Volume 4, Chapter 11: XI. THE RETURN OF THE CAPTIVITY

XI. THE RETURN OF THE CAPTIVITY Vol. IV, (pp. 343-361). 1 Sanhedrin 22a and Shir 3.4. These sources give different views as to the way the ominous words were written. 2 Josippon 6c-7b; it was borrowed and elaborated by Yerahmeel 67, 207-212. The old rabbinic sources did not know of a war of the Chaldeans against the Medo-Persian empire. Josippon is very likely indirectly dependent upon Josephus, Antiqui., X, 11.2. The statement of Koheleth 4.8 that Belshazzar was born on the day upon which Gabina (Krai) the son of Harsum died is very obscure. That Harsum (DIDin) is identical with Croesus is very unlikely, though Gabina and his father are described as having been exceedingly rich. Comp. Perles, Beitrage, 18, and the literature on OIDTI by Krauss, Lehnworter, s. v. The rabbinic sources consider Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Evil-merodach, and the latter as the father of Belshazzar. See Seder ‘Olam 28; BR 44. 15; PK 2, 14a; Shir 3.4; Esther R. 1.8. Comp, also the references in note 116 on vol. IV, p. 339. Merodach the father of Nebuchadnezzar (Jerome on Is. 39.1 quotes this as a Jewish tradition; although this view is not explicitly stated in any part of rabbinic literature, it is presupposed in the last three Midrashim just cited; comp. also vol. IV, p.275, bottom) was a king, but his three descendants were “cosmocrators”. Tan. Ki-Tissa 5; PK, Shir, Esther R.,loc.cit. The list of Babylonian kings in Midrash ‘ Aseret Melakim, 43, is confused, and this is partly due to the corrupt state of the text. Yerahmeel, 67, 6, gives the names of Evil-merodach ’s three sons as Regosar (IDiyi), Lebuzar Duk (“iro1? in), and Nabar ("1N31), who was Belshazzar. The names are taken from Josephus, Antiqui., X, 11. 2, but badly mutilated. According to this historian the name of Evil-merodach’s son was Niglissar, who was the father of Labosordacus, who in turn was the father of Naboandelus = Belshazzar. 3 Megillah lib, where the error of Belshazzar’s calculations is demonstrated. In the text p. 344 line 6 from below, read forty-five instead of twenty-five, and in the following line, two instead of five. Comp, vol. IV, p. 366, and note 19, as well as note 24 on vol. IV, p. 301. 4 Shir 3.4. Here it is also stated that Belshazzar did not die of his wounds immediately, but was in death agony for a night (accord430 The Return of the Captivity (5 ing to some authorities, for a night and a day). On the desecration of the holy vessels by Belshazzar, see Nedarim 62a; ‘Abodah Zarah 52b. The queen, at whose advice Daniel was called in to read the mysterious writing on the wall, was Belshazzar’s mother, according to Ma'aseh Daniel, 120; but according to J osephus, A ntiqui. ,X, 1 1.2, his grandmother. The “fall of Babel” was the work of the angels Michael and Gabriel; BR 63 (end); Tosefta-Targum Is. 21.5. The peculiar way in which Belshazzar met his death proved to him that the precautions taken by him to protect his life were not only in vain but the direct cause of his death; Shir, loc. cit. Comp, also Tehillim 75, 338, which contains a reminiscence of the wars preceding the death of Belshazzar; see note 2. According to Panim Aherim, 60, Belshazzar was killed by a candelabrum falling on his head; but according to another reading (comp. Buber, ad loc.), the rebels, under the command of Cyrus and Darius, crushed his skull with a candelabrum. This is based on the haggadic interpretation of n’SX (Is. 21.5), which is supposed to mean “candelabrum”; comp. Tosefta-Targum, ad loc., and the passages of BR and Shir referred to above. When a successor to Belshazzar had to be elected, the two candidates were Darius and Cyrus, the leaders of the revolt. The former insisted that Cyrus ought to be made king because Daniel, on the authority of Isaiah (comp. Is. 45), used to salute him as the future king while still in the service (pp’S H-officium) of Nebuchadnezzar. Cyrus, however, declined the honor, pointing to the writing on the wall, which, according to the interpretation of Daniel, read : Thy kingdom is . . . given to the Medes and Persians; hence Darius the “Mede” (on his paternal side; his mother was a Persian woman) was to be the immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar. See Panim Aherim and Shir, loc. cit. On the night when Belshazzar was to be killed all Israel came to Daniel and said to him: “All the sufferings predicted by Jeremiah for Israel were fulfilled; but the one prophecy of good tidings, that at the end of seventy years Babylon would be destroyed, has not been fulfilled as yet.” Daniel consoled them, assuring them that it entirely depended upon them whether the “kingdoms” should have dominion over them or not; if they obeyed God, no foreign monster would rule over them; Shir, loc. cit. Comp, also WR 13.5; ARN 34, 100; Tehillim 70, 363. In the text, vol. IV, p. 345 (top), wheaten is a printer’s error for barley. 6 Ma’aseh Daniel 120-121; the king of Mosul(= Babylon) is, of course, none other than Belshazzar, against whom Cyrus was engaged in war ; comp, notes 2 and 4. The Y emenite J ews tell the following story : Their forefathers had settled in that country forty-two years prior to 431 6] The Legends of the Jews the destruction of the first Temple. When Ezra, on the return of the exiles from Babylon, called upon them to do likewise and to return to the Holy Land, they refused because they knew that the second Temple would also be destroyed and that Israel would once against be sent into captivity. Ezra cursed them for their refusal, that they should for ever live in poverty. That is why the Yemenite Jews are poor till this day. They, on their part, cursed Ezra that he should not find his last rest in the Holy Land; this also was fulfilled. See R. Solomon Adeni, in the introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah (beginning); Safir Ebert Sappir, I, 99a. It is therefore very strange that Mohammed accused the Jews of north Arabia, the neighbors of the Yemenite Jews, of believing that Ezra was the “son of God”; comp. Koran 9.30. Did he confuse the “messenger of God” with the “son of God”? An old Jewish tradition identifies the prophet Malachi (“My messenger” or “messenger of God”) with Ezra; comp. Megillah 15a; Targum and Jerome on Mai. 1.1. Megillah, loc. cit., however, also gives the different view that Malachi was identical with Mordecai, who as the “next one to the king” (Comp. Esther, end) was called Malachi, “the kingly one”. Comp. Seder ‘Olam 20, where Mordecai and Malachi are counted as two prophets. See also notes 33, 38 and 50. 6 Bereshit Rabbete of R. Moses ha-Darshan, quoted from a MS. by Epstein, Magazin, XV, 78-79, and by Raymond Martinus, Pugio Fidei, 956. There can, of course, be no doubt that this legend is based upon the apocryphal writing Bel and the Dragon (but it is not directly taken from it), where the following story is told: The mob was so infuriated against Daniel for having exposed the tricks played by the priests of Bel and for having destroyed the dragon (comp, note 112 on vol. IV, p. 338) that they threatened to destroy the king (Theodotion alone gives his name as Cyrus) if he would not deliver Daniel unto them. The king was compelled to comply with their demand, and cast him into the lions’ den, from which, however, he was saved in a miraculous way. In Septuagint this apocryphal work is described as having been taken from the prophecy of Habakkuk the son of Jesus ( = Joshua) of the tribe of Levi. This prophet is said to have been sent by God to Daniel while he was in the lions’ den; comp, note 13. As to the rabbinical view concerning the father and descent of Habakkuk see Index, s. v. In contrast to the Rabbis, who are unanimous on the point of Daniel 's royal descent (comp, note 76 on vol. IV, p. 326), this apocryphal work declares him to have been a priest, and his father’s name is given as Abal. Comp, note 56 (middle). 432 The Return of the Captivity (7 J Rosh ha-Shanah 3b-4a (as to the statement that the name of the king was Darius, whereas Cyrus was an attribute describing him as “the worthy one”, 8H3 being identical with ")$J, and that besides these names, he was, like all other Persian kings, also called Artaxerxes, «nwnm«, see Seder ‘Olam 30, and Ratner, note 11); Megillah 12a; which reads: God said to the Messiah: “I must complain against Cyrus (a haggadic interpretation of Is. 45.1). I wanted him to rebuild the Temple and to take the exiles back to the Holy Land; but all he did was to proclaim through his kingdom: Whatsoever there is among you of all His people let him go up” (2 Chron. end). Cyrus disappointed still more the hopes set upon him. When he noticed that the Babylonian cities became desolate because the Jews emigrated from there to the Holy Land, he forbade them to leave the country. See Shir 5.5 and 6.8—10; Koheleth 10.12; Esther R., introduction 8; Midrash ‘Aseret Melakim 44. The degeneration of Cyrus is quite amazing. At the destruction of the Temple he wept bitterly, and as a reward for his tears the Medes (= Persians) received the dominion over the world; he became not only a “cosmocrator ”, but he was also found worthy to sit on the throne of Solomon (with the exception of Nebuchadnezzar, he was the only Gentile ruler who was thus distinguished). See ER 20, 114; Esther R. 1.2, 13; PRE 11; Midrash ‘Aseret Melakim 44; 1 and 2 Targum Esther 1.2 (end) ; Aggadat Esther 8. Comp. Index, s. v. “Cosmocrators” and “Solomon, Throne of”. On the proclamation of Cyrus to the Jews to return to the Holy Land and to rebuild the Temple, see 3 Ezra 2.1-14. As to the views concerning Cyrus expressed by the Rabbis, it should be noticed that the Palestinian authorities are rather favorable to him, whereas the Babylonians censure him severely. The Roman yoke which weighed heavily upon the Palestinian Jews made them look at the Persians as the friends of the Jews. Their favorable opinion of Cyrus expresses their sympathy for the Persians. The Babylonian Jews, on the other hand, suffered terribly at the hands of the Mazdic priests who were very powerful in the Sassanide empire, and they considered the Romans as “the lesser evil ”, and the “ destroyers of the Temple.” were preferred to the “builders of the Temple’ ( = the Persians under Cyrus) , so that Cyrus and the Persians came in foi a great deal of blame.

See Berakot 8b and 46b; Yoma 10a; Megillah 11a; Ketubot48a; Gittin 17a (top); Kiddushin49b and 72a; Baba Kamma 117a; Baba Mezi'a 28b; Sanhedrin 98b (top); BR 74.2; PK 4, 33 b-34a and 40a, and parallel passages cited by Buber on the last passage. The dominion 433 8-io] The Legends of the Jews of the Persians over Israel was the consequence of the victory of Dobiel (comp. Dan. 7.5), the guardian angel of the former, over Gabriel, who was punished for having delayed the execution of the punishment decreed by God against Israel (comp, note 26 on vol. IV, p. 302). Gabriel was deposed from the high office, which was given over to Dobiel for twenty one days. During this time Dobiel subjected to the Persians twentyone kingdoms, besides the Island of Pearls (on the Persian Gulf). He also obtained for the Persians the grant to levy taxes upon the Jews. However, not satisfied with this, he demanded for the Persians the privilege to levy taxes also upon the Jewish scholars, and he received a written promise to that effect. At the moment when the heavenly seal was to be put on this writ granted to Dobiel, a voice was heard exclaiming: “O Master of the world, if all the sages of the world were in one scale of the balance and Daniel in the other, would he not outweigh them all?” It was the voice of Gabriel exclaiming these words from “behind the curtain” (on the curtain, see Index, s. v.), as he had been expelled from the presence of the Lord and was not permitted to enter the place occupied by the “heavenly family” within the curtain. Hearing Gabriel’s words, God spoke: “Who is it that pleads for My children?” On being informed that it was Gabriel, He permitted him to enter within the curtain. As soon as he was inside, Gabriel noticed the writ in the hands of Dobiel, and attempted to snatch it away from him. Whereupon the latter swallowed it and thus caused it to be blurred. This is the reason why the levy of taxes upon the scholars in the Persian empire is not carried out strictly. However, when the guardian angel of Javan (Greece) received the dominion over Israel, all the pleadings of Gabriel to mitigate the hardships of the Greek yoke over the Jews were of no avail. See Yoma 79a (on the correct text see Rabbinovicz). 8 The apocryphal writing Bel and the Dragon in the Greek Additions to Daniel. See notes 6, 13 and 18, as well as note 112, on vol. IV, p. 338. A Hebrew translation of this Greek work is found in Yerahmeel 72, 220-221, and Josippon 3, 4b-5a. In these sources it is the king Darius who urged Daniel to pay homage to Bel. 9 Ma'aseh Daniel 121-122. According to Josephus, Antiqui., X, 11.4, Darius sent for Daniel to come to him to Media, and he conferred great honors upon him. 10 The old sources (Josephus, Antiqui., X, 11.4; Seder ‘Olam 2829; Shir 3.3), in agreement with the statement of the Bible and the historical facts, make Darius succeed Cyrus (Cambyses, the son and 434 The Return of the Captivity [11-15 direct successor of Cyrus, is not mentioned in rabbinic sources), whereas the late compilation Ma’aseh Daniel, 120-121, reverses the order. According to Josippon 3, 3a Darius and Cyrus divided among themselves the empire of Belshazzar, the former taking the city of Babel and its surroundings, and the latter the rest. 11 Josippon 3, 7b-7d, where the edict of Darius appointing Daniel as viceroy is given in full. In this edict the nations are called upon not only to acknowledge Daniel as their master, but also to pay homage to his God. 1 2 Tehillim 64, 311, and 24, 208 (here it is stated that an angel assumed the form of a rock to close the den and thus protect Daniel against his enemies); Shir 1.1; PR 6, 25a-25b; BaR 14.3. According to Josippon 3, 2b, a little girl playing in front of Daniel 's house betrayed him to his enemies. According to the Halakah, one must sacrifice one’s life in God’s honor if one is ordered to commit a sinful act, but not for the sake of performing a divine commandment. Hence Daniel did more than was required by the law when he risked his life for the sake of prayer. Comp, note 14. BaR 13.4 remarks: Had Daniel been thrown into the fire by Darius, he would have perished, because divine homage was paid to him by Nebuchadnezzar, and the law reads: The images of their gods shall ye burn with fire. Comp. Sanhedrin 93a, Josippon 3, 3b and vol. IV, pp. 337-338. 13 Josippon 3, 8b-8c, which is an adaptation of the story given in the apocryphal writing Bel and the Dragon (comp, note 112 on vol. IV, p. 388; notes 6 and 8) in conformity with the biblical narrative about Daniel in the lions’ den. Daniel’s life was saved by the prayers of his three companions Hananel, Mishael, and Azariah; Tehillim 55, 292. A Christian adaptation of this story is found in ps. -Matthew 35. On the whole, legends about saints being spared by ferocious beasts are very common in Christian literature, but extremely rare with the Jews. Comp. vol. II, p. 332; Sanhedrin 39a; Ahimaaz, 112, and the legend concerning R. Samuel ben Kalonymos in Ma‘aseh-buch, No. 161. On the view that Darius rose in the early morning, see Leket Midrashim, 23a. 14 Tehillim 64, 311. Comp. vol. II, p. 121. According to the Halakah, Daniel (and Jacob, see vol. II, loc. cit.) was permitted to interrupt this recitation to greet the king (comp. Berakot 2.2), but he did not avail himself of the leniency of the law; comp, note 12. 15 Josippon 3, 8c; comp. Bel and the Dragon in the version of Theodotion, 38. 435 1 6-19] The Legends of the Jews 16 Tehillim 64, 312, which reads: There were four lions for each person. But Josippon 3, 8c, knows only of ten lions, and in Bel and the Dragon the number is seven. The explanation given by the enemies of Daniel for his not having been devoured by the beasts is also found in Josephus, Antiqui., X, 11.6; comp. Sanhedrin 39a. 17 Josippon 3, 9b-10a (the edict concerning the Temple is partly based on 3 Ezra 15, seq.); Yerahme d 74, 223-244, where, strangely enough, Shushan is said to have been the birthplace of Daniel. Comp, note 76 on vol. IV, p. 326. 18 Megillah 3a. As to the question whether Daniel and his three companions were prophets or not, see references given in notes 76 and 108 on vol. IV, pp. 326 and 337 respectively. Comp, also Sanhedrin 93a, where, according t&< one reading (see Rabbinovicz, note 50), the Talmud maintains that the three companions of Daniel were not prophets. It is true that this statement is put into the mouths of the false prophets Ahab and Zedekiah. Josephus, Antiqui., X, 11.7, not only speaks eloquently of the prophet Daniel, but states also that he wrote “several books... and one is still read by us till this time.” The rabbinic literature knows only of one book by Daniel, if we except the very late work Ma'aseh Daniel. Josephus seems to have known, besides the biblical Book of Daniel, several others ascribed to him. Or did he consider the Greek additions to the book of Daniel as separate works by Daniel? On the Apocalypse of Daniel, known still to some writers of the Middle Ages, see note 104 on vol. IV, p. 334. Based on an old Apocalypse of Daniel is perhaps the statement of Johannes Malala, Chronographia 97. 257, that Cyrus (comp, note 6) threw Daniel into the lions’ den because he refused to reveal to him whether he would be victorious in the war against Croesus or not. After Daniel ’s marvellous escape from death, Cyrus realized that he had done an injustice to the man of God, and asked his forgiveness. Daniel not only forgave him, but also announced to him that he would gain a complete victory over Croesus. Daniel also showed him the prophecies in the book of Isaiah relating to him. The last statement is also found in Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 1.2, and Shir. 3.4. Comp, also James, Lost Apocrypha 20. 19 BR 98.2; Tehillim 31, 239-240. Comp, also Megillah 12a. Daniel erred in the calculation of the end of time. The curse pronounced against those who “reckoned the end of time” (Sanhedrin 97b) is to be explained accordingly. If Daniel himself failed in fixing the time ac* curately, it would be futile for any other mortal to attempt this task, 436 The Return of the Captivity [20-23 Notwithstanding this anathema, there are many treatises by medieval authors dealing with the “end of time” revealed to Daniel. If we disregard the pseudo-epigraphical writers, Josephus, Antiqui., X, 11.7 (towards the end), is one of thevearliest interpreters of the vision of Daniel, but after giving his view thereof (in his opinion, Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government), he adds: “But if anyone is inclined to another opinion a^ nit them, let him enjoy his different sentiments without any blame from me.” The “other opinion” very likely saw in Daniel’s visions a prophecy bearing upon the contemporary history of the prophet. ,0 R. Benjamin of Tudela 74-76; R. Pethahiah 7b. Chronicon P aschale 92. 396, also mentions the magnificent mausoleum of Daniel, who is said to have been buried among the kings (of Babylon). All these legends very likely have their origin in the statement of Josephus, Antiqui., X, 11.7, that when “ Daniel became famous, an account of the opinion men had that he was beloved of God, he built a tower at Ecbatana in Media.” Josephus then adds that it was a most elegant building and wonderfully made, and that it is still remaining and preserved to this day, and to such as see it, it appears to have been lately built, and to have been no older than the very day when any one looks upon it; iti s so fresh, flourishing, and beautiful, and in no way grown old in so long a time. . .Now they bury the kings of Media, of Persia, and Parthia in this tower to this day; and he who was entrusted with the care of it was a Jewish priest, which thing is also observed to this day. According to old rabbinic sources, Daniel left Babylon for the Holy Land, availing himself of the permission granted by Cyrus to the exiles, and bceame the governor of his native country; Shir 5.5 and Sanhedrin 93b. Josippon 3, 5b agrees in the main with Josephus, and makes Daniel settle in Shushan. There can be no doubt that the old rabbinic sources quoted were of the opinion that Daniel died in the Holy Land, where he spent the remainder of his life.

Comp, notes 17 and 23. 2 1 R. Pethahiah 9a. 2 2 Gelilot Erez Israel, 101c. 23 Josippon 3, 5b. In 3 Ezra, which is the source of Josippon (comp, the following note), Zerubbabel is one of the three body-guards of the king and not a high official. Josephus maintains that Zerubbabel was appointed head of the Jews by Cyrus, and this is very likely based on the identification of Sheshbazzar, the “prince of the Jews” under Cyrus, with Zerubbabel (Ezra 1.8); comp. Ibn Ezra, ad loc. PR 6, 23b, and Sanhedrin 93b (here it is supposed that Daniel preceded 437 24-26] The Legends of the Jews Nehemiah in the office of governor, hence his identity with Zerubbabel is assumed) on the other hand, identify Sheshbazzar with Daniel; comp, note 76 on vol. IV, p. 326. When the Samaritans, Josephus continues, attempted to prevent the building of the Temple, Zerubbabel was sent by the Jews to Media to plead their cause before king Darius, the son of Hystaspes; Antiqui., XI, 4.9. Comp, note 26. 24 3 Ezra 1-57; Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 3.3-9 (with slight variants); Josippon 3, lOa-lla. Comp, also Baba Batra 10a, which has the statement concerning the ten “mighty things existing in the world”, wine being one of them. 26 Zerubbabel. As to the part to be played by Zerubbabel in the Messianic times, see Alphabet R. Akiba, 27-28, where it is said that he will recite the Kaddish after the lecture to be delivered by God on the new Torah which He is to reveal through the Messiah. All men, including the wicked in hell and the Gentiles, hearing the Kaddish, will respond: Amen. This will cause God to extend His compassion to all His creatures, even to the sinners, and He will send Michael and Gabriel to open the gates of hell that its dwellers should be se» free. Together with Elijah (comp. vol. IV, p. 233) Zerubbabel, in the time to come, will explain all the obscure passages of the Torah, and reveal all its mysteries; quotation from Midrash in Halakot Gedolot (Hildesheimer’s edition, 223, top). See also Pirke Mashiah, 75, and BHM VI, 63, as well as Kalir in his lamentation onn D’D’3 (at the end of Lamentations, according to Roman rite), where Zerubbabel is described as the “Messianic herald”, at whose call Michael and Gabriel will undertake the war of annihilation against the pagan world. There is some connection between this legend and the one about Zerubbabel ’s “superhuman” voice' comp. vol. I, p. 59. Not quite clear is the part attributed to Zerubbabel in Ma'aseh Daniel, 128, where it is stated that the Messiah will ascend the Mount of Olives with Elijah and Zerubbabel, whereupon Elijah, at the bidding of the Messiah,- will blow the trumpet (comp. vol. IV, p. 234). There can be no doubt thal the text is incomplete; there must have been something said about the part to be played by Zerubbabel on this occasion. It is rather strange that the Rabbis never thought of declaring Zerubbabel to be the promised Messiah. The only one of biblical times who was considered by them as the possible candidate for the Messiaic office is Daniel. See Sanhedrin 98b (towards the end). Is this view connected with the supposed identity of Daniel with Zerubbabel? Comp, note 23. 28 Sanhedrin 38a (top). Conp. note 76 on vol. IV, p. 326 and 438 The Return of the Captivity [27-30 notes 23,25. Nehemiah was also called KTlBnnn (Neh. 8.9), because the authorities of that time 11 absolved” him ( = "inn) from observing the injunction (decreed by Daniel and his three companions; ‘Abodah Zarah 36b) against using the wine touched by a heathen, and permitted him to “drink” ( = NnP) wine with the king, whose cup-bearer he was. See Yerushalmi Kiddushin 4, 65b; Midrash ‘ Aseret Melakimt 44. Nehemiah and his “company” are the authors of the strict law that no vessel or utensil is to be handled on the Sabbath. The people at that time were very lax in the observance of the Sabbath, and hence the strictness introduced by Nehemiah. When the observance of the Sabbath became well established, the rigidity of Nehemiah ’s law was relaxed. See Shabbat 123b, and comp. Josephus, Bell. II, 8.9. 7 Sanhedrin 93b. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah are spoken of by the Rabbis as the Book of Ezra. Comp. e. g., Baba Batra 15a. In this passage it is stated that Ezra “wrote” (composed or compiled? comp, note 89 on vol. IV, p. 227) also the books of Chronicles up to 2 Chron. 21.1, and the rest of Nehemiah. Comp, the explanation of the talmudic passage in the geonic responsum published by Ginzberg, Geonica, II, 16-17. The unpopularity of Nehemiah shows that there is no rule without an exception. There is a maxim which says: He who is disliked by his fellow-men is also disliked by heaven. Nehemiah and David are exceptions to this rule: both were loved by God, but hated by many of their fellow-men. See Sanhedrin 103b, and comp. Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen, 56, and Ginzberg, Ha-Zofeh, III, 121-122. 28 Darius was born on the day when Nebuchadnezzar, after his victory over Jehoiachin, entered the Temple; he reigned for one year only, and was succeeded by Cyrus who reigned three, or, according to one reading, four years. See Seder ‘Olam 28 and 29; Megillah lib (bottom). Comp, notes 10 and 30. 2 9 The legends about the youth of Cyrus in the classical writers fe given by Abravanel in his commentary on Is. 45, whence it was borrowed by many later rabbinical authors. 3 0 Josippon 3, 1 ld-12a. Rashi on Dan. 6.29 quotes from Josippon the statement that Darius reigned only one year, when he fell in battle and was succeeded by his son-in-law Cyrus. Our text of Josippon (comp. loc. cit.) has an entirely different reading. It is worth noticing that, according to Josippon, the main factor in the return of the exiles was Darius, called upon Cyrus to participate in this undertaking, and while the \39 31-32] The Legends of the Jews return of the exiles under Ezra, Nehemiah, Mordecai, Joshua, and Zerubbabel took place under Cyrus, the credit for it was due to Darius. Comp, also Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 3.1, who remarks concerning Darius: Now, while he was still a private man, he had made a vow to God that if he came to be king, he would send all the vessels of God that were in Babylon to the Temple at Jerusalem. This vow he faithfully fulfilled as king after he was reminded of it by his great favorite Zerubbabel who had come to him from Jerusalem in behalf of the Jews. Comp, notes 7 and 10. The legend about the celestial fire, as given in Josippon, is, of course, closely related to that found in 2 Macc. 1.19-2.12, but is not directly based on it. Notice especially that 2 Macc. ascribes an important part to Nehemiah in discovering the fire, whereas Josippon ignores him entirely. Comp, note 36; note 60 on vol. IV, pp. 320-321; vol. Ill, p. 184. 11 Zebahim 62a. The prophet knew the exact site of the altar, because he saw the angel Michael sacrifice there. The word “there” very likely refers to the place in heaven exactly corresponding to the terrestrial altar; comp. Mekilta Shirah 10, 43b, and Index, s. v. “Sanctuary, Heavenly”. A number of Halakot are referred to the authority of these prophets, especially to that of Haggai, and as late as the second century C. E., the “seat” of Haggai (in Jerusalem) was shown; comp. Tosefta Kelim, Baba Batra 2.3; Rosh ha-Shanah 19b; Megillah 3a (Jonathan ben Uziel composed his Targum of the Prophets under the guidance of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi); Yebamot 16a; Yerushalmi 1, 3a; Kiddushin 43a; Nazir 53a; Hullin 137a; Bekorot 58a. Comp, the very interesting remarks on this point by R. Sherira Gaon in Teshubot Geone Mizrah u-Ma,arib, No., 140. See also Bacher, Monalsschrift 52. 708—709. The hypothesis (see Frankel, Dark. Ham. 40) that K’DJH ’3fl in many places of the Talmud is an erroneous reading for 'in ’Jft (i. e. Onia; comp, note 58 on Vol. IV, p. 320), is not tenable. On the change of the Hebrew Alphabet, see note 44. 33 Yerushalmi Sotah 5, 20b; Pesahim 9, 36c (here it is said that the skull of Araunah was found in the time of Hezekiah, who in consequence thereof ordered the purification of the Temple); Yerushalmi Nedarim 6, 39d-40a; Sanhedrin 1, 18d. Comp, also Aggadat Shir 3, 33. On the Halakot involved in the controversy between the priests, see also Pesahim 17a. This passage quotes a view that the priests gave a correct answer to the question of law put to them. In view of the widespread legend that Adam was buried in Jerusalem in the place upon which the altar was subsequently erected, one is inclined to explain 440 The Return of the Captivity [33-36 ’DID’n inN in the Yerushalmi passages as an erroneous reading of the abbreviation (m'N—’DU’n !Untt), which in turn was a scribal error for "l nN*=]Wton DIN. Comp. Vol. V, p. 126. The proselytes known as the “house of Nebalata” ( i . e., from Nebalat; comp. Neh. 11.34), who were quite prominent at the end of the second Jewish commonwealth, are said to have been descendants of Araunah; comp. Tosefta Peah 4.11; Yerushalmi 8, 21a; Sifre D., 110. On burial-places in Jerusalem, see Tosefta Nega'im 6.2; Yerushalmi Nazir 9, 57d; Semahot 14; Baba Kamma 82b. According to these sources, the corpses, by a later ordinance, were removed from all the burial places in Jerusalem, only the graves of the kings and that of the prophetess Huldah were left there. 33 Megillah 15a; Targum Mai. 1.1, and Jerome in his introduction to his commentary on Malachi. Comp, notes 5 and 38. 34 As to the “several returns” of the exiles, see Seder ‘Olam 28-30, and the sources referred to by Ratner in his notes. The majority of the returning exiles belonged to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; yet some refer to those of all the other tribes; Seder ‘Olam 29; Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 5.2. Comp, also ‘Arakin 32b-33a (see Tosafot on Gittin 36a, caption 1D13), and note 56 on vol. IV, p. 317. 33 Megillah 16b; Shir 5.5; comp. Kaftor wa-Ferah 10. 231. In Shir it is said that God commanded Ezra to remain in Babylon as long as Joshua the son of Jehozadak was alive. This high priest belonged to a family that occupied the office of the high priest for generations. If Ezra had come to the Holy Land during the lifetime of the latter, he would, on account of his superior merit, have had a better claim to that office.

But God dislikes to see the “chain of nobility snap” (i. e., to take away honors from the family and give them to another). He therefore told Ezra to remain in Babylon, so that Joshua should continue as high priest like his ancestors. But after the death of Joshua, Ezra returned to the Holy Land, where he occupied the office of high priest. Comp. Maimonides in the introduction to his Code. On Ezra as high priest, see also Parah 3.5, where it is stated that he ‘‘burned a red heifer”, and this presupposes that he was a high priest. Ezra was the man for his time, and he would have been high priest even if Aaron were then alive; Koheleth 1.4. 36 Yoma 9b-10a; Berakot 4a, which reads: Miracles would have been wrought for Israel on the second entrance to the Holy Land, like those performed at the first entrance, were it not for the sins of the returning exiles. Had all the Israelites returned, the second Temple would 441 (37-38 The Legends of the Jews never have been destroyed; but because the greater part of the nation remained in foreign lands, the Temple built by the returning exiles was not only destroyed afterwards, but even during its existence it lacked many things which lent glory to the first Temple. The following five things were in the first Temple only: The heavenly fire (comp, against this view vol. IV, pp. 353-354), the holy oil of anointing, the ark, the Holy Spirit (revealing itself to the prophets in the Temple; comp. Yerushalmi Sukkah 5, 55a), and the Urim and Tummim. See Shir 8.10; Yoma 21b; PRK (Griinhut’s edition, 71); ‘Aruk, s. v. 133; comp, also Josephus, Bell., V, 5.5, which reads: The holy of holies coatained nothing. See also Index under the five subjects just mentioned. As to the refusal of the Jews of Yemen to return to the Holy Land, see note 5; on a similar legend concerning the Jews of Germany (who paid dearly for this sin during the Middle Ages), see Ma'aseh Nissim I and hence Sheerit Israel 3; Briill, Jahrbiicher, IV, 39-40. Shalshelet, 33a, maintains the same with regard to the Jews of Spain. With the death 0* the three last prophets (as to the use of the expression O’JnnN O’N’aJ see note 24 on vol. IV p. 84), the Holy Spirit departed from Israel. From time to time, however, a “heavenly voice” used to be heard that ro vealed to Israel things hidden from human knowledge. See Tosefta Sotah 13.2-6; Babli 46b; Yerushalmi 9, 24b (here Jeremiah and Baruch are described as the “former prophets”, in contrast to the three “later prophets”); Yoma 9b; Sanhedrin 11a. At the destruction of the Templr (first?) the prophetic gift was taken away from the prophets and given to children and fools; Baba Batra 12b; comp, also Matth. 21.16. Babi Batra 12a reads: Although the gift of prophecy was taken away from the prophets, it remained with the wise; hence it may be inferred that the wise are greater than the prophets. J 7 Yebamot 86b. As to the statement made here that Ezra abo£ ished the custom of having only Levites as officers of the court, see Katl in Hoffmann- Festschrift 109 seq. and Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 69. * 8 Megillah 15a. In was in connection with this activity for the purity of the Jewish race, that Ezra-Malachi (on the identity of the “scribe” with the “prophet”, see note 33) addressed his words of reprimand against those who married “foreign women”, found in Mai. 2.10. The Jews of his time revolted against the severe marriage laws of the Torah (comp. vol. Ill, pp. 246-247), and especially against the prohibition to intermarry with the Gentiles. They declared this law as unjust, saying: “Has not the same God who created Israel alsocreatet the other nations?” (comp. Mai. 2.10). See Sifra 18.2. The women 442 The Return of the Captivity [39-44 who returned to the Holy Land lost their beauty, and aged before their time, because of the suffering to which they were exposed, and many an inconsiderate husband divorced his wife to marry a foreign woman. Ezra-Malachi (see above) opposed not only the mixed marriages but also the evil of divorce, for even “the altar of the Lord sheds tears for the woman who is divorced by a man who married her as his ‘ first love’” (comp. Mai. 2.13); Yerushalmi Kiddushin 1, 58b; BR 18.5; Gittin 90b. 3 9 Baba Batra 15a. On the meaning of the words 1^ ny in this passage, see Rashi and Tosafot, ad toe., as well as the geonic responsum in Ginzberg’s Geonica II, 16-17. Comp, note 27. 40 Kiddushin 69b— 71a and 71b. Ezra excluded the Gibeonites from entering into the “assembly of the Lord”; Yerushalmi Kiddushin 4, 65c; Shemuel 28, 134; BaR 8.4; comp. vol. IV, p. 10. According to Yerushalmi, an attempt was made at the time of R. Eliezer (or Eleazar) ben Azariah (about 100 C. E.), who was a descendant of Ezra in the tenth generation, to change the statute in order to admit the Gibeonites to complete union with Israel; but it failed. On Ezra’s descendants, see Berakot 27b; Yerushalmi Yebamot 1, 3d (top). 41 Tosefta Sanhedrin 4.7; Babli 21b; Yerushalmi Megillah 1, 21b; Tertullian De Cultu Fern. 3., Jerome, Adversus Helvidium 7. Comp, note 50, and the following note. 43 Sifre D., 48; Midrash Tannaim 43; Sukkah 20a. In the last passage it is pointed out that at three different periods in the history of Israel the Torah was nearly forgotten, and in each case the knowledge thereof was revived by a Babylonian: first by Ezra, then by the Babylonian Hillel, and later by the Babylonian R. Hiyya, who was assisted in his work by his two sons Hezekiah and Judah. 43 Megillah31b. Comp, the first of the ten “ regulations of Ezra ” in the text below. 44 Tosefta Sanhedrin 4.7-8; Babli 21b-22a; Yerushalmi Megillah 1, 21b-21c. Comp, also Sifre D., 160; Midrash Tannaim 145, as well as vol. IV, pp. 354 and 357. A thorough discussion of these and similar passages of the rabbinical literature, bearing upon the“ changing of the script” by Ezra, is given by Blau, Zur Einleilung in die Heilige Schrift, 48, seq. Besides the view given in the text, there are two others. According to one, the Assyrian characters (i. e., the square characters) were used by Moses in writing the Torah ; but in course of time they were discarded by the Jews, and Ezra re-introduced them again; the other view maintains that “just as the Torah was not changed, even so is 443 45-48] The Legends of the Jews the script in which it was written unchanged”: the characters used at present came down from Moses, and were in continuous use by the Jews. Owing to the fact that the square writing was introduced in the time of Ezra, none of Belshazzar ’s wise men was able to read the writing on the wall which was in the new Aramaic (i. e., square) letters. See Tosefta, loc. cit., where DIYI lniN is very likely not to be taken literally. As Ezra is the author of the script used for writing the Torah, he was the one to introduce the dots over a number of biblical words, the genuineness of which was dubious. Ezra said: When Elijah comes (comp. vol. IV, p. 233) and asks me: “Why didst thou write these spurious words”, I will answer: “Did I not place dots over them, to indicate that they are to be cancelled?” Should he, on the other hand, say: “Thou didst well in writing these words”, I shall remove the dots. See BaR 3.13; ARN 34, 101 (second version 37, 98). On the dotted words see Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen, 6-40. In the tannaitic literature numerous references are found to tory "IBD, the Book of Ezra, i. e., the copy of the Torah written by Ezra. The correct reading, however, seems to be miy 'D or rather mry n ' D “the copy of the Bible kept in the sanctuary.” But even if the reading N“iry is correct, it might be explained as the Aramaic form of HTB, comp. Kelim 15.6; Tosefta Kelim, Baba Mezi'a 5.8; Yerushalmi Shekalim 2, 47a; Mo'ed Katan 3.4. The alleged writing of Maimonides on the “Codex Ezra”, given by Di Rossi, Meor ‘Enayim, 9, 150-151, bears the mark of forgery. On the other legends concerning this codex, see Sambari, 118-119, and Gelilot Erez Israel, 99b. 46 Baba Batra 21b (bottom). The rabbinical law in other cases is very strict with regard to competition. 46 Popular physiology attributes generative power to garlic, and hence the ordinance to partake thereof on Friday, for according to the Rabbis, the night of Sabbath is to be devoted to conjugal pleasures (in opposition to the Samaritans and other sects who prohibit sexual intercourse on this “holy day ”) ; comp. Ketubot 5.6; Babli 62b; Nedarim 3.10; see the references cited in note 59. 47 The meaning of the word TD is not quite certain, but it is very likely a different spelling for tO)H, the Aramaic transliteration of the Greek {wvapiov, “ belt ”. It was mainly worn by women, and covered most of the lower part of the body; see Krauss, Archaologie, I, 174, and note 631. 48 This ordinance is said to have had for its purpose the 444 The Return of the Captivity [49-50 restraint of conjugal relations. Comp. Berakot 21b-22b, and Yerushalmi 3, 6c. Many attempts have been made in talmudic, as well as in post-talmudic times, to abolish this law, but they were not entirely successful, at least not in the East. Comp. Ginzberg, Geonica, II, 24. 48 Baba Kamma 82a-82b; Ketubot 5a; Baba Batra 22a. Somewhat different are the “regulations of Ezra” in Yerushalmi Megillah 4, 75a. There 1 and 2 are counted as one, and to make up the number ten, Ezra is credited with a regulation which is elsewhere ascribed to R. Jose, a Tanna who flourished about the middle of the second century C. E. (comp. Sanhedrin 19a). The sixth ordinance is explained by Yerushalmi to refer to Friday and had for its purpose to provide the poor with new bread for the Sabbath. A third version of the ten regulations is found in PRK (Schonblum’s edition, 40b). This is essentially identical with Yerushalmi Megillah, but it omits number 4, and the number ten is made up by the addition of a new ordinance not found in any other source. A full discussion of the ten regulations of Ezra is given by Bloch, Sha'are Torat ha-Takkanot, I, 107-138; comp, also the critical study by Zeitlin, Takkanot Ezra in J.Q.R., New Series, VIII, 761, seq. Bloch, op. cit., 137-138, attributes the liturgical formula given in Berakot 9.5 to Ezra on the authority of Rashi, ad toe.

It is very likely that by the expression iny”Dl Niry “Ezra and his company”, Rashi means the Men of the Great Synagogue. Comp. Yoma 69b. On the origin of this liturgical formula, see Ginzberg, in Geiger’s Kebuzzat Maamarim (Poznanski ’s edition, 402-403). It is also stated that Ezra pronounced the Tetragrammaton “as it is written”; comp. Tosefta Berakot 7.23; Yerushalmi 9, 14a; Tehillim 36, 251; comp, also Yoma 69b and Yerushalmi Berakot 4.11c. See the discussion of these passages in note 53 on vol. IV, p. 33. In the year of Ezra’s return to the Holy Land the month of Elul was a “full one”, consisting of thirty days, which has never happened since, for this month is always defective. See Bezah 6a. 60 4 Ezra 3-14. The names of the scribes are transmitted in different readings. The correct one is very likely: Seraiah (!T"W), Neriah (ITU which was corrupted to Dabriah) the father of Baruch, Shelemiah (ITD1?®), Ethan (]n’N), and Aziel (Vnffll). On the characters which the scribes could not read, see note 44. In contrast to the view of this apocryphal work, shared also by many of the Church Fathers (comp., e. g., Irenaeus, III, 21.2; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1.22; Tertullian, De Cultu Femin. 1.3; ps.-Tertullian, Adversus Marcionitas 445 The Legends of the Jews 5i] 280-281; other references are given by Fabricius, Codex Pseudepig., 1, 1156-1160, and Schiirer, Geschichle, III, 329), that at the destruction of the Temple the holy Bible was burned, so that Ezra was charged by God to write it down anew, the Rabbis maintain that even “Ezra the Scribe ” was not permitted to write one letter of the Torah from memory; he transcribed, word by word, letter by letter, from the copy of the Torah before him. See Yerushalmi Megillah 4, 74d; BR 36 (end). On the seventy books which Ezra was commanded to withhold from the populace see Ginzberg, in Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Lore, I, 34-37, where it is suggested that it refers to the old halakic literature, which consisted of fifty-eight mishnaic treatises, the nine midrashic books on Leviticus, and the Midrashim on Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Ginzberg, op. cit., 37, calls attention to Maseket Kelim 88, where it is said that Ezra and five of his companions (they are the three prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as well as the Levite Shimur and Hezekiah; on Shimur, see note 63 on vol. IV, p. 321, but he is perhaps identical with Shelemiah in 4 Ezra mentioned above) wrote down the Mishnah. In rabbinic literature the Mishnah is often described as the great “secret” (jivarr]pi.ov) which God revealed to Israel (and to Israel only), whereas the Bible was given to all mankind. Comp. e. g., Yerushalmi Peah 2, 17a; PR 5, 14b; Tan. B. I, 88, and II, 116-117; Tan. Wa-Yera 5, and Ki-Tissa 34; ShR 47.1; BaR 14.10. In rabbinic literature Ezra is not one of those who “entered paradise alive” (comp. Index, s. v. “Paradise, Entering Alive” ), whereas 4 Ezra (end) states: And then was Ezra caught away and taken up into the Place ( i . e., paradise), of such as were like him. The office of “heavenly scribe” is otherwise given to Enoch or Elijah (comp. Index). It is perhaps this glorification of Ezra which gave rise to the accusation made by Mohammed against the Jews that they consider Ezra as the son of God. Comp, note 5. The much discussed Ezra-Salathiel problem is easily solved, if we assume that the Hebrew original of 4 Ezra had at its opening the words NHty H1?® ’IN. A slight curving of the letter n made of nVtP “the messenger of God” l7Nni7!?’ Salathiel. The identification of Ezra with Malachi (comp, notes 5, 33 and 38) may also have its origin in these opening words of 4 Ezra, as and rbv mean both “the messenger of God”. 61 R. Benjamin of Tudela, 73. According to Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 5.5, Ezra died in old age at Jerusalem; comp, note 5. Ezra and 446 The Return of the Captivity [52—56 Nehemiah died on the second of Tebeth, which day was therefore observed as a fast-day; Megillat Ta'anit (addition) 24. 62 R. Benjamin of Tudela, 51; comp, also vol. VI, p. 413, note 75. On an Ezra synagogue in the neighborhood of Mount Ararat, and another in Nisibis, see Gelilot Erez Israel, 100a. 63 On this miracle, see also vol. IV, p.326. 64 Gelilot Erez Israel, 101a— 101b. On the destruction of the city of Babylon, see also Shalshelet, 101b, quoting an alleged old manuscript. According to the medieval Chronicle, published by Neubauer, II, 185, Darius and Cyrus razed the city to the ground. Comp. vol. VI, p. 424, note 104, end. 66 Berakot 67b (towards the end); comp. Rashi, ad loc., and vol. VI, p. 411, note 46. 66 Abot 1.1, which reads: Moses received the Torah from Sinai, and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders (Josh. 24.31), and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets delivered it to the men of the Great Synagogue. The Great Synagogue was so called because it restored the attribute of “greatness” to God in addressing Him, as did Moses, as the “great God, the mighty, and the awful” (Deut. 10.7). Jeremiah spoke of the “great and mighty God” (Jer. 32.18), omitting the attribute “awful”, because “God is awful out of the holy place” (Ps. 68.36), and in his days the holy place (the Temple) was destroyed. Daniel (Dan. 9.4) described God as great and awful, but not as mighty, saying: His children are in chains, and where then is His might manifested? The men of the Great Synagogue, on the other hand, restored all the attributes of God (comp. Nehem. 9.32 and the beginning of the ‘Amidah), maintaining that the awfulness and might of God are manifested in His permitting the wicked nations to do what they like. See Yerushalmi Berakot 7, 11c; Megillah3, 74c; Yoma 69b; Tehillim 18, 164. Comp, also Berakot 33b. Thus the men of the Great Synagogue, though not all of them were prophets (opinions differ as to the number of the prophets who were among these one hundred and twenry men; comp. Yerushalmi Megillah 1, 70d; Berakot 2, 4d; Ruth R. 2.4; Megillah 17b; comp, also ARN, both versions 1, 2; Tosefta ‘Erubin 11.22), saw much deeper than Jeremiah and Daniel. See the quotation from an unknown Midrash in Midrash Talpiyyot, whence it is also incorporated in Toledot Adam 1, 26b. Among the members of the Great Synagogue were, besides Ezra and Mordecai (the latter lived more than four hundred years; comp. Seder ha-Dorot, 3404), Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, the high priest, Joshua, as well as Daniel ’s three companions, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Comp, the geonic Seder Tannaim 447 56] The Legends of the Jews in Mahzor Vitry 481 and 463, as well as Maimonides, in his introduction to Mishneh Torah. The latter quite correctly understands the taimudic-midrashic view about the Great Synagogue to be based on the narrativein Neh. 8-10. This passage, combined with Ezra 2.2, lends scriptural authority to the view of the Rabbis. Maimonides undoubtedly identified Mishael (Neh. 8.4), Azariah (10.3), and Hananiah (10.22) with Daniel 's three companions. The view that Daniel was a priest (comp, note 6) is likewise based upon the identification of the priest Daniel (Neh. 10.7) with the famous Daniel. Maimonides, loc. cit., gives the “chain of tradition” from Moses to R.Ashi, the compiler of the Babylonian Talmud, extending over forty generations. Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue form the middle of the chain, since Baruch, the teacher of Ezra (comp. vol. IV, 355, top), is the twentieth from Moses. Later authorities extend the chain of tradition until the last of the Geonim; comp. 2 Seder ‘Olam, 163-165; Seder ‘Olam Zuta, 176, as well as Seder ha-Kabhalah by R. Abraham ibn Daud. As to the activities of the Great Synagogue, the following are the most notable ones. They edited or declared as canonical the books of Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther, and the Minor Prophets. See Baba Batra 15a (as to the word “write”, see note 89 on vol. IV, p. 277); comp, also 2 Seder ‘Olam, 174, where it is said that Ezra “wrote” the Book of Judges. Very interesting is the statement found in this chronicle, p. 162, to the effect that Moses made use, for the Pentateuch, of the writings which came down from former generations. Josephus, Contra Apionem, 1.8, and Seder ‘Olam R. 30, maintain that at the end of the Persian period the prophetic spirit departed from among Israel, and this necessitated the final canonization of the holy writings. These authorities very likely also have in mind the activity of the Great Synagogue in connection with the Canon; comp. Tan. Beshallah 16. The men of the Great Synagogue introduced the tripartite division of the oral law, classifying it into Midrash, Halakah, and Haggada ; Y erushalmi Shekalim 5 (beginning) . Hence the Mishnah contains statements going directly back to these great men; comp. Abot 1.1; Sanhedrin 109b, with reference to the Mishnah 10.1 (see, however, Tan. B. Ill, 43, where nitron ’Don can hardly mean the men of the Great Synagogue); Megillah 10b, where a haggadic rule is ascribed to them. They introduced the Feast of Purim, and determined the days when it should be celebrated. See Megillah 2a; Yerushalmi 1, 70d;comp. note 193 on vol. IV, p. 448. On the view that they built up the entire ritual, see note 58. They also ordained that the tithes and the Terumah should be given, though according to the biblical law these obligations 448 The Return of the Captivity [57-58 ceased when the Jews were exiled. They drew up a document to the effect that they had taken anew upon themselves these duties, and left it in the Temple over night. In the morning they found the heavenly seal placed under the names attached to the document. See Ruth R. 2.4. Very remarkable is the statement of ER 27, 138 according to which the Great Synagogue was acting in Babylonia at the time of Ezekiel. Comp. Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. “The Great Synagogue.” 67 Yoma 69b. In Shir 7.8 two views are given. According to one, the “desire for idolatry" was eradicated from among Israel in the days of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (they belonged to the Great Synagogue ; comp, preceding note) ; but the other view maintains that this happened in the time of Mordecai and Esther; comp, also ‘Arakin 32b. In the Babylonian myth about Ishtar’s descent into hell it is also said that during her absence from the earth all creatures lost their desire and appetite for any enjoyment. At present Satan is blind, and thus his power is weakened; but in the time to come the evil inclination will entirely disappear from among men, who will be like angels. See BR 48.11. 63 Aggadat Tefillat Shemoneh Esreh 54—55, and, in a somewhat different form, Eshkol, I, 19. On the legends presupposed in this midrashic writing, see vol. I, pp. 10, 241, 282, 323; vol. II, pp. 24, 36, 72. “The men of the Great Synagogue formulated the benedictions and the prayers, as well as the benedictions for Kiddush and Habdalah.” On the other hand, the view is given that the three partriarchs instituted the three daily prayers: Abraham the morning prayer, Isaac the afternoon prayer, and Jacob the evening prayer. Comp. Berakot 26b and 33b; Yerushahni 4, 6d; Yoma 28b; Tan. B. I, 195-196, and V, 45 (here it is said that Moses established the daily prayers) ; Tan. Hayye Sarah 5 and Ki-Tissa 23; Tehillim 19, 164 (the text of Yerushalmi Berakot 7, 11c, is here changed, and instead of n^Bn we have n^Bn TID, thus making Moses the author of the ‘Amidah), and 55, 291-292; Mishle 22, 93; BR 60.14 and 68.9; BaR 2.1. Besides Moses and the patriarchs, the following prophets and kings are said to have contributed to the prayer-book. Joshua composed ‘Alenu on his entering into the Holy Land, and ‘At Ken Nekawweh Leka at the time when Achan confessed his theft. See Seder ha- YomlY^V ; Mahkim, 125; Sha'are Teshubah 20a-21a (Hazan’s edition; R. Hai Gaon’s responsum dealing with the authorship of Joshua is certainly a forgery); Zunz, Synagogale Poesie, 4. Solomon is the author of Yishtabhah (Orehot Hayyim, 1, 6d; Zunz, loc. cit.), while another king, Hezekiah, composed Adonai 44„ 58] The Legends of the Jews Elohe Israel-, Seder ha-Yom, ad loc., and Zunz, loc. cit. Shaken ‘Ad is a composition of Isaac’s, and is an acrostic containing not only his own name, but also that of his wife Rebekah; Mahzor Vitry 152. On Hashkibenu, see vol. II, p. 366. On the view that grace after meals was composed by Moses, see vol. Ill, p. 50. Joshua added one benediction to the grace after meals, and later on David and Solomon added another. See Berakot 48b.