Volume 4, Chapter 10: X. THE EXILE

X. EXILE Vol. IV, (pp. 291-340). 1 PR 26, 129b. Shallum (1 Chron. 3.15) is taken to be another name for Zedekiah. This name was given to him either because he was “ perfect” ( shalem ) in his conduct (comp, note 119), or because in his days the Davidic dynasty came to an end {shalem). See Horayyot lib; Yerushalmi Shekalim 6, 49b; Jerome on Jer. 22.11. It is curious that this Church Father gives the identification of Shallum with Zedekiah as his own view, and states that Jewish tradition considers Shallum to have been some other son of Josiah. On the respective ages of Josiah’s sons, see Tosefta Sanhedrin 4.11, and references given in note 124 on vol. IV, p. 284. 2 PR 26, 129b. On the correct reading of the text comp. Ginzberg Compte Rendu, 32 =R.E.J., LXVII, 145-146. According to others, he made him take the oath of allegiance by the “horns of the altar”, or, as some maintain, by the Abrahamic covenant. See PK 27, 168b; Ekah 2, 15; Koheleth 9.2; Esther R. 1.8. On the taking of an oath by the Torah, see Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 132-133. On the swearing by the Abrahamic covenant, see note 284 on vol. I, p. 294. s Ekah 2, 114-115; Nedarim 56a; Tan. B. II, 33, and V, 8. The first passage maintains that Nebuchadnezzar killed the members of the Synedrion in a very cruel manner. The word ’n in the passage cited from Tan. means “raw”, and this seems to be the original form of the legend. Nebuchadnezzar lacked refinement, and was in the habit of eating raw meat. Subsequently ’PI was taken in its ordinary sense, and hence the statement in Ekah that he was caught eating a piece of flesh from a live hare. * Nedarim 65a. On the halakic principle underlying this Haggadah , see Or Zaru‘ a Shebu'ot 6-7. s A quotation from an unknown Midrash by Rashi and Kimhi on 2 Kings 25.4; Jer. 39.4; Ezek. 12.13; Kad ha-Kemah, Shebu'ah, II, 75. On the enormous length of this cave, see ‘Erubin 61b; Tan. B. IV, 9; PR 26, 131a, and parallel passages cited by Buber on Tan. loc. cit. and by Friedmann on PR, loc. cit. 6 PR 26, 131a. Read 31*733 13TI31 “and he put him in a cage” (this the Babylonians actually did with their prisoners) instead of 382 Exile [7-8 TUTQ D2TU1 which makes no sense, though the legend records elsewhere that the Babylonians put the captive Manasseh in an oven (comp, vol. IV, p. 279). On the “old” Halakah presupposed here that perjury is punishable with death, comp. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 136. In Esther R. 1.8 Nebuchadnezzar’s words are made to harmonize with the later view of the Halakah which maintains that perjury is not a capital crime. 7 Tan. B. V, 8. This is the source of Yalkut II, 257 (end of 2 Kings). Comp, note 23 on vol. I, p. 60. Jeremiah’s prophecy that the king would lose his mind (comp. Jer. 4.9; 21? is taken to mean “mind” and not “courage”, comp. vol. V, p. 57, note 189) was thus fulfilled on this occasion. Had Zedekiah retained his right sense, he would rather have committed suicide than witness the execution of his children. See Ekah 1, 87. 8 PR 26, 13 la-13 lb, where V^pm’ should probably be read instead of rrDT. Comp. Josephus, Antiqui., X, 8.2, which reads: And these things happened to him, as Jeremiah (34.3) and Ezekiel (12.13) had predicted to him that he should be caught and brought before the king of Babylon, and should speak face to face with him, and should see his eyes with his own eyes; and thus far did Jeremiah prophesy, but he was also made blind and brought to Babylon but did not see it, according to the prediction of Ezekiel. As to Zedekiah ’s fate in captivity, see 2 Targum Esther 1.2 (end) where it is said that Pelatiah the son of Benaiah (comp. Ezek. 11.13, and accordingly either ynn1 of Targum is a faulty reading for liTU or we must read yTirP 12 in’J3 ]3; see 1 Kings 2.29) remonstrated with Nebuchadnezzar on account of his cruelty to the Jews. He said to him: ‘‘When one delivers his flock to a shepherd, and a bear comes and snatches away a sheep, of whom will it be required?” The king answered: From the shepherd will it be required.” Whereupon Pelatiah rejoined: “Let thine ears hear what thy mouth has uttered.” The king then ordered to bring Zedekiah before him, and he removed the iron and brass chains from him, and changed his prison garments for others. The similarity between the words of Pelatiah in Targum and those of Paltiel, “the prince of the people” (comp. Ezek. 11.1), in 4 Ezra 5.16-18 is obvious, though in this pseudepigraphic writing it is Ezra who is the shepherd and not Nebuchadnezzar, as in Targum. On Pelatiah, see also note 21. The imprisonment of Zedekiah and his final release are referred to in Targum on Ps. 107.10, seq., whereas Josephus, Antiqui., X, 8.7, maintains that Nebuchadnezzar kept Zedekiah in prison until he 383 9-12] The Legends of the Jews died, and buried him magnificently (comp, notes 117-118), but he freed the high piiest from his bonds. In Tehillim 90, 389 I’J’in’ is very likely to be read instead of n’pTX. In explanation of Hab. 2.15 it is said that the biblical verse refers to the indignities inflicted by Nebuchadnezzar on Zedekiah whom he gave to eat and drink things causing diarrhoea, thus exposing him to derision. See Tan. B. II, 33 ; Esther R. 1.8; Jerome on Hab. loc. cit. (who quotes as his authority quemdam de Hebraeis, qui sapiens apud illcs = D2n, et devTepcoTrjs = rutpn, vocabatur). The coarse form of this legend in Jerome is very likely to be ascribed to his own account, and not to the learned Hebrew. Comp, note 107. 9 Sanhedrin 103a. Comp, note 119 and note 127 on vol. IV, p. 284. 1 0 Sifre N., 78; Sifre Z., 75; PK 13, 115b, where it is said that the people spoke scornfully of Jeremiah as “that descendant of a proselyte”. On Rahab, the ancestress of prophets and priests, see vol. IV, p. 5. On the scornful reference to his descent, comp. vol. Ill, p. 388, the similar remark about Phinehas. That Hilkiah the father of Jeremiah is identical with the high priest bearing this name in the time of Josiah is maintained by the Church Fathers Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1.21, and Hippolytus on Susannah 1.1, who considers Jeremiah to have been the brother of Susannah (this is how the passage is to be understood), the daughter of the high priest Hilkiah. In Jewish sources, Kimhi on Jer. 1.1 is perhaps the first who explicitly declares that Jeremiah’s father was the high priest Hilkiah; but Targum Jer. 1.1 probably presupposes this view. 1 1 BR 64.4, where is very likely to be read, instead of *73rK, in accordance with Rashi on Ezek. 20.14. This correct reading is more in harmony with history, for it makes Jeremiah’s father flee from the wicked king Manasseh, not from the wicked queen Jezebel. Comp., however, Ascension of Isaiah 2.12, with regard to the false prophet Belchira (living at the time of Manasseh), who is said to have been a nephew of the false prophet Zedekiah, who flourished in the reigns of Ahab and Jezebel. Jeremiah was born on the ninth of Ab (the day on which the Temple was burned), and his birth was announced to his father by the wicked Pashhur. Hence the prophet curses not only the day of his birth, but also the man who brought the “tidings” to his father, saying: “A man-child was born unto thee" (Jer. 20. 14-15). See Kimhi on Jer., loc. cit., and Seder ha-Dorot, 3298. 18 ARN 2, 12; Tehillim 9, 84. Comp, note 318 on vol. I, 306. 384 Exile [13 While still in his mother’s womb, he cried: “ I shall not leave it before I receive my name.” His father said: “I shall call thee Abraham.” But the unborn babe replied: “This is not my name.” The father continued to suggest many other names, but the unborn babe insisted that none of the proposed names would fit him. Finally Elijah the prophet appeared and proposed the name Jeremiah, because in the days of this child God will raise up (OT “raise up” and IT “God”) an enemyagainst Jerusalem, who will lift up his handagainst it. “This,” assented the unborn babe, “is my name.” I shall be called Jeremiahu (the full form of Jeremiah iTDT is HTDT Jeremiahu), adding in this way the last part of thy name (-liT^N) to my own. See 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 17b. For other etymologies of the name Jeremiah (among which there is one deriving it from the Greek kpijpia “desert”), see PK 13, 115a; Ekah Z. 76; Koheleth 1.1. 1! PR 26, 129a-129b, and, in a shortened form, Ekah Z., 62 (here it is correctly written ]i"D and not '3, since the “water of bitterness ” might be administered by an ordinary priest), and 134. Zion the mother of Israel is a favorite metaphor with the pseudepigraphic writers and the New Testament; see Apocalypse of Baruch 3.1, and the parallels cited by Charles. The Haggadah maintains that Jeremiah was meant in the promise made by God to Moses that He will raise up a prophet “like unto thee” (Deut. 18.18), and although there “hath not arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses” (Deut. 34.10), the lives of these two prophets show so many striking resemblances, that the description of Jeremiah as “a prophet like unto Moses” is well justified. Moses prophesied for forty years, so did Jeremiah; Moses prophesied concerning Judah and Israel, so did Jeremiah; Moses was attacked by members of his own tribe (i. e., the Levite Korah), so was Jeremiah (comp. Jer. 20.1); Moses was thrown into the water, and Jeremiah into a pit; Moses was saved from death by a bondwoman (Exod. 2.5), and Jeremiah by a slave (comp. Jer. 38.9; the name Ebedmelech is explained as “slave of the king”; Comp, note 66); Moses addressed words of exhortation to the people, so did Jeremiah. See PK 13, 112a; Ekah Z. 75; Midrash Tannaim 111; a quotation from an unknown Pesikta in Midrash Aggada, 160, on Num. 30.11, where many more parallels are drawn between the life of Moses and that of Jeremiah. Comp, also Kaneh (caption Tan PN), who seems to have made use of the same source as Midrash Aggadah. Moses was the first in the long row of prophets and Jeremiah the last; the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who lived after his time, 385 I4l The Legends of the Jews retained only a trace of the old prophetic power. See PK 13, 116a, where the text is to be corrected in accordance with Midrash Aggada, 160, on Num. 30.11. As to the meaning of ITTpB which is rendered by “trace”, see Nega'im 5.3. In his modesty and humility Jeremiah declined the honor to be compared with Moses. When God told him to take the place once occupied by Moses and to become the leader and guide of the people, he rejoined: “Who am I to take the place of Moses? May it be granted to me to be like his pupil.” See Midrash quoted by Shu'aib, Mattot, 91d. As to Jeremiah’s being equal to Moses, see Matth. 16.14, and the Christian tradition concerning the “two witnesses” (Rev. 11.3), according to which the one is Moses and the other Jeremiah; see Bousset, Antichrist, 208, and see also vol. VI, p. 340, note 112. Jeremiah, Isaiah, Jacob, and Adam are the four men who are described in the Bible as “the creatures of God”.

See PR 26, 129a, and comp, also ibid. 27, 133b, as well as Mekilta Bo 16, 19a, with regard to the statement that Jeremiah was consecrated to the prophetic calling while still in his mother’s womb. Jeremiah, however, was not the only prophet sent to the wicked generation. For ninety years before the exile two prophets admonished Israel twice daily to repent and mend their ways, if they did not want to be banished into captivity. See PK 16, 124b; PR 33, 153; Ekah 2, 117. But the Israelites said to Jeremiah: “After all the sins we have committed we are ashamed to return to God.” To this God replied by the mouth of Jeremiah: “ If ye come back to Me, ye return to your father, and children are never ashamed to come back to their father.” See DR 2.24; PK 25, 165a. Jeremiah’s teacher was the prophet Zephaniah, a great-grandson of king Hezekiah (comp. Ibn Ezra and Kimhi on Zeph, 1.1; Maimonides in his introduction to his Yad ), and when the disciple began to prophesy, he limited his activity to speaking in the streets, whereas Zephaniah preached in the synagogue. See PR 26, 129b. In vol. IV, p. 296>lines 6 and 7, read Zephaniah instead of Zechariah. 1 4 PK 13, 115b, which reads: As Jeremiah was scornfully spoken of by the people as “that descendant of the harlot Rahab" (comp, the references given in note 10, to which should be added PK 13, 11b12a; Ekah Z., 74, 75; unknown Pesikta quoted in Midrash Aggada, 160, on Num. 30.11), so was Uriah referred to by the people as the “Gibeonite”, because he came from Kiriath-Jearim (Jer. 26.20), a city which originally belonged to the Gibeonites (comp. Josh. 9.17), and therefore the Bible takes pains to emphasize the fact that this Exile US prophet was of noble descent, a priest, comp. Is. 8.2. The identity of Uriah killed by Jehoiakim with the priest Uriah in Is., loc. cit., is presupposed in many old sources; comp. Sifre D., 43; Ekah 5, 159; Makkot (end); Targum on Is., loc. cit. These sources, however, understand the passage in Is. to mean: God spoke to Isaiah: the good tidings foretold by the prophet Zechariah will be fulfilled, as the evil predicted by Uriah (his prophecy consisted of Micah 3.12) was fulfilled. According to this view, Isaiah had no personal relations with Zechariah or Uriah. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1.21, asserts that the prophet Habakkuk was a contemporary of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, but in the same passage it is stated that Jonah and Habakkuk were contemporaries of Daniel. Comp. Index under the respective names of these prophets. 15 Mo'ed Katan 26a; Ekah, introduction, 27, and 1, 43. The old rabbinical sources know of no other writings of Jeremiah than the book bearing his name, the Book of Lamentations, which is said to be the “scroll” mentioned in Jer. 36.2, seq., and the Book of Kings. See Baba Batra 15a, and comp, the sources cited at the beginning of this note. The statement of Baba Batra, with regard to the Book of Kings, is to be understood that the prophet was the editor thereof. This becomes evident when we consider the similar statements made there concerning other biblical books, as, e. g., the following ones: Hezekiah and his associates wrote the books of Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes; the men of the Great Assembly wrote the books of Ezekiel, the twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel, and the Scroll of Esther. Comp, further details concerning this use of 2rQ in note 89 on vol. IV, p. 277. The apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature knows at least of three additional writings by Jeremiah. They are: l)Epistle of Jeremiah, a letter written by the prophet to the Jews who were about to be led as captives to Babylon, in which he warns them against idolatry It is a Midrash on Jer. 10.11, and is a canonical book in the Greek Bible. 2) The Paralipomena of Jeremiah, also known under the title, the Rest of the Words of Baruch, an originally Jewish work, but with considerable Christian additions and interpolations. Though ascribed to Jeremiah, the chief interest of this work centres around Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, the friend of the prophet; comp, note 58. On a third pseudepigraphic writing ascribed to Jeremiah, see Schiirer, Geschichte (4th edition), III, 393. Eupolemus (?), 454b454c, narrates how the wicked king Jehoiakim attempted to burn Jeremiah on account of his prophecies predicting the destruction of 387 The Legends of the Jews 16] the Temple and the captivity of the people. It is not likely that this writer had made use of an apocryphal writing of Jeremiah. In all probability this statement of Eupolemus is based on a (fanciful) combination of Jer. 36.23 with 26.8, seq. The biblical narrative about the burning of Jeremiah’s writings was changed to an attempt at burning the author. In the very late compilation known as the Ma'asehBuch (comp. No 163,49b) we meet for the first time in rabbinic sources with a reference to non-canonical writings of Jeremiah, which are said to have consisted of lamentations. Zephaniah, the teacher of Jeremiah (comp, note 14), is also credited with an additional work, and fragments of the Apocalypse of Zephaniah are still extant. See Schtirer, op. cit., 367-368. 16 Ekah 1, 71; Tan. Lek 20; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 29c. Opinions differ as to the nature of the sins which caused the destruction of the Temple and the captivity. See Shabbat 119a, 139a; Yoma 9b; Yerushalmi 1, 38c; Ta'anit 5a-5b; Nedarim 81a; Baba Mezi'a 30b (which reads: Jerusalem was destroyed because the people dispensed justice according to the “strict law”); Yerushalmi Hagigah 1, 76b; 2 ARN 5, 18; ER 14, 71 (comp. Yoma, loc. cit.), and 18, 96; EZ 1, 168; Ekah, introduction, 1 and 27 (on the seven cardinal sins which they are said to have committed, see Sifre 26.21 and Mishle 6, 56; comp, also note 60, on vol. IV, p. 269) as well as 1, 41, 56-57, 62, 69-70, 92-93; Ekah Z., 59, 75, 77; PK 13, 112b; 15, 120b-121a; PR 25, 125b; 27, 132b-133a; BaR 9.7; Koheleth 1.13; Baraita di-Yeshua‘ 45b. It is noteworthy that the Rabbis did not consider idolatry as the sin which caused the severe punishment of Israel. They even maintain that the Israelites were convinced of the vanity of the idols, and the idolatry was merely to give expression to their dissatisfaction with the law, the burden of which was too heavy for them, especially the injunctions regulating sexual life. See Sanhedrin 63b. Neglect of the study of the Torah is most frequently mentioned as the main cause for Israel’s severe punishment, and besides this a number of other sins, transgressions as well as moral wrongs, are mentioned as having contributed to make God wroth with His people. In Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shanah 5, 58d (towards the end), and Ekah, 1, 62, it is stated that because they did not release their Hebrew slaves (comp. Jer. 34.8, seq.), they themselves were given over to slavery. The same view is shared by ps.-Tertullian De Carmine adv. Marcionem, 3, 235. The view that their evil treatment of Jeremiah caused the exile is found in Ecclus. 49.7 and EZ 9,188. That the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of Judah were mainly 388 Exile [17-21 due to the sins of the “ten tribes” is maintained in Assumption of Moses 3.5; comp, also Baruch 2.26; Apocalypse of Baruch 77.10. Seek on the other hand, 1.3 of the last-named work, where it is said that the sins of Judah were greater than those of Israel. Eupolemus (?), 454b, following closely the words of Scripture, asserts that Jeremiah was sent by God, and found the Jews sacrificing to a golden image, the name of which was Baal. 17 Ekah 4, 152; an unknown Midrash quoted in Sefer ha-Musar 18, 129b-130a. The text in Ekah is not quite clear, as one fails to see the connection between the friendly relations of the ten tribes with the Egyptians and the assistance of the latter offered to Judah. 18 Sanhedrin 89b; Yerushalmi 11, 30b. This Hananiah was originally a true prophet; see Sifre D., 84; Sanhedrin 90b; Yerushalmi, loc. cit .; Midrash Shir 10a; Hallel 103 (towards the bottom). In the last-named source Tlfy ]2 n’lin is corrupted to 12 iT"Uyi 'rtW’D min b’lry. In Midrash Shir 12a (bottom), the text is not to be emended with the editor to min, it refers to 1 Kings 13.18 and 22.11. 19 Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 11, 30b; Midrash Tannaim 63-64; Tan. Wa-Yera 13. As to the conception that God always fulfils His word if it is a promise to bestow “good” upon man, whereas He sometimes changes His word if it contains a threat to do harm to man, see BR 53.4, and the numerous parallel passages cited by Theodor. 30 PR 26, 129a-129b; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 11, 30b; Midrash Tannaim 64. On Jonathan, see also Hallel 103 (towards the bottom); on the pious Ebed-melech see vol. IV, pp. 318, seq. Jeremiah, onhearing Hananiah ’s false prophecy, said: “Amen! the Lord do so.” His punishment for having “flattered” the wicked was that he almost lost his life at the hands of the grandson of the man whom he had flattered; Sotah 41b-42a with reference to Jerem. 28.6 and 36.13. 21 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 21b; R. Joseph Kimhi on 1 Kings 10.1 (comp. Dukes, Rabbinische Blumenlese, 267), with the addition: And she (the queen of Sheba) descended from Abraham through his children with the concubines. This is based on the identification of tOtP in 1 Kings, loc. cit., with fOP in Gen. 25.3; comp. MHG I, 379, and note 311 on vol. I, p. 298. The legend about Solomon’s marriage with the queen of Sheba is perhaps of Arabic origin, as it is not found in old Jewish sources antedating the Mohammedan period. The name Bilkis, however, given in Arabic sources to the queen of Sheba seems to be the Hebrew Plb’S “concubine”, and this would point to the Jewish origin of the legend. Comp, note 41 on vol. IV, p. 145. Later 389 22-24] The Legends of the Jews Kabbalists changed “mother” to “ancestress”, maintaining that Nebuchadnezzar was not the son but the descendant of the queen of Sheba. Nebuchadnezzar’s wife was Semiramis; comp, note 106 and note 134 on vol. IV, p. 287. A son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar was the viceroy of Mesene, and at his request Jewish captives were sent to his dominion, but only slaves, while the freemen among the Jews remained in Babylon. This was done at the suggestion of Pelatiah (comp, note 8), who remarked to Nebuchadnezzar: “We (freemen) ought to remain near thee, and the slaves may be sent away.” See Kiddushin 72b. Nebuchadnezzar, being the king of Babylon, is also described as the “grandson of Nimrod”, the first king of that country; see Pesahim 94b. This, however, is probably not to be taken in a genealogical sense. 2 2 Sanhedrin 95b (but here nothing is said about Nebuchadnezzar being related to Sennacherib); Tosefta-Targum on Is. 32; Ekah, introduction, 30, where Sennacherib is said to have been the grandfather of Nebuchadnezzar. Comp, also Ekah, introduction, 23; 2 Targum on Esther 1.2, 11, and 4.1; vol. IV, p. 269 and note 59 pertaining thereto. 2 3 Sanhedrin 96a; for another version of this legend, see vol.

IV, p. 275. 2 < Ekah, introduction, 23; Tehillim 79, 359-360; Koheleth 12.7; 2 Targum Esther 1.2, 11, and 4.1; PK 5, 50b-51a; PR 15, 74a; Shir 2.13. The Rabbis seem to have taken bpbp (Ezek. 21.25) to mean “shooting”; the divination employed by Nebuchadnezzar, accordingly, did not consist in the “shaking of arrows”, but in “throwing” them. Comp. Cassel, Esther, 287. The three last-named sources cited above maintain that the seventy years of the Babylonian exile are to be counted from the time when the heavenly voice began to be heard in Nebuchadnezzar’s palace, while the actual period of the exile lasted only fifty-two years. Comp, however vol. IV, p. 366. During these fifty-two years the land of Judah was entirely deserted by “all that lives”; neither man, nor beast, nor fowl, nor fish was to be found there (comp. Jer. 9.9), and for seven years the soil thereof was “brimstone and salt, and a burning, that it is not sown”, so that the attempts made by the Samaritans to till the soil were in vain. Seven hundred species of “clean ” fish, eight hundred of “clean ” beasts and numberless species of fowl left the Holy Land at the time of the exile, and settled in Babylon (the fish travelled through the abyss) and, with the exception of the turbot, they all returned with the restoration of the captivity. See Seder ‘Olam 27; Shabbat 145b; Yoma 54a; Yerushami Ta'anit 4, 69b; Kil’ayim 9, 32c; Ketubot 12, 25b; 390 Exile [25-26 PK 13, 113b— 114; PR 1, 3a; Ekah, introduction, 34. The cedar-tree likewise came at the time of the exile to Babylon, where it was brought by Nebuchadnezzar, who had spoiled all the cedar groves of Palestine to enrich his own country. It is to this that the prophet refers saying: “Yea, the cypresses rejoice at thee, and thecedarsof Lebanon; since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us” (Is. 14.8); Ekah 1, 64. The palm was brought to Babylon forty years prior to the exile so that Israel, accustomed to the fruit of the palm (sweet fruit is the proper food for the students of the Torah), should not lack it. See PK 13, 114a; Yerushalmi Ta'anit 4, 69b. The Jews were the first to introduce the use of the “mill” in Babylon, their young men having been forced by Nebuchadnezzar to take the handmills with them from Palestine to the land of their captivity. See Ekah 5, 159. Several of the above statements of the Haggadah and many others concerning the exile (comp., e. g., note 16) reflect the views of the Rabbis about the catastrophe in the year 70, C. E., notwithstanding the references made to the biblical passages dealing with the “first exile”. Comp, also Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 29c, which reads: Israel was not exiled until he had become divided into twenty-four sects, as it is written: “ I send thee to the children of Israel, to the rebellious nation" (Ezek. 2.3). It is quite obvious that the sectarianism at the end of the second commonwealth is meant. Another statement {ibid.) reads: Israel was not exiled until he had neglected the law of circumcision and other divine commands. It is not impossible, though not very likely, that this wishes to convey the idea that Pauline Christianity is responsible for the destruction of the second Temple. Comp, note 16 (beginning) and note 29 (towards end of page). 26 Ekah Z., 63, 70, 134; comp, note 27. Michael, the guardian angel of Israel, had to be found first before “his” people could be conquered. Comp, the same view with regard to the guardian angels of Egypt, voi. III. p. 25. As to the conception that the “right hand” of God is bound as long as Israel is in exile, see Ekah, 2, 110 — 111, and note 4 on vol. II, p. 187. 26 Ekah Z., 61; PR 29, 139b-140a. On Abika (not Akiba as in the text, which is a printer’s error), seeGiidemann, Monatsschrift, XXIX, 132, who identifies him with Chagiras of Adiabene, whose heroic exploits during the wars with the Romans in 70 C. E. are described by Josephus, Bell., V, 11.5. That Abika is said to have fought against the Babylonians is not necessarily an anachronism; comp, the end of the note 24. When Gabriel (it is he who is spoken of in Ezek. 10.2 as the “man clothed in linen”) received the command “to fill both 391 27] The Legends of the Jews his hands with coals of fire from between the Cherubim and dash them against the city” (of Jerusalem), he had to ask one of the Cherubim to be kind enough and fetch the coals for him (the celestials need lovingkindness like the terestrials) for he would have been burned immediately if he had approached the place of the Cherubim. For three years Gabriel kept the almost extinguished coals in his hands, hoping that Israel would repent and Jerusalem would thus be saved. When he realized, however, that his hope was doomed to disappointment, he was ready to dash the coals with fury; but at that moment God called to him: “Gently, gently! There are men in Israel who are kind to their fellow-men. Had Gabriel carried out his intention, Israel would have been annihilated, and thus its survival is due to the lovingkindness shown by some of them, on account of whose merits Gabriel was admonished by God not to act too furiously in his work of destruction. See WR 26.8; Tan. B. Ill, 41 and 84; Tan. Emor 3; Shemuel 24, 121; Ekah 1, 75-76; Mishhle 1, 47-48; Yoma 77a. On the part played by Gabriel in the destruction of the Temple, see Ekah 2, 97-99, where many haggadic embellishments are found about the narratives (visions?) given in Ezek. 9 and 10. As to the mark set by the angel upon the foreheads of the pious (Ezek. 9.4-6; see note 122 on vol. IV, pp. 416-417), comp. Shabbat 55a; Tan. B. Ill, 41; Tan. Mishpatim 6. It is stated in these passages that the pious were marked by the angel with ink, the wicked with blood, the ink-mark warded off the angels of destruction, the blood mark incited them. The “justice” of God insisted that the pious be also punished for not having guided the wicked back to the path of righteousness. The demand of justice was granted, and the pious were even the first upon whom the punishment was visited. Comp. Ezek. 9.6. 27 Yalkut II, 1001, without giving its source but very likely quoting Ekah Z. The view that the destruction of the Temple was never achieved by the hand of man, but that the angels (or the heavenly fire) burned it is often met with in the talmudic and midrashic literature. Michael and Gabriel are mentioned as the angels who carried out the work of destruction. Comp. Sanhedrin 96b; Ekah 1, 76; 2, 109-110; DR 1.17; Tehillim 36, 252; Ekah Z, 61; Aggadat Shir 5, 39; Midrash Shir 30b. Comp, note 25. Most of the Midrashim just cited speak of the angels as keeping guard over the Temple, which accordingly was indestructible as long as they watched over it. A somewhat different version of this Haggadah reads: As long as the Shekinah dwelled in it, the Temple could not be destroyed; but the Shekinah gradually with392 Exile [28-29 drew from its place between the Cherubim to its original abode in heaven, and this left the Temple and the holy city unprotected. Ekah, introduction, 25; Rosh ha-Shanah 31a; PK 13, 114b; ARN 34, 102; Aggadat Shir 5, 39; comp, note 98 on vol. IV, p. 278 with regard to the “ten stations” travelled by the Shekinah. Noteworthy is the statement found in Pesikta and Ekah that for thirteen and a half years the Shekinah, after withdrawing from the Temple, dwelled on the Mount of Olives, from where it proclaimed, three times daily, to the people: “I will go and return to My place, till they acknowledge their guilt and seek My face.” Comp. Hosea 5.15. In contrast to the view that finally the Shekinah returned to heaven, there are also authorities who maintain that “the Shekinah, never left the western wall;” Tan. B. 11,5-6; Shir 2.9; Tehillim 11,98-99; ShR 2.3. The western wall is the only remnant of the former Temple building. 28 Comp, the “sending away” of Samuel from the calamitous battle in note 42 on vol. IV, p 64. See also Apocalypse of Baruch 2, according to which Jeremiah, Baruch, and the other pious men were commanded by God to leave the city one day before the enemy was to enter it, in order that their presence might not render it impregnable. Comp. vol. IV, p. 322. 29 PR 26, 131a; 2 Targum Esther 1.2, 11; PK 13, 115b— 1 16a. ; Koheleth 3.16 and 10.6; WR 4.10; Sanhedrin 103a. On the view that the angel destroyed the Temple, see, besides the references given in note 27, also Apocalypse of Baruch 7-8 and 80. This apocryphal work is also acquainted with the legend about the keys of the Temple; the rabbinical sources dealing with it are given in note 150 on vol. IV, p 286; comp, also the references at the beginning of this note, as well as Ta‘ anit 29a; ARN 4, 24; 2 Targum Esther 1.3, 12. The last high priest was Seraiah (comp. 2 Kings 25.18), a brother of Baruch; see Sifre N., 78, and the parallel passages cited by Friedmann, as well as Ekah 2, 113. Comp, also Shitah Mekubbezet on ' Arakin 16a. As long as Israel brought the daily offering (besides circumcision, this was the only divine command observed by them; comp., however, note 24 end, and note 16 beginning) Jerusalem was impregnable. The enemy succeeded in entering the city only after the services of the Temple had ceased owing to the lack of sacrifices. For a time the enemy supplied the Jews with the necessary animals but finally they sent them up a swine instead of a sheep. See Apocalypse of Daniel (towards the beginning), which undoubtedly follows Baba Kamma 82b (comp. Josephus, Antiqui.,XlV, 2.2), where the episode with the swine is said to have taken place at the time of the 393 29] The Legends of the Jews war between Aristobulus and Hyrcanus. Another version of the legend about the swine reads as follows: When the enemy approached the Temple, the gate shut of itself, and would by no means open. It was of no avail to the enemy that he brought three hundred and sixty camels laden with iron axes and tried to force the gate open, as it “swallowed up” all the rams (comp, the statement concerning the “magnetic iron” in vol. IV, p. 276). Finally (according to Perles, SchwartzFestschrift, 305, Haterius Fronto, mentioned by Josephus, Bell., VI, 4.3 and 9.2; but perhaps D131DS, Paternus, is to be read; comp. Schiirer, Geschichte, 4th edition, I, 649) brought a swine, slew it, and sprinkled its blood upon the Temple, defiling it thereby. Whereupon the gate opened, and the enemy entered the Temple. When, however, Nebuchadnezzar wanted to enter the holy of holies, the doors closed and would not open, until a heavenly voice called out: “Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars” (Zech 11.1). Whereupon they opened. See 2 Targum 1.2, 11-12, which in the main follows Sanhedrin 96b and Targum Lam. 2.9. On the defilement of the Temple by the enemy and on the blasphemies uttered by them against God, see Ekah 2, 113, and ER 1, 5. The Temple was taken on the seventh of Ab, and the work of destruction began immediately; on the ninth towards evening the enemy set fire to it, and on the tenth it was burned down completely; Seder ‘Olam 27; Ta'anit 29a; Yerushalmi 4, 69c (top), and Megillah 1, 70c.

It was the first year of the Sabbatical cycle, and on the first day of the week, the ninth of Ab, when the enemy seized the Temple just at the moment when the Levites chanted the song: “And He hath brought upon them their own iniquity and will cut them off in their own evil ” (Ps. 94.23). See Seder ‘Olam 30; Tosefta Ta'anit 5 (3). 9; Babli 29a; Yerushalmi 4, 68d; ‘Arakin llb-12a; Soferim 18. These sources state that the destruction of the second Temple took place exactly on the same day of the week and of the month and in the same year of the Sabbatical cycle as the first. Comp, also Josephus Bell., VI, 4.5-8, and Antiqui., X, 8.3; Schiirer, Geschichte (4th edition) I, 631. The statements of the latter are far from being correct. ’tCMD rQP is not Sabbath night but Sunday, as the context shows, since there was no service in the Temple at night; 21J7 is not found in correct texts, and is certainly a scribal error. — God in His mercy ordained that the destruction of the Temple, as a result of which the people went into captivity, should take place in the warm days of the summer, otherwise the exiles would have suffered greatly from the cold on their way to Babylon. See Tan. B. Ill, 41. — Just as the destruction of the Temple 394 Exile [29 would never have been accomplished by the Babylonians, if they had not been assisted by God in a miraculous way (comp, above), even so was the conquest of Jerusalem brought about directly by God. For three and a half years Nebuchadnezzar besieged the holy city without making the slightest progress. He finally decided to raise the siege and return to Babylon. When he was about to carry out his intention, the thought occurred to him (thus did God ordain) to measure the height of the city walls, and after taking the measurements in two days he found out to his great joy that the walls sank daily two and a half hand-breadths. He remained outside the walls till they had disappeared entirely, and he entered the city. See Ekah, introduction, 30. On the view that the gates of the Temple opened of themselves, see Yoma 39b and Josephus, Bell., VI, 5.3, who reports this miracle to have taken place shortly before the destruction of the second Temple. Comp, note 24 (end). The designation of the Temple as Lebanon (Yoma, loc. cit., Gittin 56b, and 2 Targum Esther 1.2, 12), is also known to Jerome; comp, his commentary on Jerem. 22.20. Azulai, Midbar Kedemot, s. v. iTDT, quotes from a Midrash on Lam. the following legend: Jeremiah and Nebuchadnezzar were intimate friends in their childhood. The future ruler of the world once said to his Jewish friend: “If I become king, I shall burn the Temple of Jerusalem, destroy the city, and drive its people into exile.” Jeremiah, who knew by the Holy Spirit that Nebuchadnezzar was destined to do great things, began to plead with him for the Jews, but without much success. The only request he granted him was that he (Jeremiah) should be permitted to save as many as would be able to leave Jerusalem in the few hours from noon until sunset. When the fatal day of the destruction of the Temple arrived, Jeremiah was absent from the city (comp. vol. IV, p. 303), returning to it about sunset, and thus was unable to save a person. Comp, also Horowitz, Bet ‘Eked, I, 37, whose reference to the source of this legend is misleading, as there can be no doubt that he copied it from Azulai. Bernstein, Konig Nebucadnezar, 27, note 1, gives a somewhat different version of this legend, alleged to be taken from “cabbalistic works”; but the correctness of the statement may be doubted. Bernstein, ibid. , quotes from “cabbalistic works” the legend that Nebuchadnezzar, greatly moved by the tears and lamentations of his friend Jeremiah, ordered to have the Temple rebuilt and the people return from the exile. It is quite certain that Jewish sources contain nothing of the kind, and it seems that Bernstein must have confused Jewish with Arabic sources. Comp. Mas'udi, Muruj al-Dhahab, I, 100. 395 The Legends of the Jews 3o] 30 Gittin 57b; Sanhedrin 96b; Ekah 4, 148-149, and introduction, 23; Yerushalmi Ta'anit 4, 69b; PK 15, 122a-122b; Koheleth 3.16 and 10.4; 2 Targum Esther 1.2,12. In the last-named source Nebuchadnezzar and not Nebuzaradan is the avenger of the prophet Zechariah. In Sanhedrin, loc. cit. (comp, also ShR 46.4), it is explicitly stated that the king was not present at the conquest of Jerusalem, which was entirely the work of Nebuzaradan. It is true that the Bible speaks of the campaign against Jerusalem as the work of Nebuchadnezzar; but this is due to the fact that the general was so overawed by the king that whatever he did he considered it as the work of his master, whose likeness he had attached to his chariot, so that he might always be reminded of him. Apocalypse of Daniel (beginning) follows in the main Sanhedrin, but has one new point to the effect that it was Gedaliah the son of Ahikam who told Nebuzaradan the real cause of the seething blood. This explains why he was appointed governor over Judah by the Babylonian general. On the virgins who wove the curtains for the sanctuary, see also Apocalypse of Baruch 10. 18-19. Midrash Aggada on Num. 30.15 (158) maintains that the blood of the murdered Zechariah bespattered the walls of the sanctuary, and in consequence thereof the Shekinah left the Temple and did not return until the time of Isaiah. Comp, the references in note 27 on the “stations of the Shekinah”. Ratner, note 17 on Seder ‘Olam 27, justly suggests that the Zechariah legend was known to this tannaitic work. In the Christian Apocryphon Protevangelium of James 24, Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, is substituted for his namesake Zechariah, the prophet and high priest in the time of King Joash. Comp, vol IV, p. 259. In Matth. 22.35 (but not in the parallel passage Luke 11.51) the father of the murdered prophet is called Berechiah, owing to a confusion of the pre-exilic prophet Zechariah (the son of Jehoiada) with the post-exilic prophet, the author of the biblical book Zechariah, whose father’s name was Berechiah. Comp, alsojosephus, Bell., IV, 5.4; Moore, Journal of Oriental Societyf&Nl, 317 seq. Mid rash Aggada, loc. cit., counts the following martyred prophets: Hur (comp. Index, s. v.) ; Shemaiah, who was killed by Basha, king of the ten tribes; Ahiah of Shiloh (comp, note 5 on vol. IV, p. 180) ; Zechariah, who was killed by king Joash; Isaiah, who was sawn asunder by Manasseh (comp. Index, s. v.) ; Jeremiah, who was stoned by the Egyptian Jews. Comp, note 42. For the miracle of the never-congealing blood, comp, also the quotation from an unknown Midrash in J.Q.R., N. S. VII 133, with regard to the blood of the goat slaughtered by the brethren of Joseph 396 Exile [31-39 (comp. Gen. 37. 31), which, it is said, will remain uncongealed until the advent of the Messiah. As to the large number of priests killed by Nebuzaradan, see also Ekah 2, 108. As to the latter 's conversion to Judaism, comp. vol. IV. p. 311, where it is assumed that he remained in the service of Nebuchadnezzar even after the destruction of the Temple, and accordingly he did not become a proselyte. In Sanhedrin, loc. cit., it is stated that God intended to have Nebuchadnezzar’s descendants become proselytes, but the angels objected, for they did not want the wicked king who destroyed God’s house to be granted such a distinction. With regard to the army which participated in the destruction of the Temple, the view is expressed that it will not rise on the day of resurrection, but at the same time it will be spared the torments of hell. See Yerushalmi Shebi’it 4, 35c; Ruth R. 1, 17. Comp, also Tosefta Sanhedrin 13.5 and Seder ‘Olam 3 (end). 31 PR 26, 131. Comp. vol. IV, p. 303. 34 On the weeping of the angels ( = Is. 33.8), see also vol. I, p. 281. On this occasion as well as on those of the flood and of the drowning of the Egyptians God silenced the song of the angels; Ekah, introduction 24,24. Comp. vol. VI, pp. 12, 165. The weeping of the angels at the destruction of the Temple is also found in Apocalypse of Baruch 77.2. 33 On the designation of Abraham as the “friend” and “beloved” of God, see vol. V, pp. 207—208. 3 4 On the rejection of the Torah by the “other nations”, see vol. Ill, pp. 80, seq. 35 In the Midrash the words of Abraham addressed to the first three letters only of the alphabet are given. 3 6 On the part of Moses in the Messianic work of redemption, see vol. II, pp. 302, 373; vol. Ill, pp. 312, 481. For the designation of “faithful shepherd”, see vol. II, p. 301. 3 7 The plaints of Moses and the people are later insertions in the old legend about the great lament, as may be seen from the language, which is Aramaic, whereas the rest is Hebrew. Similarly the Rachel episode did not originally form part of this legend. 38 For a similar case where the sun is forced to do his work, see vol. Ill, pp. 207-209. On the “sixty fiery scourges”, see vol. VI, 150, note 896 and p. 332, note 84. 39 Ekah, introduction, 24, Ekah Z., 63, 66-67, 71-73, 138-140, 142-144. See also Menahot 53b, which reads: In the hour when the Temple was destroyed God found Abraham there praying. God said to him: “What doth My beloved in My house?” “I came on account of 397 39l The Legends of the Jews my children,” replied Abraham. “Thy children”, said God, “have committed sins, and have been banished.” “Perhaps”, rejoined Abraham, “without intention, through ignorance.” “No,” said God, “they did it presumptuously.” “May be”, pleaded Abraham, “only a small portion of them sinned.” “No,” remonstrated God, “many of them are guilty.” “Had it been Thy will, ” rejoined Abraham, “they would have repented.” “Nay”, said God, “their wickedness waxeth when they prosper.” Abraham then began to weep and mourn, saying: “God forbid that there should be no salvation for them.” A heavenly voice then proclaimed: “The Lord called thy (Israel’s) name ‘A green olive-tree’ (Jer. 11.16); Israel is like an olive tree: its product comes after pressure and crushing; even so will Israel’s salvation come after its suffering.” This account is a haggadic paraphrase of Jer. 11.15-16. In BHM V, 63-64, it is Jacob who leads in the great lament, and makes the angels, as well as the souls of the pious (in line 2 from below |nnt£>31 is to be read), weep for Israel. He was consoled only after he had received assurance from God that Israel ’s sufferings at the hands of his oppressors would save him from the torments of hell. Comp. vol. I, p. 236. For another version of the lament, see 2 Targum Esther 1.2 (towards the end); ARN 4, 24, 165; second version 7, 21; ER 28, 148-150; Ekah 1, 42, 56, and 59; PR 28, 135; PK 22, 148b (rnntt NpDS). In Pesikta the whole of nature mourns for Israel. It is very likely presupposed here that with the destruction of the Temple nature deteriorated, and will not regain its former excellence until the advent of the Messiah.

Comp. Sotah Mishnah 9.2; Tosefta 15.1-2; Babli 48b-49a; Yerushalmi 9, 24b. See also Pesahim 42b; Baba Batra 25b; Tan. Tezawweh 13. For further references to the great lament, see Berakot 3a; 7a (top), 59a; Hagigah 5b; an unknown Midrash quoted by Makiri on Is. 52, 195 and 196 (the paragraph in 1DN Diur on p. 196 is quoted as Pesikta in Makiri on Ps. 31, 204); Zohar III, 172a. The Zohar legend about the “tears of God”, shed for the suffering of Israel, turning into pearls is probably based on Berakot 59a. On Rachel’s intercession for her children, see vol. I, pp. 361, 415; note 202 on vol. I, p. 369; vol. II, p. 135; ER 28, 148; ps.Rashi on Abot 3.12. Although the destruction of the Temple was a great loss, it was nevertheless fortunate that God poured out His wrath upon “ stones and wood ” and not upon Israel. The destruction of the Temple saved Israel from annihilation. See Kiddushin 31b (comp. Rashi, caption NnV’D N”ynD’N); Tehillim 79, 360, and 92, 408 (which reads: Songs and music at the erection of the Temple, and songs and music 398 Exile [40-42 at the destruction of the Temple); Ekah 4, 148; ER 28, 150-151. In the exile God made Israel swear five oaths: not to attempt to reconquer the Holy Land by force of arms; not to rebel against the nations ruling over them; not to divulge the appointed time of the redemption; not to despair of the final redemption (this, it seems, is the meaning of ipnT differently Rashi); not to divulge the “secret” (of the calendar) to the other nations. At the same time God made the nations swear not to oppress Israel too hard. See Ketubot 111a; Shir 2.7. Comp, also Tan. B. I, 38-39, and the parallel passages cited by Buber in note 134. God assured Israel that He would redeem them in the time to come, not as the nations, and even Israel, thought that the destruction of the Temple amounted to the repudiation of Israel. See ShR 31.10; PR 31, 143b, 146b; Berakot 32b. 40 Ekah, introduction, 34; PK 13, 113a-113b; PR 29, 137a. 41 PR 27, 131b. Comp, the references given in the preceding note. 42 Ekah, introduction, 34; PK 13, 113b. On the idea that God accompanied Israel in exile, see also PR 31, 144b, and note 4 on vol. II, p. 188. Opinions differ as to the fate of Jeremiah (and Baruch) after he had been carried off to Egypt. According to our text of Seder ‘Olam 26, when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Egypt, Jeremiah and Baruch were “exiled by him to Babylon”, whereas Rashi, on Jer. 44.14, has Palestine instead of Babylon. Comp, also Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 1, 19a (top), and the parallel passages on margin, where it is stated that Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Baruch fixed the calendar outside the Holy Land; as the context shows, this can only refer to Babylon. With regard to Baruch, Megillah 16b explicitly states that he lived (and died) in Babylon. This is in agreement with Baruch 1.1. Comp, also Ratner note 50 on Seder ‘Olam 26, and Ha-Misderonah I, 37. In Apocalypse of Baruch 10 and 33 it is said that Jeremiah was told by God to go to Babylon to console the exiles, whereas Baruch remained in the Holy Land with the rest of the people. According to The Rest of Words 4.5, Jeremiah was carried off captive to Babylon. The different versions about Jeremiah’s martyrdom reflect the difference of opinion as to the country in which the prophet finally settled. The legend about the prophet’s martyrdom is very likely of Jewish origin, although the rabbinic literature contains only one reference to it. But Heb. 11.37 seems to allude to it. An unknown Midrash quoted in Midrash Aggada, Num. 30.15, reads as follows: The Jews in Egypt stoned Jeremiah, but his body was buried by the Egyptians who loved him, because 399 42] The Legends of the Jews through his prayers the crocodiles (on D,in UDnn, see Low in Judaica, 341 ) disappeared from the Nile, and ceased to ravage the country. Later Alexander disinterred the body, and buried it in Alexandria. On Jeremiah as a helper against the crocodiles, see also the extract from an Armenian pseudepigraphic work in Apocrypha Anecdota, II, 164. The legend about the prophet’s martyrdom in ps.-Epiphanius, De Vitis Prophetarum, s. v. “Jeremiah”, agrees in the main with Midrash Aggada. On the other hand, the Rest of Words, 9, maintains that Jeremiah suffered his martyrdom notin Egypt ( = Tapheneh in ps.-Epiphanius), but in Jerusalem, and a popular tradition still current points to a spot in the north of the holy city as the prophet 's grave. Jeremiah’s martyrdom is also mentioned in Visio Pauli 49, and by Hippolytus, Susanna 1.1. Other Christian writers (comp. Victorinus of Peteau, Apocalypse of John, 11.1; ps.-Tertullian, Carmen Adversus Marcionitas 3, 245 and 257) count Jeremiah among those who never “tasted death”. This view must have been widespread, as it left its traces in Arabic sources (comp. Friedlaender, Chadhirlegende, 269--270). Still it is very doubtful whether it is of Jewish origin. It is more likely that Christian legend transferred to Jeremiah certain features which originally belonged to his disciple Baruch (on a similar confusion between master and disciple, see note 66, end), who, according to Jewish tradition was one of those who “entered paradise alive”; comp, vol. IV, p. 323. See also the remarks in notes 13 and 66 on Jeremiah as one of the “two witnesses”. In ‘Aktan IV (end; Carmoly’s edition) it is said that Jeremiah prayed for death, as he could no longer endure to see Israel suffer. Whereupon a heavenly voice was heard saying: “Wait until thou seest the destruction of Babylon, and then I will grant thee peace (imtt), until I build My house for ever.” God then “hid” him. This undoubtedly presupposes that the prophet did not die, but it may be doubted whether this passage is genuine, as it seems to be a fabrication of Carmoly's. Jeremiah is not among the “ten pious men ”, who, according to ‘Aktan 1, “entered paradise alive”. The statement in Shalshelet 99b-100a, 101a about the martydomof Jeremiah and about his meeting with Plato in Egypt (who first ridiculed the prophet, but later admired him) is taken from Christian sources. Comp, also Abravanel on Jer. 5.1. — The Ben Sira legend is so closely interwoven with the life of Jeremiah that it may be worth while to give here its main feature in connection with the Jeremiah legends. This prophet surprised once, in a public bath, wicked men of the tribe of Ephraim, and found them committing onanism; he reproached them for their 400 Exile [42 sin. Far from repenting, they forced the prophet to follow their example, threatening that if he refused, they would commit sodomy, using him as the object of their lust. Shortly after the prophet’s virgin daughter came to bathe in the same place, and conceived by absorbing the sperm released by her father. Nine months later she gave birth to a son, who, immediatly after he left his mother’s womb (comp, note 12), began to speak, saying to her: “ Do not be ashamed though the people may accuse thee of having led an immoral life, tell them that I am Ben Sira, that is, ‘the son of Jeremiah’ ” (the numerical value of NTD is 271, the same as that of liTDT). After a long conversation with his mother, in which he told her, among other things, that his father Jeremiah likewise spoke immediately after his birth (comp. vol. IV, p. 294), he requested her to provide him with a good meal consisting of bread, meat, and wine, as he was not like other infants who are nourished by the breasts of their mothers. At the age of one year he was sent to school, where his display of wisdom and learning caused masters and pupils to marvel. No sooner did the teacher begin to instruct him in the Hebrew alphabet than Ben Sira composed proverbs in accordance with the order of the letters. The teacher exclaimed: “In truth, nature changed its order.’’ Ben Sira, however, remarked: “This is nothing new, as Baruch did it before me, when he composed the alphabetic lamentations (Book of Lamentations) at the command of Jeremiah, who recited to him the letters of the alphabet, while he immediately formed the verses.” Ben Sira spent seven years at school; when he left it, there was nothing “big or small” which he did not know. He could tell, for instance, by looking at it how many grains a measure ( = seah ) of wheat contains. The fame of his wisdom spread all over the world, and hence the wise men of Nebuchadnezzar became envious of him, and by means of slander and all kinds of wild accusations attempted to have Nebuchadnezzar kill him, but all his machinations against him were of no avail. Nebuchadnezzar was even ready to abdicate his throne in his favor, but Ben Sira refused to become king, as he was not a descendant of David. Nebuchadnezzar then wanted him to marry his daughter, but, of course, he refused to marry a Gentile woman. For this affront the king was about to kill him, but Ben Sira's great wisdom saved him. See 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira. This curious little book, containing fables legends, and tales, in all of which Ben Sira is the central figure, is not of a homogeneous character. The unusual (not miraculous) birth, the marvellous precociousness, and other features of the Ben Sira legend are decidedly anti-Christian in character. Jesus, the son of Sira ( = Ben Sira) 401 42] The Legends of the Jews is contrasted with Jesus, the son of Mary, and the former appears in a more favorable light. See Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, II, 680, where it is shown that the gnostic work Evangel of the Childhood of Jesus was the model after which the Ben Sira legend was fashioned. Comp, also Ginzberg, Zeitschrift fur Hebraische Bibliographic, XI 125-126, and BHM V, 37. The Arabic sources tell a great deal about the relation between Nebuchadnezzar and Joseph, and the part played in these sources by Joseph (*. e., Aesop) is practically the same as that ascribed to Ben Sira in the Jewish legend. Comp. Hochfeld, Beitrage zur Syrischen Fabelliteratur. When Ben Sira was about to begin to study the Book of Yezirah, a heavenly voice was heard saying: “Thou canst not do it alone.” He went to his father and they studied it together. At the end of three years a man was created by them (i. e., following the instructions of the book, they succeeded in doing so; comp. Sanhedrin 65b and 76b), on whose forehead was written Emet (nDK), “truth” (comp. Yoma 69b, which reads: Emet is the seal of God), as on Adam’s forehead. The man thus created said to them: “God created Adam, and when He decided that he should die, He erased one letter form the word Emet, and Adam was dead (MD “dead ” = DDK without the first letter). I greatly desire that ye do the same to me, and that ye never again create a man, that the world go not astray through him like the generation of Enosh” (comp. vol. I, pp. 122-123). The man they created further said to them: “Transpose the order of the letters (by means of which he was created), and erase the Alef from the word Emet on my forehead.” They did so, and he immediately turned into dust.

See Sefer ha-Gematria quoted from MS. by Epstein, Mikkadmoniyyot, 122-123. A somewhat different version of this legend is found in Kaneh 36a, and hence in Yalkut Reubeni on Gen. 1.26, 9d, where nK’^B is given as source. The complete title of Kaneh is nK’7Bn 'D Kim rapn “IBD. Ben Sira imparted his secret lore to his son Uzziah and his grandson Joseph. When he had done so, the Holy Spirit called out: “Who is it that revealed My secrets to mankind?” Ben Sira (the numerical value of ITDT “13 is 469, and hence ®’t3Xll = mom -13, i. e., Ben Sira) arose and said: “I, Buzi the son of Buzi.” The Holy Spirit said to him: Enough!” Immediately Joseph (his grandson) sat down and wrote the words dictated to him by Ben Sira in five books. See quotation from a MS. (Paris Codex 762) by Barges, Tagin, 10. On the son and grandson of Ben Sira, see Epstein, Ha-Hoker II, 41, and Mordell,/.(?.i?., N.S., 111,529-534. OnBuzi = Jeremiah, see note 93. The identification of Ben Sira with the high priest Joshua the son of Jehoza* 402 Exile [43-44 dak, found on the title page of some editions of Alphabet of Ben Sira, is of Christian origin; comp. Nestle in Hastings’ Dictinoary of the Bible, IV, 542, who gives references to the Latin MSS. of Ecclus. where the author is described as the son of Jehozadak. See also Shebet Yehudah 2, which reads: The second persecution of the Jews took place in the time of Ben Sira; it was a very severe persecution, but I do not know the cause thereof. I found it written that on this occasion thirty thousand souls apostatized from the religion of Moses, and those who remained steadfast were burned as martyrs. This Ben Sira is Joshua ben Sira, the gradnson of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, known among the Christians as Josephus Sirach. He composed the book of Ecclesiasticus in use among Christians, who consider it as a biblical book, on account of its great wisdom and value. 43 Pr. 26, 131b. This is followed by the description of the “mourning woman”. The prophet met a woman in mourning, who informed him that she was mourning and weeping for her husband who “ went far away from her”, and for her seven sons, who in the absence of their father, were killed by a house falling upon them (comp. Job 1.19; Friedmann’s text is to be corrected in accordance with the Parma MS ; see Halper, Post-Biblical Hebrew Literature, Hebrew volume, 16 and 210). Jeremiah attempted to console her, saying to her: “Thou art not better than my mother Zion, and yet she became pasture for the beasts of the field.” The woman answered: “I am thy mother Zion, I am the mother who lost her seven children ” (comp. Jer. 15.9). Jeremiah then consoled her, pointing out that her fate was similar to that of Job, and like him she would at the end be compensated for all her suffering. He closed his consoling address with the message of God: “A mortal of flesh and blood built thee, a mortal of flesh and blood laid thee waste; but in the future I shall build thee.” A similar vision is also found in 4 Ezra 9.38-10.28; yet it is inconceivable that there is direct dependence of the Midrash upon Ezra. Comp. Levi, R.E.J. XXIV, 281-285. A poetical rendering of this vision is Kalir’s dirge n fbD2 TN in JTU’p according to the Ashkenazic ritual. 44 Ekah, introduction, 34; PK 13, 113b. Not only did they not heed the warnings and admonitions of the prophets, but they even mocked at him and his prophecies; Mishle 1, 48. Yea, they went so far in their wickedness, that they spread a rumor that Jeremiah was leading an immoral life. These false accusations raised against him embittered him greatly, and he prayed to God to make “his enemies stumble” (comp. Jer. 18.23). By this he meant that even when they 403 45 47J The Legends of the Jews performed charitable deeds, the recipients thereof should be unworthy and undeserving. See Baba Kamma 16b. 46 PK 17, 132a-133b; PR 31, 145b; WR 16.1; Ekah 4, 150-151; Ekah Z., 71 and 142; Yoma 9b; Tan. B. Ill, 42; Shabbat 62b-63b. In the last-named passage the statement is found that the wood growing in Jerusalem had the pleasant flavor of cinnamon (and could be used as perfume by the women). But at the time of the destruction this kind of wood was “hidden” ( = disappeared), with the exception of a very small piece which was preserved and is to be found in the treasure of queen Zamzamai ( = Zenobia, queen of Palmyra). On cinnamon in Palestine see the references given by Low, Aramtiische Pflanzennamen, 292. There was so much cinnamon there that it was used as fodder for goats, Comp. Yerushalmi Peah 7, 20a (bottom). When the holy city was conquered, Nebuchadnezzar issued an order to his armies to refrain from any immoral acts with married women, because the “God of the Jews hates unchastity”. All the single women in Jerusalem got quickly married, to protect themselves against any attack by the Babylonian soldiers, with the exception of three widows who remained unprovided with husbands, and they were the only women who were ravished. See Ekah 5, 157 and Aggadat Shir 5, 38. Against this view comp. Yebamot 16b, which, explicitly speaks of the licentiousness displayed by the Babylonian troops on this occasion. See further Ekah 1, 46 (bottom); 5, 157 (the explanation of 1HI3 as a euphemism for “had sexual intercourse”, is known also to Jerome on Is. 47,2, who, in agreement with Sotah 10a, takes ]rPD in Jud. 16.21 to have this meaning; comp. vol. VI, p. 208, top); Esther R.2.3; Targum on Lam. 5.13. As to the beauty of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, see also Kiddushin 49b (which reads: Of ten measures of beauty Jerusalem has nine and the rest of the world one); ARN 28,85. Comp, further Gittin 58a; Targum on Lam. 4.2; vol. IV, p. 332, with regard to the great charms of the young men of Jerusalem. 46 PR 28, 135a, and 31, 144a; Ekah 5, 155-156 (this command Nebuchadnezzar gave to Nebuzaradan who is called Arioch, in Dan. 2.14, who took charge of the transport of the exiles); Tehillim 137, 522; ER 28,150. 47 PR 28, 135a-135b; Tehillim 137, 522-523; Targum on Lam. 5.5 (which reads: The holy books were torn in pieces, and the parchment was used for bags which, filled with water from the Euphrates, were carried by the princes of Judah); ER 28, 154; 2 Targum Esther 1.2 404 Exile [48-52 (towards the end). In the last passage it is asserted that Jeremiah said to Nebuchadnezzar and his army: “Go not to your idols to praise them; know that ye have taken captive and killed a people which was already captured and slain ( i . e. it was God who made the victory over Jerusalem possible; comp. vol.IV,p.303, and Sanhedrin 96b, which reads: Thou killest a slain people, thou burnest a burned palace, thou grindest ground flour), and ye have no reason for vainglory.1' Jeremiah marched along with the captives beyond Bari (comp, the following note), until they reached a certain country, where he bitterly wept and sobbed. Two tears fell from his eyes, and they became two fountains which exist to this day. In the Christian legend (Acts of Andrew and Matthew towards the end) the flesh and hair torn from a martyr changed into trees. In the Midrashim quoted above, and especially in ER 28, 154, God’s wrath against Israel changed into love for them, when the people at the banks of the Euphrates experienced in their hearts feelings of remorse and repentance of their sins. It was then that God broke out in a great lament (comp. vol. IV, pp. 304, seq.) for the suffering of the people. « 5 PR 28, 135b-136a; Tehillim 137, 523; 2 Targum Esther 1.2 (towards the end; VTO ITS or rather ’”112 n’3 is to be emended to ’13 ’ItO); Aggadat Bereshit 63, 128. On Bari (in Italy?), see Bacher, Monatsschrift, XLI, 604 and in R.E.J., XXXIII, 40-44; Levi, R.E.J. XXXIII, 278-282 and XXXV, 224. 49 Sanhedrin 96b; Midrash Tannaim 145. As to Nebuchadnezzar’s reluctance to undertake the campaign against Jerusalem, see vol. IV, pp. 300-301. 50 Yebamot 16b; Ekah 1, 74. s1 PK 19, 137— 138a ; Ekah, introduction, 9. 52 Yelammedenu in Yalkut on Obadiah; comp, also PK 19, 138a-138b; Midrash Shir 39a. On the Edomites as the destroyers of the Temple, see also PK 3, 25b, 26a-26b. On Edom = Rome, see Index, s. v. “Edom”. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 332. In Esther R. 1.2 it is said that the ’DN’DD'UNl ’lOlp’l counselled Nebuchadnezzar to undertake the war against Jerusalem and to destroy the Jews. They were punished for their evil counsel, and they themselves were destroyed. The ’IN’Vip-ni llVlS’ then took their place. As to the meaning and correct reading of the Hebrew words just quoted, see Sachs, Beitrdge, I, 113; Cassel, An Explanatory Commentary on Esther, 17-19. ’IVIIpT is very likely to be read instead of ’IDlp’T and ’WllDISl instead of ,3N’1?lp_ai The Midrash remarks that the Decuriones and 405 53] The Legends of the Jews Augustiani (comp. Tacitus, Annates, XIV, 15.2, which reads: Equites Romani cognomento Augustianorum aetate ac robore conspicui) advised the destruction of the people, and as a punishment the power was taken away from them (the Senate) and given to the Calones and Praetoriani. R. Benjamin of Tudela, in his Itinerary 8, likewise reports that Titus undertook the campaign against Jerusalem at the special order of the Senate, the Decuriones and Augustiani of the Midrash. That Nebuchadnezzar stands here for Titus and that the account refers to the destruction of the second Temple is quite obvious. Comp, the following note and note 24 (end). S3 Yerushalmi Ta'anit 4, 69b; Ekah 2, 108; BR 53, 14; ShR 3.2 and 27.1; Tan. Yitro 5; Tehillim 5, 54-55. On the part played by the Palmyrenes in the destruction of the Temple, see also Yebamot 16b, and note 45. The tradition about the Palmyrene archers who took part in the campaign against Jerusalem is historically sound; comp. Cagnat, L’ Armee Romaine au Siege de Jerusalem, in the supplement to R.E.J., XXII, 39. The legend, however, which is ever fond of drawing parallels, speaks not only of the participation of the Palmyrenes in the war against Jerusalem under Titus, but also of the assistance they rendered Nebuchadnezzar. The parallels are often carried so far that one is not quite sure whether the legend, in speaking of the destruction of the Temple, refers to that of the first or the second. The legend, for instance, about the birth of the Messiah on the day of the destruction of the Temple is often mentioned (Yerushalmi Berakot 2, 5a; Ekah 1, 89-90; Ekah Z., 133; Panim Aherim, 78; Aggadat Bereshit 67, 133; a quotation from an unknown Midrash by Griinhut in his edition of Makiri on Prov., 103b); but there is no way of telling whether the destruction of the first or the second Temple is meant. Comp, also the preceding note and note 24 (end). As to the sufferings of the exiles, see also Ekah, introduction, 6 (which reads: “their bodies burned ”; from thirst?); 1,61;ER28, 154. In the last-named passage mp nn’D means “a death like that of Korah”, and not a “death by frost”.

On the death of Korah, see Sanhedrin 52a, and vol. Ill, p. 299, according to which Korah and his congregation died by heavenly fire which consumed their souls, but left their bodies intact. In the same manner, remarks the Midrash, was the death of many of the exiles, whom God granted a sudden death, which did not distort or disfigure their bodies. — The death of the pious is as great a calamity as the destruction of the Temple, and hence the day on which the pious Gedaliah was killed (on the third of Tishri, fifty-two 406 Exile [54-56 days after the destruction of the Temple; comp. Seder ‘Olam 26, and note 39 by Ratner) was declared a fast-day for all time. See Rosh ha-Shanah 18b; Sifre D. 31; Tosefta Sotah 6.10. The pious Gedaliah acted in accordance with the law, and refused to be guided by the “evil talk” against Ishmael the son of Nethaniah (comp. Jer. 40.14-41.1, 2), and received him kindly. Yet it was careless on his part not to take precautions against the possibility of Ishmael’s attack. The rule of conduct is: Do not believe evil talk, but disregard it not entirely. The murderous act of this Ishmael illustrates the truth of the saying: “Trust not a proselyte even in the twenty-fourth generation.” Ishmael was the descendant, twenty-four generations removed, of Jerahmeel by a marriage with the non-Jewish princess Atarah (1 Chron. 2. 26), whom he had married for the sake of glory. See Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2, 20b, and Horayyot 3, 48 (towards the bottom); Ruth Z., 48; PR 22, 111b. — On the view that the prominent inhabitants of Jerusalem were exiled to Spain, and especially to Toledo, see Shalshelet 101a. 54 PR 31, 144 (as to the “dwarf” Nebuchadnezzar, see note 96), and in a shortened form 28, 136a; ER 28, 149; Tehillim 137, 524; 2 Targum Esther 1.2 (towards the end) ; Eldad and the sources depending on it (comp. Epstein, 5 and 42-43, as well as BHM VI, 15); Targum on Ps. 137.4; ‘Eser Galuyyot 14; second version 115; Aktan 24. ss PK 31, 144a, and the other sources cited in the preceding note. On the “sons of Moses” who number more than six hundred thousand (this was the number of Israel at the time of the exile), see Berakot 7a; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 34.10; note 540 on vol. Ill, p. 279. 56 Pliny Hist. Nat., 31.2, agrees with the Rabbis (Sanhedrin 65a, in an alleged conversation between R. Akiba and the Roman general Tineius Rufus; BR 11.5; Tan. Ki-Tissa 33; PR 23, 119b) that this river rests on the Sabbath, whereas Josephus, Bell., VII, 5.1., maintains just the opposite, that it rests on week-days and flows on the Sabbath. The anonymous author of the Itinerarium a Burdigala Hierusolem usque maintains that the pool of Solomon dries up completely on the Sabbath. Josephus and the Rabbis differ also as to the location of this river. The former maintains that it is situated in Syria, between Acrea and Raphanea, whereas the latter implicitly assume that it is somewhere in a country very far from Palestine. Comp, the rabbinical legends concerning the ten tribes referred to below. For the references to the river Sambation in Christian, Mohammedan, and Samaritan writings see Noldeke, Beitrdge zur Geschichte des Alexanderromans, 48; Epstein, Eldad, 13-16; Grtinbaum in Zeitschrift der Deutschen 407 56] The Legends of the Jews Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft, XXII, 627; Kazwini, Cosmography, II, 17; Mas'udi, Muruj al-Dhahab, I, 161; Kobez ‘ al Yad IV, 13. Comp, also the following note. The view that the ten tribes, or at least some of the tibes, dwell beyond the “river Sambation” is widespread, and is found not only in the talmudic-midrashic literature, but also in many medieval writings. Comp. Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 29c, which reads: One part of Israel (t. e., the northern tribes) was exiled beyond the river Sambation, one part to Daphne near Antiochia, and the third part was carried off (literally, “covered ”) by a cloud. When the time of redemption will come, all the exiles from the three diasporas will return. See BR 73.6 (which says: The ten tribes are beyond the river Sambation); PR 31, 146a-147a; Tan. B. I, 203, and IV, 79; BaR 16, 25 (here it is said the “mountains of darkness’’ is the place to which the third part was carried off) ; comp, also Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 24.10; Kobez ‘al Yad, IV, 42 ; Neubauer, J.Q.R., I, 14, seq. “Where are the ten tribes”; Lewin, Wo waren die zehn Stamme zu suchen, 17-25. Comp, also Ginzberg Haggadot Ketuot 43-45. This clearly shows that the hope for the return of the ten tribes and the salvation of all Israel” is not limited to the circles in which the apocalyptic literature originated (comp., e. g., Tobit, Testament of 12 Patriarchs and 4 Ezra), as has been maintained by many modern scholars. As far as can be ascertained, R. Akiba is the only one among the old Rabbis who taught that the “ten tribes were repudiated by God for ever” (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10.3), and he was strongly censured for this view by the Talmud, Sanhedrin 110b. There can be no doubt that R. Akiba, as an active propagandist for the Bar Kokeba revolt, attempted to fire the enthusiasm of Palestinian Jewry by telling them that the future of Judaism depended entirely upon them, the descendants of J udah and Benjamin. That the ten tribes were transported in a miraculous way beyond a river, where they lived undisturbed as pious Jews, is presupposed in 4 Ezra 13.41-50. Comp, also Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 5.3. The holiness of the Sabbath is “attested ” by the river Sambation, and also by a certain fish which spends the Sabbath resting on the banks of the river, and by a mountain from which silver is taken every day in the week with the exception of the Sabbath when no silver can be found there. See Sode Raza in Yalkut Reubeni on Gen. 2.2. The Palestinian (Syrian?) place called rOE> to which reference is made in an Egyptian inscription (comp. Muller, J.Q.R., N.S., IV, 652) was probably situated on the river of the same name mentioned by Josephus, Bell., VII, 5.1. Kaufmann (R.E.J., XXII, 285) suggests 408 Exile [57-58 that the legend about Sambation is due to the confusion of ^in “sand” with “week-day”; the river that throws up sand became the river that “works” on week-days only. This suggestion, though rather ingenious, is for more than one reason quite untenable. For further details concerning the Sambation legend, see Shebet Musar 11, 38b; Kobez ' al Yad, IV, 40. For the vast literature on this subject, comp. Krauss, Lehnwbrter, s. v. 6 7 Eldad and the sources that are based on it; comp. Epstein, Eldad 5, 14, 17, 27-29, 40-41, 43^14, 57-58, 64^65, who calls attention to the Arabic versions of this legend about the “Land of the Blessed”. It escaped him, as it did many of the other scholars dealing with this legend, that in the Narrative of Zosimos we have this Jewish legend with very slight Christian additions. Instead of the “sons of Moses”, we have here the “sons of Rechab” who were carried by a cloud to the “Land of the Blessed”, the entrance to which is made inaccessible by an impassable river. On the sons of Rechab, comp. vol. Ill, p. 380; PR 31, 147a (where it is said that the Land of Sinim is their dwellingplace); Midrash Aggada on Num. 24.22 (which reads; The sons of Jonadab the Rechabite were not exiled, but God sent them to the “mountains of darkness” (comp, the preceding note); 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 28, which reads: The descendants of Jonadab (^the Rechabite; comp. 29a) live in paradise where they entered alive. In the Narrative of Zosimos the land inhabited by the sons of Rechab is described as the paradise on earth, and the life of its inhabitants as that of angels. The only difference between 2 Alphabet of Beb Sira and the Christian pseudepigraphic work is that the latter explicitly states that the Rechabites, though living many hundred years, die in the end, whereas according to the Jewish source, they do not “taste death”. The substitution of the “sons of Rechab” for the “sons of Moses” is very likely not due to a Christian hand, but is a “Jewish variant . See also R. Benjamin of Tude\a.’s Itinerary, ed. Asher 70, where the sons of Rechab appear as “free” Jews, not subjected to other nations. Shibhe Israel, 218, quotes the following from the Yalkut on Obadiah; In the future the Messiah, accompanied by the sons of Moses, will betake himself to mount Seir to judge the sons of Esau. This passage is not found there, nor, as far as can be ascertained, in any other place of the Yalkut. 6 8 Rest of the Words of Baruch 1-8. For the numerous variants of the legend about the “sleepers” in Christian and Mohammedan sources, see Heller in R.E.J., XLIX, 190, seq. Closely related to the Ebed-melech legend is the one given by the Talmudim concerning Honi 409 59-63] The Legends of the Jews ( = Onias) ha-Me‘aggel, who is said to have slept seventy years, from the destruction of the Temple until the end of the Babylonian exile. Comp. Ta'anit 22b, and Yerushalmi 3, 66d. It seems that the Legend about the stoning of Jeremiah found at the end of the Rest of the Words (comp, note 42) is in some way connected with the stoning of Onias ( = Honi) narrated by Josephus, Antiqui., XIV, 2.1. According to Ta'anit 22b, Onias, however, was not stoned, but died shortly after he awoke from his long sleep. For further details concerning Ebedmelech, see note 66. 69 Rest of the Words of Baruch 1-3. 6 0 Comp, the similar story about the vain attempt of the Roman government to locate the grave of Moses; Sifre D. 357; Midrash Tannaim 226; ‘Aktan 6. In the last-named source it is Hadrian who attempted in vain to find the grave of Moses. In that passage this wicked ruler is said to have travelled throughout the Holy Land to visit the graves of the kings and prophets. His attempt, however, to find the grave of Moses was fruitless. 61 2 Maccabees 2.4-8; Josippon 3. The legend about the hiding of the holy vessels, recorded in the Rest of the Words of Baruch 3, is based on 2 Maccabees, whereas in Apocalypse of Baruch 6.7-10, Baruch sees an angel descend into the holy of holies and take from there the veil, the holy ark, the mercy seat, the two tables, the holy raiment of the priests (the high priest?), the altar of incense, the forty-eight precious stones wherewith the priest ( — high priest) was adorned (the Hebrew original read: ]3N ’HD [HiymN, which was misread as O’ymN ]3N rUDEb), and all the holy vessels of the tabernacle. The angel then said to the earth: “Earth hear the word of God, and receive what I commit to thy care to guard until the last times”. . .And the earth opened its mouth, and swallowed them up. For the similar view of the Rabbis about the fate of the holy vessels, see vol. Ill, pp. 48, 161 ; vol. IV, pp. 24, 234, 282, 350, 354. Comp, also the references in notes 62-64, and Friedmann in Ha-Skiloah, XIII, 54 seq. 62 Ekah 2, 114, which reads; The gates were thus rewarded for the honor they paid to the holy ark (comp. vol. IV, p. 156); Tan.

IV, 51, which reads; All the holy vessels were brought to Babylon, with the exception of the gates. See also Sotah 9a (here it is said that the enemy had no power over the gates, because they were made by David); BaR 15.13; Tan. Beha'aloteka 9. Comp, also 4 Ezra 10.22; Assumption of Moses 3.2; vol. Ill, p. 300. 63 Read: Shomer (“the guardian ”). Bar Hebraeus, Tarih Muhr410 Exile [64-66 asar, 70, speaks of the priest Simeon (jiyDIP) as the one who hid the holy vessels. There cannot be any doubt that he is dependent upon Jewish tradition, and it is probable that he confused TIDE’ or rather ~\DW with pya®. 64 Masseket Kelim 88-91. On Bursif ( = Borsippa; according to Shabbat 36a, it is identical with Biblical fcu) , see also Sanhedrin 109a and BR 28.11, where it is said that those dwelling in this place suffer from a weak memory. — According to some Kabbalists, the destruction of the Temple was not a reality, but it appeared to the people as though it had actually taken place (docetism); the Temple disappeared from the sight of man, and will become visible again in messianic times. Comp. Zohar II, 240b, and Yalkut Hadash, s. v. pin, Nos. 7 and 18. 6 5 The old authorities differ as to whether Baruch was a prophet or not. Mekilta Bo (NniTTlB), end, reads: Baruch was greatly distressed because he did not receive the prophetic spirit, whereas the disciples of the former prophets (Joshua the disciple of Moses, Elisha the disciple of Elijah and many others) succeeded their masters as prophets. To console him, God told Jeremiah to speak to Baruch as follows: “Baruch, there is no need of a fence, if there is no vineyard; of what use is the shepherd, if there is no flock?” Comp, also ibid., lb, where it is stated that prophecy is a prerogative of the Holy Land, and though it is true that Ezekiel and Jeremiah prophesied in other countries, their career was begun in the Holy Land. On the other hand, Seder ‘Olam 20, Sifre Z., 75, Megillah 14b, and Sifre N., 78, count not only Baruch, but also his father and grandfather and uncle (comp. Jer. 51.59) among the prophets. Those sources also state that he was related to Jeremiah, both having been descendants of Rahab the harlot. She was accordingly the ancestress of eight priests, who were prophets at the same time; these are: Jeremiah, his father Hilkiah, his uncle Shallum, and the latter's son Hanamel (comp. Jerem. 32.7), Baruch, his father Neriah, his grandfather Mahseiah, and his uncle Seraiah. According to some, the priest and prophet Ezekiel, as well as his father Buzi, who was also a prophet, likewise belong to Rahab 's descendants. Comp. Yalkut II, 1074 (end) on 1 Chron. 4.23; note 12 on vol. IV, p. 5. In the apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic literature Baruch is presupposed to have been a prophet, and is said to have been the author of three prophetical works: 1) Baruch; 2) Apocalypse of Baruch (Syriac); 3) Apocalypse of Baruch (Greek). On the relationship between Jeremiah and Ezekiel, see notes 42 and 93. 66 Apocalypse of Baruch 1-77. As for Baruch and the pious men 411 67-73] The Legends of the Jews having been ‘‘sent away” by God from Jerusalem before the day of the destruction of the Temple, see vol. IV, p. 303, and note 28. On the hiding of the holy vessels, see notes 60, 61. That Baruch was one of the distinguished and pious men who never ‘‘tasted death” is also the view of the Rabbis. Comp. Sifre N., 99; Mo'ed Katan 16b; PRE 53 (comp. Luria ad loc. and Tehillim 7, 72); 2 ARN 43, 122; PR 26, 130b, where he is identified with Ebed-melech the Ethiopian (comp. Jer. 38.7; he is called the Ethiopian, i. e., the ‘‘black”, antiphrastically, because he was the only “white”, i. e., pious, man at the court of king Zedekiah), and of this man it is explicitly stated that he entered paradise alive. See Derek Erez Z. 1 (end), and the parallel passages cited by Tawrogi, to which should be added PRK (Griinhut’s edition, 83); ‘Aktan 12. In the last-named source, however, Ebed-melech is said to have been a proselyte and accordingly he is not identified with the priest Baruch (comp, the preceding note). He is further described there as one of the ten rulers who became proselytes; they are: The king Hiram, Ebed ( i . e., Ebed-melech; “king” is taken as the title of Ebed); Antoninus, Talmai (Ptolemy of Egypt, at whose command the Septuagint was prepared), Monobaz (king of Adiabene), Tobai (?), Bolan (kingoftheKhazars); the queens Bithiah (the foster-mother of Moses), Helena (queen of Adiabene), and Beruria (Valeria; Comp. Gerim 2.4; Mekilta Bo 15, 18a; Yebamot 46a). In the Christian legend it is Jeremiah, and not his disciple Baruch, who is one of the immortals. Comp, notes 13 and 42. Comp, however also II Macc. 2.1 seq. and 15.15. 6 7 Apocalypse of Baruch 78-87. Comp, also vol. IV, p. 319. 68 As to the view that Baruch and Jeremiah were exiled to Babylon, see note 42, and comp. vol. IV, p. 320. 69 Book of Baruch. 90 The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch is a description of this ascension. 71 Megillah 16b; Shir 5.5. On the view that Baruch entered paradise alive, see note 66. 7 2 That Baruch was a disciple of Ezekiel is not mentioned elsewhere. It is very likely that “teacher” is not to be taken literally. Comp. vol. VI, p. 317 (top). 7 3 Not only Moses’ body shows no signs of decay (comp. vol. Ill, p. 473), but also those of other pious men; comp. Shabbat 152b; Baba Mezi a 84b. When Hadrian opened the tomb of David (comp, note 60), he was amazed at the high color of the face; he pressed 412 Exile [74-76 the flesh with his finger, and the blood began to circulate. Admiringly the wicked king called out: “This man deserved to be the ruler of the entire world, since even after his death he is like the living.” See ‘Aktan 23. 74 Gelilot Erez Israel 101a; a somewhat different version of this legend is given by R. Pethahiah of Ratisbon 4b-5a. On gold dust, see also vol. IV, p. 350. R. Pethahiah of Ratisbon 5a-5b; comp, also the remarks of R. Benjamin of Tudela (I, 67; II, 141-143) about the tomb of the prophet Ezekiel. A geonic responsum in Schechter’s Saadyana, 123, mentions the “synagogue of Ezekiel”, Daniel, Ezra, Baruch, and the masters of the Talmud. This very likely means the synagogue erected by Ezekiel (in the place where later his mausoleum was built?), and frequented by Daniel, Ezra, Baruch, and other great men. A “Daniel synagogue” in the neighborhood of KWO (Birnos, on the road from Bagdad to Hilla?) is mentioned in the Talmud by authorities living in the third century. Comp. ‘Erubin 21a, and Berliner, Beitrdge zur Geographie, 28. 76 Megillah 3a and Sanhedrin 94a (top), where in reference to Dan. 10.7 it is remarked that the men who were with him were the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi; yet it was he, though not a prophet, who was found worthy to behold the vision. Palestinian sources, however, tannaitic as well as amoraic, count Daniel among the prophets. Comp. Mekilta lb; PK 4, 36b; PR 14, 61 (where the anthropomorphism of the “prophets” refers to certain anthropomorphic expressions used in Dan.); Seder ‘Olam 20; Josephus, Antiqui., X, 11.4 and 7; Matth. 14.25. See also Sanhedrin, where Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are designated as prophets, and it would be very strange if their great friend (Daniel) were not of that rank. It seems that the old authorities spoke of the “Book of Daniel” as belonging to the Hagiographa and not to the prophetical part of the Canon. Later, however, the “Book of Daniel” was confused with its author, and hence the statement that he was not a prophet. But the writing of a prophet is not necessarily a prophetic book, as may be seen from the Book of Psalms, which belongs to the Hagiographa, though David was a prophet. Comp. Seder ‘Olam 20; Mekilta Bo (NniTne), 2a; Yerushalmi Sotah 9, 24b. See also note 108 and note 18 on vol. IV, p. 349. For the views of the later authorities concerning Daniel, see Fischer, Daniel, 100-102. For the attribute “man greatly beloved” given to Daniel (Dan. 10.11), see the explanation in Koheleth 9.7 and 413 77] The Legends of the Jews Tan. B. I, 88. He is said to have been also called Memuchan and Hathach (comp. vol. IV, pp. 337 and 419),aswellasSheshbazzar (comp. Ezra 1.8). The last name signifies: “He was in distress six times”, as Daniel was the eye-witness of three exiles (the first under Jehoiakim, the second under Jehoiachin, and the third under Zedekiah); he was at the point of losing his life with the rest of the wise men of Babylon (Dan. 2. 1 3 ) , of being devoured by the lions, and finally he witnessed the throwing of his three companions, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, into the fiery furnace. See PR 6, 23b. As a reward for the faithfulness with which he served his “earthly king” (Nebuchadnezzar), he was chosen to serve his heavenly King, and thus Daniel (=Sheshbazzar) was the first to lay the “foundation” of the house of God ” (Ezra 6.16); PR, loc. cit. Combining Dan. 1.3 and 6 with Is. 39.7, the Haggadah maintains that Daniel and his three companions were descendants of the kings of J udah ; some authorities, however, are of the opinion that his companions did not belong to the tribe of Judah. See Josephus, Antiqui., X, 10.1; Sanhedrin 93b; PRE 53; “Hebrew tradition” in Jerome on Is., loc. cit. Comp. Fischer, Daniel, 33-39. That Daniel was the son of Jeconiah ( = Jehoiachin) is asserted only by Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Syriacum, 27, and Ma'aseh Daniel (beginning). The latter source also narrates that during the carnage which took place at the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (comp. vol. IV, p. 304) a soldier entered the house of study in which Daniel and his three companions were sitting. He first intended to kill them, but God “gave them favor in the sight” of the soldier. He did not kill them, but took them captive to Babylon. 77 ‘Abodah Zarah 55b; Yerushalmi 2, 41d; Yoma 76b. In Tan. B. 1, 110-111 the story of the refusal of Daniel and his three companions to partake of the food is told in a circumstantial manner, whereas Josephus, Antiqui., X, 10.2, rationalizes the biblical narrative of Dan. 1.8, seq. Zohar II, 125b, gives the menu of Nebuchadnezzar’s table, and adds that Daniel was saved from the lions as a reward for his having refrained from eating the forbidden food offered to him at the table of Nebuchadnezzar. But Daniel’s piety did not 'consist exclusively in his strict observance of the dietary laws; lovingkindness, charity, and praying were his chief merits. See ARN 4, 21. It is therefore not surprising that according to one view, Daniel is the promised Messiah; comp. Sanhedrin 98b. Nevertheless the miracles wrought for Daniel, as well as God ’s granting of his request were not due to his own merits, but to those of Abraham. See Tan. B. I, 111; Berakot 7b. Against this view comp. ARN loc. cit. 414 Exile [78-82 78 Midrash Megillah 176. Comp. vol. IV, p. 276, and note 76, with regard to those men as the “eunuchs” (D’D’ID) of whom Isaiah spoke.

On the other hand, it is maintained in Sanhedrin 93b that they were perfect in body and intellect, but that they were called D’D’nD, “eunuchs”, because they “emasculated the worship of idols from among their generation”. Comp. vol. IV p. 331 (towards the end). In Yerushalmi Shabbat 4, 8d, it is said that although they were made eunuchs, they regained their former state in the fiery furnace. Comp, also Jerome on Is. 56.4-5, and ER 26, 131. “The eunuchs that keep My sabbaths”, of whom the prophet speaks, is said to refer to Daniel’s three companions. 79 The apocryphal Book of Susannah in its Greek version, as well as in the Hebrew translation thereof in BHM VI, 126-128, and in Yerahmeel 65. A similar motive to the one in the Susanna story is found in the rabbinic legend about the false prophets ( = vol. IV, pp. 336-337). Comp. Frankel, Monatsschrift, XVII, 447, and Briill, Jahrbiicher, II, 8, seq. These two scholars also call attention to the story told in Sanhedrin 5.2 about the careful examination of witnesses by a certain Ben Zakkai (according to the Talmud, 40a-40b, it was the famous Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai but this is doubtful), which reminds one of the part played by Daniel in Susanna. Comp, note 108. 80 Tan. B. I, 90. For the interpretation of the stone which was “cut out without hands” (Dan. 2.34) as referring to the Messiah, comp. Tan. B. II, 91-92, and Tan. Terumah 7. Josephus, Antiqui., X, 1.4, in affected mysteriousness, wants to convey the same statement as the Midrashim. According to the very late compilation Ma'aseh Daniel 19, Daniel cured Nebuchadnezzar by prayer from the injury he received while attempting to ascend the throne of Solomon. The injury (a broken leg) of Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned also in Panirn Aherim 57-58; Abba Gorion 4 (he atempted to ascend the throne in Riblah, while he sat in judgment over Zedekiah); 2 Targum Esther 1.2; comp. vol. IV, p. 160 and vol. VI, p. 453. 81 BR 96.5; Tan. B. I, 213 (here Daniel is contrasted with the heathen rulers who asked for divine honors). Comp, also PK 9, 76a; WR 27.4; Tan. B. Ill, 91; Midrash Shir 43a; vol. II, p. 129. 8 J Sanhedrin 93a, in explaining Daniel ’s absence from Babylon during the incident of the three men in the furnace; comp, the following note. With regard to the export of swine from Alexandria, comp. Menahot 4.4, which reads: No cow or sow is permitted to leave Alex415 83-85] The Legends of the Jews andria without having its womb cut out, that it should not be able to conceive. 83 Ekah, introduction, 23 (comp. 5, end); Koheleth 12.5. As to Daniel ’s absence, comp, also the preceding note. Against this view, see Shir 7.8. Here it is stated that the three men whose lot it was to represent their nation at the worship of the image (according to some, the entire Jewish representation consisted of twenty-three men, twenty of whom obeyed the command of Nebuchadnezzar; superior courts are composed of twenty-three members; comp. Sanhedrin 1.4) asked Daniel for advice, but he referred them to Ezekiel, saying to them: “There is a prophet (Daniel himself was not a prophet; comp, note 76) before you; go to him.” In Ma'aseh Daniel, 119, it is said that Daniel, like his companions, was commanded by Nebuchadnezzar to worship the image, and like them he refused to obey. The king, however, decreed to put the three men to death but not Daniel. Comp, also Hippolvtus on Dan. 3.16, who remarks: Daniel, though he stood at a distance and kept silence, encouraged them to be of good cheer, as he smiled at them. Josephus, Antiqui., X, 10.5, speak of the three men as Daniel’s kinsmen (comp, note 76), who, like himself, were made rulers by Nebuchadnezzar over his whole kingdom. 84 WR 33.6; BaR 15.14; Shir 2.14; Tan. B. I, 38-39, and IV, 52; Tan. Noah 10 and Beha'aloteka 9; Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk, s. v. tn 2; Aggadat Bereshit 7, 15-16; Tehillim 18, 229; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 3, 21b. On the etymology of the name Nebuchadnezzar (m=nai “barked”; 13 “a pitcher of water”; “«1 “chirped”), see also BR 90.3, where it is said that this wicked king was also called HDSD (comp. Jerem. 51, 27) because he was a fool (“PSD), though old in years (cnea ~ffi>), whereas Joseph was called TUN because he was wise (nnana at in (Dan. 3.19), and is found 416 Exile [86-87 also in Tehillim 28, 229, though in a somewhat different form. In the Midrashim quoted, as well as in Sanhedrin, loc. cit. (read DlTDp’D’H instead of HID pD’n), it is said that Nebuchadnezzar himself was half burned on this occasion, see note 90. Comp. 76 on vol. I, p. 176. 86 Tan. B. 1,40-41 ;Tan. Noah 10; Aggadat Bereshit 7.17. Against this view, comp, the references given in the next note, according to which it was an angel (Gabriel), and not God Himself, who saved the three men from death. Comp, also note 33 on vol. I, p. 201, with regard to the rescue of Abraham from the fiery furnace. For the prayer of the three men, see the following note. 87 Pesahim 118a-118b (’DpT, the name of the angel of hail, is composed of T’**liT “God”, and DpT = DJ"l; comp. Syriac NStO KTI'Din, “hail stones”; hence Yorkami is the correct transliteration; the various etymologies of this name given by the lexicographers are not to be taken seriously); Abba Gorion 34; Ma'aseh Abraham (Horowitz’ edition 45-46; here it is Michael who attempted to get ahead of Gabriel and rescue the three men); ShR 18.5; PRE 33; Tan. Tezawweh 12 (here the competition between Michael and Gabriel relates to the rescuing of Abraham); Tehillim 117, 480; PR 35, 160b; Midrash Esther 66. In the apocryphal Prayer of Azariah 26-27 it is said: But the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace together with Azariah and his fellows, and he drove the flame of the fire out of the furnace, as it had been a moist whistling wind, so that the fire touched them not at all, neither hurt nor troubled them. Comp, alosc 4 Maccabees 6.6, which reads: “Thou, when the three friends in Babylon freely gave their lives to the flames . , didst make as dew the fiery furnace, and deliver them unharmed . . .turning the flame upon their adversaries.” The Midrashim go still further, and state that the furnace turned into a pleasure-ground. Comp. PR, loc. cit.; Shir 7.8 (end; the text is obscure; must not be emended to D’^D, as it explains UN and not 1^23; ’pilN is still more puzzling); Tan. B. Ill, 14; Tan. Zaw 2. The Haggadah (Sanhedrin 92b, below, and Shir 7.9, beginning) calls attention to the fact that the three men appeared robed in their best garments to be thrown into the furnace, because “even when one ’s life is in danger one ought to be mindful of the duties laid upon one by his position. ” Of a strange nature is the following statement of the Talmud (Ketubot 33b) : Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah would have paid homage to the image if they had been flogged. Comp. Tosafot, ad loc. The idea conveyed by this statement is that even martyrs cannot always endure the tortures of a slow death. 417 88-90] The Legends of the Jews 8 8 The apocryphal Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children in the Additions to Daniel in the Septuagint and in Theodotion. Reminiscences of this or a similar prayer and song by the three men are found in many passages of rabbinic literature; comp. Pesahim 118a (the Hallel is said here to have been composed by these men); Tan. B. I, 40; Noah 10; ShR 20.1 and 18.5 (here it is said that Gabriel collaborated in the composition of Hallel; on Gabriel see preceding note); Tehillim 117, 480; Aggadat Bereshit 7.17; Aggadat Shir 2.29; Zohar III, 57a. Comp, also Mahzor Vitry 320-322 and 337-338. 89 PR 35, 160b, with the additional remark: Gabriel attended upon the three men as does a disciple upon his master, because “the righteous are greater than the angels” (comp. Index, s. v. “Angels”, and see further Yerushalmi Shabbat 6, end, which reads: The three men made it possible for the angel to withstand the fire of the furnace, and not the reverse); DR 1.12. On Gabriel, see note 87, and note 55 on vol. IV, p. 268. 9 0 Sanhedrin 92b-93a (as to the correct text, comp, note 83, according to which, one of the miracles was that Nebuchadnezzar was half consumed by the fire of the furnace and not that the bottom dropped out); Shir 7.9; Tan. B. I, 41, and III, 14; Tan. Noah 10 and Zaw 2; Aggadat Bereshit 7, 14. On the drinking cups made of the skulls of slain enemies, see Herodotus, IV, 65; Frazer, Golden Bough III, 372. Comp, further note 345 on vol. II, p. 129. The Karaites (comp., e. g., Hadassi, Eshkol, 45b below and 134a) accuse the Rabbis of ascribing this barbarous practice to the prophet Ezekiel. It is difficult to tell whether this accusation is due to ignorance or malice; the text of the Talmud (Sanhedrin, loc. cit.) makes it absolutely clear that it is Nebuchadnezzar, not Ezekiel, who is said to have committed this barbarous act. God does not wish to be praised by the wicked, who call on Him in time of distress, but forget Him in time of happiness; that is why the angel prevented Nebuchadnezzar from continuing his prayer of God. See WR 16.4; Tan. B. II, 37; Tan. Wa-Era (end). The words of praise to God uttered by Nebuchadnezzar: “For all His works are truth, and His ways justice” (Dan. 4.34), contain all the praises of God found in the Psalms of David. See WR 13 (end) ; Tehillim 5, 5556; comp, also Josephus, Antiqui., X, 10.6. Yet Nebuchadnezzar had a poor conception of God ’s true essence, as may be seen from his description of the angel as one whose appearance is like a son of God (Dan. 3.25). An angel struck him on his mouth, saying: “Correct thyself! Has God any sons?” Nebuchadnezzar profited by this lesson, and 418 Exile [91-92 the next time he spoke of the angel of God (Dan. 3.28), and not of His son. See Yerushalmi Shabbat 6 (end); ShR 20.10 (here it is also stated that Nebuchadnezzar’s words, “and none can stay His hand”, Dan. 4.32, are blasphemous, conveying the idea that God in His omnipotence does not refrain from doing injustice; comp. Baba Kamma 38a); Shir 7.9; Shemuel 5, 60 (read nVwo instead of l^D); Aggadat Bereshit 27, 55. This anti-Christian Haggadah (the last-named source reads: The Babylonians maintain God has a son; on Babylon = Rome, see Index, s. v.) is the Jewish reply to the argument of the Church Fathers that in Dan., loc. tit., the expression “son of God” refers to Jesus. Comp. e. g., Hippolytus, ad loc. 91 Tan. B. I, 41; Tan. Noah 10 (read: ■JN’jdV instead of I^D^; the angel bade them leave the furnace, but they did not obey until they received permission from the king); Aggadat Bereshit 7, 17; Shir 7.9. 9 3 Sanhedrin 93a (they got married in Palestine, and begot children; comp, note 78); Midrash Shir 32a-32b; PK 11, 99a; Tan. B. V, 25—26; Tan. Ki-Tissa 14 and Re’eh 16; BR 56.19. As to the fate of the three men, two other opinions are mentioned. According to one, they died immediately after they were saved from the fire of the furnace. Their death was caused by the “evil eye” with which people looked at them because of the miracle wrought for them.

The other view maintains that they died in a very peculiar manner. Enormously large multitudes of heathens assembled to see them leave the furnace, and these multitudes were so exasperated at the Israelites for having forsaken their God (the three men were the only Israelites steadfast in their religion; see note 83), that they spat at them; the three men fell into the spittle and were drowned. The last view is extremely bizarre, and it is possible that the correct reading is “by cold” instead of P'-D“ in spittle ”. Comp. Yerushalmi Shabbat 14, 14c, and Baba Mez‘ia 107b, where two views are given as to the most frequent causes of death : 1) Most people die from cold (n££“”ip); 2) the “evil eye” is responsible for most deaths. Accordingly the two views concerning the death of the three men(“evil eye”; cold) only wish to convey the idea that they died in the same way as most people. In Baba Mezi’a the word used for cold is mi “draft”, and pn is phonetically and graphically similar to it. In the Tauhumas, and PK, loc. tit., the expression pn b& P1J “mass of spittle” is used with reference to the rest of the Israelites (the heathens spat at them, that they became a “mass of spittle”), and not with regard to the three men. At all events, the expression pn btt PU in 419 93] The Legends of the Jews these sources supports the reading of P'1 in Babli, and the suggested emendations are rather doubtful. 93 Shir 7.8 (according to another opinion, the three pillars are the three patriarchs; comp. vol. VI, p. 104, bottom); Tehillim 1, 5; comp, vol. II, p. 350. As to the conversion of the heathen on this occasion, see also Shir 1.3 and 4.1; ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 70. Delegations of the people waiting on Ezekiel are also mentioned on other occasions. Before the destruction of the Temple people came to argue with him about his prophecies foretelling the imminent captivity of Israel. They said to him: “If Abraham received the Holy Land as a reward for having fulfilled one commandment (circumcision?), how much more can we expect to remain in possession of this land when we fulfil many commandments!” Ezekiel replied : “Ye eat with the blood, cutting off parts from a live animal to consume them; ye lift your eyes unto your idols to worship them ; ye shed blood , and stand upon your sword, delaying the execution of justice; ye work abominations, and commit sodomy ; ye defile every one his neighbor ’s wife. Ye do not even fulfil the Noachian commandments (comp. vol. I, pp. 70-71), and yet ye say: The land is given to us for inheritance.” See Tosefta Sotah 6.9, which is a paraphrase of Ezek. 33.24-26. The same passage contains the two other paraphrases of these verses. After the destruction of the Temple the elders came to the prophet and said to him: “When the master sells his slave, does he not thereby renounce his claim to him? Now God sold us to the nations of the world, and accordingly we are no longer under His jurisdiction.” The prophet replied: “Does the master renounce his claim to his slave if he gave him for a time to another master, with the understanding that he would take the slave back after the expiration of that period?” See Sifre N., 115; Tan. B. V, 50; Tan. Nizzabim 3 (this is the source of Yalkut II, 359, where Wa-Yikra Rabbah is erroneously given as source); 2 ARN 11, 28. When the elders came to Ezekiel to hear from him the word of God, the prophet was told by God that He “would not be inquired of” by them (comp. Ezek. 20.1-3). The prophet pleaded for them with God, saying: “Wouldst Thou forsake them, and not ‘be inquired of’ by them even for the sake of the Torah?” Thereupon God changed His decision, saying unto Ezekiel: “ I will yet for this (the sake of the Torah) be inquired of by the house of Israel.” See Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 358, on Ezek. 20.3. When Ezekiel received from God the revelation concerning the future Temple, he said : “We are in exile in the land of our enemies, and Thou command* est me to reveal to Israel the plan for the Temple!” God, however, informed him that the study of the Temple laws by Israel is as acceptable 420 Exile (94 to Him as the erection of the Temple. See Tan. Zaw 14; Yelammedenu in Aruk, s. v. “IX 3; WR 7.3. Comp, also vol. I, 235. The purpose of revealing to Ezekiel the vision of the heavenly throne (Ezek. 1.1, seq.) was to demonstrate to him that God is not in need of the services performed in the Temple, since innumerable hosts of angels minister to Him in heaven; hence it is for Israel’s sake that the Temple will be rebuilt. See WR 2.8; ER 6, 34. Ezekiel, like his father Jeremiah (comp. Tosefta-Targum quoted by Kimhi on Ezek. 1.3, and see also the quotation from a MS. given in note 42, where Buzi is said to be the name of Jeremiah, on the strength of the assertion that he is identical with Buzi the father of Ezekiel), lived in a time of terrible depravity and sinfulness, to atone for which God inflicted great suffering upon him. See Sanhedrin 29a with reference to Ezek. 4.4 and similar passages. On the sins of Israel, see the passage cited above from Tosefta. One of the most wicked acts of this generation was the fashioning of the “image of jealousy” (Ezek. 8.5), which was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. By means of witchcraft they had fashioned out of stone two figures, a male and a female, embracing one another like husband and wife. See Hasidim 46. A similar reminiscence of the Virgil legend is found in the Armilus legend; see Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, II, s. v. Armilus”. A very strange statement occurs in the Jewish Peter legend (second version of Aggadta de-Shimon Kefa 9) that Peter ( = Kefa “stone ”) was so called because he occupied as his seat the stone on the river Kebar, from which Ezekiel used to deliver his prophecies. The sentence pNHD lV Vip NX!’ ITm is not quite clear. Does it perhaps mean: And he (Peter) became famous on account of this stone? 9 4 Sanhedrin 92a (this passage also gives the different view that the quickening of the dead is to be understood as an allegory; but in opposition to this opinion, a Tanna remarks: I am a descendant of one of the men quickened by Ezekiel, and here are the phylacteries which came down to me from him); PRE 33; ER 5, 23-24 (Ezekiel was rewarded for his great love for his people, and was found meritorious to perform this great miracle); Targum Yerushalmi on Exod. 13.17 (comp. vol. Ill, p. 9) ; Tan. B. II, 84; ShR 31.5. On the view that usurers are excluded from the resurrection, see the references given by Luria, note 130 on PRE loc. cit. On the beauty of the Jewish youths, see the references in note 45. In contrast to the view that Ezekiel, on this occasion, showed lack of trust in God’s omnipotence, it is maintained in BR 19.11 (this is the source of Zohar III, 200a), that the prophet was the only one of five (the others are: Adam, Cain, Balaam, and Hezekiah; 421 95-99] The Legends of the Jews comp, note 730 on vol. Ill, p. 359 and vol. VI, p. 368, note 86) who gave the expected answer to the questions put to them by God. Ezekiel is praised for the strictness with which he observed the law, especially the dietary regulations; comp. Hullin 37 b. But the dietary laws given by Ezekiel in his book, which on the surface seem to contradict the laws of the Torah, nearly caused his work to be excluded from the Canon and be “hidden"; Shabbat 13a, and the parallel passages on the margin. The legend that Ezekiel was the teacher of Pythagoras, mentioned for the first time by Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1.15, is probably of Jewish origin, but the story of his martyrdom (a detailed description of this is found in Visio Pauli 49) is certainly Christian, it was nevertheless copied by Yahya, Shalshelet 100a top. 9 s PRE 33. Luria, ad loc., understands the Midrash to say that the people wept because not all the dead came to life again. Comp, also ER 5, 24, and Sanhedrin 92b. This great miracle was wrought by God, that the belief in the resurrection of the dead might become well-established among Israel. It may be stated as a general principle that all the miracles which are to take place in the “time to come” have been performed “in miniature” during the present order of the world. See Tan. B. Ill, 90-91, and the parallel passages cited by Buber. Comp, also Midrash Shir 43a. Ezekiel is not the only man who made the dead come to life again; in the world to come the righteous will perform the miracle of the resurrection of the dead. See Pesahim 68a; BHM VI, 64. The dead quickened by Ezekiel chanted a song of praise to God as soon as they came to life; Sanhedrin 92b. 96 Megillah 11a; PRE 11; ‘Aseret Melakim 39; Maamar ‘Aseret Melakim 54; Aggadat Esther 8; ‘Aktan 12; 2 Targum Esther 1.1 (beginning and end); comp, note 82 on vol. I, p. 178, and Index, s. v. “ Cosmocrator ”. Though he was the ruler of the entire world, Nebuchadnezzar did not enjoy his life for a moment; a glance at his dwarfish figure (on this point, see BR 16.4; ER 31, 158; PK 13, 112a, below; PR 31, 144a) sufficed to mar his pleasure in life. See Tan. B. II, 90; Tan. Terumah 4. 97 Shabbat 150a (top; perhaps it means with a snake coiled about his neck); PRE 11 (which reads: Not a bird opened its beak without the permission of Nebuchadnezzar); Midrash ‘Aseret Melakim 42-43. Comp, also Judith 11.7. 98 Tan. B. I, 185. As to Nebuchadnezzar’s reluctance to undertake the campaign against Jerusalem, see vol. IV, pp. 301-302. 99 Nebuchadnezzar’s claim to be a god and his ignominious end are often referred to in the Haggadah. Comp, the references given in 422 Exile [100-104 the following three notes and Judith 11.2. The deification of the Roman Caesars was well known to the Jews, and occupied their imagination to a great extent. 100 Mekilta Shirah 2, 36a; 6, 39b; 8, 41b; Mekilta RS 58 and 66; Tosefta Sotah 3.10. Comp, also Koheleth 5.2 and Hullin 89a. In the last passage Nimrod (vol. I, p. 178), Pharaoh (vol. II, p. 347), Sennacherib, Hiram (vol. IV, p. 335), and Nebuchadnezzar are contrasted with the great men in Israel who were modest and humble, whereas the heathen rulers claimed to be gods. Mekilta, 41b, and Mekilta RS, 66, do not count Nimrod among those that claimed divinity. See Tan. B. II, 23 and 31; ShR 8.2; Tan. Wa-Era 9; Tan. in Makiri on Ps. 9, 59 (not in our Tanhumas). These sources speak of Pharaoh, Hiram, Nebuchadnezzar, and Joash (comp. vol. IV, 258) as the four kings who pretended to be gods and ended ignominiously by being abused in “ modo foeminarum”. Comp, note 16 on vol. IV, p. 259. See also BR 11.5, which reads: Adam and his descendants would have enjoyed eternal life, were it not for the fact that God foresaw that Hiram and Nebuchadnezzar would claim to be gods; Hallel 94a-94b (partly based on Baba Batra 75a); BaR 9.24. Comp, further notes 102, 105, and 107. 101 Pesahim 94a-94b; Hagigah 13a. On the distance between the heaven and the earth, see vol. I, p.

11. 102 Tan. B. II, 23 (while in the state of a beast he was misused by the other beasts, and this was his punishment for considering himself more than human; according to ibid., 33, this was his punishment for his attempted abuse of Zedekiah; comp, notes 100 and 107); Tan. WaEra 9; ShR 8.2; Tan. in Makiri on Ps. 9, 59. Comp, also Mekilta Shirah 6, 39b, which is to be explained in accordance with Tan. B. II, 33. x°3 Yerahmeel 66, 205-206. The old authorities speak of seven years ( = ]’ny ny ys in Dan. 4. 22) which he lived as a beast; comp., e. g., Josephus, Antiqui., X, 10 6; WR 182. Comp, the following note. 104 Yerahmeel 46, 205-206, which in the main agrees with Chronicon Paschale 1, 299. It is very likely that these authors like many others (comp. Gaster, adloc.,) had before them an apocryphal (of Jewish origin?) history of Daniel. Comp, note 18 on Vol. IV, p. 349. With the exception of Yerahmeel, the rabbinic literature knows nothing of this legend. In reference to the advice given by Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4.22), the Rabbis remark that the king heeded it for one year. As long as he was charitable and kind to the poor, the heavenly decree against him was not carried out. His doom overtook him only after he had ceased 423 105] The Legends of the Jews to give alms. See Aggadat Shir 1, 25 and 64. Opinions differ as to whether Daniel acted rightly in attempting to prevent the punishment of the wicked king, According to the Midrash just quoted, he did it in the interest of the needy exiles, whose suffering he hoped to ameliorate thereby, and hence no blame is attached to him. Others, however, maintain that Daniel committed a sin in attempting to save Nebuchadnezzar, and he was punished for it as, shortly after, he lost the high position he had held at court. Some authorities even assert that in consequence of this sin he was thrown into the den of the lions. See Baba Batra 4a; ShR 30.24; Shir 3.4 (end); Tan. Mishpatim 4 (this is the source for the quotation from Midrash Haggadol given by Schechter, Aggadat Shir, 69); Zohar I, 13b. In the last-named source the following statement is quoted from the “Book of King Solomon”. As long as one shows compassion to the poor, his face retains “Adam's features”, with the result that animals fear him (comp, note 113 on vol. I, p. 94). Hence as long as Nebuchadnezzar was kind to the poor, he retained his human form; but when he ceased to give alms (comp, above), he became a beast. Nebuchadnezzar’s guardian angel (his name was Kal; comp, the Babylonian locality called Kalnebo, Sannhedrin 63b) was first “thrown down”, before the doom overtook the king. See ShR 21:5; comp, also vol. Ill, p. 25. According to Esther R. I. 8, Nebuchadnezzar did not change bodily, but only mentally, so that when the two highest officers of the state ( = Cyrus and Darius; comp. Shir 3.4) saw him act as an animal, they drove him from the palace, after having taken off all his garments, so that he almost remained naked. As to the sins committed by Nebuchandezzar, which were the cause of his severe punishment, see ER 15, 74, and Index, s. v. “Sins, Eight Cardinal”. As late as the second century C. E. the house of Nebuchadnezzar, the den of the lions into which Daniel was thrown, and the furnace where the great miracle was wrought for his three companions were pointed out by the Jews of Babylon. See Berakot 57b and comp. vol. VI, p. 447, note 54. 106 Midrash in Yalkut II, 367, on Ezek. 28 (read: “lead” for “iron” in the description of the third heaven). For other descriptions of the “heavens” fashioned by Hiram, see MHG II. 5758 (the beginning, “four kings claimed to be gods, etc.”, agrees literally with Tan. as quoted in Makirion Ps. 9, 59; see the quotation in note 100; accordingly Tan. is the source of MHG ); Bet ‘Eked, II, 20 — 21 and 28— 31; Ma'asiyyot (Gaster’s edition, 6-7); BHM V, 111-112 (comp. Jellinek, introduction, 33) ; Tan. Bereshit 7 (which reads: Hiram erected his palace by means of machines “between the Ocean- Atlantic-and the Adri424 Exile [105 atic”). Comp, also vol. I, p. 178, and note 36 on vol. IV, p. 142. As to the seven kinds of metal out of which Hiram fashioned the seven heavens, see Enoch 52.2; Origen, Con. Cel. 6.22. Comp, further Jeremias, Babylonisches im neum Testamente, 24, seq. Tan., loc. cit., as well as Bet Eked, II, 19, points out that the four kings who claimed to be gods (Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, and Hiram; comp, note 100) built their palaces “over the water”. Herodotus, 1, 181, mentions a famous building at Babylon which had eight towers, and it is quite possible that the legend about Hiram ’s palace contains some reminiscence thereof. As to Hiram ’s claim to divinity, see Mekilta Shirah 8, 48b = Mekilta RS, 66 (the Mekiltas are the oldest sources which identify the “prince of Tyre ” mentioned in Ezek. 28.1 with Hiram) ; 9.5 and 96.5 ; Baba Batra 75a; Hullin 89a; Tan. B. I, 213, and II, 23-25, 30; Tan. Wa-Era 9; ShR 8.2; Hallel 91. Comp, further the references in note 100. The Haggadah maintains that this Hiram is identical with Hiram the friend of Judah (Gen. 38.11), who continued to be a friend of the latter’s descendants, and assisted Solomon in the building of the Temple. He received his reward for this by being granted a very long life, surviving all the kings of the house of David and those of the ten tribes. See BR 84.8; Tan. B. I, 184. The Church Fathers are likewise acquainted with this Haggadah ; comp. Aphraates, 84-85 ; Ephraem, 11, 189 F; Jerome on Ezek. 28. 11 ; Book of Adam 125— 126. See Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., II, 126-128. For the Arabic version of the Hiram legend, see Steinschneider, Arabische Literatur der Juden, 12. According to 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira, 28b, 29a, 37a, Hiram, as a reward for his assisting Solomon to build the Temple, entered paradise alive, and remained there for a thousand years. But when he became proud and claimed to be a god, he was driven out of paradise and made to enter hell. In many sources where the men who entered paradise alive are enumerated (comp. Derek Erez Z. 1, end, and Index, s.v. “ Paradise, Entered Alive”), Hiram king of Tyre is given as one of them. In note 62 on vol. IV, p. 155 it is suggested to accept the emendation H2iD DTn “ Hiram of Tyre ” (the architect of Solomon ’s Temple) instead of TI2£ DTII; but in view of 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira, this emendation is not tenable. For several etymologies of the name Hiram (also spelt OTin) , see Rimze Haf tarot, Terumah. That Hiram was Nebuchadnezzar’s step-father is found only in WR 18.2 (but not in the parallel passage in Tan. B. Ill, 38), and one is tempted to emend the text and read, in accordance with Yalkut, loc. cit., IDS bv2 -IxnDlDl instead of IDS 425 106-108] The Legends of the Jews “CfrDUJ But the context clearly shows that the Midrash lays emphasis on tne fact that Hiram was killed by Nebuchadnezzar who was closely related to him. An obscure statement is the one of Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk, s. v. 6, that Jeremiah’s prophecy against “all that have the corners of their hair polled” (Jer. 9.25) is directed against Hiram. See also Bernstein, Konig Nebucadnezar 24, seq. 106 Sanhedrin 93a; Tan. B. Ill, 7 (here it is stated that it was Semiramis, Nebuchadnezzar’s wife, and not his daughter, whom the false prophets tempted to sin); Tan. Wa-Yikra 6; Midrash Aggadah, Lev. 51 (very elaborate) PRE 33; PK 24, 164-165; Mekilta RS, III (comp, also ibid. 86, with regard to the orthography 3nN-3Kn«); Makiri, Prov. 19, 5a-6b; We-Hizhir I, 97; Ma’asiyyot (Gaster’s edition 20-21). On the relation of this legend to the story of Susanna, comp, note 79. The Church Fathers Origen ( Epistola ad Africanum) and Jerome on Jer. 29 give this legend as they heard it from their Jewish teachers. According to their version, the false prophets used to assure the women that they were destined to become the mothers of the Messiah if they yielded to their wishes. This is hardly connected with the legend that the Messiah would be born and brought up in Rome ( = Babylonia). Comp. Sanhedrin 98a (the correct reading is NOm Nnn’SN; comp. Rabbinowicz, ad loc.) and Tan. Tazri’a 8. In some editions of Tan. this passage is missing undoubtedly on account of the objections raised by the censors. Comp. Buber, note 65 on Tan. B. Ill, 38. 107 Shabbat 149b. Comp, also Tan. B. II, 33, where WIN HT3D l^pa means sodomy, as is often the case in the midrashic— talmudic literature, and hence the corresponding punishment of Nebuchadnezzar. See notes 100 and 102. The statement in Tan. dispels all doubt about the meaning of P’12£ WIN in Shabbat, loc. cit. It refers to Zedekiah, and not to Jehoiachin. As to Zedekiah being described as “that righteousman ”, see notes 8, 119. 1 0 8 Sanhedrin 93a; PK 25, 165a; Tan. B. Ill, 7 ; Tan. Wa-Yera 6; PRE 33 (which reads: The angel Michael saved Joshua = Jehoshua from death by fire; the garments of the latter were seared because he was very near the false prophets); Mekilta RS, 111; Midrash Aggada on Lev. 5.1. According to Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 116, Joshua himself had contracted a marriage unworthy of him. The same author remarks that Joshua was called by the prophet “a brand plucked out of the fire” (Zech.3.2) bid to a eacv dpapTidov ei\r](pevcu, which shows that he was not acquainted with, or did not accept, the rabbinic tradition that the high priest was thrown into the fiery furnace by Nebuchadnezzar. 426 Exile [109-116 Another legend (comp. Yerushalmi, Ta'anit 4, 69b) has it that at the time of the destruction of the Temple eighty thousand young priests (comp. vol. IV, p. 315) were burned at the stake, Joshua being the only young priest who escaped this frightful death. Hence the designation applied to him by Zechariah. As to Jehoshua’s friends mentioned in Zech. 3.8, see Horayyot 13a, where they are said to have been prophets ( = Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; see Sanhedrin, loc. cit.; BR 56, end; note 76); 2 ARN 28. The Church Fathers (comp. e. g., Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos, 14; Lactantius, IV, 14) explain the story of Joshua allegorically as referring to Jesus ( = Joshua). This is perhaps the reason why the Haggadah finds fault with Joshua, for the Rabbis desired to combat the Christian allegory. 109 BR 96.6; Tan. B. I, 213. Comp, note 81. 110 Sanhedrin 93a. On Daniel’s leaving Babylon, see vol. IV, p. 328. 111 Shir 7.9; Zohar II, 175a. Comp. vol. IV, p. 245. 112 BR 67. This is closely related to, but not directly dependent on, the apocryphal story of Bel and the Dragon, placed in the Septuagint and Theodotion among the additions to the book of Daniel. This apocryphal work consists of two separate stories. In the first, Daniel by a clever device exposed the trickery of the priests of Bel, who made it appear that the idol consumed the food and drink set before it. In the second, Daniel slays the dragon god, by putting into its mouth cakes made of pitch, fat, and hair, after eating which it burst asunder. Directly based on the Greek Apocrypha is the story of the dragon as given in Yerahmeel (comp. Gaster, The Unknown Aramaic Original of Theodotion' s Additions , 75-94), in Bereshit Rabbadi-Rabba (comp. Neubauer, Book of Tobit, 39-43, and Epstein in Magazin, XV, 78-79), and in Shalshelet, 99b. Comp. vol. IV, p. 346 and note 8 pertaining thereto. 113 Yerahmeel 66, 206, and the medieval Christian chronicles. Comp. Gaster, ad loc., and note 104. 1 1 4 Seder ‘Olam 28 (comp. Ratner, ad loc.); PK 27, 168b; WR 20.1; Tan. B. Ill, 54, and V, 8; Tan. Ahare 1; Megillahlla (it is said here that he reigned forty-five years); Koheleth 9.2; Josephus, Antiqui., X, 11.1. Comp. vol. IV, p. 344 and note 3 pertaining thereto. 1 1 5 Shabbat 149a. 116 Tan. B. Ill, 38; Tan. Tazri'a 8; WR 18.2; Bet ‘ Eked II, 20. According to the version of this legend in 2 Targum Esther 1.1 (beginning) and Jerome on Is. 14.19 (he describes it as a “fable told by the Hebrews”), it was not Evil-merodach who feared to ascend the throne of his father, 427 The Legends of the Jews 117] but the magnates of the state, fearing the reappearance of Nebuchadnezzar, would not let him do it. Yerahmeel 66, 206-207, seems to have been acquainted with the version of the legend as given by Jerome, and hence he states that Evil-merodach was imprisoned together with Jehoiachin. The rabbinical sources do not know of this incident, but it is given by Jerome. The second statement of Yerahmeel, that it was Jehoiachin who advised Evil-merodach to take out his father’s corpse from the grave, is not found elsewhere, either in Jewish or in Christian sources. Kimhi on 2 Kings 25.27 quotes the reading of the Midrash (WR loc. cit., is very likely meant), according to which, during the time that Nebuchadnezzar lived among the beasts one of his sons ruled in his stead. This son was killed by his father when he returned. It was the fear of being overtaken by a similar fate that made Evil-merodach cautious before he ascended the throne of the kingdom. An entirely different reason for taking out Nebuchadnezzar’s corpse from the grave is given in 2 ARN 17,37. According to this source, after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, his son Evil-merodach wished to set Jehoiachin free, as he was not a rebel and was kept in prison without any valid reason (comp, the similar statement by Josephus, Antiqui., X, 11.2), but the magnates of the state objected to it, saying to him: “A king cannot revoke the edicts of his dead predecessor, unless he drags the corpse of the dead king out of the grave”. Evil-merodach did not refrain from acting in conformity with their words in order to be able to set king Jehoiachin free. There can be no doubt that 2 ARN is based on a fuller text of Seder ‘Olam 28, where the words as they stand at present (TTVnn ^’DEO n”Ul) are hardly intelligible. Comp, note 134 on vol. IV, p. 287, and Bernstein, Konig Nebucadnezar, 64-69. Seder ‘Olam 18; Mo'ed Katan 28b. According to Josephus, Antiqui., X, 8.7, Zedekiah died during Nebuchadnezzar’s life-time, who buried him with great honors. There is also a Haggadah maintaining that Zedekiah was killed by Nebuchadnezzar. Comp. PRE 53, according to the reading in Batte Midrashot, III, 32. See further the quotation from an unknown Midrash in Hasidim 107 concerning the eight kings, descendants of David, who died by the sword. In note 107 on vol. IV, p. 107 an attempt was made to explain this passage by assuming that Athaliah is one of the D’D^D HIDE’; but this is hardly acceptable, as the text speaks of kings who were descended from David, whereas Athaliah was not of Jewish descent at all. It is therefore more likely that this Midrash is likewise of the opinion that Zedekiah was killed by Nebuchadnezzar. Comp, also note 8. 428 Exile [118-119 118 2ARN43, 122. 119 ‘Arakin 17a; Sanhedrin 103a. Comp, also Shabbat 149a, where Zedekiah is described as p'TS WIN, “that righteous man” (on this passage see note 107); see also Mo‘ed Katan 17b; Tehillim 7, 72. Against this favorable view of Zedekiah, see 2 ARN 43, 122. The kindness shown by Evil-merodach to Jehoiachin (comp. 2 Kings, end) is declared by the Haggadah to have been due to the intercession of Daniel in behalf of the imprisoned Jewish king. Daniel admonished the Babylonian king to be mindful of the punishment which overtook his father Nebuchadnezzar for the cruel treatment he meted out to captive kings, whom he imprisoned for life. Evil-merodach heeded Daniel’s counsel, and released not only Jehoiachin but also all the other kings who had been imprisoned by his father. See Targum Esther 1.1. Comp, also 2 ARN 17, 37. As to Nebuchadnezzar’s cruelty, who never released a prisoner, see also WR 18.2; Tan. B. Ill, 38; Tan. Tazri’a 8. As long as Nebuchadnezzar lived, no mouth smiled, so that at his death the entire world burst forth in jubilation. See Shabbat 149b. Comp, note 96.