V. SOLOMON. Vol. IV, (pp. 125-176). 1 Seder ‘Olam 14. Comp, the parallels cited by Ratner, as well as Nazir 5a; Temurah 15a; Sanhedrin 69b; Targum Sheni 1.2 (which remarks: About thirteen years old, i. e., after having completed his twelfth year); Jerome, Epistola, 72, (22, 674); Eupolemus, 452. According to Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 7.8, Solomon ascended the throne at the age of fourteen, and reigned eighty years. The Masorah and Septuagint read “forty”, and not “eighty”, in 1 Kings 11.42. 1 T argum Sheni 1 . 2 , 4 ; Shir 1 . 1 (here the real names are : Koheleth , Solomon, and Jedidiah, whereas Agur, Jakeh, Lemuel, and Ithiel are attributes); BaR 10.4; Mishle 30, 103-104; Tan. Wa-Era 5; Tan. B. II, 18; Yelammedenu in ‘ Aruk, s. v. "UN; Koheleth 1.1; Jerome, Eccles. 1.1. Comp, also Ephraem, 2 Sam. 12.24-25, who remarks: He was later called Solomon because of the peace that prevailed during his reign. According to the Rabbis, Solomon is one of the names of God, and in Song of Songs God is designated by that name; comp. Shabbat 35b; Shir, loc. cit. On the view that Solomon received his name before he was born, see vol. I, p. 122, and comp, further Tan. B. I, 21; Josephus Antiqui., VIII, The Legends of the Jews 4-10] therefore ordered the execution of Adonijah for this attempt at rebellion. That David did not marry Abishag was not due to his advanced age and impotence, as some mockingly remarked to him, but to his respect for the law which does not permit a king to marry more than eighteen wives, and David already had that number.
See Sanhedrin 22a. 4 On Joab’s pious descendants, among whom were priests and prophets, see Targum 1 Chron. 2.54. 5 Yerushalmi Makkot 2, 31c; Tan. B. IV, 166. Comp, note 76 on vol. IV, p. 97. 8 On this point see vol. IV, pp. 73-74. The people had suspected David of having conspired the death of Abner, but they became convinced of the king’s innocence by the genuine grief which he expressed at Abner ’s funeral. It was fortunate for David that the people realized their error, otherwise they would have killed him in their rage against the murderer of Abner. The king, to show his respect for the dead hero, participated in the funeral, though, according to the law, a king must never be present at a funeral: see Sanhedrin, Mishnah 2.3; Tosefta4.2;Babli20a;Yerushalmi,2,20c. Seenote275on vol. I, p. 394. In the last source it is said that David addressed first the men then the women, to convince them that J oab acted entirely without his knowledge. As to the suspicion against David, see also the references in the following note. 7 Tan. B. IV, 167; Tan. Mass’e 12; BaR 23.13. 8 Yerushalmi Makkot 2, 31a; Shemuel 35, 123. As to the question whether the sanctuary at Jerusalem offered asylum to criminals, and under what conditions, see also Babli Makkot 12a, and Mahzor Vitry 33. The latter made use of a version of Midrash Tehillim in which the trial of Joab was dealt with at full length; but our texts of this Midrash have preserved no reference to it; comp, also note 10.
9 Sanhedrin 49a; comp, also Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 1.5 and 11.7; vol. IV, pp. 73-74. 10 Sanhedrin 48b-49a; Jerushalmi Kiddushin 1.61a, Shemuel 25.123-124; Tan. B. IV, 167; Tan. Mass'e 12; BaR 23.13. A poetic description of Joab’s tragic end, partly based on an unknown Midrash, is found in Mahzor Vitry 341-342; comp, also ibid. 331-332 (the commentary on the poem); see further note 8. In this poem Joab first laments his innocent death, and then proceeds to ask Solomon and Israel to have pity on him. When, however, he saw that his pleadings were in vain, he called his son Joel, to give him his last message. He said to him: “Observe the Torah, educate thy (younger) brothers, and honor 278 Solomon [n thy mother.” Solomon first called upon his son Rehoboam to slay Joab, and in this way avenge the death of Absalom caused by Joab (see 2 Sam. 18.14-15) ; but Rehoboam could not muster enough courage for the deed, when he saw all Israel weep. Benaiah was therefore sent by the king to carry out this command instead of his hesitating son. When Joab saw him approach with his sword in his hand, he said: ‘‘Benaiah, Benaiah, attempt not what will end in a great disappointment (this is how inn is to be understood, and is not to be emended as done by the editor); my neck is strong and thy sword too weak, and thou canst not kill me.” Joab, however, was mistaken. Benaiah succeeded in carrying out the king’s command to the great consternation of Israel who out of fear of the king dared not give expression to the deep sorrow in their heart for the bitter end of J oab.
As to the great loss sustained by Israel through Joab ’s death, see also Yerushalmi Makkot 2, 31a;Shemuel 25, 124. The high priest Abiathar was not slain by Solomon. The king merely removed him from his high position, and appointed Zadok to the office of high priest; see Josephus, Antiqui., VIII, 1.4. According to the views of the Rabbis, Abiathar was removed from his office by David, on his flight from Absalom, when the Urimand Tummim refused to give answer to Abiathar; when Zadok succeeded in obtaining a response, he was appointed high priest; see Yoma 73b; Sotah 48b; Seder ‘Olam 14. Zadok was the man best fitted for holding the office of high priest in his time, as his ancestor Aaron in his time. See Koheleth 1.1, and comp, also ps. -Jerome 1 Chron. 21.7, where Zadok is said to have been a second Aaron, and, like his great ancestor, had stopped a plague by his prayers. As to the anointing of Zadok, see note 371 on vol III, p. 179. 11 Berakot 8a; Tosefta-Targum 1 Kings 2.36 and 3.1; comp, vol. IV, pp. 381-382. As to the insults heaped by Shimei on David, and the reconciliation of these two men, see Tehillim 3, 36-37 ; note 96 on vol. IV, p. 104. According to Josephus, Antiqui., VIII; 5.1, Shimei was executed by Solomon for breaking the oath he had given to him. On death as a punishment for perjury or similar offences, see Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 135-137. Solomon slew Shimei by pronouncing God’s Name upon him (comp.
vol. II, p. 280); Shimei sinned by the word of mouth, and his punishment, in accordance with his sin, was executed by a word. See Zohar II, 108. Comp, also ibid., 107b, where Berakot, loc. cit., and perhaps also Kimhi, 1 Kings 2.8, are made use of. That Nathan the prophet was Solomon ’s teacher, as maintained in Zohar, is found nowhere in rabbinic literature, nor are Septuagint and 279 12] The Legends of the Jews Vulgate, 2 Sam. 12.25, to be understood in that sense. On the view of ps.-Jerome, 1 Chron. 20.7, that Nathan is identical with Jonathan, David’s nephew, who slew one of the Philistine giants (1 Chron. 20.7), see note 88 on vol. IV, p. 102. On the founding of Rome, see Shabbat 56b; Yerushalmi ‘ Abodah Zarah 1, 39c (here it is Michael who inserted the reed in the sea; comp, note 8 on vol. I, p. 5); Sifre D., 52; Shir 1.6. Comp. Griinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsatze, 169; Schlatter, Verkanntes Griechisch 64 and Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. “Abba Kolon”. This Abba Kolon (“Father of Colony”, or Abba Kalon, “father of shame”?) is said in Shir, loc. cit., to have made the settlement of Rome possible. The first settlers of Rome found that the huts collapsed as soon as built. Whereupon Abba Kolon said to them: “Unless ye mix water from the Euphrates with your mortar, nothing that ye build will stand.” He then offered to supply such water, and for this purpose journeyed through the east as a cooper, and returned with water from the Euphrates in wine-casks.
The builders poured this water into the mortar, and built new huts which did not collapse. Hence the proverb : “A city without Abba Kolon is not worthy of the name.” The newly-built city was therefore called Babylonian Rome. On Babylon = Rome, see Rev. 14.8, 17.18, and the references to rabbinic literature in Ginzberg, Geonica, I, 29, note 1, as well as Hekalot, ed. Wertheimer, 32, 39, and Mahzor Vitry 520. The babylonian myth about the origin of the city of Babylon (see King, Creation Tablets, 132) resembles the Jewish legend about the founding of Rome. Comp, also Zohar III, 25 lb-252a, and Nehemias D’in ’3rOD, 161. 1 2 Comp., however, Seder ‘Olam 15, according to which Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh's daughter took place at the time when he started to build the Temple; hence the word of God (Jer. 32.31) that this city (Jerusalem, i. e., the Temple) has been to Him a provocation from the day that they built it. The first four years of Solomon’s reign were the only ones during which he walked in the ways of the Lord; comp, also Niddah 70a and EZ 8, 185. The last passage reads: The first Temple existed four hundred and ten years, but Israel was free from idolatry for twenty years only. This number very likely refers to the twenty years of the reign of the pious king Josiah; comp. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 302. According to Josephus, Antiqui., VIII, 7.5, Solomon “fell into an error about the observance of the laws, when he made the images of the brazen oxen, which supported the brazen sea and the images of the lions about his own throne.” The Rabbis, on the other hand, are far from blaming him for these images, and the 280 Solomon [13-16 images of the throne occupy a very important position in the rabbinic legend; com.
vol. IV, pp. 157, seq. 13 Shabbat 56b; Sanhedrin 70b; Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk, s. v. ’ICQ; Tan. Shemot 1; WR 12.5; BaR 10.4; Mishle 30, 107-108. mnoV in Prov. 31.3, is derived from HTI “he lived”. The warning against drunkenness on this occasion had its good reasons. Solomon had not touched any wine all the years he was engaged in building the Temple. To celebrate his marriage with Pharaoh 's daughter, which took place on the day when the building of the Temple was completed, he changed his mode of life, and drank wine, with the effect that he was overpowered by a heavy sleep; see WR, loc. cit. — Bath-sheba is here, as elsewhere in the Haggadah, well spoken of, and is counted as one of the twentytwo virtuous women, whose praise is sung in the last chapter of Prov. Comp. Mishle, 31, 112, and MHG I, 337. Comp, note 271 on vol. I, p. 291. In the latter source it is maintained that she had, by means of the holy spirit, foreseen that her son would be the wisest of men. 1 * 0’2m in Prov. 31.4, is connected with the Aramaic H “a secret”. The secret refers to the secret lore of the Torah. 16 BaR 10.4. Comp, also Sanhedrin 70b; WR 12.5, and the references given at the beginning of note 13. 16 Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2, 20c; PK 27, 169a; Tan. B. Ill, 55; Tan. Ahare 1; Shir 1.1 (’’); Koheleth 2.2. Wealth came to Solomon in a miraculous way. God commanded the sea to cast up all the valuable things that had ever been thrown into it; see Tub ha-Arez, 37c.
As soon as Solomon married Pharaoh 's daughter, his wealth began to diminish, though he remained very rich all his life; Niddah 70b. With regard to the foreign women whom he married, the following views are found: 1) He married women belonging to the nations with which it is forbidden to enter into marriage relations (the so-called “seven nations”) even when converted to Judaism; 2) he did not marry the foreign women, but had illicit relations with them; 3) the women he married were converts to Judaism, but as their conversion was not prompted by love for God, they did not observe the commandments of the Torah, and particularly neglected those which are incumbent on married women, and yet Solomon did not remonstrate with them; 4) he married those women to convert them to Judaism; but though his intentions were good, he is blamed for having done it, as one should not take a wife without being certain of her piety and virtue. Comp, the sources cited at the beginning of the note, and further Seder ‘Olam 15; Yebamot 76a; Josephus, Antiqui., VIII, 7.5. Kimhi, 1 Kings 3,3, 281 i7-i8] The Legends of the Jews quotes from an unknown midrashic source the view that the biblical prohibition against intermarriage with Egyptians refers only to the marriage of Egyptian males and Jewish females, but not vice versa ; comp. Index, s. v. “Moabite Women”. The difference of opinion concerning Solomon ’s marriages reflects not only the difference in estimating Solomon ’s character (comp, note 59), but also in the attitude toward intermarriage.
Solomon ’s favorite wife was Pharaoh’s daughter, whom he loved as much as all the others put together. But she led him astray, and made him commit as many sins as all the others put together. See Sifre D., 52, and Midrash Tannaim 45 ; the sources quoted at the beginning of the note refer also to the sin of Solomon in marrying a multitude of wives; comp, note 81 and vol. VI, pp. 188-189. 17 BR 44.8; Aggadat Shir 1.5; Tehillim 2, 29; 12, 179; 119, 494; 2 ARN 43. According to the dissenting view given in these sources Abraham and Jacob shared this distinction with the three other men mentioned there. 1 8 PR 14, 59a; Shir 1.1 (’13). Solomon fasted forty days, that God should grant him wisdom, and as a reward for his modesty and humility his wish was fulfilled so that he became “the father of wisdom”. See Mishle 1, 1, where ntTOH “father of prophecy” is to be struck out as a copyist ’s error, who while writing of Solomon put down the title of Moses, who is often called the father of wisdom and the father of prophecy. Comp. vol. V, p. 404, note 68 towards the end. Glowing descriptions of Solomon ’s wisdom are found in Ecclus, 47.13, seq. ; Wisdom 7. 15, seq.\ Josephus, Antiqui., VIII, 2.5. According to the Hellenistic writers, Solomon ’s wisdom consisted in his great knowledge of science and philosophy. But for the Rabbis there is no other wisdom than the knowledge of the Torah, and accordingly, Solomon 's great mastery of the Torah is praised; see references in note 24.
He attempted to find not only the reasons of the divine commandments, but also the profound secret of divine retribution for the fulfilment of the commandments. He further attempted to discover the "end” (the time of the advent of the Messiah). See Tehillim, 9, 80-81. As to Solomon ’s wisdom, see alsoShirl.l; Koheleth 1.1 and 13; ‘Erubin 21b; Shabbat 14b; Yebamot 21a. In the three last passages Solomon is said to have contributed a great deal to the further development of the Torah by his introducing new ordinances and ceremonies. The institution of the ‘Erub and the ceremony of washing the hands before meals as well as the extension of the prohibited marriages (DViy1? nr®), are attributed to him. When Alexander the Great conquered Jerusalem, he found there Solomon’s 282 Solomon [19-25 books of wisdom which he gave to his teacher Aristotle, who drew all his knowledge from them. The wisdom of the Greeks is accordingly entirely dependent upon Solomon. See Derek Emunah 46b; Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah 102b (p’TSH jiyDE?); Iggeret Ba‘ ale Hayyim 3.7; Ginzberg, Aristotle in Jewish Literature in Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. 19 Jewish tradition identifies Ethan the Ezrahite (Ps. 89.1) with Abraham. Comp. Baba Batra 15a. J0 Heman, “the confidant” (of God), i. e., Moses; comp. Num. 12.7. 11 Calcol, “ the giver of food ”, i. e., Joseph; comp. Genesis 47.12. ,J Dar-Da; “Dor” = “ generation”, and Da = “ wisdom ” ; they are called “the sons of Mahol”, that is, the “sons of pardon”, because their sins were forgiven; comp.
vol. Ill, p.79. 2 3 DTNn ( = man), in this verse, is taken to mean Adam. PK 4, 33a-33b; PR 12, 59a-60b; Tan. B. IV, 109-112; Tan. Hukkat 6; BaR 19.3; Koheleth 7.23; Mishle 1, 39; Midrash Shir 23a; ps.-Jerome, 1 Kings 4.31-32. On the variants of this Haggadah in ps.-Jerome, see Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 73. On the three thousand parables of Solomon, see also ‘Erubin 21a; Shir 1.1; vol. IV, p. 102, and Ginzberg, ibid., 74. As Solomon excelled all Israel in wisdom, even so did he excel all the wisest men among other nations, the dwellers in the east, who were renowned for their wisdom (on these, see also Yerushalmi Shabbat 12, 13d, towards the end), the Egyptians, who were famous as masters of astrology and magic. In his great wisdom Solomon was not only able to supplement the wise words of his father David, but sometimes also to correct them, and accordingly the views expressed in the Book of Proverbs are not always in harmony with those of the Book of Psalms, notwithstanding the great reverence Solomon had for his father, to whose glorification he devoted his entire life. See Mishle 1, 42, 43; 15, 79; Shir 1.6 (here the parallels between the lives of David and Solomon are dwelled upon) and 1.10; Baba Batra 10b. To the opinions wherein David and Solomon differed belongs also this: the former holds that the heart ( = feeling and will) is the seat of wisdom, whereas the latter declares that the head (intellect) generates wisdom.
See Mishle 1, 42, and the Mohammedan legend in Salzberger, Salomo-Sage, 66, who, strangely enough, did not seethe dependence of this legend on the rabbinic Midrash, comp, note 27 (middle). On Solomon’s literary products, see note 93. 2 s Rosh ha-Shanah 2 lb. According to another version, Solomon 's wisdom w^a in one respect akin to the divine wisdom; like God he 283 26-27] The Legends of the Jews could give judgment without the evidence of witnesses, for he penetrated into the secrets of man’s thoughts. See Tehillim 72, 324 (with regard to Solomon ’s decision in the case of the two women) ; Targum Shir 1.2, followed by Zohar II, 78a; Shir 1.1; ShR 15.26; Wisdom 7.20. As to the “forty-nine gates of wisdom”, which were open to Moses and Solomon (according to one view in Rosh ha-Shanah, loc. cit., however, the former only had that privilege), see the numerous passages containing the Haggadah that each statement of the Torah admits of forty-nine correct interpretations (“and as many incorrect ones” in PR 21.101a is a later addition). Comp. PR 14, 58a-58b, 60b, and 21, 101a; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4, 22a; Ekah, introduction, XXIII, 20; PK 4, 31a-31b; Soferim 16.6; ‘Erubin 13b. The reading “sixty gates of wisdom” in Hinnuk, No. 152 is very likely a copyist’s error. A different Haggada is given in Alphabet of R. Akiba 16, according to which no less than five thousand gates of wisdom, eight thousand gates of understanding, and eleven thousand gates of knowledge were opened to Moses on Sinai.
These numbers correspond to the number of the books of the Bible multiplied by a thousand. This Scripture consists of the five books of Moses, eight of the prophets (the Minor Prophets are counted as one book), and eleven of the Hagiographa (counting Ezra and Nehemiah as one book; see Baba Batra 14b; Sanhedrin 93b). See also Norzi, Num. 28.5. 36 Tehillim 72, 324-325; Shir 1. 1,10; Koheleth 1.1; Makkot 23b; BR 85.12; Yalkut Reubeni on Gen. 4.8, which reads: These female spirits were Lilith and Naamah. It is hardly admissible to assume dependence upon the similar Indian legend (comp. Salzberger, SalomoSage, 52-53). This Haggadah very likely has its origin in the quite natural supposition that no woman, and particularly no mother, would have a child killed to satisfy a grudge. Comp. Shu'aib, Shekalim, 34c. Tehillim, loc. cit., has the fine remark that the Bible, in describing the procedure in Solomon ’s court, is employing forensic style, and therefore 1 Kings 3.23 is not superflouous, as it is the duty of the judge to sum up the claims of the litigants before rendering his decision. 27 BHM IV, 145-146; Hibbur Ma'as. No. 10; Hasidim 91, where the wise judge is R. Sa'adya Gaon. On the widespread legend concerning the test of kinship, see Steinschneider, Hebrdische Bibliographic, XIII, 133, and XVIII, 39; Kohut, Journal of American Oriental Society, XXIX, 84-85; Davidson, Sepher Sha‘ ashuim, LXII; Gaster, Exempla No.
391; Gaston Paris, R. E. J. XI, 7. The legend in vol. IV. pp. 88-85, about young David’s discovery of the thief very likely be284 Solomon [27 longs to the cycle of legends clustering around Solomon, a copyist erroneously putting the name of the father instead that of the son. Comp. Steinschneider, op. cit. XVIII, 40; Salzberger, SalomoSage , 57; note 8; note 26 on vol. IV, 85. The legend is very fond of showing the great wisdom of the youth Solomon, who even then often overruled the seemingly just decisions of his father David. A poor servant of David once borrowed an egg with the promise to return all that might come from it. When his creditor insisted upon the fulfilment of the promise, David, before whom the case was tried, condemned him to an enormous amount of money, in view of the fact that from the egg a chicken could be hatched which would lay eighteen eggs, from which eighteen chickens could be hatched, each of which would lay eighteen eggs, etc. On the advice of Solomon the debtor sowed boiled peas, and when seen by David and asked how he could expect these to grow, he replied: How can a boiled egg be hatched and produce chickens? David had neglected to find out before giving judgment whether the egg borrowed was boiled or not. Levi, R.E.J. XXXIII, 65 seq. Gaster, Exempla, Nos. 329 and 342. Seymour, Tales of King Solomon , 18 seq., gives a considerable number of legends all of which have the same aim, to show the superiority of Solomon’s wisdom to that of his father.
The earlier Jewish literature hardly knows of this rivalry between father and son, though we find there some remarks to the effect that certain views expressed by Solomon in his writings do not always agree with those of his father, comp. Shabbat 30a and note 24. Some of these legends however, contain old material. Comp. e. g. the tale about the treasure (Seymour 18-19) which belongs to the circle of Alexander legends, comp, note 35 on vol. IV, p. 251. Great as was Solomon’s wisdom, he nevertheless was not free from human limitations. Once a poor man was carrying a sack of flour in his hand when a wind came and blew it into the sea. He complained to David about the wind, but all that the King could do was to make his loss good and send him home. Solomon, however, was not satisfied with his father’s action in this matter and insisted on calling the wind to justice and David finally yielded to the wish of his son. He conjured the spirit of the wind and asked him to explain why he had blown the poor man’s flour into the sea. The answer was as follows: a ship, on high sea with many people on board had sprung a leak and was on the point of foundering; the flour, however, stopped the leak and all were saved. A few days later the ship came into port and they gave the poor man a third of their possessions which they had vowed 285 28-32] The Legends of the Jews as a thank-offering; Gaster, Exempla, No.
444; Jacob Saphir "l’BD ]DM I, 26 seq.‘, Seymour, Tales of King Salomon 18. 28 On the dwelling-place of the Cainites, see vol. I, p. 114. 29 Hibbur ha-Ma‘ asiyyot, No. 11; BHM IV, 151-152; Ma'asiyyot (Gaster's edition), 113, 75; Al-Barceloni, 173; Mordecai, Tefillin, who gives PRE as his source. See Gaster, Exempla, No. 113; Steinschneider. Hebraische Bibliographic, XVIII, 16, and Salzberger, Salomo-Sage, 58. 3 0 Rabbenu Nissim 38; Midrash ‘Aseret ha-Debarim in Hibbur haMa'asiyyot (eighth commandment) and BHM I, 86-87; Ma'asiyyot ed. Gaster 73-75; Baraita de-Yeshua (end); Hegyon ha-Nefesh, 10a. Comp. Steinschneider, Hebraische Bibliographie, XVIII, 40. The legend given in BHM ibid. 87-88, and Hibbur Ma'asiyyot (third commandment) concerning the thief who betrayed himself is brought into relation with Solomon in the version thereof in the Constantinople edition of no*7E> D’VtPD. This legend is as follows: A man arriving in a strange place shortly before the beginning of the Sabbath, hastened to bury the money he had with him, as it is forbidden to carry about any money on the day of rest. For he had no friend in that place to whom he could entrust his purse. At the termination of the Sabbath he went to get his money, but it was not there; his host had watched him on the previous day, and stole the purse. The stranger suspected his host, but having no evidence, he thought it best to ask the wise Solomon for advice, and he did not regret it.
On the king’s advice, he went up to his host, and told him that he had lately buried a large sum of money for safety, but having retained a still greater sum on his person, he would like to be advised whether he should put it in the same place as the other sum, or should entrust it to somebody. The dishonest host, greedy for the stranger’s money, advised him to bury the larger sum in the same place, and hastened to replace the stolen money so that the owner should add more thereto. The latter, however, joyfully took his money and went his way. Comp. Steinschneider, op. cit. XIII, 129, seq. Gaster, Exempla, No. 111. 31 Tan. B. Introduction, 157, and in a very elaborate form, Ma'aseh-Buch, No. 144. Comp. Gaster, Exempla, Nos. 441a-441b. On the view that the serpent knew the place of the hidden treasures, see vol. I, p. 71. 32 Rabbenu Nissim 14; Meshalim No. 3; BHM IV, 146-147; Zabara, Sepher Sha'ashuim, Davidson’s edition, XLIX-XXLII; Gaster Exempla Nos. 328, 401. Another legend illustrating the truth of Solomon’s words, “a woman, etc.” (Eccles. 7.28) is given in Meshalim, 286 Solomon [33-34 No. 2, and BHM IV, 146; but this source does not attribute any part in it to the wise king. On the other hand he plays a very important part in the following two legends. Once Solomon had to make use of his knowledge of magic to convince people of the truth of his words against women.
Once he warned a man against the faithlessness of his wife, but the latter did not believe him. Solomon gave him as a present a silver goblet, which the man took home. The paramour of his wife came, saw the goblet and asked the woman to drink out of it together with him. They did so and their lips remained attached to the goblet. When brought before Solomon, the wise king said: “The spell can only be broken if their heads be pierced with red hot iron. The wronged husband pleaded, however, for the culprits. Solomon took David ’s sword (comp, note 59, end, on vol. IV, p. 94) on which was engraved the Name, poured water over it and sprinkled their faces with this water. They were thus released. Others say that two scholars passed a scroll of the Torah between them which released them; Gaster, Exempla 351a. The variant of this legend (No. 351b) in which Bath-sheba is introduced, to illustrate the wickedness of women, has some relation to that given by Seymour, Tales of King Solomon, 14-15. Here it is told that the mother of Solomon decided to kill him because of his slighting remark about women made by him while still an infant of three years, when he said that “a woman ’s soul is not as heavy as a handful of chips of wood.” Meshalim No. 4; BHM IV, 148-150; Gaster, Exempla No. 402. Comp. Steinschneider, Hebraische Bibliographie, XVIII, 39-40. As to the three rules of conduct imparted by Solomon to his disciple, see vol.
II, pp. 9. 99, and 115, where the first one is referred to; the second is a verbal variant of the proverb: “he who throws himself against a wave is overthrown by it” (comp. BR 14.15); the third is found verbatim in Musar Haskel beginning (Steinschneider ’s edition), and comp, also Eccles. 7.26, according to the Greek. On hundred as a round number see note 316 on vol. I, p. 417, and comp, also Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4, 22b (middle of column). 34 Ben ha-Melek we-ha-Nazir, XXIV, and in abridged form in Prym and Socin, Der Dialekt des Tut Abdin, LXVI. There are several versions of this legend, in some of which Solomon does not play any part. Comp. Gaster Exempla, Nos. 381, 449; Neuhoff, Afrikanische Marchen 51; vol. V, pp. 57-58. The conception that he who knows the language of animals must keep it secret at the peril of his life seems to be presupposed also in the Arabic legend given by Salzberger, Salomo-Sage, 60. The view that Solomon understood the 287 35-37] The Legends of the Jews languages of all animals is based upon 1 Kings 5.13, and is often referred to in the midrashic literature; comp. Shir. 1.1; Koheleth 1.11 (here an attempt is made to rationalize the popular belief. Comp, also Tan. B. IV, 112 top, and parallel passages cited by Buber); Targum Sheni 1.2, 5. Solomon’s knowledge of the languages of the animals plays an important part in Mohammedan legends; see note 58 on vol.
I, p. 71. The following legend given by Sabba‘, Wa-Yeze, 33b, is very likely of Mohammedan origin: Solomon once overheard a male bird say to his mate: “If thou desirest it, I shall forthwith destroy the throne upon which Solomon sits.” Astonished at its impudence, the wise king had this bird appear before him, and asked it to explain what it meant by these boasting words. The bird replied: “O Solomon, where is thy wisdom? Knowest thou not that one utters foolish things to gain the admiration of the woman one loves?” A similar tale is found in Hanauer, Folklore of Holy Land 48. 36 PK 4, 34a; PR 12, 59b; Tan. B. IV, 110; Tan. Hukkat 6; BaR 19.3. 38 Josephus, Antiqui., VIII, 5.3. The correspondence between the two kings is given by Josephus, op. cit., VIII, 2.6-7, and by Eupolemus, 448-449, in a very lengthy form, whereas Scripture only refers to it in a few words. Eupolemus, 451, speaks of a golden pillar which Solomon presented to Hiram, and which the latter dedicated to Zeus; comp. Josephus, Antiqui., VIII, 5.3. Another legend relates that Hiram fashioned his daughter ’s statue of the gold which Solomon presented to him ; comp. Theophilus in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. ,452. This is also to be supplemented by the legend that Solomon married Hiram's daughter; see Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1.21. In the kabbalistic literature the legend concerning the rivalry between Solomon and Hiram in solving riddles is connected with the Hiram legend given in vol.
IV, pp. 335-336; comp. Zohar II, 159a, and II, 61a; Sabba‘, Tezawweh, 84, and wa-Ethanan, 134a. As to the possessions given by Solomon to Hiram (1 Kings 9.13), see Shabbat 54a, where several opinions are given why the king of Tyre was dissatisfied with the gift. According to one view, the inhabitants of these cities “were laden with gold and silver”, so that Hiram apprehended that they would not be willing to engage in warlike expeditions; see also Josephus, Antiqui., VIII, 5.3 37 In Baba Batra 15b an opinion is quoted thata“queen of Sheba ” never existed, and that the expression to® DD^D means “dominion of Sheba" (n^O). This statement very likely refers to Job. 1.15, where 288 Solomon [38-41 the Rabbis seem to have read tOP roVD; comp. Targum, ad loc. See, however, MHG I, 379; note 311 on vol. I, p. 298; Schechter in FolkLore, 1890, pp. 350-351. 3 8 Solomon ’s knowledge of the languages of the animals is hardly referred to in the older literature; comp, the references given in notes 24 and 34 to the Midrashim, where 1 Kings 5.13 is interpreted in a rationalistic manner. But Solomon’s dominion over the entire creation, men, animals, demons, and angels, is not disputed; comp. ShR 15.6 and 30.16; BaR 11.3; BR 34.12 (which reads: The power over the animal world, lost by Adam through his sin, was regained by Solomon); Sanhedrin 20b (which reads: Solomon before his fall was lord over all the terrestrials and celestials) ; comp, also vol.
IV, pp. 149, seq., and 165, seq. 38 For details concerning this bird, see Griinbaum, Gesammeltc Aufsatze, 139, seq. ; note 85 and note 696 on vol. Ill, p. 346. 4 0 Solomon is one of the few (three or ten) monarchs who ruled over the entire world; see Shir 1.1, 10; Mishle 20, 88, and 30, 104; PRE 11; Esther R. 1.1 (here David is also said to have been a “ Cosmocrator ”) ; Megillah lib (top). Comp. vol. I, p. 178; vol. Ill, pp. 196, 355. The Church Fathers are at pains to contradict this assertion of the Jewish legend, not out of dislike for Solomon, but for polemical reasons, maintaining that the scriptural passages speaking of man’s dominion over the entire creation can only refer to Jesus. See Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 34; Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos, 7. 4 1 Certain particulars concerning the relations between the queen of Sheba and Solomon have been omitted here because of their too realistic character. In the Arabic legend in which the queen bears the name Bilkis (Hebrew V&'D “concubine”?) , we are told that the genii wanted to hinder the marriage of Solomon and the queen of Sheba; they therefore called the king’s attention to the growth of hair on her legs. To convince himself that they spoke the truth, Solomon had a glass palace built, and when he found that their allegation was confirmed, he ordered them to make Nurah, a mixture of arsenic and unslaked lime, which he used as a depilatory.
Comp. Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, 219, and Seymour Tales of King Solomon 146-148. The legend concerning the hair on the queen’s legs very likely supposes that she was of the genii (this is explicitly stated by the Arabs), and hence the hair, for the bodies of demons are covered with hair; comp, note 58 on vol. IV, p. 33. That Solomon married the queen of Sheba is stated also in 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira, 21b, where the depilatory is also 289 I3l The Legends of the Jews mentioned. Comp, note 311 on vol. I, p. 298 and note 21 on vol. IV, p. 300. 44 Targum Sheni 1.3, 8-10. Read either NWDP7 instead of NDl’7, or "day” is here used instead of “sun”; comp. BR. 6.7. The description of Benaiah (concerning whom see vol. IV, pp. 166, 172) reminds one of that given of the high priest Simeon in Ecclus. 50.6, seq. It is, however, possible that Targum Sheni made use of the old piyyut HD Tim (Musaf of Day of Atonement), the author of which was acquainted with the Hebrew original of Ecclus. Comp. Rapoport, Bikkure ha‘ Ittim IX, 116. 48 Those who are not sons of the covenant of Abraham cannot bear the divine presence; comp, note 131 on vol. I, p. 241, and note 727 on vol. Ill, p. 356. See also vol. IV, p. 111. 4 4 The living tree had no motion; the trunk from which the crowning branches have been severed supplies the material for the moving vessels. 48 As to the question whether the angels who visited Abraham actually ate, or only “feigned to eat”, see note 143 on vol.
I, p. 243. The fifth riddle seems to be anti-Christian. For the sixth riddle, see PRE 10 and Midrash Jonah 98, where it is said that the fish showed Jonah the “roads of the Red Sea” through which Israel passed. The ninth riddle refers to the story of Judah (comp. Gen. 38.25). 46 These nineteen riddles found in the MS. Midrash ha-Hefez were translated and explained by Schechter in Folk-Lore I, 349-358. It is noteworthy that the fifth and eighth riddles are introduced by the words, “and furthermore she asked him”, from which it may be inferred that three different sources have been made use of by the compiler of this Midrash. The first four occur in Mishle I, 40-41. It is further noteworthy that the seventh and eighth are in Aramaic while the others are in Hebrew. This would probably show that the former belonged to some Targum. Comp. Herz, Die Rtitsel d. Konig. von Saba; Griinbaum, Neue Beitrage, 220-221, and the following note. On the fourteenth riddle, see note 61 on vol. I, p. 140. 47 Targum Sheni 1,3, 10. The second riddle is given in Hebrew (BUD literally “look”, means here “lights”), though the Targum is of course in Aramaic. The following points may contribute to the understanding of the third riddle. The sail of the boat is made of flax, in a storm it waves to and fro, and when beaten by the wind, it emits sounds; the rich wear byssus, the poor have rags, and shrouds are usually made of linen (comp.
Ketubot 8b); the birds steal the flax-seed, and the 290 Solomon U8-53 fish are caught with nets made of flax, comp. Wiinsche, Rathsel-Weisheit bei den Hebrdern; Cassel, Zweites Targum, 21-22. The meaning of ] 7piK in Targum Sheni is a riddle which the lexicographers attempted to solve ; but not being as wise as Solomon, they failed. Comp. Krauss, Lehnworter, s. v., and Ha-Shiloah, XIV. 92. According to Josephus, Antiqui., VIII, 6.5, the “queen of Egypt and Ethiopia” (that is how he designates the queen of Sheba) was inquisitive about philosophy, and was a woman that on other accounts also was to be admired. She showed her admiration of Solomon by many and precious gifts she made to him, and it is said that the root of that balsam which Palestine produces (comp. Berakot 43a, where balsam oil, 11DD7BN, is described as 13S1N ]DP, “the oil of our land ”) was the gift of this woman; Josephus, Antiqui., VIII, 6.6. «8 Josephus, Antiqui., VIII, 2.5. The recognized authorities of rabbinic Judaism condemn the use of the conjuring books ascribed to Solomon (comp, note 90 on vol. IV, p. 277), whereas the early Church held them in high esteem, and preserved considerable fragmets of them; see Schiirer, Geschichte, III, 407-414. Comp, note 93, and Jewish Encyclop., s. v. Solomon. * 9 Koheleth 2.5. On Solomon’s dominion over the spirits and demons, see PK 5, 45b, and the parallel passages cited by Buber, as well as the references given in note 38.
In agreement with the view given in Testament of Solomon (comp. vol. IV, p. 150, seq.), Shir 1.1, 5, and ShR 52.4 limit Solomon’s power over the world of spirits to the time of the building of the Temple, when they were forced by him into service, since all creatures contributed their share to the glory of God”. 80 Koheleth 2.25; Apocalypse of Baruch 87.26; comp, also vol. IV, pp. 114 and 319. 51 The “mountains of darkness" are mentioned in the Alexander legend of the Talmud (Tamid 32a), and play an important part in the later folklore of the Jews. 51 On these angels see vol. I, pp. 148, seq., and vol. Ill, p. 274. 5 1 Zohar III, 233a-233b. Palmyra is said to be the place where the queen of Sheba was buried by Solomon; comp. Seymour, Tales of King Solomon 148, and hence the remark of Zohar on Palmyra, the city of magic. For another version of the visits paid by Solomon to the fallen angels, see Zohar III, 112b; comp, also Aggadat Bereshit (end of introduction); 1 Emek ha-Melek 107c; Zohar III, 208a; Zohar Ruth (beginning nrtB .TOm 'I); note 55. 291 54-56] The Legends of the Jews 5 4 This, five A’s interlaced, is somewhat different from the Magen David, “the shield of David”, to whose magic power the Karaite Judah Hadassi (Eshkol, 92c, No. 242) is the earliest authority to make reference. Comp. Monatsschrift, 66, 1-9. 5 5 On Sheba as the land of sorcerers, see also MHG I, 378-379; note 311 on vol.
I,p. 298. It is possible that the substitution of “ Egypt ” for “Sheba” by Josephus, who consistently speaks of the “queen of Egypt” (comp. note47),is to be ascribed to the fact that in the Haggadah Egypt is the land of magic and witchcraft par excellence ; comp. Index, s. v. “Egypt”. In the Arabic legend the “sorceress” became the daughter of a female jinn (Peri); comp. Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, 219. As to the Jewish sources, where the queen of Sheba appears as a female demon, see Zohar III, 309b; note 41 ; note 20 on vol. II, p. 233. As she was a sorceress or demon, it is quite natural that the question she asked Solomon had reference to magic and witchcraft; see Zohar III, 194b. Comp., on the other hand, Aggadat Shir 1, 65, where it is said that the queen of Sheba praised Solomon for the wisdom he displayed in rendering justice and providing for the poor. s 6 Testament of Solomon, which is a pseudepigraphic book of Jewish origin, but with many Christian layers, and it is therefore often difficult to distinguish between the Jewish and the Christian elements of this work; comp. Conybeare, J.Q.R. XI, 1-45, and Salzberger, Salomos Tempelbau, 12-15. The following are the rabbinic parallels to the Solomon legend of this pseudepigraph. The demons assisted Solomon in the erection of the Temple; see the references cited in note 49. For Solomon’s magic ring in the Ashmedai legend of the Talmud, see vol.
IV, p. 166. Beelzeboul ( = Beelzebul) holds in this writing the same position as Sammael in the rabbinic legend, and the statement that the name Beelzeboul describes its bearer as the dweller of the first heaven (chapter 25) is to be explained in accordance with the view of the Rabbis that Zebul is the name of one of the heavens (comp. Hagigah 12b), though it is to be noticed that it is the fourth heaven which is called Zebul in the Talmud. On the son of Beelzeboul, see the Jewish legend concerning the son of Sammael (vol. I, p. 154). It should also be noticed that Cain is said to have been the son of Sammael ; see vol. I , p. 105. The green stone which Solomon needed for the building of the Temple is very likely identical with the Shamir of the rabbinic legend ; see note 82. The episode related by Ornias is only a slightly different version of the rabbinic legend, vol. IV, p. 167, where Ashmedai takes the place of Ornias. As to the sacrifices of the locusts, see vol. I. 292 Solomon [57 p. 264, and comp, also Kebra Negast, 60 (German translation), where this incident is told about Solomon and the daughter of Pharaoh. The idol Rephaim is probably a reminiscence of O’NEn “the shades” in Sheol; comp, also the etymology of D’sm, “images of idols”, in ARN 38, 101. The name Abezi-thibod, borne by a very powerful spirit, is probably the Hebrew *UlN ntty 3N, “the father who is devoid of counsel ”; comp.
Deut. 32.28 (mxy *niN ’ll). This evil spirit is said to have fought against Moses in Egypt by means of magic, hardened Pharaoh s heart, assisted Jannes and Jambres, caused the Egyptians to pursue the Israelites after having permitted them to leave Egypt, and finally been drowned with the Egyptians in the Red Sea, where he is kept a prisoner under a pillar. In the rabbinic legend it is Sammael, in the Book of Jubilees Mastema, who is the great adversary of Moses and Israel in Egypt and at the Red Sea; but there is also a rabbinic legend which ascribes this part to Uzza, the angel of Egypt, who like Abezi-thibod was thrown into the Red Sea. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 13-14, 16-18, 239, and see also Index, s. v. “Mastema”. See also Zadokite Fragm. 5.18, which reads: And Belial raised Johanan ( =Jannes) and his brother. That Ornias has the form of a lion (9) is very likely to be explained by the fact that he is said to have been the offspring of Uriel, whose name is taken to be identical with Ariel, “lion of God”, hence the form of a lion is ascribed to him. Comp. Zohar III, 32b, where Yoma 21a is made use of; vol. V, pp. 70-71. The Testament of Solomon, though containing a great many Jewish elements, is on the whole of a strongly syncretistic character. The pagan element is obvious in the fact that the angels (not only the fallen ones) are made to have offspring. This is neither Jewish nor Christian, but pagan.
5 7 Costa, Mikweh Israel, No. 59, based perhaps on Berthold Auerbach, who refers to this legend in his Village Stories. It is not sure whether these sources have been made use of by the writer in Ha-Zefirah, 1897, No. 172. It is possible that he drew upon an oral legend current among the Jews of Russia of today as it was among those of Germany at the time of Auerbach. This legend seems to be based on a midrashic exposition of Ps. 133.1. According to old sources, the site of the Temple had been known before Solomon, see note 101 on vol. IV, p. 75, and note 53 on vol. IV, p. 92. See further Sifre D., 62, where it is said that the prophet Gad made known the holy site to David. See also PR 43, 179b; Eapolemus, 447d; Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 13.4. As to the original possessor of the site, Araunah the Jebusite, see Josephus loc. cit., who seems to have been 293 58-59] The Legends of the Jews acquainted with some legends concerning the Jebusite. According to ‘Abodah Zarah 24b, he was “a proselyte of the gate”. Araunah is described in Scripture as king (2 Sam. 24.23), which means that he was the legitimate owner of the site of the Temple, for every one is “king” of his possessions; Zohar II, 214b. Just as David transmitted to Solomon the tradition about the site of the Temple, even so did he give him the necessary instructions about the furniture and vessels of the Temple ; these traditions were handed down to him by Moses, through the long chain of authorities (Joshua, the elders, and the prophets).
See Shemuel 16, 92-93; Yerushalmi Megillah 1, 70a. Just as a woman after giving birth to a male child remains impure for thirty-three days (see Lev. 12.4), even so did the earth after giving birth to Adam remain impure for thirty-three generations, that is, until the time of Solomon; Aguddat Aggadot 77, and comp. Vol. V, p. 72. Another Haggadah reads: Just as the moon acquired its complete light after fifteen days, even so did the light which began to shine at the time of Abraham reach its full strength in Solomon’s time, the fifteenth since Abraham; as the moon loses its light completely on the thirtieth day, even so did this light become dark after thirty generations during the time of Zedekiah, when the Temple was destroyed and Israel sent into exile; see ShR 15.26; PR 15, 76b-77a; BaR 13.14. A parallel to this Haggadah is perhaps Matth. 1.17; comp, however, Moore, Harvard Theological Review, XIV, 97— 103, and Ginzberg, op. cit. 196. 68 Yoma 39b; Yerushalmi 4, 41d; BaR 12.4; Tan. B. IV, 33; Tan. Naso 9; Shir 3.9. A rationalistic rendering of this legend is found in Josephus, Antiqui., VIII, 5.2. On the “gold that grows”, see also BaR 13.18, and vol. Ill, p. 163. 69 Sanhedrin 104b; Yerushalmi 10, 29b (as to the meaning of nVy Tin, see the remarks of R. Abraham Schiff in O’KT ”IDD, note 140, end; but comp, the explanation given further below); PR 6, 23b-24a;Tan. B. Ill, 43; Tan.
Mezora1 1; Mishle 22, 93 (on this passage see Ketab Tammim, 63); BaR 14 (beginning); comp. alsoShabbat 56b; Yoma 66b; note 100 on vol. IV, p. 75. The sin on account of which some of the Rabbis were inclined to count him among the wicked kings is the one committed by him in marrying foreign women, particularly Pharaoh ’s daughter ; see note 1 6 about the different views on this question, and comp, further Josephus, Antiqui., VIII, 7.2. See also Sanhedrin 103b; where it is stated that Ahaz, Ahaziah, and all the kings of Israel concerning whom Scripture uses the words, “and they did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord” have no share in the world to come, 294 Solomon [60-63 Notice the emphasis laid upon the “kings of Israel ”, to exclude Solomon from this class of the wicked, though Scripture employs the words “and he did that, etc.” with regard to him; see 1 Kings 11.16. When the authors of the Mishnah decided to count Solomon among the kings who have no share in the world to come, David appeared to them in a vision, and prostrated himself before them that they should change their decision. Others narrate that a fire broke out from the holy of holies, and consumed everything around them, forcing them to interrupt their discussions. Later they intended to take it up again (this is how *nn, read nVy 1TTH, is to be understood in Yerushalmi; comp. ni2£>7 nm in the T anhumas) , but finally they gave it up, as they found that their prayers which used to be granted remained now unanswered or, according to another view, because a heavenly voice pleaded for Solomon; comp, the references at the beginning of the note.
Targum Sheni 1.2, 5, seems to take Solomon as the promised Messiah. On the controversy among the Church Fathers concerning the salvation of Solomon, see Seymour Tales of King Solomon 187-188. 60 PR 6, 25a. Here it is also stated that the Temple “had built itself, the stones broke loose from the quarries and placed themselves in layers on the site of the Temple. The same view is also given in Shir 1.1, 5; Tehillim 24, 208; BaR 14.13; Zohar I, 74a. A similar statement concerning the tabernacle erected by Moses is found in ShR 52.4. For the symbolism of the Temple, see Midrash Tadshe 2, and vol. Ill, p. 165-167. 61 To harmonize the contradiction between 1 Kings 7.14 and 2 Chron. 2.13, it is assumed that the architect Hiram was a Naphtalite on his father’s side and a Danite on his mother’s side, a descendant of the Danite Oholiab, the assistant of Bezalel in the errection of the tabernacle; comp. ‘Arakin 16a; PR 6, 26a; Josephus, Antigui., VIII, 3.4; ps.-Jerome on 1 Kings 7.14. As to the view of ps. -Jerome on 2 Chron. 2.13, according to which in this passage of Chron. means “artist” (i;¥), see Ginzberg, Haggada lei den Kirchenv., 74-75. #s Derek Erez 1 (end). Comp, the parallel passages cited by Tawrogi, ad loc., and Epstein, Mikkadmoniyyot, 111. See also vol. V, pp. 95-96 and Index, s. v. “Paradise, Entering Alive”. 63 PR 6, 24b-25a. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 176; note 65. On the brazen altar which was withdrawn from use by Solomon on the occasion of the dedication of the Temple (1 Kings 8.64), see Midrash Tannaim 54; Mekilta Bahodesh 11, 73a.
295 64-69] The Legends of the Jews 84 Tan. B. I, 43; Tan. Noah 11. As to the blessings which came upon the world at the erection of the Temple and disappeared at its destruction, see ARN 4, 19-20 (second version 5, 18-19); Tan. B. IV, 5, and the parallel passages cited by Schechter and Buber. 66 Mo'ed Katan 9a; Shabbat 30a; Sanhedrin 107b; Tan. B. II, 22 (here it is said that the door of the holy of holies did not open of itself until Solomon had David’s coffin brought into the sanctuary), and IV, 83; ShR 8.1 (here it is said that the ark measured exactly ten cubits, and the opening of the door of the sanctuary was exactly the same measure; hence it was impossible to bring in the ark; comp, note 330 on Vol. Ill, p. 158), and 44.2; BaR 14.3 and 15.13; Tehillim 7, 66, and 24, 207-208; PR 2, 6b; Koheleth 4.2; Targum Ps. 76.17 and 132.10; Targum 2 Chron. 7.10. Comp, also BR 35.3; Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 36; vol. Ill, p. 159. 66 PR 6, 25b. Comp, note 102, end, on vol. IV, p. 41, According to another legend, David begrudged himself food and other necessities of life, so that Solomon should have plenty of gold and silver for the vessels of the temple; but God would not allow him to make use of the money left him by his father, because the latter kept his treasures in the time of the great famine, instead of using them to alleviate the sufferings of the poor; comp.
vol. IV, p. Ill, and DR. 2.27. 67 Np3’N “a goat”, from pi’ “sucked”; comp. Hebrew pH’ and Aramaic NpT, as well as Hebrew nVl3 “lamb", and Aramaic H’Vti “lamb”, “youth”. The Assyrian uniku is to be explained in the same manner. As to the prosthetic N, it is to be remarked that in primae yod verbs the use of such an N is the rule in Syriac, whereas in J udeoAramaic it is not very frequent. 68 Read NpiHitP “falcon” instead of NUI!? “cat”. 69 Targum Sheni 1.2, 5-7. Other versions of the description of the throne (more or less different from that given in Targum Sheni) are found in Abba Gorion 4-8; Panim Aherim 57; Kolbo, No. 119, republished from there by Jellinek in BHM II, 83-85; Ma'asiyyot (Gaster ’s edition) 78-79; Midrash on the Throne of Solomon, published from a MS. by Perles in Monatsschrift XXI, 128-133, and hence in BHM V, 34-37 (a very fantastic description, in which also the demons play a part; they fly with Solomon through the air “between heaven and earth” before he takes his seat); Yerahmeel 84, 251-253; Esther R. 1.2, 12; Midrash Shir 31b. Comp, also Shu'aib, who quotes from Targum (Sheni) a description of the throne different from that found in our texts, and further R. Bahya’s introduction to his commentary, 296 Solomon [70-73 who seems to have been acquainted with the Midrash published by Perles ; comp, also the following note. On the ‘'seven patriarchs" see PR 7, 29b, and on the other distinguished men whose images were engraved on the throne, see Index, under the respective names.
70 BaR 12.17; Shir 6.4; Esther R. 1.1, 12; DR 5.6; PK 1, 7a-7b. The descriptions of the throne as given in the later sources state that there were inscriptions on the throne or on the animals thereof which reminded him of his duties as king and judge. BaR, loc. cit., contains many symbolic explanations of the six steps of Solomon’s throne. According to one explanation, Solomon ’s throne was fashioned after the pattern of the divine throne ; now since God 's throne is in the seventh heaven, therefore the seat Solomon occupied was also above six elevations; Comp, note 39 on Vol. IV, p. 31. The legends concerning Solomon ’s throne are treated in detail by Cassel, Der Thron Salomos and in his edition of Targum Sheni, as well as by Salzberger, Salomos Thron. Comp, also Gaster, Exempla, No. 115. 7 1 This etymology of the name Necho, connecting it with Hebrew "lame”, is very old, as may be seen from the Peshitta and Targum on 2 Kings 23.29. Comp, also PK 27, 168a. The daughter of Pharaoh ( = Shishak), whom Solomon took as wife, is called Bithiah in Targum on 2 Chron. 8.11. This is very likely due to a confusion of Shishak ’s daughter with the one of his predecessor, the foster-mother of Moses; comp, note 60 vol. II, p. 271 and Index, s. v. "Bithiah”. 71 Abba Gorion 2—4; Esther R. 1.2, 10.; Aguddat Aggadot 57—59 (on p. 59, top, read 'D *70; "Alexandria of Egypt” is the usual way in which the Rabbis refer to Alexandria); Panim Aherim 57-59; Kolbo 119 ( = BHM II, 83); WR 20 (beginning); Koheleth 9.2; Tan.
B. V., 7; Targum 1 and Targum Sheni 1.2. Comp, further vol. IV, pp. 182 and 368. The sources quoted differ with regard to the details of the " wandering of the throne ”, but agree that none but Solomon and his descendants were able to make use of the throne, whereas the pagan rulers who attempted to ascend it not only failed of their purpose, but were punished for their efforts. 73 Esther R. 1.2, 12, where the Tanna R. Eleazar the son of R. Jose, who visited Rome about 170 C. E., states that he saw fragments of Solomon ’s throne in Rome. On this Tanna ’s visit to Rome, see Graetz, Geschichte, IV, 191. Here also it is stated that only "Cosmocrators”, like Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, had the privilege of making use of this throne; Ahasuerus had therefore to be satisfied with a rep297 74-79] The Legends of the Jews lica and was not permitted to sit on the original, because he ruled only over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces. Comp. vol. VI, p. 454, top. 7 4 The great animal race was under the supervision of the official mentioned in 1 Kings 4.19, whose duties are explained in this manner. See also Sanhedrin 12a, where he is said to have been the superior of the other twelve, each of whom served one month. Others maintain that he exercised his functions only in leap years, performing his duties during the additional month. 75 Midrash published by Perles from a MS.
in Monatsschrift, XXI, 134-136, and reprinted by Jellinek in BHM V, 37-39. On pp. 38-39 read n~IBl ^ptro nro1? “He will dig channels as deep as the Tigris and Euphrates”; the subject is l?N~IP,:2ir>lC3p mentioned before. The Naphtalites were swift runners (see vol. II, p. 245), and the Gadites excelled in military skill; see note 393 on vol. II, p. 145. Index, s. v. 7 « PK 6, 58a-58b; PR 16, 81b; BaR 21.19; Tehillim 50, 280; Baba Mezi'a 86b; Tan. Pinehas 12; Koheleth 2.7 and 9.11; comp, also DR 1.5 (parallel passages are cited on margin); Baba Mezi'a Mishnah 7.1; Matthew 7.29. 7 7 This hero of the Arabic legend is known in Jewish sources only as the father of “medicine”; comp, note 75, on vol. I, p. 174. The attempt of Venetianer, Asaf Judaeus, 18. seq., to distinguish between the legenday Asaph and the author of medical books bearing the same name is not to be taken seriously. 7* “To prepare for a journey” in Jewish parlance means “to do good as long as life lasts, before the great journey to the great beyond is begun;” comp. Ketubot 67b. 7» Ma'aseh ha-Nemalah published several times separately and also in BHM V, 22-26. The Arabic origin of this legend is obvious, and the Arabic original is still in existence, though less known than the Hebrew translation; see Hebrdische Bibliographic, XIII, 105, and Jellinek, Introduction to BHM V, 11-13. Salzberger, Salomo-Sage, 90, published an Arabic text containing the first part of Ma'aseh haNemalah, but did not recognize the nature of the text.
Comp, also Gaster, Exetnpla, No. 343 and Seymour Tales of King Solomon 80-99. See further Ben ha-Melek, XVI, where David is said to have found an inscription upon which a king told of himself that he had ruled a thousand years, destroyed a thousand cities, annihilated a thousand armies, and married a thousand princesses. This is only a somewhat different version of the inscription by Shadad supposed to have been found by Solomon. 298 Solomon [80-86 ,0 That means: He fails to pay attention to the Yod in n3T (Deut. 17.16-17); comp, also Matthew 5.18. 81 Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2, 20c; WR 19.2; ShR 6.1; Tan. WaEra 5; Tan. B. II, 18; Aggadat Bereshit 75, 146. It is worthy of notice that Solomon is censured for having married many wives, but aot for having married foreign women. Comp, note 16. 8 2 On the Shamir, see vol. I, p. 34, and the notes appertaining thereto. The Tannaim speak of the Shamir as having been created (in the twilight between the sixth day and the Sabbath of creation ; see references in note 99 on vol. I, p. 83) ad hoc, that is, for the use of the sanctuary. Accordingly it disappeared after the destruction of the Temple. See, e. g., ToseftaSotah 15.1. The old sources do not state explicitly whether it was a mineral, plant, or animal; but the tradition which considers it to have been some kind of an insect represents the view of the old authorities; see note 165 on vol..
I, p. 34. The Testament of Solomon, however, seems to regard the Shamir as a stone; see note 56. In an Abyssinian legend the Shamir is supposed to have been a kind of wood ; see Seymour, Tales of King Solomon, 149. 8 3 For Ashmedai in the Solomon legend, see Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. “Asmodeus”. The Aramaic origin of the name Asmodeus is pointed out there. 84 As to the demons being present at the debates of the scholars in the academies, see Berakot 6a (top). The demons are divided into three classes: 1) the angel-like; 2) the human-like; 3) the animal-like. Asmodeus and his family are “Jewish demons”, i. e., they profess the true religion, and observe the Torah. See Zohar III, 253a and 277a (below). According to the Arabs, there are different religions among the genii, as among men, and this view is “Judaized” by the Zohar. The older view considers the demons to be either fallen angels, or at least spirits akin to them. See Index, s. v. “Demons”. 85 The guardian bird of the Shamir is called tTQ “the wild cock”, in the Talmud, where it is identified with the biblical nson (Lev. 11.19), usually rendered by “hoopoe”. The important part played by the hoopoe in the later Solomon legend (comp, note 39) is very likely to be explained by Arabic folk-lore; comp. Griinbaum, Gesammelle Aufsatze, 39, seq. According to some it was the eagle which brought the Shamir from paradise, seeTehillim 78.351 =Yalkut 11.182; vol.
I, p. 34. 86 Gittin 68a-68b (for a correct text use must be made of Ma‘asiyyot 75-78 (Gaster's edition and Makiri, Prov. 20, beginning); 290 87-91] The Legends of the Jews Tehillim 78, 351-353; Likkutim I, 20b-21b; BHM VI, 106-107; Neweh Shalom, 53- 55; Hibbur Ma‘ asiyyot, No. 4; Manzur al-Dhamari, 13-14; Targum on Eccles. 1.12; Midrash Shir 29a-30a. In contrast to Babli and the above-mentioned sources dependent upon it, the Palestinian sources maintain that it was an angel who, disguised as Solomon, occupied the throne during the time that the real Solomon wandered about through the world as a beggar; comp. Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2, 20c; PK 27, 168b-169a; Tan. B. Ill, 55-56; Tan. Ahare 1 and Wa-Ethanan 2; Shir 1.1, 10 and 3.17; Ruth; R. 2.14; Koheleth 1.12, 2.2, and 9.12. Comp, also Megillah lib (top; on the text see Aggadat Esther 7); Sanhedrin 29b; ShR 30.16; Aggadat Shir 3,33. In the Babylonian version of the legend Persian influence is apparent. It is, however, doubtful whether one is justified in assuming Persian influence in the Palestinian version. Comp. R.E.J. XVII, 59, seq .; Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, II, s. v. “Asmodeus” and Gaster, Exempla, No. 114. 8 7 Mishle 15, 78-79; on the text, see R. Bahya, Pekude (beginning). 8 8 The marrying of foreign women is not accounted as a sin unto him; comp, notes 16 and 81. 89 According to 1 Kings 14.21, Naamah the Ammonitish woman was the mother of Rehoboam; hence the ancestress of the Messiah, who is to be a descendant of the Davidic kings.
Comp. Baba Kamma 38b; BR 50.10; Index, s. v. “Messiah”. The text explicitly states: in p m»D runs tcm 9 0 This city is called DDDEp probably an intentional corruption of PDD 0$?, which, though it stands for Moab in Num. 21.29, might be taken for Ammon in accordance with Jud. 11.24. 91 ‘Emek ha-Melek 14d-15a and 108c-109d, whence it is incorporated in BHM II, 86-87. Comp, also Azulai, Midbar Kedemot, 96, No. 24. The relation of the Jewish legend to the Arabic one, published by Salzberger, Salomo-Sage, 124, seq., needs careful examination; see Midrash Shir 29b-30a, Steinschneider, Hebraische Bibliographic, XVIII, 57-58 and Gaster, Exempla, No. 404. The old Jewish sources often speak of the “two precious doves ’ ’ , Ruth the M oabitish woman and Naamah the Ammonitish woman, on whose account Ammon and Moab escaped destruction; comp. BR 50.10; Baba Kamma 38a, Yebamot 63a. But the authors of the Talmud (comp. Yebamot 77a) speak of David playing with his grandson Rehoboam, and accordingly are of the opinion that Solomon married Naamah the Ammonitish woman, the mother of Rehoboam, during his father ’s lifetime. This view is shared by Aphraates, 300 Solomon [92-93 461. The assertion of Ephraem on 1 Kings 14.25 that Naamah misled her son into idolatry is not found in the talmudic-midrashic literature. Kimhi, 1 Kings, loc. cit., is the first to mention it. Comp, note 18 on vol.
IV, p. 184. 93 The feet of demons resemble those of the cock; see Berakot 6a; Zohar III, 309a. On the feet of angels, see vol. I, p. 302. 93 Gittin 68b; Tehillim 78, 353. Comp, also the references cited in note 86. A different view is given in the Talmud, loc. cit., and elsewhere, to the effect that Solomon never regained the throne, but died (in his wanderings?) as a private man. It is said that Solomon was at first the ruler over the entire world, then over Tadmur only (on Tadmur, see vol. IV, p. 149), then over Israel only, and finally he only possessed the couch upon which he slept; even this possession he did not enjoy entirely, as he was terrified by evil spirits in his sleep. See Aggadat Shir 3, 33-34, and (somewhat differently ) 1, 6; Shir 3.6; comp, also the parallel passages cited by Schechter. It was towards the end of his life that the holy spirit came to him (according to some, he was a prophet; see Sotah 48b, top; Targum 1 Kings 5.13; Ratner on Seder ‘Olam 20; notes. 8, 25), by means of which he composed three books: Song of Songs, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes; see Seder ‘Olam 15. On the reasons for this trilogy, see Aggadat Shir 1, 6. It is the first book, the “holiest of holy books” ( = Hagiographa) upon which Solomon’s glory is based, whereas the last had for a long time to encounter the opposition of the sages against its admission into the Canon, because the passages thereof, owing to their obscure language, seem to contradict the dogma or reward and punishment and other essential doctrines of Judaism; see Yadayim 3.5; Tosefta 2.14; Shabbat 30b; Mishle 25, 97; PK 8, 68b; PR 18, 90b; WR 28 (beginning); ARN (both versions) 1, 2-3; Jerome, Eccles.
12.13. On the great esteem in which Songs of Songs was held (it was taken as an allegorical presentation of the history of Israel from the beginning of its career until the advent of the Messiah), see Targum Shir 1.1; Aggadat Shir 1, 4—6 and 10; Midrash Shir lb; Shir 1.1; Zohar I, 98b and 135a; quotation from an unknown Midrash in the anonymous Arabic commentary on Songs of Songs published by Friedlaender in Steinschneider— Festschrift, 54, seq. Those who recite this book like a (love) song will be severely punished for their sacrilege. See Sanhedrin 101a; Kallah 1, lb. Solomon composed his first book while he was still young, songs having a special attraction for the youth; when he reached the age of manhood he wrote Proverbs, containing the ripe fruit of a man who knows life; but when he became 301 94-99] The Legends of the Jews old he composed Ecclesiastes, the key-note of which is the vanity of all human pleasures and desires. See Shir. 1.1; Aggadat Shir 1.6. In the Zohar reference is made to the following books of Solomon: 1) The book which Ashmedai gave Solomon, from which something bearing on magic is quoted in III, 194b; 2) the book of the wisdom of Solomon, from which three sayings are quoted (the first is found in Shabbat 33a) in III, 193b; 3) the book on physiognomy, from which a lengthy passage is quoted in II, 70a, seq.; comp. Davidson, Sepher Sha ashuim.
Introduction, LXXXII, seq. ; 4) Solomon’s book on the knowledge of precious stones in II, 127a (top). The book of Solomon 's wise counsels referred to in I, 225b, is very likely identical with No. 2. Solomon is probably the author, or rather the redactor of the book (or books) of the Sons of the East; see Zohar I, 99b, and II, 171b. Comp, note 70 on vol. IV, p. 270. Comp, notes 18 and 24. •4 Berakot 18b; Targum 2 Sam. 23.20-25; Zohar I, 105b-106b; 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 20a. See also the undoubtedly Jewish Haggadah in ps. -Jerome on 2 Sam. loc. cit. • 6 Berakot 4a = Sanhedrin 16b (on the text see Tosafot and Rabbenu Hananel, ad loc.-, Aruk, s. v. in«; R. Nissim in R.E.J. XLIV, 29 295-296), where the assertion is made that the Cherethites and Pelethites whose chief was Benaiah (2 Sam. 8.18), represent the Great Synhedrion, whose president was Benaiah. Mahzor Vitry, 332, is of the opinion that this Benaiah is not identical with his namesake, the commanderin-chief of Solomon ’s army (1 Kings 2.35). The reason for this is probably to be found in the fact that Benaiah, the general of Solomon, was not a priest (see 1 Kings 2.34, where he acts as executioner, which work cannot be done by a priest on account of the Levitical laws of purity), whereas according to the Haggadah, Benaiah, the head of the Synhedrion was a priest; see Midrash Shir 30a, and 1 Chron. 37.5. Comp, also Tosafot, loc.
cit. 96 Ma‘ aseh-Buch, No. 230; translated into Hebrew in BHM VI, 124-126; Comp. Gaster, Exempla, No. 426. 97 Tehillim 39, 255. The legend about the rivalry of the human organs, without any reference to Solomon and Benaiah, is also found in Makiri, Prov. 18, 3a; Orehot Zaddikim, 25; Shu’aib, Shelah, 83d84a. The last-named author offers several other variants for our texts of Tehillim. 98 On Luz see vol. IV, p. 30. 9 9 Sukkah 58a. Another version is found in Yerushalmi Kil 'ayim 9, 32c; Ma’asiyyot (Gaster 's edition 100). The two servants of Solo302 Solomon [ioo mon are described in Babli as DHB1D “scribes”, and hence in Yerushalmi as ’’TtaapD’K, which is k
← Ad Fontes Library