Notes: Judges

II. JUDGES Vol. IV, (pp. 21-54) 1 The elaborate Kenaz legend is found in ps.-Philo pp. (25-32) only, and therefrom in Yerahmeel 57, 165-173, in a somewhat abridged form. It is worthy of note that Josephus, Antiqui., V, 3.3, calls the first judge (after Joshua) Kenaz, and not Othniel, as the Hebrew text and the Septuagint of Jud. 3.2 have it. Ps.-Philo and Josephus, however, do not agree as to who the father of Kenaz was; according to the former, it was Caleb, whereas the latter seems to think it was Othniel; see statement of contents of Antiqui., V. The Christian literature of the Middle Ages contains many references to Cenec (this is the most frequent form of this name; but there are more than a dozen corruptions thereof), who was the successor of Joshua in the leadership of the people, and who distinguished himself by his deep mastery of lithology; see the references given by Steinschneider, Hebraische Bibliographie, XVI, 104-106; Hebraische Uebersetzungen, 237, note 922, and 963, note 105. This Cenec or Zenek is, of course, none other than Kenaz up transliterated Cenez by ps.-Philo. The view which ascribes the mastery of lithology to Cenec (= Kenaz) is connected with the legend about the precious stones (as recorded by ps.-Philo), the hero of which is Kenaz; see vol. IV, pp. 23-24. The holy Getha, whose grave is described by a traveller in Palestine in the Middle Ages, is not Jephthah (so Nestle, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina Vereins, XXX, 210-211), but Kenaz-Cenec, which name is also spelt Cethel (see Steinschneider, loc.

cit.), of which Getha is a slight corruption. Comp. James, Biblical Antiquities of Philo, 146; note 10 on vol. IV, P- 5. ... 1 In Yerahmeel the number of the sinners of the tribe of Benjamin fell out, and the numbers of the sinners of the other tribes are different from those given by ps.-Philo. Comp, the following note. 3 The sum total of the numbers given is 5480, and not 6110 as Yerahmeel and ps.-Philo have it; but in these two sources the numbers of the sinners of the tribes of Dan and Naphtali have fallen out. It is to be noted that Simeon has the largest number of sinners, and Levi the smallest. This is in keeping with the view of the Jewish legend 181 The Legends of the Jews 4-1 1] concerning these two tribes. See vol. Ill, pp. 457-458, and note 924 appertaining thereto. 4 Achan ’s confession saved him from losing his share in the world to come; see vol. IV, p. 176, note 32. 5 According to Gen. 35.4, Jacob hid the foreign gods under the terebinth in Hebrew, and hence Elah, Elas, in ps.-Philo, is the sinner who hid the foreign gods in his tent). On the identity of the terebinth of Jacob with the one mentioned in Josh. 24.26, see quotation from an unknown Midrash in Rashi and Kimhi, Josh., loc. cit. 6 Yerahmeel 57, 166. In ps.-Philo Elah’s words read: “Shall not death come upon us, that ye shall die by fire? Nevertheless I tell thee, my lord, there are no inventions like unto those which we have made wickedly.

But if thou wilt search out the truth plainly, ask severally the men of every tribe, and so shall some one of them that stand by perceive the difference of their sins”. 7 Yerahmeel57, 167, whereas ps.-Philo reads somewhat differently: We would inquire by the evil spirits to see whether they revealed plainly. On the tribe of Issachar as the tribe of scholars and wise men, see vol. II, p. 144, and Index, s. v. 8 So Yerahmeel 57, 167, whereas ps.-Philo has the “tent of Elas” (=Elah), instead of mount Abarim. The texts of both sources are corrupt; the former ascribes to the tribe of Naphtali the same sin as that committed by the tribe of Dan, while the latter source ignores Naphtali altogether. As to the books of the Amorites, see note 34 on vol. IV, p. 10. Ps-Philo has: The Amorites taught us that which they did, that we might teach our children. But later ps.-Philo refers to the books of the Amorites which were destroyed in a supernatural way, and therefore the text of ps.-Philo made use of by Yerahmeel is the correct one. 9 According to ps.-Philo, the seven sinners are: Canaan, Put, Selath, Nimrod, Elath, Desuath. James, ad loc., adds Ham, to make up the required seven; but Yerahmeel shows that the last name is Suah (mt2>), and accordingly it is safe to assume that Desuath is a corruption of De dan, Suah. Comp. Gen. 10.7. On the making of idols in the time after the deluge, see vol.

I, pp. 174-175. On the hiding of the idols under Mount Shechem, see vol. I, p. 412. 1 0 Ps.-Philo gives some more details concerning these stones, not found in Yerahmeel. 11 On the ice in paradise (an allusion to Ezek. 1.22?), see vol. 182 Judges [12-17 I, p. 9. Yerahmeel seems to have had before him a corrupted text of ps. -Philo. 1 3 On the twelve stones in the breast-plate of the high priest, see vol. Ill, pp. 169-172. 13 Ps. -Philo, 28 (bottom) reads: Donee exur gat Jahel, qui aedijicet domum in nomine meo et time ea proponet ante me supra duo Cherubin. That Solomon is here referred to cannot be doubted and Yerahmeel substitutes Solomon for Jahel. The puzzling Jahel can easily be explained by retranslating this passage into Hebrew as follows: Itftt ty ’DtP1? n’D rUD’ Kim Dip’ “Until Ithiel will arise and build a house for My name.” It is quite natural that in this oracle the wise king should not be called by his ordinary name, but by one of his numerous other names. The writer’s fancy decided to use ’pK’HK (comp. vol. IV, p. 125 on Solomon’s ten names), but the translator misread it as [?K’ n«, and hence exurgat Jahel in the present text. Quite puzzling is also the end of the sentence, as one fails to see any connection between the stones of the high priest and the Cherubim. 14 On the hiding of the temple vessels, see vol. Ill, p. 480 vol. IV, pp. 320-321.

On the “illuminating stones” in Mesianic times, see PK 18, 135b-137b, as well as the numerous references cited by Buber ad loc. Comp, also vol. IV, p. 222, and further vol. I, p. 162. 1 s According to ps.-Philo, the Amorites were the enemies, whereas at the beginning of the Kenaz legend the Allophyli (i.e., the Philistines) were the enemy. 16 Ps.-Philo enumerates them all by name, but the names are mutilated. 17 This is in accordance with the abridged text of Yerahmeel, whereas ps.-Philo speaks of two angels who came to the assistance of Kenaz: Gethel (or Ingethel), “who is set over the hidden things and worketh unseen”, and the angel Zeruel, who “is set over strength . The former smote the Amorites with blindness so that every man who saw his neighbor counted him his adversary and they slew one another, while the second angel “bare up the arms of Kenaz” in order to remain unperceived. Gethel is a fairly accurate transliteration of *?K’Dy or *7«rray from noy (Arabic ghata), “covered, hid”, and hence Gethel is an appropriate name for the angel “who is set over the hidden things and worketh unseen . ” The name of the angel who “ is set over strength ’ ’ is Zeruel, ^Nynr from yru “strength”, and as this word in Hebrew also means “arm”, it is said that Zeruel “bare up the arms of Kenaz”. in 183 i8-2I] The Legends of the Jews order to be unperceived. Comp, note 43 on vol.

IV, p. 88. On the miracle of invisibility, see note 13 on vol. IV, p. 5, and Index, s. v. On the blinding of theenemy by angels, see II Kings 6.18; vol. Ill, p. 342; vol. IV, p. 421. 1 8 On the view that the blood that was stuck to the hand loosened the sword, see vol. IV, p. 100. 1 9 The name Jabez f'DJT (on the rabbinic legend concerning him, see notes 22 and 30) is transliterated in ps.-Philo by Jabis, which Yerahmeel took to be the equivalent of Hebrew and thus the wicked king of Hazor is made to be the namesake of the prophet. The dependence of Yerahmeel upon the Latin text of ps.-Philo is thereby proved beyond doubt. Yerahmeel had before him the incorrect Latin text: “Jabis et Phineas duos prophetas et f ilium Eleazari sacerdotis” , whereas there can hardly be any doubt that the last four words are a gloss, explaining that Phinehas “the prophet” is identical with Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest. This is, of course, quite correct, since according to ps.-Philo (see quotation in vol. IV, p. 53-54 and note 140) Phinehas the son of Eleazar is none other than the prophet Elijah. But when the gloss crept into the text, it made ps.-Philo speak absurdly of Phinehas the prophet and Phinehas the priest. 30 Besides the vision of Kenaz, ps.-Philo gives also one by Eleazar the priest, which he revealed on his death-bed to his son Phinehas, who, in his turn, communicated it to the dying Kenaz and the elders surrounding him.

On the view that the “shepherd must perish for the iniquity of his flock ”, see Shabbat 33b. As to the conception that the world is to exist seven thousand years, see note 140 on vol. I, p. 102. The sentence concerning the shepherd and the flock reads in ps.-Philo as follows: “Shall the shepherd (God) destroy His flock (Israel) to no purpose, except that it continues to sin against Him?" 31 Zebul is a corruption of Iehud, i. e., Ehud, the second judge in Israel; see Jud. 3.15. On p. 33 (towards the end) this name is spelt Iebul. For the interchange of Z and I in ps.-Philo, see 47A, where Jambri stands for Zambri nor; on the confusion of d and l, see 44D, which has Dedila instead of Delila n^’Vn; in old Latin MSS. it is difficult to distinguish between b and h, and between d and l. Yerahmeel, following the masoretic text of the Bible, 'according to which Othniel was the first judge, makes him the successor of Kenaz, instead of Ehud; but there can be no doubt that ps.-Philo knows nothing of 184 Judges [22-25 Othniel, and considers Kenaz as the first judge. Comp, note 1, and the following note. 32 BR 58.2; Shemuel 8,73; Koheleth 1.5; Shir 4.7; Temurah 16a. In all these sources Othniel is supposed to be the direct successor of Joshua, and not Kenaz, as ps. -Philo has it; comp, note 1, and the preceding note. According to the Rabbis, J udah, who was commanded by God to go up first against the Canaanites (Jud.

1.1), was a person so named (i. e., Othniel, the first judge), and does not refer to the tribe of Judah. Aphraates, 481, shares this view of the Rabbis. The statement of Lactantius, Institut., 4.10, that the country of Judea was called after a certain Judah who was the leader of Israel after Moses, presupposes the rabbinic view that the first judge was called Judah. Josephus, Antiqui., V, 2.1, paraphrases the passage of Jud. 1.1 by “the tribe of Judah”. He adds that priority was given to this tribe in accordance with the command of God through Phinehas. Comp. Seder ‘Olam 20, according to the reading of Rashi on Jud. 2.1; Targum Jud., loc. tit., and the references cited by Ratner. All these sources maintain that “the messenger of God” sent to Israel after the death of Joshua was none other than Phinehas. See also Septuagint on Josh, (end); Ginzberg, Haggadah bei den Kirchenv., 2-4. 3 3 Temurah 16a. Comp. vol. IV, p. 4. As to the learning and devotion to the Torah displayed by Othniel-Jabez, see also ShR38.5; BHM V, 69; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 936; Tan. Tezawweh 9; ER 5,30. In the last passage it is said that Jabez ( = Othniel) had never experienced pain nor committed sins; this was granted to him as a reward for his having travelled through the entire land of Israel to instruct the people in the Torah, for the sake of God’s glory. Comp, also the references in the following note.

>4 Sifre N., 78; Sifre Z„ 76-77; Mekilta Yitro 2,60a-60b; Mekilta RS, 92; Temurah 16a; ER 5,30-31; Targum 1 Chron. 2.55 and 4.9-10; vol. Ill, pp. 75-76. . Js Temurah 16a. The identity of Caleb the son of Jephuneh, one of the spies, with Caleb the son Kenaz (Jud. 1.13; according to the Septuagint, it is Kenaz who is described in this passage as the younger brother of Caleb), whose daughter was the wife of Othniel, is presupposed in many places of the Talmudim and Midrashim. Comp., e. g., Sanhedrin 69b; Sotah lib: Caleb’s father was Hezron, his stepfather was Kenaz, but he was called “the son of Jephuneh”, because he deviated (the name Jephuneh is here connected with HID turned aside”) from the evil counsel of the spies, and did not slander the Holy 185 26-28] The Legends of the Jews Land. On Caleb’s first marriage with Miriam, see vol. II, p. 253; on his second marriage with Bithiah, Moses’ foster-mother, see Megillah 13a; Targum 1 Chron. 4.18; Index, s. v. Hadar, Wa-Yelek (end), 75a, quotes from Temurah, loc. tit., a statement concerning the great devotion to the Torah evinced by the generation of Othniel-Jabez. This is, however, not found in our texts of the Talmud. The description of the devotion to the Torah evinced by the disciples of R. Judah ben Hai (Sanhedrin 20a) agrees verbatim with that concerning the generation of Othniel quoted in Hadar from Temurah.

26 Seder ‘Olam 12, and the parallel passages cited by Ratner. Comp, also Ginzberg, Haggadah bei den Kirchenv., 1-2. According to the Rabbis, Othniel followed almost immediately upon Joshua as the leader of the people. It is true that between Joshua and Othniel there were the 1 elders”, to whom the leadership was entrusted; but these elders outlived Joshua (Jud. 2.6) only for a short while. Their short duration was a punishment for their not having mourned for Joshua in a manner befitting his merits; comp. vol. Ill, p. 17. According to some authorities , however, the time intervening between Joshua and Othniel was twenty, or, as others maintain, seventeen years. It was during this interval that the events recorded in the book of Ruth took place. Comp, the references cited by Ratner, note 5 on Seder ‘Olam, loc. tit., and Shir 4.6, where Boaz is identified with Judah mentioned in Jud. 1.1. See note 22. 7 353 (end); Midrash Tannaim 218. An unknown Midrash quoted by R. Bahya, Kad ha-Kemah ’m, 78b, and Sabba* , Bereshit, 8d, remarks thar Adoni-bezek was forgiven his sin because he confessed it. Comp. vol. IV, pp. 9 and 22. 28 BR 69 (end); Sotah 46b; Nispahim 14-15 ( = EZ 16) ; Sukkah 53a; PRK (Schonblum’s edition, 43b); Zohar II, 151b. Comp, also Sanhedrin 97a, which gives the story concerning the place called Kushta ("Truth”), where nobody died ‘‘before his time”, i. e., before reaching old age, because the inhabitants thereof never spoke an untrue word.

It is not quite clear whether there is any connection between the city of Luz, over which the angel of death has no power, and the little bone in the human body called Luz which never decays and out of which the new body will be formed in the time of resurrection (see vol. V, pp. 184, note 44 and 365, note 345; Index, s. v. "Luz”); but it can hardly be regarded as accidental that the immortal city and the immortal bone of the human body bear the same name. The above-cited sources 186 Judges [2^-32 contain the obscure statement that purple (n^Dn) was made in the city of Luz; a play on n1? and m woven? 19 Sanhedrin 105a; Yerushalmi Nazir 9,57c. On Laban's enmity towards the descendants of Jacob, see vol. Ill, p. 354. The Israelites suffered oppression at the hands of Cushan on account of their sins; but Othniel pleaded to God in their behalf, saying: “Thou hast promised Moses to redeem Israel from their enemies, whether they fulfil Thy will or not; now, I pray Thee, redeem Israel.” Tan. Shemot 20(on the text, comp. Rashi, Jud. 3.10); ShR 3.2. 3 0 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 29a and 36a, where by Jabez the judge Othniel-Jabez is very likely meant, though later sources maintain that “the immortal Jabez” was a grandson (son?) of R. Judah the patriarch, the redactor of the Mishnah; comp. Derek Erez Z., 1 (end), the parallel passages cited by Tawrogi, ad loc., and Epstein, Mikkadmoniyyot, 111-112, as well as PRK (Griinhut 's edition, 83); Carmoly Aguddat Aggadot, 12.

It is probable that the original form of the Haggadah concerning Jabez read min’ Kin }Oy’l, referring to the identity of Othniel-Jabez with Judah mentioned in Jud. 1.1 (comp, note 22). Later this remark was misunderstood, and was emended to mirr 113 []3] f3y’l, which presupposes that this Judah is the patriarch, the redactor of the Mishnah. Kallah 2,9b explicitly states that Jabez who was one of the seven who entered paradise alive was none other than the one mentioned in the Bible. Comp. Index, s. v. “Paradise, Entering Alive into.” J1 Seder ‘Olam 12; comp, the references cited by Ratner, note 13. According to Baba Batra 91a, Boaz is identical with the judge Ibzan who was a contemporary of Samson’s father (comp, note 47), whereas according to Josephus, Antiqui., V, 9.1, the story of Ruth took place at the time of Eli. Other authorities consider Boaz a contemporary of Deborah; see Ruth R. (beginning), and We-Hizhir I, 87; comp, also note 26. The rather puzzling reference to the judge Jahshun ( = Nahshon) by Hamzah al-Ispahani (comp. Steinschneider, below) is based on a confusion of Nahshon with his grandson Boaz who, as mentioned above, is identical according to some of the Rabbis, with Ibzan. The confusion of Nahshon with his grandson Boaz is found also in Schatzhohle, 176, where it is stated: Ibzan is identical with Nahshon; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 10, and Steinschneider, Zeitschrift fur die religidsen Interessen des Judenthums, II, 321.

3 3 Baba Batra 15b; Targum Ruth 1.1; Ruth R., 1.1; Ruth Z., 345. Comp. Matthew 7.4. 187 33-40] The Legends of the Jews 13 BR 25.3; Targum Ruth 1.1. On the faminesi comp. vol. I, pp. 220-221; on the famine in the time of Boaz, see Baba Batra 91a; Ruth R. 1.1. According to Ruth Z., 45, this famine was not a “famine for bread only, but for the heavenly words of the Lord.’’ 31 According to a widespread tradition Nahshon had four sons: Elimelech, Shalmon (the father of Boaz), Naomi’s father, and Tob (comp, note 16); see Tan. B. Ill, 107; Tan. Behar 3; Baba Batra 91a; Seder ‘Olam 12. According to the view of Ruth R. 3.12, Elimelech, Boaz, and Tob were brothers. 3 5 Haggadic etymologies of their names and those of their wives are given in Ruth R. 1.4; Ruth Z. 46-47; Tan. B. Ill, 107; Tan. Behar 3; Berakot 7b. 3 6 Targum Ruth 1.1-2; Tan. Shemini 9 (here stands for I’H “judge of a community”) and Behar 3 (Elimelech was the head of his generation); Tan. B. Ill, 107; Ruth R. 1.1-2; Baba Batra 91a. s? Ruth R. 1.1; Baba Batra 91a; Zohar Ruth 1.1, which is based on Ruth Z., 46-47. In the last source it is observed: They felt themselves drawn to the Moabites, whom they resembled. They were mean and ungenerous like the Moabites who “did not meet Israel with bread and water in the way, when they came forth out of Egypt.” (Comp. Deut. 23.5). 3 8 Targum Ruth 1.1. 3’ Ruth R. 1.4: When Ehud said unto Eglon, King of Moab: “ I have a message from God unto thee”, the King arose from his seat (Jud.

3.20) to show honor to God. His reward was that his descendant Solomon (by his daughter Ruth) “sat on the throne of the Lord” (1 Chron. 29.23); see Tan. B. I, 220; Tan. Wa-Yehi 14; Sanhedrin 60a; Ruth R., loc. cit. On the similarity between the “throne of God” (the heavenly mode of ruling) and the “throne of Solomon” (his wise and just ruling), see ShR 15.26; Shir 1.1. Comp, note 70 on vol. IV, p. 157. Good deeds though lacking good intention, have their reward; Balak offered up unto God forty-two sacrifices (see Num. 23.1, 14, and 29), and he was rewarded in that Ruth, the granddaughter of his grandson (son?) Eglon, became the mother of the Davidic dynasty; see Nazir 23b; Sanhedrin 105b; Targum and Lekah on Ruth 1.4. Comp, note 4 on vol. IV, 240. 40 Lekah, Ruth 1.4. The old sources take it for granted that the sons of Elimelech did not convert their wives to Judaism, either at the time of their marriage or later; see Ruth R. 1.4, where (that is how the obscure passage is to be understood) it is said that the sons 188 Judges [41-43 of Elimelech were of the opinion that the prohibition against intermarriage with the Moabites (Deut. 23.2) applied also to the marrying of Moabitish women after their conversion to Judaism. Accordingly their wives’ conversion would not have rendered marriage legitimate (comp, note 64). See Tan. B. Ill, 108; Tan. Behar 3; Zohar III, 190a (in this passage Elimelech is held responsible for the sinful actions of his sons); Targum Ruth 1.4.

Against this view Zohar Ruth 1.4 (mD'l and 14 maintains that the wives of Elimelech ’s sons were converted to Judaism before their marriage; but no sooner was Orphah ’s husband dead than she returned to her idols, for her conversion to Judaism was only a matter of policy with her. See also Ruth Z., 47, where the death of Mahlon and Chilion was a punishment for their father’s sin (avarice). Here their marriages were considered to have been in accordance with the law, or in other words, this passage presupposes that their wives were proselytes. See also the supplement to Lekah, Ruth 48, 49, where special stress is laid on the fact (read nrvratP instead of nrriw) that Orphah and Ruth became converted to Judaism prior to their marriage to the sons of Elimelech. Cornp. note 44; note 790 on vol. Ill, p. 383; note 16 on vol. IV, p. 129. 4 1 Ruth R. 1.5, which reads: The Merciful One does not take away the life of the sinner before warning him with some other punishment. WR 17.4; PK 8,66b; PR 17, 89a; Tan. B. Ill, 108; Tan. Behar 3. 41 Targum Ruth 1.8. Comp, also Ruth R., ad loc., which reads: Naomi’s daughters-in-law not only saw to it that the last honors paid to their husbands should be in keeping with their station in life, but also renounced their claims to the estates of the deceased (their dowery rights) in favor of their mother-in-law. Naomi decided to return to the Holy Land after she had heard from the Jewish merchants who came to Moab that the famine had disappeared.

Other authorities think that this fact was revealed to her by the holy spirit; see Ruth R., Targum (this passage speaks of an angel instead of the holy spirit), and Lekah on Ruth 1.6. 4J Ruth Z, 47-48. This passage also states that in Jerusalem each class of the population inhabited its own district, and the higher classes did not permit the lower ones to dwell in their midst. Similarly the classes were distinguished by different dress, and in view of the class consciousness among the Jews, Naomi feared to expose her daughters-in-law to humiliation and disgrace, especially as they were very poor and clad in rags. Naomi herself, however, was anxious to return to the Holy Land, and barefoot, and in rags she continued her home189 44-49] The Legends of the Jews ward journey, without stopping to rest even on the eve of Sabbath (Holy Day? comp, note 48) Ruth R. 1.7; Ruth Z. 49. On the text of this passage of Ruth R. comp. Lekah, ad loc., according to which we have to read mriHC? . UTa; for *]ira is a poor variant instead of “lira, whereas mnnt£> is the Hofal of “feared”; see Rosh ha-Shanah 1.9, and the explanation of this passage by Geiger, Kebuzzat Ma’amarim, 15-20. 44 Ruth R. 1.14; Shemuel 20, 106-107; Sotah 42b; Ruth Z., 49; vol. IV, pp. 85 and 108. The law prescribes that one asking to be admitted as a proselyte is to be refused, unless he persists and presents his request a second time.

Accordingly Naomi refused Ruth 's first request, but admitted her as a proselyte when Ruth repeated her request a second time, after the laws appertaining to a proselyte were expounded to her; Ruth R. 1.7 and 13; Ruth Z. 48. 4 5 According to Yebamot 47a, the attention of one desirous of adopting Judaism must be called to these ceremonial laws. 46 Ruth R. 1.16-17; Yebamot 47b; Ruth Z., 49 (on the phrase ’D^iy mip ’JNP, see ‘Abodah Zarah 17a, which has m^iy nilp); Targum Ruth 1.16-17; Mishle (end). 47 Midrashic fragment published by Hartmann, Ruth in der Midrasch-litteratur, 97. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 293. 48 Baba Batra 90a; Yerushalmi Ketubot 1,25a; Ruth R. 1.19. In the last source several other views are given concerning the day on which Naomi arrived. Some say that it was on the day when the marriages of the sixty children of the judge Ibzan took place (comp. Jud. 12.9), whereas other authorities maintain that the people flocked to Beth-lehemon that day for the preparation of the ‘Omer, and accordingly Naomi’s arrival occurred (see Menahot 10.3) at the "termination of the first day of Passover.” A somewhat different view is given by Targum Ruth 1.22, where the beginning of the barley harvest, spoken of in Ruth, loc. cit., is referred to the day preceding Passover (nDS any), when the first preparations for the reaping of the ‘Omer are made (comp. Menahot, loc. cit.). One is, however, inclined to readNnDSf N NDV ’pSDa“at the termination of the first day of Passover”, instead of NnDDT ND1’ ’^yoa of our texts of Targum; see also note 43.

Comp, also Ruth R. 1.22. 44 MHG 1,336, maintains that she is one of the twenty-two pious women whose piety was praised by Solomon in the last chapter of Prov., where the words “she reacheth forth her hand to the needy,” refer to Naomi, who brought Ruth under the wings of the Shekinah. Comp, note 271 in Vol. I, p. 291. 190 Judges [50-55 s 0 Ruth R. 2.5-6; on the text see Lekah and Yalkut, ad loc. As to the law appertaining to gleanings, see Peah 6.5. 5 1 Ruth Z., 50; Ruth R. 2.5-6. It was an angel who led Ruth to the field of Boaz; see Lekah, Ruth 2.3. 53 On Timna, see vol. I, pp. 422-423, and Index, s. v. 5 3 Midrashic fragment published by Hartmann, Ruth in der Midrasch-Litteratur, 98; Targum Ruth 2.11-13. Ruth in her modesty described herself as one of the “handmaids of Boaz”; whereupon he assured her that she would be counted as one of “the mothers of Israel ”; see PK 16, 124a; Ruth R. 1.14. According to PK, loc. cit., the Halakah that the biblical law excluding the Moabites “from the congregation of the Lord” (Deut. 23.4, seq.) applies only to the males, but not to the females, was promulgated at that period and was still unknown to Ruth, who learned it from Boaz. Comp, notes 40, 64, and vol. IV, p. 89. The greeting, “The Lord be with you” (Ruth 2.4), was first introduced by Boaz, and sanctioned by a heavenly voice (see note 193 on vol. IV, p. 448). This sanction was absolutely necessary, as it was against the law that forbids to mention God's name under ordinary circumstances.

This greeting continued to be in vogue until the time of Athaliah (according to some authorities, until the days of the three youths, while according to others, until the time of Mordecai and Esther), when the name of the Lord was forgotten. See Berakot Mishnah 9 (end); Babli 63a; Yerushalmi 9, 14c; Makkot 23b; Ruth R. 4.4. The Haggadah very likely presupposes that the innovation of Boaz consisted in the use of the Tetragrammaton; see Geiger, Urschrift, 262, seq.; Schwarz in his notes on Tosefta Berakot 9; Jacob, Im Namen Gottes, 174. What Kohler, Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy I, 26-38, has to say on this subject does not deserve serious consideration, as he evidently did not grasp the point made by Geiger. In this connection it may be mentioned that the phrase “Thanked be God” is said by ps.-Matthew, 6 to have been coined by Mary the mother of Jesus. 54 Shabbat 113b; Ruth R. 2.14; Ruth Z., 51. God put His blessing in the few ears of corn Boaz gave her, and they sufficed for her meal; see PK 6, 59a-59b (it is not explicitly stated whether the blessing was on account of Boaz or Ruth); PR 16, 82a; WR 34.8; BaR 21.20; Mishle 13, 74; Tan. Pinehas 13. ss Ruth R. 2.20. Boaz took great pains to impress upon his numerous workmen (he employed so many of them, that each group m 56-6o] The Legends of the Jews of forty-two had a foreman; Ruth R. 2.4) to be kind and polite to Ruth.

He also told them to drop sheaves in her way, that she might take them home, as she was very strict in observing the law (comp. vol. IV, p. 32) and would not take anything to which she was not entitled. The workmen did even more than they had been commanded by their master, and threshed for her the grain she gleaned. But she was contented with very little, and would not take home more than was required for her daily need. This daily supply aroused the suspicion of Naomi, who feared her daughter-in-law was leading an immoral life, obtaining her daily needs from her lovers. See Ruth Z., 51. The story in that passage about the pious man goes back to Tosefta Peah 3.8. s 6 Ruth Z., 52. Naomi had taken an oath to provide for Ruth, and was therefore anxious to see her married; comp. Targum Ruth 3.1. 57 Shabbat 113b; Ruth R. 3.3; Yerushalmi Peah 8, 21b; PR 23, 115b; Ruth Z., 52; Tan. B. Ill, 108; Tan. Behar 3; Targum and Peshitta Ruth 3.3. Some of these sources state that Naomi, to allay Ruth’s apprehensions, said to her: “My merits will accompany thee”; comp, also Haserot 4a, and Lekah, Ruth 3.5. Ruth was extremely afraid to walk at night all by herself, as she was of such extraordinary beauty that no man could look at her without becoming passionately enamoured of her; Ruth R. 2.4. On the haggadic explanation, given in this passage, of np’l (Ruth 2.4) as Nip or rather mp “had a night pollution”, see Megillah 15a.

s 8 Demons, both male and female, have their bodies and faces covered with hair, but their heads are bald; see ‘ Emek ha-Melek, 140 b. According to Hasidim (Bologna edition, 1161), the male demons have hair on their heads, but not the females. Comp. Yalkut Hadash, Keshafim, 55. 89 On Ruth’s extraordinary beauty, see note 57. 60 Ruth R. 3.7-10 (Boaz retired after praying and studying the Torah); Ruth Z.,52; Sanhedrin 19b; Tan. B. Ill, 108; Tan. Behar 3; midrashic fragment published by Hartmann in Ruth in der'MidraschLitteratur, 98-99; Targum Ruth 3.7-12, which reads: Boaz retired after having thanked God for having removed the famine from Israel at his prayer; comp, also Targum Ruth 1.6. On the chastity of Boaz, highly praised in the above-cited sources (Boaz, Joseph, and Palti, the husband of Michal, are declared to have been the highest types of chastity) comp, note 85. See also ER 24, 131; WR 23.11; BaR 15.16; Ruth R. 3.13; Ruth Z., 53; PRE 39. The Karaite Hadassi, Eshkol 45b, No. 118, accuses the Rabbis of slandering Boaz, because they maintain 192 Judges [61-65 that he did not resist the temptation to which he was exposed. But the Rabbis on the contrary are full of praise for his steadfastness and chastity. On similar Karaitic fabrications, see note 43 on vol. IV, p. 64. 61 According to the prevailing opinion, 31D (Ruth 3.13) is taken to be the name of the kinsman, who in 4.1 is addressed by Boaz: “Ho, such a one”, because he was not conversant with the law, and Boaz did not deign to call him by his name; see Ruth R.

3.11 and 4.1; Ruth Z., 53; Tan. B. Ill, 108; Tan. Behar 3; Baba Batra 91b. On the relationship between Boaz and Tob, see note 34. Targum Ruth 3.13, however, takes 31C3 to mean “well.” By the six measures of barley which Boaz gave Ruth on her return home, he indicated to her that she was destined to become the ancestress of six pious men who would be endowed with six spiritual gifts (comp. Is. 11.2). These men are: David, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah, and the Messiah (others count Daniel’s three friends as one, and add Hezekiah and Josiah); see Ruth R. 3.14; Ruth Z., 53; Sanhedrin 93b; PRK 36b; BaR 13.11; Targum Ruth 3.15. 6 J Targum Ruth 4.1; Ruth Z., 53 (imniD = »T!Dn n’n in this passage and in many others). Comp, also Josephus, Antiqui., V, 9.4. 6 3 Ruth R. 4.1-2. On the text, comp. Lekah and Yalkut on Ruth, ad loc. 6 ^ Ruth R. 4.1-2 and 5 (the Ketib ’n’lp, Ruth 4.5, is explained as second person feminine: Tob did not act like a man, but like an ignorant woman. See the similar Haggadah in Berakot 32a on Num. 14.16); Haserot 6. On the view that through Boaz the prohibition against intermarrying with the Moabites was limited to the males only, see note 53, and vol. IV, p. 89. It was Boaz too who introduced the ceremony of pronouncing the benedictions on the bridal couple in the presence of ten men; see Ketubot 7a, and Yerushalmi 1, 25a; Ruth R. 4.2. In view of the fact that at weddings and on similar festive occasions young people are apt to forget what morals and decorum require of them, Boaz ordained that “elders” should be appointed to supervise over such festive celebrations, and this ordinance continued in force until the time of the Palestinian patriarchate; Yerushalmi and Ruth R., loc.

cit. 6 5 Josephus, Antiqui., V, 9.4, combining Ruth 4.6 with Deut. 25.89, maintains that Ruth performed the ceremony of “taking off the shoe” (rK’^n) of the kinsman who refused to marry her. The same view is alluded to in Zohar Ruth 4.6. It is very likely that Targum paraphrases byi by “glove” to combat this view which is against the 193 66-71] The Legends of the Jews Halakah enjoining only that a sister-in-law should take off the shoe of the brother of the deceased, and Ruth was certainly not Tob’s sister-in-law. The Halakah explains Ruth 4.7 to refer to the form of acquisition known in rabbinic jurisprudence as Halifin (|’S’l?n), consisting in the handing over of an object by the purchaser to the seller, as a symbolical substitute for the object bought. See Baba Mezi'a 47a; Yerushalmi Kiddushin 1, 60c; Ruth R. 4.8; Shemuel 28, 100. 66 Ruth R. 3.10. 6 7 Ruth R. 3.10. Comp. Tosafot Yebamot 48b (bottom). 68 Ruth R. 4.12. Apart from her advanced age at the time of her second marriage (comp, however vol. IV, p. 34, top), Ruth’s physical condition was not fit for bearing children, had not a miracle been wrought for her. On the pious Obed (“servant”, i. e., servant of God), see also Targum Ruth 4.21 and Lekah on Ruth 4.17. According to the midrashic fragment published by Hartmann, Ruth in der Midrasch- Litter atur, 100, Obed was one of the pious men who were born with the sign of the Abrahamic covenant on them; comp, note 318, towards the end, on vol.

I, p. 306. 69 Ruth Z., 55; Lekah, Ruth 4.17 (this passage gives a detailed description of the death of Boaz in the bridal chamber); comp, also Josephus Antiqui., V, 9.4, which reads: Obed was born within a year after the marriage of Ruth. Lekah, 4.16, adds that Naomi in her youth was “a nurse” to Boaz, as she was later a nurse to his son Obed. The view that Ruth lived to see the glory of Solomon (this already in Baba Batra 91b) very likely assumes that the story of Ruth took place at the end of the period of the Judges. Comp, note 31. Boaz became the ancestor of kings (the Davidic dynasty), as a reward for “his taking a wife for the sake of Heaven”; EZ, 3, 178. 90 Ps.-Philo, 33; 30.1-2. On the erroneous reading “Zebul” (32 bottom) instead of Iehud ( = Ehud), see note 21. The activity of Shamgar who succeeded Eh ud (comp. Jud. 3.31) is entirely ignored byps.Philo, whereas Yerahmeel 58.2 refers at least to the fact recorded in Scripture that Shamgar ’s activity fell between the time of Ehud and Deborah. 71 Ps.-Philo 33, where Jabel is a corruption of Jabin, see Jud. 4.1. Jabin ’s capital, Hazor, was completely burned down by Joshua (Josh. 11. 11), who carried out the divine command given to Moses with regard to its complete destruction, and thus fulfilled the desire of Jacob (in this sense is miDD to be understood) who had waged war against it; see BR 81.4; vol. I, p. 410, bottom.

194 Judges [72-73 7J Aguddat Aggadot 77-78 (read pnpa instead of Abba Gorion 27—28; Neweh Shalom, 47-48. On the enormous size of Sisera 's army see note 80.— The Haggadah sees in Sisera (the name occurs among the pagan inhabitants of Palestine as late as the third century C. E.;comp. Yerushalmi Dammai 2, 22c) not only the enemy of the Jews, but also the blasphemer of God and the mocker of the Jewish religion; see Shemuel 13, 85; Tehillim 2, 24; WR 7 (end); Tan. B. Ill, 14; Tan. Zaw2; Aggadat Bereshit 1.2; Esther R. 2.4; comp, also vol. IV, p. 422. In all these sources it is pointed out that God sent the heavenly fire against Sisera (comp, note 81) to punish him for his blasphemy. The view that Sisera at the age of thirty years was the conqueror of the whole world is very likely a reminiscence of the history of Alexander the Great. On the falling of the walls at the sound of hi9 voice, see vol. II, p. 16. According to Tan. Wa-Yakhel 8, Shemaiah and Abtalion, the two famous leaders of the Pharisees towards the end of the first century B. C. E. were descendants of Sisera; according to Gittin 57b, their ancestor was Sennacherib, whereas Sisera ’s descendants are said to have been “ordinary schoolteachers”. As remarked above, the name Sisera was in use among the pagan population of Palestine as late as the third century C. E., and accordingly the statement that Sisera was the ancestor of some scholars who were of Gentile descent may be historical, though of course, not the Sisera mentioned in Scripture.

Comp. vol. VI, p. 462, note 93. 7 3 Megillah 14a (on the text see Rabbinovicz, ad loc., and Aggadat Esther 48) ; ER 10,48, which reads : Deborah’s husband had three names. He was called Barak because his countenance shone like lightning; Lappidoth because he used to make the lamps for the sanctuary at Shiloh; Michael after the angel Michael, or because he was very modest (in Hebrew "|n is modest). The statement that he was called Michael after the angel very likely wishes to convey that Barak received the divine revelation through the angel. Comp. vol. II, p. 303, on Michael as the intermediary between the Shekinah and Moses. That Barak was a prophet is explicitly stated in Targum Jud. 5.23, where the correct text is that of the editions, Kimhi, ad loc., and not of Codex Reuchlin, and Leiria edition of Targum who have not nN’S] pia. Comp., however, Seder ‘ Olam 20, where Barak is not counted among the prophets. That Barak was the husband of Deborah is maintained also by ps. -Jerome on Jud. 5.1, and the same author (on 5.25) speaks also of the revelations communicated to Deborah by the angel Michael; comp. Ginzberg, Haggadah bei den Kirchenv., 5 and 8-9, where note 195 74-79] The Legends of the Jews 2 on p. 5 is to be corrected in accordance with the above remark. Another Haggadah about Barak is given in ER 10, 50-51, where it is said that he attended on the “elders”, who were the leaders and teachers of the people after the death of Joshua.

For his faithful service to them he was rewarded by God, and was chosen to assist Deborah in her work of delivering Israel from the hands of Sisera. God revealed to the prophetess that the work of salvation can only be achieved by men who devote themselves to the study of the Torah and the service of God, or by those who (like Barak) place themselves at the disposal of the students of the Torah. According to Tehillim 22, 180, and Tobit 1.8, Deborah belonged to the tribe of Naphtali, whereas Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1.21, maintains that she was of the tribe of Ephraim. This latter view is shared by Tadshe 8, where the reading should be pim □’"IBND mm “Deborah belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, Barak to that of Naphtali.” According to Ambrosius De Viduis, 1; 8.45 and 16; 248 Barak was Deborah ’s son. That the victory over Sisera was won by the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun (comp. Jud. 5.8) was due to the fact that Naphtali was a very obliging son to his father Jacob as Zebulun was a very obliging brother to Issachar; see ER 10,50-51; comp. vol. II, pp. 144-145. 7 4 ER 10, 48-49; Megillah 14a. On the legal question whether women are eligible to the office of judge, seeTosafot Niddah 50a. Comp, also Zohar III, 19b, which reads: Woe unto the generation whose leader (judge) is a woman. Targum Jud. 4.5 calls attention to the wealth of Deborah who had possessions throughout the country, and dispensed justice without receiving any remuneration for it.

7 5 Megillah 14b. Here it is also stated: Pride is unbecoming to women; the prophetesses Deborah and Huldah were proud women (on Huldah, see note 117 on vol. IV p. 282), and both bore ugly names (Deborahs “bee”, and Huldah = “weasel”). 7 6 Barak not only obeyed her command, but also insisted on her going with him to the battle to protect him with her merits against dangers; see Zohar III, 21. 7 7 Pesahim 66b; Zohar III, 21b-22a; BR 40.4, and parallel passage cited by Theodor. 7 8 Ps.-Philo, 33-34; 30.4-7, which contains also a lengthy address by Deborah delivered to the people on this occasion. 79 Tan. B. IV, 164; Tan. Mass' e 5; BaR 23.7. These kings were foreign potentates who were so charmed with Palestine that they de196 Judges [80-84 sired to own possessions there. See BR 53.1.0; note 33 on vol. IV, p. 9. 80 Abba Gorion 27; Aguddat Aggadot 77; Neweh Shalom, 47. Comp, also ps.-Philo, 34; 31.2, which reads: And the number of them (of Sisera's army) that were gathered and slain in one hour was ninety times nine hundred and seventy thousand men. This number seems to be connected with the “nine hundred chariots”, of Sisera spoken of in Jud. 4.2, where, however, ps.-Philo, 33; 30.3, reads “eight thousand.” On the army of Sisera, see also Josephus, Antiqui., V; 5, 1 and vol. IV, p. 407. 81 The Haggadah takes Jud. 5.20 literally, and accordingly maintains that “the hosts of Sisera” were annihilated by the “hosts of heaven”, the stars and angels; comp.

WR 7 (end). Ps.-Philo, 34C and D; 31.1 and 2; Josephus, Antiqui., V, 5.4, and Yerahmeel 58.174 (which is based on Josephus or on a text of ps.-Philo different from ours) rationalize in the following manner: God sent rain, storm, and hail against Sisera. Pesahim, 118b reads: The iron chariots of Sisera melted on account of the intense heat emanating from the stars. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 27. See also Abba Gorion 27; Aguddat Aggadot 77; Neweh Shalom 47. Comp. Aggadat Bereshit 1,2; Tosefta Sotah 3.14. On the identification of the stars with angels, see Mo‘ed Katan 16a. Comp, vol. IV, p. 407. 8j Mo‘ed Katan 16a, which cites also another view to the effect that Meroz is the name of a prominent personage who refused to participate in the war against Sisera and was therefore excommunicated by Barak. Ps. -Jerome, Jud. 5.23, reads: Meros. i, e. potestati angelicae. 83 Pesahim 118b; PRE 42. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 31. Asomewhatdifferent view is given by ps. -Jerome, Jud. 5.1. An allusion to this legend is to be found in the paraphrase of Targum which renders D’anp *7ruby “the brook at which miracles have been wrought for Israel in ancient times.” It should be observed that Targum agrees with ps. -Jerome who likewise refers D’OHp *7m to the Red Sea, and not to the Brook Kishon. The remarks by Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 8, are to be corrected accordingly. The victory over Sisera was won in the first night of Passover; Panim Aherim 74 (comp, note 76 on vol.

I, p. 224). Sisera was killed within a very few hours of the beginning of the battle; Koheleth 3.14. Similarly ps.-Philo, 34; 31.2. reads: And. ..they were slain in one hour. On Mount Tabor, where the battle took place, see vol. Ill, pp. 83-84. 8“ Ps.-Philo, 34; 31.3; according to this V^H3 (Jud. 4.17) is to be translated “by himself” and not “on his feet.” 197 85-89] The Legends of the Jews 8 s Ps.-Philo, 34; 31.3; Megillah 15a. The former source, like the Palestinian Midrashim, speak only of the great fascination which Jael’s beauty exerted over Sisera; comp., e. g., WR 23. 10, which reads: God attached His name to the names of Joseph ( =*]D in’),Paltiel ( =,DI7D ^N), the husband of Michal, and Jael (=^NiT),to testify that these pious persons withstood the temptation to which they were exposed (comp, note 60 on vol. IV, p. 34) and remained chaste. Comp, also MHG I, 336, which reads: When Sisera, in a state of intoxication, asked her to submit to his passion, she killed him. The Babylonian Talmud goes much further, and maintains that Jael surrendered herself to Sisera ’s passion, as this was the only sure means to get hold of him and kill him; see Yebamot 103a-103b; Nazir 23b; Horayyot 10b. Rimze Haftarot quotes a Haggadah to the effect that Jael gave Sisera to drink “the milk of her breast”; comp. Niddah 55b and Tosefta Shabbat 8.24, where this legend is perhaps presupposed.

Ps.-Philo, 35; 31. 6, reads: And Jael took wine and mingled it with the milk. Similarly MHG, loc. cit., speaks of Sisera 's intoxication, which presupposes that he was served by Jael with something stronger than milk. 86 Ps.-Philo, 34-35; 31.3-7; this was reproduced, in abridged form, by Yerahmeel 58, 172. On the fire of the stars contending for Israel, see notes 72, 81. According to the law, Deut. 22.5, a woman is forbidden to use weapons, and that is the reason why Jael slew Sisera with a hammer, and not with a spear or sword ; see Targum Jud. 5.26; Hadar, Deut., loc. cit.; Mishle 31, 111. This Midrash is the source of Yalkut II, 456, where the first edition refers to ttHtn and not to TJ3N as in later editions. Deborah ’s words “ like women in the tent shall she (Jael) be blessed” (Jud. 5.24) contain the blessing that Jael may be like unto Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah (whose tents are mentioned in Scripture; see Gen. 24.67 and 41.33), since if it were not for Jael, the descendants of these four women would have perished by the hand of Sisera; see BR 48.15; Nazir 23b, and parallel passages. Comp, also Targum Jud. 5.24. 8 7 I. e., non = nnan “may she be destroyed.” The same name was borne by Cain’s wife; ps.-Philo, 1; 2.1. Yerahmeel misread or “emended” the text of ps.-Philo, and has Tamar as the name of Sisera ’s mother. 88 Ps.-Philo, according to Yerahmeel 58, 184, while our text of ps.-Philo, 35; 31.8, reads somewhat differently.

On the magic of Sisera ’s mother, see Zohar III, 119a, and Sabba1, Wa-Yeze, 27d. 89 Yerushalmi quoted by many medieval authors but not found in 198 Judges [90-97 our rexts; comp. R. Hananel in Rosh ha-Shanah (end); ‘ Aruk, s. v. any 1; Manhig 54, No. 21; Shibbale ha-Leket 282, No. 301 (end); Pardes 42b (bottom). On the “hundred cries”, comp, also WR 27.7; PK 9, 77b, and parallel passages cited by Buber. The connection between the “ hundred cries” of Sisera’s mother and the “hundred sounds” of the Shofar, alluded to in Yerushalmi, loc. cit., is obscure and should probably read mtt> i:DN instead of tnD’DT NDN; comp. Reifmann in Or Torah, 205; Ratner, Ahawat Zion, Rosh ha-Shanah 57; note 256 on vol. I, p. 287. Comp, note 92. 9 0 Ps.-Philo, 35-36; 32.1-17, and a shorter paraphrase in Targumim on Jud. 5.1, seq. 91 Ps.-Philo, 37; 33.1-6. According to Seder ‘Olam 12, the forty years of Deborah ’s rule included the twenty years of Israel ’s subjection to Jabin and Sisera. On the doctrine that the pious who are dead cannot interecede for the living sinners, see vol. IV, p. 416; vol. V, pp. 160-161 and note 118, towards the end, on vol. II, pp. 314315. This, however, has nothing to do with the strong faith in the “merits of the fathers”, which ps.-Philo frequently emphasizes. Comp. Index, s. v. “Fathers, Merits of”. 93 Tehillim 18, 137; Shemuel 19, 135. Comp, note 58 on vol.

Ill, p. 31. Ps.-Philo, 37; 32.18, speaks of a great sacrificial festival celebrated by Deborah and the people at Shiloh, after the victory over Sisera. On this occasion “they sounded the broad trumpets”, and Deborah said: “This shall be for a testimony of the trumpets between the stars and their Lord.” The meaning of the last sentence is not clear, but it seems that ps.-Philo explains the ceremony of sounding the trumpets (the sounding of the Shofar on New Year?) as a memorial of the victory of Israel over Sisera. Comp, the quotation from Yerushalmi in note 89. 93 Ps.-Philo 37; 34.1-5. Comp. Sifre D., 84, where it is said that God will enable the false prophet to cause the sun and moon to stand still in order to test the strength of Israel’s faith. 94 Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk, s. v. HNU3, and Yalkut II, 62, where Tan. is given as source; this is, however, not found in our text of the Tanchumas. Comp. Tan. B. I, 138, and note 98. 95 Tehillim 106 (end). 96 Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 62; Zohar Hadash, Noah, 29a. The victory over the Midianites took place on the second night of Passover; see note 100. " Ps.-Philo 38; 35.6-7; Yerahmeel 58, 175. On a similar miracle 199 98-100] The Legends of the Jews see vol. Ill, p. 195. With regard to the miracles which, according to Scripture (Jud. 6.37-40), were wrought for Gideon, the following remark should be noted: The first miracle, the non-appearance of the dew upon all the ground, was not performed directly by God, whereas the second one was direct from God.

The reason is because God enters into direct connection with good, but not with evil; comp. Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 62 ; B. I. 138; note 9 on vol. I, p. 5. The Angel who appeared to Gideon looked like a youth; Josephus, Antiqui., V, 6.2. The Haggadah points out that Gideon, in making use of an altar dedicated to an idol and of sacrifices set aside for idolatrous practices, acted contrary to the law (he transgressed no less than seven commands), but he obeyed a special revelation that came to him on this occasion. See Yerushalmi Megillah 1, 72c; WR 22.9; Shemuel 13, 83; Comp, note 8 on vol. IV, p. 4. 98 Ps. -Philo, 38; 36.1-2. The Haggadah offers several explanations of the water test referred to in Scripture (Jud. 7.5, seq). The sinners of this generation used to worship their own images reflected in the water (see vol. IV, p. 39, bottom), and accordingly those who “bowed down upon their knees to drink water” betrayed themselves as idolaters by bowing down to worship their images in the water; Yelammedenu in 1 Aruky s. v. HNU3 and Yalkut II, 62; somewhat differently Tan. B. I, 183, which reads: “As idolaters they were accustomed to bow down”, and they followed their custom while drinking water. According to Josephus, Antiqui., V, 6.3, God desired to show that He was able to accomplish the defeat of Israel’s enemies with a small army of faint-hearted people who were too timid to “bow down and drink water quietly.” 99 MHG I, 722-723, and, in a somewhat different form, in the later editions of Yalkut II, 62.

This story is found in a Genizah fragment of Tan., and it is very likely that R. Abraham Gedaliah, who inserted this legend in his edition of Yalkut (Leghorn 1656), was in possession of a MS. of Tan. similar to that of the Genizah. 100 pj£ 3| 7ia; pR 18, 92b; WR 27.6. These sources only say that the victory over the Midianites was the reward for the fulfilment of the commandment of the ‘Omer; the later sources, however ( Panim Aherim, 73; the paitan Yannai in piyyut n^’Vn ’srn ’PH p3l), expand this Haggadah, and maintain that this victory was won on the first night of Passover or according to some on the very day on which the ‘Omer was brought. See Aggadat Esther 29, where it is stated that the war against the Midianites took place in the month of Elul. Comp, note 83 and note 76 on vol. I, p. 224. MHG I, 722, finds in 200 Judges [101-103 the “cake of barley, which turned the camp of the enemy upside down an indication that this victory was gained by Gideon as a reward for his filial piety towards his father, whom, at the risk of being captured by the Midianites (see vol. IV, pp. 39-40), he provided with bread of barley. Josephus, Antiqui., V, 6.3, sees in the cake of barley the symbol of Israel’s low state. Comp. Sifre N., 8; Sotah 15a; Jerome, Hosea 3.2. 101 Yalkut II, 64 (the source is not given). It is very likely that on account of the making of the Ephod Gideon is disparaged by the Haggadah which considers Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson as the three least worthy of the judges; see Rosh ha-Shanah, Tosefta 2(1).

3; Babli 25a-25b. Comp, also Zohar Hadash, Noah, 29a, which reads: Gideon was neither a pious man himself not the son of a pious man, and yet he was found worthy of being the liberator of Israel, because he pleaded for them to God; see Jud. 6.13-14, and vol. IV, p. 40. Very severe is the censure of Gideon in ps. -Philo, 38; 36.3-4, and a reason is given why he was not punished for his idolatry. God said: “ . . .when he (Gideon) destroyed the sanctuary of Baal, then all men said: Let Baal avenge himself. Now, therefore, if I chastize him for the evil he did against Me, ye (men) will say: It was not God who chastized him but Baal because he sinned aforetime against him.” For a similar view, see vol. IV, pp. 156-157. 102 Shabbat 83b. Comp, also Yerushalmi 9, lid, and ‘Abodah Zarah 3, 43a, where attention is called to the smallness of the images of this idol, which is said to have been of Priapean form. On the sinfulness of this generation, see also Bezah 25b. 103 Tan. B. I, 103. The parable of Jotham is said here to refer to the prominent judges Othniel ( = olive-tree), Deborah ( = fig-tree), Gideon ( = vine), and Elimelech ( = bramble). Tan. also states that Abimelech reigned three years, as a reward for the modesty of his father Gideon, who in a "tripartite” sentence refused the royal crown offered him by the people; see Jud. 8.23. Abimelech, in contrast to his father (Jud. 8.27), was very greedy for riches, and his end therefore came speedily; Aggadat Bereshit 26, 54; see also ibid., 52-53, where Abimelech ’s wickedness and greed are contrasted with the piety and liberality of his namesake Abimelech, the King of Gerar.

The ingratitude of the Israelites who permitted Abimelech to murder the children of their benefactor Gideon was counted unto them as though they had forsaken God; ingratitude is as grave a sin as idolatry; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 64. On the blessings pronounced on Mount Gerizim, see vol. IV., p. 6, according to which the blessings were pronounced in the valley, 201 I 04-107] The Legends of the Jews whereas Tan., loc. cit., maintains that they were uttered on the mountain. The reading in Tan. loc. cit., should be "plan OTU in Kin; comp. KD’~Q K11D in BR 32.10, and parallel passages. The name of Abimelech’s mother was Drumah, comp. Josephus, Antiqui., V; 7,1. 10 « Ps.-Philo 39; 38.1-2; Yerahmeel 68, 175. The names of the seven pious men are badly mutilated in ps.-Philo, and not quite correct in Yerahmeel. This legend about Jair and the pious men recalls in many details the story of Abraham as given in ps.-Philo 6-8; 6.16-18. Jair is said to have perished in fire. This is a haggadic interpretation of jlDpn (Jud. 10.5), which is taken to mean “furnace” from yap = Ka/xivLov, of frequent occurrence in the Talmudim and Midrashim. 105 Ps.-Philo, 39, and Yerahmeel 48, 175. The name Nathanel given to the “angel who is over fire ” (only in ps.-Philo) is rather strange. Is perhaps Atuniel (from K31HK “furnace”) to be read? In rabbinic angelology Gabriel is the angel appointed over fire; see Index, s.

v. As to Baal, the following statement of Zohar I, 49a, is rather interesting: Baal is the sun; Asherah the moon; the former is the husband, the latter the wife. On the rescue of the pious from the furnace, see Dan. 3.22 and vol. I, p. 176. 106 Targum (Tosefta) Jud. 11.1 in Leiria edition, and in Kimhi; comp, also Josephus, V, 7.8, who remarks: They (Jephthah 's brethren) cast him off, because he did not have the same mother as the rest, but was born of a strange mother, who was introduced among them by his father’s fondness. Did Josephus read mr instead of nnr in Jud., loc. cit. I Of course, it is possible, and even very likely, that Josephus for apologetic reasons did not care to describe a prominent personage in Israel as the son of a.yvvau Judges [108-109 by Kimhi. “As each bird seeks its kind, so does man his equal find”; the “vain fellows” wdio gathered around Jephthah show what kind of a man he was; Baba Kamma 92b. Josephus, Antiqui., V, 7.8, for apologetic reasons (see the preceding note), represents Jephthah in a favorable light, and as a true aristocrat he adds that Jephthah ’s father was a very prominent personality. The Rabbis, on the other hand, are rather severe in their opinion of this judge; comp, notes 101, 109. i°8 ps.- Philo, 40-42; 39. 6-40.4; Yerahmeel 59. 176. On Getal, see note 1. Concerning Isaac’s joyful readiness to be brought as a sacrifice, see vol.

I, pp. 279-280. Mount Telag or Selac (also written Thelac) is, of course, nothing but Hermon, Hebrew lbw m, Aramaic li’Il 1)13. Comp. Onkelos on Deut. 3.9, and Sifre N. 131. Accordingly Stelae is a faulty reading, combining the Hebrew form selac ( = a*7K>) with the Aramaic thelac (=oWl) “snow”. What ps.-Philo has to say about the “shutting up of the mouth of the wise” becomes intelligible only in connection with the statement of the Rabbis (comp, the following note) that, were it not for the ignorance of the people, Jephthah’s daughter would never have been sacrificed, for his vow was not according to the law. On the text of ps.-Philo, see the fragment published by James, Text and Studies, II, 3. “s’ WR 37.4; Br 60.3; Tan. B. Ill, 112-114; Tan. Behukkotai 5; Koheleth 10.15; Ta’anit 4a; Midrash Tannaim 100; Sifre D., 148; Targum and Tosefta Targum on Jud. 11.39; PRK 32b; ER 11, 55-57; We-Hizhir, Behukkotai (end). Although Jephthah was severely punished for having slain many thousands of the Ephraimites, they deserved their fate, for they were addicted to idolatry, particularly to the worship of an idol called Sibboleth, which name was so much on their lips that they involuntarily said Sibboleth when they intended to say Shibboleth; Tosefta Targum Jud. 12.6; ER 11, 456. In the last-named source Phinehas is blamed for not having prevented the war between Jephthah and the Ephraimites.

He ought to have remonstrated with those proud men who did not intercede in behalf of Jephthah ’s daughter, though they were ready to go to war for an alleged insult. The view that Jephthah did not offer his daughter as a sacrifice, but merely made her live in seclusion far from all earthly intercourse, devoting herself entirely to the service of God, is first found in the writings of medieval Rabbis (comp., e. g., Kimhi on Jud. 11.39). The midrashic and talmudic literature does not know of this rationalistic view, and it strongly condemns Jephthah and his contemporaries for having offered a human sacrifice. Josephus, Antiqui., V, 7.10, shares the view of the old rabbinic 203 iio-iii] The Legends of the Jews authorities. “Woe unto the wicked and unto those who come near them’’; Jephthah, originally a pious man, dwelled among the wicked Ephraimites, and followed their example. They offered human sacrifices to Baal, and he sacrificed his daughter to God. Murder was common among the Ephraimites, and the slaughter of twenty-two thousand men was considered a light thing by Jephthah. The earth refused to receive the corpse of this evil doer, and its decaying parts were found scattered here and there; comp. Alphabet of Ben Sira 4a-4b. — An old legend connects “the poisoning of the water” during the “four turnings of the sun” (i. e., vernal equinox, summer solstice, autumnal equinox, and winter solstice) with the sacrifice of J ephthah ’s daughter.

In the vernal equinox God turned the waters of Egypt into blood (comp, note 174 on vol. II p. 347) and from that time on every year, at the time when the vernal equinox takes place, a drop of blood is thrown into the waters, which poisons them. The same thing happens at the summer solstice, the time when Moses smote the rock, and blood began to flow therefrom (see vol III, p. 319); at the autumnal equinox, the time when Abraham stretched out his hand to slay Isaac (comp, note 248 on vol. I, p. 285) and the knife began to bleed (comp, note 242 on vol. I, p. 282); at the winter solstice, the time when Jephthah offered his daughter as a sacrifice, and his knife began to bleed. On these four days of the “turn of the sun” the maidens of Israel went to lament Jephthah ’s daughter. According to some authorities, however, the poisoned state of the water during the “ four turns of the sun ” is due to different causes. At each “turn of the sun ” a different angel is appointed over the world, but for a moment “the world remains without a leader ”, and this is the moment when the change of heavenly officials takes place. Availing himself of this opportunity, Scorpio throws gall and a drop of blood into the water to cause death to mankind. See Mahzor Vitry, supplement 14; GinzeYerushalaim III, 18b; Abudrahim msipn TTD; Aptowitzer in HaZofeh II, 122-126;Ginzberg,ffrtd., Ill, 184, and IV, 98. In the last-quoted passage attention is called to the myth concerning the weeping for Belti for seven days in the month of Tebeth, as well as to the Jewish legend, according to which Jephthah ’s daughter was sacrificed and wept for in this month;comp.

Z.D.M.G.,h~KVl, 176. 110 Ps. -Philo, 42; 41.1. Josephus, Antiqui., V, 7.15, on the other hand, maintains that Abdan ruled during a very peaceful time, which did not offer him any opportunity to display his qualities as a warrior. 111 Tan. B. IV, 160, and parallel passages cited in note 864 on vol. Ill, pp. 414-415; Baba Batra 91a; BaR 10.5; Aggadat Bereshit 204 Judges [in 52, 106-107 (which reads: A miracle was wrought for seven sterile women, and they bore children; they are: Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, Rachel, Hannah, Hazlelponit, and Zion) ; MHG I, 337, says: Hazlelponit is one of the twenty-two virtuous women who are praised in the last chapter of Proverbs. Comp, note 271 on vol. I, p. 291. The MSS. of the Talmud have Hazlelponit, which is very likely the correct reading, since there can be no doubt that the reference is to ’313 in I Chron.4.3. Theobscure sentence in Baba Batra, loc. cit, ]”OT n’nnNI is very likely to be translated : “And sister means the same as wife”. The Talmud identifies Etam mentioned in Chron., loc. cit., with Manoah, the father of Samson On the basis of Jud. 15. 8, and hence the remark that ’JlS^V^n DmnNl means the same as ’Jis^sn in»Kl, or in Aramaic rvnnttt. On ]’;^j“wife” (secondary form of the plural ]’E0), see Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 22.5. On “ sister ” = “ wife”, comp. Song of Songs 4.9-10; Tobit 5.22; Jub. 27.14; Shir 3. 11; MHG.

I. 341. The explanation given by Giidemann, Religionsgeschichtliche Studien, 49-55, of the name Hazlelponi and of ]”£>: is untenable. BaR, loc. cit., explains this name as ‘‘The shadow of God (i. e., the angel) turned to her” (and not to her husband), as it was her piety and virtue which were rewarded with a son like Samson, whereas her husband was an ‘‘ignorant man”; comp. BaR and MHG, I, 337; Berakot 61a; Midrash Mishle (end). Josephus, on the other hand (comp, his statement with regard to Jephthah, notes 106, 107), maintains that Manoah was one of the greatest men of his generation. Ps.-Philo, 42-43, 42.1, enumerates the names of Samson’s ancestors up to Dan, the son of Jacob, and it is worthy of note that the judge was the tenth from the patriarch. Samson ’s mother is called Eluma (nm’?J? = nal7y), the daughter of Remac. Ps.-Philo knows some other details concerning Samson ’s parents. Manoah and his wife contended for some time as to who was responsible for their childless union. Finally God heard the prayer of Manoah ’s wife, and sent to her the angel Phadihel (very likely and not ^N’ns), who said unto her: “Thou art the barren one. . .but now. . .thou shalt conceive and bear a son, and shalt call his name Samson, forheshallbeholy unto the Lord.” The etymology of the name Samson as given by ps.-Philo is rather obscure, since there is no Hebrew word meaning “holy” which can in any possible way be connected with the word Samson.

Possibly “holy unto the Lord” is an inaccurate rendering of “anointed to the Lord”, in allusion to ]DV “oil”. Josephus, Antiqui., V, 8.4, explains Samson as “the mighty one”, and this is still less satisfactory. The Rabbis, 205 II2-II4] The Legends of the Jews on the other hand, connect this name with tPDP “sun”, remarking that Samson spread light over his generation like the sun; comp. Sotah 10a (where read, with Makiri on Ps. 84, 61, nrn TNn), which says: Samson received the name of God, as it is written: “For the Lord God is a sun and shield” (Ps. 84.12). Although the angel told Manoah’s wife that it was she herself, and not her husband, who was responsible for their childless union, she did not reveal this to Manoah, “ for the sake of peace”; BaR 10.5 and 11, 88a; WR 9.9; Derek Erez, Perek ha-Shalom. According to Josephus, Antiqui., V, 8.2-3, Manoah “was fond of his wife to distraction (he did not divorce her, though she bore him no children; nor did he marry another wife), and was therefore extremely jealous of her. Now when his wife informed him of what the angel, who resembled a young man (comp, note 97), beautiful and tall, had told her, he became beside himself for jealousy ”. The angel ’s command to Manoah 's wife, “and eat not any unclean thing”, was a warning to her not to follow the advice of the women who had counselled her to eat of a hare ’s stomach as a remedy against sterility.

This cure is ascribed to the hare’s stomach, because this animal changes its sex: it is a male for a time and then changes into a female. See Tosefata ‘Atikata 5.19; Rimze Haftarot, Naso; note 177 on vol. I, p. 39. Comp, also Index, s. v. “Hare”. — The angels who visited Abraham partook of the food offered to them by the patriarch (comp, note 143 on fol. I, p. 243), but the angel who came to Manoah refused. The different attitudes are to be explained in the following manner: The angels visited Abraham as wayfarers, and they revealed the divine message to him only after they had partaken of his food; but this was not the case with the angel who came to Manoah and his wife. He appeared to them as the bearer of a divine message, and if he had taken anything from them it would have looked like compensation for his service. He said to them: “The prophets of God do not take presents as the false prophets do.” BaR 10.5; comp, also ER 12, 60, and Index, s. v. “Angels. ” What ps.-Philo 43; 42.8, has to say about the angel's refusal to receive gifts is unintelligible to me. 11 2 BR 98.13 and 99.11; BaR 10.5. Comp, the preceding note with regard to the identification of Samson ’s mother with Hazlelponi in 1 Chron. 4.3, who is described as belonging to the tribe of Judah. 113 Baba Batra 91a; Tosefta-Targum Jud. 12.9. These sources presuppose the identity of Ibzan with Boaz; see note 31 and note 3 on vol.

IV, p. 81. ,M Sotah 10a. Comp. vol. I, p. 59. Samson’s superhuman 206 Judges [i 15-120 Strength is presupposed in the haggadic interpretation of into (Gen* 49.16), as ‘‘like unto the One ( = God)”. Comp. tBR 98.13; Tan. Wa-Yehi 12; Sotah, loc. cit. See also note 123. 115 Sotah 10a; Nispahim 44; BaR 14.9. The enormous size of Samson’s body is inferred from the fact that he carried the gates of Gaza on his shoulders (see Jud. 16.3), which, “according to tradition measured sixty cubits.” Ps. -Philo, 43; 43.4, describes Samson’s feat at Gaza in the following terms: One of the gates he held in his right hand as a shield and the other he laid upon his shoulders, and bore it away, and because he had no sword, he pursued the Philistines with it, and killed therewith twenty-five thousand men. 1 1 6 Sotah 9b and Yerushalmi 1, 17b; WR 8.2. On the conception that God’s holy spirit might manifest itself in man’s hair, see BR 4.4 and vol. II, p. 319. The Rabbis speak of Samson as one upon whom God’s spirit rested, but do not consider him a prophet. Josephus, Antiqui., V, 8.4, however, does not hesitate to describe him as a prophet. 11 7 BR 98.13. According to the Haggadah, the blessing given to Dan by Jacob (Gen. 49.16-18) refers to Samson the Danite. See vol. II, p. 144. 118 Tosefta-Targum Jud. 15.15. For other interpretations of this verse, see BR 98.13; 1) a three-day-old ass; 2) a she-ass pregnant with two.

For the latter interpretation of D’mDn non, see also Targum, ad loc. 119 BR 98.13. which reads: Samson would have perished even if there were water near him, as he was too exhausted to stretch out his hand; he prayed to God: “Even if I have no other merit than that of being circumcized, whereas the Philistines are not, I ought not to fall into the hands of the uncircumcized.” Samson who was proud of his superhuman strength came near dying by thirst, that he might learn that a man ’s strength avails him nothing without God ’s help; Josephus Antiqui., V, 8.9. The remark of BR, loc. cit., that “the babbler becomes thirsty”, wishes very likely to convey the same idea as Josephus. The latter’s {loc. cit.) rationalistic explanation of the miracle narrated in Jud. 15.19, according to which Samson noticed water flowing from a rock, is known also to the Rabbis; comp. BR, loc. cit. According to some authorities, however, ’n1? (Jud., loc. cit.) means the “jaw-bone” (of the ass). God said: He likes that which is unclean (Philistine women), and his life shall be saved by the water coming from an unclean thing (the jaw-bone of an ass); Sotah 9b; BaR 9.24. 130 Sotah 10a; BaR 9.24. 307 123— 124] The Legends of the Jews 131 Sotah 9b-10a (on )nD as a euphemism for sexual intercourse, see also Jerome, Is. 47.2); BaR 9.24. Samson’s parents at first attempted to dissuade him from marrying a Philistine woman, saying to him: “As the fields of the heathen are sown in mixed seeds (this is forbidden in Lev.

19.19), so are their offspring. “Samson, however, did not heed their wise counsel, and married a Philistine woman from Timnah (according to some authorities this place is not identical with Timnah mentioned in Gen. 38.12), with whom he lived only one week, because she betrayed his secret to his companions who pretended to be his friends, while in reality they watched him that he should not attack the Philistines. It is with good reason that Samson, after his first experience of married life, exclaimed: “There is nothing more deceitful than a woman!” (Josephus, Antiqui., V, 8.6). When, however, the father of the Philistine woman gave her into marriage to another man, Samson became so infuriated at the Philistines for their connivance at the breach of marriage vows (]nyUEa nm® refers perhaps to the breach of the covenant made between the Philistine Abimelech and Abraham), that he destroyed their fields by means of the torches put between the tails of the foxes; they acted like sly foxes, and their punishment was therefore carried out by foxes. Samson went from bad to worse: He started by marrying a heathen woman, and finished by becoming a captive of a heathen harlot at Gaza. It was therefore at this place that he met his fate at the hands of Delilah, who deserves this name, “she who makes poor”, as it was through her that Samson became poor: he lost his strength, his wisdom, and his piety.

See Sotah, Mishnah 1.8 (the sentence, “he who went astray after his eyes lost his eyes”, is found almost verbatim in ps.-Philo, 43, bottom; 43.5); Tosefta 3.15; Babli 9b-10a; Yerushalmi 1, 17b and Ketubot 5, 30b; MHG I, 752; Mekilta Shirah 2, 36a; BR. 52.12; BaR 9.24. “Wine leads to unchastity”, and therefore Samson was commanded to be a Nazirite all his life (on the nature of his form of Naziriteship, see Nazir, Mishnah 1.3-4; Babli 4b), otherwise his conduct would have been still more licentious; BaR 10.5. Josephus, Antiqui., V, 5.11 and 12, attempts to exonerate Samson to some extent. On the vile means employed by Delilah, see Sotah 9b. 133 DTiVkh 1*7 ]IT1 (Gen. 27.28) is translated: “And He shall give thee that which is divine.” 133 BR 66.3. Comp, note 115. 13 ■» Yerushalmi Sotah 1, 17b; BaR 9.24; Sotah 10a. On the reading of Babli in Jud. 16.31, see Ratner on Seder ‘Olam 12, and 208 Judges [125-127 Schmtzer in Ha-Zofeh III, 137. According to BR 98.14, the number of the slain by far exceeded three thousand. Scripture (Jud. 16.27) speaks only of those who were in the building which Samson pulled down. There was, however, a vast multitude, much in excess of that number, standing around the building, and they all perished when it fell on them. The same view is shared by ps. -Philo, 44; 43.8, which reads: And the house fell and all that was in it, and slew all those that were round about it, and the number of them was forty thousand men and women.

Samson’s last words read in ps.-Philo: “O Lord, God of my fathers, hear me yet this once, and strengthen me that I may die with those Philistines, for the sight of the eyes which they have taken from me was fully given unto me by Thee.” He then added: “Go forth, O my soul, and be not grieved. Die, O my body, and weep not for thyself.” 125 Ps.-Philo 44; 44.2; Tosefta-Targum Jud. 17.2; a quotation from an unknown Midrash in Rashi and Kimhi, ad loc. There can be no doubt that in ps. ‘Philo, l. c., we ought to read Delila instead of Dedila. Ps.-Philo has a very strange statement to the effect that this Dedila or Delila was not only the mother of Micah but also of Heliu i. e., Eli. According to Eldad, 4-5, the descendants of Samson from his marriage (?) with Delilah live among the Danites (comp. vol. IV, p. 182), and are distinguished by their gigantic strength and great valor. Their war-cry is : “Salvation belongeth unto the Lord; Thy strength over Thy people, the tribes of Jeshurun, Selah.” The text, however, is not quite clear, and this war-cry is probably that of the Danites, and not of the descendants of Samson. Comp, also note 27 on vol. IV, p. 85. 136 Tan. Ki-Tissa 19 (on children as building material, see vol. II, p. 250); Sanhedrin 101b (see Rashi on f’na “pnni); Alphabet of Ben Sira 4d; Shu'aib, Hadar, and Ziyyoni on Exod. 32.4, seq. According to another version of this legend, Micah stole the silver plate by means of which Moses had made Joseph’s coffin come to the surface of the water (comp.

vol. II, p. 182; vol. Ill, p. 122), and employed it first to fashion the golden calf, and later to make a graven image; Teshubot Hakme Zarefat, 42, No. 67; Ziyyoni, loc. cit. The latter quotes from Midrash Shir ha-Shirim (not found in any of the three Midrashim on Song of Songs), still another legend about Micah ’s share in the fashioning of the golden calf. Comp, the following two notes and note 266 on vol. Ill, p. 122. See also ShR 41.1. 1 3 1 Mekilta Bo 14, 16a. For a full discussion of this point, comp. 209 128-131] The Legends of the Jews note 72 on vol. Ill, p. 37. The Mekilta and many other sources presuppose that Micah 's activity took place shortly after the death of Joshua. Comp, the following note and note 136. 138 Seder ‘Olam 12, which reads: In the days of Cushan-Rishathaim Micah set up the graven image (comp. Jud. 3.8, seq.). This, of course, does not preclude the possibility that Micah made this image in Egypt. On his share in the fashioning of the golden calf, see note 126, and note 72 on vol. Ill, p. 37. I3» Sanhedrin 103b reads: From Gareb to Shiloh is a distance of three miles, and the smoke of the holy altar at Shiloh mingled with the smoke proceeding from the altar erected by Micah to his graven image at Gareb. This occurs also in Aggadat Bereshit 49, 100; PR 29, 137b. The statement about Gareb is rather puzzling, as this locality is in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, not of Shiloh.

The Talmud /. c. adds: the angels wished his doom but God said to them, “Leave him; his bread is offered to the wayfarers.” 1 ^ 0 Tosefta Sanhedrin 14.7-8; Baba Batra 109b; Yerushalmi Berakot 9, 13d; Shir 2.5; ARN 24, 99. In all these sources the Levite mentioned in Jud. 17.7 is identified with Jonathan of 18.30. The suspended Nun in Jud. 18.30 is accordingly explained in these sources in the following manner: This priest of the graven image was a grandson of Moses; but out of respect for the great prophet, he is described, by means of the suspended Nun, as the grandson of Manasseh, to whom he was related through their kindred actions, both having been idolaters. See Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen, 46-49. Comp, also the references cited in note 133. This priest was not only a grandson of Moses on his paternal side, but on his maternal side, too, he was of prominent descent, as his mother belonged to the tribe of Judah. He is therefore described in the very same scriptural verse (Jud. 17.7) as a Levite and J udean. The soundness of the rule that “children take after their mother’s brothers” can be proved by the difference between the descendants of Moses and those of Aaron. The latter married the sister of Nahshon, the prince of Judah, and his descendants were priests and high priests unto the Lord; but the former married the sister of idolaters (the sons of Jethro), and his grandson was a priest of Micah 's graven image; Baba Batra 109b-110a.

131 Ps. -Philo, 44; 44.2-9; Yerahmeel 59, 180. The first source contains also a lengthy Midrash showing how Israel, by worshipping Micah ’s graven image, transgressed all the ten commandments. The statement of Yerahmeel that Micah’ s activity took place in the 210 Judges [132-134 days of the judge Abdon agrees neither with the view of the Rabbis, nor with that of ps.-Philo. Comp, notes 125, 127, 128, and 136. 133 Baba Batra 109b; Tosefta-Targum Jud. 18.18. Comp, also the references cited in the following note. 133 Yerushalmi Berakot 9, 13d; Sanhedrin 10, 30b-30c; Shir 2.5; Baraita de-Yeshua 46b; Alphabet of Ben Sira 4b. The first three sources quote also a different view to the effect that Amaziah the priest of Beth-el (Amos 7.10) is identical with the “old prophet” of Beth-el (1 Kings 13.11, seq.). As to the man of God out of Judah (ibid. 14.1), the prevalent opinion is that he was none other than the prophet Iddo (2 Chron. 12.15 and 13.22); comp. Seder ‘Olam 10; Tosefta Berakot 10.19; Sifre D., 177; Midrash Tannaim 112; Sanhedrin 89a-89b; Josephus, Antiqui., VIII. 8.5. (Sanhedrin 104a) refers perhaps to Amaziah the priest of Beth-el. Comp, also Targum 1 Chron. 26.24, which is entirely dependent on Yerushalmi, loc . cit. In Alphabet of Ben Sira, loc. cit., “ the priest of Micah ” is confounded with Micah himself, who is thus said to have been the priest of Beth-el.

134 Ps.-Philo, 44; 45-47, and, in abridged form, Yerahmeel 59, 180-181. It is very strange that in ps.-Philo the crime of the Benjamites is tranferred from Gibeah to Nob. When the man of the tribe of Levi came to Gibeah, he desired to abide there, as the sun had set; but the inhabitants of this place did not suffer him to lodge in their midst. He was therefore obliged to proceed to Nob, where hospitality was offered to him by Bethac (on this name, see note 26 on vol. IV, p. 61) who, like himself, was of the tribe of Levi. The rabbinic sources know of no direct connection between the sin of Micah and the calamity that befell Israel in consequence of the crime of the Benjamites. They do, however, maintain that both events took place about the same time; according to some, Micah ’s graven image was set up on the very same day on which the war against the Benjamites began, that is, on the twenty-third of Shebat, which, in that year, fell on a Sabbath. See Seder ‘Olam 12, and Ratner, note 9, as well as Esther R. 37.7. It is also said that the defeats suffered by the other tribes, in their campaign against the tribe of Benjamin, was their punishment for “having gone to war to avenge the honor of a woman, while they paid no heed to God’s honor, which was outraged by Micah and his followers.” See Sanhedrin 103b; PRE 48. Comp, further Yerushalmi Yoma 1, 38c; Megillah 1, 72a, where Phinehas’ indifference towards the “crime of the Benjamites” is unfavorably contrasted with his zeal displayed in his early career.

A similar remark is found in ER 11, 56-57, where 211 135] The Legends of the Jews the Synedrion and the high priest Phinehas are held responsible for the death of the several thousands who fell in the war with the Benjamites. The crime which caused the war would never have been perpetrated if they, the leaders of the people, had done their duty and not neglected the moral education of Israel. There is also a view to the effect that the Israelites addressed themselves first to the idols for counsel (D’n^N in Jud. 20.18, seq., is taken to mean “gods”, not “God”), and therefore suffered defeat; but when they called upon God, victory was granted them. Attention is also drawn to the difference in the answers given by God to Israel. The first and second answers did not contain any promise of help and assistance from God; hence the defeats of Israel. But the third answer was: “Go up, for to-morrow I will deliver him into thy hand”; and God fulfilled His promise. See Shebu'ot 35b; Soferim 4.17. That the first two answers were not favorable was due to the fact that they were addressed to God by one who was not worthy of performing the ceremony of inquiring of the Urim and Tummim; the last answer was favorable because the question was asked by the pious Phinehas; see Hasidim 122. The men who fell in the war to avenge the outraged and murdered woman deserved their fate; the woman, too, deserved her death, for she had at one time broken faith with her husband by sinning with the Amalekites; it was for this reason that God delivered her into the hands of sinners; ps.

-Philo, 46; 45.3. The Rabbis are by far more considerate of the poor woman, and maintain that it was all the fault of her husband who was of a very harsh nature, so that his wife could not bear his treatment any longer and ran away from him. Thus his history “teaches us that one must not attempt to overawe the members of his family”, for this man’s severity led to bloodshed, unchastity, and desecration of the Sabbath; Gittin 6b; Targum Jud. 19.2 (on the text of Targum, see Nahmanides in his commentary on Gittin, who writes: Dll’n iron pro pc’?. . . nifm); Ratner on Seder ‘Olam 12; note 9. On the desecration of the Sabbath as the cause — not the effect — of this calamity, comp, the Midrash fragment in J.Q.R. New Series, VIII, 132. IJS Midrash quoted by Kimhi, Jud. 20.5. The reading KUDU, “Germany”, is not certain, as some texts have N’^nn “Romania” (Byzantium, or the Roman Empire?). For a full discussion of this legend comp. Briill, Jahrbucher, IV, 34-40. A haggadic interpretation of ]1D~I (Jud. 20.46) as Romania is perhaps the origin of the widespread legend among the Jews of the Middle Ages that the fleeing Benjamites settled in Romania. Ps. -Philo, 48; 57.11, gives the names of the 212 Judges [136 Benjamite clans and their chiefs who escaped death. The other tribes first decided to exclude the tribe of Benjamin from Israel; but changed their minds, for they found in Scripture an indication that it was God’s will that Israel should consist of twelve tribes; see Yerushalmi Ta'anit 4, 69c; BR 84.4; Ekah, introduction, 33, 36.

In these sources, as well as in Babli, Ta‘anit 30b, and Baba Batra 116a, the great popular feast on the fifteenth of Ab is said to have originally been celebrated to commemorate the day (it was the fifteenth of Ab) on which Benjamin was re-admitted into the community of Israel. To enable the handful of Benjamites to develop normally, it became necessary to change some old laws of inheritance; Baba Batra, loc. cit., and Midrash Aggada, Num. 36.4. The punishment meted out to the inhabitants of JabeshGilead (comp. Jud. 21.5, seq.) was well merited. After the disastrous defeats sustained by the other tribes at the hands of the Benjamites, they threw themselves before the holy ark, and repented of their sins, whereupon God ’s grace turned to them. All Israelites were called to arms under threat of excommunication, and all responded to the call, with the exception of the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead. These were excommunicated, and death was their punishment. See PRE38; Tan. Wa-Yesheb2; Orehot Hayyim, II, 509. As to the means by which they ascertained which of the women of Jabesh-Gilead were virgins, who should thus escape death (Jud. 21.11-12), see Yebamot 60b and vol. Ill, p. 413. The festival on which the Benjamites went up to Shiloh and captured wives (Jud. 21.19) was Passover; see ps. -Philo, 48; 48.2. This is an interesting example of the use of midrashic Haggadah by this author, as it is based upon the hermeneutic rule of analogy mP ITITJ according to which no’D’ D’D’D (Jud., loc.cit.) has the same meaning as in Exod.

13.10, where it undoubtedly refers to Passover. See Targum and Kimhi on Jud., ad loc. \ Menahot 36b; Mekilta RS, 34; note 9 on vol. IV, p. 58. o « Ps.-Philo, 45; 44.9, and 48, 47.12. On the view that blasphemers and other grave sinners are punished by being eaten up alive by worms, see note 552 on vol. Ill, p. 283 and Vol. VI, p. 242, note 106. This author is obviously of the opinion that Micah's activity and the “crime of the Benjamites” took place towards the end of the period of the judges, whereas the Rabbis and Josephus, Antiqui., V, 8.2, maintain that they occurred at the beginning of that period. Comp, notes 127, 134. See also ER 11, 57, which reads: In Scripture the crime of Gibeah is given at the end of the history dealing with the times of the judges, that the Gentiles should not say: The Israelites were already morally corrupt when they entered Palestine. 213 137-140] The Legends of the Jews 1 3 7 Sanhedrin 103b; Alphabet of Ben Sira 4d. 138 Konen 31. Nahmanides, Sha'ar ha-Gemul. 97c, reads Posiel (from ^DD, Micah’s graven image) instead of Hadriel. 139 Sanhedrin 101b. Here also it is said that the rebel Sheba the son of Bichri is none other than Micah. Comp. vol. IV, p. 179. 140 Ps.-Philo, 48; 48.1; Yerahmeel 59, 180. Danaben is undoubtedly a corrupt reading, though it is hard to suggest the correct form of this name. It may be a corruption of Lebanon, Abarim, or some other word.

Ps.-Philo is the oldest source for the widespread legend which identifies Phinehas with Elijah; see note 803 on vol. Ill, p. 389 and note 3 on vol. IV, p. 195. Of interest is ps.-Philo 's statement that Phinehas-Elijah (and, of course, all other “immortals”) will “taste death ” in the time to come. The same view is also shared by 4 Ezra, 7.29; comp, also vol. V, 21, note 61 (end) with regard to the disappearance of the angels before the creation of the new world. According to the Septuagint (Josh. , end), the death and burial of Phinehas are recorded in Scripture.