Notes: Adam

II. ADAM (pp. 49-101) X Abot 5. 1; ARN 31, 90 (second version 36, 90); Rosh ha-Shanah 32a; BR 17. 1; PR 21, 108 (whence Mahzor Vitry 535); PRE 3; Lekah, Gen. 1. 5; Tikkune Zohar 70; the commentators of the Mishnah quoted by Schechter on 2 ARN. The number 10 (on the significance of this number comp. Lekah, Joc. cit.; Tehillim 5, 19; Ma‘aseh Torah 10) is computed in various ways. In Gen. 1. 3-29 the expression “and God said” occurs only nine times, but the prevalent view is that the very first beginning of creation likewise resulted from God’s utterance (on the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo comp. Excursus 1), so that there were ten utterances corresponding to the ten acts of creation. The Gnostic Manoismus also speaks of the ten creations; comp. Hippolytus, Haeres., 8. 7. The expression ‘‘God'’s word is an act’’ occurs frequently in Jewish and Christian writings; comp. BR 44, 22; Tehillim 107, 461-462; Enoch 14. 17; 2 Enoch 33.4; Philo, Sacrif. Caint, 18. Comp. further Apocalypse of Baruch 14. 17; 4 Ezra 6. 38; Heb. 11. 3; 2 Peter 3. 5; Clemens Alexandrinus, Hortatio, 4. ? Tosefta Sanhedrin 8. 7-8; Babli 38a; Yerushalmi 4 (end). Comp. note 8. 3 Alphabet of R. Akiba 59, whence Rashi borrowed his remark on Gen. 1. 27. This assertion is found much more frequently in Christian sources; comp. Theophilus Ant., Ad Auftol., II, 18; Aphraates, 240; Clementine Homilies, I1, 52; III, 20; IV, 34 (the last passage is a quotation from Is.

41. 20); Athenagoras, Legat., 33; Irenaeus, Haer., 5. 5, 1, and 2. 58 (the hands of God=the Holy Ghost and the Son); Apocalypse of Ezra (beginning); Tertullian, De Resurrectione, 5; Adversus Marcionem, 2; ps.-Tertullian, on Gen. 35-40; Origen, Contra Celsum, 4, 37 (the biblical passages referring to this subject, as Job 10. 8 and Ps. 119. 73, are not to be taken literally, but have a hidden meaning); Clemens Alexandrinus, Instructor, 1, 3; Emerson, Legends of Cain (Publications of Modern Languages Association of America, XXII, 41) shows the continuance of this conception in Christian literature of the latter part of the Middle Ages. Comp. further Ginzberg, Hag63 4] . The Legends of the Jews gada bei den Kirchenv., 21-22, and 29, note 2. On the occurrence of this legend in pseudepigraphic literature comp. 4 Ezra 4. 14, and the Armenian version of the Book of Adam in Preuschen’s Adamschriften, 29, and 2 Enoch 44. 1. In the following passages of the older literature the expression ‘‘the right, the left hand, one, and both hands of God’’ must not be taken literally; they only describe the relative importance of creations. God created the world with one hand, the temple with both hands (Mekilta Shirah 10, 44a; Mekilta RS. 70); He created the heavenly beings with His right hand, and the terrestrial with His left (Menahot 36b; Sifre D., 35; Midrash Tannaim 28; Mekilta Pasha 17, 21a; Wa-Yosha‘ 49; see further vol.

IV, p. 426). He created the whole world with one hand, man and the temple with both (ARN 1, 8; Ketubot 5a; comp. further PRE 7, beginning; Ma’amar ‘Aseret Melakim 54; Mekilta Bahodesh 6, 69b; Alphabet of R. Akiba 24-25; Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 1, bottom, and 4, bottom; note 12 on vol. I, p. 8, the sources with reference to the letters by means of which God created the world). The statement swhich emphasizes the fact that man is the creation of God’s hands is probably directed against the doctrine of Philo and the Gnostics who maintain that Adam was partly or wholly created by the angels; comp. note 14. It is noteworthy that Philo, De Somn., 1, 36, emphatically asserts that ‘‘man was not made by hand, but is the work of invisible nature.” 4 ARN 31, 91-92, where parallels are drawn between man and the world. The comparison between man and the world in both directions, man as microcosmos and the world as macroanthropos, is a favorite subject of the Haggadah; comp., e. g., Aggadat ‘Olam Katan 57-59; Pesikta Hadta 36; Alphabet of R. Akiba 13; Tan. B. II, 34; Abkir in Yalkut I, 148 and 743; Koheleth and Koheleth Z. 1. 4 (this is the source of Yalkut I, 186; the reference to Tan. in the editions is erroneous); PR 203a; Targum and Midrash in Eccl. 9. 4 and 12. 2, seg. Of special interest are, in later literature, the parallels elaborately drawn between man and the world; see Orehot Zaddikim 28 (towards the end), and Shebet Musar I.

Since the conception of the microcosmos (Hebrew ]¥p obdiy occurs for the first time in Tan. Pekude 3) was already known to the Babylonians (see Winckler, Babylonische Cultur, 33), there is no necessity to trace the haggadic conception of the microcosmos to’ the corresponding philosophical doctrine of the Greeks. Dependent upon the latter are Philo (De M. Opif., 28; De Plant. Noe, 19; Moses, 3. 14) and the statement bearing upon this subject found in the medieval philosophical literature of the 64 7 Adam [5-6 , Jews (comp. Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. ‘‘Microcosmos’’, and Malter, Personification of Soul and Body, J.Q.R., N.S., II, 453, seg.). The doctrine of the later Kabbalah concerning the Adam Kadmon (comp. Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, 1, 183) partly coincides with the philosophical and partly with the haggadic conception of man as microcosmos. It is questionable whether 4 Ezra 4. 10 knows of man as microcosmos; but one may ascribe the acquaintance with this view to 2 Enoch 30. 8. 5 Derek Erez Z. (end). Comp. the sources in the preceding note and Rashi on Bekorot 16a. ° BR 7. 11, 12.8, 14. 3; Hagigah 16a (on the text of the talmudic passage comp. Lekah, Gen. 1. 20, according to which angels resemble man with respect to the fact that they are endowed with speech, but not in the use of the Hebrew language, as our texts of the Talmud read; comp. note 58); ARN 37, 109; Shemuel 2, 48; PR 43, 179b; Aggadat Bereshit 52, 106; Baraita of 32 Middot, No 16; Ma‘aseh Torah 98; Sifre D., 306, 132b (No°D ‘7 WH 7D); Midrash Tannaim 185-186; Midrash R.

Akiba 31; EZ 3, 176. Comp. Schechter on ARN, Joc. cit., and Yalkut IJ, 831 (end). Man, according to Philo too, is a “‘creature’’ on the boundary-line of the mortal and the immortal; comp. De Fortitud., 3; De M. Opif., 46 and 24. In Lactantius, Institutiones, 2. 13, the conception of man as a creature combining the heavenly and earthly elements is brought into relation with the view that he is considered as microcosmos (comp. note 4). This Church Father, in several passages, calls attention (7. 5, 9; 2. 13) to the fact ‘‘that animals look downward because they are earthly; man looks upward because he is of heavenly origin.” This statement is found not only in Lactantius, but also in Philo, Noe, 2. 4, and Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat,29. A midrashic passage quoted by many medieval authors (Sefer Mizwot Gadol, Introduction to the positive precepts; Sefer Mizwot Katan, No. 53; Hasidim 478), and found also in a manuscript of Tan. (Introduction 152 and 154), reads as follows: Neither the angels nor the animals satisfied God; the former have no evil inclination (this view is based on BR 48. 11), the latter have no good inclination. The good of the one and the evil of the other, therefore, are not the result of their free will. God therefore created man who possesses both the good and evil inclinations; if he follows evil, he is likened to an animal; if he follows good, he is higher than an angel (comp.

BR 14. 3-4 and the parallel passages). A similar view on the nature of man is expressed by the 65 7] : The Legends of the Jews Church Fathers; comp. Theophilus, 2, 27, and especially Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 2, 8, who finds, in agreement with R. Akiba in BR 21. 5, the superiority of man to the angels in his free will. Here and there one meets with the view that man was created in the image and likeness of the angels, not in that of God; comp. BR, Joc. cit., and ShR 30. 16. This is most likely directed against the Christians, who interpret Gen. 1. 27 and 5. 1 christologically; comp. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 2. 5; De Resurrectione, 6; Adversus Praxean, 12. There are numerous other explanations of these verses in Genesis; comp. BR 8. 9, and the parallel passages cited by Theodor; see further Abot 3. 21 (on this statement of R. Akiba comp. Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. ‘‘Adam Kadmon” and “Akiba”, as well as Geiger, Kebuzzat Ma’amarim, Poznanski’s edition, 101-105, and Ginzberg’s notes, 396); Peletat Soferim, 3-4; Tan. Introduction 154 (read 195 *nansw); Lekah, Gen. 1. 27; Guide of the Perplexed, 1, 1. The conception that man was created in the image of the angels is perhaps related to the statement made in Jub. 15. 27, according to which certain classes of angels were created ‘“‘circumcised”; comp. Tikkunim 47. The view expressed in the last-named passage, as well as in other kabbalistic sources, that only the Jew who observes the law resembles the image of God or of the angels, finds its counterpart among the Church Fathers with respect to Christians; comp.

Clemens Alexandrinus, Protrepticus (end); Clementine Homilies, 11. 4; 16. 19; 17. 7; Origen, De Princ., II], 6. 1; Contra Celsum, 7, 63 (where a rationalistic attitude is adopted). | Onthe question whether animals possess an evil inclination, comp. 2 ARN 34, 74; BR 14.4; Berakot 60a. 7 Yalkut Reubeni on Gen. 1. 26 (the source is given as Midrash, but it must be a later one). The older sources (BR 12. 8; WR 9. 9; Tan. B. I, 11; MHG I, 51; Zohar III, 219b, which gives a somewhat mystic interpretation) remark: All things came to being alternately out of heaven and earth, both of which had been created on the first day. Accordingly the firmament, the creation of the second day, sprang up from heaven; the plants on the third day from the earth; the lights on the fourth day emanated from heaven; the animals on the fifth day arose from the earth. When God was about to create man, He said: ‘“If I create man of the earth, the terrestrial creations will be numerically more than the celestial ones; if I create him of heaven, the result will be the reverse.’’ Hence He created man’s soul of heaven and his body of earth. Thus was harmony established between heaven and earth. 66 eA Adam [8 8 The view occurring frequently in rabbinic and pseudepigraphic literature that the world was created for the sake of Israel (BR 1. 4, and the parallels cited by Theodor; see further Batte Midrashot I, 44; Shir 2.

2 and 7. 3; Tan. B. IV, 5; Tehillim 109, 465; Makiri on Ps. 47, 262; 4 Ezra 6. 55; Apocalypse of Baruch 14. 17; Assumption of Moses 1. 12; comp. further vol. IV, pp. 399, 407, 415, 424, as well as the numerous sources cited by Weber, Palistinensische Theologie), does not owe its origin to national pride, but is closely connected with the ethical conception of creation. Man was the purpose of creation, and just as “the host will not invite his guest to the feast, until everything has been prepared...; even so thought and did the Guide of all things...When He wished to invite man to the feast, He prepared the necessary good things’’ (Philo, De M. Opif., 25; comp. further De Sacrificits Abelis, 3; De Decalogo, 10). Practically the same words are used by the Rabbis, Sanhedrin Tosefta 8. 7-9; Babli 38a; Yerushalmi 4 (end). See also Kiddushin 4. 14. Of course, it is not every man that can claim to be the “‘crown of creation’’. ‘‘He who observes the law... .and obeys God.. .outweighs the whole world’’, observe Philo (De Decalogo, 10) and the Rabbis, Sanhedrin 103b. It is not the average man but, to use a modern expression, the ‘“‘superman’’ who was the goal of creation. Hence the Rabbis remark that the world was created for the sake of Abraham, Moses, David, the Messiah; BR 1. 7; 12. 2 and 9; Sanhedrin 98b; Hullin 89a. To be sure, every man is given the opportunity to attain to the highest ideal.

It is therefore asserted that ‘‘every Jew, that every man may outweigh the whole world’’; comp. Sanhedrin 4.5; ARN 30, 90-91 Oxiwn has been added by the editor without good authority); second version 36, 90. The means whereby man may attain the goal of his task was given in God’s revelation, in the Torah. Hence the frequent statement that it is the Torah for whose sake the world was created; comp. Index, s. v. ‘‘Torah”. See further Assumption of Moses 1. 12, where legem should perhaps be read instead of plebem. Nahmanides, in his Derashah, 1-4, with his deep insight recognized the relationship that exists between the rabbinic statement concerning man as the purpose of creation and the assertion of the Rabbis regarding Israel and the Torah as necessary conditions for the existence of the world. His polemic against Ibn Ezra (Gen .1.1) and Maimonides (Guide of the Perplexed, III, 13), who deny that man is the purpose of creation, is justified from the talmudic point of view. The fundamental idea that man is the crown of creation, 67 9-10] The Legends of the Jews and that the Torah was revealed to Israel as the only means whereby man can perform -the task assigned to him, is found in the Bible (comp. especially Jer. 31. 35 and 33, 25-26; Ps. 8. 6-7; Is. 42. 5-6). The Church accepted this view, without any modifications, substituting only the word “Christian” for “Jew”.

‘‘The Christian is of greater importance than the whole world”, observes Cyprian (Epistola ad Donatum, 1. 14), and Justin Martyr, 2 Apologia, 7, speaks of ‘‘Christians who knew that they were the cause of the preservation of nature’. This statement, with variations, is likewise found in the letter Ad Diogenem, 7 (towards the end), ascribed to that Church Father. Comp. further his Apologia, 1. 45, as well as Aristides, Apologia, 26, 1. 17 (Syriac text). The attacks on Jewish arrogance and exclusiveness, in modern theological literature, on account of this belief, are practically identical with those against which Origen had to defend the Christians. Similar charges were brought by the pagan Celsus against the Christians, and Origen refuted them in his Contra Celsum, 4. 27-31 (he quotes the following® from Euripides: The sun and the moon are slaves of mortal men), and particularly 74-79. Comp. also note 6, which contains quotations from patristic literature on the view that the Christian alone was made in the image of God. On the view that the world was created for the sake of man, see also Justin, Apologia, 1. 10; Dialogue, 10; Aristides, Apologia (bottom). See also Lactantius, Institutiones, 2. 11 and 8. 5; Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 2. 3 and 4. Comp. also, Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 9-10. The following characteristic remark of the Talmud (Berakot 61b) may be quoted here: The world was created only for the very pious or for the very wicked, for men like R.

Hanina b. Dosa (a saint who flourished during the first century C. E.); or for men like Ahab; this world was created for the latter, the other for the former. 9 BR 5. 5 (the reading jm” ‘1 is also in Mekilta RS, 53); Aguddat Aggadot 21-22; Midrash Jonah 102-103; Zohar II, 198b. The view that miracles are primordial creations was later developed by Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, II, 29, in whose theology it plays an important part. The following sources have this remark on miracles: God already ‘performed in this world, through the prophets, a part of the miracles which are to take place in the world to come: PK 9, 76a; WR 27. 4; Tan. B. III, 90, and IV, 4; Tan. Emor 9; Koheleth 3. 15. Comp. also Tan‘ Introduction 153. tO Abkir in Yalkut I, 17; Midrash Shir 8; Tan. Pekude 2; 2 68 7 Adam {11-12 Ben Sira 32b; Pesikta Hadta 38; Aguddat Aggadot 8; comp. Horowitz, ad loc. See further vol. III, p. 151; vol. IV, p. 399. On the idea that God consulted the angels, comp. note 12, and note 3, on vol. 1, p. 3. *t Shabbat 88a; DR 8. 5; Ruth R. (beginning); Koheleth 1. 4. Comp. note 8, and note 202 on vol. III, p. 92. 72 BR 8. 3-9; Tan. Introduction 154; Tehillim 1, 23; PR 40, 166b; comp. further Yerushalmi Berakot 9, 12d; Sanhedrin 38b; DR 2. 13, and parallels cited by Theodor on BR 8. 9. The opposition of the angels to the creation of man is already mentioned in tannaitic sources (comp.

Tosefta Sotah 6. 5), and is frequently alluded to in talmudic-midrashic literature; comp. PK 4, 34a; PR 14, 59b; Tan. B. IV, 110; Tan. Wa-Yera 18 and Hukkat 6; BaR 19. 3; Koheleth 7. 23; Tehillim 8, 73; 2 Ben Sira 32a; see also the following note. This legend emphasizes the Jewish view as opposed to the Philo-Gnostic opinion, according to which man was, wholly or partly, created by the lower powers, not by God Himself; comp. Philo, De M. Opif., 24; De Confusione Linguarum, 35; De Profug., 14. For the Gnostic doctrine see Hippolytus, 7. 16 and 20; Tertullian, De Resurrectione, 5, and De Anima, 23. In opposition to this view, that man was, wholly or partly, created by the evil or lower powers, the Jewish legend lays stress upon the fact that the angels had nothing to do with man’s creation, which they tried rather to prevent. A vague reminiscence of the Gnostic doctrine is the statement found in later sources (Hadar, Gen. 1. 27) that, when the angels noticed their superiority to the animal world, they became very proud; hence God commanded them to make a man, in order to humiliate them by their inability to carry out His command. Just as Philo, in the passage cited above, found this theory concerning the angels co-operating in the creation of man confirmed in the words of Scripture: ‘‘Let us make’’ (Gen., loc. cit.), so the Christians believed that these words indicated the cooperation of the Logos.

It is a moot question in Jewish, as well as in Christian literature, as to how the plural of Mwy) is to be understood. BR, loc. cit., cites not less than six different explanations of this strange plural (some explain it there as a pluralis majestatis), whereas most of the Church Fathers take it Christologically; comp. Irenaeus, 2. 5; Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 62 (refutes the Jewish view that God consulted the angels); Theophilus, Ad Avufol., 2.18; Theodoretus, Gen. 1. 27; Basilius, Hexaemeron, Hom. 9. 6; Christian Sibylline Oracles, 8, 544. On the assertion of the Midrashim that God, though 69 13] | The Legends of the Jews not in need of any service, took counsel with the angels, in order that He might serve as an example to man to ask the advice of his fellowmen, comp. Philo, De Confusione Linguarum, 27. See further Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv, 1, 19-21, as well as Goldfahn, Justin Martyr und die Agada, 24-25. The angels whom God consulted were the Seraphim, God’s advisers, according to some; Mercy and Justice, according to others; see Sode Raza and Sefer ha-Tagin in Yalkut Reubeni, Gen. 1. 27; comp. note 6, on vol. I, p. 4. The statement that when a man commits a sin the angels accuse him (quoted from Tan. or Yelammedenu in Makiri on Prov. 3. 18) is probably related to the view that from the very beginning the angels were not favorably inclined towards man.

The view that man’a own good and evil deeds are his heavenly defenders and accusers, respectively, occurs already in a tannaitic statement (Shabbat 32a). Comp. the following note and note 20. ™3 Konen 26-27, and Yerahmeel 14-15 (read Boel instead of Labiel), parts of which only go back to Sanhedrin 38b. Comp. also vol. III, p. 110, and further 2 Ben Sira 32a concerning the terrible punishment God inflicted on the revolting angels. According to Sode Raza in Yalkut Reubeni, Gen. 1. 27, these angels were thrown down from heaven on earth, where Adam met them later. It is noteworthy that in Konen the heads of the heavenly hierarchy are not four or seven (comp. note 440 on vol. III, pp. 231-32, and note 64 on vol. I, 16), but three. This corresponds to the threefold division of the cosmos, already found among the Babylonians, into heaven, earth and water. Michael is therefore said to consist of fire, the heavenly element; Gabriel of snow, the primordial substance of which the earth was made (comp. note 18 on vol. I,8). According to others, Michael is of snow, and Gabriel of fire; comp. Targum Job 25. 2; the numerous references by Buber on PK 1, 3a, and note 63 on vol. I, p, 16, as well as the Christian pseudepigraphic History of Joseph the Carpenter, 22, which reads: Michael the prince of the angels (the same title is also found in 13, wheras in 6 Gabriel bears this title; comp. BR 78.

1; Shir 3. 6 and BaR 11. 3, where the phrase is used: Michael and Gabriel, the princes of the angels; see Dan. 12. 1), and Gabriel the herald of light. The element out of which the third archangel was made, we may well assume, is the water beneath the earth, the streams of Belial of the Bible =the waters of death. Comp. also notes 23 and 187 on vol. I, pp. 10, 40-41,respectively. Since in Babylonian mytholegy Nergal, the god of the nether-world, has the form of a lion (comp. Jeremias in 70 Adam 4 [14 Roscher’s Lexicon der Mythologie, 111, 250), Syrad may be taken to stand for °29 “lion” and bs “god”, and its transliteration should accordingly be Lebiel. Most likely the name Raphael had originally nothing to do with 8D “‘he healed”’, but was derived from O°ND7 ‘‘shades”’. In Enoch 22. 1-6 this angel clearly appears as the prince of Hades. In 20, 2-3 the original text probably read: mom dbxpn Sixwa dyn om 2a mm by “And over the Tartarus, Raphael who is in charge of the departed souls”. But the translator took bixwn by) to belong to the preceding sentence. The identification of Lebiel with Raphael in Konen is therefore a learned explanation of an old tradition. It is not certain whether Raphael, as the angel of healing, owes his calling to the false explanation of his name (as ‘‘ healer” we find him in Tobit and frequently in Jewish and Christian literature; comp., e.

g., Baba Mezi‘a 86b; Origen, De Princ., I, 8. 1), for the development of the “‘prince of the nether-world” into the ‘‘healer’”’ is quite conceivable. Similar developments may be found in many mythological systems.— On the function of the three archangels, it may be observed that Origen, loc. cit., considers Michael as the angel of prayer, who brings man’s prayers before God, and Gabriel as the angel of war. The latter is also the view of the Rabbis, as may be seen from the statement that Gabriel was the one who annihilated Sennacherib’s camp, destroyed Sodom, and set fire to the temple at Jerusalem (comp. Index, s. v. ‘“‘Gabriel”), and is therefore called the severe angel, in contrast to Michael, ‘the angel of mercy’’; comp. Ekah 2,98. The angel of prayer, according to the Rabbis, is Sandalfon (comp. note 139 on vol. I, p. 29, and Index, s. v.), but the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 11 seems toagree with Origen. Inthe Christian pseudepigraphic work the Passing of Mary, 8, Michael appears as the prince of paradise, which is to be compared with the function of this angel as high priest in the heavenly temple (comp. Index, s. v.), which is only another expression for paradise. Although in Jewish angelology Michael is superior to Gabriel, so that he alone bears the title ‘‘prince’”’ (Hagigah, loc. czt., and Hullin 40a; comp. further the Jewish tradition given by Jerome on Dan. 8. 10), one must not fail to note that at least among the Babylonian Jews Gabriel’s prestige almost equals that of his rival Michael.

Comp. Kohut, Angelologie, 24-33, whose views require a thorough revision. Comp. also note 8 on vol. I, p. 5. '4 Yerahmeel 15. For a similar statement among the Arabs, comp. Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, 61-62. According to Konen 27., it was Michael, not Gabriel, who brought the dust for Adam’s body. 771 15] The Legends of the Jews The rivalry between these two angels is often met with throughout Jewish literature; comp. the preceding note and note 8 on vol. I, p. 5. 15 PRE 11; Tan. Pekude 3 (end); Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 2. 7; Yerahmeel 15-16; Sanhedrin 38a—38b. Comp. further Philo, De M. Opif., 51, which reads: But in the foundation of the body he is like the whole world, since he is made out of the combination of the same elements as the world, 7. e., out of earth, water, air, and fire, in which each element contributed its part towards the completion of the composition of material sufficient for this purpose...to form this visible image. This view of the Greek philosophers that the human body consists of the four elements is mentioned by Philo also, De Decalogo, 8; but in De Somn., 1. 3, he is in agreement with the Jewish sources (comp. Targum Yerushalmi, Joc. cit.; MHG I, 73, goes back to a very late source, which is acquainted with the philosophical doctrine of the four elements), and states that Adam’s body was formed out of earth and water. 2 Enoch 30. 8 knows of seven substances which were employed in the composition of the human body; comp.

Charles, ad. loc., as well ARN 31, 91-92, with reference to the correspondence between the parts of the human body and those of the earth. The etymology of the name Adam found in the Sibylline Books III, 24-26, and elsewhere in Christian literature (comp. Schtirer, Geschichte, III, 290): ’Avarodn ‘‘east’’, Avats ‘west”,”Apkros “north”, and MeonuBpia “south”, goes back to 2 Enoch 30. 13. The rabbinic sources (Sotah 5a; comp. further PRE 12) explain 078 ‘‘Adam” as (DN “dust”, O71 “blood”, and 779 ‘‘gall’”’. Josephus, Antiquz., I, 1. 2, reads: He was called Adam. .. which signifies one who is red (O78), because he was formed out of red earth... of that which is virgin soil (nbina yp71p in mishnic Hebrew) and real earth. Concerning this passage comp. L6éw, Zeitschrift fiir neut. Wissenschaft, XI, 167. A Christological explanation of the virgin soil is found in the Martyrdom of Bartholomew. Just as the first Adam was created out of a virgin, so was thesecond. Theold mythological conception of ‘‘mothereatth’”’ has also left its traces in the Jewish legends; comp. 4 Ezra 5. 28, and the legend concerning the ‘‘ pregnancy of the earth with Adam”’ in Aguddat Aggadot 77; comp. also Ecclu. 40. 1. In connection with the view that the dust for the human.body was taken out of the whole earth, Sanhedrin 38a-38b reads: The soil of Palestine furnished the material for Adam’s head; that of Babylon for his trunk; that of Akra de-Agma (a town in Babylon, notorious on account of the loose morals of its inhabitants) for his privates; that of all other countries 72 Adam [x6 for his extremities.

Parallels to this legend in later Christian and Arabic writings are cited by Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, 55-58 and 62.—On the conception that man’s existence is only possible as the result of God’s mercy, comp. BR. 8. 4; PR 40, 166b: Tehillim 1, 23, as well as vol. I, pp. 3-5. On the creation of the world by means of God’s justice and kindness, comp. further the quotations from Yelammedenu by Sikli, Talmud Torah 6. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 1. 25-26, and 2. 3, emphasizes, as do the Rabbis, the necessity of these attributes of God for the existence of the world and man. Recanati, Lev. 23. 24, quotes the following from an unknown Midrash: When God betakes Himself to His seat of judgment to judge the world, Mercy on His right and Justice on His left strive with one another. Justice says: ‘Judge the world with exact justice, and requite the sinners according to their actions”; but Mercy rejoins: ‘If Thou, O Lord, heedest sins, who shall be able to exist?” (Ps. 130. 3). Justice then says: ‘‘The wicked shall die because of his sins” (Ezek., 23.8). Whereupon Mercy replies: ‘‘I ask not the death of the wicked’’ (Ezek. 18. 32 and 23. 11; the citations are not literal). Justice says: ‘‘All this takes place because of the sins of Jacob”’ (Micah 1. 5). But Mercy replies: ‘‘Not now shall Jacob be ashamed” (Is. 29. 22). ‘“‘Then will I also do this unto you” (Lev. 26. 16), says Justice. ‘‘For my own sake will I do it'’ (Is.

48. 11), replies Mercy. ‘‘Since yesterday is the conflagration (i. e. hell) made ready’”’ (Is. 30. 33), says Justice, and Mercy replies: ‘‘ Before the mountains were created...and Thou sayest: Return, ye children of men” (Ps. 90. 2-3). Justice says: ‘‘Therefore hath the deep (i. e. hell) enlarged her desire” (Is. 5. 14), and Mercy replies: ‘‘A tree of life is she (wisdom) to those that lay hold on her” (Prov. 3. 18). “I will no longer have any mercy”’ (Hos. 1. 6), says Justice, and mercy replies: ‘‘For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob” (Is. 14. 1). Justice says: ‘‘And some to disgrace and everlasting abhorrence”’ (Dan. 12. 2), and Mercy replies: ‘‘And these to everlasting life’’ (zbzd.). 16 Yerushalmi Nazir 7,56b; BR 14.8, PRE 11, 12, and 20; Tehillim 92,405; EZ 2,173. In later Midrashim two different legends have been-united, and it is asserted that the dust taken from the various parts of the earth, out of which Adam’s body was formed (comp. the preceding note) was kneaded at the holy place in Jerusalem. The older sources (Nazir and BR, Joc. cit.),as well as Philo, De M. Opif., 47 (he took the best of the whole earth), do not know of this combination. Comp. note 137. 13 17-18] The Legends of the Jews 17 BR 8. 1 (on the text comp. Sikli, Talmud Torah, 11, where, however, NN is to be read for N8D°8); WR 14. 1; Tan. B. III, 32; Tan. Tazria‘ 1; Tehillim 139, 529.

Comp. also Sanhedrin 38a. In the sources just quoted, as well as elsewhere (comp. Excursus I) “the spirit of God”’, which in the beginning of creation moved on the surface of the waters, was afterwards identified with the spirit (=soul) of the Messiah. This was probably occasioned by an anti-Christian tendency (Origen, De Princ., I, 3.3, Ephraim I, 8 B, Theodoretus, ad loc., as well as many other Church Fathers identify the spirit of God in Gen. 1. 2 with the Holy Ghost). The Talmud, Hagigah 12a, however, explains the word MN in this passage as “‘wind’. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 14-15, and note 14 on vol. I, p. 8. 18 BR 14. 9; comp. further WR 32. 2; DR 2. 37. The philosophers found here the doctrine of the various powers of the soul, but there is no doubt that this Haggadah, in its original form, wishes to express the view of polypsychism, which was prevalent in ancient times; comp. Toy, Introduction to the History of ReMgion, 20. These five souls are, according to the Midrash, blood, wind, breath, the principle of life (immortal soul?), and the individual soul. One of these souls leaves the body at the time of sleep (on this ‘‘dreamsoul’? comp. Toy, izbid., 2, and further Tertullian, De Anima, 43, who opposes this popular conception of the Christians of his time); see BR, loc. cit., and 78. 1; WR, loc. cit., and 4. 8; DZ 5; Berakot 60b (in a prayer still found in the liturgy); PR 8, 29a, and 31, 143a; Koheleth 10.

20; Ekah 3, 132; Tehillim 11, 102 (here dreams are explained as the result of the wanderings of the soul during the time the body is asleep), and 25, 210; ER 2, 8; EZ 15, 199; Tan. Mishpatim 16; Alphabetot 114-116; Al-Barceloni, 181 (Kaufmann’s remark, 342, is accordingly to be corrected); Zohar I, 53b, 121a, 122a, 169b, 183a, 200a and (probably based on Tehillim 11. 102) III, 119a, as well as 234b; Mahzor Vitry 78; Pardes 55a; Orehot Hayyim I, 1a; Shibbole ha-Leket, 41. In the last-named non-midrashic sources (comp. Tehillim 57, 307) it is said that the soul, which at the time when the body is asleep is in God’s keeping, does not wish to return to man again; but God compels it to do so, saying to it: ‘I do not wish that man who entrusted his soul to Me when he went to sleep should be disappointed.”” Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 23, whose explanation of BR 14. 9, though accepted by Theodor, ad Joc., is erroneous, as may be seen from the passages quoted above concerning the journey of the soul while the 74 Adam 4 [19-20 body is asleep. In Tehillim 62, 307 nta mdoy signifies ‘‘breathing.” *9 Tan. Pekude 3, where the statement occurs that all souls are but part of Adam’s soul. Comp. Tan. Ki-Tissa 12; ShR 40. 3. This view which is probably of Christian origin (comp. I Cor. 15. 22, and Rom. 5. 14, as well as Tertullian, De Anima, 40), plays a great part in the Kabbalah, which speaks of the sparks of Adam’s soul forming the souls of later generations.

A different view is given in BR 8. 8, where it is said that God consulted the souls of the pious concerning the creation of man; comp. Excursus I. The abode of the souls of the unborn, according to Hagigah 12b, is the seventh heaven (in this passage the souls are differentiated from the spirits; comp. the preceding note); but according to Tan. Pekude, loc. cit., it is in paradise. Yebamot 62a and parallel passages speak of a *}12 where the soul of all future generations are preserved. It also has the additional remark that the Messiah will not come until this 7}11isemptied. According to the traditional interpretation, *}1) denotes a promptuary (comp. ‘Aruk, s.v.). See further 2 Enoch 23. 14; and 58.5 (here an abode of the souls [spirits?] of animals is likewise spoken of); Apocalypse of Baruch 23. 5; 4 Ezra 4. 35. According to another view, this })1 is identical with the ‘‘curtain”’ (77D) before God’s throne (frequently mentioned in the Talmud), on which all souls are ‘‘painted’”’; comp. ‘Aruk, loc. cit.; Zohar II, 96b, and the quotation, from a work of R. Eleazar of Worms (Rokeah), by R. Joseph Jabez, at the end of the latter’s work Ma’amar ha-Ahdut. 20 Tan. Pekude 3, and as an independent Midrash entitled Yezirat ha-Walad (‘‘creation of the embryo”) in Abkat Rokel, whence it was republished by Jellinek in BHM I, 153-155. The latter scholar added a second midrashic treatise giving more material about the physical nature of man and the “creation of the embryo”’ from Likkute ha-Pardes 4d—5b, which is partly of the same contents as that of the first treatise.

Yerahmeel 10, 19-23, is identical with Tan., loc. cit. As to particulars, note the following. On the angel Lailah (‘‘night”’) and his functions, comp. Niddah 16b; Sanhedrin 96a; ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 79; note 98 on Vol. I, p. 232. In Zohar II, 11a—11b, it is Gabriel who is in charge of the soul; comp. also zbid. 96b. That everything is predestined by God, except man’s moral freedom, is also found in Ketubot 30a; Apocalypse of Baruch 54. 15. Comp. the references given by Charles, ad loc., to Josephus and other sources. There is also a statement that a few days before the birth of a male child a heavenly voice announces: That woman is destined to become his wife, that house 15 20] The Legends of the Jews or that field will belong to him; comp. Sotah 2a and Mo‘ed Katan 18b. On the view that marriages are made in heaven, see further Yerushalmi Bezah 5, 63a (bottom); WR 8. 1; BR 68. 4; PK 2, 11b-12a; Tan. Ki-Tissa 5; Shemuel5, 62. SeealsoAbrahams, J.Q.R. 11,172-177 = Book of Delight, 172-183, On the predestination of the intellectual and other traits of man, comp. Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 916 on Job 28. The differentiation of the sex of the embryo, according to the Kabbalists, is brought by the angel Sandalfon; comp. Yalkut Reubeni, Lev. 12. 2. The refusal of the soul to enter the embryo is already presupposed in Abot 4 (end). The two heavenly companions of the soul are naturally the guardian angels of every individual person, who are frequently alluded to in Jewish, as well as in Christian, literature; comp.

Berakot 60b (top); Shabbat 119b; Ta‘anit 11a; Tan. Wa-Yeze 3; Matthew 18. 10; Hermas Pastor, Visio, V, 6. 2; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 6. 17; Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 5, and 2 Apologia, 5; Athenagoras, Legatio, 10. 20; Visio Pauli, 14; The History of Joseph the Carpenter, 13. In the Jewish sources (comp. Shabbat and Tan., loc. cit.; ER 18, 100; Tehillim 104, 440) the doctrine of the guardian angels appears quite early with a rationalistic explanation. In view of Shabbat Joc. cit., Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, III, 23, is certainly correct in asserting that the ancient Rabbis understood these guardian angels to represent the good and evil inclinations. It is interesting that Hermas Pastor, loc. cit., represents practically the same conception. Directly dependent on Maimonides is Zohar, I, 144b, 165b, 191a; II, 41b—42a; III, 106a. Here and there the view is found, both in Jewish and Christian sources, that every man has only one guardian angel; comp. ER, loc. cit., and Kimha Dabishuna on the piyyut IN& ONT (morning prayer of the Day of Atonement); Visio Pauli, loc. cit. The prevalent opinion, however, is that there are two guardian angels; comp. the sources quoted above, and Eusebius, 689a, as well as vol. I, p. 95. That the angels who accompany man testify before God concerning his acts is found not only in Ta‘anit, loc. cit., but also in 2 Enoch 19.5. Here also belong the remarks about the angels who come to God to plead for a man if he is good, and about those who accuse him if his conduct is bad; comp.

Tehillim 94, 418; Mishle 11, 70. Hence the statement that man’s actions, his limbs and his soul are his witnesses; comp. Ta‘anit, loc. cit.; ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 79; Sifre D., 307. Midrash Tannaim 187; Tan. B. I, 21: When a man is about to die, God appears (the appearance of God is mentioned also in Sifre N., 103), and says to him: ‘‘Write down 76 Adam “ [20 ‘ all thy deeds, because thou art about to die now.’’ The man then writes everything down, and signs it with his hand. On the last day of judgment, God will produce these books, and a man’s actions will be shown to him. Comp. also Shabbat 32a, which reads: A man’s good deeds are his Parakletin (‘‘defenders”’) at the heavenly court. To the oldest sources, where guardian angels are mentioned, belongs 2 Maccabees 3. 26; Comp. also note 12.—According to Niddah 30b, the soul of the embryo knows and sees everything, and hence the corresponding statement in ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 79 as well as in the sources cited at the beginning of note. Comp. further Mishle 2, 49; Tan. B. III, 32; WR 14. 8-9. On the relation of this conception to the Platonic doctrine of anamnesia, comp. Gtidemann, Religionsgeschichtliche Studien, 7, seg., and Joel, Blicke, I, 118-119. The kabbalistic treatment of this Platonic doctrine appears in Ziyyoni, Hayye Sarah (beginning). On the idea that every man has a place in paradise or hell after death, according to his deserts, see Hagigah 15a; 2 Enoch 49; Tehillim 21, 239; Apocalypse of Baruch 23.

4; comp. especially the elaborate amplification of Hagigah, loc. cit., in Hasidim 36. The idea that an angel causes the soul to forget everything, when it enters this world, is derived from Nidah 39a, where it is emphasized that the heavenly hosts adjure the embryo with the following words: ‘‘Be pious and not wicked; but when the world regards thee as pious, it shall appear to thee as though thou art wicked. Know that God is pure, His servants are pure, and thy soul is pure. If thou keepest it pure, it is well for thee; otherwise it will be taken away from thee.’”’ On the loud weeping of the dying, comp. note 107 on vol. I, p. 26. Zohar I, 98a (Midrash ha-Ne‘elam) and 79a, call the moment of death ‘‘the great judgment’’ for the individual, in which the soul acknowledges everything it has done during its life. For this point in the older sources comp. Sifre D., 307; Midrash Tannaim 187; Tan. B. I, 21—The words of the angel of death are taken almost verbatim from Abot 4 (end). The motive of refusing to die plays an important part in the legends concerning Abraham and Moses (comp. Index, s. v. “‘Abraham”, “Moses’’), and is also found in Christian legends; comp. Louise Dudley, Egyptian Elements in the Legend of the Body and Soul, 151, seq. The dependence of the Christian on the Jewish legends, and not on the Egyptian, as Dudley assumes, appears quite clearly from the passage of Visio Pauli 4, which Dudley, 27, is unable to explain.

The angels who took away the soul of the sinner say to him: ‘As for that from which thou departest, again wilt thou return unto it.” This 77 21] | The Legends of the Jews Christian source quotes almost verbatim from Abot Joc. cit., though the words do not fit into the description of death in Visio Pauli. Almost all men (comp. Index, s. v. ‘Death by Kiss”) die by the ‘‘sword of the angel’; nevertheless the death of the pious is painless, that of the wicked is painful. Comp. the following passages where details concerning this point are given: Berakot 8a; ‘Abodah Zarah 20b (here two different views are blended into one: 1) the sword of the angel of death; 2) a drop of venom, bitter as death, from the angel’s hand causes death); Tehillim 11, 102-103. In the last passage it is also said that the soul (773) is removed from the body, whereas the spirit (=wind Mm) remains at the tip of the nose after death until the corpse becomes putrefied, whereupon it is removed by the angel Duma into its proper place, paradise or hell. On the various souls which man possesses, comp. note 18. The older sources (Yerushalmi Mo‘ed Katan 3, 82b; Tan. Mikkez 4; comp. further Shabbat 152a) maintain that the soul during the first three days hovers about the dead body, in the hope that it will be resurrected, and it leaves it mournfully when putrefaction has set in; comp. John 11, 39, and Bousset, Religion, 341, note 1, as well as Zohar III, 53a, arid notes 139140.

2. BR 14. 7; BaR 12. 8; Shir 3. 11; Hullin 60a(on this talmudic passage comp. Al-Barceloni, 74, and Responsen der Geonim, Harkavy’s edition, 199); Jerome, I, 902; Ephraim, I, 159; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 31-33, with regard to the Christian form of this view, and note 97. The opinion of the superiority and the accomplishment of the first ‘“‘human pair” is only a special application of the idea that all primordial creations came out fully developed. Comp. Seder ‘Olam 4, with reference to the heavenly luminaries, and Sifra 26. 4, with respect to the plant world. Comp. also notes 74 and 100 on vol. I, pp. 19 and 24, respectively. Philo, De M. Opif. 13, 47, 51, also speaks of the excellence of primordial creations, particularly that of Adam. To many gnostic systems this legend concerning Adam’s spiritual and physical excellence is of great import; comp. Recognitiones, I, 47. Shu‘aib, Ki-Tissa, 39c, quotes the following from an unknown Midrash: Adam received five crowns: he was king, prophet, high priest, his countenance shone in heavenly splendor, and God revealed the Torah to him.—Since the word Adam in Hebrew means “‘man”’, the first man is called ]}WN17 O78 and not infrequently also ’}197p7 078; hence in Aramaic TNOIP ON. Comp. Sifra 5. 17; BaR 10. 2; BR 20. 11 and note 60. 18 7 Adam [22-23 , 24 BR 8. 1; 21. 3; 24. 2; Hagigah 12a; PRE 11; ARN 8, 22-23; PR 23, 1154; Tehillim 139, 529; WR 14.

1 and 18. 2; Tan. B. II, 37; Tan. Vazria’ 8. Adam’s enormously high stature plays an important part in the views of many gnostic sects, according to whom Adam was a gigantic monster without any intelligence, and moved about by creeping. Comp. Irenacus V, 22. 2; Hippolytus 5. 2 and 4.16. Allusions to the time when Adam’s body was not yet endowed with intellect are found in many other passages of rabbinic literature; comp. Sanhedrin 44b; ARN 1, 5 (second version 4), as well as 8, 22; PK 23, 150b; PR, loc. ct., and 46, 147b; ShR 40, 3; Tan. B. ISI, 31; Tan. Shemini 4; Tehillim 92, 403. According to Abkir in Yalkut 1, 44, and readings of manuscripts of Midrash Ruth (comp. Ginzberg, Hanifch, \V, 35-36), God created, as the very first act of creation, the woulless (090 in all these pasmayes does not mean “‘lifeless’”’) Adam and then all the other creatures. Accordingly, Adam, though the first creation, did not receive his soul before all other creations had been formed, in order that he should not be considered as God's assistant in creation; comp. note 61 on vol. J, p. 16. Hence man is rightlully regarded as the beginning and the end of creation. 2 ABN 4, 22-24, and Epiphanius, Huer., 1. 4. 4, oppose the view that Adam wae God’s first creation; comp., however, vol. J, p. 56, with reference to Adam’s soul which was created on the first day. Philo, Oumsestiones, Gon. 2, 56, asserts that the ideal man was created on the sixth day, the physical on the seventh.

This does not harmonize with his general view of creation, according to which the former ig of a timeless state (comp., ¢. g., Legum Alleg., 2. 4), and it appears that he tried to fit a Haggadah into his system, but did not sucweed, Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 1, 70, and Weinstein, Zur Ceonens dey Agoda, 52, 79, find, in the utterances of the Haggadah concerning Adam’s dimensions, which extended over the whole world, an echo of Philo’s doctrine of the ideal man, the image of the whole world (De M. Opif., 74, 46, and 51). This assumption is only partly correct. Both the Rabbis and Philo made use, each in his own way, A the old myth, according to which the world is a macroanthropos; comp. note 4, On Adam as a wulless monster among the Arabs, comp. Grinbaum, Neue Beitrige, 62, seq. See further Dabnhardt, Notursagen, \, 242-146. 44 PRK (Schénblum’s edition, 16b; Griinhut’s edition, 72; Jellinek’s edition, 97); Sotah 10a (does not know of Zerubbabel’s wonderful voice, and has Asa, king of Judah, instead of Ashael; comp. on 19 24-25] — The Legends of the Jews this point vol. IV, p. 73; on Zedekiah see vol. IV, pp. 293-294); PRE 53 (one of the chosen is Josiah, whose nostrils were wonderful); MHG I, 66; Tan. B. V, 8 (Buber’s statement, note 20, is incorrect); Tan. Wa-Ethanan 1; Yalkut on 1 Kings (end); Al-Barceloni, 30; Zohar I, 123b; Duran, Milhemet Mizwah, 26.

On Zerubbabel comp. note 25 on vol. IV, p. 352; on Adam see Ecclu. 49. 16, which reads: Adam excelled all creatures in splendor. 74 Baba Batra 58a. On Adam’s splendor which eclipsed the sun, comp. PK 4, 36b, 12, 101a; 27, 170a; PR 14, 62a; Koheleth 8. 1; WR 20. 2; Tan. B. III, 57; IV, 114; Tan. Ahare 2; Adamschriften, 29; Apology of Sedrach, 7 (along with Adam, Eve's beauty and splendor are mentioned). Comp. also on this point notes 69 and 105. The following persons are mentioned as ideals of beauty: Eve, Sarah, Rahab, Abigail, Esther, Abishag (not half as pretty as Sarah, but not inferior to Eve), Michal, and Jael, among the women. The men are: Adam, Jacob, Joseph, Saul, Absalom, R. Ishmael, and R. Abbahu. Comp. Baba Batra, loc. cit.; Baba Mezi‘a 84a; Megillah 15a; PRK (Sch6nblum’s edition, 24a); Sanhedrin 39b; BR 40. 5; Ma‘aseh “Aseret Harugé Malkut 23; Zohar J, 142b; II, 55a; III, 83b; Al-Barceloni, 41 and 45; Philo, De Abrahamo, 19. “Comp. further on Adam’s beauty, notes 104 and 105. On Eve’s beauty see the Gnostic view quoted by Irenaeus I, 30, 7. On Sarah’s beauty, see note 67 on vol. Teepee 222s 25 Berakot 10a; WR4.8; Tehillim 103, 433 (cited in Pugio Fidei, 554, with considerable variations); Tan. Hayye Sarah 3; DR 2. 37; PRE 34; Zohar I, 125a; Philo, De M. Opif., 23. The latter is the intermediary between the Stoics, who speak of the relationship that exists between God and the soul (comp.

Diogenes of Babylonia; Philodem. De Piet., Gompertz’ edition, 82; Seneca, Ep., 65. 24), and the Haggadah. Comp. Bergmann in Judaica (in honor of Hermann Cohen), 151. In the Midrashim mentioned above, as well as elsewhere (comp. BR 14. 9) it is asserted that the soul does not sleep (comp. note 18 on the ‘‘dream soul”) any more than does God. This conveys the idea of the immortality of the soul, as sleep (so already in the Gilgamesh epos) is the likeness of death; Berakot 57b. Comp. Vol. I, p. 64 (bottom). A doctrine concerning the soul, borrowed from the Stoics, is the one found in Sanhedrin 91b, according to which the soul enters the body at the time of conception. Comp. Begmann, loc. cit., and vol. I, p. 56. Along with the view that the soul is something exclusively spiritual, found in the 80 Adam [26 sources cited at the beginning of this note, there is the primitive conception which regards it as a material substance endowed with some form. The latter view has been preserved in some passages, according to which the soul has the form of a bird, and it is perhaps for this reason that the Talmudim and Midrashim often speak of the flight of the soul; comp. Yerushalmi Mo‘ed Katan 3, 82b; Yerushalmi Yebamot 15, 15c; Ketubot 62b (AM 1 MD ‘‘expired’’); BR 93. 8 and 100. 7; WR 18. 1. Comp. further the sources referred to by Malter, J. Q.R., N.S., II, 476-478. See also Tehillim 11, 102, where it is said that the soul has the appearance of a 0°D)D bya ain.

This is most likely influenced by the Greek conception, and this phrase is to be rendered by ‘‘butterfly’’ (literally, ‘‘winged grasshopper’), The assertion found in Tehillim, Joc. cit., that the soul is fastened to the spine is probably related to the old view, according to which a part of the spine (comp. note 44 on vol. I, p. 163, and Index, s. v. ‘“‘Luz’’) is indestructible, and will, in the time of resurrection, furnish the material out of which the human body will be quickened. As has been previously stated, the soul enters the body at the time of conception; but opinions differ as to the time the two inclinations, the good and the evil, enter it. According to some, the evil inclination enters the body at the time of conception; according to others, at the time of the formation of the embryo (i. e., forty days after conception; comp. Berakot 60a; ‘Menahot 99b; note 97); a third view, which is the most prevalent, maintains that it enters the body at the time of birth. But the good inclination does not make its appearance before the completion of the thirteenth year (7. e., at the time of puberty); comp. ARN 17, 63-64 (second version, 36); Sanhedrin 91b; Yerushalmi Berakot 3, 6d; BR 34. 10; Tan. Bereshit 7 (this is the only passage which states that the evil inclination enters the body at the tenth year); MHG I, 108-109; Koheleth 4. 13. Comp. note 14 on vol. I, p. 108. 26 MHG I, 74.

Comp. vol. I, p. 66. Koheleth 2. 12 reads: God took counsel with His court concerning every single limb of man. Comp. further the quotation from a Midrash by Shu‘aib, Tazria‘ 61a, where it is pointed out that the number of the veins of the human body corresponds to the days of the solar year. On this number of the veins, see Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 1. 27. The remark that the wonderful mechanism of the human body shows God’s skill as well as His solicitude for man occurs frequently in the Haggadah; comp. Berakot 10a; Niddah 31a; WR 14. 3-4 and 15. 2-3; Tan. B. 81 27-28] The Legends of the Jews III, 33-34, 35-36; IV, 98; Tan. Tazria‘ 2-3 and 6, as well as Hukkat 1; BaR 18. 22; Tehillim 103, 431-432, 434; Shemuel 5, 59-60; see also parallels cited by Buber, and comp. Mekilta RS, 67. Very instructive is WR 34. 3, where Hillel, pointing to the duty which man owes to his body, remarks: The officer in charge of the washing and cleaning of the king’s statues at the theatre and circus is not only paid a salary, but occupies a high rank among the dignitaries of the kingdom; how much more is man bound to do honor to God’s image! The passages in Recognitiones, 8. 28-33, on the human body are closely related in many respects to those of the Haggadah. For later literature one may refer to Shebet Musar I, where the purpose of the various component parts of the human body is minutely described.

27 Seder ‘Olam 30 (read "Ton for °95N and 7217°3 for °8'3); otherwise the prophets and the sages would be mentioned twice); Sanhedrin 38b; ‘Abodah Zarah 5a; BR 24. 2; ShR 40. 2-3; WR 26. 7; PR 23 (beginning); ARN 31, 91 (second version 8, 22); Tan. B. I, 21, 22; Tan. Ki-Tissa 12 (comp. on this passage ‘Recanati on Gen. 2) and Emor 2; Tehillim 139, 530; Shemuel 24, 120; EZ 6, 183 (here all that is said in the older sources concerning Adam is transferred to Moses; comp. vol. III, pp. 36, 398, 443); Targum Ps. 139.16. Most of these sources (comp. also Baba Mezi‘a 85b, bottom) speak of a book which God showed to Adam, in which all future generations are recorded, and this is the Jewish form of the view prevalent among the Babylonians (comp. Jeremias, Babylonisches im NT, 69, seq.). At the same time this legend holds the view that the entire human race was potentially created in Adam, so that all future generations have been predestined at the time of the creation of Adam. Comp. note 19. Instead of the book of Adam, there appears in Zohar I, 90b, the “painted curtain”’ on which all souls are drawn, and which God showed him. Comp. note 19. 28 BaR 14. 12; PRE 19; Tehillim 95, 408. There are numerous additions in the following later sources (God and Metatron as witnesses sign the deed of a gift to David); Bereshit Rabbeti 67-68 in Epstein’s Eidad; Huppat Eliyyahu in Aggadat Bereshit, Introduction 37; Sikli in Hazofeh, III, 11; Yalkut I, 41.

Comp. further Zohar I, 55a, 140a, 168a, 248b; II, 235a; vol. IV, p. 82. The Arabs also know of the legend (comp. Griinbaum, Neue Bettrdge, 63-74), but they missed the point concerning the “days of the Lord’”’ (comp. note 72) because of their ignorance of the Bible. According to Yebamot 64b, it was only at the time of David that seventy years were 82 Adam [29-31 fixed as the average age of man. Comp. also Herodotus I, 32, and Jub. 23. 9. Zohar I, 168a, blended the Adam-David legend with another, according to which Abraham and Jacob were supposed to live 180 years, exactly as Isaac, but their deducted years, that is five ef Abraham’s, twenty-eight of Jacob’s, as well as thirty-seven of Joseph’s (who should have lived, according to his father’s blessing, as long as he), were bestowed on David. 79 BR 18. 4; PK 4, 34a; PR 14, 59b; Tan. B. IV, 110; Tan. Hukkat 6; BaR 19. 3; Koheleth 7. 23; PRE 13; Tehillim 8, 73-74; 2 ARN 8, 23. Comp. further note 34. Adam’s wisdom is praised in Wisdom 10. i and by Philo, who also points to the naming of animals, where Adam’s wisdom was displayed. PK 6, 62b, and 21, 144a (this is the source of Makiri, Is. 42, 128) maintains that the Tetragrammaton is the name by which Adam called God; comp. also Midrash Aggada Lev. 11. 4, and Berakot 7b. 3° Lekah, Gen. 2. 19. The older sources (comp. the preceding note), however, only speak of Adam’s wisdom (not of his prophetic gift), by means of which he succeeded in naming the objects.

Nevertheless Adam is known in the older sources as a prophet; comp. Seder ‘Olam 21; Septuagint Gen. 2. 20 (against this explanation of 7o77N as prophetic ecstasy, which is also found in Seder ‘Olam, comp. BR 16. 5 and 24. 17; Tan. B. I, 22, however, seems to accept the first view); Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Haer., 52. This view occurs quite frequently in patristic literature; comp. Origen, De Princ., I, 3. 7; Jerome, Gen. 2. 21; Aphraates, 354; Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 11; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1. 21; Clementine Homilies, 3. 18. Comp. further Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraph., 6 and 12, as well as Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 35. Zohar I, 125a, reads: Every one of the forty-eight prophets (on this number comp. Index, s. v. ‘‘Prophets’’) received a drop from the water of paradise, but Adam received as much as all of them together. The metaphor of the ‘‘drops of prophecy” in Zohar is borrowed from Shir 4. 11; comp. further Al-Barceloni, 130 and note 21. 31 BR 24. 7; Tan. B. I, 4; Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 1. 21-22; Eusebius, 515c; Augustine, Quaestiones, Exod. 69. According to one version of the Book of Adam (comp. Adamschriften, 24), it was an angel who, after the expulsion from paradise, taught Adam smithcraft, brought the fire-tongs and hammer, and taught him how to use them. Moreover (ibid., 33), this angel instructed him how to tame an ox and to train it to work the soil; he also showed him how 83 32-35] The Legends of the Jews to eat the produce of the ground and to satisfy his hunger with it.

As to rabbinic parallels to these legends, comp. notes 96 and 99, and further note 91 on vol. I, p. 181. On the Arabic legends concerning a book of Adam, comp. Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, 66. Comp. note isl. 32 Berakot 31a; MHG I, 80 (with substantial variations). Comp. further note 37. . 33 ARN 1, 8 (second version 8, 23). For the opposite view concerning the relation of the angels to Adam, comp. vol. I, p. 64 (bottom). 34 Bereshit Rabbeti (its source is Eldad; comp. Epstein, Eldad, 66, seg.). On Satan’s twelve wings, comp. PRE 13, which was made use of by Eldad. See also note 55 on vol. I, p. 133. On the wings of the angels see Batte Midrashot IV, 5, as well as Kimha Dabishuna on the Piyyut 0’pnw °“’D8 in the Roman Mahzor for the Day of Atonement. Epstein, loc. cit., as well as Griinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsdize, 68, seg., and Neue Bettrdge, 57, seq., rightly assumes tHat Eldad’s story of Satan’s fall goes back to Mohammedan, and indirectly to Christian, sources. Incorrect, however, is their view that the legend of the fall of Satan came to. the Jews from the Christians and Mohammedans. For, though it is true that the doctrine of the fall of the angels, as well as that of Satan, has, at a very early period, been opposed by the leaders of the Synagogue, the traces of that legend are nevertheless to be found in rabbinic and pseudepigraphic writings, and this shows that these ideas were popular among certain classes of people.

Comp. the following note.—In Eldad the legend about Satan is connected with that of Adam’s giving names to the animals. These two legends were originally independent. The anachronism of Adam’s speaking to Eve concerning the naming of the animals, which is against the explicit statement of Gen. 2.19—22, leads one to assume that Eldad made use of a Mohammedan source. A midrashic source, in which the names of the various animals were explained by their characteristics, was made use of by R. Sa‘adya Gaon (comp. his words quoted by R. Bahya, Gen. 2. 19, and Tashlum Abudirham, 75) and Ibn Sabba, Gen., loc. cit. Sone: further MHG I, 79; Toledot Yizhak, Gen., loc. cit. 35 Vita Adae 14-16; Bereshit Rabbeti i in Pugio Fidei 563. This assertion concerning the fall of Satan, whose jealousy brought about Adam’s misfortune, is widely acai. comp., e. g., Apocalypse of Sedrach 5; Questions of Bartholomew; Koran 2. 33. See Rousset, 84 Adam é [35 Religion, 386, and Epstein, Eldad, 75, seg. The oldest source, however, 2 Enoch 29. 4 and 5, which speaks of the fall of Satan, ascribes it to his jealousy of God. According to this source, Satan thought that he ‘‘would make his throne higher than the clouds of the earth, and would be equal in rank to God” (comp. Is. 14. 12-14, the reference to which Charles failed to recognize). It is for this reason that God cast down him and his angels from the heights.

Satan was flying about continually in the air (on this point see Targum Job 28. 7, which reads: Sammael who flies like a bird in the air) above the abyss. According to this source, the fall of Satan and his hosts occurred at the beginning of creation (on the second day?), while 31 reads that ‘‘Satan wanted to create another world, because things were subservient to Adam on earth”’, to rule them and to have dominion over them. Thus we again have the idea that Satan’s jealousy of Adam brought about his fall. The conception that everything, including the angel world, was created ‘‘in order to serve man”’ is genuinely Jewish (comp. note 8 and Index s.v.‘‘Angels’’), and is emphasized by Paul, Hebrews 1. 14. Moreover, it is quite probable that Hebrews 1. 6, goes back to Vita Adae, loc. cit., and, in midrashic fashion, makes the angels worship the second Adam (=Jesus), instead of the first. Indeed the sources cited in notes 36 and 37 seem to be directed against the popular conception that Adam was worshipped by the angels. A description of the fall of Adam, somewhat similar to that of 2 Enoch, is found in Alphabetot 93-94, where the text was shortened by the copyist, because the contents appeared to him too daring. In the part retained it is said that Satan, on the last day, will endeavor to renew his rebellion against God, and will proclaim that he is of equal rank with God, and that he was God’s “ partner’’ ("}MW) in creation, that God created heaven and he created hell.

Nevertheless the fire of hell will destroy him, and put an end to his arrogant talk. The words ‘151 b> ym in our text are the end of the missing description of the fall of Satan and his angels (uw »ondp occurs very rarely in rabbinic literature) at the beginning of creation. In Tehillim 82, 369 (comp. Buber who gives the better text of Rashi) Satan’s fall is alluded to, although, according to Trypho’s observation in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue, 124, the Jewish scholars refused to accept the view that Ps. 82. 7 refers to Satan’s fall or to that of the angels. According to PRE 14 and 27, Satan’s fall was a punishment for his having misled Adam to sin. This apparently corresponds to Revelation 12. 9; whereas according to an85 36-38] The Legends of the Jews other source (ARN 164; comp. vol. II, p. 242), it was a punishment for his conduct toward Job. Comp. note 10 on vol. I, p. 150. There is, however, still another view, according to which Satan was wicked from the very beginning, or, as the Haggadah expresses it, ‘‘was created out of the fire of hell’? (comp. vol. II, p. 470). On Satan’s jealousy of Adam as the cause for seducing the latter to sin, comp. vol. I, p. 95; Ginzberg, Haggada bei ben Kirchenv., 44-45. 36 PRE 11; Tan. Pekude 3 (end); MHG I, 56. 37 BR 8. 10; Koheleth 6. 10; Koheleth Z., 107. Comp. also the sources quoted in the preceding note, as well as Zohar I, 38a.

2 Alphabet R. Akiba 59 (whence Yalkut I, 20, on Gen. 2. 19, without giving source) remarks that the angels, noticing Adam’s resemblance to God, said: ‘Are there two powers in this world?” Whereupon God reduced Adam’s size, which had formerly filled the entire universe (comp. note 22) to one thousand cubits; comp. notes 73 and 33. Hasidim 290 made use of the same source, and has the addition that the part taken from Adam’s body was transformed into earth, and it is only this part which became inhabited (comp. vol. I, p. 62), while the rest remained a desert. At this time the exact number of future generations was fixed, which shall not be complete until the original size of Adam’s body (="]11; comp. note 19) is restored in those of his descendants.—On sleep as a sign of mortality, comp. note 25. See further 12 Testaments, Reuben 3. 1, and Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 243-244. 38 PRE 3. In this as well as in the preceding legend an answer is offered to the question why Eve was not created at the same time as Adam. BR 17. 4 reads as follows: God foresaw that Adam would complain against Eve’s creation (comp. vol. I, pp. 76-77); she was therefore not given to him until he asked God for her. Theo_philus, 2 gives the following reason: If two human beings, Adam and | Eve, had been created at the same time, people would have declared _ that there were two gods. Quite similar is the statement in Mishnah Sanhedrin 4.

5 and Tosefta 8. 4-5, with reference to the question why only one man was created; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 25. These rabbinic sources also give ethical reasons why only one man was created (7. ¢., one ‘human pair’’): If there were more than one pair, it would be said that the pious are the descendants of the first pious pair and the wicked are descendants of the first wicked pair. In order that families should not boast of their ancestors, all mankind is descended from one pair. Moreover, if thieves and 86 Adam [39-40 robbers molest their fellow-men now, how much more obnoxious would they have been, had they been of different descent. Finally the creation of only one man exhibits God’s power, who, by means of one mould, is able to produce various kinds of types. Adam is the progenitor of all mankind, and how different men are from one another! 39 BR 17.4. According to MHG I, 80-81 and 83, Adam became conscious of the sexual instinct only when he saw Eve before him. A different view is given in Yebamot 63a, where it is stated that Adam had unnatural relations with the animals before Eve was created. This passage was, at an early period, explained figuratively (comp. Lekah, Gen. 2. 23). On the question whether sexual intercourse had taken place before the fall of Adam and Eve or not, comp. note 4 on vol. I, p. 106. 4° 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 23a—23b and 33a-33b.

The text is corrupt, and can only partly be restored with certainty (read in 23a, 1. 5: mb 10K iT apn on> rx), but its main purport cannot be misunderstood. On Lilith’s abode in Egypt, comp. Tobit 8. 3; Revelation 9. 14; Miiller, Beztrdge...Tobias, 22. Egypt as the seat of witchcraft and the home of demons is frequently mentioned in the Kabbalah; hence the name of this country (Q°0¥D) is explained as the place of oppressors (0’7SD), 7. e., demons; comp. Yalkut Reubeni, Deut. 26.2. The view that it was the Red Sea in Egypt where Lilith remained is based on the conception that water is the abode of demons; comp. the assertion of Aristides, Apologia, 4: Wind ministers to God, fire to the angels (comp. note 63 on vol. I, p. 16, bottom), and water to the demons. This accounts for the warning given in Pesahim 112a, with reference to the drinking of the water, in order that one might not be exposed to injury by the demons found therein. The conception of Lilith as a wind spirit, now known from Babylonian sources, was retained by the Jews as late as the thirteenth century; comp. Parhon, s. v. bb. It is, however, true that generally she was conceived as a ‘‘Lamia’’, so that she was even identified with the Babylonian Labartu. Comp. Ginzberg’s communication to Perles in Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, XVIII, 179-80, and the latter’s remark against Lévi (R.E.J. LXVIII, 13), who considers the part ascribed to Lilith, in Alphabet of Ben Sira and in medieval literature, as a later development.

Comp. further Griinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsdtze, 94, 100, and vol. III, 280; vol. IV, 5. The assertion in Zohar I, 19b 34b, and III, 19a, concerning Lilith as Adam’s first wife is based on Alphabet, loc. cit. But old sources speak already of ‘‘the first Eve’’, 87 41-42] The Legends of the Jews though they do not identify her with Lilith; comp. BR 22. 7, and Augustine, Contra Adversarium Legis, 2. 5. See also on this point Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 60, note 3, and more fully note 47 on vol. I, p. 118. The confusing of the Babylonian wind spirit Lilith with the “Liliths’, night spirits, is already found in ‘Erubin 18b. The statement of Hasidim, 354, that these ‘‘Liliths”’ (nv>°4) assemble under certain trees belongs to German popular beliefs. On Lilith in the Talmud, comp. Kohut, Angelologie, 86-89, whose statements are not tenable. Attention should be drawn to the sentence in Shabbat 151a: Whoever sleeps alone in a house (or, whoever sleeps in an isolated house?) is seized by m5. This very likely has nothing to do with the she-devil. tM “seized” is employed in the Talmud only with respect to diseases; when referring to demons, the form pr) or pd is used. 4% MHG I, 83. The proverb ‘‘only when, etc.’’ is frequently quoted in the Talmud; comp., e. g., ‘Abodah Zarah 73a, where our text reads 71’); the reading of MHG, is 7¥1) (‘‘closed tightly”, from ay’ =?) .

Philo, Quaestiones, 1,20, gives more reasons why Eve was not created at the same time as Adam. One of the reasons is that woman should not claim equality with’ man (comp. vol. I, 65). Concerning Lilith’s insubordination comp. vol. I, p. 65. 42 BR 8.1 and 17.6; Berakot 61a; ‘Erubin 18a; WR 14 (beginning); Tan. B. III, 33; Tan. Tazria‘ 2; Tehillim 139, 529. In all these sources a second view is cited, according to which Adam was created as ‘‘androgynus’’, and was subsequently separated into man and woman. The relation of this view to that of Plato, Symposium, 189d, 190d, was already noticed by Eusebius, 585c—585d, and in recent times by Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 1, 69. Jeremias (Altes Testament im Lichte des Orients, index, s. v., ‘‘Androgynos’’), however, has shown that this view is already found among the Babylonians. The Rabbis were particularly concerned with explaining the contradiction between Gen. 1. 27 and 2. 7, seg., and since in the first passage the rather unusual expression 73p)1 721 occurs, it was quite natural for them to take it to denote ‘‘androgynus.”’ Philo, De M. Opif., 24, 46, and in many other passages (comp. the references given by Gfrérer, Philo, I, 267, seg., and, 407, seg.), solves this exegetical difficulty in a philosophic manner. The first account of the creation speaks of the idea of man, which is incorporeal, hence neither masculine nor feminine, whereas the second account treats of the material creation of man, which has a definite form, either man or woman.

It is worth 88 Adam — [43-45 noticing that in the first passage Philo speaks of the double sex of the “ideal man’’, but as of no sex in the second passage. However, one may easily see that the mythological conception of the ‘‘androgynus’’ is still discernible in his philosophical interpretation. Justin Martyr, Cohortatio ad Gent., 30, and Clemens Alexandrinus, Instructor, 3, follow Philo almost literally in their explanation of the biblical double account of the creation of man; but the interpretation of Tertullian, Adversus Hermogenem, 26, and of Hippolytus, Gen. 1. 27, is in agreement with the Baraita 32 Middot, No. 12, according to which the Bible first gives a general account, and then a detailed one. Comp. also BR 17. 4; Philo, Quaestiones, 1. 19. On the question whether Philo knew of the myth concerning the ‘‘androgynus Adam’’, comp. Bousset, Religion, 406. It is, however, frequently found among the Gnostics; comp. Hippolytus, V, 1 and 3; VI, 1. It is noteworthy that Celsus, in Origen, Contra Cels., 4. 38, observes that Jews as well as Christians consider the account of the creation of Eve out of Adam’s rib to be an allegory. In the earlier rabbinic literature now extant no such allegory is known; comp., in addition to the sources cited at the beginning of this note, ARN 1, 8 (second version 8, 23), as well as 2 Alphabet of R. Akiba 59; Zohar II, 55a; IlI,44b.

Even Philo does not know such an allegory, and accordingly Celsus probably refers to oral communications which were imparted to him by enlightened Jews. Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 2. 21 (comp. further BR 17. 6) remarks: Eve was formed out of the third rib of the right side. 43 BR 8.2 (WN mpi is the contrast of the expression bpm #871 which occurs very frequently) and 45. 5; DR 6. 11; Tan. B. I, 172; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 6; 2 ARN 45, 126; MHG I, 83. Comp. vol. I, p. 60 (bottom), and Griinbaum, Neue Beztrage, 58-59. 44 BR 18. 3; Berakot 61a; Niddah 45b. In the last passage, as well as BR 18. i, a different view is cited, according to which a man’s intelligence matures sooner than that of a woman, since the former has the opportunity to develop his mind in school, which opportunity is denied the latter. 45 BR 18. 8; 2 ARN 9, 24-25; Kiddushin 2b; Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk, s. v. 09. On the three precepts (besides the two mentioned in the text, there is a third one in connection with menstruation), the observance of which is particularly enjoined upon women, comp. Shabbat 31b-32a; Yerushalmi 2, 5b; Tan. B. I, 28, and III, 53; Tan. Noah 1 and Mezora‘ 9. Philo, De Sacr. Abel. et Caini, 32, is 89 46-48] The Legends of the Jews in agreement with the view of the last-mentioned rabbinic scurces, which speak of Adam as the dough which God kneaded. Concerning the covering of a woman’s head, comp.

also 2 ARN 42, 117; 1 Timothy 2. 15; 1 Cor. 11.10; Tertullian, De Habitu Muliebri, 1; Adversus Marcionem, 5. 8; De Oratione, 22. The statement made by Tertullian, in the last-named passage, that the unmarried Jewish women cover their heads, contradicts the assertions of the Jewish sources, according to which married women only covered their heads; comp., e.g., Ketubot 2. 1; Yebamot 114b. See, however, Nedarim 3. 8; Sifre N., 11; Berakot 24a. The idea that the covering of a woman’s head is a punishment for Eve’s sin is also found among later Christian authors; comp. Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, 58-59. 46 BR 18. 7; 2 ARN 8, 24; Sanhedrin 39a. On Adam's first wife comp. note 40, and note 47 on vol. IJ, p. 118. 47 BR 18. 4 (on the expression 102 wpm comp. Mekilta Beshallah 1, 26b, and Tehillim 106, 456). On Eve’s peauty see note 24 and Irenaeus, I, 30, 7. See further Griinbaum, Gesammelie Aufsdtze, 79-80. In view of the fact that Eve was taken from Adam’s body, Yebamot 62b and Ephes. 5. 33 say:. “One should love his wife as oneself.” The Talmud adds: ‘‘And honor even more than oneself”. 48 PRE 12 (708 fell out before ON; the correct reading is found in MHG I, 82, and in the commentary on Job by R. Isaac ha-Kohen 31. 40), essentially based on older sources; comp. BR 18. 1; Shabbat 95a; Yerushalmi 10, 12c; Tan. B. I, 83 and 86; Tan. Wa-Yera 1; Koheleth 7. 2 and 8. 1; Tehillim 25, 213-214; ARN 4, 19 (second version 8,22); Kallah Rabbeti 1; ShR 1.

5; Shir 4. 11; WR 12. 2; PK 4, 37a; PR 14, 62a; Baba Batra 75a; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 34. 6, and the second version, Gen. 35.9; 2 Alphabet R. Akiba 60 (the description of the splendor of the first wedding is more elaborate here than in any other source); Baraita 32 Middot, No. 17. In many of the sources just cited it is mentioned that in the beginning, middle (not to be taken literally), and conclusion of the Pentateuch examples are given of God’s loving-kindness which man is to emulate. God adorned the bride (Eve), visited the sick (Abraham, Gen. 18. 1), and attended to Moses’ burial—The etymology of the names of “man” and “woman”, which is ascribed in Sotah 17a to R. Akiba, was also known to Eusebius; comp. Praeparatio Evang., 517b. Depending on Theodotion, Gen. 2. 23, Origen, Ad Afric., 12, and Jerome, Gen., Joc. ctt., connect TWN “wife” with NM “took”; Vocabiiur as20 Adam [49-51 sumpltio quia ex viro sumpta est, says Jerome. Many explanations are also offered of the name 71n ‘‘Eve”’. It might signify In ‘‘serpent’’, because she was the serpent, 7. e., the seducer of Adam, or the “speaker” (from mn “‘declared’’), because she was the only one besides the serpent who understood the language of the animals (comp. note 58), and it was from her that Adam learned it; comp. BR 20, 11, 22. 2, and further 18. 6; Lekah and Imre No‘am on Gen. 3. 20, as well as Ha-dar, 11.21 ("9 =mon 4Nbn, and “pm = paom 2); comp.

Baba Batra 16a), and Philo, Quaestiones, 1. 52. 49 Zohar Hadash (beginning of Noah ); Recanati, Gen. 3. 24. On the Machpelah as the entrance to paradise, comp. Index, s. v. On the view that all the souls of the dead are presented to Adam, see vol. I, p. 102. The pillars of paradise are really identical with the celestial ladder of Konen 28, and are also known in Christian legend; comp. Bonwetsch in the Géttingen Nacrichten, 1900, and James, Lost Apocrypha, 96 seg. Comp. also note 22 on vol. I, p. 10. 5° Imre No‘am and Hadar on Gen.3.22. The huge size of the tree is already alluded to in older sources;comp. BR 15.6; Yerushalmi Berakot 1. 2c; Shir 6.9; Aggadat Shir 1, 13and55; Tehillim1,18;ER2,10; 2ARN 43, 119 (below). Comp. further R. Bahya on Gen. 2. 9, who remarks: The tree of knowledge and the tree of life were both in the centre of the Garden, for they formed one tree at the bottom, and branched out into two when they reached a certain height. Philo, thinking the literal interpretation of the paradise narrative absurd (De Plant. Noe 8; comp. also Leg. Alleg., 1. 30), is the only one who explains it allegorically, but the Rabbis, Josephus, and the pseudepi-} graphic writers (the Books of Enoch, Jub., etc.) take this biblical nar-| rative literally. Not until we reach the Arabic period, when the! philosophic studies influenced Jewish thought, do we find the allegorical interpretation of the paradise narrative in rabbinic circles.

See Gabirol in Peletat Soferim, 45, seg. and Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, 11, 30. Although the Kabbalah does not deny the existence of an earthly paradise, it nevertheless interprets the paradise account in an allegoric-mystical manner. MHG I, 76, goes back to a medieval source influenced by philosophical speculations. A timid attempt at allegorization of the paradise account is already found in PRE 21. 5% Josephus, Antiqui., 1, 13. The etymologies given by him for the Hebrew names of these rivers correspond partly to BR 16. 1-4. Comp. further Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 1. 12-13, whose state91 52-55] The Legends of the Jews ments (comp. especially his remark on the Euphrates) go back to the Palestinian Haggadah found in BR Joc. cit. Jerome’s remarks on Gen. 2. 12 are based on oral communications from his Palestinian teacher, and not on Josephus. He says: “‘ Fison...Gangem putant”’; in the extant midrashic sources Pishon is identified with the Nile; comp. BR, Joc. cit.; Theodor, ad loc., as well as Targum Yerushalmi, Joc. cit., where p'"7 is not Indian, but, as Epstein, Eldad, 33, seq., proves, signifies southern Ethiopia. With respect to Gen. 15. 18, 017°) (the Nile) is explained as Diy? “‘small’’; in contrast to the Euphrates, the “‘great”’ river, the Nile is the small one; comp. Pa‘ aneah and Midrash Aggada on Num. 1.7. To the cycle of legends concerning the rivers of paradise, belongs the stream of life, which plays an important part in the Alexander legend, a stream which, according to Tamid 32b, flows out of paradise.

The view held by some writers (comp. Friedlaender, Chadhirlegende, 47) that this feature of the Alexander legend is not Jewish, because the Jewish legend does not know of the “stream of life,” is based on an“error. ‘‘Living waters’’ is mentioned in Enoch 17. 4; Revelation 22. 17, and, among the Gnostics, by Hippolytus, 5. 2, as well as 5. 22. Zimmern, Keilinschriften und AT, 524, seq., and 562, has pointed out that this view is found among the Babylonians. 52 BR 13. 9 and the parallels cited by Theodor, as well as Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 2. 6 and Greek Baruch 2. 2. The theories of the ancient Rabbis concerning rain, clouds, etc., are given by Hirschensohn, Sheba‘ Hokmot, 6-8 and 9-11. 53 Hullin 60b. 54 Sifre D., 41; Midrash Tannaim 22; BR 16. 5; PRE 12; 2 ARN 21, 44 (the literal and haggadic meanings of Gen. 2. 15 are found next to one another); 2 Enoch 30; Theophilus, 2. 19; Ephraim I, 23E; Lactantius, Institutiones, 2. 13; Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 1. 14. A different view is given in ARN 11, 45 (second version, loc. cit.): Adam was commanded to work in order that his descendants should know the value of work. Mekilta RS, 107, and (the statement of R. Jose) ARN, loc. cit. read: Adam died only after he had ceased working; comp. also Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, 58. 5% Seder ‘Olam 5; Sanhedrin 56a; Tosefta ‘Abodah Zarah 8. 4, seqg., and Babli 64b; Sifre N., 111; BR 16. 6, 24. 5, 26. 1, and 34.

8; PK 12, 100b; ShR 30. 9; BaR 14. 12; DR 1. 21 and 2. 25; Shir 1. 2; Koheleth 3. 11; Tehillim 1, 10-11, and 2, 26; Mishle 21, 110- Tan. B. II, 69; Tan. Yitro 3. Comp. also the interesting passage in Sekel 92 Adam ; [56-57 1, 108 and Lekah, Gen. 1. 15. In the rabbinic sources these commandments are known as the “seven Noachian commandments” (besides the six mentioned, the seventh commandment is the one enjoined upon Noah not to eat the meat of a living animal; comp. Gen. 9. 4), which, in contrast to the other biblical precepts obligatory upon Israelites alone, must be accepted by all men. In some passages, however, thirty Noachian commandments are mentioned, which the children of Noah accepted, but did not fulfil. The fulfilment of those will only take place in Messianic times; comp. Yerushalmi ‘Abodah Zarah 2, 40c; Hullin 92a; BR 98. 9; Tehillim 2, 26 (read ow>w instead of wow) and 31, 177. It is not stated what these thirty commandments are; comp. R. Bezalel Ronsburg’s marginal glosses on Hullin, loc. cit., and Joel in Graetz-Jubelschrift, 174, note 1. In Sanhedrin and Tosefta, loc. cit., the opinions of some scholars are cited which add a few more to the Noachian commandments, as, e. g., the prohibition of witchcraft; but even with these the number thirty is not yet reached. Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos, 2, tries to prove that in the prohibition of fruit enjoined upon Adam the entire decalogue is contained.

A similar statement is found in Zohar I, 36a; comp. also Griinbaum, Gesammelie Aufsdtze, 177. Anti-Christian is the remark (BR 16. 5) that Adam received the commandments concerning the observance of the Sabbath and the daily sacrifice. The inferiority of the ceremonial laws, as e. g., the observance of the Sabbath and the sacrifices, is proved by Christian apologists from the fact that Adam, the creation of God’s own hands, was not enjoined to observe them. 56 Sanhedrin 59b; ARN 1, 5; Zohar I, 38a. The attendance on the part of the angels caused the jealousy of the serpent (Satan?; comp. note 35) against Adam; comp. note 60. That Adam was not permitted to eat meat is asserted by some of the Church Fathers; comp. Theophilus, 2. 18 (there were no carnivorous animals before Adam's fall); Novatian, De Cibis Judaicis 2. For details see note 56 on vol. I, p. 167. 57 Apocalypse of Moses 15. It seems to follow from BR 19, 5 that Eve alone took care of the animals; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 53-54; see also Imre No‘am and Hadar on Gen. 3. 20. In the last two sources the name of Eve is brought into relation with this idea; comp. note 48. On the entertainment of Adam in paradise by the angels, see the preceding note, and the Revelation of Ezra (beginning). 2 Enoch 31. 2, on the contrary, reads: I made 93 58-60] The Legends of the Jews the heavens for him open, that he should perceive the angels sing the song of triumph.

58 Jub. 3. 28; Josephus, Antiqui., 1, 1. 4; Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 1. 22; the Christian chronologists Syncellus, Cedrenus, and Zonaros; comp. Charles on Jub., Joc. cit. The older rabbinic literature does not know of the original language spoken by man and the animals, and even Lekah, Gen. 3. 1, maintains that only the serpent spoke Hebrew (i. e., the original speech of man; comp. note 91 on vol. I, p. 181), whereas the rest of the animals spoke their own languages, which, however, Adam understood (comp. note 48). This is also the view of Hasidim 454. On the different languages of animals see Index, s. v. ‘Animals, Language of’. It may be noted that Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1. 21, also declares that animals have a language which they use among themselves. Rationalistic explanations of the biblical passages presupposing the language of animals (the serpent and Balaam’s ass) are found in geonic literature; comp. Ibn Ezra on Gen. 3, and the responsum of R. Hai Gaon in Kohelet Shelomoh, 13. Philo, De Conf. Ling., 3, ridicules the Greek fable concerning the original language of animals. Comp., on the other hand, his observations in Quaestiones, 1. 32, where he concedes the possibility that animals were able to speak before the fall. Comp. note 113. 59 Apocalypse of Moses 11; for further details concerning this subject comp. note 113. 6° BR 19, 19; Koheleth 1. 18; Shemuel 7, 66; Sanhedrin 59b; ARN 1, 5 (both versions); Philo, Quaestiones, Gen.

1. 32. Comp. also Jerome on Gen. 3. 1 and Yerushalmi Kiddushin 4, 65c (YM Mwyp); Zohar I, 79a and 191. The idea that jealousy caused the serpent’s hatred occurs already in the Septuagint, Gen. 2. 24, and 2 Enoch 31. 3, as well as in John 8. 44, and in the different versions of Vita Adae; comp. Preuschen, Adamschriften, 27 and 54, as well as note 35, with regard to jealousy as the cause of Satan’s fall. Comp. also note 131. In pseudepigraphic literature (comp. note 116), instead of the serpent, it is Satan who is the real seducer; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 42-45. In rabbinic literature (Sotah 9b; Sanhedrin 29a; Sifre D., 323)':the serpent is described as *nDIpN, which apparently corresponds to dts 6 apxatos of ReveJation 20. 2. But the use of ‘o7pn with reference to Adam (comp. note 21) shows that this description of the serpent by the Rabbis is entirely different from that of Revelation. On the 94 Adam / [61-67 bodily similarity of man to the serpent comp. MHG I, 87, where the observation is made that man can only deceive another who resembles him. On the serpent as the possessor of gold and silver, comp. vol. IV, p. 135 (top). §« PRE 13; BR 19. 3-4; ARN (both versions) 1, 4-5 and 151; Sanhedrin 29a. Comp. further the sources cited in the preceding note, as well as Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 1. 33-34, and Josephus, Antiqut., 1, 1. 4. Lekah, Gen.

3. 1, remarks that God announced this prohibition respecting the fruit of paradise in the presence of the serpent, so that he knew everything about it. 62 BR 19. 4. The serpent’s slandering of God is frequently mentioned in the Haggadah; comp. Tan. B. IIJ, 47; Tan. Bereshit 8; DR 5. 10; ShR 3. 12; Tehillim 1, 9-10; 2 ARN 1, 6; Apocalypse of Moses 18; comp. vol. I, p. 96. The view that the creation of the six days was of a progressive order occurs also in 2 ARN 43, 120; comp. also Philo, De M. Opif., 21 and 14. 63 ARN 1, 4. In the second version, 1, 5, a view is cited, according to which the tree, as the serpent wanted to touch it, exclaimed, saying: ‘“‘Let not the foot of pride come against me, and let not the hand of the wicked remove me” (Ps. 36. 12); comp. further ARN 157, concerning Satan’s attempt to enter paradise. See also vol. I, p. 96, as well as PRE 11, where the two different versions of ARN are blended together into one. 64 Ibn Sabba, Gen. 3. 6.; very likely dependent upon a lost Midrash. 65 2 ARN 1, 6; PRE 11; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 3. 6 (where after nbox) the sentence nom to nb’ should be read). Comp. the sources cited in the next note, as well as vol. I, pp. 96-97. 66 BR 19. 5; Tan. Introduction 155; Shemuel 12, 81. Comp. vol. I, p. 97. 67 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 28b, 29a—29b, and 36a (the last passage reads onbp unlike Yerahmeel 48, which associates the name of the immortal bird with bon and not its synonym om), and Bereshit Rabbeti in BHM VI, 12 (introduction), where the bird is named onby.

This legend is, of course, only a different version of the widespread phoenix legend; comp. vol. I, p. 32 and note 151 appertaining thereto. Besides this bird and its descendants, there are mentioned in 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 28b eleven persons (the meaningless 0°7D18 1 obviously resulted from an incorrect reading of the abbreviation x’), which="wy “ImM) who en95 68] The Legends of the Jews tered paradise during their life-time. These are: Enoch, Serah the daughter of Asher, Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, Hiram the King of Tyre, Eliezer Abraham’s servant, Elijah (missing in the printed text; comp. manuscript reading on 36a), Jabez, Ebedmelech the Ethiopian, Jonadab the Rechabite as well as his descendants, and of post-biblical times, R. Judah ha-Nasi’s slave and R. Joshua b. Levi. A similar list of immortals is to be found in Derek Erez Z., 1 (end); PRK (Griinhut’s edition, 83); Aguddat Aggadot (Carmoly’s edition, 12), and the sources cited by Tawrogi on Derek Erez Z. The greatest number of immortals is to be found in Yalkut IJ, 367, where Methuselah (this is of Christian origin; comp. note 62 on vol. I, p. 142) and the three sons of Korah are included in the list. Comp. Index under the names enumerated above as well as s. v. “Paradise”, ‘Entering Alive’, ‘‘Moses’’, ‘Bithiah”, “Hiram”, ‘‘Baruch”, ‘‘Ezra’”. The men ‘‘who were taken up to heaven without tasting death” (AMD oyy yu Xb; comp.

BR 21. 5, where this expression is employed with respect to Elijah, whereas the usual term for the immortals is ‘‘those who entered paradise during their life-time”) are already mentioned in 4 Ezra 6. 26. The following are known as such in pseudepigraphic literature: Enoch (Books of Enoch), Moses (Assumption of Moses 106-107); Jeremiah (2 Maccabees 2. 1); Baruch (Apocalypse of Baruch 77. 2), and Ezra (4 Ezra, end). Comp. Box on 4 Ezra 6. 26. Nothing is to be found in the Jewish sources concerning the association of these immortals with the Messiah. The part ascribed in the Midrash (comp., e. g., DR 10. 1 and vol. II, p. 373, as well as vol. III, end) and in the New Testament to Moses as the forerunner or assistant of the Messiah does not presuppose Moses’ immortality, but his resurrection at the very beginning of the Messianic time. In case 4 Ezra 14. 9 is not a Christian interpolation, this passage does not suppose a pre-existing Messiah but only implies that the Messiah entered paradise alive after having completed his earthly career, as is explicitly stated in Derek Erez Z., boc. cit., and parallel passages. In conclusion it may be remarked that the list of the immortals is found only in late writings (hardly earlier than the end of the tenth century C. E.), at the time when Enoch came to be honored again. The older rabbinic literature is not particularly favorably inclined toward Enoch; comp.

note 58 on vol. I, p. 130. On Elijah as the companion of the Messiah in paradise, see vol. I, p. 22-23. 8 ARN 1, 6 (read 15 AMR instead of mb DX); PRE 13. 96 Adam [69-70 69 PRE 14; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 3. 7 and 21. The older Haggadah speaks of “garments of light’’, which the first ‘‘pair’’ wore before the fall of man, as bestowed upon them by God, in accordance with Gen. 3. 21, where )y (“‘skin’’) is explained as though it were written 7s (‘‘light’’). This verse is said to refer to the state before the fall; comp. BR 18. 56, as well as 20. 12, and the remarks of Theodor on these passages. See further Zohar I, 36b (this is the source of Recanati, quoted by Theodor!), and for details comp. notes 93 and 104. The later Haggadah retains the legend about the light which shone on the first ‘human pair’’, but explains ny (Gen., loc. cit.) literally; hence the assertion of PRE and Targum Yerushalmi, Joc. cit. Comp. note 123 on vol. I. p. 27. 7° BR 15. 7. The forbidden fruit is identified, respectively, with the fig, grape, apple of paradise (Hirog), wheat (which grew on stalks as tall as the cedars of Lebanon), and the nut; comp. BR, loc. cit., and 19. 5; Berakot 40a; Sanhedrin 70a; PK 20, 142a; PR 43, 175a; WR 12. 1; BaR 10. 2 and 8; Esther 2. 1; Targum Song of Songs 7. 9 (read, with R. Tam, in Sefer ha-Yashar, 217: }Iq7 SINS 14 j7y); Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 4.

8; Apocalypse of Abraham 23; Enoch 32. 4 (which reads: The tree of knowledge is in height like a fir, and its leaves like those of the carob, and its fruit like the clusters of a vine); Apocalypse of Moses 21; Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 2.2; Methodius, Symposium, 2; Origen, Gen.9.20; Epiphanius, Haer.45 (has grapes, according to the view of the Gnostics); Moses bar Cepha, 36 E. The oldest and most prevalent view identifies the forbidden fruit with the grape, which goes back to an old mythological idea that wine is the beverage of the gods. The fig owes its distinction to the incident that the first ‘‘pair’’ took hold of the fig leaves after the fall, and this identification is not only found in rabbinic sources, but also in the Apocalypse of Moses and in Tertullian, Joc. cit. Purely midrashic is the identification with the wheat which is only found in rabbinic sources and accepted by Moses bar Cepha. This is based on the play on the words mn (‘‘wheat’’) and nun (‘“‘sin’’). The identification with the apple of paradise is due to a similar play on words, the 117ns8 being derived form 119 “‘he desired’’; comp. Nahmanides on Lev. 23.40. The carob likewise owes its distinction to its name which signifies destruction. ‘‘Adam’s apple’’, widely known all over Europe (it is met for the first time in ps.—Tertullian, Gen. 85), is perhaps the result of the inaccurate rendering of the Hebrew mpn, which in the Bible denotes ‘‘apple”’, but in later literature signifies also the apple 97 71-72] The Legends of the Jews of paradise, i.

e., the Ethrog; comp. Shabbat 88a, and the remark of R. Tam, Joc. cit. The benediction mentioned in geonic sources WX mN IX (comp. Seder R. Amram, Frumkin’s edition, II, 406) is based on the assumption that the tree of knowledge, whose fruit produced sexual desire, was a nut-tree; comp. note 3 on vol. I, p. 105. Comp. also ps.-Tertullian, Gen. 86; Commodianus, Instructiones, 3, though he speaks of the palm-tree, which misled Adam, describes, at the same time, the fruit as the apple. On this point comp. Hippolytus, 6. 22, who remarks: The palm-tree is the symbol of battle and slaughter (the gnostic view cited by the same author 7. 1 concerning God as a seed of fig-tree probably bears a close relation to the fig as the fruit of the tree of knowledge). Ps.—Matthew 21 and the Passing of Mary 7 speak of the palm of paradise; comp. further BR 15. 7, where Manno (‘‘shoot up as a palm tree’’) is used in connection with the forbidden fruit. On the grape as the forbidden fruit, comp. also vol. I, p. 167; Sifre D., 323; note 79 on vol I, p. 20. The legend discussed in the last passage concerning the wine of paradise preserved for the pious is probably related to the view that the fruit which brought sin into the world will become ‘‘a healing” in the world to come; comp. WR 12 (end), and the Christological form of this legend in the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch and in Moses bar Cepha, loc. cit.

The fig leaves with which Adam and Eve covered themselves are explained by Irenaeus III, 23.5, as a sign of repentance, because they were leaves which hurt the body. The statement of R. Meir in ‘Erubin 18b (o"uNNn *171) has the same meaning. It may further be noted that in the rabbinic sources mentioned above (comp. also Tan. B. I, 105) a view is cited according to which Scripture purposely refrains from mentioning the forbidden fruit, in order that men should not hate it afterwards for having caused death. On the exact determination of the tree of life, comp. note 113. See further Griinbaum, Neue Beitrage, 64-65, and Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 38-42. 7* Yelammedenu in MHG I, 91 and in Yalkut I, 744; Likkutim, IV, 31b. Comp. note 870 on vol. III, p. 417. 72 BR 19.8; PR 40, 167a; Jub. 4. 30; Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 81; Irenaeus, V, 22.2; Comp. further Charles on Jub., loc. cit., and Theodor on BR 8. 2, as well as the sources citedin note 28. Many reasons are given why Adam did not die on the day he sinned, as God had threatened. Comp. Symmachus, Jonathan, and Jerome on Gen. 2. 17, as well as Philo, De M. Opif., 40 (were it not for God’s mercy, he would have died immediately; so also Tan. B. IV, 68; Tan. Mass‘e 8; comp. 98 Adam ‘ [73-78 also PR, loc. cit.); De Leg. Aleg., 33; De Profug., 21; Quaestiones, Gen. 1. 16. The view found in the last three passages of Philo that the sinner, even when alive, is already regarded as dead, whereas the righteous continue to live also after their death (comp.

also Wisdom 1. 2 and 16), occurs frequently in rabbinic Haggadah; comp. note 287 on vol. III, p. 134; note 54 on vol. I, p. 218, and also Aphraates, 168. The rationalistic explanation of the prolonged life of the ante-diluvians (according to some, their years are to be considered as lunar ones) is only met with in medieval Jewish literature; comp., e. g., Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, 11, 47. But Lactantius, Institutiones, 2. 13, shows that such attempts are very old. CB Re2 Oo anda Ouse bakalaa 2) Siitton/ be ed De Rel. 68b; Tan. B. Introduction, 156; Hagigah 12a (comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.). See details in notes 22, 137 and 37 on Adam’s original size, and further Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 30-31. On the different explanations of orm mn> (Gen. 3. 8) comp. Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion cited by Jerome, ad loc., as well as BR 19. 8 and ps— Tertullian Gen. 113. 74 PK 5, 44b; PR 15, 68b; Shir 3. 7; BaR 11. 3; Tan. (introduction) 156; Shemuel 18,97. Comp. note 113. 75 MHG I, 93 (top) and Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 3. 9. In these sources it is further stated that when Adam wanted to hide himself from God, the latter said to him: ‘Dost thou want to hide thyself from Me? Can anyone hide himself that I shall not see him?”’ (Jer. 23. 24). Comp. note 97. 7® Derek Erez R., 3; Yalkut I, 28; 2 Alphabet of R. Akiba S51. 77 BR 19. 9; PK 15, 119a; Ekah (introduction) 5. This Haggadah endeavors to eliminate the anthropomorphic expression of Gen.

3. 9, and similar solutions are found in Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 1. 45; De Decalogo, 3. 17; Justin Martyr, 99; Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 2.24; Theophilus, 2. 26 and 29; Ephraim, 1, 23 C; Aphraates, 138. Comp. further note 20 on vol. I, p. 110. Another attempt to explain this anthropomorphism is found in the sources cited in note 75. 78 Tan. B. III, 39; Tan. Tazria‘ 9. Adam’s wickedness and persistence in sinning are frequently referred to in the Haggadah; comp. Sanhedrin 38b, where he is declared to have been a heretic (0; see also Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 2. 2: Who will hesitate to declare that Adam’s great sin was heresy?), and that he denied God. Itis further stated that, like the wicked sinners Esau and Achan (comp99 79-83] The Legends of the Jews Sanhedrin 44a and Tan. B. I, 127), he removed the mark of circumcision. Here it is presupposed that Adam was created bearing the sign of the covenant, as is explicitly stated in ARN 2, 2, and parallel passages (comp. note 318 on vol. I, p. 306). As to Adam’s wickedness, comp. also BR 19. 12; Tan. B. I, 18; PR 7, 26b; BaR 13. 3; Apocalypse of Moses 21. 79 PRE 14 (complete text is only found in MHG I, 93). Comp. further PK 17, 130b; Ekah 3, 39; Aggadat Bereshit 61, 125, concerning Adam, Jacob, and the people of Israel, who instead of being grateful for the benefits God had bestowed upon them, complained about them.

80 BR 17. 4; 2 ARN 8, 23. 8x Tan. B. III, 39; Tan. Tazria‘ 9; MHG I, 93. Zohar Hadash Bereshit 24a (3. 1). The quotation from Targum by Sabba, 7a, according to which Gen. 3. 7 should be rendered: And they uttered grumbling words, is taken from Zohar Hadash. Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 47, and Hizkuni, Gen. 3. 16, remark that Ewe was punished because she was still a part of Adam’s body when God commanded him not to eat of the forbidden fruit and decreed death as a penalty. 82 Tan. B. III, 39; Tan. Tazria‘ 9; BR 20. 2; BaR 19. 11; Sanhedrin 29a. Philo, too, attempts to explain why God did not afford the serpent the opportunity to plead his case; comp. Leg. Alleg., 21. Philo and the Rabbis also explain why the serpent was first cursed; comp. Quaestiones, Gen. I. 94 (top); BR 20. 3; Berakot 61a; Ta‘anit 15b; Sifra 10.6; MHG I, 94 (top); comp. further ARN 1, 7 (below). The Midrash (Tan. B. III, 40; Tan. Tazria‘ 9) lays stress upon the fact that God’s name is not mentioned in the curse pronounced against Adam and Eve, because He did not allow His name to be associated with evil. On this view which occurs in the Haggadah as well as in Philo, comp. note 9 on vol. I, p. 5, and note 176 on vol. ep Os 83 2 ARN 42, 117. Other sources (PRE 14; MHG I, 96; comp. Ginzberg’s note on this point in Ha-Zofeh IV, 31-32) enumerate nine penalties for each of the three sinners, and one, death, for all of them.

PRE gives the downfall of Sammael and his host as the first penalty of the serpent, in agreement with the view of this Midrash, according to which the real seducer was Satan (=Sammael), who made use of the serpent; comp. note 116. Tadshe 8 gives six penalties for the serpent and five each for Adam and Eve. The leprosy of the serpent is also mentioned in BR 20. 4; Tan. B. II, 53, 100 Adam ’ [84-85 as well as ITI, 42 and 47; Tan. Mezora‘ 2; ShR 3. 13; ps.Epiphanius, Hexaemeron, 251. The statement made in Tan. that in the last judgment Edom’s guardian angel (¢. e. Sammael) will be afflicted with leprosy is partly connected with the identification of the serpent with Sammael. On the loss of the serpent’s feet, comp. the following note. On the loss of the serpent’s language, see note 58, where it is shown that rabbinic sources do not know of any primitive animal language; this is confirmed by the above-mentioned sources, which speak of the language which only the serpent possessed before his fall. Among European peoples, however, legends concerning animals becoming dumb are widespread; comp. Dahnhardt, Natursagen, I, 219-223. 84 BR 20. 4-5; ARN 1, 5; Baraita 32 Middot, No. 12; Koheleth 10. 11; Tosefta Sotah 4. 18; Babli 9b. Comp. further note 183 on vol. I, p. 39. The cutting off of the serpent’s feet is also mentioned (on the erectness of his stature comp. vol.

I, p. 71) in Aphraates, 245. Comp. further Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 961 (Prov. 26), which practically agrees with BR, Joc. cit., and note 124. According to 2 Alphabet R. Akiba 61, God split the tongue of the serpent as a punishment for the “evil tongue’’ he employed. Comp. Griinbaum, Neue Bettrége, 59-60. 85 ‘Erubin 100b; ARN 1, 4 (second version 42, 117; read noD1DNd “shows herself in public’); BR 20. 6-7; Tadshe 7. On the various views concerning the penalties, comp. Ginzberg’s remarks in HaZofeh, 1V, 31-32. In all the sources menstruation is regarded as a penalty for Eve’s sin, and since sexual desire is considered as the result of the eating of the forbidden fruit, the Gnostics, as well as the Kabbalists, maintain that menstruation came to Eve with the enjoyment of the fruit. Comp. note 3 on vol. I, p. 105; Dahnhardt, Natursagen, I, 211, is to be corrected accordingly. 2 Enoch 31. 7-8 remarks that it was only the serpent (here, Satan) and the wicked deeds of man that were really cursed, ‘‘but these (Adam and Eve), whom I had previously blessed, I did not curse’. On this peculiar conception, comp. note 82 (end), and further note 60 on vol. IJ, p. 169, as well as PRK 31a (Schénblum’s edition), which reads: Three were cursed, and their curses were beyond any limit, namely, the serpent, the woman (Eve), and the slave (Canaan). But Adam is not included among the cursed ones. In all the sources (BR 20.

5 and 95.1; 2 ARN 42, 117; Tan. B. III, 47; Tan. Mezora‘ 2) it is especially stated 101 86-92] The Legends of the Jews that in the ‘‘future’’ every one shall be cured except the serpent, who will remain cursed for ever. 86 BR 20. 6; Yerushalmi Sotah 8 (beginning); Tehillim 9, 86. 87 ARN 42, 116-117. Quite different is the view of PRE 14 concerning the punishments inflicted on Adam; comp. Ginzberg in HaZofeh, 1V,31. On the “garments of light’’, comp. notes 69 and 93 (with respect to the ‘“‘horny skin” mentioned vol. I, p. 74, as well as in the first passage, comp. Dahnhardt, Natursagen, I, index, s. v. ‘‘Mensch”’; Orehot Hayyim, I, 68c); on the second punishment comp. Philo, De M. Opif., 24 and 40. Whether death is the consequence of the sin committed or not, see note 142. All animals were tame before the fall of man, and will become tame again in Messianic times; comp. Tan. B. III, 47; Tan. Mezora‘ 2; BR 20. 5. Comp. further notes 59 and 113. On the curses which were pronounced against Adam, comp. also vol. I, pp. 97-98, and the notes appertaining tothem. According to 2 ARN 34, 74, the yéars of man’s life have been shortened, but not those of the animals. 4 88 BR 5. 9; Yerushalmi Kil’ayim 1, 27b; comp. vol. I, p. 19. 89 Zohar Hadash Bereshit 24b on Gen. 3. 15, where two views are cited as to how long the curse lasted over the earth; according to one, it lasted to the birth of Noah (comp.

vol. I, pp. 146-147); according to another, to the birth of Abraham. The idea that the sun and the earth are witnesses for and against man, is already found in the older sources; comp. Sifre D., 306; note 105 on vol. I, p. 25. On the eclipse of the sun at the time of the fall of man, comp. the account given in Matthew 27. 45 of the eclipse of the sun at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus; see further Sukkah 29a and note 113. 9° 2 ARN 42, 117; PRE 14; comp. Luria’s note, ad Joc., and Ginzberg in Ha-Zofeh, IV, 31. On vermin as a consequence of the fall of man, see also BR 5. 9 and 20. 8, as well as the Christian legends; comp. Dahnhardt, Natursagen, I, 216. Another view declares that whatever God created has its value; comp. vol. I, p. 42, and the note appertaining to it. On the origin of the mountains, comp. note 31 on vol. I, pp. 112-113; on the disclosing of the absorbed blood by the earth, comp. vol. I, p. 112, as well as vol. III, pp. 31 and 91. On the curse of the earth comp. 2 Alphabet R. Akiba, 61. ®* BR 20. 10; ARN 1, 6-7; Pesahim 118a; ER 31, 164. 92 Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch 9; the Greek version of the apocalypse reads: The moon did not hide at the time of the fall, aithough 102 Adam | [93 it found itself near to Sammael when he seduced Eve. On the eclipse of the sun during the fall, see vol. I, p. 79 (below). 93 PRE 20; Targum Yerushalmi Gen.

3. 21. Against this later view the older sources maintain that the garments mentioned in Gen., loc. cit., were given to Adamand Eveby God before the fall, and that they really were not ‘‘garments of skin”, but of light; comp. BR 20. 12, citing R. Meir’s statement (the explanation given there poimw ppb is a later rationalistic addition), and note 69. The view that the garments were made of the skin of Leviathan (Hadar, Da‘at, and Hizkuni on Gen., loc. cit., very likely quoted the same source) wishes to retain 1y (“‘skin’’) in the biblical text, without losing the “light’’, since the skin of Leviathan has a shining lustre; comp. vol. I, pp. 27 and 28. The Church Fathers Irenaeus, III, 23. 5, and Tertullian, De Pudicitia, 9, and De Resurrectione, 7, speak of the celestial garments of Adam and Eve. Origen, Contra Celsum, 4. 40 (based very likely on Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 1. 53), remarks: They received garments of skin at the time of the fall; z. e., bodies, since before the fall they were spiritual beings. A similar statement is found in Zohar I, 36b, which reads: Before the fall they were dressed in garments of light”? (=) mano), after the fall in ‘‘garments of skin” (= My mind), which were useful only for the body, not for the soul. A very important part is played by Adam and Eve’s ‘‘garments of light” in the various versions of the Vita Adae; comp. Adamschriften, 52-53. However, we must not, without any further proof, connect the garments of light with the splendor of the light which shone over Adam before the fall (comp.

note 105). But we shall not go astray if we identify them with the celestial garments of the pious, frequently mentioned in pseudepigraphic literature, and in early Christian as well as in kabbalistic writings; comp. Enoch 62. 16; 2 Enoch 22. 810; Ascension of Isaiah 4. 16, and the parallel passages cited by Charles. See further Zohar II, 150, and the lengthy discourse by Vital, Sha‘are Kedushah (beginning). But also those who assert that Adam and Eve received their garments from God after the fall maintain that these clothes were of a superior and unusual kind. God created these garments at the twilight of the first Friday, hence it belongs to the primordial creations, on account of which both Adam and his descendants wore them as priestly garments at the time of the offering of the sacrifices. Furthermore they were not only of extraordinary brilliance and splendor, but had also supernatural qualities; comp. Sifre D., 355; Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 5, 51a; Pesahim 103 94-95] The Legends of the Jews 54b (top); 2 ARN 37, 95 (read “nym, with respect to Wy min>); BR 20. 2; Tan. B. I, 17-18 and 33. See further vol. I, pp. 177, 319, and 332. Identifying Adam's priestly garments, which he received after the fall, with the garment of light, Abkir has the following statement (Yalkut I, 34): God made high-priestly garments for Adam which were like those of the angels; but when he sinned, God took them away from him.

In 2 ARN 42, 116, it is stated briefly: Adam wore splendid garments, which were removed from him after the commission of the sin. That the garments of Adam and Eve belonged to the primordial creations is also asserted in Christian sources; comp. ps.-Justinian, Quaestiones,...ad Orthodoxes, VI, 1293; Jacob Sarug, cited by Moses bar Cepha, De Paradiso, 84A; comp. further Theodoretus, Gen. 3. 27. The latter cannot admit that God killed certain animals in order to furnish Adam and Eve with clothes. The same objection to the literal interpretation of Ty mind is very likely the basis of the statement in Sotah 14a and BR 20.12 that the garments of Adam and Eve were made of wool, or, according to others, of linen. 94 BR 21. 5-9; Philo, De M. Opif., 60. The cherubim as a definite group of angels are already mentioned in the Book of Enoch (comp. Enoch 61. 10; 2 Enoch 19. 6), and are even considered as the “angels of destruction”, for which reason Enoch 20. 7 mentions them alongside with the serpents, and in ShR 9. 11 they are explicitly described as such. Later sources (Pa‘aneah, Gen. 3. 24 and Hinnuk, precept 62) insert ow instead of mban vpxbp (Rashi on Gen., loc. cit., employs the latter, more accurate expression), which is not exactly correct, because the ‘‘angels of destruction’’ are not devils. The statement of Hadar, Gen., loc. cit., that the cherubim have the form of steers is perhaps due to the confusion of ow= ow) “oxen” with ow “devils”.

However their name is explained in this source from the Aramaic 319 “he ploughed’. This view concerning the form of the cherubim would be very interesting if it should contain a reminiscence of the winged bulls. Comp. Index, s. v. “Cherubim”’. 95 MHG I, 106 (based on two different sources); ER 1 (beginning); Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 3.:24. Comp. also BR 21 (end), and Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 1, 57. On the flaming sword which is found in front of paradise, comp. vol. I, p. 174, and the note appertaining to it, as well as Hemat ha-Hemdah 14a. In the last passage it is said (based on Sa‘adya Gaon’s remarks in his Polemic 104 Adam ’ [96 against Hiwi, 37.3, where 1nybm means the road to paradise) that God, after Adam’s expulsion from paradise, did not cause him to forget the way back to paradise; on the contrary, He always made him look at it, in order that he should ever bear in mind his transgression, which deprived him of his blissful habitation. The author then quotes the following narrative from a non-Jewish chronicle. There was a king in ancient times who wished to ascertain the exact situation of paradise. He betook himself to a neighboring district, at the mountain called Lebiah (=“‘lioness?”). At the top of this mountain one could hear the sound of swords turning about, which resounded from the other side of the river. He let some of his men down by means of poles, but none of them returned.

The author, R. Shet b. Yefet, adds thereupon that this story confirms the view of those who take the biblical account of paradise literally. Comp. note 50 concerning the allegorical conception of the description of paradise. The sources quoted in the beginning of this note belong to the oldest group of rabbinic literature, which makes a serious attempt to give a figurative explanation of the biblical passages concerning paradise. The view found in Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 3. 24 that the flaming sword stands for Gehenna is also found in Lactantius, Institutiones, 12. 13. Comp. further Ginzberg, Haggada bet den Kirchenv., 55-56. 96 Apocalypse of Moses 27-29; Vita Adae 25. 4; Armenian Book of Adam in Adamschriften, 16. The tree of life is preserved for the pious in the world to come; Enoch 25. 4; 4 Ezra 7. 52; Revelation 2. 7 and 22. 14. Philo’s remark, De M.Opif., 54, seems to be directed against such a view. To the older rabbinic literature such a view is quite alien, but is well known to later authors; comp. MHG I, 127, where, in agreement with Revelation 22. 2, the ‘‘wholesome fruit” (Ezek. 47. 12) is identified with the tree of life. See further Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 3. 24, which, along with the old view, offers also the later interpretation of this verse. With respect to the spices which Adam brought from paradise, the following may be noted. Originally this legend wishes to convey that the various kinds of spices used in the temple came from paradise, which also furnished wood for the tabernacle (Shu‘aib, end of Terumah).

Subsequently, however, this was connected with another legend, according to which the civilization of the world goes back to Adam (comp. notes 31-32; Dahnhardt, Natursagen, I, index, s. v. “Adam”; Griinbaum, Neue Beitrage, 66), and therefore he had to be the one who brought for mankind, 105 97] The Legends of the Jews from paradise, the seeds necessary for the cultivation of the soil. Some rabbinic passages (Tehillim 104, 445; comp. the manuscript reading quoted by Buber, note 66; the midrashic quotation by Duran, Hofes Matmonim, 90; 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 21b) speak of thirty kinds of trees (based on a Persian legend; comp. Bundehesh, Justi’s edition, 37, and Schorr in He-Haluz, VIII, 24), which Adam took with him from paradise; comp. note 74 on vol. I, p. 19; Low, Aramdtsche Pflanzennamen, 2, and Ginzberg in Zeitschrift fir Hebrdische Bibliographte, XI, 126. 97 PK 23, 150b; PR 46, 177b; Sanhedrin 38b; WR 19. 1, Tan. B. III, 31; Tan. Shemini 8; ARN 1, 5, 6, 8 (both versions); Tehillim 92, 403; PRE 11. Although according to the Jewish calendar, the day follows the night, nevertheless the twelve hours mentioned in the different versions of the legend are to be understood as a part of the sixth day (the sources quoted do not correspond, in all details, to one another; comp. also note 3 on vol. I, p. 105), since nothing was created at night; comp. BR 12, 14. The Chugch Fathers likewise assert that Adam sinned on the very first day of his creation.

Some of the Christian sources divide this eventful day in a manner similar to that of the Rabbis, and they even find a Christological meaning in this division; comp. Irenaeus, V, 22. 2; Victorinus of Pettau, De Fabrica Mundi; Aphraates, 168; Ephraim, I, 19 C and in Moses bar Cepha, De Paradiso, 90A; Schatzhéhle,7. Comp. further the passages cited in Ginzberg’s Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 48-49, as well as Malan in his notes on the book of Adam, 209-210. Quite different is the view concerning the time of the fall found in Jub. 3. 4, according to which Adam and Eve, who had both been created outside of paradise (this is also presupposed in the sources cited at the beginning of the note), did not enter it simultaneously, that is, Adam entered paradise when he was forty days old, while Eve did not arrive there until she was eighty days old, 7. e, when Adam was already eighty-seven days of age (he was seven days older than Eve). They stayed seven days and forty years in paradise, whence they were expelled on the first of Tammuz, seventy days after the fall, which took place on the seventeenth of Iyar. The Melchizedekite fragment (comp. 2 Enoch 90) seems to be the only source which, like the Book of Jub., speaks of seven years’ sojourn in paradise. Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 1. 25, observes that the formation of the female embryo (so is this passage to be understood) takes eighty days, that of the male only forty days.

There can be no doubt that this observation wishes to explain the 106 Adam |, [98 law of Lev. 12. 4, seg., as may be seen from Niddah 3. 7. Comp. vol. I, p. 163, and Roscher, Die Zahl 40, p. 103, seg. The connection of this law with the creation of Adam and Eve is, however, only found in Jub. This book also differs from the view current in the later Haggadah with regard to the date of the creation of the world. Jub. and Philo (De Spec. Leg., 19; Quaestiones, Exod., 1. 1), as well as some rabbinic authorities of the first century C. E. (Rosh ha-Shanah 10b), are of the opinion that the world (the same view is held by the Stoics; comp. Arnim, Stoic. Vet. Fragm., II, 584) was created in spring, or, to be more accurate, in the month of Nisan. A different view prevalent among the later Rabbis is that the world was created in autumn, in the month of Tishri; comp. Rosh ha-Shanah, loc. cit., where R. Eliezer (about 100 C. E.) already maintains this view. The Jewish legend which considers that all first things were created in a fully developed form (comp. note 21) decided in favor of the opinion which fixes autumn, the ‘‘season of ripeness’’, as the time of creation. For the sake of accuracy, the legend maintains that it was the first day of autumn, the Jewish New Year, on which Adam was created, the same day on which he was expelled from paradise. Comp. PK 23, 150b; PR 46, 186b.

Ephraim J, 15 A, and Theodoretus, Exod. 72, assume that the world was created in Nisan; see Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 31-32. Medieval authors point out that the letters of the word mw 2, with which the account of creation begins, may be re-arranged to read *7wna ‘x, that is, ‘‘on the first day of Tishri’; comp. Pa‘aneah, Gen. 1. 1. 98 Tan. B. I, 12; BR 11. 9 (a°~D as a name for the demons is only found here, and may be explained either as a derivative of mp ‘he rebelled’, and accordingly, these demons were originally classed with the rebellious angels, or as derivative of N71 ‘‘master”, =; comp. below); PR 46, 187b. Another classification of primordial creations is that of Jub. 3. 2, seg., and (based on it) Tadshe 6, according to which the number of creations amounted to twenty-two, corresponding to the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, the number of the books of the Bible (counting Lamentations as a part of Jeremiah and Ezra-Nehemiah as one), and the generations from Adam to Jacob. On the first day the following things were created: The heavens, earth, water, darkness, wind, abyss, and light; on the second day, the firmament; on the third day, the gathering of the waters, grass, trees, and paradise (in view of the doctrine of the pre-existence of paradise, Tadshe has springs, instead of 107 98] The Legends of the Jews paradise, as the fourth creation of the third day); on the fourth day, the sun, the moon, the stars; on the fifth day, the sea-monsters, birds, and worms; on the sixth day, wild and domestic animals, creeping things, and Adam.

Comp. the detailed account of the creations of each day in vol. I, pp. 8-30, and further Tan. Hayye Sarah 3. A Haggadah quoted by medieval authors (Pardes 56a; Mahzor Vitry, 108; Shibbole ha-Leket, 96; Kimha Dabishuna, on the dirge nxy mx), from a Sefer Yezirah (not in ours), endeavors to demonstrate in an elaborate manner why the world was created in seven days: Each two days of creation form a pair of witnesses on the unity of God, the uniqueness of Israel, and the singular sanctity of the Sabbath. Furthermore, Israel and the Sabbath testify to the unity of God; God and the Sabbath testify to the uniqueness of Israel; God and Israel testify to the singular sanctity of the Sabbath.—The demons, in accordance with their origin, are between angels and men. They have wings like the former, and move about from one end of the earth to the other, and know what will come to pass; but, like the latter, they eat and drink, propagate their kind, and die. They also have this much in common with angels that they assume any form they please, and that they can see man without being seen by him. See Hagigah 16a; Tan. B. I, 12 (there is a statement here also concerning the sexual relations between men and demons; comp. vol. I, p. 118); Berakot 6a; PR 6, 24a (the angels can see the demons, but the demons cannot see the angels); 2 ARN 37, 109; Kisse we-Ippodromin, 35; PRK (Schénblum’s edition, 15b); Ma‘aseh Torah, 98 (where it is said: They live with one another, like angels, without hatred or envy); Mahzor Vitry, 507.

The assertion that demons do not cast a shadow (Gittin 60a, and Yerushalmi 6, 48b) is very likely connected with the conception that the shadow is that soul which reflects the body (comp. note 18 on polypsychism), and since demons have no bodies, they have no shadows. On the countless numbers of demons, comp. Berakot 6a; Gittin 68a (Moxy mIw means: this female demon which is mentioned in Eccl. 2. 8, cannot be accurately determined, since there are so many of them); Tehillim 91, 398. As to the view found in pseudepigraphic literature, and prevalent among the Church Fathers (comp. Bousset, Religion, 382, seq.), according to which the demons are the descendants of the fallen angels, from their union with the daughters of man, nothing but a slight trace thereof remains in rabbinic literature (comp. Index, s. v. “Angels, the Fallen’). The doctrine connected with this view concerning the demons as cseducers 108 Adam ‘ [99-100 , to idolatry and other transgressions does not occur at all in rabbinic literature. The view found in Josephus, Bell. Jud., VII, 6. 3, as well as in Philo, De Gigant., 6-8, and De Somn., 1. 133-136, that demons are the souls of the wicked reappears again in the Kabbalah (comp. Zohar III, 70a), where it is borrowed from Christian sources, while it is entirely unknown to the earlier Rabbis; comp., however, note 88 on vol. I, p. 180. The mortal nature of the demons is also known to Eusebius, 206, who quotes Plutarch as his authority.

99 Abot 5. 9; Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 5, 51a; Sifre D., 355; Midrash Tannaim 219; Pesahim 54a; PRE 19 (comp. Luria, ad loc.); PRK (Schénblum’s edition, 40a; Griinhut’s edition, 85); 2 ARN 27, 95; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 22. 18; Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 7. No two of the sources cited exactly correspond with one another in the enumeration of the things which lie on the boundary-line between the primordial things and those developed out of them, comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bet den Kirchenv. 50. ‘Aknin’s assertion, in his commentary on Abot, Joc. cit., that these things were created in the twilights of the first six days is untenable. Besides the things enumerated in the text, others are also mentioned: The first pair of tongs (on this point comp. Tosefta ‘Erubin, end, and Hagigah I, end, as well as Adamschriften, 54), without which no other instrument could be made; Moses’ staff; the Shamir; the garments of Adam and Eve (comp. note 93); fire (without which no civilization would have been possible) comp., however, note 104; the mule (comp. vol. I, p. 424, on the origin of the mule, and further vol. IV, p. 125); the pillars of fire and of cloud, which moved before Israel in the wilderness, as well as the clouds of glory which surrounded them (ARN, Joc. cit., it is thus to be explained according to Targum Yerushalmi and Seder Rabba di-Bereshit, loc. cit.); the vessel in which the manna has been preserved in the holy of holies; the demons (comp.

the preceding note); the ram which Abraham sacrificed in place of Isaac. Comp. also note 31, according to which anDd1 and in the above-mentioned passages refer perhaps to the use of ‘‘ writing’ and ‘‘stylus’’, and not to the material which was employed for the tables; see Mahzor Vitry, ad loc.; Rashi on Pesahim, loc. cit.; Responsa of the Geonim (Harkavy’s edition, 11-12); Nahmias, commentary on Abot, loc. cit. See further note 258 on vol. III, p. 119; comp. also vol. III, pp. 362, 477. 100 Zohar Hadash, Gen. 2. 4, 22a. The conception that the entire universe chants a continuous song to God is widely known; comp. Alphabet of R. Akiba 12, and the details given in note 194 on vol. 109 tor] The Legends of the Jews I, p. 46. On the song of the heavenly bodies on the first Sabbath, comp. the following note. 101 Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 7-8, where at the end the following reading is to be adopted, with Kimha Dabishuna (on 32173 by mxy in the morning prayer of the Day of Atonement): 7’20 708 max ps °S1 aos an& nawy orx>. This Midrash is the source, direct or indirect, of the statement of the medieval authors concerning the song chanted by the Sabbath. Comp. Hasidim 126; ha-Mahkim 133; Orehot Hayyim I, 64d-65a; Tola‘at Jacob (ONY INA Naw Nd); Yalkut Reubeni, Gen. 2. 3, and in the supplement of this work Shzkhat Leket (naw No. 4); Treves’ commentary on the Prayer Book (nav ws byd); ps.Rashi on BR 14 (end); Bereshit Rabbeti, according to the manuscript quotation thereof in Ha-Hoker, I], 1.

Many medieval writers quote from BR, or rather Yerushalmi (comp. Buber Yerushalayim ha-Benuyah, note 90, and further Orehot Hayyim 1, 36c; Abudirham NIMyD'1; Tosafot Ketubot 7b, below; Sefer Mizwot Gadol, precept 48), the following sentence: On the atrival of the Sabbath God said to all created things: ‘‘Come and chant a song; a guest, Sabbath, is come.’’ Comp. also the quotation, from the Midrash, in Or Zarua‘ II, 18c and 47a; ha-Mahkim, 136: Angels have six wings, one for each day of the week with which they chant their song; but they remain silent on the Sabbath, for it is Israel (Sabbath?) who then chants a hymn to God. On this point comp. Ginzberg, Geonica, II, 48. All these legends about the songs on the Sabbath, or rather of the Sabbath (on this conception among the Mohammedans, comp. Goldziher in the Kaufmann-Gedenkbuch, 87) are later developments of the legend mentioned in note 103. The personification of the Sabbath reaches its utmost limits among the Falashas; comp. Teezaza Sanbat 12b seg., on the angel Sabbath, God’s favorite, whom all the other angels adore and to whom they chant a song. On the various angels who participate in the glorification of God and the joy of the Sabbath, comp. Tehillim 104, 440, which reads: There is nothing below which does not have one appointed over it above, corresponding to it. Recognitiones, 1, 45, says: When God created the world,....he appointed chiefs over the several creatures, even over the trees and the mountains, over the fountains and the rivers, and over all the things He had made.

BR 9. 6 reads: There is not a blade of grass which does not have its star in heaven, urging it, saying: “Grow.’’ Comp. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, II, 10; Zohar (addition from Sitre Otiyyot, I, 15a), where instead of the 110 Adam |, [10z star (51) the reading mp of Tehillim, Joc. cit., is found. Comp. note 60 on vol. I, p. 137. ¥02 Jub. 2. 17-20. That the angels rest on the Sabbath is also mentioned in Tikkunim 48, 86a. Comp., on the contrary, PR 23, 120, which records the witty answer of R. Akiba to Tinaeus Rufus on the question why God allows the powers of nature to work on the Sabbath (comp. John 5. 17), when everything rests. That nature, however, is not exactly the same on the Sabbath as on week-days may be seen from the state of rest of the river Sambation (comp. Index, s. v.) and from the failure of the necromancers on that day (on this point comp. also Sanhedrin 65b). In connection with the Sabbath rest, rabbinic literature in many places emphasizes the doctrine that the creation must not be taken as a direct act of God, but as the word of God. It is further emphasized that even after the completion of creation God’s activity continues in the deeds of the pious, as well as of the wicked, by means of which they create for themselves their portions in the world to come. Comp. Mekilta Bahodesh 7, 69b,and Shabbat 104b; Mekilta RS, 109 and 162; Midrash Tannaim 22-23; BR 10.

9 and 11. 5-6, 9; PR 23, 120, and 41, 174a; Tan. KiTissa 33. The above-mentioned passages contain many expressions about the great significance of the Sabbath (comp. also Tehillim 19, 162, and 92, 201-202). It may be noted, however, that nowhere in the old rabbinic literature is there to be found a trace of the mystical conception of the Sabbath occurring in Philo (Moses, 2 [3}. 33), according to which this distinguished day dates not only since the world was created, but from the time when the heaven and and all the perceptible universe were still uncreated. It is only in PRE 3 that the Sabbath is counted among the things which existed in the thought of God prior to the creation of the world; comp. Excursus I. On the eternal Sabbath in the world to come, see note 140. The Sabbath must not be understood as a cessation from the work of creation, but as a creation in itself; everything was created in six days except rest, which was created on the Sabbath; hence Scripture speaks of the completion of creation on the Sabbath (Gen. 2. 2); comp. BR 10. 9, and the parallels cited by Theodor, where several explanations of the peculiar wording of this biblical verse are offered, and where it is further stated that the elders who translated the Torah for Talmai (=Ptolemy) did not give a literal rendering of Gen. 2. 2, but translated: ‘‘And God completed on the sixth day.”” Comp. note 140. 111 103-104] The Legends of the Jews 103 PRE 19; Tehillim 92, 404, and 5, 22; PR 46, 187b.

The older sources (BR 22. 13; PK 22, 160b; Tan. B. I, 19; WR 10. 4: Baba Batra 14b; Shir 4.4) know only that Adam composed Psalm 92 on the glorification of repentance (navn = nan, in accordance with the method of the Haggadah), when he repented of his sins; comp. vol. I, p. 112. In ARN 1, 7 (whence it was borrowed by Alphabet R. Akiba 15), on the contrary, it is stated that Adam and the angels equally shared in the composition of this Psalm, which they sang in honor of the Sabbath, to the accompaniment of music, on the first day after the expulsion from paradise, which occurred in the twilight of the first Sabbath. Comp. also Targum on Ps. 92. 1, and note 101. The statement frequently made in later sources (comp., however, Sanhedrin 65b and BR 11.5) that the wicked in hell rest on the Sabbath is closely related to this legend, accordto which Adam was delivered from the suffering from hell by the Sabbath; comp. PR 23, 120a; Tan. Ki-Tissa 33; Seder Gan ‘Eden 43; Recanati on Gen. 3. 24; R. Bahya on Exod. 20. 8. 04 BR 11.1 and 12. 6 (in both passages y")9 1970 is a later gloss, which is due to a misunderstanding; the difference of opinion of the scholars quoted there turns about the question whether Adam was allowed to retain the heavenly light on the first day after the expulsion, but not on the question whether he spent a night in paradise or not; comp. the sources cited in note 97, all of which agree that Adam left paradise before night); Mekilta RS, 109 (this is the source for BR, loc.

cit.; 08 =D’); Mekilta Bahodesh 7, 69b; PR 23, 118a-118b and 46, 186b-187a (at the same time the significance of New Year is here emphasized; comp. note 97); Yerushalmi Berakot 8, 12b; Pesahim 54a; PRE 20; Tehillim 92, 402. In most of the sources the primordial light is already identified with the splendor of Adam’s countenance, whereas originally a different view had been entertained. The former belongs to a widespread cosmological speculation, according to which creation was made possible by the advance of the primordial light into the darkness of chaos; this is connected with Gen. 1. 3. Comp. also note 19 on vol. I, p. 9. See also vol. I, pp. 262, 388; vol. IV, p. 234. This light appears in Philo, De M. Opif., 8 and 18, as the invisible and ideal, as the image of God’s wisdom. On the other hand, the splendor of Adam’s countenance is the concrete expression of the legend of the divine nature of man before his fall, and belongs to the view concerning the light of the pious in the world to come, which is prevalent in Jewish, as well as in Christian, eschatology; comp. 112 Adam , [105 , Bousset, Religion, 318, for the references to this view in pseudepigraphic and ancient rabbinic literature. See further Sifre D., 10; Midrash Tannaim 6; WR 30. 2; ER 3, 14; Yerushalmi Hagigah 2, 77a (below), where the sentence of Sifre, Joc. cit., (MIND yaw), appears in abbreviated form.

Comp. also note 93 with regard to the ‘‘garments of light” of Adam and Eve. See further Preuschen, Adamschrifien, 52, as well as notes 24 and 69. A rationalistic explanation of Adam’s splendor is found in BR, Joc. cit., and parallel passages, where it is said that man’s face is brighter on the Sabbath than on week-days because of the rest and the pleasure he enjoys. Reference may also be made here to the statement found in the Talmud (Bezah 16a, and parallel passages) that upon the arrival of the Sabbath, man (7. e., the Jew) receives an ’’additional soul’’, which stays with him until the expiration of the Sabbath; comp. Berliner, Jahrbuch fiir jiid. Geschichte und Literatur, 1910, 205.—The part of Prometheus, which is ascribed to Adam, who, endowed with God-like wisdom, brought down fire and light (comp. on this point Jellinek, Einleitung to BHM V, 48), is connected with the cycle of legends, in which the beginnings of culture were traced back to Adam; comp. notes 31 and 99. The stones which he used in bringing down the light are more accurately described in Tehillim 92, 404; one was the stone of darkness, the other the stone of dimness; comp. Job 28. 3, and vol. I, p. 8 (below), with regard to these stones of the abyss. In Orehot Hayyim I, 68c, the legend of the ‘‘horny skin’”’ is connected with the one which treats of the bringing down of the fire, and states that Adam brought down the light by means of his finger-nails (comp.

vol. I, p. 74 and note 69). 105 BR 12. 6; Tan. B. I, 13; Tan. Bereshit 6; BaR 13. 12; comp. further Sifra 26. 4-13; ShR 30. 3. Another version is preserved in PRK (Schénblum’s edition, 43b); Kebod Huppah 19-21; MHG I, 126-130. In these sources twenty-two or twenty-four blessings are enumerated which God had bestowed on Adam, of which man was gradually deprived after the fall of Adam and the sins of the following generations, and which mankind will receive again in Messianic times. On account of his sins Adam forfeited the so-called image of God (7. e. the God-like splendor), tall stature, paradise and the tree of life. The generation of the deluge in consequence of its sins, lost its gigantic strength, its longevity, the multitude of children, and peace. The generation of the Tower of Babel lost the unity of speech, that is, the Hebrew language. The 113 106] The Legends of the Jews generation of the sinful cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) lost riches and fertility of the soil. The generation of the wilderness lost six heavenly blessings: the manna, the well which followed them in their wanderings, the pillars of cloud and fire, the knowledge of the Ineffable Name, and the presence of the Shekinah. With the exile of the ten tribes real joy passed out of existence. Upon the destruction of Jerusalem the Davidic dynasty, the dignity of the high priest, the Holy Spirit, the Jewish courts of justice (Synhedrion), the temple, and the abundance of the water of Gihon passed away.

This stream used to water Palestine, but Hezekiah stopped up its springs, so that the heathens should not in their envy take possession of Jerusalem, and expel Israel therefrom. Comp. the passages cited by Horowitz in Kebod Huppah, and parallels cited by Schechter on MHG, J, loc. ct. See further MHG I, 103 (top; this passage, which is closely related to the sources cited in note 90 concerning the ten curses of Adam, states that Adam became a ‘fugitive and a wanderer’’ after the fall), and Index, under the twenty-four objects given above. § On the fertility of the soil in Messianic times, comp. note 30 on vol. I, p. 112, and Yerushalmi Kil’ayim 4, 35c. On the beauty of man in Messianic times, comp. Zohar J, 113b. ‘ 106 Vita Adae 1-17. The Slavonic version of this pseudepigraph offers essential variants, but they are very likely of Christian origin, and the same remark applies to the Armenian additions to the Vita in Preuschen, Adamschriften, 30 and 41. The description of Adam’s repentance in Vita is also found in rabbinic sources (PRE 20). On the first Sunday after his expulsion from paradise, it is said in this Midrash (Zohar I, 55b, is based on PRE, and is not an independent source), Adam betook himself to the waters of the upper Gihon (a play on the words of the root jm “he bent down”, 7. e., repented, and jim “‘the creeper’’=“‘the serpent”, comp. BR 16. 4), where he stayed, without food, up to his neck in the water, for seven weeks continually, until his body became perforated like a sponge.

He then prayed to God, saying: ‘‘Pardon my sins and accept my repentance, so that all future generations may know that repentance is efficacious, and that Thou forgivest those who return to Thee.’ Whereupon God stretched out His right hand, forgave Adam’s sins, and accepted his repentance. On the relation of PRE to the Vita, comp. Israel Lévi, R.E.J., XVIII, 86, seg., and his treatise Le Péché Originel, 24, seq.; Epstein in Magazin, XX, 252-253; Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, 61, seg. All these writers are of the opinion that PRE goes back 114 Adam . [106 to the Vita, and this latter work they consider as Christian. Comp., on the other hand, Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 51, seq., and Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. ‘Adam, Book of’’, as well as Charles, Pseudepigraphs, 123, seg., with reference to the Jewish character of the Vita and the independence of PRE from Christian sources. The following remarks may be made here. Vita reads (6) that Adam commanded Eve to stand up to her neck in water (usque ad collum), corresponding to NI¥ 7y (PRE, Joc. cit.). This shows that both sources go back to the old Halakah (comp. Yoma 87a), according to which a ritual bath can only purify when it reaches one's neck; but this does not prove the dependence of PRE on Vita, as is asserted by Epstein, Joc. cit. Vita (10) remarks that Eve’s body became like grass, because of her long stay in the water.

This becomes intelligible only when we compare it with the Hebrew of PRE which reads: MpIy pod 1b Mwy3w ty (the Epstein manuscript and Makiri on Ps. 32, 206, have the correct text, whereas 72D is the result of a learned “emendation”, based on Ta‘anit 22b; Yalkut I, 34, reads 1295, which is meaningless, and is certainly a corruption of mb>="01n, i. e., the passage in the Yalkut is shortened from PRE), 7. e., his body became like a sponge (on mpi’ comp. Léw, Pflanzennamen; Ginzberg, Geonica, II, 321). The translator of the Vita from the Hebrew did not understand this rare word, and thought that it meant a ‘‘herb”’ (like pt’). Adam’s repentance is alluded to in a statement by R. Meir (about 150 C. E.), who remarks that Adam was very pious (on has often the meaning of ascetic), and when he saw that death was decreed against him and the human race, he separated himself from his wife for one hundred and thirty years, during which time he was covered with leaves of a fig-tree (they sting the body; comp. Irenaeus III, 23. 5,and note 70). See‘Erubin 18b; BR 20. 11 and 24. 6; Tan. B.I,20; BaR 14.12. According to another legend, if Adam hadrepented immediately after his fall, he would have been spared the punishment (comp. note 78). But he resolved to repent after he had learned that God forgave Cain’s sin through repentance. Comp. BR 32 (end), and the passages cited in note 28 on vol. I, p.

112. Only Mishle 9, 64, speaks of Eve’s repentance. The very old legend (comp. note 265 on vol. I, p. 289) that Adam and Eve shared the same sepulchre with the three patriarchs presupposes the idea that they had repented of their sins and died as ‘“‘saints’”’, otherwise it would have been against the Jewish sentiment to have the ‘‘pious’’ patriarchs buried together with the sinners; comp. Mishnah Sanhedrin 6. 6; 115 107-108] The Legends of the Jews Tosefta 9. 9; Tehillim 26, 219 (Abrabanel, Ma‘yene ha-Yeshuah, 6. 1, cites this passage of Midrash Tehillim from the Tosefta, which is due to the inaccurate quotation in Yalkut II, 704); Sanhedrin 47a. On a combination of ‘Erubin, Joc. cit., with PRE, loc. cit., are based the statements concerning Adam’s repentance in Hasidim 23 and Zohar Hadash Ruth 97b (MND Wom '1). Comp. further Ha-Kaneh, 103d. On Adam’s repentance in Arabic literature, comp. Griinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsdize, 511, and Neue Beitrdge, 65. See also note 138. 107 ‘Abodah Zarah 8a, where, though it is not explicitly stated, it is to be understood that Adam noticed the increasing night during the time of his repentance; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 51-52. Concerning Adam’s fear of darkness see further vol. I, p. 86, and the following note. In Yerushalmi 1, 39c, the term Calandae (accusative Calandas) is explained as xadov “beautiful” and dies, “‘day”’ (comp.

Eshkol III, 116, and R. Hananel on Babli loc. cit.), and it is remarked that when Adam observed the increasing day, he exclaimed: ‘Beautiful day’’, for his fear’ of darkness vanished on this account. In the same passage a Hebrew etymology is given of Saturnalia, which is said to mean “hatred and revenge”, namely, of Esau (=Rome) against Israel.’ It may be worth while to cite the statement of Yerushalmi that when Adam saw the increasing darkness, he became possessed of fear that the serpent might attack him. 108 ‘Abodah Zarah 8a; ARN 1, 7. A similar statement is found in some of the versions of the Adam Book (comp. Preuschen, Adamschriften, 30, 541). On this legend and the others related to it, in which the mythological conception of the serpent (comp. the preceding note and vol. I, p. 86) which swallowed the sun is easily recognisable, comp. Griinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsdtze,130-143.—The wonderful one-horned ox, which Adam offered as a sacrifice is frequently alluded to. In addition to the passages cited, comp. Shabbat 28b and Yerushalmi 2, 4d; PR 33, 154a; Koheleth 1. 9; Tehillim 39, 256. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fabulous ox of the Persians (gajomarth) with which it is identified by Kohut, Z.D.M.G. XXV, 78. Comp. also note 146 on vol. I, p. 31; ARN, Joc.cét., reads further: The ox which Adam offered, the bullock which Noah offered (upon leaving the ark), and the ram which Abraham sacrificed (instead of Isaac) got their horns prior to their hoofs.

The idea implied is that these animals belong to primordial creations, that they came to the world completely developed (comp. note 21), so that when these ani116 Adam ‘ [109-110 / mals came forth from the earth, they put out their heads first, with their horns on them. ro9 BR 24. 9; PRE 23 and 31; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 8. 20. Adam’s house of prayer, alluded to in the Apocalypse of Moses 5 and Vita Adae 30, is perhaps nothing more than the Christian substitute for the altar at Jerusalem given in the Jewish original of these writings. That Adam erected an altar on mount Moriah cannot be considered strange, since not only was the dust, used for the formation of his body, taken from the same place (comp. note 16), but it was also this mountain on which he landed after the expulsion from paradise, because the gate of Moriah is found in the proximity of paradise. Comp. PRE 20; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 3. 23. It is hard to tell whether the midrashic view of Gen., loc. cit., according to which Adam settled in the east of paradise, after his expulsion (comp. Septuagint, ad loc.; BR 22, 9; Tan. B. V, 16; Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 55), is connected with Adam’s stay in Jerusalem or not. Comp. Luria on PRE. The statement in 2 Enoch 68. 5 that, after Enoch’s translation, his sons erected an altar in the place called Ahuzan, is also related to the account of Adam’s stay in Jerusalem, where he erected an altar.

That this Ahuzan (7. e. mM; comp. the description of Jerusalem as mn in Ezek. 48. 20, seg.) is no other place than Jerusalem may be seen from the Melchizedek fragments 3. 35, where Melchizedek declares that he, ‘‘king and priest shall be in the place Ahuzan, that is to say, in the middle of the earth where Adam was created”. Jerusalem is the centre of the earth (vol. I, p. 12), and Melchizedek was both king and priest of Jerusalem (vol. I, p. 233). On the connection of the Golgotha legend with this cycle of legends, comp. note 137. On the idea that paradise is in the proximity of Jerusalem, comp. also the Armenian version of Vita Adae in Preuschen, Adamschriften, 27, where Jerusalem is designated as the city of the fallen angels. This is not due, as Preuschen believes, to an anti-Jewish tendency, but because the holy city is both the gate of paradise, as well as of Gehenna (see note 55 on vol. I, p. 15, and Index, s. v. ‘‘Gehenna’’), where the fallen undergo their punishment. tT0 Sefer Raziel (beginning). This book which came down to us in its present form from the thirteenth century, and is probably the work of R. Eleazar of Worms, contains, in its many parts, old geonic mysticism. Another version of the legend how the Book of Raziel was given to Adam is found in ZoharI,55b. According to this version, God caused a book to come to Adam through the angel Raziel (Raz, 117 111] The Legends of the Jews ‘‘secret’’; El, ‘‘God’’), while he was still in paradise, by means of which he was able to master all the seventy-two kinds of wisdom, as well as the heavenly mysteries which were unknown even to the angels.

The angel Hadarniel, accordingly, remarked to Adam: “Thou art in possession of thy Master’s treasures, with whose contents not even the dwellers of heaven are acquainted.’”’ After the fall (this is the only passage in rabbinic literature which speaks of Adam’s stay in paradise for a longer time; comp. note 97), this book disappeared from Adam’s presence, and he received it back from Raphael’s hands only after he had repented (comp. note 106; read prin TDD Py, according to Yerushalmi Shebi‘it 9, 39d; BR 79. 6; Koheleth 10. 8; PK 10, 88b; Tehillim 18, 134; Esther R 1. 9). When Adam died the book came into the possession of Seth, and afterwards it was handed over to Noah and Abraham. Comp. also Zohar I, 37b, and 118a. On the different versions of the legend concerning the mysterious book of Adam, comp. vol. I, pp. 154-157, and the notes appertaining to them. It is noteworthy that the older’rabbinic literature knows nothing of such a book belonging to Adam or composed by him. The statement in Baba Mezi‘a 85b (below; comp. the sources cited in note 27) concerning the book which'God had shown to Adam implies only that God revealed to Adam all the future generations of mankind and has no reference to a book composed by him or given to him. It is interesting to note that R. Hai Gaon (about 1000) never heard of any Adam book; comp. his remarks on Baba Mezi‘a, loc. cit., in Responsa of the Geonim (Harkavy’s edition, 103), Miiller, Responsen Lehrer des Ostens, No.

31, and Horowitz, Toratan shel Rishonim II, Nos. 1 and 3 (this passsage has nnd instead of the incorrect N79). 2 Enoch 33. 9-10 mentions, together with the Enoch writings, also those of Adam, Seth, Kainan, Mahalalel, and Jared, which writings God gave to two angels to take care of.—On the statement of Sefer Raziel that the fear with which Adam had inspired the animals disappeared after his fall, see note 113. Concerning the assertion made in the same source that widsom abandoned Adam as a consequence of his having eaten the forbidden fruit, comp. PRK (Schénblum’s edition, 43b), where among the blessings Adam forfeited as a result of his sin (comp. note 105), wisdom and knowledge (793M AY) are enumerated. The forbidden fruit gave him human knowledge and discernment, but he lost true knowledge and Godlike wisdom through it. *t¥ Vita Adae 30; Apocalypse of Moses 5-6. Here it is pre118 Adam , [112-113 supposed that in Adam's time illness came only as the immediate forerunner of death. Comp. on this point vol. II, p. 131, and vol. IV, pp. 274-275. In connection with the ante-diluvian generations, BR 26. 5 observes that they spent their lives without suffering any pain or disease. On Adam’s place of prayer see note 109. tr2 Vita Adae 31; Apocalypse of Moses 6. In rabbinic sources illness is not regarded as the direct consequence of the fall, very likely because it is considered as the beginning of death; comp.

the preceding note. On the number of diseases comp. note 129. ™t3 Apocalypse of Moses 9-12; Vita Adae 24-39. The tree of life is identified in these, as well as in other Jewish and Christian writings, and also among the Gnostics, with the olive-tree; comp. 2 Enoch 8. 7 and 22. 8, as well as 66. 2; 5 Ezra 2. 12; Evang. Nicod. 18; Descent of Christ 3; Recognitiones, 1.45; Hippolytus 5.2; Origen, Contra Celsum, 6. 27, where the words of Celsus certainly go back to Ophitic writings. As has already been observed in note 70, no definite determination of the tree of life can be found in rabbinic literature, nor does it know of the life-giving oil. The resurrection of the dead, according to the statements found in this literature, will be brought about through the ‘“‘dew of light” (Is. 26. 19); comp. Hagigah 12b; PRE 35 Yerushalmi Berakot 1, 9b; Apocalypse of Baruch 29. 7 and 73. 2. Comp. further note 12 on vol. IV, p. 197; vol. IV, pp. 333 and 360. In 2 Enoch 25 the view of the Rabbis is combinded with that of the Apocalyptic writers about the life-giving oil; hence the following description of this oil: ‘The appearance of that oil was more than a great light, and its anointing was excellent dew.’ On the “‘dew of light’’ among the Gnostics, comp. Preuschen, Adamschriften, 63. On the tree of life comp. also Enoch 24. 4, where it is identified with the palm. Comp. also BR 69. 8 and PRE 35, concerning the oil which came down from heaven for Jacob’s sake, with which he anointed the site of Luz, whose inhabitants live forever; comp.

vol. IV, p. 30.—In the legend concerning the meeting of Seth with the wild beasts the idea implied is that Adam lost his power over animals through his sin; hence the pious need not fear them. Moreover, in Messianic times (comp. note 105) the old relations between men and animals will be restored. Reference may be made here to the numerous parallels to these views from rabbinic sources: Sifre N., 1 (end) and Sifre D., 50; Sifra 26.6; Tosefta Shabbat (end); Babli 151a; Yerushalmi 14, 14b and 14c; Tosefta Berakot 3. 20; Yerushalmi 5, 9a; Babli 33a; PK 5, 44b; PR 119 114-116] The Legends of the Jews 15, 68b; Shemuel 18, 97; Midrash Shir 29a; Koheleth 5. 10; Aggadat Bereshit 15, 32; DR 4. 4; 2 ARN 45, 117; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 3. 15. Comp. further vol. I, p. 71 (end of section); vol. I, pp. 90, 98 (top); vol. II, pp. 204, 221; note 104 on vol. IV, p. 334. Philo, De M. Opif., 28, observes, with respect to the conditions before the fall: And all those who were very wild by nature became meek and submissive... for everything that is mortal He subjected to him. Philo thus agrees with the Rabbis who do not consider the wildness of animals as the consequence of the fall of man (as do the pseudepigraphic writings referred to at the beginning of this note), but is due to the fact that they cease to be submissive to man. BR 34.12 reads: The animals’ fear and terror of man came back after the flood, but not man’s dominion over them.

The latter came back in the time of Solomon. While the old rabbinic literature (in agreement with Sibylline Oracles 3, 788, seg.) maintains that the wildness of the animals will disappear in Messianic times (basing the view on Lev. 26, 6), the medieval philosophers do not support this view. ‘Comp. Ginzberg, Compte Rendu 34=R.E.J., 68, 148. The instinctive shyness of certain animals in the presence of a living man (but not of a dead one; comp. BR, Joc. cit., and parallel passages) is ascribed to the fact that man has his star (i. e., guardian angel; comp. notes 20 and 101); see Baba Kamma 2b, 41a, and Meiri’s remarks in Shita Mekubbezet on the first passage. The view that even wild animals fear and obey the saints, etc., occurs quite frequently in Jewish as well as in Christian legends; comp. Giinter, Christliche Legende, index, s. v. “Tiere”. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 80-81. tt4 Apocalypse of Moses 13; Vita Adae 40-42. On the distribution of the food of the tree of life in the world to come, comp. the sources cited in note 96. See further Enoch 25. 4-5; 12 Testaments, Levi 18. 11; Lekah, Gen. 2. 9. ttS Apocalypse of Moses 14; Vita Adae 44. On the number and names of the sons and daughters of Adam, comp. ps.—Philo (beginning); Josephus, Antiqut., I, 2. 3. ™6 Apocalypse of Moses 15-30. Vita Adae, which is closely related to this source, does not contain any details on the fall of Adam, while, on the other hand, the former, but not the latter, has a description of the fall of Satan; comp.

note 35. It may be remarked here that PRE 14, which some scholars consider dependent on Vita (comp. note 106), puts the fall of Satan after the fall of Adam, or more accurately, makes the former a consequence of the latter; but in Vita, 120 Adam : [117-120 / on the other hand, the relation is reversed. The fact that in PRE Sammael appears as the seducer instead of Satan is, of course, no variant, since in rabbinic literature these two were regarded as identical in quite early times. The etymology of Sammael as the ‘‘blind one”’ (ND1D), who does not see the pious, is found in the Acts of Andrew and Maithias (towards the end), as well as in kabbalistic sources. Comp. ‘Erke ha-Kinuyim, s. v. 8010, where=8"D, STNN N1VD, 7. e., Sammael. In Enoch 69. 6 it is the fallen angel Gadriel ‘‘who showed the children of men all the blows of death, and who led Eve astray, and showed all the weapons of death to the children of men.” Gadriel very likely stands for Katriel, and is connected with Aramaic “wp “he intrigued’’, “revolted.” tI7 Apocalypse of Moses 16. ‘‘Became a vessel” is a Hebraism=mnia19 5; comp. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, 26; Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 39. The view prevalent in this source that Satan was the real seducer, but employed the cunning serpent as his servant, represents the transition from the older literal conception of the biblical report concerning the fall (comp.

note 50) to the allegorical interpretation which identifies the serprent with Satan; comp., é. g., Revelation 12. 9; note 83, and index, s. v. ‘Serpent”’, and “Dragon”. Origen, De Princ., 3. 21, and PRE 13 practically agree with the harmonizing view of the Apocalypse of Moses. Comp. note 119. tr8 Anocalypse of- Moses 17-18. The transformation of Satan into an angel is alluded to in 2 Cor. 11. 4. On the serpent’s slanderous accusations against God, comp. the rabbinic parallels in vol. I, pp. 72-73, and notes appertaining thereto. 119 Apocalypse of Moses 19. The three sacred objects by which she swears certainly belong to the pre-existing things, and when we consider the fact that the tree of life is the same as paradise (comp., e. g., PRK, 43b, where only paradise is mentioned, while MHG I, 126, reads paradise and the tree of life), the view of this writing concerning pre-existing things agrees with that of the Rabbis. Comp. Excursus I. That the serpent climbed up the tree of knowledge, and plucked the fruit for Eve is also found in ARN 1 (both versions). Comp. note 63 and ps.—Tertullian, Adversus Omnes Haereses, 2. On the view that the serpent injected the evil inclination (=sexual desire) into Eve, see note 131 and notes 3-4 on vol. I, pp. 105-106. 120 Apocalypse of Moses 20. The haggadic interpretation of oniny (Gen. 3. 7 and 10) is: ‘‘And they became aware that they 121 121-128] The Legends of the Jews were bare of good deeds.” This Hebrew idiom occurs frequently in the Talmud; comp., e.

g., Shabbat 14a; Megillah 32a (end). Comp. BR 19. 6; PRE 14; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 3. 10 (a different interpretation of ony, 3. 7); MHG JI, 93. Preuschen, Adamschriften, 54, note 1, is to be corrected accordingly. 121 Apocalypse of Moses 21. On the withering of the leaves of all trees, see note 125 and vol. III, p. 163; note 50 on vol. II, p. 236. See further the remarks in note 82 concerning the eclipse of the sun at the time of the fall. BR 15. 7 states that the trees refused to give their leaves to the transgressors. Comp. vol. I, p. 75. t22 On the identification of the forbidden fruit with the fig, comp. note 70. *23 Concerning this function of Michael, comp. note 246 on vol. Ie toy, PASS 124 The rabbinic sources (BR 20. 4; BaR 14. 12; Tadshe 10; comp. also the quotation from Yerushalmi in IJmrg No‘am, end of Mishpatim) speak of the heavenly court consisting of seventy-one members (this number corresponds to that of the Great Synhedrion; comp. Sanhedrin 1. 6) which God appointed to judge the serpent. Comp. also note 84. 125 Comp. note 121, and further Yoma 39b, which reads: The trees of the temple withered when the heathen entered the sanctuary, but they will bloom again in Messianic times. Comp. also Apocalypse of Moses 38. 126 Apocalypse of Moses 23. That God’s residence is under the tree of life is also stated in 2 Enoch 8. 3. In kabbalistic writings the same statement is made with regard to the Shekinah; comp.

vol. I, p. 123. God’s speech to Adam is almost literally identical with the one found in rabbinic sources; comp. note 76. 127 Apocalypse of Moses 24. This source appears to count the ten curses which God pronounced against Adam; comp. vol. I, p. 79, and the note appertaining to it. On the loss of the dominion over the animal world, comp. note 113. 128 Apocalypse of Moses 25. On the text comp. Ginzberg’s remarks in the Jewish Encyclopedia.1, 70, where reference is made to the almost literal parallel passages in BR 20. 7 and Niddah 31b. The text of the Hebrew original very likely read: ynonv mAywa dosnt cwrd ny ppix xo TONM) yaem oD» Ayy aM FwP2 yon IbS 42 5eo sim cawn Jw bx cypn 7". The expression ped ppr 122 Adam . [129-131 is a frequently used euphemism for conjugal relations, but the translator erroneously read *ywpd instead of wx. Comp. note 131 (end). 729 Vita Adae 34; Apocalypse of Moses 8. The number of diseases which came upon man in consequence of the fall amounts to seventy or seventy-two (the rivalry of these two numbers is of freqquent occurrence; comp. Index under these numbers); comp. Nega‘im 1. 4; Sifra 13.4; ER 5.25; midrashic citation by Ibn Sabba 53b on Gen. 43. 16. A sentence employed in amulets reads: ‘‘And mayest Thou, O God, protect him against the seventy-two kinds of diseases, which afflict this world”; comp. Midrash Talpiyyot, s. v. oxdn.

See also the seventy kinds of deaths in Testament of Abraham 20 (longer recension), and Ginzberg’s remarks on it in Jewish Encyclopedia, 1,95. Other views with regard to the number of diseases are found in Berakot 8a, according to which there are 903 kinds of deaths (7. e., diseases which cause death), and in Baba Mezi‘a 107b, where it is said that the bile, when it is in a diseased condition, may cause 83 kinds of death. ‘73° Apocalypse of Moses 26. On the expression “vessel of...’ comp. note 117. The designation of Satan as axapioros, literally “the ugly one’’, corresponds with his nickname in rabbinic writings, in which he is known as bn, “the ugly one”; comp. e. g. Kiddushin 30b. It is hard to say whether we should take it in its literal meaning, in accordance with the legend which ascribes an ugly form to the angel of death (who is identical with Satan; comp. vol. I, p. 306), or in a figurative sense. ™3% Apocalypse of Moses 26. A tenfold punishment of the serpent seems to be presupposed here. Comp. vol. I, pp. 77-78, where (see also the sources cited in note 83) the ten punishments are enumerated, in partial agreement with the account given in the Apocalypse. The first sentence ‘‘until the day of judgment”’ corresponds with the paraphrase of Gen. 3.15 in Targum Yerushalmi. This Targum, as well as the Apocalypse, identifies the punishment decreed against the serpent with that against Satan; comp.

notes 116 and 120. Besides the sources cited in these two notes, comp. further Enoch 69, 6 (where it is said that the fallen angel Gadriel seduced Eve, comp. note 119); 2 Enoch 21.4 (where Satanel, 7. e. Satan, caused the fall), and similarly Wisdom 2.24 (where death is ascribed to the jealousy of the devil). The serpent is not mentioned in any of these three writings. The Apocalypse of Abraham 23 describes Azazelas being like a serpent in appearance, having hands and feet like a man, and twelve wings. Here the serpent is identified with Satan (in this 123 132] The Legends of the Jews pseudepigraph Azazel is employed instead of the latter), not in the allegorical sense, but it ascribes the form of the serpent to Satan. As far as this form is concerned, it is almost identical with that of the serpent in paradise as described in rabbinic sources; comp. vol. I, pp. 71-72. Concerning the wings see vol. I, p. 63, as well as Apocalypse of Moses, loc. cit., which speaks of the wings of the serpent. The description of Satan in the Greek Baruch 4. 8 is closely related to the one in the Apocalypse of Abraham. We may thus trace the development of the conception of the “‘old serpent’: 1) The serpent resembled man both in mind and body, before the fall, and being jealous, it resorted to corruption (this is the view of the old rabbinic literature; comp. note 60). 2) The fall was brought about not by the serpent, but by Satan, who made use of the cunning serpent (Apocalypse of Moses; PRE).

3) Satan, who had the appearance of a serpent, was the cause of the fall (Apocalypse of Abraham and Greek Baruch). 4) Satan, or some other fallen angel, brought about the fall (Books of Enoch). 5) The view of the allegorists (Philo, Revelation’ medieval Jewish philosophers), according to whom it was the sensual desire which seduced man. It may be noted further that the sentence kai 64 rodro ...Aéyor gov in the Apocalypse of Moses 25: is misplaced; it belongs to the end of 26, where God says to the serpent that He will put enmity between him and man, because ‘‘I will judge thee according to thy actions ((n727 bya Hebraism, which the Greek translator incorrectly rendered by \oyov gov), on account of the enmity which the enemy (=Satan; comp. Sukkah 52a) had injected into thee. Satan sowed enmity in the heart of the serpent against man (comp. Apocalypse of Moses 16), and as a punishment for this, eternal enmity shall reign henceforth between thee and them (i. e., Adam and Eve)”. Comp. the similar idea in Tosefta Sotah 4. 18; BR 20. 5; Sotah 9b; ARN 1, 5. 732 Apocalypse of Moses 31-32. This angel is described as ‘the angel of mankind’’, or ‘the angel of the Lord resembling man in appearance”. The Hebrew very likely read: DWNT 1D 7NN qNbp 1, €. one of the order of the angels called ow’ (="‘men”). On this class of angels comp. Maimonides, Yad ha-Hazakah, Yesode ha-Torah, 2. 7, and Masseket Azilut (beginning); comp.

also Mishle 8, 58. Adam’s words (‘‘pray to God..., we do not know when we shall appear before our Creator, whether He will pour out His wrath on us, or He will turn to us in mercy’) remind one of the last words of Rabban Johanan b. Zaccai (Berakot 28b; ARN 25, 79). 124 Adam ’ {133-137 *33 Apocalypse of Moses 33-36. On the eclipse of the heavenly bodies in God’s proximity, comp. vol. I, p. 25, and note 105 appertaining toit. Different is the reading in Vita Adae 26, according to which the sun, moon, and stars did not shine for seven days as a sign of mourning for Adam’s death. Comp. Sukkah 29a; note 89. *34 Apocalypse of Moses 37-39; Vita Adae 46- 47. The bathing of the soul in the stream of fire is most likely of Greek origin (comp. Fuchs and Wells, ad Joc.). But it is also found in the later midrashic literature and in the Kabbalah; comp. Elleh Ezkerah (end), where it is said that the souls bathe in the waters of the Shiloah, whereas according to the Kabbalists (Zohar III, 16b, below; Zohar Hadash, Balak, 66a, 838 '1" ON; ‘ Emek ha-Melek, 117a), all souls must pass through the river of fire (comp. note 69 on vol. I, p. 17, and Index, s. v. “Dinur’’); the pious are purified in this manner, while the wicked are judged there. Another view is given in Konen 29, which reads: The souls of the pious bathe, before entering paradise, in 248 rivers of balsam—a river for each member of the human body.

¥35 Apocalypse of Moses 40; comp. also 42. In Vita Adae 48 it is Michael and Uriel who inter Adam (Gabriel probably fell out). The older tradition knows of an hierarchy consisting of three angels (comp. note 13), and hence only three angels occupy themselves with the burial of Moses; comp. vol. III, p. 472. It may also be noted that according to Zohar III, 88a, three heavenly messengers are present at the death-bed of every man. But Zohar II, 256a, on the other hand, speaks of four. The various texts of the pseudepigraphic writings cited above also differ from one another respecting the numbers and the names of the angels who took charge of Adam’s burial. 136 Apocalypse of Moses 40 and Vita Adae 48; comp. further Preuschen, Adamschriften, 45, and Book of Adam 1.79. The rabbinic legend knows of a number of facts about the burial of Abel by his parents (comp. vol. I, p. 113, and note 130 appertaining to it), but does not seem to be acquainted with the details given in the pseudepigraphic works. Jub. 4. 29 states: He (Adam) was the first to be buried in the ground. This alludes to the legend given in the Apocalypse of Moses and kindred sources. ™37 Apocalypse of Moses 40. Since according to a well-known Haggadah (see the sources cited in note 16), the dust for the formation of Adam’s body was taken from the place of the altar in Jerusalem, the Apocalypse necessarily locates Adam’s grave on the site of the temple of Jerusalem.

To be sure, here and in Vita Adae, Joc. cit., 125 137] The Legends of the Jews the grave is erroneously placed in paradise (uéon rod mapadeicov), which must not be taken literally, but should be understood to mean near Jerusalem. This is due to the fact that according to note 109, Jerusalem, or mount Moriah, forms the gate to paradise. This is clearly stated in the Melchizedek fragment 2. 35-36: In the centre of the earth, where Adam was created, there shall be his (Melchizedek’s) grave...where Adam buried his son Abel. It is also stated in Zohar I, 56b, that Adam chose a place for his grave (in accordance with the rabbinic legend, the cave of Machpelah is here referred to; comp. PRE. 20 and further below) near paradise, where God buried him. All this is also found in Zohar Hadash, Ruth 97b, beginning NdImM ‘7 7DN), which gives also the different view that Seth took care of his father’s burial. Seder ‘Olam (beginning) reads: Enoch buried Adam. Comp. also Yashar, Bereshit 11b: And Seth and his sons, Enoch and Methuselah his son buried him—Adam. In note 32 on vol. IV, p. 354, an attempt is made to prove that rabbinic literature also knows of the legend that the site of the altar is Adam’s grave. The prevalent view among the Rabbis, however, is that Adam and Eve were buried in the cave of Machpelah. It is for this reason that Hebron is called Kiryat Arba‘,‘‘The City of the Four”’, because in this city four pious men (Adam and the three patriarchs) as well as the four mothers (in other places this designation usually applies to the four wives of the three patriarchs), that is, Eve, Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah, were buried.

Comp. BR 58. 4 and 8 (it is stated here that God had to roll up Adam’s corpse, since even after the fall his height reached a hundred cubits;comp. also BR 19.8 and Tan. B.I, 13); ‘Erubin 53a; Sotah 13a; Baba Batra 58a; PRE 20 and 36; Jerome on Gen. 23, 2 (comp. also vol. I, pp. 288-289). In the Christian legend of Golgotha Adam’s burial-place is identical with the place of the crucifixion of Jesus. This is a Christian adaptation of the Jewish legend, according to which Adam was created in the centre of the earth, and was buried in the same place, 7. e., in the site of the altar at Jerusalem. Instead of the site of the altar, the Christian legend introduced the place of the crucifixion of Jesus (which is the Christian altar). Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bet den Kirchenv., 26-30 (some of his remarks are to be corrected in accordance with the material given here); Preuschen, Adamschriften, 45-46. It should also be observed that in rabbinic sources (comp. the reference given in note 32 on vol. IV, p. 354), where mention is made of the corpse found near the site of the altar, the word nbnba, “Golgotha”, i. e., “skull”, is used which ap126 Adam / [138-139 pears again in Golgotha, the place of the crucifixion of Jesus. Finally, some other reasons may be given why Apocalypse of Moses and Vita Adae cannot be said to regard paradise as Adam’s burialplace. According to Apocalypse 37, paradise is located in the third heaven, where Adam’s soul but not his body could be placed.

It is further said that God sealed Adam’s grave, so that nobody could approach his remains. This is only intelligible if Adam was buried outside of paradise, a place accessible to men and beasts. If his grave were in paradise, there would be no necessity to protect it. 138 Apocalypse of Moses 41-45. The statement that Adam died six days before Eve is related to the view (comp. note 22) that Adam’s body has been in existence since the first day, of creation, whereas Eve was not created out of his rib until Friday; comp. the sources cited in note 97. Adam was not only interred by the angels with great pomp and honor, but God also expressly promised him resurrection. In this presentation it is presupposed that Adam was entirely or partly forgiven because of his repentance (comp. vol. I, pp. 86-89). These views are shared by the rabbinic sources cited in notes 106 and 142. Now and again we meet in rabbinic literature with an unfavorable view about Adam. It is said that he was driven out of paradise forever, and will be excluded from it even in the world to come. Comp. BR 21. 8 and 8, where Tannaim and Amoraim differ with respect to Adam’s fate in the world to come. The most prevalent view, however, is favorable to Adam. Comp.,in addition to the sources cited in notes 106 and 142, the association of Adam and Eve with the three patriarchs and their wives alluded to in the preceding note.

The unfavorable view about Adam is most likely to be ascribed to the opposition to the exaggerated glorification of Adam by the Jewish gnostic circles, as reflected e. g. in the Clementine ' writings. It is worthy of note that Adam’s merits are hardly ever alluded to in the liturgy (there seems to be but one exception, that of a later Selihah }o’n 1729 mrvyv 43a). Comp. Ha-Zofeh, VI, 325. 139 Apocalypse of Moses 42-43; Vita Adae 50-51. According to Jewish law, mourning is to last for one week (Mo‘ed Katan 3. 5, and other passages); but in reality only six full days are observed; comp. Pesahim 4a, and the parallel passages cited on the margin concerning the rule ‘‘A fraction of a day counts as a whole day.” A reminiscence of a three days’ mourning is still to be found in Vita Adae 51 (the Hebrew text read: obaxd -yann ora mm, 7. ¢., after the lapse of three days), and also elsewhere; comp. Ecclu. 38. 17, 127 140-142] The Legends of the Jews and Ginzberg in Noéldeke- Festschrift, 625, as well as Yerushalmi Mo‘ed Katan 3, 82b. Comp. the following note (end). 140 Anocalypse of Moses 43; Vita Adae 51. According to Yashar Bereshit 11b, mourning for the dead was first introduced upon the death of Adam, whereas ER 16, 81, makes the peculiar statement that the day of Adam’s death was celebrated by his descendants as a festival, that is, they rejoiced that man is mortal, for otherwise he would not do the will of his heavenly Father.—The symbolic description of the world to come as the ‘‘great Sabbath”’, or as the ‘‘day of the Lord”, is of frequent occurrence in Jewish, as well as in old Christian, literature, in which it is also brought into relation with the millennium; since the ‘‘day of the Lord is a thousand years”’ (comp.

notes 28 and 72), hence His Sabbath is the seventh thousand. Comp. Tamid (end; the passage concerning the daily song does not originally belong to the Mishnah; comp. Ginzberg, Tamid, the Oldest Treatise, 283); Rosh ha-Shanah 31a; ARN 1, 5; Tehillim 92, 402-403 and 405; PRE 18; Mekilta Shabbeta 1, 103b; Mekilta RS, 140 (it is stated in the Mekiltas that the Sabbath offers a foretaste of the life in the world to come; comp. Berakot 57b); ER 2, 6-7; Sanhedrin 97a; ‘Abodah Zarah 9a; Sifra 26. 6; 4 Ezra 8. 30; Barnabas 15. 4; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 6. 16; Clementine Homilies, 18. 9; Victorinus, De Fabrica Mundi; Hippolytus, Dan. 4. According to 2 Enoch 33, the millennium will only take place after the completion of seven thousand years. This is probably based on some learned interpretation of Gen. 2. 2, which considered the seventh day as one of the days of creation; comp. note 102. According to Alphabet R. Akiba 19, the Sabbath of the Lord will take place 6093 years after creation. Bousset, Religion, 341, understands Apocalypse of Moses, loc. cit., to say that the soul departs from the body after seven or three days (comp. 4 Ezra 7. 101, and the rabbinic sources cited in note 20). It is for this reason that mourning must not last longer than this period. 74% Tan. B. I, 21, and IV, 124. Comp. also the kabbalistic sources referred to at the beginning of the following note. In rabbinic literature frequent mention is made of the book which contains the record of the deeds of men, as well as the witnesses who appear for or against man in the heavenly court.

Comp. Abot 2. 1; Sifre D., 307; Ta‘anit 11a; PR 8, 29a. See also the sources cited in note 20. *42 Tan. B. I, 21, and IV, 124; Zohar I, 54b, 81a, 65b, and 127a; 128 Adam {142 Zohar Hadash, Balak, beginning NAN ‘1 ‘DN, 66a; ‘Emek ha-Melek 117a. Comp. also the legend given in vol. I, p. 69, which, in addition to the sources cited in the note appertaining thereto, is likewise known to Abkat Roke} II, 1. Closely related to our legend, especially in its kabbalistic form, is the one found in both versions of the Testament of Abraham (13, 11 respectively), concerning Abel, before whom every soul must appear to be judged. Judgment takes place after Enoch, the heavenly scribe (this agrees with most of the pseudepigraphic sources, whereas in rabbinic writings Elijah is the scribe, or secretary; comp. note 35 on vol. IV, p. 201) fetches, out of the many books entrusted to the Cherubim, the one relating to the soul in question. By means of this book he establishes the record of the soul during its life-time. The rabbinic form of this legend, at the same time, expresses the view prevalent among the Rabbis that ‘“‘no death occurs without sin’. Adam is not responsible for any other death except his own. Every man could live forever, if he should lead a sinless life. Comp. Shabbat 55a—56b; ‘Arakin 17a; Tehillim 92, 412; Tan. B. IV, 60, and the parallels cited by Buber; Justin Martyr (he gives this as the view prevalent among the Jews), Dialogue, 95.

Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada gei den Kirchenv., 45-47, and Israel Lévi, Le Péché Originel. The legend makes use of this theory, and accordingly maintains that there are a number of men who (because they did not sin) have not tasted death, but entered paradise while yet alive. Comp. note 67. The popularity of this view is proved by the fact that Recognitiones, 1. 52, also speaks of those that entered paradise because thay were absolutely without guilt. It is true that rabbinic literature knows also of the opposite view (particularly represented by 4 Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch), according to which there is “‘hereditary death”, but no “‘hereditary sin’’, so that death is absolutely conceived as a penalty imposed on Adam, which must be suffered also by the innocent. Comp. Sifre D., 339; BR 21. 1; ER 5, 24; Baba Batra 17a. Seealso Tan. B. I, 17 and vol. II, pp. 259260. Itshould be mentioned that in the Prayer of Manasseh 7, the three patriarchs are designated as mortals who never sinned. This is, however, denied in‘ Arakin, Joc. cit. A third view on the origin of death is that man was created mortal. Had it not been for the fall, however, death would not have been so terrible and painful, but a joyful incident in man’s career. Comp. EZ 3, 175, where this view is clearly expressed, and further BR 21. 3 (see the parallels cited by Theodor), where the expression ‘‘man was destined to die” is to be taken in thir 129 142] The Legends of the Jews sense.

Wisdom 1. 13 and 2. 23 appears to express opposition to the theory that man is mortal by his very nature. 2 ARN 34, 74, seems to be of the view that the fall of man caused an early death; that is, even if Adam had not sinned, man would not have been immortal, but he would have lived a much longer period. Similar views are found in medieval philosophical writings and biblical commentaries; comp. Nahmanides on Gen. 2. 17, and Bekor Shor on Gen. 3. 23. Quite singular is the view expressed in BR9. 5 and Baba Batra 75a, which reads: Adam was not deserving of death for his sin, but God, who had foreseen that there would arise men like Nebuchadnezzar and Hiram claiming to be gods (comp. Index, s. v. ‘‘Deification’’), decreed death on the entire human race. According to this idea, it is not the descendants of Adam who have to atone by death for his sin, but, on the contrary, it was he who died on their account. In view of the favorable opinion of Adam expressed in these and in other passages (comp. notes 106 and 138), it is not surprising that the legend accords a special place of honor to Adam in Messianic times. In allusion to Micah 5. 4, it is asserted in the old rabbinic literature that when the Messiah is about to start his work of salvation, he will be furnished with a council of fourteen members to assist him. One half of these members will have the title of “shepherds’’, and the other half will be “princes”.

The shepherds will be David, as president, and Adam, Seth, Methuselah, on his right, and Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, on his left. The princes are: the Messiah as the head, and Samuel, Saul, Jesse, Elijah, Amos, Zephaniah, and Hezekiah (this is more probable than Zedekiah, as given in some texts). Comp. Sukkah 52b; PRK (Griinhut’s edition, 78 and 82; Schénblum’s edition, 37b and 38; BHM VI, 150; Shir 8. 10; Sa‘adya Gaon, Emunot we-De’ot, 7, 150; BaR 15 (beginning). In the last passage it is said: Opinions differ as to the identity of the ‘‘seven shepherds’’, or the ‘“‘eight princes’”’ who are Messiahs. Nowhere else in rabbinic literature are these princes called Messiahs. Comp., however, Jerome on Micah, loc. cit., who refers to Symmachus, who renders °3°D) (‘‘princes”) by xptorol (“Messiahs”). Jerome, loc. cit., appears to have known the rabbinic interpretation to which he gives a Christological coloring: the seven shepherds are the patriarchs and prophets, whereas the eight princes represent the great men of the New Covenant; comp. Matthew 19. 28; Luke 22. 30; I Cor. 6. 2; Rev. 20. 4; Sibyl. 3. 781-782; 12 Testaments, Benjamin 10. 7; ShR 30. 18. Besides the seven shepherds 130 Adam / [142 and eight princes of the Messianic times, the Talmud (Sukkah, Joc. cit.) knows of four distinguished personages as Messiahs. These are: Messiah the son of David; Messiah the son of Joseph; Elijah; the priest of justice (Melchizedek?).

Comp. also BaR, loc. cit., where, instead of the last, a Messiah appears who is a descendant of Manasseh. A fuller discussion of this point is to be found in Ginzberg’s Unbekannte Sekte, 334-352. In Kimhi on Micah, loc. cit., Enoch is substituted for Adam as one of the seven shepherds. This is rather a later correction, as the older rabbinic literature does not include Enoch among the saints; comp. note 59 on vol. I; p. 139. 181