; BR 49. 5; Tan. Wa-Yera 7; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 29c (top); ShR 30. 19; Zohar I, 105b. The story about the bed of Procrustes in Yashar is directly taken from Sanhedrin, loc. cit. The register of the sins of the generation of the flood given in vol. I, p. 153 is mainly the same as that of the Sodomites. Attention is to be called to the fact that the expression “in the way of the Sodomites’’, frequently found in rabbinic literature, is employed to describe a high degree of parsimony and niggardliness; comp. e. g., Pirke Abot 5. 10 and in a legal maxim, Ketubot 103a. Rather strange, therefore, is the statement (Tosefta Shabbat 7, end) that Lot settled among the Sodomites because they were cheerful and kind people. Philo, De Abrahamo, 27, remarks: The land of Sodom was full of innumerable crimes, particularly those which are the result of licentiousness and intemperance. On the licentiousness of the Amorites, see 12 Testaments, Judah 12. 2. 156 Sanhedrin 109a, 109b; the other stories about the Sodomites, found in that passage, are given here in accordance with Yashar, see preceding note. 157 Yashar Wa-Yera, 39a-39a, based on Sanhedrin 109a; BR 49. 6; PRE 25; Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 18. 21; Midrash Aggada I, 42, 43; MHG I, 284. Bahya, Gen., loc. cit., quotes from the “Midrash’’, the statement found in Sanhedrin, loc.

cit. ™88 MHG I, 28; comp. vol. II, p. 280 and vol. IV, p. 240. 59 Tan. B. I, 88-89 (here several reasons are given why God revealed to Abraham the impending destruction of the sinful cities); BR 49. 2; Tan. Wa-Yera 5; Aggadat Bereshit 21. 43. Shu‘aib, WaYera, 8c, quotes the following passage from an unknown Midrash: God did not punish Adam until a heavenly court consisting of seventy members had condemned him (comp. note 124 on vol.I,97), and similarly a heavenly court consisting of sixty myriads of angels, assisted by Abraham, was to decide the case of the Sodomites. The angels marvelled at the distinction of Abraham, whose single opinion was regarded as equal in weight to that of the. myriads of angels combined. God thereupon assembled an equal number of Jewish souls (sixty myriads of Jews left Egypt, and accordingly this is the standard number representing Israel), and the Sodomites were tried by equal numbers of angels and human souls. Shu‘aib’s quotation is derived from a kabbalistic source Zohar I, 104b-105a goes back to Tan. and BR, 238 Abraham’ [160-167 loc. cit. On the participation of the angels in the trial of the Sodomites, comp. note 61. 76° BR 39. 6 and 49. 9; PK 19, 139; here also Abraham is designated as ‘‘the merciful of the three fathers’; comp. note 61 and note Z2eOne vole py 256: 16t Tan. B. I, 91-93; Tan. Wa-Yera 8 and Ki-Tissa 17; BR 49.

9; Aggadat Bereshit 22.446. These sources give several explanations of m9°5n (Gen. 18. 5); comp. also Sifre D., 311 and vol. III, p. 280. 762 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 18. 24; Rashi, Lekah, and Midrash Aggada, Gen. loc. cit. (very likely depending upon an unknown midrashic source); BR 49.13, MDD °95; ps.-Rashi, ad loc. ¥O3 BR 49. 11, 264 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 18. 31, and comp. Theodor on BR 49. 12. According to a widespread Haggadah, there is no generation in the history of the world without at least thirty pious men, like Abraham, otherwise the world would be destroyed. See BR 38. 2 and 49. 3; Yerushalmi ‘Abodah Zarah 2, 40c; Hullin 92a; PK 10, 88a; Tan. Wa-Yera 13 and Mikkez 6; Tehillim 5,52 and 92, 409, below (here only three pious men); Shemuel I, 44; BaR 10. 5 (thirty-one). Shir 1. 3 speaks of the one pious person produced by the Gentiles every year. Jellinek, Introduction to BHM V., 46, compares the last-mentioned passage with Matthew 33. 15. Yoma 38b has the statement that the world exists on account of one godly person. 165 BR 49, 13 (ADD TD is paraphrased in Targum Yerushalmi 18. 32 by pom *yan). On Lot comp. below, note 171. 166 Tan. B. I, 92, 93; Tan. Wa-Yera 8; BR 49.14. These passages dwell upon the fact that the Shekinah did not depart from Abraham until he had finished his prayer for the sinners; comp. also ARN 32 (second version 40, 111). In BR 49. 7 and many parallel passages (see Theodor) it is stated that originally the text of Gen.

18. 22 read: “And the Lord stood before Abraham”’, t.e., God waited for Abraham until he had accompanied his guests. 167 BR 49. 6; Tan. Wa-Yera 10. Gen. 18. 21 is accordingly explained to mean: I shall give them an opportunity to repent, and I shall destroy them if they do not repent. This explanation of the biblical verse is also given by Aphraates, 293 (comp. further Clementine Homilies, 3.39); whereas Philo, Quaestiones, Gen., 15.24, remarks that with these words Scripture teaches us never to judge without a thorough 239 168-172] The Legends of the Jews examination. Comp. a similar remark of the Rabbis in vol. I, p. 53; see further Mekilta Shirah 5, 38b-39a, and Tan. Beshallah 15. 168 Tan. B. I, 93; Tan. Wa-Yera 9; vol. I, p. 153 and note 17 appertaining thereto. The punishment for certain kinds of immorality is by fire, according to Lev. 20. 14 and 21. 9. Comp. note 26 on vol. I, p. 159. 169 BR $0. 1; Tans B, 1; 98. ™7° Tan. B. I, 93 and 98; BR 50. 3. Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 723 on Ps. 85 reads: As the wicked commit their evil deeds in the darkness of the night, even so they receive their punishment at night. This is attested by the punishment of the Sodomites, the Egyptians, Haman, and Belshazzar. Comp. a similar remark (later, however, it was interpreted in a different manner; see above, note 76) in BaR 20. 12; BR 50. 23; Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shanah J, 57a; PR 40, 167b; Tehillim 9.

87; MHG I, 287. In all these sources, with the exception of the first, attention is drawn to the fact that Israel is always judged by God during the day, whereas the Gentiles are tried at night. Philo, Quaestiones, 4. 30, agrees with the Rabbis in referring the night, or, as he accurately writes, the evening, spoken of in Gen. 19.1, to the darkness of the judgment upon the sinners. Abrabanel, Ma‘ yene ha-Yeshu‘ah, 7. 11, quotes Yelammedenu, Joc. cié., but very likely from Yalkut, and not independently. 17% PRE 25 (qanb is an old scribal error for praxy); MHG I, 288; BR 50. 4. The views of the various sources concerning Lot differ widely from one another. He is generally described as _lascivious, ungrateful—towards Abraham—and is accused, among other things, of having been a usurer. Comp. BR 40. 7, 51. 6-10, and 52. 2; Nazir 23a; PR 3, 9b-10a, where he is called ‘wicked Lot”; Tan. Wa-Yera 12; Aggadat Bereshit 25. 50; Yelammedenu in Yalkut J, 785 (Mattot); Zohar I, 84a and 79a. In the last passage Abraham’s kindness toward Lot is ascribed to the fact that Abraham foresaw by his prophetic gift that Lot was destined to become the ancestor— through Ruth the Moabitish woman—of David. The first Alphabet of Ben Sira, 4d, on the other hand, speaks of Lot as a ‘‘perfect and pious man”. This must not be regarded, with Epstein (Mi-Kadmoniyyot Ha-Yehudim, 12) as ridiculing the view of the Haggadah, but as an old tradition.

Comp. II Peter 2, 7; Visto Pauli, 27 and 49, as well as ps.-Tertullian, Sodoma, 41. 172 BR 50. 4; Baba Mezi‘a 87a; Tan. Wa-Yera 11; Origen, Gen. 19. 3; Philo, De Abrahamo, 22, and Quaestiones, Gen. 4, 33, 34. Lekah 240 Abraham, [173-180 Gen., loc. cit., states that the angels came suddenly like lightning upon Lot, whereas Abraham discerned their arrival from afar. *73 Tan. B. I, 98; BR 50. 6; MHG I, 289. 774 BR 51. 5 and 50. 4 read: Because Lot’s wife sinned in connection with salt, she became a pillar of salt. *75 BR 50. 3-7; comp. note 168. The names of the judges given in BR 50. 3 are different from those in Sanhedrin 109b and Yashar. Comp. vol. I, pp. 246-247, and PRE, 25. ™7® Tan. Wa-Yera 12. PRE 25, on the contrary, is of the opinion that Lot was willing to expose himself and his family to any danger rather than leave his guests to their fate. Here also it is stated that the presence of the guests in the house was betrayed by a lad who saw them enter. ™77 BR 50. 9; PRE 25 (comp. Luria, ad loc.); Jerome, on Gen., 19. 14, Ephraim, I, 135, on the contrary, agrees with Josephus, Antiqui, I, 11 that Lot only had two betrothed daughters whose fiancés perished in Sodom; comp. vol. I, pp. 350, 351. 778 BR 50. 9; MHG I, 290, 291. ™79 Tan. B. I, 93 and 99; BR 50. 2 and 11, as well as 51. 4 (comp. Theodor on the two last-named passages); MHG 1, 290: Eighteen thousand destroying angels, under the leadership of Kemuel (comp.

Ma‘ayan Hokmah, 58), came down and destroyed the sinful cities in a moment. In numerous midrashic passages it is stated that the punishment was executed by God and His court of justice; comp. BR 51. 2 and the dozen of parallel passages given by Theodor, ad Joc. Here also the rule is formulated that wherever the expression” ’ nso ‘‘from the Lord” is employed in the Bible it refers to God and His court of justice. Sifre Z. 51,52, on the other hand, explicitly states that God Himself executed punishment upon the generation of the deluge, the builders of the tower of Babel, the inhabitants of the sinful cities, the Egyptians, the Amorites, and Sennacherib. Philo, partly in agreement with the first view, maintains that the punishment of the Sodomites did not come directly from God. On this point, comp. vol. I, p. 5 and note 9 appertaining thereto. The punishment to be executed on the fourth kingdom (=Rome) will be identical with the one inflicted on Sodom; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 440, on Is. 34; Tan. B. II, 30. 180 PRE 25, which has been incorporated in Yashar Wa-Yera, 39 (in these passages Lot’s wife is called My Idit?). Luke 17.32 (the following verse is found verbatim, Tamid 32a) seems also to assume that Lot’s wife was troubled about her relatives, and Clemens Alexandrinus, 241 181-184] The Legends of the Jews Exhortatio, 94, states this view quite explicitly.

Philo, De Abrahamo, 27, and 2 Moses, 10; Josephus, Antiqut., I, 11. 4, and Wars, IV, 8. 4; Wisdom 10. 6, 7; Irenaeus Haer. IV, 31; ps—Tertullian, Sodoma, 160170 (the Church Fathers very likely derived their information on this point from oral communications made to them by Jews) also mention the fact that one might still see to-day the pillar of salt into which Lot’s wife turned. Comp. also Berakot 54a and 54b (a tannaitic source) on the benediction to be pronounced on seeing Lot’s wife (Maimonides in his Yad ignores this statement); see also Midrash Esther in Yalkut I, 256, end. Salt must not be used in performing certain religious ceremonies, since it was the cause of death in the case of Lot’s wife; comp. ‘Aruk, s. v. °0; Way-Yekullu 16b. ™8: BR 50. 11; PR 3, 10a; Aggadat Bereshit 25, 50. 182 Shabbat 10a. Like the other sinful cities, Zoar was also destroyed when the measure of its wickedness Became full; Sekel Tob 1. 38. Here also on the authority of an old source, etymological explanations of the names of the sinful cities are given. "83 BR 50. 12. : ; 184 Mishnah Sanhedrin 10. 3 (according to one view, they were destroyed for ever, and their inhabitants will therefore receive neither reward nor punishment on the day of judgment); comp. Ginzberg, Mabbul shel Esh 17; Sanhedrin 10; Babli 109a; Yerushalmi 10, 29c; Tosefta 13.8; ARN 36, 106, and 12,52; WR 4.1. Comp. also Matthew 10.

15 and 11. 24. Comp. further notes 44, 90 on vol. p. 163, 180 respectively. For the restoration of the sinful cities see Tan. B. 1, 99, as well as Tosefta Sukkah 3. 9, where the “healing” of the sea of Sodom is spoken of. 4 Ezra 5. 6 seems to allude to this legend. Hippolytus, Haer., 2. 175, mentions the salutary quality of the waters of the sea of Sodom. This idea is very likely connected with the legend about Miriam’s well which is supposed to be hidden in the sea; see vol. III, p. 54. Shabbat 67a, on the contrary, speaks of the destroying angels “dwelling at Sodom”, that is, hovering over the sea of Sodom. Comp., however, Rashi, ad. loc. The poisonous quality of the “salt of Sodom” is often mentioned in the Talmud; see the lexica, s. v. MOND nop. On the fruit of Sodom, comp. Wisdom 10. 7; Josephus, Wars, 4, 8. 4; BR 51. 4. On the relation of the well of Shittim to that of Sodom comp. vol. III, p. 382, and Ginzberg, Haggada bet den Kurchenv., I, 110. 242 Abraham, [185-190 85 Berakot 26b. Comp. vol. IV, p. 361 and note 58 appertaining thereto. 186° Ekah 1. 74, x275BR 51. 6, 88 Nazir 23a; BR 51. 8, as well as vol. III, p. 6. Comp. also Theodor, ad. loc. The Messiah is not only a descendant of David who was the offspring of Ruth the Moabitish woman, but also the descendant of Solomon and his wife Naamah the Ammonite; Bereshit Rabbeti in Pugio Fidei, 714 (=Epstein 77); Maimonides’ Commentary on Mishnah Sanhedrin 10.

(article 12); Tan. B. I, 40; Origen, Contra Celsum, 4. 43.—Concerning Lot and his daughters the following is to be noted. Lot’s daughters believed that the entire world, together with all the inhabitants were destroyed, and that the continuation of the human race depended on them; they therefore decided to bear children to their father; BR 51. 8; PR 42. 176a; Aggadat Bereshit 25, 51; Josephus, Antiqui, I ,11. 4; Philo, Quaestiones, 4, 56; The Church Fathers Ephraim and Jerome, ad. Joc.; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bet den Kurchenv., 110, 111. In the cave of Adullam (Yashar, Wa-Yera, 39a) Lot’s daughter found the wine with which they made their father drunk. God caused the wine to be put in that place in order that they should succeed in their plan; Mekilta Shirah 2, 36a; Sifre D., 43; BR 51. 8. Although Lot was not aware of what he was doing, he is regarded as of a lascivious nature; for if he were continent, he would have taken care not to become drunk a second time after he found out what had happened to him with his older daughter on account of his drunkenness; Nazir 23a; Sifre N., 69; BR 51. 8 and the numerous parallel passages given by Theodor, ad. loc. Comp. also Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 111-112. Lot is a warning example to men to avoid being alone with women, lest the latter should entice them to sin, as did Lot’s daughters; Yelammedenu in Rimze Haftarot, Shelah. Hasidim, 461, and Hadar, 7b, quote, from unknown Midrashim, several statements concerning Lot’s daughters; comp.

also vol. IiI, pp. 351-352., 404-406. 189 BR 55. 1-4; PR 43, 176b; Aggadat Bereshit 25. 49, 50. According to Yashar Wa-Yera, 39a, Lot settled ‘‘on the other side of the Jordan”’, that is, in the country which was later inhabited by the Moabites and Ammonites. 19° Vashar Wa-Yera, 39a, 40a, partly after PR 42, 176b; comp. also below, note 202. 243 1gI—202] The Legends of the Jews 19! Tan. B. I, 101; PRE 26; MHG I, 298: The angel Michael— or Gabriel—came with a drawn sword to kill Abimelech. 192 BR 52. 6; PR 42, 176b; Tan. B. I, p. 101. The Rabbis entertained a very high opinion of Abimelech, whereas they utterly condemn Pharaoh, though the Bible tells the identical story of both these kings. Besides the sources, quoted above, which speak favorably of Abimelech, comp. MHG I, 299, where it is said that he was better than his nation; Tehillim 34, 246, and PRE 21 state that he desired to beget pious children and therefore wished to marry the pious Sarah. 193 Baba Kamma 92a; PRE 26. BIAEB Re OD ih Ow alee let Ole 195 MHG I, 300: We may well assume that he who is Godfearing will not sin, but he who is not God-fearing will not restrain himself from sin. Accordingly, Abraham was justified in his apprehension, though the inhabitants of Gerar were not particularly addicted to licentiousness; comp. MHG, loc. cit., and the different view in Lekah, Gen. 20. 11. 196 BR 52.

11; Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 22. 13; see also Yerushalmi Megillah I, 71d. ~ 97 PRE 27, where the text is not quite complete, as may be seen from MHG I, 301. 798 BR 52. 12 (comp. Theodor, ad loc.); Tan. B. I, p. 102; Aggadat Bereshit 25. 52-53; MHG I, 301, where several explanations are given of Gen. 20. 16 (MN is derived from Targum Yerushalmi, ad loc.); Lekah, ad loc., where the words nn>n $9 are taken to be the names of a slave and a bondwoman! ™99 MHG I, 302, partly after Mishnah Baba Kamma 8. 7 and Tosefta 9. 29: The injured one should pray to God to forgive the injurer, even if he is not asked to do so. Thus did our father Abraham, who prayed for Abimelech; comp. DE 4; and also vol. III, p. 336. I fed UE Do ils (lh, GUE 2° BR 52. 13; comp. Theodor, ad loc. 2°02 PR 42, 177a: Also the other women at the court of Abimelech became pregnant and gave birth to sons. The sickness with which Abimelech and his subjects were afflicted consisted in the closing up of all apertures in the bodies of man and beast (Baba Kamma 92a; BR 52. 13; PR, loc. cit., and 178a; Aggadat Bereshit 27,57; a different view is found in Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 20. i8), so that 244 Abraham, [203-205 no female was able to give birth to a child.—The king is to his country what the heart is to the human body, when the heart is sick the entire body suffers, even so when the king sins, all his subjects suffer; MHG I, 300, and see also the similar saying in Ein anonymer Kommentar zum Hohen Liede, in the Steinschnetder- Festschrift, 55.

203 PR 42, 177a-178a; Tan. B. I, 103-107; Tan. Wa-Yera 1317; Aggadat Bereshit 28. 57-58; comp. also Baba Kamma 92b; PR 38, 165a, where attention is called to the fact that Abraham’s wife was cured of her sterility as a reward for his prayer to God in behalf of Abimelech’s wives who were unable to give birth to children; see also the preceding note. At the same time Sarah was rewarded for her trust in God; BR 53. 3.—Conflicting views are given in rabbinic sources concerning the date of Isaac’s birth (according to Jub. 16. 13 he was born the fifteenth of Siwan), and these differences are due to the competition between the months of Nisan and Tishri for the highest place in the Jewish legend; comp. Rosh ha-Shanah 10b, 11a, and the quotation from the Midrashim given in Tosafot, ad loc. (caption xdx), as well as BR 43. 6 (here it is stated that Isaac was born at noon) and the numerous passages given by Theodor, ad loc. The attempts made to harmonize this point (the date of the visit of the angels, as well as that of another important event in the history of Abraham, depends upon this question) are in vain, as has already been noted by Shu‘aib, Wa-Yera, 9b. Comp. also Hadar,7c (the word snobna is incorrect, as no such statement occurs in the Talmud!); Minhat Yehudah and Tosafot, Gen. 18. 10, 11, and 21. 1.—At Isaac’s birth all creation rejoiced, the earth, the heavens, the sun, the moon, etc., because had not Isaac been born, the world would have ceased to exist; Tan.

Toledot 2. Philo, De Praemiis et Poenis, 4 and 5, likewise explains the name Isaac as ‘‘joy”. The heavenly light at the birth of heroes is a favorite theme in legends; comp. vol. I, p. 188; note 1 on vol. I, p. 145, as well as note 256 on vol. I, p. 388, and vol. III, p. 264. Comp. also PK 22, 146a. 204 Tan. Toledot 1; BR 53. 6 and 84. 8; Baba Mezi‘a 87a; Tan. B. I, 176, which is the source of Makiri, Tehillim, 311, (61); Yelammedenu in Yalkut, II, 141, on 2 Samuel 3; MHG I, 304; Zohar I, 135a. Comp. also vol. IV, p. 118. 205 BR 46. 2. Abraham received the commandment of circumcision in his old age in order that ‘‘the door should not be closed in the face of the proselytes’’, who otherwise might have refused to submit to the performance of this operation in advanced age; Me246 206-215] The Legends of the Jews kilta Nezikin 18,95; BR, Joc. cit., and parallel passages given by Theodor. 206 PRE 29 (on the text, comp. Eshkol IJ, 131, and Luria, ad loc.); Lekah, ad loc., I, 94 (quotation from PRE?); DR 1. 25. 207 Vashar Wa-Yera, 40b; BR 53. 10; see note 210. 208 Baba Mezi‘a 87a; PK 22, 146b: The people said Isaac was Hagar’s son; Hallel 92; BR 53. 9; Tan. B. I. 107; Tan. Toledot 3; PRE 52. The last-named passage adds that this was the second of the seven miracles, that were ‘“‘visible to all”, which occurred in the course of history, the first miracle being the delivery of Abraham from the fiery furnace.

Lekah, ad Joc., I, 94, states that Sarah suckled a hundred babies on that occasion. 209 BR 53. 9. Comp. the Antoninus legend in BHM VI, 131. 27 °°BR 53. 10; DRi17255-Kohelet 75:2: 2711 BR 53. 11; Sifre D., 31; Tosefta Sotah 6. 6. These sources quote a dissenting opinion, according to which Sarah noticed that Ishmael caught locusts and sacrificed them to the idols (that is to say, he was imitating adults, his locusts being ‘‘toy sacrifices’’; comp. Shabbat 9. 6 end, but see also vol. IV, p. 154); according to another view Ishmael even committed adultery and murder. Jerome, Gen. 21. 9, is acquainted with these two haggadic views, whereas the Yerushalmi Targumim speak only of Ishmael’s idolatry. Comp. PR, 193b; PRE 30 (this is the source of Yashar Wa-Yera, 40b); Aggadat Bereshit 37, 73-74, and 61, 122. The legend about Ishmael persecuting Isaac is found also in Galatians 4. 26; comp. also first Alphabet of Ben Sira 3b; DR 4. 5; Tan. Shemot 1; Josephus, Antiguz. 1. 12, 3. 212 Philo, Quaestiones. Gen. 100. 2 23E BIR 53a lt. 774 PRE 30. In Jub. 16. 17, seg., it is stated, with reference to Gen. 22, 12, that God informed Abraham that only Isaac’s progeny (that is, Jacob and his descendants) would be his true seed; comp. Nedarim 3. 11 and DR 4. 5. Jub. 17. 4 gives the following reasons for Ishmael’s banishment: Sarah saw that Abraham rejoiced at Ishmael’s playing and dancing, and she became jealous.

2715 BR 53. 13; PRE 30; ShR 3. 2; Tan. Wa-Yeze 5; Tehillim 5. 55; Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 21. 15-16. On the unbrotherly actions of the Ishmaelites against the Jews, comp. vol. IV, p. 315. The statement that God treats man according to his deserts at each moment is very frequently found in Jewish literature; comp. (besides the sources given at the beginning of this note) Rosh 246 Abraham [216-222 ha-Shanah 16b; Yerushalmi I, 57d; 4 Ezra 7. 132. Comp. Ginzberg, Compte Rendu des Mélanges Is. Lewy, 23-24 (= R.E.J., 67, 137-138); see also MHG I, 309, as well as vol. II, 317. In Christian sources this statement is attributed to Jesus; comp. Ginzberg Joc. cit. 216 PRE 30; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 21. 16; MHG I, 309; Midrash Aggada, ad loc., I, 48: She worshipped a brick; this is very likely a reminiscence of the worship of the Ka‘bah in Mecca; comp., however, ‘Abodah Zarah 46a. According to Targum Yerushalmi, loc. cit., Ishmael’s fear was a punishment for his and his mother’s idolatry (PRE knows only of Hagar’s idolatry, and this is in agreement with the singular ynm of verse 14); at the same time this fear brought them both back to God. 217 BR 53. 14. The proverb ‘Throw the stick, etc,” is very frequently quoted; comp. Theodor, ad loc. The sources differ as to Ishmael’s age at the time of his banishment from his father’s house; see BR 53. 13 and the sources given by Theodor, ad Joc., as well as Lekah I, 95, and Yashar Wa-Yera, 40b; comp.

also note 211. 218 Yashar Wa-Yera, 41a, 41b, which. is very likely based on PRE 30, though our text of that Midrash does not contain this episode. The names of Ishmael’s two wives are given in PRE, Joc. cit., as Aisha (809; 75°) and Aw Ty are corruptions) and Fatima (ODD). This is the source for Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 21. 21. These names were borne by Mohammed’s wife and a daughter, respectively; comp. Ndéldeke in Geiger’s Jtidische Zeitschrift, V, 313, and Luria, ad loc. 229 Yashar Wa-Yera, 42a. On the chronology of these events comp. BR 54. 6 and the parallel passages given by Theodor. Phichol, Gen. 21. 22, is taken by some to be the title of the first grandee of the land, ‘whose mouth directs everything” => 5; comp. BR 54, 2. 220 BR 54. 2-5; Shu‘aib’s quotation (Wa-Yera, 9a) from an unknown Midrash; comp. Toledot Yizhak, ad loc., 25c. On the rising of the water comp. vol. I, pp. 293 and 354; vol. II, p. 291; vol. TLL pos: 2721 MHG I, 312. On the Noachian commandments, comp. vol. I, pp. 70-71, and the notes appertaining to them. 222 BR 54,4; PK 10, 85a; Shemuel 12. 80-81; ER 7. 45. From Abraham to Moses there are seven generations, and accordingly Gen. 15. 16 can only refer to the four generations who were born in Egypt. Another explanation of the Gen. verse is that the generations of the 247 223-228] The Legends of the Jews Amorites are meant; comp. MHG I, 238; RSBM and Bekor Shor, ad loc.

223 Yashar Wa-Yera, 42b. In its main features this description of Abraham’s hospitality follows ARN 7, 33-34, 163-164 where Job is the hero. Comp. vol. II, p. 229. It is true that ARN calls attention to the fact that Abraham by far surpassed Job, the latter having been hospitable to those who came to him, while the former went to the highways to look for strangers on whom to bestow his hospitality. A short description of Abraham’s hospitality is also found in BR 54. 6; Sotah 10a; Tehillim 37, 252-253, and 110, 465; Berakot 58b; Kad ha-Kemah, Orehim, 5a (w17D=ARN, loc. cit., and *ooviy =Bahir; Sabba, Toledot 27c also quotes this passage from Bahir with the introductory formula *»bwia); comp. note 133. Even to-day in the vernacular of the Jews of Eastern Europe a house with many doors is described as a “‘house with Avrohom Ovinu’s (Father Abraham’s) doors”. Comp also the following two notes and Neweh Shalom, 48-49. 224 Tan. Lek, 12; Tosafot (y3~) on Sotah 10b, quoting a source similar to, but not identical with, Tan. The prayer taught by Abraham (instead of mp 7X we-should very likely read mbpn, parallel to m2 3) is identical with the first benediction of Grace after Meals; comp. Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 667, on Ps. 24. The great merit of the fathers consists in their lovingkindness ("p7¥); comp. EZ I, 169, and Aggadat Shir 3. 22, seg. 275 BR 54. 6. The Haggadot about Abraham’s hospitality are introduced in connection with the word bwx (Gen.

21. 33), which is said to stand for m5°D8 food, mnw drink and 7 escort, provided by Abraham. In BR Joc. cit., the statement, based upon the literal meaning of wx which is “tamarisk”, is found that the middle bar in the midst of the boards of the tabernacle (Exod. 26. 28) was made out of this tamarisk. Comp. note 344 on vol. III, p. 164, and above, note 137. 226 Zohar I, 10a-11b. On the great feast prepared by Abraham on Isaac’s birthday, see vol. I, pp. 262, 263. Satan disguised as a beggar is a favorite subject of Jewish legends; comp. Kiddushin 81a; vol. II, p. 232; vol. IV, pp. 227, 228; note 34. 227 Yashar Wa-Yera, 43b, where the diction is modelled after Job 1. 6, seg. 228 Vashar Wa-Yera 43b, based on old sources; comp. BR 55. 4; Sanhedrin 89b. In the last-named passage, as well as in Yashar, 248 Abraham [229-234 the accuser is Satan, while in BR the angels appear as accusers. In Jub. 18. 6 Mastema (=Satan) is the accuser. Comp. also the unknown Midrash in Yalkut I, 96, and Epstein in Ha-Eshkol VI, 201. 229 Yashar Wa-Yera, 43b-44a, based on BR 55. 4; Sanhedrin 89b, and Tan. B. I, 108, as well as Tan. Wa-Yera 18 and Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 22.2. Great emphasis is laid in the sources on the fact that although Isaac, at the time of the ‘Akedah, was no longer a lad, but a grown-up man (different views are given as to his exact age; comp. Seder ‘Olam I; BR 55.

5, and parallel passages cited by Theodor), yet he willingly submitted to his father’s wish. In the ‘Akedah legends two currents are to be distinguished; according to one, Abraham is the hero, while in the other Isaac is glorified. In the oldest reference to the ‘Akedah in the liturgy (Zikronot in the Musaf for New Year) it is Isaac to whom credit is given, whereas medieval paitanim in their ‘Akedahs sing Abraham’s praises. 23° BR 55. 7; Sanhedrin 89b; Tan. B., I, 11; Tan. Wa-Yera 22; PRE 31; PR 40, 169b and 193b. Philo, De Abrahamo, 32, and Josephus, Antiguz. I, 13. 1, likewise introduce the ‘Akedah with a description of Isaac’s virtues on account of which he was very dear to his father, and yet Abraham did not hesitate to bring him as a sacrifice to God as soon as he was commanded to do so. 231 PR 40, 170a; A different view is given in BR 55. 7; comp. vol. I, pp. 233, 234, and the notes appertaining to them. 732 Yashar Wa-Yera, 44a, 44b. Comp. the unknown Midrash in Yalkut I, 98. The old sources (comp. references in notes 15 and 758 on vol. III, 12 and 371, as well as Tan. Wa-Yera 22), dwell upon the speed with which Abraham, in his zeal to obey God’s command, proceeded to carry it out. 233 PRE 31; Yashar Wa-Yera, 44b; Wa-Yosha‘, 37; comp. below, note 236. 234 Vashar Wa-Yera, 44b-45a, based on old sources; comp. Sanhedrin 89b; BR 56. 4; Tan. B. I, 114; Tan. Wa-Yera 22; PR 40, 170b; Wa-Yosha‘, 36-37; the unknown Midrash in Yalkut I, 98.

In BR the tempter is Sammael, which is only a different name for Satan; comp. above, note 228. In BR 56. 4 it is stated that Abraham hid Isaac in a casket that Satan should not lay hands upon him and, by causing injury to his body, render him unfit for a sacrifice, which according to the law must be without blemish. MHG I, 315, gives the scene of the temptation by Satan in accordance with an unknown midrashic source; comp. also Neweh Shalom, 59-60. In Sanhedrin and 249 235-241] The Legends of the Jews MHG, loc. cit., it is related that Satan, having failed to sway either Abraham or Isaac, said to the former: ‘I have heard a voice from behind the curtain (see Index, s. v. ‘Curtain, Heavenly’’) proclaiming that a sheep, not Isaac, will be sacrificed.’’ But even these words had no effect upon Abraham, who remarked: “It is the punishment of the mendacious not to be believed even when he tells the truth.” 235 Wa-Yosha‘ 36; a somewhat different version is found in Yashar Wa-Yera, 46b. Comp. also the unknown Midrash in Yalkut I, 98; and 99. 236 Vashar Wa-Yera, 45a-45b, based on old sources; comp. BR 56. 2; PK 27, 170b; WR 20. 2; Kohelet 9. 7; Tan. B. I, 113, and III, 58; Tan. Wa-Yera 23 and Ahare 2; PR 40, 170b; PRE 21; Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 22. 4; Aggadat Bereshit 31. 63. Comp. also Philo, De Somniis 11. Jub. 18. 4a reads: He made his companions abide at a well.

According to a widespread Haggadah they remained at a mile’s distance from the holy mountain; comp. Tan. B. I, 113 and 183; II, 15; III, 9 and 14, as well as the numerous parallel passages cited by Theodor to BR 53. 13; see further Berakot 63b; Sekei 61, and Mahzor Vitry, 110. ; 237 BR 56. 2 and the sources referred to in the preceding note. Comp. also Theodor, ad Joc., and vol. II, p. 348. 238 Vashar Wa-Yera, 45. The Midrashim contain numerous explanations of the word nD (Gen. 22. 5); comp. BR 56. 2; Tan. B. I, 113; Targum Yerushalmi, Gen., loc. cit.; Aggadat Shir 1. 5 (this is the source of Al-Barceloni, 57); Tan. Wa-Yehi 7; BR 43. 8; MHG I, 320. 739 BR 56. 2; Tan. B. I, 113; Tan. Wa-Yera 23; PR 40, 170b; Mo‘ed Katan 18a; Ephraim I, 77B. 2 ARN 43, 118 (and from there in Midrash Aggada 1. 51), enumerates the ‘“‘unconscious prophecies’’. John, 11. 51, and Herodotus III, 153, show that this conception is widespread. 74° Yashar Wa-Yera, 45b (read 7113 instead of 713), based on old sources; comp. BR 56. 3-4; Tan. Wa-Yera 23; PR 40, 170b; Targumim Yerushalmi Gen. 22. 8; PRE 31. The explanation of 11m (Gen., loc. cit.) in the sense of “‘in the same spirit”, given in the above-mentioned sources, is also found in ps.-Philo, 41A. Comp. Josephus, Antiqut. I, 32. 1; MHG I, 321; vol. IV, p. 44. 24% Yashar Wa-Yera, 45b; Neweh Shalom, 50; Wa-Yosha‘ 37; Tan. Wa-Yera 23, According to BR 56.4; PR 40, 170; ER 28,138; EZ2,174, Isaac did not participate in the erection of the altar.

See also below. 250 Abraham [242-243 242 Wa-Yosha‘ 37-38 (text, 38, 2, is to be emended and read on Nw); PRE 31; Neweh Shalom 50-51; Yashar Wa-Yera, 46a (the expression ]151 1519 7n is an Arabism); Tan. Wa-Yera 23; Yerushalmi Targumim, Gen. 22. 9; see also the quotations from an unknown Midrash given in MHG I, 521-522, and Mahzor Vitry 330. The weeping of the angels is already referred to in the old sources; comp. BR 56. 6 (on myn. See Targum and Peshitta, Isa. 38. 7, which connect this word with Syriac 8x¥’n; hence the expression W723 NT ALN becomes intelligible); PR 40, 171a; PRE 31; Aggadat Bereshit 31, 61-62; MHG I, 322 (here it is Metatron who pleads for Isaac’s life, and it is he who is sent to restrain Abraham from slaying Isaac); Zohar I, 120b. Comp. also vol. IV, pp. 306 and 308, as well as 426. That the bluntness of his knife prevented Abraham from: carrying out his intention, is alluded to also in BR 56. 7; Tan. Wa-Yera 23 (here Satan knocks the knife out of Abraham’s hand; but, perhaps, qNbnn is to be read instead of juwm); MHG I, 322. See also the following note. Isaac’s resignation to God’s will is also praised in 4 Maccabees 16. 20, whereas in 13. 12 and 14. 20 it is Abraham who is the hero of the ‘Akedah. See note 299; comp. ps.-Philo 18C and note 240. The binding of Isaac by Abraham was in conformity with the law, which prescribes the binding of a sacrifice before it is slaughtered; comp.

Shabbat 54a; 2 Enoch 59; Eldad 44. See also Ginzberg in Journal for Jewish Lore and Philosophy, I, 206. It is to be noted in this connection that Abraham observed all the sacrificial ceremonies while preparing to offer up Isaac. Comp. MHG I, 322; PRE 31; Hullin 16a. The repetition of Abraham’s name by the angel is explained by Philo, De Abrahamo, 32, in the same manner as in PR and Wa-Yosha’, loc. cit., whereas BR 56. 7 and the parallel passages cited by Theodor consider it an expression of endearment. See also Jub. 18. 10. 243 PRE 31; MHG I, 323; Wa-Yosha‘ 38; unknown midrashic sources in Shibbole ha-Leket, No. 18 (Tefillah), 17-18; Al-Barceloni, 125, based on PRE, Joc. cit., but with the additional remark that Isaac gave up his life at the appearance of the Shekinah. {n BR 65. 9 Isaac’s blindness is explained in a similar manner; comp. Hebrews 11. 19, and below, note 255. With regard to the oath taken by God, Philo, Legum Allegor. 71, remarks: The mere words of God are... .laws and institutions. ...It is proper to say that all the words of God are oaths confirmed by the accomplishment of the acts to which they relate. Whether Hebrews 6. 13 is to be traced directly to Philo is doubtful. ‘‘The word of God is an act”’ is a favorite phrase with the 251 244-248] The Legends of the Jews Rabbis; comp. BR 44. 22; Tehillim 107, 462. See also Philo, Quaestuones, Gen., 4.

170; note 1 on vol. I, p. 49. 244 PR 40, 171b; MHG I, 323; Tan. B. IV, 72. 245 Yashar Wa-Yera, 46b, based on old sources; comp. BR 56. 9 and parallel passages cited by Theodor, ad Joc., as well as PRE 26 and unknown Midrash in Yalkut I, 101. imwy ova in Yashar is not to be taken literally; comp. note 99 on vol. I, p. 83, and Zohar I, 120b. According to another view, it was the bell-wether of Abraham’s flocks that was sacrificed instead of Isaac. Abraham had called this pet animal Isaac, and it was therefore quite appropriate that Isaac, the ram, should take the place of the real Isaac; comp. MHG I, 323324, and Neweh Shalom, 51, with the additional remark that Gabriel had brought the ram to the altar. 246 PRE 31. On the trumpet at the advent of the Messiah, see vol. IV, p. 234, and note 116 appertaining thereto. Bahya on Exod. 19. 13, and Caro, Toledot Yizhak on Gen. 22. 13 (the Jatter is based on the former) state that the ram came to life again after it was sacrificed and burned to-ashes. On the resurrection of animals, comp. vol. I, p. 236, and notes 113, 317. 247 Tan. B. I, 114, and IV, 72; Tan. Wa- Yera 23 and Shelah 14; PR 40, 171a; BaR 17. 2; comp. also BR 56. 7 and 57. 14, as well as Sifre D., 313. In the sources herewith mentioned it is stated that God promised Abraham not to tempt either him or Isaac in the future. The temptations and sufferings intended for Abraham were accordingly assigned to Job.—The haggadic interpretation of "AYT) as "YT.

(‘I made thee known’’) is already found in Jub. 18. 1, as wellas in Peshitta and Vulgate Gen. 22. 12. 248 Tan. B. I, 115; Tan. Wa-Yera 23; Yerushalmi Ta'anit 2, 65d; PK 23, 154b; WR 29. 10; MHG I, 325-326; an unknown midrashic source in Hadar, 8a; PR 40, 171b. Comp. also BR 56. 9, Yerushalmi Targumim, Gen. 22. 14. Nispahim, 47, reads: God forgives Israel’s sins on New Year on account of the merit of Abraham who was willing to be burned in the furnace of fire by Nimrod in order to sanctify God’s name. On the basis of the Haggadot which connect the ceremony of the blowing of the ram’s horn on New Year with the ram sacrificed in lieu of Isaac, the view arose that the ‘Akedah took place on that day. A different opinion, favored by the Kabbalists, maintains that this event occurred on the Day of Atonement. See Ginzberg in Ha-Zofeh, III, 186-188. Now and again one meets with 252 Abraham, [249-254 the view that the ‘Akedah took place in Nisan; comp. ShR 15. 11, and see further note 126. 749 BR 56. 10; Sifre D., 352; PRE 31; Targum Yerushalmi 22 .15; comp. note 251. According to PRE 23, Abraham performed the rite of circumcision on his body at the site of the temple; see further note 283. In remembrance of the sacrifice of Isaac, God commanded that two sacrifices should be brought daily; ER 56. 36; WR 2. 11. 25° BR 56. 7; Yerushalmi Ta‘anit 2, 65d; PK 23, 154b; PR 40, 171b.

275% PR 31; Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 22. 9. The altar destroyed by the flood was rebuilt by Noah, but later demolished by the builders of the Tower; MHG I, 321. ae MHG I, 325; comp. the following note. 253 BR 56. 10; Tehillim 76, 341-342; see note 102. The etymological remark of Lactantius, Institutiones, 4. 10, to the effect that Jerusalem was called after Solomon, is not based, as is generally assumed, on the Greek fepdy, but on the Hebrew moby [njwi7, 7. e. ‘‘the possession of Solomon.”” Theophilus 2. 31 remarks: Melchizedek changed the name of the city from Salem to Jerusalem. Numerous are the etymologies given of the name Moriah, the Temple mount (2 Chron. 3. i), which according to Jewish tradition, accepted by the Church, is identical with the place where Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac; comp. BR 55. 7; Yerushalmi Berakot 4, 8c; Ta‘anit 10a; Berakot 62b; Shir 4. 4; Tan. B. I, 112; PR 40, 169b-170a; Tehillim 30, 233; Targumim, Aquila, Symmachus, and Septuagint, Gen. 22. 2. Peshitta stands alone with its rendering of Moriah by Amorite ‘(7TW5=M 098) and yet the Syriac Fathers Ephraim (I, 100, 17c) and Aphraates (400) maintain that the ‘Akedah took place on the holy mount of Jerusalein; see Ginzberg, Haggada bet den Kirchenv., 113-114. Jerome, on Gen., loc. cit., gives two etymologies of Moriah which agree with those of BR, loc. cit. Josephus, Antiqui., I, 13, 2, knows of the identity of Moriah with the Temple mount, but gives no etymological explanation of the meaning of Moriah.

See also the unknown Midrash in Yalkut I, 100. 254 BR 56. 1. According to the reading of MHG I, 327, Isaac did not return with his father, but by himself, “in the stillness of the night, in order that his miraculous escape from death should not be the cause of provoking the evil eye.’ A different view is found in 253 255] The Legends of the Jews Midrash Aggada I, 54, and Targum Yerushalmi 22. 19. The angels alluded to in the last source probably belong to another legend; comp. the following note. 255 MHG I, 327. The purpose of Isaac’s stay in paradise was to be cured from the injury inflicted by his father before the angel stopped him from completing the sacrifice; comp. the passage from an unknown Midrash Hadar, 10b; Minhat Yehudah, 13b (on Gen. 25. 27); Pa‘aneah Raza, Gen. 24. 64; Yalkut Reubeni, Gen. 22. 2 (the reference to R. Bahya covers only the sentence '13) ya08 mp); Shu‘aib, Hayye Sarah, 11b. Shibbole ha-Leket, No. 18 (Tefillah) 17-18, quotes an unknown Midrash to the effect that Isaac was burned to ashes, and then brought back to life. The old sources, however, explicitly state that God forbade Abraham to cause even the slightest injury to Isaac; for Abraham had intended to bleed him a little, in order thus to show his willingness to offer to God his most precious possession dearest to his heart; comp. BR 56. 7, anq parallel passages cited by Theodor.

It is therefore very strange that Mekiita RS 4 speaks of Isaac’s blood brought as a sacrifice. See, however, ps.-Philo 18c: And for the blood of him—Isaac—did I choose this people; comp. note 243.— Yalkut David on Gen. 27. 27 quotes the Zohar with reference to Isaac’s stay in paradise, but nothing of this kind occurs in the latter, and there can beno doubt that Yalkut Reubeni is to be read instead of Zohar, as the supposed quotation from the Zohar is actually found, word for word, in Yalkut Reubeni, Joc. cif. For further details on this point see below, note 301, and.note 92 on vol. I, p. 334. Neweh Shalom remarks: While Isaac was lying on the altar bound as a sacrifice, the angel of death took his stand opposite him, and said: ‘As soon as Abraham lays his hand on Isaac, and slays him, I shall take his—Isaac’s—soul.”” But when he saw that all the angels were pleading for Isaac’s life (comp. vol. I, p. 281), he remarked: “This man has no enemy, and I will therefore do him no harm.”Abraham was enjoined to carry out the commandment of the ‘Akedah three days after it was given (Gen. 22. 4), in order that it should not be said that he fulfilled God’s will while in a state of excitement and perturbation; BR 55. 6; Tan. B. I, 113; Tan. Wa-Yera 22; PR 40, 170a-170b; Aggadat Bereshit 31, 63-64; Ephraim I, 76E. The diffuse comments of Philo on the ‘Akedah, whichhe explains as a protest against the sacrificing of children, show that Alexandrian Judaism, no less than Palestinian, attached great importance to this episode in the lives of the patriarchs.—The site of the Temple mount was orig254 Abraham — [256-259 inally a plain, but was “elevated’’ at the moment it was designated as the place for the ‘Akedah; Tan.

Wa-Yera 22; Yalkut I, 100. 25 Vashar Wa-Yera, 46b-47a, based on old sources; Tan. WaYera 23 and Ahare 2; PRE 32; PK 26, 170b; WR 20. 2; Kohelet 9. 7; Tan. B. IV, 53; Midrash Aggada I, 52 and 55; MHG I, 237. Comp. also Wa-Yosha‘ 26, and Neweh Shalom, 51-52. Sarah died in the month of Heshwan, 7 e., shortly after the ‘Akedah, which took place in the previous month (see note 248); Esther R 3. 7; Abba Gorion 25. The sound of the blowing of the Shofar on New Year is brought in relation with the sound emitted by Sarah at the moment of her demise; see Ginzberg, Hazofeh, III, 186-188. The words of resignation put into Sarah's mouth are modelled after the Zidduk ha-Din (comp. Baer, Siddur, 586), and the same remark applies to similar sentences in vol. II, p. 27, and vol. III, p. 451. 257 MHG I, 346, based upon an unknown source; BR 58. 6. 258 BR 58. 1; MHG I, 333-334. Shu‘aib, Hayye Sarah, 11a, quotes the following unknown Haggadah: Sarah really lived only thirty-seven years—from the birth of Isaacto her death—for the years she spent as a barren woman cannot be regarded as life. The same authority, Wa-Yehi, 22d, quotes a similar Haggadah concerning Jacob, who is said to have lived only thirty-four years, the space of time his favorite son Joseph stayed with him. Hadar, 8a (Tosafot and RASh), and Da'‘at, 10c—10d, could hardly have been made use of by Shu‘aib. 259 MHG I, 346-347; on the eulogy spoken by Abraham upon Sarah, see ibid, 341.

In the word mnoad) (‘and to weep for her”, Gen. 23. 2) the letter 5 is small according to the Masorah; this indicates tht Abraham did not weep very much for Sarah’s death; so Hadar and Ba‘al ha-Turim, ad loc., whereas Leket Midrashim 21 gives a different explanation of the smallness of this letter. It is noteworthy that Philo, De Abrahamo, 44 (comp. also, Quaestiones, Gen. 4. 73) concludes from the biblical narrative of the death of Sarah that Abraham mourned for her a short time only, as immoderate mourning is not fitting for the wise who should not feel sorry when restoring to God the deposit entrusted to them. This last remark of Philo is often met with in Jewish writings; comp. ARN 14, 59; Mishle 31, 108; Tan. Bereshit 7; see also Wisdom 15. 8, 16—Sarah died during Abraham’s lifetime, her great piety notwithstanding, because she accused her husband of being unfair to her (Gen. 16. 5); by her premature death it was proved that her accusations were unfounded; Rosh ha-Shanah 255 260-266] The Legends of the Jews 16b; Baba Kamma 93b; comp. above, note 151. Sifte Kohen on Gen. 23. 2 quotes, from an unknown Midrash, the following legend about Sarah’s death: Satan appeared to her and asked her whether she knew where Isaac was. ‘‘He went with his father to be instructed in the laws of sacrifices”, was her reply. ‘‘No’’, rejoined Satan, ‘‘he himself is the sacrifice.’? She betook herself to the three giants, Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai (comp.

vol. III, p. 268), and asked them to look into the distance, far, far away, and see if they could not discern an old man accompanied by two lads. They obeyed and informed her that they saw an old man with a knife in his hand and next to him a youth bound as a sacrifice. She was so terrified that her soul flew out of her body. A similar legend is found in the unknown midrashic source given in Yalkut I, 98. 260 MHG I, 347; Jub. 18. 3-4; comp. also 2ARN 45, 124; WR 3. 7; vol. II, p. 339. With reference to these words of Abraham, Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 4. 74, remarks: The pious feel like strangers in this world, they are at home in the other world only. See the identical words of the Midrash cited in vol. II, p. 122. In BR 58. 6, on the other hand, Abraham is made to say to the children of Heth: “Tf I wish, I shall claim the rights of the owner, since God promised this land.” 261 MHG I, 348; comp. also BR 58. 6, and the passage, from an unknown Midrash, cited in Makiri, Proverbs 30, 88a. 262 BR 57. 7. This is very likely a haggadic interpretation of 355 (Gen. 23. 12), which is explained in the sense of in the presence of. 263 PRE 20. The Cave of Machpelah being a double cave— hence its name mp>0 “double’”—hid all the more Adam’s body which was buried in the inner cave; comp. ‘Erubin 53a and Philo, Quaestiones, Gen., 3. 80. Abraham, knowing that at the time of the resurrection of the dead those buried in the Cave of Machpelah would rise first, wished to be buried there; comp.

the passage, from an unknown Midrash, cited in Yad Yosef on Gen. 23.9 and Abkat Rokel II, 5. See further details concerning the Cave of Machpelah in vol. I, pp. 69 and 101, as well as vol. II, p. 191, and note 7 appertaining thereto. Ns 264 Zohar Ruth I, 97b. 265 PRE 26; Zohar Ruth I, 97c; Zohar I, 127a-128a. Concerning the light shining over R. Akiba’s grave, see Mishle 9. 62. 266 BR 58. 7; ShR 31. 17. Ephron, however, was not aware 256 Abraham [267-270 of the great treasure in his possession, as the light of the Cave of Machpelah was invisible to him; Sabba, Hayye Sarah, 24a. 267 BR 58. 7; PK 11, 95a-95b; ShR 31. 17; Tan. B. I, 103-104 and V, 20; Tan. Wa-Yera 4, Behar 1, and Reeh 10; comp. also MHG I, 349-350; Mekilta Yitro 1,57b; Mekilta RS, 85; Baba Mezi‘a 87a; ARN 13,57; Yerushalmi Kiddushin I, 59d; Onkelos and Yerushalmi Targumim, Gen. 23. 16. The Haggadah in the afore-mentioned sources finds in the defective spelling of the name }.DYy (Gen. Joc. cit.) an indication that the bearer of the name was morally ‘‘defective’’; the same idea is maintained by Jerome, ad loc. The source of MHG is none of the Midrashim just quoted. As a reward for Abraham's humility, who twice bowed down before the children of Heth, the nations will bow down twice before Israel (that is, they will become Israel’s subjects), once during the reign of Solomon and then again in the days of the Messiah; MHG I, 349, where a new source is introduced with the words 787) 8&2; comp.

Schechter, ad loc.,and see above, note 262. 268 Vashar Hayye Sarah, 47a-48b, where the names of the witnessess on the bill of sale are also given; comp. vol. IV, p. 92. As a reward for the kindness shown to Abraham by the inhabitants of Hebron, this city remained in their possession for forty-seven years longer than they were entitled to it. The Jews took it from them forty years after the exodus from Egypt, whereas Zoan, that had been founded seven years later than Hebron (Num. 13. 22), was destroyed at the time of the exodus; Sifra 18. 2, 85c; MHG I, 347-348. The inhabitants of Hebron, who, in order to show the last honor to Sarah, closed their places of business, did not die before they participated thirty-eight years later, in the funeral ceremonies for Abraham; BR 58. 7 and 62. 3. Shem and Eber, who were present at Sarah’s as well as at Abraham’s burial, took care that the latter should be interred next to the former; BR, loc. cit. 269 Zohar I, 128a-128b. Instead of nr it is best to read by, though the former reading can be defended. 27° Yashar Hayye Sarah, 48a; comp. above, note 56. Not long before Sarah’s death Abraham lost his father Terah; BR 58. 5-6, where it is said: At the time of Sarah’s death Abraham saw the angel of death draw his sword against him. The purport of this remark probably is that at this time some of Abraham’s relatives met their death; comp. Mo‘ed Katan 27b, below.

Zohar I, 125a, maintains that Sarah died by a kiss from God, and not by the hand of the angel of death. Comp. Index, s. v. ‘Kiss from God”. 257 271-274] The Legends of the Jews 271% Tan. Hayye Sarah, 4; Tan. B. I, 118; Aggadat Bereshit 34, 67-69; MHG I, 352-353. The Midrashim give in this connection a homiletic comment on the last chapter of Prov., which they refer to Sarah, the ideal of the ‘‘woman of valor’. MHG I, 334-339, and likewise Mishle 31 find in this chapter the praise of the twenty-two “women of valor’: Noah’s wife, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, Rachel, Bithiah (the foster-mother of Moses), Jochebed, Miriam, Hannah, Jael, the widow of Zarephath, Naomi, Rahab, Bath-Sheba, Michal, Hazlelponith (Samson’s mother), Elisheba (Aaron’s wife), Serah (Asher’s daughter), the wife of the prophet Obadiah, the Shunammite, Ruth, and Esther. Sarah, however, is the most prominent of these twenty-two ‘‘women of valor’’, and hence she is the only woman whose age, at her death, is given in Scripture. 272 Baba Mezi‘a 87a; Sanhedrin 107b; BR 65. 9; Tan. B. I, 118 and 128; Tan. Hayye Sarah 1, and Toledot 6; Aggadat Bereshit 34, 69; PRE 52 (with the additional remark that thjs was one of the seven great miracles); Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 874, on Ps. 115; Hadar, 9a, quoting an unknown midrashic source. Comp. also Tan. B. 1,47, which reads: Abraham was the first.to show signs of old age, to lavish hospitality, to suffer pain, and to distribute, in his lifetime, his possessions among his children.

On the last point see Gen. 25. 6. Abraham said to God: ‘If Thou hadst made known to the generation of the flood what pain is, they would never have rebelled against Thee.” Whereupon God replied: ‘‘Thou shalt be the first to experience suffering.”’ And Isaac became very ill at his very birth. To celebrate his son’s recovery from the “‘ first illness’’ (caused by the circumcision?) Abraham made the great feast mentioned in Scripture (Gen. 21. 8; comp. note 206 and vol. I, p. 262). See note 74 on vol. I, p. 329. On the Arabic version of the legend of the first illness, see Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, 118. 273 Tan. Hayye Sarah 4; Baba Batra 16b; BR 59. 6-7; Tosefta Kiddushin 5. 17-21; comp. also Theodor, BR, ad loc., and MHG I, 353-354. According to one view given in the sources just mentioned, the great blessing bestowed upon Abraham consisted in his having no daughter, while in the same passage the opposite view is recorded to the effect that Abraham was blesséd with a daughter whose name was Bakkol (“with all things’). Comp. also Philo, De Abrahamo, 7; Yerushalmi Sotah 5, 20c, and Berakot 9, 14b, as well as vol. II, p. 149; vol. III, p. 206; vol. IV, p. 103. 274 BR 59. 5, where Ps. 24 is referred by the Psalmist to Abraham 258 Abraham ~ {275-276 who is the pattern for the picture of the righteous. God said to Abraham: ‘‘Thou occupiest thyself with showing loving-kindness to mankind, and art thus doing the same work as I.

I shall therefore clothe thee with the same garments with which I am clad when appearing to the prophets” (comp. Dan. 7.9); BR 58. 9; MHG I, 362; Mishle 16, 38; Tan. Hayye 4; Aggadat Bereshit 32, 68. 2) BiRG Som 2 asi welluas 044 s.and 95u3* Lane Baul posse ads III, 105; Tan. Lek 1 and 11, Behar 1; Aggadat Bereshit 13, 28; Tehillim I, 13 and 122; Yoma 28b; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 932, on Prov. 3. Comp. also Tosefta Kiddushin (end); ARN 33, 94 (second version 7, 21); Al-Barceloni 58-59. The Book of Jubilees sees its main task in furnishing the proof that the patriarchs—from Adam to Jacob—observed the laws that were subsequently revealed to Moses. But even this pseudepigraph has to admit that the Fathers did not observe all the laws of the Mosaic Code, and accordingly the revelation must be regarded as having taken place gradually. Comp. 33. 16, which passage was entirely misunderstood by Charles, ad Joc., as it has nothing to do with the Pauline doctrine, Romans 4. 15, but represents the thoroughly Jewish conception of a gradual revelation of the law. See on this point Jub. 36. 20 and the references to rabbinic writings below. Philo, De Abrahamo, 8. 46, seems also to be of the opinion that Gen. 26. 5 refers to the laws of the Torah which Abraham observed before the revelation on Sinai. In contrast to this view of the Haggadists concerning Abraham’s observance of the Torah, we meet with statements by authoritative Tannaim and Amoraim to the effect that Abraham only observed the seven Noachian precepts, as well as circumcision which, towards the end of his life, he was commanded to perform.

Comp. Hullin 7. 7; Yoma 28b; see also the very thorough study of Chajes in his Torat Nebi"4m, 24-28b. In accordance with this view, Gen., loc. cit., is explained by many rabbinic commentators to refer exclusively to the ethicomoral laws of the Torah; comp. Lekah, Nahmanides, and Ibn Ezra, ad loc. 276 BR 59. 8; Tan. B. I, 120. The identity of the servant mentioned in Gen. 24. 2 with Eliezer is presupposed in many places in rabbinic literature; comp. Ta‘anit 4a; WR 37. 4; Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. Joc., cit., and many other passages in the Talmudim and Midrashim. At the same time when the signs of old age were clearly visible in Abraham (comp. p. 291), Eliezer’s appearance was also changed; MHG I, 355. 259 277-288] The Legends of the Jews 277 Yoma 28b reads: Abraham was the head of an academy, and Eliezer ‘filled the cups” for the whole world with his master’s wisdom. On }pr in the sense of “elder”, 7. e. scholar, comp. Sifra 19. 32, 91a; Kiddushin 32b; Philo, De Abrahamo, 46, as well as De Sobrietate, 4, and Quaestiones, Gen., VI, 4, 85. 278 Yashar Hayye, 48b. 279 BR 57. 3. 280 MHG I, 327-328: comp. Schechter, ad loc. 28: BR 59. 8; MHG I, 356. 282 BR 59. 9 and 60. 2; WR 17. 5 read: Eliezer belonged to the accursed race (=a Canaanite); yet he was blessed by God on account of his faithful service to the pious, 7. e., Abraham. 283 MHG I, 356-357. Here also we meet with the obscure statement: If thou takest him—Isaac—there—to Haran—the dominion will return to its old place.

The meaning of this passage is that if Isaac leaves the Holy Land, his descendants will surrender their dominion over the world to the Elamites; comp. vol! IV, pp. 368-369. 284 BR 59. 10; comp. below, note 286. The idea of taking an oath by the sign of the covenant is also found in Ephraim J, 78b, and Jerome, Gen. 24.2; Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. loc. cit,, says: He made him— Eliezer—take the oath by the genital organ (?) to indicate that he— Abraham—was endeavoring to secure a wife for his son for the purpose of begetting children and not in order to enjoy carnal pleasures. 285 Yashar Hayye, 48b; Hadar, 9c. He took with him ten of the very prominent of Abraham’s slaves, in order that he should have the necessary quorum for the nuptial benedictions; comp. PRE 16. 286 BR 59. 10; PRE 16. 287 BR 59, 11; Sanhedrin 95a; Hullin 91b; Tan. B. I, 150; Tan. Wa-Yera 3; PRE 16; Pirke RHK, 16a and 26a; MHG I, 367. The Babylonian sources know of three men only (Eliezer, Jacob, and Abishai; comp. Index, s. v.), for whose sake such a miracle was performed, whereas the Palestinian passages count Abraham as the fourth fortunate person for whose sake this miracle occurred in the night of the war against the kings. In medieval Jewish legends, the miracle of JIT NYSP (that is, the shrinking of the road, not the jumping) is a favorite subject. Christian sources, too, narrate similar incidents; comp. ps.—Matthew, 22, and Giinter, Christliche Legende, 104.

Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, refers to Mohammedan parallels. 288 Josephus, Antigut., I, 16.1. BR 59. 2 reads: It is possible 260 Abraham [289-294 to ascertain the character of women from the barking of the dogs. Baba Kamma 60b shows that this statement is to be taken literally, and not, as Theodor, ad loc., explains it, rationalistically. Concerning the well to which the pious repair on entering a new place, comp. Lekah, Gen. 24. 11, and MHGI, 352. PRE 26 (complete text in MHG I, 458) reads: It is a good omen to meet young girls on entering a place. According to Zohar I, 132a, the well at which Eliezer stopped was the well of Miriam. 289 BR 60. 3; WR 37. 4; Ta‘anit 4a; Hullin 95b; Pirke RHK, 32b. 29° Josephus, Antiqui., I, 16. 2; Philo, De Posteritate Caini, 44. On Bethuel as king comp. PRE 16 and BaR 14. 11. The remark in Lekah, Gen. 24. 16 very likely goes back to PRE. The contrast between Rebekah and the daughters of the Gentiles, who, though virgins, do not keep away from men entirely, is pointed out in BR 60. 5; Yerushalmi Ketubot I, 25b; Tehillim 125, 506. See also below, note 294. Rebekah was a very beautiful maiden, and surpassed Abishag in beauty; MHG I, 360. 291 BR 60. 5-6; MHG I, 362. In the latter passage attention is called to the fact that Eliezer did not give the presents to Rebekah before he had found out that she belonged to Abraham’s kindred, since the marriage was to be accomplished by these very presents; comp.

Schechter, ad /oc., note 48. 292 An unknown midrashic source in Yalkut I, 109, and a similar statement in MHG I, 364. Abkir in Yalkut, Joc. cit., reads: Eliezer noticed by Laban’s running that he intended to attack him; whereupon the former pronounced the ‘‘Name”’, and he and the camels were lifted up in the air so that Laban was unable to attack him. 293 BR 60. 7-8; ARN 8, 38 reads: Even Abraham’s camels did not enter a place where there were idols; Aggadat Bereshit 67, 133; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 24. 31. The name Laban (‘‘white”’) is declared to be antiphrastic, the bearer of it being the ‘“‘blackest of the black’’; comp. BR, Joc. cit.; Shemuel I, 45; Ruth R 3. 1; and comp. also MHG I, 363-364, where several etymologies of the name Laban are given. 294 An unknown midrashic source in Yalkut I, 109; MHG I, 366 and 370; Midrash Aggada I, 59; Sekel, 81; Lekah, Targum Yerushalmi, and Rashi on Gen. 24. 33 and 55. Bethuel, who was the king of this place, introduced the jus primae noctis; comp. Herodotus IV, 168. His subjects declared themselves ready to submit to this out261 295-299] The Legends of the Jews rage on condition that the king’s own daughters should not be exempt from it. Now it was on that very day, when Eliezer arrived in Haran, that Rebekah was to be deflowered by her father (she had just reached the age of three years and one day; comp. Niddah 5.

3), and to spare her this humiliation God caused the death of Bethuel. See Yalkut loc. cit.; Hadar 9a, 9b (he was called Bethuel as an allusion to Betulah ‘‘virgin’’!); Da‘at Gen. 24. 55; Soferim (end); BR 60. 12. 295 MHG I, 366; PRE 16; BR 59. 11; Tan. B. I, 145; Aggadat Bereshit 45, 92.—Eliezer’s first words were: “I am Abraham's servant” (Gen. 24.34). These words are in more than one respect, characteristic of the man. ‘‘One should not wait till his shortcomings are found out by others, but should rather state them himself,” is the very wise rule which guided Eliezer. He did not wait till Abraham’s relatives ascertained everything concerning himself, but introduced himself to them as ‘‘Abraham’s servant.’’ Comp. BR 60. 9; Baba Kamma 92b. At the same time Eliezer was devoted to his master to such an extent that he considered it an honor to be the slave of Abraham rather tham to be a free man; Hasidim 85; Zohar I, 103 and 146b. Eliezer’s personality, as well as his adroit address, made a powerful impression on Abraham’s relatives, who relinquished their evil intentions against him; MHG I, 366.—The Torah devotes more space to Eliezer’s narrative than to some of the very important laws; from this it may be inferred that the history of the patriarchs is of extremely great moment; BR 60. 8. 296 BR 60. 9-12. 297 PRE 16. BR 60. 12 reads: They hinted to Rebekah to refuse Eliezer’s request; she, however, said: ‘‘I will go with him even against your wish’’.

From the scriptural words, ‘‘the thing proceedeth from the Lord’’ (Gen. 24. 50) the Rabbis infer that ‘‘marriages are made in heaven’’; comp. Mo‘ed Katan 18b; Tobit 6. 18. Comp. Abrahams in J. Q. R. II, 172, seg., and note 20 on vol. I, p. 59. 298 BR 60. 13; Shir 2. 14; MHG I, 370. According to PRE 16, the words uttered by Rebekah’s relatives at her departure were the nuptial benedictions—On the presents given by Eliezer to Rebekah and her relatives, comp. BR 60. 11; Tan. B. I, 145; Aggadat Bereshit 45, 92. fa 299 PRE 16; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 24. 61; MHG I, 371. His speed on his return journey was due to the fact that it would have been unpleasant for Rebekah to spend the night in the company of a slave. But even then Isaac’s suspicion of slaves was so deep-rooted 262 x 7 Abraham, [300-303 that he did not come near Rebekah until he had convinced himself that she was a virgin. Comp. the sources quoted above and the opposite view given in MHG I, 366. See also below, note 301. 3°° BR 60. 14-15; Mekilta be-Shallah 2, 28b; Mekilta RS, 45; Berakot 26a; ‘Abodah Zarah 7b; Yerushalmi Berakot 4, 7a; Tan. Hayye 5 and Mikkez 9; Tan. B. I, 196; BaR 2. 1; Tehillim 55, 292, and 102, 430; Mishle 12, 93; Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 4, 140, and Quod Deterius Potiort Insidiart Soleat, 9; Onkelos, Targum Yerushalmi, and Jerome on Gen. 24. 63; Ephraim I, 173. Comp. also Tehillim 90, 394, and MHG I, 372.

The place where Isaac used to pray was near paradise, so that its fragrance might reach him, and is identical with the field which Abraham bought from Ephron; Zohar II, 39b. Comp. vol. I, pp. 289 and 334, and the notes appertaining to them. 3° An unknown midrashic source in Yalkut I, 109. The injury was of such a nature as to make Isaac suspect Eliezer of having done violence to his bride. The angel Gabriel, however, with irrefutable evidence in his hands, convinced Isaac that his suspicions were unjustified. To compensate Eliezer for the wrong done to him by Isaac, God permitted him to enter paradise during his life (comp. note 307); he changed places with Isaac, who shortly before that had left paradise where he had stayed for some time; Yalkut, loc. cit. See also note 255. Variants of this legend are found in Hadar, 9a (the birds watched over the blood which Rebekah had lost on account of her injury, and thereby enabled Eliezer to convince Isaac of his innocence; as a reward for their good deed, a law was promulgated commanding to cover the blood of birds; comp. Lev. 17. 13); Da*‘at, Gen. 24. 5; Pa‘aneah Raza 34, 65; Shu‘aib, Hayye, 11c; Lekah 24. 66 (in a rather abridged form); Orehot Hayyim IJ, 39b; Midrash Aggada I, 60. Several of the sources herewith mentioned state in this connection that the dwellers of paradise walk on their heads (comp. vol. IV, p. 70), and this peculiarity Isaac retained on his leaving paradise.

When Rebekah saw him walk in this strange manner, she exclaimed: ‘‘What man is this that walketh?’’ (Gen. 24.65). See also Minhat Yehudah, Gen. 24. 64, and Ginzberg, Compte Rendu des Mélanges Israel Lewy, 26. 3°2 BR 60. 16; Onkelos and Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 24. 67. Sarah’s tent was not given by Abraham to any of his concubines; but, as the tent of the mistress, it remained unoccupied until Isaac married Rebekah; Zohar I, 133b; Hasidim, 294. 393 PRE 32; MHG I, 373, where mention is also made of the 263 304-309] The Legends of the Jews miraculous light shining in Rebekah’s tent. See the sources quoted in the preceding note. On Isaac’s studies in the “Shem academy”, comp. the sources mentioned in note 255, as well as Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 24. 62, and Yashar, Hayye 48. 3°4 Zohar I, 133a. Sarah appeared to Isaac after her death in the tent formerly occupied by her; Zohar I, 33b, which is very likely the source of Shu‘aib, Hayye, 11c. Comp. Ketubot 103a for the similar story about Rabbenu Hakkadosh. 3°5 PRE 16, where he is identified with Og; comp. vol. III, p. 344, and Index, s. x. 3°6 BR 60. 7; WR 17. 5. In both places Eliezer is described as Canaan, which may mean a Canaanite; it may also imply that his identity with Canaan the son of Ham is assumed. In 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 28b Eliezer is declared to have been the son of Ham. 3°7 Derek Erez Zuta (end); 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 28b; see Index, s.

v. ‘‘Paradise, Entering Alive”. Eliezers ‘‘the pious” is also found in Yelammedenu quoted in Yalkut, Supplement—BHM VES: ‘ 3°8 BR 60. 14 and 16. According to BR, the meaning of Beerlahai-roi is The well where she—Hagar—said to the Living One =God: “Look at my misery.’ On the explanation of the name of this place see Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 24. 64; Tan. B. I, 123; Tan. Hayye 8. BR, Joc. cit., quotes Abraham’s case in support of the rule that a widower with mature children should first marry them off and then, if he wishes, get married himself. 3°9 BR 61. 4; Tan. B. I, 123; Tan. Hayye 8; Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 25. 1; PRE 30. These sources contain explanations concerning the name Keturah, all of which are based on the assumption that it is another name for Hagar. Jerome, Gen. 25. 1, knows of the identification of Keturah with Hagar, but does not explain the former name. The opposite view that Keturah was Abraham’s third wife is also found in the sources herewith quoted. On Hagar’s piety see above, note 237, and Yelammedenu in Supplement to Yalkut (—BHM VI,79). The etymology of Keturah—connecting it with NWP incense —given by Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 4, 147, occurs also in the rabbinic sources quoted above. Medieval authorities are at pains to explain the strange phenomenon that the offspring of this pious couple, whose marriage took place at the direct command of God (BR, loc. cit.), was Ishmael and the other sons of Hagar-Keturah, the progenitors of many wicked nations.

See on this point the very interesting discussion 264 Abraham ~ [310-314 in Hasidim, 294-295. Yalkut Reubeni Gen. 26. 2, 36c, quotes a Midrash to the effect that Abraham married three wives, daughters (=descendants) of the three sons of Noah: Sarah the daughter of Shem, Keturah the daughter of Japheth, and Hagar the daughter of Ham. That Hagar was an Egyptian (=a daughter of Ham) is mentioned in Scripture. 3™° BR 61.5 and Tehillim 92, 411-412 find in the names of Keturah’s sons proof for their idolatry and wickedness. On the names of Gen. 25. 3, seg., see also Onkelos, Targum Yerushalmi and Imre No‘am, ad loc., as well as MHG I, 383. Comp. Schechter, ad Joc. 37? BR 61. 7, and, with additions and amplifications, in MHG I, 378-379, as well as in Bereshit Rabbeti, 78. In the two last-named sources it is said that Abraham had admonished his sons by Keturah never to come near Isaac and his descendants (as any nation ruling over them will be punished in Gehenna) until the advent of the Messiah. When Solomon became king, the inhabitants of Sheba, the descendants of Sheba the son of Keturah (comp. Gen. 25. 3), thought that he was the promised Messiah, and came to pay him homage(no>p in 1 Kings 9. 1 is read as n22n kingdom; see note 20 on vol. IJ, p. 233). But when they realized their mistake, they returned to their country, where they will remain till the advent of the Messiah.

Comp. also R. Joseph Kara, I Kings x. 1. Is this in any way connected with the Christian story of the worship of the infant Jesus by the Magi? 32 Soferim (end). In this legend some traces of the Alexander legend and reminiscences of the Chinese Wall are discernible. Comp. Beer, Leben Abrahams, note 919, and Miiller, ad Joc. On the text of Soferim, comp. Yalkut Reubeni, Hayye (end). 313 Sanhedrin 91a and, with many embellishments, Zohar I, 133b, 223a—223b (here they are identified with the children of the east, the renown of whose wisdom is referred to in 1 Kings 5. 10); Ziyyoni and Recanati, Hayye (end). Al-Barceloni, 158, says: Abraham gave the esoteric books which he possessed (that is, the books on magic) to the children of the concubines, but the Torah he reserved for Isaac. The same statement is also found in Zohar J, 100b. Comp. note 80, and Index, s. v. ‘‘Balaam”’. 3™4 Josephus, Antigui., I, 15. 1, citing an extract from a work by Alexander Polyhistor, which is a curious blending of pagan mythology with Jewish legend. See Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 130-136 and 215. In this connection mention is to be made of a leg265 315-317] The Legends of the Jews end which declared the Spartans and Lacedaemonians to be the descendants of Abraham; comp. 1 Maccabees 12. 10 and 21, as well as 14. 20; 2 Maccabees 5. 9. The Midrash quoted in note 309 maintains that Keturah was a daughter of Japheth, and since Japheth is said, Gen.

10.2, to have been the ancestor of the Greeks (comp. also BR 36. 8, and the parallel passages cited by Theodor, on the beauty of Japheth =the Greek language), the descendants of Abraham from Keturah were, on their maternal side, Japhethites, 7. e., Greeks. Comp. also BR 37. 1, and parallel passages where the sons of Japheth are “the uncles” of Israel. 3™S Yashar Wa-Yera, 42b-43a. Already in the old sources Kemuel is identified with Balaam, or rather with his father Beor (comp. BR 57, end, and parallel passages cited by Theodor); hence Pethor, Balaam’s city (Num. 22. 5) is said to have been founded by a son of Kemuel. 376 BR 61. 6 and 39. 11; PK 31, 198b-199a; Tan. B. I, 63, IV, 33, and V, 53; Tan. Lek 4, Naso 9, and Ha-Berakah SBake ti. 2; DR 11. 1; Tehillim 1. 6. In all these sources emphasis is laid upon the fact that before Abraham God Himself blessed the meritorious; but with the advent of Abraham He conferred upon him the power of bestowing blessings. Abraham, however, did not care to bless the sons of the concubines, knowing that their descendants would be wicked. He even refrained from blessing Isaac on account of Esau, who, as Isaac’s son, would have to come in for his proper share in the blessings bestowed on his father. According to another view, Isaac received the blessings from Abraham when he was on the point of dying, and God confirmed them shortly afterwards. The sources cited above contain also the statement, according to which, Abraham, when on the point of dying, invested Isaac with the right of primogeniture which carried with it the possession of the burial place Machpelah.

To obviate disputes among his children, he drew up a document to that effect; comp. vol. I, p. 343, and vol. III, p. 453. 3™7 Extract from the two versions (A, B) of the Testament of Abraham. On the Jewish character of this work comp. Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, 1, 93-96. A few additional remarks on this pseudepigraphon may be given here. The idea of trees speaking with a human voice (B 3) occurs also in the legend recorded in vol. IV, p. 164; see also the Steinschneider- Festschrift, 148. The changing of tears into pearls (3) is also found in rabbinic legends (see vol. IV, p. 84). A heavenly fire consumed the food offered to the angel (A 4); for 266 Abraham — [318 rabbinic parallel sources see above, note 144. The goat eaten by Abraham was brought back to life (A 4); a similar statement is found in rabbinic sources (see above, notes, 113 and 246). In this pseudepigraphon Abraham is described as a giant (B 9), and this isin agreement with the view of the Rabbis (comp. above, note 97). A parallel to the beautiful legend contrasting God’s mercy with man’s short-sightedness (A 10, B12), is found in the Moses legend, vol. III, pp. 115-116. Grimm ’s tale about Peter and the smith is certainly based upon the legend in the Testament of Abraham. The episode about the fragrant herbs of paradise, mentioned in the Roumanian version of this pseudepigraph (10), which Abraham strewed over his house, becomes intelligible only if we take it in connection with the Jewish Machpelah legend; comp.

notes 264 and 300.—The old sources have comparatively little to tell of Abraham’s funeral and the mourning over him. On the day of Abraham’s death, the chiefs of all the nations mourned for him, saying: Woe to the world that lost its leader, and woe to the ship that lost her steersman (Baba Batra 91a-91b; MHG I, 381). Yashar Toledot, 50b, reads: All the land of Canaan, men, women, and children, mourned a whole year (corresponding to the year of mourning customary among Jews; comp. Semahot 10; Mo‘ed Katan 22b) for Abraham. They knew that he was pious toward God and kind to men, and that it was on account of his merits that God refrained from destroying them for the sins of the inhabitants of the earth. At Abraham’s funeral Isaac was the chief mourner, and not his elder brother Ishmael, who willingly yielded all the honors to Isaac, in recognition of his piety and of the fact that he had been his father’s favorite child. At the same time, it isrecorded, that during Abraham’s lifetime Ishmael repented of his evil ways (comp., however, Index, s. v. ‘‘Ishmael’’), and when he died, deeply mourned by Isaac (Yashar Toledot, 44b), he entered paradise as a good and pious man; comp. Baba Batra 16b; BR 67. 3; Targum Yerushalmi Gon? sa3: 318 ‘Rrubin 19a; BR 68. 7; Tan. B. I, 82; Tan. Lek 20 and Tazria‘ 5; MHG I, 251-252; EZ 25, 46; ShR 19. 4; Tehillim 1, 2, and 6, 58; Ekah 1, 56; Menahot 53b; Tan.

quoted by Makiri, Prov. 31. 21; Yelammedenu in Ma‘aseh Rokeah, 52; Zohar I, 8a (here it is Duma, the door-keeper of Gehenna, who takes the place of Abraham); AlBarceloni, 58-59 and 141. In rabbinic literature the designation mostly employed for circumcision is the “covenant” (m3) or the ‘‘covenant of Abraham” (07738 bw m3); see the lexica of Levy, Kohut, and 267 318] The Legends of the Jews Jastrow, s.v. m3. Its description as the holy covenant is only found in Maccabees 1. 15 and 63, as well as in the old formula of the benediction on circumcision (Tosefta Berakot 6. 13; Shabbat 173b; Siddur, 582). Comp. also Zadokite Fragments, p. 12, line 11, and the remarks on this passage by Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, p. 111. The designation of a Jew asa son of the covenant, found in Zadokite Fragments, loc. cit., as well as in the very ancient Mishnah Baba Kamma 1. 2-3, makes it very probable that this religious ceremony was regarded by the people as having a sacramental, or at least a semi-sacramental character. Hence the great prominence given to this ceremony in rabbinic literature; comp. especially Nedarim, Mishnah 3. 11, Tosefta 2. 4-7, Babli 31b-32a, and Yerushalmi 38b; Mekilta Yitro 1, 58a; Yelammedenu, in Yalkut II, 321, on Jer. 33, and in Supplement to Yalkut (—BHM VI, 79). The great importance of this ceremony may also be seen from the fact that it supersedes the Sabbath; comp.

Shabbat 19. 5 and Jub. 15. 14. Charles, ad loc., entirely misunderstands this Mishnah, and does not seem to know that to this very day circumcision is performed on the eighth day even if it be the Sabbath. A haggadic description of a dispute as to precedence between circumcision and Sabbath, and of the final victory of the former, is found in Yelammedenu, Joc. cit. The phrase “to be in Abraham’s bosom”’, found in the New Testament, and sporadically also in rabbinic literature (e. g., Kiddushin 72b; Ekah 1. 85), has, however, nothing to do with the conception of the sacramental character of circumcision. The pious are gathered to their fathers (4 Maccabees 12. 17; BHM V, 50), and, accordingly, ‘‘to be in Abraham’s bosom”’ is abridged from the complete expression ‘‘to be in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,’”’ the three patriarchs.—In reply to the attacks on circumcision by the Church Fathers, who especially dwell upon the fact that the “‘pious’’ before Abraham had not been circumcised (Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 19 and 33; Tertullian, Adv. Marc., 5. 9, and Adv. Jud., 4; it is to be observed that if this argument against circumcision were valid, it would apply with equal cogency to baptism; comp. Tertullian, De Baptismo, 13), the Jewish legend asserts that Adam, Seth, and Melchizedek were born with the sign of the covenant upon them. See ARN 1;-:12, and parallel passages cited by Schechter, as well as BR 11.

6 and 46. 3. This statement was subsequently misunderstood, and in the Midrashim these three preAbrahamic patriarchs share this distinction with other pious nien who lived after Abraham. In Jub. 15. 27 it is stated of certain angels of 268 Abraham — [319-320 a lower rank that “they were created circumcised.” A similar statement occurs in the kabbalistic literature; comp. Tikkunim 47.—The old rabbinic sources are not concerned about the rational explanation of the ceremony of circumcision. BR 66. 3 and parallel passages recorded by Theodor remark that nature does not produce anything quite ready for use, but expects man to improve upon its creations. This applies also to a man’s body which becomes perfect after its natural state has been improved upon by circumcision. A somewhat different explanation is given in Tan. B. III, 35, which is the source of Sa‘adya in his Polemic against Hiwi, 62. Philo, very likely for apologetic motives, gives several reasons for circumcision (De Spec. Legtb., at the beginning, and Quaestiones, Gen. 3, 47-48), some of which are also found in the works of medieval philosophers; comp., e. g., Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, 111. 49.—The rabbinic authors of the middle ages quote many a Haggadah concerning circumcision from the Midrashim which are not found in the literature that is still extant. Comp. Menorat ha-Maor, Ili, 3, 1, 1; Kad ha-Kemah, Millah.

See also Yalkut Hadash, s. v. “‘Millah,” and Glassberg, Zikron Berit, passim. 319 ‘Emek ha-Melek, 14a-14b; Reischer, Sha‘are Yerushalayim, 10.8 In this and in the following legend the beadle is the hero. 320 Reischer, Sha‘are Yerushalayim, 10.9.