Notes: Jacob

VI. JACOB (pp. 309-424) 1 Tan. Shemot 1; Tan. B. I, 128; Aggadat Bereshit 40, 79; ShR 1. 1. It is also said that through Isaac these virtues came to Jacob, and through him to Joseph; comp. MHG II, 4, and note 204 on vol. Gyn AO 2 MHG I, 387; comp. also ibid., 388, and Sifre D., 312, as well as BR 63. 2, and the sources cited in note 1. 3 MHG I, 388; comp. note 229 on vol. I, p. 274, and note 303 on vol. I, 297. Isaac’s age at the time of the ‘Akedah is variously given as thirty-seven or twenty-six, comp. sources cited in note 229 on vol. I, p. 274. 4 MHG I, 388-389. According to another view she married at the age of three; comp. the sources cited by Schechter, ad loc.; Seder ‘Olam 1; BR 57. 1, and parallel passages cited by Theodor; Yashar Hayye Sarah, 49a; MHG I, 770-771. She died at the age of one hundred and thirty-three; according to another view, she died at the age of one hundred and forty-four, or according to others at that of one hundred and forty-three. Comp. MHG (last-cited passage) and Midrash Aggada I, 62-63. 5 BR 63. 4, WR 23. 1; Shir 2. 2. In view of the similarity between "D7 “‘Aramean” and D7 ‘‘deceiver’’, these sources remark with reference to Gen. 25. 20 that Rebekah came from a people of deceivers. Shu‘aib, Toledot, 13a, understands this to mean that not only Laban, but also his sister Rebekah and her sons Jacob and Esau were not free from cunning and deceit; comp.

Gen. 27. 6 and 40, as well as 30. 38. 6 MHG I, 389. 7 PRE 22, in accordance with Gen. 25. 20, 26. The statement of Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 25. 21 ‘that Rebekah was without a child for twenty-two years of her married life is very strange. Comp. HaZofeh, III, 136-138, and Hadar, Gen. 25. 27. Comp. also Midrash Aggada I, 63, and Tosafot, Yebamot 64a (beginning HS). 8 Yashar Toledot, 50a—50b. partly following PRE 32. Ye270 Jacob : [9-16 bamot 64a states that the childless marriage was due to both of them and not to Rebekah alone. The same view occurs also in Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 25. 21, and Zohar I, 137b. See also the sources cited in note 10. Isaac’s prayer was accompanied by a sacrifice on mount Moriah; PRE 32; Targum Yerushalmi, loc. cit. According to Zohar I, 137a, he brought a burnt-offering. The older sources, however, speak only of Isaac’s prayer and the later Haggadah is based upon the combination of the interpretation of ny) given in BR 63.5 with that of Sanhedrin 103a. On the reason of the sterility of the ““mothers’’ see MHG I, 390, and the sources cited in note 116 on vol. Tp: 237. 9 BR 63. 5; Shemuel 6, 64; Ruth R., 4. 12; Zohar I, 137b. A different view is found in MHG J, 389. to Yebamot 64a-64b. MHG JI, 390, on the contrary, main~ tains that Rebekah’s prayer was as efficacious as that of Isaac. tr Yashar Toledot, 50b. Comp. PRE 32, and Luria’s remarks, ad loc.

#2) BREO2™ 6: *3 BR 67.6. The dispute of the brothers in their mother’s womb is a favorite topic in the legends; comp. Tan. B. V, 36; Tan. KiTeze 4; Tehillim 58, 300; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 25. 22; PRE 32; Zohar I, 137b and 138b. Luke 1. 41 may be cited as a parallel to it. “God makes known the future actions of the pious, as well as of the wicked, while they are still in their mother’s womb’’; MHG I, 390391; Tehillim 58, 299; Yoma 82a—-83a. See also the following note. 14 EZ 19, 26-27; Da‘at, Gen. 43. 14. Ziyyoni, Gen. 25. 22, connects this legend with the one given in vol. I, pp. 57-58, about the creation of man. tS Abkir in Yalkut I, 110. The statement of Jub. 25. 17 that Jacob’s guardian angel is mightier than Esau’s is very likely based on the assumption that Jacob’s (=Israel’s) guardian angel is Michael, while Esau’s (Rome’s) is Sammael. Comp. Index, s. v. “‘Michael’’ and “Sammael’’. Rebekah, who, as a prophetess (all the mothers were endowed with the gift of prophecy; comp. the sources cited in note 77), foresaw that in the future the Romans, the descendants of Esau, will slay the great Jewish scholars (comp. vol. I, p. 21 and note 85), prayed to God not to destroy all the scholars; MHGI, 391, and, in abridged form, Nur al-Zulm, 95. See also MHG I, 396. 16 MHG I, 390-391. The injury Esau caused to his mother consisted in tearing her womb, as a consequence of which she never 271 17-19] The Legends of the Jews bore any more children, though she was destined to be the ‘‘mother of twelve tribes”; PK 3, 23a—23b; PR 13, 48a; Tan.

B. V, 36; Tan. Ki-Teze 4; BR 63. 6. A different view is found in Tan. B. IV, 221, and Aggadat Bereshit 72, 141. '™7 Yashar Toledot, 50. 6; Pa‘aneah, Gen. 25. 22, maintains, on the contrary, that she did not go to Abraham in her distress, for she did not want to sadden his heart. This is in agreement with sources cited in the following note, which do not mention Abraham. The reference to Nimrod’s mother occurs only in the midrashic fragment published by Ginzberg, Geonica, II, 326. Comp. also MHG I, 392. 18 Tehillim 9, 83-84, and, with essential variants, MHG I, 392393; partly also in BR 64. 6-7. Comp. further Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 25. 22; Yelammedenu in supplement to Yalkut 16=BHM VI, 80; Zohar I, 137b; Ephraim, I, 61D; Theodoretus on Gen., loc. cit.; Jerome, Gen. 14. 18. Rebekah received the revelation through Shem or another medium, since, with the exception of Sarah, no woman was ever found worthy to receive a divine commuhication directly; Yerushalmi Sotah 7, 21b, BR, loc. cit.; Tehillim, Joc. cit., and parallel passages. Comp., however, note 15. e ™9 BR 63. 7; Tehillim 9, 84; Yelammédenu in Supplement to Yalkut, 16=BHM VI, 80. The use of the names Edom, Seir, Esau, and similar ones, to describe Rome is very old, and was probably coined at the time of Herod, whose designation ‘‘the Idumean”’ was applied to his masters, the Romans. When Rome adopted Christianity, the same appellations were transferred to the Christians and Christianity.

See the very interesting collection of material in Zunz, Synagogale Poesie, 437-452, and Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie, 620. In the Amoraic portions of the talmudic and midrashic literature the use of Edom for Rome is met with quite frequently; comp., e. g., BR 9. 13-14; 10. 7; 63. 9 (the Haggadah concerning Edom-Rome occurs also in MHG I, 396, with which version 4 Ezra 6. 9-10 is closely related); 83. 4. The appellation of Edom for Rome is rarely found in tannaitic sources; comp., however, Midrash Tannaim 72 and Mekilta Amalek 2, 56a, where several Tannaim, who flourished about 100 C. E., in speaking of Rome, use the designation of Amalek for it. Early Christian authorities likewise .apply these biblical appellatives to Rome; comp. e. g., Jerome, Is. 21. 2, who, in agreement with R. Meir (Yerushalmi Ta‘anit 1, 64a), explains the prophecies about Duma and Seir to refer to Rome. Accordingly the use of Edom fer Rome in Peshitta, Ps. 12. 9, does not prove, as Duval, R.EZ.J., XIV, 50, 272 Jacob F [20-26 maintains, its Jewish origin. Comp. also Abrabanel, Mashmia‘ Yeshu‘ah, 18. 3, and Sa‘adya’s Polemic against Hiwi, 76. Sa‘adya, as a man with an independent mind, rejects the tradition that the Romans are descendants of Edom. See also vol. II, p. 158. On the descendants of Esau as rulers of Rome, comp. vol. II, p. 159, seg, where Kittim = Rome. , 20 MHG I, 394.

Comp. also the passages in BR and 4 Ezra referred to in the preceding note. 21 BR 63. 7; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 25. 23; MHG I, 393. In the last-named passage attention is called to the ambiguous phraseology in the verse of Gen., Joc. cit, which may also be translated: ‘And to the elder shall be servant the younger’’. 22 BR 63. 8; MHG I, 391, which reads: Jacob should have been born first, but Esau threatened him that if Jacob did not grant him precedence he would kill their mother. Comp. note 16. Similarly BR, loc. cit., emphasizes the fact that, though Jacob was born last, he was conceived first. 23 Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 25. 25. Comp. also BR 63. 7 and note 28. 74 BR 63. 8; MHG I, 395. See also the quotation, from an unknown Midrash, in Yalkut Reubeni, Gen., Joc. cit.; Pa‘aneah, Gen., loc. cit.; Hasidim 71. 25 Hadar, Da‘at, and Shu‘aib (the last named gives a wrong source) on Gen. 25. 25. The designation of Esau as the “uncircumcised one”, in Tan. B. I, 158, does not belong here, but refers to the widespread legend that Esau removed the sign of the covenant by means of an operation (epispasm); comp. Tan. B. I, 127; BR 63. 13; PRE 29 (on the text see Eshkol II, 132, according to which read Wy), wy) APY’ bp); Ruth R. (introduction); Epiphanius, De Mens. et Pond., 16; ER 29, 125-126. But in the last-named Midrash it is not Esau, as in all the other sources, but his children, who, after Isaac’s death, ‘‘despised” the Abrahamic covenant.

This legend about Esau’s rejection of circumcision is very likely of an anti-Christian nature (comp. note 19 and note 318 on vol. I, p. 306), though it possibly reflects the feeling of the Jew during the Hadrianic persecutions. Comp., however, Philo, 2 Moses, 43. 26 ARN 2, 2; Tehillim 9, 84; Tan. B. I, 32; Tan. Noah 5. The other men distinguished in this way are: Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Terah, Joseph, Moses, Balaam, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zerubbabel. Comp. note 318 on vol. I, p. 306. PRE 273 27-35] The Legends of the Jews 24, on the other hand, speaks of the circumcision performed by Isaac on Jacob. 27 Ziyyoni, Gen. 25, 25. 28 The interpretation of the name Esau occurs in Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 25. 25; Yashar Toledot, 50b, and, with some variants, Hadar, ad loc. For other interpretations of the names of Esau, Edom, and Seir see BR 63. 8; Lekah, ad loc.; MHGI, 396. Comp. also Rashi, ad loc. The interpretation of the name Jacob occurs in Tan. Shemot 4, where the name Isaac is explained in a similar way. BR, loc. cit., emphasizes the fact that it was God Himself who gave Jacob his name. On the men distinguished in this manner see note 122 on vol. I, p. 239; comp. also BaR 18. 21; Neweh Shalom, 76; Lekah 1. 121. 79 BR 63. 9; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 25. 27; Yashar Toledot, 53b; PRE 32. Comp. also Berakot 16a, where it is said that Scripture sometimes uses the word “‘tent’”’ as a metaphor for ‘‘house of study’.

The Bet ha-Midrash of Shem and Eber is also alluded to in BR 94. 8; Shir 6. 2; Koheleth 5. 11. Comp. furtlHer ER 5, 29 and 32, where, in addition to the industry with which Jacob devoted himself to his studies, his uprightness is spoken of. See also Tan. B. I, 125, 134, 167, 206, as well as note 34. 3° MHG I, 397. 3* BR 63. 10; Tan. Toledot 7; Yelammedenu in Nur al-Zulm, 96; Leket Midrashim 6a (a quotation from a supposed Midrash on Job); PK, 1992; MHG I, 397. In the last named passage it is said that Isaac knew the real character of his elder son, but hoped by love and kindness, to influence him to mend his ways. The same statement occurs also in Shu‘aib, Toledot, 12d. 32 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 27. 31. Comp. note 100. 33 BR 63. 10. 34 Jub. 19. 16-30. See also ibid. 14, which reads: And Jacob learned to write. Comp. note 29. MHG I, 397, in citing BR 63. 9, reads: ofnaN bw winp ma. This reading must have been known to Yashar Toledot, 51a, where it is explicitly stated that Abraham instructed Jacob in the ways of the Lord. On the seven pious men who preceded Abraham, 7.e.: Adam, Seth, Enoch, Mahalalel, Enoch, Noah, and Shem, referred to in Jub., Joc. cit., comp. note 28 on vol. Teas Ait. 35 WR 36. 4; Tan. Toledot 4; Shemot 4; Aggadat Bereshit 64, 130. This Haggadah is based on Is. 31. 22; but in Sanhedrin 19b this verse is differently interpreted. Abraham should have been the 274 Jacob [35 father of the twelve tribes, but Jacob took his place to save him the trouble of rearing children.

WR, Joc. cit., states that mankind, including Abraham, was created for the merits of Jacob. Jacob’s superiority over Abraham is expressed in many other statements of the Haggadah. It is for Jacob’s merits that the Jordan became dry, that Israel might be able to enter the Holy Land; BR 76. 5. It was he who was the chosen one among the Fathers; zid. 1. For Jacob’s sake Israel was redeemed from Egyptian bondage, and will be redeemed by the Messiah; Haserot 2b; BR 75. 13. God loves Israel on account of Jacob; Lekah, Exod. 20. 19. It is for his sake that He makes His Shekinah dwell in Israel; Shir 7. 6. The Torah would have been revealed to Jacob, were it not for the fact that his descendants were not numerous enough in his life-time; an unknown Midrash quoted by Shu‘aib, Shemini ‘Azeret, 126b, and Yitro, 32b. When Israel suffers or commits a sin, it is Jacob who feels it more than the other patriarchs, and accordingly his joy will be the greatest when the future redemption comes; Tehillim 14, 115; PR 41, 174b. The conflicting view, which accords to Abraham the highest rank among the Fathers, is also given in most of the sources cited above. One may safely assert that the older Haggadah (universalistic) favors Abraham, the younger one (nationalistic) Jacob. This later view reached its highest state of development in the Kabbalah; comp., e. g., Zohar I, 86b; II, 23a. The man in the moon has Jacob’s face; Kanah 10b; TShBZ, 220.

Comp. note 102 on vol. I, p. 25, and note 6 on vol. IV, p.4. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata 1. 15, speaks of the face of the Sibyl in the moon. Origen, im Joan. 2. 25, and in Gen. 3. 9, quotes, from the lost Jewish pseudepigraphic work, the Prayer of Joseph, the following remarkable words of Jacob concerning himself. He describes himself as an ‘‘angel of God, the first servant in God’s presence”, whereas the angel who wrestled with him is the third in rank. The statement that Jacob never died, which the Amoraim vainly attempted to explain (comp. Ta‘anit 5b, according to which the embalming and burying of Jacob were docetic; see Rashi, ad loc., and note 39 on vol. III, p. 22), originally belonged to a legend, which, like the pseudepigraphic work mentioned above, considered Jacob to have been an angel. In this legend the patriarch Jacob is confounded with the Semitic god Jacobel mentioned in an Egyptian inscription. Many an angel is nothing more than a degraded god. On Jacob’s face in the heavenly throne, Merkabah, comp. note 134. The third patriarch (sometimes with the honorary designation ‘“‘the pious”; comp. BaR 14. 12= 275 36-38] The Legends of the Jews Tadshe 10) is usually called Jacob in rabbinic literature, and not by his later name Israel, whereas Abraham is never called Abram; comp.‘ Berakot 13a and note 122 on vol. I, p. 239. When Israel is used as the name of the patriarch, and not of the nation, the word sap, ‘‘the old”, is added; comp.

BR 70. 2, 68. 11, 73. 2, 77. 1, and in many more places. With regard to the orthography of the name py’, the remark is found that the Bible spells the name plene 21py’ only in five passages, and in an equal number of places bx is spelled defectively instead of wbx. Jacob took one letter from Elijah and attached it to his own name, as a pledge that the prophet will not fail to be the harbinger of the gladsome tidings of the future redemption; Haserot 22. Jub. 19. 25 (comp. also Charles, ad loc.) shows that the glorification of Jacob is of very high antiquity. 36 Jub. 22. 1-23. 7. On the dream of Abraham, described in Jub., Joc. cit., comp. note 317 (end). On the point dwelt upon in Jub., loc. cit., that with the death of Abraham the age of man was cut short and disease began to trouble the human race, contp. Zadokite Fragments, 10. 8-10 and note 272 on vol. I, p. 291, as well as note 357 on vol. II, p. 131. Yebamot 64b maintains that the cutting short of the age of man took place in the days of David. 37 Baba Batra 16b; Tehillim 9, 83. A somewhat different view occurs in the Palestinian sources, BR 63. 12; PK 3, 22b; PR 12, 74 (this passage contains the addition that Esau was fifteen years old at the time of Abraham’s death; this was adopted by Yashar Toledot, 50b); Tan. B. V, 35; Tan. Shemot 1 (from Baba Batra, Joc. cit.) and Ki-Teze 4; Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 25. 29 and 34; an unknown midrashic source in Shu‘aib, Toledot, 13b; MHG I, 399 and 401.

38 Yashar Toledot, 51b-52a. According to Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 25. 25 and PRE 32 (the complete text is found in Yalkut I, 110, and Nur al-Zulm, 95), Esau killed also Nimrod’s son Enoch, or rather Hiwwar (=‘‘the leper’’); comp. Aggadat Bereshit 19, 37 (here it is stated that Abraham killed Nimrod); PRE 24; Tan. B. J, 125; BR 65. 16 and 63. 13. Esau owed to Jacob his victory over Nimrod. Esau and Nimrod had been engaged in a bitter feud for a long time, and finally resolved to leave the decision toa duel. Jacob, knowing that Nimrod was invulnerable as long as he was clad in Adam’s garments (comp. notes 78-80 on vol. I, p. 177, and the following note), advised his brother not to enter into combat before his adversary had removed his magic garments. Whereupon Esau put those garments 276 Jacob | [39-47 / on stealthily, and killed Nimrod in the duel; Hadar and Da‘at on Gen. 25. 29-32. 39 BR 63. 13. Comp. the preceding note. 4° MHG I, 398. *1 Baba Batra 16b; BR 63. 14; PRE 35. Jerome, Epist. 39. 3 also mentions the custom in use among the Jews of his time to serve lentils for the mourner’s meal. Comp. also Leket Midrashim 2b; Zohar I, 139a-139b; Hadar, Gen. 25. 30; Tan. B. I, 125-126. 42 PR 12, 47b-48a; a somewhat different text from that of the edition is found in Yalkut Reubeni, Gen. 25. 32. 43 MHG I, 399-400. Comp. also EZ 19, 26-27, where the sale of the birthright by Esau to Jacob is explained as the renunciation by the former of his share in the world to come in favor of the latter, while retaining this world for himself.

Comp. also Tan. B. I, 126, and Sekel, 100. 44 BR 63. 13. On the priestly functions of the first-born in pre-Mosaic times, comp. vol. I, p. 332; vol. III, pp. 93, 211, and 226. Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 4, 127, and Hasidim 446, maintain that Jacob’s intention in buying the birthright from his brother was to take away fron him the means to lead a dissipated and voluptuous life. In the last-named source it is stated that Jacob, after the consummation of the deal, was ready to return the birthright to Esau, provided he would become a pious and God-fearing man. Comp. Lekah, Gen. 25. 31, and the preceding note. 45 Lekah, Gen. 25. 31, based on an unknown Midrash. Besides lentils, Jacob gave Esau some red wine; MHG I, 399, and BR 63. 12. In the last-named passage, as well as in many others, stress is laid on the gluttony of Esau, who asked Jacob to fill him with food; Tan. B. I, 126 (m)a"t has been misunderstood by Buber and others; it means ‘“‘a bowl’’); PK 6, 59a (=yYalkut II, 950, on Prov. 13, where Yelammedenu is erroneously given as source); PR 16, 82a; BaR 21. 20; Tan. Pinehas 13. 46 Lekah, Gen. 25. 34, based on an unknown midrashic source. The use of amr and OM to describe a certain coin (= gulden) in this source betrays its late age. The pot of lentils was, accordingly, not the real price for the birthright, but is to be understood as the handsel given by Jacob to Esau; Hadar and Midrah Aggada, Gen.

26. 25. 47 Sekel and Imre No’am, Gen. 25. 26. Comp. vol. I, p. 141, and note 63 appertaining thereto; see further vol. III, p. 411, and note 853 appertaining thereto, as well as Index, s.v. “‘ David, Sword of”’. 277 48-55] The Legends of the Jews 48 MHG I, 400-401; BR 63. 14. That Esau denied the existence of God, comp. note 37. Da‘at, Gen. 25. 27, quotes Yerushalmi (not in our text) to the effect that Esau started on his impious mode of life two years prior to Abraham’s death. Out of respect for his grandfather, however, he hid his wickedness from the eyes of man. But as soon as Abraham died, he threw his mask off. Comp. note 37 on vol. I, p. 318. 49 Midrash Aggada Gen. 25. 33, and similarly Philo, De Special. Leg., ii, 2; ii, 241, with reference to Gen. 31. 53. Comp. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 130-131 (note). 5° Yashar Toledot, 53a—53b, based on old sources; comp. vol. I, pp. 393 and 417. 51 Midrash ha Ne‘elam (end of paragraphs 7 ’7), 36d. Comp. further vol. I, p. 399 and vol. IV, p. 418, and note 126. One often meets with the statement that Esau’s descendants (Romans, or rather Christians) received the dominion over the world gs a reward for the filial affection Esau showed towards his father Isaac; see, e. g., DR 1.1; DZ. 23; and in many other places. Hasidim 341 reads: Esau went hunting..., exposing himself thereby to great dangers, that he should be able to provide his father with game.

His reward consists in his children’s dominion over the world. Mishle 30. 107 says: Esau received the dominion (over the world) for the merits of Abraham. As to the question whether Jacob’s dealing with Esau was entirely justified, see Hasidim 446, which is the source for Da‘at and Hadar on Gen. 25. 33. Comp. vol. I, p. 320, and note 43. $2 MHG I, 401 (vm¥=relatives, compatriots); Tan. Toledot 9. The famine occurred immediately after the death of Abraham, and was much more grievous than the one which forced him to emigrate to Egypt; Sekel, Gen. 26. 1. 53 BR 64. 3; Tan. B. I, 128 and 168; MHG I, 401; Sekel, Gen. 24. 6; Ha-Hoker I, 344. The land of the Philistines is a part of the Holy Land; comp. Da‘ at, Hadar, and Shu‘aib on Exod. 14. 16; Hasidim 269. See also vol. I, p. 348. 54 MHG I, 403. 55 Aggadat Bereshit 26. 10; Yashar, Toledot, 52b. With regard to the difference in the attitude of the Philistines towards Abraham and Isaac, Bereshit Rabbeti (Magazin XV, 98) quotes, as an explanation, the proverb ‘‘He who was bitten by a snake fears a snakelike rope”, and the fable of the lion and the fox. Comp. Epstein, ad Joc. 278 Jacob [56-63 On Abimelech the king of the Philistines, comp. vol. I, pp. 290-291, and Lekah, Gen. 25. 1. 56 Yashar, Toledot, 52b; MHG I, 403; Philo, Gen. 4, 188; BR 64. 5; Midrash Aggada, Lekah, Hadar, and Da‘at on Gen. 26.8. According to Zohar I, 140b, and III, 113b, Abimelech found out by means of astrology the true relation between Isaac and Rebekah.

57 Onkelos and Yerushalmi Targumim on Gen. 26. The rendering of 1Ms8 by ‘‘the most prominent one’’ is frequently found in the Talmud; comp. e. g. Megillah 28a (ascribed to R. Akiba’s teacher); Hullin 28a. Comp. also Yashar, Toledot, 53a, and the dissenting view of 2 Targum Yerushalmi, which paraphrases n& by x>v Jo 71N “a young man.” 58 MHG I, 404. 59 Yashar, Toledot, 53a. Comp. also BR 64. 7. 60 PK 11, 98a; PR 25, 127b; Tan. B. V, 24; Tan. Réeh 14. PRE 33, EZ. 1. 170, and Targumim Yerushalmi, Gen. 26. 12, find in this verse an indication that Isaac was very wealthy, as the large quantity of grain which he is said to have possessed represented only the tenth part of his yearly income, the tithes which he gave away. Jub. 13. 25 and 32. 8 ascribes the introduction of the priestly tithe to Abraham and Jacob. Comp. also BR 64. 6 and Mishle 30, 105. 6t BR 64. 6; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 26. 2. Comp. also vol. IV, p. 360, 1. 3 (from below), where ‘‘Israel” is a printer’s error for “Tsaac”’. 62 MHG I, 407-408, and the parallel passages cited by Schechter. Haserot 14 is the source for the remarks in MHG about Isaac’s filial piety and modesty. R. Bahya, Gen. 26. 18, cites the same remark from Sa‘adya Gaon’s commentary on the Pentateuch. Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 4, 194, likewise dwells on Isaac’s extraordinary filial piety. The masoretic note in MHG about the biblical places, where the expression $1) 797 is used, is found also in Aggadat Esther 9.

9. Comp. also note 122 vol. I, p. 239, and note 35. 63 PRE 35, in accordance with the correct text in MHG I, 408. On the number of wells which Isaac dug, and their symbolic significance, comp. BR 64. 8. Septuagint, on Gen. 26. 32 reads nd, whereas the masoretic text has1>. But the reading of the Septuagint is found also in rabbinic sources; comp. Midrash Tannaim 73, and Ginzberg’s remarks on it in Geiger’s Kebuzzat Maamarim, 411. The fourth well is identified with the well of Miriam; comp. vol. III, p. 52, and vol. I, p. 324. 279 64-69] The Legends of the Jews 64 MHG I, 408. Comp. the sources quoted in note 61. 65 BR 64. 9. Lekah, Gen. 26. 26, identifies Abimeiech, the king of Gerar at the time of Isaac, with the king of that name in Abraham’s days. Sacob ; (70-74 reads: Isaac went to the gates of Gehenna to his children. This hints at our legend; but it cannot be ascertained with which form thereof it was acquainted, whether with the one of the Talmud, or with that of PRK. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 64, calls attention to the fact that in this legend twenty is taken to be the age of majority, in accordance with a view which prevailed in early times. The reduction of the four hundred years of the Egyptian servitude to two hundred and ten (comp. vol. II, p. 318, note 124) is likewise due to the merits of Isaac, who, in exchange of this, had to submit to a reduction in the numerical value of his name.

He should have been called Yishak (pnw), but with the exception of one place (Jer. 33. 26), he is called Yizhak (pnx’), and the difference between ¥ and ¥ amounts to two hundred and ten, corresponding to the years of the Egyptian servitude. See Hadar, Imre No‘am, and Pa‘aneah on Exod. 6. 1; Midrash Aggada, Exod. 4. 24, and Gen. 21. 1; Shu‘aib, Wa-Yiggash 21a; Yalkut Reubeni, Exod. 1. 1 (here it is given as a quotation from o’p’7 737 w17D; but the statement may be doubted). Comp. also Batte Midrashot, III, 28. 7° Yerushalmi Sotah 5, 20d. 7% Yashar, Toledot 43a—43b. 72 Jub. 25. 1-23. Manifestly Rebekah is assumed to have been a prophetess. This is in agreement with Seder ‘Olam 21, and parallel passages cited by Ratner, note 25, that the “fathers’’ and ‘‘mothers’’ were endowed with the prophetic spirit. Comp., however, note 18. 73 Tan. Toledot 8; MHG I, 411-412. On the idolatry of Esau’s wives, comp. BR 65. 4 (here Rebekah is described as the daughter of an idolatrous priest); Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 26. 35; Aggadat Bereshit 41, 83 (Esau himself burned incense to the idols); Abkir in Yalkut I, 114; Yalkut II, 956 on Prov. 17. 25; MHG I, 411 (12). See also the following note. 74 BR 65. 4-10, which also gives the different view to the effect that Isaac’s blindness was caused by his looking at the Shekinah at the time of the ‘Akedah. Comp. note 248 on vol. I, p. 282; PRE 32; Targum Yerushalmi, Gen.

27. 1; DR 11. 3; an unknown midrashic source quoted in Yalkut I, 101 (apy). See also vol. IV. p. 361, note 58. The looking at the wicked causes blindness, and Isaac looked too often at Esau; Megillah 28a. This passage gives also another view, according to which Isaac’s blindness was a consequence of the curse called down by Abimelech upon Sarah’s children (a haggadic 281 75-81] The Legends of the Jews interpretation of the ‘‘covering of the eyes’’; Gen. 20. 16); for even the curse of an ordinary person sometimes takes effect. The evil ways of the children cause the parents to age prematurely, as may be seen from what happened to Isaac, Eli, and Samuel. The wickedness of one’s child or disciple brings blindness to the father or master, respectively, as is proved by the blindness of Isaac and Ahijah the Shilonite. See Aggadat Bereshit 41, 83; Tan. Hayye Sarah 2 and KiTeze 4; PK 3, 23a; Tan. B. V, 35; Shemuel 8, 72; BR, loc. cit. Comp. vol. IV, p. 180, note 6. There is also another view which maintains that Isaac’s blindness was his punishment for preferring the wicked Esau to the God-fearing Jacob. Besides this bodily punishment, he was also punished spiritually by losing the prophetic spirit; BR, loc. cit; Tan. B. I, 30; Tan. Toledot 8; MHG I, 417; Batte Midrashot, IV, 14. Some, however, maintain that Isaac had prayed to God to send bodily ailments upon men, that they might atone for their sins, and his blindness was the first case of disease which, came upon men.

See BR, loc. cit., and vol. I, p. 292, note 272. 75 MHG I, 516; BR 65. 8; Tan. Toledot 8; Philo, Gen. 4, 196. The last passage adds that Isaac regained his sight after Jacob received the blessing from him. Philo (198) also remarks that Isaac knew very well the true character of his two sons; he nevertheless wished to bless the wicked Esau, in the hope that this distinction would induce him to mend his ways, whereas there was no need to offer Jacob any inducement to do good. The same view occurs in rabbinic sources; comp. note 31 and vol. I, 339, note 106. 76 BR 65. 12; Lekah Gen. 17. 2. Differently in MHG I, 418. 77 Tan. B. I, 130; MHG J, 418 (‘3). It is difficult to harmonize this view with the high praise bestowed by the Haggadah upon Esau for his filial piety; comp. note 51. On the seven holy places, comp. also vol. I, p. 270. On the seven abominations (Prov. 6. 15), see BR eh TELS VARS SW, ale 78 BR 65. 4 and 13; Tan. Toledot 8. Another view finds in the different kinds of weapons mentioned by Isaac (Gen. 27. 3) an allusion to the ‘four kingdoms’’, which ruled the world by the might of the sword. See BR, Joc. cit., and Tan. B. I, 131. 79 PRE 36; Targum Yerushalmi 27. 1; ShR 15. 11; Zohar I, 142a. Comp. also vol. I, p. 224, note 76. 8° BR 65. 13; Koheleth 5. 10. 8 BR 67. 9; Tan. Toledot 11; Tan. B. I, 131; TargumYerushalmi Gen. 27. 5; Tan. Toledot 10. On Rebekah as a prophetess see note 282 Jacob ‘ [82—91 72, and Index, s.

v. ‘‘Prophetesses’’. A different view is found in Lekah, ad loc., and MHG I, 421, which, on the contrary, remark: Women are eaves-droppers, as may be seen from Rebekah’s action. Comp. vol. I, p. 66. 82 Philo, Quaestiones, Gen. 200. 83 PRE 36; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 27. 6. On the first day of Passover the quantity of dew is fixed for the ensuing year, and on the last day of Tabernacles (Shemini ‘Azeret) the quantity of rain; comp. Mishnah Rosh ha-Shanah 1. 2; Ta‘anit 1. 1-2, and Luria, PRE, ad loc. 84 Lekah and Midrash Aggada on Gen. 27. 8. 85 PRE 36; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 37. 11. 86 BR 65. 15. Comp. also MHG I, 424 (a"D). 87 PRE 36; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 27.9. By }73m, in PRE, reference is made to Tosefta Pesahim 5. 3, according to which D’DyyD (Gen., loc. cit.) is to be taken as a festival sacrifice. Comp. Targum Yerushalmi, ad loc. 88 BR 65.14; WR 21.11 and 27.9; Tan. Toledot 10 and Emor 12; PR 47, 191a. Goats’ skins were used for the tabernacle in remembrance of Jacob who obtained the blessings by means of goats’ skins; Shir 2. 4. 89 Tan. B. I, 133 (read: 192 mmw...04N>) and 181; BaR 4. 8; Aggadat Bereshit 43, 85-86. Comp. notes 39, 44, as well as vol. I, p. 177, notes 78-80. Jerome, Gen. 27. 16, also mentions the Jewish tradition according to which the choicest garments were the priestly garments worn by the first-born who performed the priestly service before Aaron’s time.

That Isaac, though the first-born of his mother (and inasmuch as Ishmael was the son of a bondwoman, the former was the first legitimate child of his father), did not act as priest himself, is due to the circumstance that his blindness disqualified him from the priesthood. Comp. Josephus, Anfiqui., I, 18. 9° BR 65. 16-17; DR I. 15; PR 23, 124a; MHG I, 424-425. 9% Tan. B. I, 131; BR 65. 18. The Haggadah would not admit that Jacob uttered an unqualified untruth, especially as his answer to Rebekah’s suggestion was: To tell a lie is as great a sin as to worship idols (BR, Joc. cit., and Sanhedrin 92a). Accordingly, Gen. 27. 19 is explained in such a way, that Jacob’s words, though somewhat ambiguous, do not express an untruth. The construction of the Hebrew sentence admits of such an explanation without difficulty. Jub. 26. 13 goes still further, and makes Jacob answer his father: “I am 283 92-97] The Legends of the Jews thy son.” Similarly with regard to verse 24, it is remarked that Jacob’s answer was: “I” (=It is I), and not “I am Esau.” Comp. Lekah and Rashi, ad Joc, 92 BR 65. 19-23; Tan. B. I, 131-132 and 134-135 (comp. ibid. 165, where the episode with the angel is given in connection with Jacob’s terror at meeting Esau on his return from Mesopotamia); Tan. Toledot 11; Ephraim, I, 77D. On the assistance rendered by the two archangels, Michael and Gabriel, comp.

also BR 63. 14, where it is said that they drew up the bill of sale, transferring the birthright from Esau to Jacob. On the fragrance from paradise, and how Isaac recognized it, see vol. I, p. 286, note 255, and vol. I, p. 297, note 300, as well as vol. IV, p. 205, note 54. According to Tan. B. I, 145, the bodies of the pious emit a celestial fragrance like that of paradise (comp. vol. III, p. 5), while according to another view the paradise fragrance which Isaac discerned came from Jacob’s garments which originally belonged to Adam who had worn them in paradise; comp. vol. I, p. 332. The statement Tan. B. J, 141, that God caused the garments to emit a fragrance like the aromatic perfume of the incense used in the temple is a later modification of the Haggadah in BR 65. 23, and Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 27. 27. Js Ath, 1s 1G Ikise Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 27. 35 (with the addition that the wine given by the archangel to Isaac was of the kind created at the very beginning of the world for the use of the pious in the world to come, and which is ‘‘preserved in its grapes”’, = wT}, till that time; comp. note 79 on vol. I, p. 20). A similar Haggadah is found in Shu‘aib, Toledot, 12c, and Shir, 52b. A badly mutilated form of this legend occurs in a Pahlevi writing. Comp. R.E.J., XVIII, 13-14. 94 Zohar Shir 1. 2. On joy as the necessary condition for the manifestation of the holy spirit, comp.

Shabbat 30b; vol. II, p. 116, note 294. 95 MHG I, 430; PRE 32, and comp. Luria, ad loc. The midrashic literature contains many interpretations of the “blessing”’, all of which are based on the assumption that it is nothing but a prophecy of Israel’s history. See BR 66. 1-4; Tan. B. I, 133-134; Aggadat Bereshit 42, 86-87. be °° BR 66. 4; Tan. B. I, 136; MHG I, 430; Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 27. 29; Aggadat Bereshit 42, 87. 97 BR 75. 8; MHG I, 438. In Rebekah's blessing an allusion 284 Jacob : [98-102 is found to the legend (vol. I, p. 333) that Michael and Gabriel came to Jacob’s assistance; comp. also note 92. 98 PRE 32; comp. Index, s. v. ‘Dew, Celestial.” 99 Tan. B. I, 136; Tan. Toledot 11; BR 66. 5; Hadar and Da‘at on Gen. 27. 30, cite the Haggadah that Michael and Gabriel came to Jacob’s assistance at the moment of Esau’s arrival. Comp. notes 92 and 97 as well as Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 27. 30. r0° Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 27. 31. PRE 32, according to the reading in MHG I, 431, maintains, on the contrary, that Esau finally succeeded in catching a hart; comp. also Tan. Toledot 11, and Tan. B. I, 131. The sentence cited by Ginsburger (Targum, ad loc.) from PRE cannot be the source of Targum. The Karaite Hadassi, Eshkol, No. 362, 133a, quotes the following from the Midrash: Esau was in the habit of serving his father meat of animals not slaughtered according to the law, and on one occasion, when he failed to catch any game, he prepared a ragowt out of the flesh of young dogs and hares, and put it before Isaac.

But no sooner did Isaac touch the plate than the dogs began to bark, and he became frightened as narrated in the Bible, Gen. 27. 33. The Karaite Mordecai b. Nissim, 65, likewise mentions this legend, but he cannot be cited as an independent authority for this, since he undoubtedly made use of Eshkol. It is not improbable that the Karaites, in their attempt to ridicule the Rabbanites, exaggerated the statement of Targum Yerushalmi, loc. cit., though the barking of dead dogs is not impossible in legend; comp. vol. I, p. 236, note 113. See also vol. I, pp. 329-330, with regard to Esau’s preparation of the food according to the law, in contrast to the view ascribed to the Rabbis by the Karaites. Tor BR 65. 18 and 67. 1-4; Tan. B. I, 141-143; Tan. Toledot 11-13; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 27. 33. Great terror took hold of Isaac at the time of the ‘Akedah, when God opened the heavens and Isaac beheld the ‘‘chambers of the Merkabah’”’; Tan. B. I, 141. Comp. also the quotation from the Pesikta in Da‘at, on Gen. 27. 1 (not found in our texts), as well as Zohar IJ, 143a, 144a. With regard to the suspicion against Rebekah, see note 81. Jacob who caused fright and terror to his father was punished ‘‘measure for measure”’, and terror seized hold of him at the report of Joseph’s death. See Zohar I, 144b. 102 Tekah Gen. 27. 36. ’2] is taken to be identical with talmudic °37 ‘‘so”’. ‘ 285 103-1009] The Legends of the Jews 103 BR 67.

5; Tan. B. I, 143. Comp. also Megillah 6a and PRE 39 (end), as well as Mishle 26, 100, and Tehillim 10, 95. 04 Tan, B. I, 143-144 and III, 79; Sanhedrin 101b (where mobpa “argument”, is to be read, with MHG I, 113, 433, and not m>-Syn “accusation”, as our texts have it. See Ginzberg, Randglossen zum hebrdischen Ben Sira, 7. 7 and 14); PRK ed. G. 52, where 71M is to be explained in accordance with vol. III, p. 58, note 10. On the tears shed by Esau, comp. ER 13, 65 (two tears), and 19, 114; 2 ARN 48, 130; Tehillim 80, 362; Tan. Kedoshim 15; Sekel 100; vol. IV, p. 418. Philo, Gen. 4, 233, reads: Isaac mistook Esau’s tears to be tears of repentance, and he blessed him, believing that he had forsaken his evil ways. 195 BR 67. 6. Comp. also Onkelos and Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 27. 40, as well as Jub. 26. 31. In the last-named source this bibilical verse is rendered as follows: And it shall come to pass when thou becomest great (37N instead of 37n?) and dost shake off his yoke from thy neck, thou wilt sin a grievous sin unto death, “and thy seed will be uprooted from under the heaven. ‘Grievous sin” is a haggadic rendering of iy mpnbi, which is explained in accordance with this mishnic use of by p™D “to cast off the heavenly yoke’’, while the other haggadic interpretation connects 1¥y with diy “young child”; hence the paraphrase ‘‘and thy seed”’, etc. On by or by “child”, comp. Ginzberg’s note in Geiger, Kebuzzaf Maamarim, 384.

106 Tan. B. I, 134 and 135; Aggadat Bereshit 42, 86-87. See also note 75. t°7 Yashar, Toledot, 53a-53b. Comp. notes 71 and 73. 108 BR 75. 9; WR 27. 11; Tan. B. III, 95; Tan. Emor 13; ER 3, 12; PK 9, 78b-79a; Tehillim 2, 24; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 27. 41. See also note 118. ¥09 BR 67. 8-10. On Rebekah as a prophetess comp. note 81. Commenting on the words of Scripture ‘‘And Esau said in his heart’’ (Gen. 27, 41), the Midrash remarks: The pious are masters of their hearts (= passions), the wicked are slaves to their hearts. See BR, loc. cit.; Tehillim 14, 112. Esau was a consummate master of deceitfulness: he not only played the réle of a loving son, while he was anxiously awaiting his father’s death (comp. Tehillim Joc. cit.), but he also pretended to be a loving brother, in order that Jacob should not take any precautions against his murderous plans; Mishle 26, 99, and comp. vol. II, p. 7, note 11. According to Jub. 27. 1, Esau’s evil designs were revealed to Rebekah in a dream. It is difficult to 286 Jacob J [110-121 harmonize this view with the description, given ibid. 26. 35, of the open hostility between the brothers. SEE NES ose alee Se tr Sotah 13a. Comp. vol. II, p. 154. Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 27. 45 explains these words of Rebekah differently. tt2 Jub. 27. 7. Similarly in Tan. B. I, 145=Aggadat Bereshit 45, 91. *13 BR 67. 11; mowINd MD NI, as a result of her incessant weeping which made her wipe her nose continually.

The paraphrasing of mvs (Gen. 27. 46) by a “wicked wife’’ is found not only in Targum Yerushalmi, ad Joc., but also in Jub. 27. 8. Leket Midrashim 22a reads: Rebekah saw, in her prophetic vision, that Titus would destroy the temple which will be a hundred cubits high (a haggadic explanation of the masoretic note on Gen. loc. cit. that a small p is to be written in ’Myp). 114 Yashar, Toledot, 54b-55a. Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 28. 3 reads: May the Lord give thee many possessions, and make twelve tribes issue from thee, and mayest thou be found meritorious to produce Synedrions consisting of seventy members, corresponding to the number of the nations of the earth. EESEB Re Of 12e 116 MHG I, 437-438. Comp. vol. I, p. 299. On the number of the blessings, see Tan. B. I, 136, and sources quoted in note 95. 117 BR 75. 8. Comp. vol. I, pp. 335-336. See further Index, s. v. “‘ Dominions.” 118 MHG I, 440; Aggadat Bereshit 2, 6, and 46, 95-96; Tehillim 14, 112; Nur al-Zulm, 87. Comp. also BR 67. 8, and note 108. Hadar on Gen. 27. 42 quotes, from an unknown midrashic source, the statement that God had revealed to Shem Esau’s evil designs; and the prophet informed the latter that his secrets were known to him, 1r9 BR 67. 8. Comp. the preceding note. 120 MHG I, 440, where bxynw” 711] is to be read. A somewhat different version is found in Nur al-Zulm, 87, which reads: When Esau saw that Ishmael was unwilling to carry out his plans, he refused to marry Mahalath, who had been betrothed to him, and the marriage took place only after her father’s death.

See also Seder ‘Olam 2 and Megillah 17a, where it is stated that Ishmael died after the betrothal, but before the marriage of his daughter. 121 BR 67. 13. Here, as well as in the sources cited in the following note, Mahalath is identified with Basemath mentioned in Gen. 287 122-124] The Legends of the Jews 36. 3. This view is also shared by Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 28. 9. Philo, Gen. 4, 245, in agreement with BR, calls attention to the word by (Gen. 28. 9), which indicates that Esau did not separate himself from his Canaanitish wives, as his parents had hoped. In BR ownd is perhaps to be read instead of s”innd, and the Midrash wants to say that at first Esau had intended to divorce his Canaanitish wives, but changed his mind. The difference between Esau and Jacob became evident to everybody, when the former married the ungodly daughter of Ishmael, while the latter married the pious daughters of Laban; Yelammedenu in Supplement to Yalkut 18= BHM VI, 181; Lekah, Gen. 28. 9. Comp. the following note. 122 Verushalmi Bikkurim 3, 65d; Shemuel 17, 95 and in abridged form BR 67. 13. In all these sources the identity of Mahalath with Basemath is presupposed. See the preceding note. Like this third wife of Easau, his two first ones also had double names: OholibamahJudith, and Adah-Basemath. Accordingly, there is no contradiction between Gen. 26. 34 and 36. 3. Comp. Lekah, Gen.

26. 46, and Rashi, Gen. 36. 2. These two authorities, though agreeing on this point, differ in their explanations of the meaning of the names, and show thereby that they made use of different sources. Comp. also ps.-Philo, 9, top. ; : 123 Jub. 27. 13-18. On the expression ‘‘my sister’’, used by Isaac in his address to Rebekah, see Charles, ad/oc. He errs, however, in maintaining that the use of “‘brother’’ in the sense of ‘“‘fellow-believer’’ (comp. 1 Corinth. 9. 5) is unknown in rabbinic literature. See Baba Kamma 88a: Mx¥D3 7’N&. Comp. also MHG I, 341. *24 Yashar Toledot, 55a—-55b, where 1117” instead of ]YID is to be read, since Shechem is not at the end of the Holy Land. A similar legend was known to Rashi; see his remarks on Gen. 19. 11. The statement of Berliner, ad Joc., that R. Judah Gedaliah, in his Ot Emet, 37a, quotes this legend from BR is based on a misunderstanding; comp. the following note, and note 156. The older Midrashim cite two views: according to one, Isaac, though a very rich man, sent his son away empty-handed, and God was wroth with him on this account. But the other view maintains that Jacob left his parental home laden with wealth. On his way to Laban, however, he was attacked by Esau, who robbed him-of everything he had with him. See BR 68. 2 (717) “bare life’, instead of 7171; comp. the use of the adverb 87°) ‘‘only” in Talmud); Tan. B. I, 145-146; Aggadat Bereshit 45, 92-93, and 67, 136.

Isaac, according to the first view, was 288 Jacob | [125-131 punished for his lack of paternal love. The Shekinah deserted him, and did not return to him until the day of his death; Tan., Aggadat Bereshit, loc. cit.; Makiri, Ps. 121, 234. On this desertion of the holy spirit (=Shekinah), comp. vol. I, p. 329. 725 Tan. B. I, 145; Aggadat Bereshit 45, 93; quotation, from a Midrash in MS. by Azulai, Midbar Kedemot 's8, 3; Bereshit Rabbeti, cited by Epstein in Mikkadmoniyyot, 107-108, and in Magazin, XV, 73; R. Judah Gedaliah, Ot Emet, 37 (not from BR, but from Bereshit Rabbeti); Makiri, Ps. 121, 233-234. Yelammedenu in Supplement to Yalkut 19 (=BHM VI, 81), speaks of the dividing of the Jordan for Jacob on his return home. On ‘‘Baarus”’ or “‘Baaras’’, see note 189. 126 MHG I, 442-443; BR 68. 2 and 9; Tan. B. I, 145; Aggadat Bereshit 45, 93. 27 MHG I, 443. This passage also remarks: After having taken leave from his parents, Jacob betook himself to Eber, in whose house he remained hidden for fourteen years, and then proceeded to Laban. These fourteen years he spent in the study of the Torah under the guidance of Eber. See BR 68. 5; Tan. B. I, 145; Index, s. v. ‘‘Shem and Eber”. 128 BR 68. 5 and 7; Tan. B. I, 151. In these sources Philistia is not considered as part of the Holy Land. On the different view see note 53. 129 Tan. B. I, 147, and IV 161; Tan. Wa-Yehi 6 and Mass‘e 1; Berakot 64a; Aggadat Bereshit 46, 95-96.

130 PRE 35; BR 68. 10. Comp. also the sources cited in the following note, all of which presuppose that Jacob spent the night on mount Moriah. On the spring which followed him, comp. vol. II, 291, and vol. III, p. 52. The rendering of 91D") by ‘‘and he prayed”’ in the Midrashim just cited is of tannaitic origin; comp. Mekilta Beshallah 2, 28a, and Mekilta RS, 45. This interpretation of yp" caused the word DIpaa, which follows it, to be taken to refer to God, in accordance with the frequent use of D1pD ‘‘the Place” (=rézos by Philo) as a name of God. See Mahzor Vitry 500, and Duran, Magen Abot, II, 19. These two authorities quote Sifre to the effect that God is called ‘‘the Place”. A statement of this kind is not found in our texts of the Sifre; but comp. Midrash Tannaim 222, where the text is very likely to be completed according to Tehillim 90, 390-391, On the meaning of D1PpD, comp. Dalman, Worte Jesu, s. v., and Landau, Die....Synonyma ftir Gott, p. 30, seq. 131 BR 68. 10; Sanhedrin 95b; Koheleth 3. 14; Yerushalmi Tar289 132-134] The Legends of the Jews gumim, Gen. 28. 10. According to a frequently quoted statement (BaR 20. 12; Tan. B. IV, 137; Tan. Balak 11; Aggadat Bereshit 67, 71), God reveals Himself to Jews by day, and to Gentiles by night. Comp. note 221. 132 Tan. B. I, 145; comp. also note 168. 133 BR 68. 11; Tan. B. (introduction), 123-124, and I, 146; Shir 1.

16; PRE 35; Tehillim 91, 399; Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 28. 10; Hullin 91b; see also BR 24. 5; ER 5, 29; Tan. B. I, 181; note 127. On the twelve tribes as a fixed order of nature, vol. II, pp. 30-31. 134 BR 73. 12-14; Tan. B. I, 149-150; Sifre N., 119; Tehillim 78, 347; Lekah, Gen. 28. 12-13; MHG I, 449-451 (several interpretations of the vision of the ladder are given in this passage); Yerushalmi Targumim and Yalkut Reubeni on Gen. 28. 12. The angels took leave from Jacob at the time of his departure from the Holy Land, since each land has its own guardian angels, and the angels of Palestine could not accompany him to any other coyntry; comp. note 230. According to one view given in BR, Joc. cit., the angels ascending to heaven on the ladder were the two angels who visited Lot, and who, till this memorable night, were excluded from heaven as a punishment for their boastful words: ‘‘For we will destroy this place” (Gen. 19. 13), as though the destruction of Sodom was their own work, and not the carrying out of the mission entrusted to them by God. As a further humiliation they had to make use of the ladder for their ascension; comp. Yalkut Reubeni, Gen. 19. 1. The idea that Jacob’s countenance is in the Merkabah is often referred to in rabbinic literature. Comp. (in addition to the sources cited at the beginning of this note) BR 78. 3 and 82. 2; Hullin 91a; BaR 4. 1; Tan. B. IV, 19; Tan.

Bemidbar 19; Alphabet of R. Akiba 40 ('D) and second version 62 (p’>n); BHM V, 63. The acquaintance of the Mohammedans with this legend has been pointed out by Goldziher. Jacob is the ideal man, and hence it is his countenance which represents the human race (comp. Ezek. 1. 10) on the divine throne. Joel, Blicke im die Religionsgeschichte, 1, 117, gives an interesting parallel to this conception from Lobeck, Aglaophamos, 909. The angels from the very beginning praised God with the words (comp. 1 Chron. 16. 36) ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel.’”” When Adam was created, they asked God: ‘‘Is this the man whose God we proclaim Thee to be?” ‘No’, replied God, ‘‘he is a thief: he partook of the forbidden fruit.” When Noah was born, they repeated this question, and they received the answer: ‘‘No; he is a drunkard.” At 290 Jacob , [135-140 the birth of Abraham the angels again addressed this question, and the answer was: ‘No; he is only a proselyte.” At the birth of Isaac they came again with the same question, and the reply was: ‘‘ No; he loves him whom I hate” (Esau; comp. Mal. 1.3). But when Jacob was born, and the angels again addressed their question to God, He replied: ‘Yes; he is the one.” See Tan. B. III, 72-73; Tan. Kedoshim 2; Aggadat Bereshit 61, 126. Comp. also Tan. Shofetim 15, and Makiri, Ps. 2, 16. Yelammedenu in Sikli’s Talmud Torah reads: While Jacob was asleep the angels scrutinized him to ascertain whether he was the one on whose account they praised the Lord, as the God of Israel; comp.

Poznanski in Ha-Zofeh, III, 19, and Ginzberg’s note, ibid., IV, 32. According to the version of this legend in Hullin 91a, BR 63. 12, and MHG I, 452, the angels intended to attack Jacob in his sleep, but God came to his rescue. The legend about the man in the moon, who is identified with Jacob, is perhaps connected with the old legend concerning Jacob’s countenance in the divine throne. Comp. Sabba, Wa-Yeze, 31a, and Index, s. v. ‘‘Man in the Moon’’. Philo, De Somntis, 24, sees in Jacob’s ladder the picture of man’s fate: the one ascends and the other descends. A similar metaphor is used by the Rabbis who speak of the “revolving wheel”; comp. Tan. B. IV, 161; Tan. Mekilta 6; PK 2, 12a; WR 8. 1, and in many other passages. See also Bontwetsch, in the Géttingen Nachrichten, 1900, p. 76, seq., and James, Lost Apocrypha 96, seq. 135 PK 23, 150b-151a; WR 29. 2; PRE 35; Tan. Wa-Yeze 2; Tehillim 78, 347; ShR 32. 7. 136 BR 68. 12. Comp. also the sources cited in note 134, as well as Midrash ha-Ne‘elam on Gen. 28. 12. 137 Midrash ha-Ne‘elam Wa-Yeze (end), which has the additional remark that Jacob thereby noticed that he was in a holy place. God announced to him that the Shekinah would only dwell in the Holy Land, and reveal itself only to his descendants. Comp. note 215. ™38 BR 69. 4-5; Hullin 91a. Comp. PR 11, 45b, and vol. I, p. 229, note 82. 139 Shabbat 118a. The passage implies that this was granted to Jacob as a reward for his observance of the Sabbath.

Comp. BR 69. 6 and note 280. ™4° BR 69.7; Sifre D., 352. In PR 33, 153a, it is said that Jacob’s fear was due to the fact that he was not addressed by God in the same manner as his fathers, in speaking to whom God used the word 291 141-147] The Legends of the Jews Anoki (“I am’). His fear, however, was soon allayed, when God used the same word in addressing him. Comp. Gen. 28. 13 and 15. Josephus, Antiqui., I, 19. 1, remarks: Jacob spent the night in the open, as he did not care to lodge with the Canaanites whom he hated. 141 PRE 35, which is the source of Rashi, Gen. 28. 18. The old sources (comp. vol. I, p. 12, notes 38 and 39) maintain that the Eben Shetiyyah is the ‘‘foundation stone”’ with which the formation of the earth began. Comp. Zohar I, 231, and Luria, PRE, Joc. cit. The conception that the terrestrial sanctuary is placed opposite the celestial one is widespread, and occurs in very old sources. Comp. Mekilta Shirah 10, 43b; Yerushalmi Berakot 4, 8a; Ta‘anit 16a; BR 55. 7; Shir 3. 10 and 4. 4; PR 40, 170a; Tan. B. I, 112; Tan. Pekude 1 and 2; MHG I, 454; Tehillim 30, 233. The distance from the terrestrial sanctuary to the celestial is only eighteen miles; BR 69. 7. It is to be observed that the Palestinian sources contrast the terrestrial with the celestial sanctuary, while in Babli (comp., e. g., Ta‘anit, loc. cit.) the opposites are terrestrial and celestial] Jerusalem.

Accordingly Tan. Pekude 2 is a Babylonian source, while Tan. Pekude 1 is a Palestinian one. On the heavenly Jerusalem in pseudepigraphic literature, comp. the references cited by Box, 4 Ezra, 198-199. *42 Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 28. 30; Targum Koheleth 3. 11; Toledot Yeshu. Comp. Krauss, Leben Jesu, 189, and Landauer, Noldeke-Festschrift (Orientalische Studien), 506. The legend which speaks of the name of the Messiah as engraved on a jewel (comp. vol. I, p. 3) presupposes the idea that God’s name was engraved on the Eben Shetiyyah. 43 PRE 35; BR 69. 6 and 70. 1-4. 744 BR 70. 7; Tan. V, 24; comp. also note 60. The ‘‘ten days of penitence” were granted to Israel as a reward for the tithes which Jacob set aside; Sabba, Wa-Yishlah, 46b, based on an unknown midrashic source. The quotation from the ‘‘Midrash” in Da‘at and Hadar on Gen. 28. 22 to the effect that Jacob was the first to give tithes from his income (in the halakic literature the phrase used is ODD Awyo; in this source it is 19D WYN) is not found in the extant midrashic literature. Comp. note 63. ™45 BR 70. 4. Comp. vol. I, PP. 380-381. 746 MHG I, 456. *47 BR 70. 4. These are the three cardinal sins; comp. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 23. In view of the fact that ‘slandering one’s fellow-man is as grievous a sin as worshipping idols’’ (Yerush292 Jacob [148-156 almi Peah 1, 16b, and parallel passages on the margin), the statement is found that Jacob prayed to God to guard him against slandering his fellow-men; BR, Joc.

cit. 748 PRE 35; Targum Yerushalmi 28. 10 (in 1 Yerushalmi this is erroneously described as the fifth miracle; but the correct reading is found in 2 Yerushalmi). On the “jumping”, or more correctly, “contracting of the earth”, comp. vol. I, p. 294, note 287. A somewhat different version of the third miracle is found in Sanhedrin 95b; Hullin 91b; comp. the sources given in notes 130-131. t49 MHG I, 457; comp. Schechter, ad loc. The ‘‘blessing of the water’’ is found, in abridged form, in BR 70.19 and Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 28. 22 and 31. 22. The talkativeness of young women is also alluded to by Josephus, Antiqui., I, 19.4. This author adds that the shepherds told Jacob of Laban’s prominent social. position. Comp. BR 70. 11. 150 BR 70. 11. Lekah, Gen. 29, 7, dwells on the duty of great men to correct the evil ways of their fellow-men, and not say: “It is none of our affairs’. ™St PRE 36; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 29. 10, and 2 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 28. 10. Laban was blessed with sons only after Jacob’s arrival; BR 73. 12, and thence in Rashi, Gen. 30. 27. See vol. III, p. 373. 152 PRE 32 (the text of the editions is to be supplemented by the reading of Ketab Tamim, 88). Comp. also note 98. On Jacob’s gigantic strength, see vol. I, pp. 374 and 412, as well as vol. II, p. 137. 153 Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 28. 22 and 31. 22; PRE 36. Comp. note 149, as well as vol. I, p. 270, 295 and vol.

II, p. 291. PRK, 26a, points out that for Jacob the water rose to the top, whereas for Moses it only rose high enough to be drawn. This is the source for MHG I, 459. 154 PRE 36; Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 27. 22. Comp. note 152) ™55 BR 70. 13. Rebekah, on a similar occasion, ran to her mother who was still alive; but Rachel’s mother was dead; BR, loc. cit., and 60. 7. Josephus, contrary to the words of Scripture (Gen. 24. 50; comp. Septuagint), maintains that Rebekah’s father was dead, and this was the reason why she ran to her mother to report Eliezer’s arrival. 156 MHG I, 460-461; Yalkut Reubeni, Gen. 28. 20. According to Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 29. 3, Laban ran to meet Jacob, because 293 157-164] The Legends of the Jews the report had reached him (through Rachel?) of his relative’s gigantic strength and piety. On Jacob being robbed of his possessions by Eliphaz, see vol. I, 345-346 and 379. 157 Yalkut Reubeni (citing Galya Raza) on Gen. 29. 15. The interpretation of Map) (Gen., loc. cit.) as 737) is also found in Zohar I, 160b. ™58 BR 70. 14. From the perfect *Mmmay) (Gen. 29. 15) is inferred there that for a short time Laban had Jacob work for low wages. This short time, however, was sufficient for Jacob to find out Rachel’s excellent character; Imre No‘am, Gen. 29. 15. 159 Megillah 13a (on the text comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc., and MHG I, 463-464). The sign consisted in Rachel’s touching Jacob’s right toe, right thumb, and right lobe; Azulai, Hesed le-Abraham Il, 6.

160 BR 70. 17-18. On Jacob’s age at his marriage, see Seder ‘Olam 2, and parallels cited by Ratner. 761 BR 68. 4. ‘ 162 BR 65. 1-3 (757 is here a euphemism for sexual intercourse). The designation of Esau (=Rome) as ‘“‘swine’’ is very common in rabbinic literature, and occurs in so old a*source as Enoch 89, 12. Originally it was not intended asan expression of contempt, but was coined with reference to the standard of the Roman legion stationed in Palestine, which had as its emblem a boar, a wild swine, and hence the designation of Rome as 1y’9 In “‘the boar out of the wood”. See R.E.J., XLVII, 178; Epstein, Mikkadmoniyyot, 35; Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen, 55-56. Comp. also WR 13. 5; Tehillim 80. 363; ARN 34, 100. In the time to come Esau will wrap himself in a praying-shawl (=Talit), and will attempt to take his seat among the pious; but God will drag him away from his seat, and expel him from the company of the pious. See Yerushalmi Nedarim 3, 38a. A favorite topic of the Haggadah is Rome’s deceit and guile. ™63 Tan, B. I, 152-153 and 157; Tan. Wa-Yeze 4; BR 70. 16 and 71. 2; Baba Batra 125a; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 29. 17; Zohar I, 223a, and II, 29b. 164 BR 70. 19. See also Tan. B. I, 152; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 29. 12; MHG I, 463 (where MN> NT must be read instead of NT rm of the editions and MSS.). For the obscure }"27 (BR, loc. cit.) MHG has y129 ‘“‘deceivers’, which makes good sense.

The inhabitants of Haran tried to allay Jacob’s fear that a trick might be played on him, and they told him that they were not deceivers like 294 Jacob ; [165-168 himself. Comp., however, Sifra 20. 23, 93b, where the immoral life of the Canaanites is contrasted with the chastity of the ‘“‘dwellers in the east”, by which the east-Arameans are very likely meant. According to BR, loc. cit., this seems to allude to the modesty of the Haranites. In BR 70. 12 and PK 3, 43a, ‘‘the sons of the east”, praised for their modesty, are the Persians and Medes, as may be seen from the parallel passage in Berakot 8b.—Yashar Wa-Yeze, 57a—-57b, is an amplification of BR 70. 14. 165 Jub. 28. 4. 766 BR 70. 19; Yerushalmi Mo‘ed Katan 1, 80d; Jub. 28. 8. Thestatement of Josephus, Antiqui, I, 19. 7, that Jacob married Rachel after having served seven years is due to a misunderstanding of the Hebrew yiaw (Gen. 29. 27), which means “‘septinate’’ and ‘‘week”’. On the basis of Gen. 29. 26, Jub., loc. cit., states that it is forbidden to give a younger daughter in marriage before the elder one. Laban and the Haranites, as authorities on Jewish law, are rather strange figures. 767 BR 74, 13; PRE 36; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 29. 24 and 29. Josephus, Antigqui., I, 19. 8, likewise points out that Bilhah and Zilpah were not bondwomen. According to the 12 Testaments, Naphtali 1. 9, these two handmaids were the daughters of Rotheus, a brother of Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, a God-fearing man belonging to the family of Abraham.

That Bilhah and Zilpah were sisters is also stated in Jub. 28.9. The tendency of Jewish legend is to make all the tribes related to Abraham, on their paternal as well as their maternal side, and hence the statement that Rotheus was of the family of Abraham. Pa‘aneah, Gen. 27. 2, maintains that after the death of Rachel (and Leah?) Jacob made Bilhah and Zilpah legitimate wives. Comp. vol. I, 415. The old rabbinic literature has no difficulty in explaining Jacob’s marrying two sisters. The laws of the Torah became binding only after the revelation on Sinai; comp. vol. I, p. 292, note 275. The later authorities and especially the Kabbalists, on the other hand, developed many a theory to explain this marriage of Jacob. Comp. e. g. Recanati, Lev. 18. 6. Out of respect for Jacob the Torah, in dealing with prohibited marriages, does not mention the punishment for marrying two sisters; R. Bahya, Lev. 20. 21. 168 Tan. B. I, 151-152; Aggadat Bereshit 48, 97-98. According to BR 71. 2, Leah was hated by Jacob because she deceived her sister. See also Yelammedenu in Yalkut, II, 394, on Is. 3, and MHG I, 466, as well as 468. 295 169-177] The Legends of the Jews 169 BR 71. 2. See also vol. I, p. 359. 17° PRE 36; BR 84. 21 and 82. 2. The last-named source contains the addition that Benjamin had two twin-sisters; comp. vol. II, pp. 37-39. On the difference of the ages of Jacob’s sons, and on the meaning of their names, see vol.

II, pp. 187-188, notes 1 and 4. 17 MHG I, 468-469 and 192. The old Midrashim make no mention of Leah’s sterility. 172 Berakot 7b; MHG I, 469, which reads: My father-in-law’s first-born is a robber and a thief; my first-born is very scrupulous in his actions, and is careful not to touch other people’s property. Comp. note 190. 173 BR 61. 4; MHG I, 469, and Sabba, Wa-Yeze, 35d, seem to have read }Y OY in BR. 174 DR, according to the reading of Rashi, Gen. 29. 34, but not found in our texts. A similar Haggadah occurs also in MHG I, 469, whose source is probably Bereshit Rabbeti; gee Schechter, ad loc., and comp. further vol. I, p. 298, note 312, as well as vol. I, p. 387 and Zohar II, 19a. In MHG, Joc.cit., the name Levi is associated with m “‘borrowed’’, as well as m> ‘‘accompanied’’. Comp. the similar etymologies in Jub 31. 16; BR 71. 4; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 29. 34. 175 Berakot 7b; BR 71. 4; Tan. Wa-Yeze 9. Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 29. 30 reads: She called him Judah, ‘‘Thanks unto God”, because he was destined to become the ancestor of the royal house of David, and further because from him will come forth David who will compose ‘‘songs of thanks’? (=psalms of thanksgiving) unto the Lord. Comp. BR, loc.cit.; Tan. Wa-Yeze 6; Shemuel 28. 130; note 4 on vol. II, p. 188. 176 BR 71. 6; Aggadat Bereshit 51, 103-104. Comp. also the preceding note. Women are of a jealous disposition, and Rachel shared this weakness with her sex; BR 18.

2, and parallel passages cited by Theodor. According to ER 18, 99, Rachel was married fourteen years before she bore a child; comp. vol. II, p. 187, note 1. ™77 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 30. 1-2, which essentially follows Tan. B. I, 156, and BR 71. 6; but'these Midrashim do not say that Rachel asked Jacob to pray unto God for her. Aggadat Bereshit 51, 104, reads: ‘‘If thou so desirest, I shall certainly bear children, just as thou hast made the sheep bring forth their young.’”’ Comp. also the midrashic quotation in Sabba, Wa-Yeze, 34a. On the “four 296 Jacob / [178-189 that may be regarded as though they were dead”, comp. vol. II, p. 327, note 142, and vol. III, pp. 190, 259. 778 BR 71. 7; Aggadat Bereshit 51, 104, which has the additional remark that Rachel was very anxious to become a mother because she had a presentiment of her premature death. *79 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 30. 5. Lekah, Gen. 30. 4, reads: From the word nwxd “to wife” we are to infer that Jacob took her as his legitimate wife. BR 45. 3 has the same haggadic interpretation of mwx> with regard to its use in connection with Hagar. Comp. note 167. 180 Tan. B. I, 156; BR 71. 8. From the beginning of the third century C. E. till about the end of the ninth, Tiberias situated in Naphtali (comp. Megillah 6a and Yerushalmi 1, 70a) was the centre of Jewish learning in Palestine. Comp. BR 98. 17, with regard to the interpretation of the blessing given by Jacob to Naphtali.

Other etymologies of the name Naphtali are found in BR 71. 8 and Tan., loc. cit., as well as in MHG I, 472. '81 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 30. 8, with reference to Jud. 4. 6. 182 MHG I, 473. On the relationship of Jacob’s wives to one another, comp. note 167. 183 BR 71. 8, according to the reading of Rashi, Gen. 30. 11. Hasidim 480 has several explanations of the name Gad, (=113), one of which is to the effect that it signifies ‘‘deception”’, as well as ‘‘garment”. Leah put her garment on Zilpah, and in this manner deceived Jacob who thought that he was in the company of the mistress and not of the handmaid. For other etymologies of this name see Lekah, Gen. 30. 11. The opinion that the prophet Elijah belonged to the tribe of Gad is widespread; see vol. II, p. 145; vol. III, p. 462, and Index, s. v. ‘‘Elijah”’. 184 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 30. 11. 185 A midrashic quotation by Rashi, Gen. 30.11. See Berliner, ad loc., and vol. I, p. 306, note 318. BR 71. 18 and other sources (comp. note 183) also derive Gad from 77) ‘“‘he cut’’; but the cutting does not refer to circumcision. 186 MHG I, 473-474. Comp. note 183. «87 Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 30. 13, following BR 71. 10. 788 BR 72. 1 and 5. See note 194, and vol. II, pp. 201-202. 189 An unknown midrashic source in Midrash Aggada Gen. 49. 14, and, in abridged form, 30.14. In the last passage 8s means “ And it—the donkey—pulled it (the mandrake) out”, and must not 297 190—193] The Legends of the Jews be emended, as is done by Kaufmann, Monatsschrift, XX XIX, 139.

The same story ig cited also by Sabba, Wa-Yeze, 34a, and Toledot Vizhak (is it based on Sabba?), Gen. 30. 14. In Nur al- Zulm, 124, it is the dog, not the ass, which uprooted the mandrake, and this agrees with what Josephus, Bell. Jud., vii, 6. 3, says about the plant Baaras, which is very likely identical with the mandrake. The expression Nm” Dy Np (Yerushalmi ‘Erubin 10, 26c) clearly shows that the mandrake, like the Baaras of Josephus, was used in expelling demons. The anonymous commentator on Yerushalmi seems to understand the Talmud to refer to the charm used in uprooting the mandrake, which otherwise might cause death. But this could hardly be expressed by by Np. It is very likely that the Aramaic name for the mandrake NmM72° “‘the chaser’ describes it as a plant which chases demons away. The relation between the mandrake and the plant Adam ‘which kills anybody who comes near it’ (comp. vol. I, pp. 31-32, note 148) is not quite clear. Frazer, Folk-Lore tn the Old Testament, II, 372-397, deals at great length arid in a very interesting manner with the mandrake in folk-lore. The spot, where, according to Josephus, this plant of miraculous properties grew, is undoubtedly identical with Baaras, the place where Jacob, by a hair-breadth, escaped death at the hands of Esau; comp. vol. I, pp. 347-348. The name Baaras, given to this plant by Josephus, is perhaps to be explained as an abridgment of ‘‘the mandrake of Baara”’ =Myp °T NTM72°.

Comp. note 193, and vol. II, p. 204, note 11. Baara is the Grecized form for 7795; comp. Yerushalmi Shabbat 3, 6a. 9° BR 72. 2-4. Lekah, Gen. 30. 14, calls attention to the fact that, though Reuben was only ten years old at that time, he nevertheless knew what the law permits, and what it prohibits. *9t BR 99. 10; Nidah 31a, and thence in MHG I, 741 (=BR 98. 12, where read 072 9 “VN; but comp. note 193); Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 30. 16; MHG JI, 473. Geiger’s statement, Kebuzzat Maamarim, 142, that the old Rabbis read 19M instead of WWM (Gen. 49. 4), and hence the legend about the braying of the ass, is untenable, as shown by Ginzberg in Supplement to Geiger, op. cit. HEE TBI RTDs Gy .. 793 Nidah 31a. Comp. also ‘Erubin 100b. Jacob’s ass walked up to Leah’s tent without having been led there by its master; Haserot in Batte Midrashot, III, 5; comp. also note 191; momb non “the ass by itself” is a play on 07) 1oN (Gen. 49. 14). Yerushalmi 298 Jacob / [194-202 Sotah 3, 19a, and BR 72. 5, commenting on sim (Gen. 30. 16), remark that this word refers to God, who alone was witness to Leah’s pure motive in making Jacob stop with her. DR 7. 11 on the other hand, maintains with reference to 8xm (Gen., Joc. cit.) that Leah was a ‘‘gad-about’’. In BR 18. 2, and parallels cited by Theodor, it is Dinah who is described by this expression. The substitution of the ass for the dog in the mandrake legend (comp.

note 189) by some rabbinic authorities is due to a midrashic interpretation of 07) 70n (Gen. 49. 14). *94 BR 72. 5; Shir 7. 4. On the compact between Zebulun and Issachar comp. vol. IJ, p. 144. *95 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 30. 20. Different etymologies of the name Zebulun are found in BR 72. 6 and MHG I, 476. 196 Berakot 60a; Tan. B. I, 157; Tan. Wa-Yeze 8; Targum Yerushalmi 30. 12; Yerushalmi Berakot 9, 14a-14b; Tehillim 55, 292; MHG I, 479 (1°>); PRE 35. 197 MHG I, 478-479 and 480 (a2"»); Tehillim 55, 292; BR 73. 1 and 4. Comp. also Rosh ha-Shanah 11a. 198 MHG I, 480-481, and comp. Schechter, ad Joc. See also vol. I, p. 238, where it is said that Hagar declared that Sarah’s sterility was a punishment for her impious life. 199 BR 73. 3; Tan. B. I, 158 (which reads: Rachel feared that her father would take her away from Jacob and give her to Esau); Tehillim 55, 292; Aggadat Bereshit 51, 105; MHG I, 481. 20° Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 30. 23. This Haggadah is based on the use of 757M (Gen., loc. cit., and Joshua 5. 9). See also MHG I, 481, which reads nbay xbx man pr. 2°l Tan. B. J, 158; BR 61. 4; Yerushalmi Berakot 9, 146. According to Yelammedenu 20 (=BHM VI, 81), Rachel prophesied that Joseph would be the ancestor of the (Ephraimitic) Messiah, who would arise at the end of days (ody by inane ]3 is to be understood in this manner). Comp. also BR 73. 5-6 for several other prophecies found in Rachel’s words of Gen.

30. 24. The etymology given there of the name Joseph (Dim) as ‘‘the increase by the Lord” occurs also in Philo, De Josepho, 6. 202 MHG I, 481. That Rachel bore children was a miracle, as she was sterile by nature, and this miracle was granted to her as a reward for her kindness to Leah, whom she saved from being put to shame by Jacob, who would have detected the fraud played on him by Laban, had not Rachel divulged to her sister the sign agreed 299 203-214] The Legends of the Jews upon by her and Jacob by which he would recognize her on the nuptial night. See BR 73. 4; Baba Batra 123a; Tan. B. I, 154; Tan. Wa-Yeze 6. Comp. vol I, p. 357; vol. IV, pp. 310, 390. 203 BR 73.6; Tan. B. J, 154 and 164; Bata Batra 123a; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 30. 25; and in many other places. Comp. vol. III, pp. 57-58 and 223. This Haggadah is described as an old tradition (nm). 204 Yashar Wa-Yeze, 57b-58a, and Hayye Sarah, 49a, where Deborah is declared to have been the daughter of Uz, the son of Abraham’s brother Nahor. Comp. the sources quoted in note 300. 205 Tan. B. I, 161, and thence in Midrash Aggada and Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 30. 27. Comp. also the extract from Galya Raza in Yalkut Reubeni, Gen. 29. 17, and note 157. 206 PRE 26. Comp. note 151. 2°79 B Rise 12; Bak e2019s Pane Be IV, 142- lan balaks t2. MHG I, 485 (with the additional remark that the same thing happened to Jethro who had only daughters unt the arrival of Moses into his house, when he was blessed with sons).

On the blessing which the pious bring to those whom they visit, comp. Sifre D., 38; Berakot 42a; BR 73.8; MHG I, 485-486; Zohar I, 161a. Comp. also note 151. 208 MHG I, 486. Laban’s words (Gen. 30. 34) are taken to mean: O that thou mayest keep thy word! 209 BR 73. 9-10 and 74. 3; Tan. B. I, 161; Tan. Wa-Yeze 11. The legend would not admit any trickery on the part of Jacob, and his cunning manipulations are turned into direct intervention of the angels. See Lekah, Gen. 30. 39 and Or Zarua‘ I, 227, No. 769. 27° Tan. B. I, 161; Yashar Wa-Yeze, 58a-58b. 211 Tehillim 8, 78. Similarly Tan. B. I, 161; Tan. Wa-Yeze 11; BR 73. 10; MHG I, 487 (a"D). Comp. note 209. 2712 MHG I, 490. ?%3 MHG I, 488 (1'D). Jacob made his cattle graze far away from cultivated land (comp. Gen. 30. 36), in order to avoid doing damage to the soil; MHG I, 487. Comp. also Baba Kamma 7. 7. 274 BR 73. 11; Koheleth 9. 11; Tan. B. I, 161-162. The fecundity of Messianic times refers to that of human beings, as may be seen from Mekilta Bahodesh 2, 63a, where it is said that in the time to come the number of children of each and every Jew will be equal to the number of Jews at the time of the exodus from Egypt. See also vol. II, p. 230, note 10. 300 Jacob / [215-220 215 MHG I, 489; BR 74. 1; Tan. B. I, 160; PRE 26. See also Mekilta Bo (Snmn5), ib, which reads: When Israel entered into the Holy Land, all the other countries were excluded from being used as places of divine revelations.

BR, Joc. cif., remarks that possessions acquired outside the Holy Land bring no blessings. Similarly Pesahim 50b; comp. note 274. See also note 137 and Index, s. ». “Holy Land”’. 2x6 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 31. 4. The fleet messenger Naphtali (comp. Gen. 49. 21) is often spoken of in Jewish legend; comp. vol. I., pp. 408-401; vol. II, pp. 25, 108-109, 154, 209; vol. III, p. 206. ?%7 Berakot 8b; BR 74. 2; PR 4. 34a (BR is to be emended according to this text); Tan. B. IV, 110; Tan. Hukkat 6; Koheleth 7. 23; PRK (Griinhut’s edition, 50 and 41, "5, where POMID PR is to be read in accordance with Ketubot 48a. Among other peculiarities and customs of the Persians and the ‘‘children of the east” mention is also made of the fact that they do not kiss on the mouth. Comp., however, Herodotus I, 134, where the opposite is asserted. Comp. note 164. 218 Vashar Wa-Yeze, 58b-59a (based on PRE 26, where, however, our texts read TDW M7 oY “the name of an impure spirit”, instead of own ‘‘the Ineffable Name of God” of Yashar); Tan. WaYeze 12; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 31. 19; Lekah, Gen. 31. 34. Of the two descriptions of the Teraphim by Ziyyoni, Wa-Yeze (end), one is taken from PRE and the other from Lekah. His etymological explanation of this word (as connected with talmudic 757)n “‘shame”, “decay’’=MmWa) is found in ‘Aruk, s. v. See also Rashi, 1 Sam. 19. 13 and 2 Kings 23. 24. Rachel’s motive in stealing Laban’s idols was a laudable one; she said: Should I depart and leave the old man with his idolatry? See BR 74.

5; Tan. loc. cit.; Theodoretus, Gen. 31. 19. Comp. also Zohar I, 169b. On 0%=the impure spirit, see note 313 on vol. I, 298. 219 Verushalmi Targumim Gen. 31. 21-22. Comp. ARN 9, 27, as well as notes 153, 205, 207. 220 PRE 36; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 21. 24. It is a widespread view that Laban had intended to destroy Jacob and his family, root and branch. See Passover Haggadah beginning sod) Nx; Midrash Tannaim 172; Onkelos and Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 26. 5; Sifre D., 301; MHG I, 491. The angel restrained Laban from carrying out his plan of destruction, and admonished him, at the same time, not to have any dealings with Jacob whatsoever, not even to be kind 301 221-227] The Legends of the Jews to him, for ‘‘the kindness shown by the wicked causes pain to the pious”; Yebamot 103b, with reference to Gen. 31. 24. Laban feared not only the angel but also Esau, who might, in case of injury to Jacob, appear as ‘‘the avenger of blood” against him. See Aggadat Bereshit 108, note 2, and 125, note 5. Although Rachel had taken the Teraphim with her, Laban succeeded in getting another set, which revealed to him Jacob’s escape; Yashar, Wa-Yeze 59a. According to Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 31. 21-22, Laban noticed the absence of Jacob by the lack of water; comp. note 354. 221 BR 74. 6-7. On the night as the time of divine revelations, see the sources cited in note 131, to which are to be added: WR 1.13; Leket Midrashim, 6a and 20b; Zohar III, 113a and 200a.

222 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 31. 23. 223 MHG I, 491-492. The power of which Laban boasted is the power of witchcraft, which he might have used against Jacob; Sabba, Wa-Yeze, 42c, and Ki-Tabo, 152c; Zohar I, 167b and 166a. Laban was a famous sorcerer (his grandson Balaath was by far his inferior), and Jacob was justified in pointing out to Esau (comp. Gen. 32. 5) that even this master of SS could not prevail against him. See Zohar I, 167a. 224 BR 74. 8-11; PRE 36; Tan. Wa-Yeze 13; Aggadat Bereshit 51, 105; PK 14, 116b; Koheleth 10. 5; Shemuel 22 (end). The view that even an unintentional curse or blessing takes effect is shared by the Talmud; see Mo‘ed Katan 18a and Makkot 11a, which read: A compact is closed with the lips, z. e., the spoken word is effective, be it a curse or a blessing. The account of Jacob’s escape from Laban and of their meeting is given by Josephus, Aztiquz., I, 20. 9-11, with many embellishments. Jacob’s excuse for his escape was that God implanted in every human heart the love of his native country, and Rachel’s motive in stealing the Teraphim was to pacify her father by returning them to him, should he succeed in overtaking Jacob. The theft remained undiscovered for some time, because Laban did not think it possible that a woman in menstruation (comp. Gen. 31. 35) would dare to touch the Teraphim. On the effect of the spoken word, be it a curse or a blessing, comp.

note 74. 225 Tan. Wa-Yishlah 4; BR 74. 13; PRE 36. Comp. vol. IV, p. 93. 226 BR 74. 13-14; PRE 26; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 31. 46; Yoma 77a-77b; MHG I, 495. 227 BR 94. 5 (Rashi, Gen. 31. 42, seems to have had a fuller text 302 Jacob [228-238 before nim); Tan. Toledot 7; Tehillim 16, 120; comp. note 304. Tan. Wa-Yeze renders YAN WMDA (Gen. 31. 53) by “‘the life of his father’, which agrees with Philo, Special. Leg., 2. 3. See Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 130-131 (note) and Hadar, Gen., loc. cit. Lekah, ad. loc., reads: He swore by the fear which seized Isaac at the ‘Akedah, when he had given up his spirit and come to life again only by means of the dew of life. See note 101; vol. I, p. 282, and note 243 appertaining thereto. Lekah is very likely the source for Zohar I, 60a (SMDDIN). 228 BR 74. 16 (with the additional remark that, as a punishment for Laban’s evil designs against Jacob, robbers broke into his house, during his absence, and took his possessions away with them). Similarly also Yelammedenu 21=HBM VI, 81. 229 Yashar Wa-Yeze, 59a-59b, where 17978) is to be explained in accordance with 122 157) wx, Wa-Yishlah, 60b. There is a number of different views concerning the relationship between Laban and Balaam: Laban is declared to be identical with Balaam, to have been Balaam’s father, grandfather (Beor, Laban’s son in Yashar is identical with Balaam’s father), and uncle.

See Sanhedrin 105a; BR 57. 4, and the parallel passages cited by Theodor, as well as Hadar and Da‘at on Gen. 31. 52, and Exod. 1. 10; Mahzor Vitry 547; Zohar I, 166b. 23° Tan.B. I, 163 and 178-179; Tan. Wa-Yishlah 3 and Mishpatim (end); Aggadat Bereshit 53, 109. 23% BR 74. 17 and 76. 10; Shir 7.1. 232 Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 32. 3; Tan. Wa-Yishlah 3. 233 Yashar Wa-Yeze (end) and Wa-Yishlah (beginning), 59b—60b. On the honor which Jacob owed Esau as the elder brother, comp. the midrashic quotation in Yalkut Reubeni, Gen. 32. 4, and Ketubot 103a. 234 MHG I, 501-502. On the view that Abraham’s descendants are to pay off the debt, comp. vol. I, p. 356; vol. III, pp. 55 and 315. The statement about Jacob’s strict conformity with the Torah during the stay with Laban is found also in Lekah, Gen. 32. 5, but in a version somewhat different from the one in MHG and Rashi, ad loe. ¥35 BRa/5, 5 and 1tetan.2B. by16t: 236 MHGI, 503. Jacob’s message to Esau, as given by Josephus, Antiqui., I, 20. 1, also differs from the biblical account. 237 Yashar Wa-Yishlah, 60b. 238 BR 75. 12 (and, with slight variations, 7); MHG I, 503 303 [239-246 The Legends of the Jews (where nYwn is a faulty reading of the abbreviation 'N=400, and hence the discrepancy in the number); Tan. B. I, 161. 239°BRW75: geelan. B. leatolsyZohar Ia67b; 249 BR 76. 1-2. On the fear of the pious to forfeit, through sin, the blessings promised to them, comp.

the parallel passages cited on margin, and vol. I, pp. 352-353. Maimonides, Shemonah Perakim, 7, remarks: Even the patriarchs and prophets were not entirely free from human failings, as the fear of Jacob shows. Shu‘aib, Wa-Yishlah, 16c, quotes a midrashic statement to the effect that Jacob contrasted his own conduct toward his father with that of Esau, and was compelled to admit his shortcomings. He caused his father to fear and tremble (comp. Gen. 27. 33, and note 101), whereas Esau never failed, in the slightest degree, in the honor and consideration due to Isaac. Jacob therefore thought that God might prefer Esau to himself. Comp. also Zohar I, 166a; MHG I, 503. 24% MHG I, 504. 242 Tan. B. I, 162; Koheleth 9. 18. 243 BR 75. 9 and 13, as well as 76. 4-6; Yashar Wa-Yishlah, 60b-61a (gives a different version of Jacob’s prayer, but at the same time makes use of BR). See also Tan. B. I, 162; Makiri, Ps. 20, 140, 141, and note 35. 744 Yashar Wa-Yishlah, 61a-61b, which amplifies the legend concerning the angels who attacked Esau at night, found in BR 78. 11; Tan. B. I, 162; and in abridged form, BR 75. 10. See note 265. Damesek, the son of Eliezer, owes his existence to the phrase 119N pwn (Gen. 15. 2). On Alinus comp. note 290 with reference to Eblaen of which Alinus seems to be a variant. 245 BR 76. 3 and 8; Josephus, Antiquz., I, 20. 1. The numerical relation of the male to the female animals varies with the different species, because the more active an animal is, the less its sexual desire, and the same applies to man.

See Yerushalmi Ketubot 5, 30b; BR 76. 7; Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 112. Comp. note 274. Jacob first separated the tithes from the animals before sending them to Esau; see Rashi and Lekah, Gen. 33. 14. Comp. note 251. 246 PRE 37; Tan. B. I, 161; Tan. Wa-Yishlah 3; BR 75.5. A different view is given in BR 76. 2-3 and 11, where Jacob is severely censured for calling Esau “‘my lord”, and it is added that as a punishment for that, Jacob’s descendants established their kingdom eight generations later than Esau’s descendants (comp. Gen. 36.31). Moreover, the latter were granted dominion over the world, whereas the for304 Jacob ’ 247-248] mer have to wait for the dominion in the world to come. See BR 75. 11; PRE, loc. cit.; 1 Alphabet of Ben Sira 6b. 247 BR 77. 2-3; Shir 3.5. These sources add that it was Esau’s guardian angel (comp. the following note and note 273) who, at the command of God, undertook to wrestle with Jacob. God said to the angel: ‘Jacob has five charms to protect him: his own merits and those of his parents and grandparents; now measure thy strength against his.” The angel tried, and soon discovered that Jacob was no match for him. The words put into Jacob’s mouth (‘this night no enchantment prevails’’) wish to convey that, although ordinarily the darkness of the night is very propitious for such and similar operations (comp. Index, s.v. ‘“Night’’, and Fraser, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, II, 411), Jacob was not afraid of the angel’s machinations.

—Hullin 91a points out that the pious take great care not to lose or squander their possessions; hence Jacob, after having forded the river with all his belongings, returned to fetch a small pot which he had forgotten on the other side of the Jabbok. 248 Abkir in Yalkut I, 132; according to this source, the angel appeared to make Jacob bold for his meeting with Esau. See also Zerubbabel (Jellinek’s edition, 5. 5), which reads: “I am Metatron, the angel who wrestled with Jacob at the ford of Jabbok,’’ while in Wertheimer’s edition p12’ 73YN23 *NPAN) is corrupted to TAya "NpjATIw mn. Since in many sources Metatron is identical with Michael (comp. Index, s. v. ‘‘Metatron”’), it follows that, according to this passage, the angel who wrestled with Jacob was sent to his assistance. In Wertheimer’s edition (versions 1 and 2) this angel described himself as Metatron= Michael, 7.e., as the guardian angel of Israel. The antiquity of this view which identifies this angel with Michael, or rather Metatron, may be inferred from the statement of the Church Fathers, according to whom this angel was the Holy Ghost, or Jesus; comp. e. g., Clemens Alexandrinus, Instructor, 1. 7. It has already been observed that Christian authors often transferred to Jesus, or rather the Holy Ghost, those functions which in Jewish legends are ascribed to Michael. It should be noted here that Abkir in its present form consists of three different parts, which are introduced by: 1)pp70'9; 2)O"IDIN w; 3)7’8=TNy>N 1 TR, in Gabai.

Comp. further below.—Michael was appointed the guardian angel of Israel on the day of his visit to Abraham to announce to him the birth of Isaac; see Ziyyoni, Mishpatim (end), quoting Galya Raza, and comp. note 91 on vol. I, p. 181, as well as the following note. The angel 305 249-251] The Legends of the Jews was in a hurry, as he had to be present at the morning song of the celestial beings; comp. BR 78. 1-2; Hullin 91b—92a; Shir 3. 5; comp. vol. I, pp. 17-18. Jacob [252-253 and therefore Levi was the tenth. See Jub. 32. 3; Sifre D., 355 (for the explanation of this passage see Briill, Jahrbticher, IV, 130, and Epstein, Mikkadmoniyyot, 97-98); Midrash Tannaim 220; PRE, loc. cit. (the reason given here for starting from the youngest is not clear); Da‘at and Hadar on Gen. 28. 22. Tan. is given as a source in Hadar, whereas Da‘at refers to BR as its authority. But neither of these two Midrashim has this Haggadah. See Epstein, Mosheh ha-Darshan, 16; vol. II, p. 134, note 364. On Levi being taken into heaven, see vol. I, 363 and II, 194. On Jacob as the first to set aside the tithes, comp. notes 144 and 245. 282 Zohar III, 45a (based on Tan. B. I, 127, or a source related to Tan.). 283 PRE 47. The mystics of the geonic period speak of a heavenly being (7m), named Israel, on whose forehead this name is engraved. The function of this angel is to call the hosts of angels to chant God’s praise.

He addresses them with these words: ‘‘Bless ye the Lord who is to be blessed.’’ Whereupon they praise God, saying: ‘‘ Blessed is the Lord who is to be blessed for ever and ever.” See Hekalot 4, 29; Zohar II, 4b; Baer’s Siddur, 126. Raziel, 6b, makes the assumption probable that this heavenly being was identified with the “‘Jacob’s countenance”’ in the throne of glory; comp. notes 35 and 134.—The Haggadah knows of a number of explanations of the name Israel: It stands for 58 NT wR “the man who saw God” (angel?); comp. ER 27, 138-139; Philo, Conf. Ling., 16 and 20; Migrat. Abr., 18, 36, 39 (end); Quis Rer. Div. Haeres Sit, 15; De Cong. Quaer. Erud. Causa, 10; De Profugts, 25 and 38; Mut. nominum, 12; De Somniis, 2. 4, 6, 26; De Sacrifictis Abelis, 36; De Abrahamo, 12; De praemiis et poenis, 8. From Philo, in whose writings this etymology occurs very frequently, besides in the passages just cited, it was taken over by the Church Fathers; comp. Siegfried, Philo, Index, s. v. “Israel”. In Philo’s opinion “the man who saw God”’ is identical with the Logos, hence Israel=Christ in the writings of the Church Fathers. See Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 75; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 2. 5; Cyril, De Trinit., 19. Comp. note 428. The name Israel is also explained as ‘‘trying to sing instead of the angels”’ ( =bx+70), or “Joyful like the angels at the time of their singing’; see Tan. B. I, 127, and Haserot in Batte Midrashot, III, 4.

As to Jacob’s singing instead of the angels, comp. BR 78.2. Other etymologies are: ‘‘the remnant of God” (yxnw =x “Nv), or ‘he who walks straight with the Lord” (baw =bx Ww); Yalkut Reubeni, Gen. 232. 29, and comp. 307 254-262] The Legends of the Jews note 273. Similar to the last etymology is the one given by Nahmanides, Deut. 2. 10 of Jeshurun, which signifies ‘‘one who walks straight”, in contrast to Jacob, “he who walks crookedly”. Comp. Nestle, Zeitschrift f. Alt. Wiss., XXXII, 17-20. 254M Gel pols: 255 BR 68. 10; Tan. B. I, 168; Hullin 91b; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 32. 32. Comp. vol. I, pp. 349-350. 256 Zohar I, 203b, which, in the main, is based on Abkir in Yalkut I, 132. Comp. also BR 78. 5. 2757 Hullin 90a. Comp. vol. I, p. 354. 258 Tan, Wa-Yishlah 4; Tehillim 102, 468-469. The angels have no joints; they are formed of one piece. Hence when the angel noticed Jacob’s gigantic strength he touched him on the hip to convince himself whether he is a human being or an angel, and this touch caused injury to Jacob. See PRE 36; Hullin 91a; BR 88. 6; comp. also vol J, p. 5, note 9. 259 Zohar I 203b; MHGI, 513-514; Hadar, Da‘at, and Pa‘aneah on Gen. 32. 33, which are dependent on Hasidim, 91. In the old sources two views are mentioned with regard to the meaning of ‘‘the sons of Israel’’ (Gen., loc. cit.). According to one, it refers to the Jewish people; but the other view maintains that it alludes to Jacob’s twelve sons.

See Hullin 7. 6. ‘‘A scholar must not go out at night by himself’’, and had not Jacob disregarded this rule, nothing would have happened to him at the ford of Jabbok; see Hullin 91a and Zohar III, 55a. The evil spirits are envious of scholars, and try to attack them at night; comp. Berakot 54b. 260 BR 78. 7-8; PK 19, 139a, which reads: He made his people put on white garments which concealed weapons beneath. He tried three means: 1) prayer; 2) appeasing Esau with gifts; 3 )preparing for war. Comp. vol. I, p. 381. 26% Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 33. 2. 262 BR 78. 10; PK 12, 49b; MHG I, 517, which reads: At this time Rachel was pregnant with Benjamin, and Joseph, fearing lest Esau should look at her and she become frightened, placed himself in front of his mother to conceal her. “‘ Haughtiness is more frequently found among low people than among nobles’’, as may be seen from the varied attitudes of Jacob’s children towards Esau. Rachel and Leah bowed themselves before Esau, and their children followed their example. The two handmaids did the same; but their children said: ‘We are the sons of Jacob, and hence nobler than our mothers, and it is not seemly 308 Jacob [263-273 for us to bow down before Esau”’; Shu‘aib, Wa-Yishlah, 16a. Comp., however, note 926 on voi. III, p. 458. 263 BR 78. 9, and parallel passages cited by Theodor; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 33. 4; Zohar I, 171b (the legend about Esau’s long teeth is an adaptation of the Og legend, Berakot 54b).

Abkir according to a MS. published by Epstein in Ha-Eshkol, VI, 206. Zohar I, 172a, quotes also the opposite view, according to which, Esau, on meeting Jacob, after many years of separation, was overcome by a true feeling of love for his brother; Yashar Wa-Yishlah, 62b, is very likely the source of Zohar. Comp. also MHG I, 517: and PRE 37. 264 Tan. Wa-Yishlah 4; MHG I, 516-517; Zohar I, 17b. Comp. the preceding note. 265 BR 75. 10 (the exact number of angels is given here) and 78. 11; Tan. B. I, 165; Tan. Wa-Yishlah 3. Comp. note 244. 266 Yelammedenu 22=BHM VI, 81; BR 75. 4; Tan. B. I, 163; Tan. Wa-Yishlah 3. These messengers consisted of the angels who came with Jacob from Haran, and of those who arrived from the Holy Land to meet him. Comp. note 230. 267 PRE 37. This was a punishment for delaying to set aside the tithes of his possessions for God. Comp. vol. I, p. 387. 268 Tan. B. I, 169. 269 Hadar, Gen. 32. 14. 27° JT ekah, Gen. 32. 16; MHG J, 507. A dissenting view is found in Ba‘al ha-Turim, Gen., loc cit., according to which Jacob sent to Esau only such animals as were, on account of their bodily injuries and imperfections, unfit for sacrificial purposes; comp. ‘Abodah Zarah 1. 6, and Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 108-109. On animals refusing to serve impious masters, comp. vol. IV, p. 198. 27% BR 78.12. Esau stands for the Roman officials (comp. note 19) of whom Pesahim 118b says: They stretch forth their hands for gifts; yet do not keep their promises.

272 Sotah 41b; MHG I, 518. 273 BR 78. 3. As to the identity of this angel, comp. notes 247, 248, 259. On the basis of BR the mystics—but found already in Tan. Wa-Yishlah 8—call this angel Sammael, since he is the guardian angel of Rome, z.e., Esau. See Zohar I, 146a, and the numerous references to Zohar in Yalkut Reubeni, Gen. 32. 25-33; Imre No‘am, Gen. 32. 25 (here the reading is xobo instead of bop). The passage in Zohar II, 41b, where the angel is identified with Gabriel (comp. 309 273] The Legends of the Jews note 284) is taken from Ra‘ya Mehemena, and does not belong to Zohar. The angel, disguised as Esau, appeared to Jacob, and said to him: Thou art an impostor; thou didst say to ourfather: “I am Esau thy first-born.”” Jacob excused himself by pointing out that when he acquired the birthright he became Esau’s rightful successor. Thereupon the angel said: ‘‘Thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, the impostor, but Israel, the remnant of God (comp. note 253), of whom it is said: The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies” (Zephaniah 3. 13). See Yalkut Reubeni Gen. 32. 29, who gives, as his source, PRE; but it is not found in our texts of this Midrash, nor is it likely that this passage ever formed a genuine part of PRE, since according to this source, the angel with whom Jacob wrestled was Michael (comp. note 251), while an angel disguised as Esau may be assumed to have been Sammael, Esau’s guardian angel; comp.

note 247. A description of Jacob’s encounter with the angel, entirely different from that of the rabbinit sources, is quoted by Origen, In Joanem, 2.31, from the Jewish pseudepigraphic work the Prayer of Joseph. It reads: I am Jacob and Israel, am angel of God, a ruling spirit...called Jacob bymen and Israel by God; a man seeing God (comp. note 253), because I am the first-born of every creature whom He caused to live. When I was coming from Mesopotamia of Syria (=0°77) O18), Uriel, the angel of God, came forth and said: I have come down to the earth, and made my dwelling among men, and I am called Jacob by name. He was wroth with me, and wrestled with me saying that his name and the name of Him who is before every angel (the name 5x is attached to every name of every angel; comp. PK 12, 108b, and parallel passages; hence we ought to read ‘‘after’’ instead of ‘‘before’’) should be before my name. I told him his name, and how great he was among the sons of God (=3 ombx): Art thou not Uriel, the eighth from me, and I am Israel and archangel of the power of the Lord and a chief captain among the sons of God? Am I not Israel, the first minister in the sight of God? Do I not invoke my God by the inextinguishable name? For the expression “‘inextinguishable name’’, comp. the Hebrew phrase mpw Ppno3 YNw which is frequently used in the Talmud (comp., e. g., Shebu‘ot 35a) to describe the divine names like o7>x bx “Iw >">, in contrast to His attributes as DSN JN IN, etc.

Comp. notes 35, 134, 253, and see further note 146 on vol. II, p. 328, on the encounter of Uriel (originally the angel of Hades; comp. however, note 13 in vol. I, p. 54, and Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 35-37 and 245) with 310 Jacob » [274-275 Moses.—Jacob in that memorable night at the ford of Jabbok intended to flee from Esau, and as a punishment for this lack of trust in God (comp. note 240) he was injured by the angel; Hadar, Gen. 32. 19. 274 Tan. B. I, 168. On the possessions acquired outside the Holy Land, comp. note 215. On the acquisition of the Machpelah comp. vol. I, pp. 321 and 417. 1 Alphabet of Ben Sira ("¥) reads: God took it ill of Jacob, who, in his fear, gave gifts to Esau (comp. note 240), and was ready to follow his brother. He commanded him to separate himself from Esau, and as a punishment for his lack of faith in God, as evidenced by the gifts to Esau, all his cattle perished, with the exception of one little lamb, which was so precious to Jacob that he made a hut for it (comp. Gen. 33. 17), wherein to spend the night. Among the animals given by Jacob to Esau the male camel is not mentioned (comp. Gen. 32. 16, which reads: Thirty milch-camels and their colts), because it does not copulate with the female in the presence of others, and therefore Scripture omits to mention that a male camel was sent with the females. See Yerushalmi Ketubot 5,30b; BR 76.

7. The same remark is made by Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 112, but was misunderstood by his commentators. Comp. note 245. 275 Abkir in Yalkut I, 133. For 7720) (so in first edition; in recent editions it is }7201) read }»xd) or OwD. Bet Gubrin is already identified with Seir in old sources; comp. BR 67. 6. According to a talmudic legend, God will slay the Yezer ha-Ra‘, ‘‘the evil inclination’’, on the day of judgment (Sukkah 52a and ER 4, 20). Since the Yezer ha-Ra‘ is identical with Sammael, the angel of Edom (Sotah 10a; Makkot 12a; comp. Rashi, ad loc., and Lampronti, Pahad Yizhak, s. v. MY 84c), the purport of this Abkir legend is that evil and sin will be abolished in the world to come. In Enoch 55. 4 it is the Messiah who judges Azazel and his campanions, and this view is shared by 12 Testaments, Levi 18. 2, where it is said that the Messiah will bind Belior. Matthew 12. 29 and Luke 10. 19 agree with this view, while in Revelation 20. 2-3 this réle is assigned to an agnel. In Abkir it is Elijah, an old competitor of the Messiah (comp. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 342, seq.), who with the assistance of God, will destroy the prince of Edom, 7. e., Satan. The account of the struggle between leviathan and the angels, ending in the slaughtering of the monster by God Himself, so often alluded to in haggadic writings (comp. vol. I, p. 28, and the note 127 appertaining thereto), is another form of the legend about God’s final victory over 311 276-277 The Legends of the Jews evil, which is here represented by the leviathan in accordance with the old mythological terminology; comp.

Jeremias, Babylonisches im Neuen Testamente, 44. The seizure by the hair is perhaps an allusion to Seir, ‘‘the hairy one” (comp. Josephus, Antigui., I, 20. 3, and MHG I, 395-396). See, however, vol. III, p. 29. In kabbalistic literature Sammael, the angel of Esau, has the form of a goat, and therefore he chose Seir (=Sair) as his people; comp. Nahmanides, Lev. 16.8. Accordingly, the hair of Edom’s angel is perhaps the same thing as the wool of the goat, and in this connection mention may be made of the Mohammedan legend (Buhari, III, 379; comp. Griinbaum, CGesammelte Aufsdtze, 117), which has it that the angel of death (=Sammael; comp. Index, s. v.) assumes the form of a ram. The account of the flight to Bozrah as given in Abkir is based on Makkot 12a. Abkir quotes R. Aha as authority, because in the Talmud a remark bearing upon this subject is attributed to this Amora; the text reads: The angel of Edom in fleeing to Bozrah will commit three erfors: he will think that Bozrah is a city of refuge, confusing it with Bezer (Deut, 4. 43); he will think that the cities of refuge grant protection to murderers (whereas only those who killed someone unwittingly may find refuge there); he will erroneously assume that an angel may seek refuge in these cities, but this law applies only to men; R. Aha adds: he will commit one other error: he will think that a city of refuge grants protection to a Gentile, whereas a Jew only may seek refuge there.

Comp. Rabbinowicz ad loc. See also PRK 30a, which reads: Three things will be removed from the world before the advent of the Messiah: Seir, the Yezer ha-Ra‘, and the wicked kingdom (i.e. Rome). Comp. further the following note. 276 BR 78. 14 (the truthful Jacob could not have possibly lied to Esau; comp. note 91); DR 1. 20; Tan. B. II, 92; Tan. Terumah 9; MHG I, 518. In all these sources the subject of the conversation between the two brothers is taken to have been the division of the two worlds: the older brother took this world and the younger the future. Comp. note 14. There is also another view to the effect that Jacob told his brother a diplomatic lie, which, under certain circumstances, is not only permitted but even commanded; comp. ‘Abodah Zarah 25a; Yerushalmi 2,40c; MHGI,519. Yerushalmi is perhaps the source of MHG;comp. Yalkut II, 124, which quotes the statement of R. Nathan occurring in MHG from *1yw 02” 'D 'w7. Comp. also Targum Yer. and Sekel on Gen. 33. 16. 277 Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 33. 17 (where perhaps “eighteen 312 Jacob + [278-285 months” should be read instead of a “‘twelve’’, in accordance with Seder ‘Olam 2; BR 78. 16; Megillah 17a). 278 Tan. B. I, 169. Comp. also BR 78. 16 and note 274. The four hundred men gradually slipped away from Esau, as they feared to remain in the proximity of Jacob, and as a reward for their respect to Jacob an equal number of their descendants were saved when David massacred the Amalekites (1 Sam.

30. 17; the Amalekites and the inhabitants of Seir are regarded as the same people); BR 78. 15. 279 BR 79. 5; Shabbat 33b; Tan. B. I 168; Targum Yerushalmi and Jerome on Gen. 33. 16. The latter, however, combines this haggadic interpretation of o>w as “in perfect condition” with that found in the Septuagint and Jub. 30. 1, according to which obw is the name of a place near Shechem. Comp. note 102 on vol. I, p. 233. 280 BR 80. 6-7. A similar statement occurs in Shabbat 33b that Jacob established bath-houses, market-places, and a mint for the inhabitants of Shechem. In Shabbat 118b, BR 11. 7, and PR 23, 120b, attention is called to the fact that the Bible speaks of the obsevance of the Sabbath by Jacob, but not by Abraham; comp. note 139. 281 MHG I, 522. It is very likely that this is the parcel of ground spoken of in John 4. 5 and 12. Comp. BR 80. 7. 282 BR 80. 7-8; MHG I, 522-523. As to Jacob being called God, See Sifre D., 355; Midrash Tannaim 221; BR 77. 1. Comp. also Ginzberg’s remarks in Geiger, Kebuzzat Maamarim, 393, as well as the quotation from the Prayer of Joseph in notes 35 and 273, against which the statement in BR and MHG is perhaps directed. Zohar I, 138a, maintains that God Himself appointed Jacob to be the lord of all earthly things. 283 2 ARN 3, 14; Koheleth 10. 8. 284 PRE 28, and, with some embellishments, Yashar Wa-Yishlah, 63a-63b, where it is pointed out that Dinah went in company of the other female members of Jacob’s household, and not by herself.

Josephus, Antigqut., J, 21.1, says that Dinah went to the feast of the Shechemites. 285 Tan. B. I, 171-172; Tan. Wa-Yishlah 5-7; BR 80.1 (numerous parallel passages are cited by Theodor) and 80. 1. In all these passages the biblical saying ‘‘as the mother so the daughter” (Ezek. 16. 44) is applied to Dinah and Leah, both of whom liked to go out to be “looked upon”; comp. note 193. The interpretation of 313 286-291] The Legends of the Jews mx as inn? is old, though not in reference to Gen. 34. 1. Comp. Sanhedrin 4b. 286 Tekah Gen. 34. 4, and comp. Buber, ad loc. According to the chronology of Seder ‘Olam 2, Dinah was very young at the time when Jacob arrived in Shechem. 287 BR 80. 5; Koheleth 10. 8; Yoma 77b. Comp. also MHG I, 524, where °}, occurring four times in Gen. 34.2, is explained as 1 ““woe’’; comp. the similar Haggadah in reference to Gen. 9. 20, seq., in Sanhedrin 70a. 288 BR 80. 4 and 73. 9. On Dinah, the wife of Job, comp. note 3 on vol. II, p. 225. According to some (comp. note 25), Esau was not better than Job, for the former, too, was not circumcised. See also vol. I, pp. 411-412, where another sin of Jacob is given as the cause for his misfortune with Dinah. 289 Yashar Wa-Yishlah, 63b-69a. The old rapbinic sources give no particulars about the war against Shechem; they merely narrate that Jacob’s sons, ‘‘relying on the strength of the old man”, undertook to war against the heathens.

Jacob, though opposed to offensive wars, could not but come to the assistance of his sons, and girded with his sword, he stood at the gates of Shechem to repel the attacks of the enemy. See BR 80. 10 and 97. 6; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 48. 22. According to another view, the piety and prayers of Jacob warded off the threatening danger of an attack by the Amorites; comp. Baba Batra 123a; BR 97. 6; Aggadat Shir 3.8, 33; 2 Targum Yerushalmi Gen., loc. cit. Yashar combined these two views: at first the threatening danger was warded off by Jacob’s prayer; later, however, a fierce war broke out between the sons of Jacob and the Amorites. Comp. vol. I, pp. 408-411, and note 292. 29° 12 Testaments, Levi6.9. Eblaen is perhaps to be explained as being due to a misreading of the Hebrew original, where the text read May ‘‘his slave’”’ (=Eliezer) or y7ay ‘‘his slaves’. On the slaves brought up in Abraham’s house, comp. note 93 on vol. I, p. 231. For another justification of the killing of the Shechemites, see note 9 on vol. II, p. 198. 29 Midrash published by Schechter from a MS. in Semitic Studies (in memory of Kohut), 489-492. The text is not free from errors, and a few emendations may be given here. 490, line 19: read prnnn; ibid., below: myw yon AMT ond; 491, line 2; aw "WND; ibid., below: psbon aN” or mobon ANY. On Judah’s aime his teeth with a 314 Jacob , [292 frightful noise, see vol.

II, p. 106, and on the fleet-footed Naphtali vol. I, pp. 371 and 410, as well as vol. II, p. 25. Comp. the following note. 292 Midrash Wa-Yissa‘u, in Yalkut I, 132 (from there it is reprinted by Jellinek in BHM II, 1-5, who, it is to be regretted, did not make use of the first edition of the Yalkut, and hence his text contains numerous errors). Yashar Wa-Yishlah, 70b—79b, embellished and amplified the narrative of Wa-Yissa‘u, but had no other source for his verbose account of the war. Yerahmeel 36 agrees almost literally with Wa-Yissa‘u, whereas Jub. 24. 4-9 and 12 Testament, Judah, contain only fragments of this legend. It is generally assumed that this legend has preserved many a reminiscence of the events of the Maccabean wars. This is quite likely; but one must not forget that the fabulist is only slightly interested in history. On the relation of Wa-Yissa‘u to Jub. and Testaments the following may be stated. Instead of xm in Yashar and Testaments, Wa-Yissa‘u has “0n. This arouses the suspicion that the latter in its present form is a translation of a Greek or Latin text, which had no adequate transliteration of Hebrew ¥. Sartan, ‘‘the great and strong fortress’, is undoubtedly identical with the ‘‘tower of Straton”, the old name of Caesarea, the conquest of which by the Maccabees is almost the only historical event of the Maccabean period known to the old rabbinic sources. Comp.

Megillat Ta‘anit 3 (beginning), and Megillah 6a. The orthography ]070 instead of }07UD is not at all unusual;comp., é. g., NOIDN for RUWORKN “Strata’’, and see further Krauss, Lehnwérter, s. v. ww. A play on words (10D is the Aramaic word for ‘‘cancer’’) may have been intended. Instead of Gaash, Wa-Yissa‘u has wy, which is rather strange, as the use of 1 to indicate a Kamez gadol is uncommon, and besides this the current vocalization of this word is wyi and not wy). It is very doubtful whether Maani Sakir in Jub. ’ is to be emended to Shakir Maani, since Wa-Yissa‘u has Dv 7IND (ed. Jellinek 2; in the first edition of Yalkut 5 and 3 are hardly distinguishable), which can scarcely be rendered by Camp Shakir. Isidao of Jub. is very likely identical with °117"t in Wa-Yissa‘u, which is te be emended to 11", z. e., T8 77 ‘the curse villain’. \DIOD is, of course, the same as talmudic ND’DD or ND’DID, and the name of the place pnynp (fortified by Jonathan the Maccabee; 1 Maccabees 9. 50) is given by the legend to a person. On the text of Wa-Yissa‘u the following details may be noted: 1. 11 (in Jellinek) read mmin (he could throw two spears at once); ibid. the first edition has I™ 315 293-295] The Legends of the Jews mvb perhaps=m1> bin; 1. 21 read wD bn, and comp. 2 Sam. 23. 21; 1. 24 read by yam, and comp. Yashar, 72a, line 3; 2. 6 770 is better than 773; 2. 14 1D) 192%) is an adaptation from Esther 9.

9, and this mosaic style is strong evidence of the lateness of this compilation; 2. 10; the first edition reads my 410, and comp. Baba Kamma 20a p>p 710; 2. 17 mwn is hardly possible; ibid. Yashar misread bs ER mbn.—The medieval authors had, besides Wa-Yissa‘u, other sources dealing with the wars of the sons of Jacob. Nahmanides, Gen. 34. 13, and R. Bahya, Gen. 36. 6, quote, from the ‘‘Book of the Wars of the Sons of Jacob” (R. Bahya’s text is to be emended in accordance with Nahmanides, whom he very likely copies: Apy? 23 mony 7»d3), the legend that the Shechemites engaged in three great wars with the sons of Jacob, and if it were not for Jacob’s valor, his sons would have perished. Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge, 145, identifies ‘‘the Book of the Wars, etc.” with Wa-Yissa‘u; but the quotatigpn by Nahmanides and R. Bahya from the Sefer Milhamot is not found in Wa-Yissa‘u, and therefore these two books are not identical. Hadar, Gen. 48. 22, quotes, from Sefer Milhamot Bene Ya‘akob (the same as referred to by Nahmanides and R. Bahya?), the following account: The Shechemites (not Amorites as in Wa-Yissa‘u) assembled to war against Jacob and his sons, but were vanquished. And on this occasion Naphtali the swift runner (comp. note 216 and Index, s. v. ‘‘ Naphtali’’) carried Judah on his shoulders to the battle array (that is how this obscure passage is to be understood), who, assisted by his father and brothers, annihilated the enemy.

When later the sons of Jacob belittled the assistance rendered them by their father, maintaining that he was too old to be of any value as a warrior, he convinced them of their error by his great feats of vaior. The Sefer Milhamot referred to by Sabba, Wa-Yishlah, 46b, is very likely identical with Wa-Yissa‘u, as his quotation from the former book agrees with the beginning of the latter. On the other hand, it is safe to assume that Tan. B. Introduction 127, does not go back to Wa-Yissa‘u. Comp. notes 297 and 317. 793 WR 37. 1; Tan. Wa-Yishlah 8; Tan. B. I, 173, 174; BR 81. 2. Rachel’s death which occurred about this time is also attributed (in the above mentioned sources) to this sin of Jacob. On the encounter with the angel as a consequence of Jacob’s delay in fulfilling his vow, comp. vol. I, 387. See also vol. III, p. 90 (top). 294 Tan. B. I, 174; WR 37. 1; Tan. Wa-Yishlah 8; BR 81. 2. 295 Jub.31.2. Theear-rings, which were worn by the Shechemites, 316 Jacob , [296-301 and which, after the defeat of the latter, came into the possession of Jacob’s sons, were adorned with pictures of idols; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 35. 4, which is very likely based on BR 81.3. Comp. also Zohar I, 173a. 29° Yerushalmi ‘Abodah Zarah 5, 44d; BR 81. 3. Comp. also Julius Africanus in Syncellus, Chron. 107, al. 86. Comp. note 298, and note 5 on vol. IV, p. 22. 797 MHG I, 531. This passage also has the additional remark that this display of gigantic strength struck terror in the hearts of the Amorites, so that they gave up their intentions of undertaking a war against Jacob and hissons.

On the war planned by the Amorites against Jacob, comp. note 289 and BR 82.4. In the last-named passage it is said that the Amorites assembled for war at Hazor, and that is the reason why this city was later destroyed by Joshua (comp. Josh. 11. 13), who carried out the order given to him by Moses in accordance with the divine command. Midrash Aggada, Gen. 25. 2, reads: God caused the ground under the feet of the army assembled against Jacob to open as deep as the abyss, and a fire divided the heathen from Jacob and his sons, so that they were forced to abandon their plans. On Hazor comp. note 293. 298 Hullin 6a, and comp. Midrash quoted by Tosafot, ad loc., (beginning #3), which is not identical with any of the Midrashim cited in note 296. See also Hadar, Gen. 31.4. On the pillar comp. Lekah, Gen. 35. 14; 299 Jub. 31. 3-32, and 32. 4-29. It is said there that Jacob erected this altar on the first of the seventh month (7. e., on Rosh ha-Shanah), and offered sacrifices during eight successive days, from the fifteenth to the twenty-second (7.e., eight days of Tabernacles). Also in rabbinic sources it is said that Jacob celebrated this festival and, according to some authorities, he was the originator thereof. See Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 35. 14, and Abudrahim, Musaf Rosh haShanah (end). The last-named authority refers to Gen. 33. 17, where it is said that Jacob erected ‘“‘booths”’. 300 Vashar Wa-Yeze, 57b-58a, and Wa-Yishlah, 69a.

The similar Haggadah quoted in Rashi and Lekah on Gen. 35. 8 goes back to R. Moses ha-Darshan. Comp. Epstein, R. Mosheh ha-Darshan, 16. See also MHG JI, 532, and note 204. 3° Da‘at, Hadar, and Pa‘aneah on Gen. 35. 8 from a Midrash on Jud. 4. 5. Jub. 32. 30, reads: Jacob called Deborah’s burial-place “the river of Deborah’, and the oak, under which the grave was, 317 302-307] The Legends of the Jews “the oak of the mourners of Deborah.’’ The text is hardly correct; one cannot understand why a burial-place should be called a river. It is very likely that we have here a mistranslation of the Hebrew original, which read mma bm “‘the valley of Deborah’. But owing to the different meanings of the word $m the translator rendered it by “river”. Comp. note 12 on vol. I, p. 188. 392 PK 3, 23b-24a; PR 12, 48b; Tan. B. I, 176, and V, 36; Tan. Ki-Teze 4; BR 81. 5 and 82. 1; Koheleth 7. 2; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 35. 8; Yashar, Wa-Yishlah, 69a-69b. Contrary to this view of the old rabbinic sources, Yashar, in agreement with Jub. 35. 27, maintains that Rebekah died before Deborah. Comp. also Josephus, Antiqui., I, 22. 1, which reads: Rebekah died before Jacob returned home. Rebekah’s age at the time of her death was 158, according to Jub., but 133, according to Yashar. See also the unknown midrashic source in MHG I, 770. In the Tanhumas and Pesiktas, loc. cit., Deborah is described as Jacob’s nurse, which ig not to be emended to the nurse of Rebekah (to make it agree with Gen.

35. 8). These Midrashim understand the expression 7p37 npr Gen /. c. to mean “the nurse whom Rebekah employed for *her children.” 3°3 MHG I, 533; comp. Schechter, ad Joc., and note 215. Contrary to the view of MHG, Tan. B. IV, 19, and Tan. Bemidbar 19 which state that God and His ‘‘family”’ (=court) appeared to Jacob at Beth-el, BR 82. 4 explicitly states that it was only an angel who appeared to Jacob at Beth-el on his return from Mesopotamia. On the parallels between the history of Abraham and that of Jacob, see MHG I, 534-536, and parallel passages cited by Schechter, as well as Makiri, Ps. 61. 311, whose source is not Yelammedenu, as Buber maintains, but Tan. B. I, 176. 3°94 BR 82. 2-4; Tan. B. I, 176. On the joining of the name of God to those of the three partiarchs, comp. vol. II, pp. 225, 305, and 320; vol. IV, p. 424. See also the lengthy discussion on this point in Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 295, note 2. See also Philo, Mut. Nomin., 2, which reads: The Lord God of three natures (of instruction, of holiness, and of the practice of justice) of which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are recorded as the symbols. The same thought is expressed more elaborately in De Somniis, 1. 27. Comp. note 227. 3°5 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 35. 14. Comp. 299. 306 BR 78. 16. 3°7 Seder ‘Olam 2. This passage also states that Leah, the twin-sister of Rachel, died at the age of forty-four. Comp. Ratner, 318 Jacob | [308-312 ad loc., and MHG I, 538-539.

According to Yashar, Wa-Yishlah, 69b, Rachel died at the age of forty-five, at the same time when her father Laban died, as a punishment for breaking the covenant he had made with Jacob. 3°8 12 Testaments, Benjamin 1; Lekah, Gen. 35. 18. Yashar Wa-Yishlah, 69b, and Rashi, Gen. loc. cit., explain the name Benjamin as ‘‘son of the south’’. Jacob’s youngest son was so called because he was the only one of his children who was born in the south, Palestine, whereas all the others were born in the north (Mesopotamia). Jub. 32. 33 states that Benjamin was born at night. This is very likely a midrashic explanation of Benjamin as “‘son of days” (=]A2 0°’D’), which is taken to stand antiphrastically. Comp. Philo, Mut. Nomin., 15, who likewise connects this name with 0’9" ‘“‘days’”. The etymology of this name in BR 80. 11 is obscure. See also vol. III, p. 222 (top). 3°9 BR 82. 8, which states that each of the other sons of Jacob was born with one twin-sister, Benjamin with two. Comp. note 170. Baba Batra 123a objects to the idea of ‘‘twin-sisters’’, and admits it only in the case of Dinah. See, however, Jub. 33. 22, which reads: Dinah the only daughter of Jacob. 37° BR 82. 10. Comp. vol. II, p. 135, and vol. IV, p. 310. Jacob buried Rachel immediately after she died, and did not take her body to the family burial-place, because it is not proper to transport the corpses of women, especially those who died during childbirth.

See Yerushalmi Mo‘ed Katan 3, end and Babli 27b-28a; Responsum by R. Hai Gaon in Sha‘are Simhah Ii, 73. Comp. also R. Bahya, Gen. 35. 19, and Lekah, 35. 8. Each of Jacob’s sons took a stone and put it on the grave and these twelve stones make up Rachel’s tomb; Lekah 35, 20. 3%l Targum Yerushalmi, Lekah, and Jerome on Gen. 35. 21. Comp. also Targum Yerushalmi, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Kimhi on Micah A. 8. 312 BR 98. 4; Tan. B. I, 218; Shabbat 55b (the ‘‘confusion caused to the Shekinah”’ spoken of in this passage is to be explained in accordance with the haggadah about the Shekinah dwelling with husband and wife, if their union is holy; comp. vol. I, pp. 68-69). See also Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 35. 22; Yashar Wa-—Yishlah, 69b; Shitah Hadashah, 2 (after Leah’s death Jacob placed Bilhah upon the couch of his deceased wife, z. e., made her his principal wife); Hadar, Gen. 35. 22. Reuben sought, by some manipulation, (the same as 319 313-316] The Legends of the Jews mentioned in Gittin 57a; comp. also note 130 and 340 on vol. II, 56 and 127 respectively), to throw suspicion on Bilhah’s purity, in order to separate her from his father. Jacob, however, found out that he had no cause to suspect her. See also Zohar I, 175b and 176a. The pseudepigraphic writers make no attempt to exculpate Reuben; comp. vol. II, pp. 190-191, and note 382 on vol. II, p. 141. 313 Sifre D., 355; Midrash Tannaim 220.

314 BR 84. 19; PK 25, 159b; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 37. 29. Comp. note 60 on vol. II, p. 24, and note 40 on vol. II, p. 13. 315 Jub, 36. 1-8. Comp. the following note. 316 PRE 38; MHG I, 541; Yashar Wa-Yishlah, 92a-93a (it seems to have made use of Jub. 36. 1-8, which legend was blended with that of the rabbinic sources); Makiri, Prov. 28, 78a-79a. Esau made his choice at the advice of Ishmael (PRE), or Nebajoth (Yashar). God rewarded Esau for departing from Jacob, and gave him one hundred cities in Seir; PRE, Joc. cit., and ER 13, 65. This is very likely midrashic Haggadah on oy (Gen. 36. 43), which is explained as vy “city”, and 'o=nNDd “hundred”. Comp. Menahot 43b, below and Sanhedrin 7a: °ra AND iq. One feels inclined to assume that PRE is dependent upon ER, as the latter is extremely fond of the number one hundred; comp. 10, 54; 18, 106 and 107; 19, 113; 22, 121; 23, 124; EZ 9, 189. According to this Midrash, Esau withdrew to Seir only for a time, until Jacob and his descendants have paid the “debt of Abraham” by serving the Egyptians; comp. MHG I, 542 and 551, as well as notes 156, 234, and notes 138 on vol. III, p. 55. Zohar I, 177a, and Lekah, Gen. 25. 29, maintain (on the basis of Baba Batra 16b) that at the burial of Isaac, Esau did not recognize Jacob’s superiority, but claimed his birthright, and thus broke his oath with which he confirmed the sale of his rights to Jacob.

There are three legends which attempt to explain Israel’s exclusive right to the Holy Land and the cave of Machpelah. One dwells upon the fact that Esau, in selling his birthright to Jacob, renounced his claim to these two possessions (comp. vol. I, pp. 320-321); the second maintains that Jacob, on his return from Mesopotamia, acquired all claims from his brother; comp. vol. I, pp. 392-393, and the notes appertaining thereto,as wellas Yelammedenu in Sikli (published by Poznanski, froma MS., in Ha-Zofeh, 111, 20), where it is stated that on this occasion the brothers drew up an agreement to abide by the wish of Isaac as expressed in his blessings, to wit, that Jacob should inherit the world to come and Esau this world. The third legend justifies Israel’s claim to Palestine 320 Jacob + [317 on the ground that Esau, in emigrating to Seir, gave up his right to the land of his fathers; comp. the sources cited at the beginning of this note, as well as BR 82. 13 and 84. 1; Koheleth 9, 18; Yelammedenu in Sikli, Joc. cit.; Wa-Yissa‘u (end). Comp. the following note. 3*7 Wa-Yissa‘u in Yalkut I, 132=Jellinek in BHM III, 1, seg. Comp. note 292. Later additions to the original contents of Wa-Yissa‘u, dealing exclusively with the war, are the introductory parts which were taken over verbatim from BR 82. 13, and the passages introduced by 0°7018 w”) (taken from Sotah 13a), as well as the sentence explaining Joseph’s absence from the war.

The text is far from faultless, and the following emendations may be recorded here. 4, 9 (in Jellinek’s reprint) read bo>2; 5, 15 onpyw as in 18 (where the first edition has correctly b>) and as demanded by the context; 5, 20 read ben monday om omy 1d) Ja. ~=Yerahmeel, 37, literally agrees with the text of Wa-Yissa‘u in Yalkut, whereas Jub. 37 and 38 hasa different version of the account of the war against Esau, only a fragment of which has been preserved in 12 Testaments, Judah 9. In contrast to Jub. 37. 9 and 38, where Adoram is described as an Aramean, he is correctly called the Edomite in Wa-Yissa‘u, since this legendary figure owes his existence to the Edomite city Adorah (in Wa-Yissa‘u corrupted to })1178), where Esau was buried. The faulty text of Jub. is due to misreading °D78% as "978. In accordance with Testament of Judah, where the assault on the emeny’s citadel by Judah is the most important event in this war (it is very likely modelled upon the war against the Amorites; comp. vol. I, pp. 409-411), the passage in Wa-Yissa‘u 4, 16, is to be translated: Judah entered the rampart (=°n; see note 292), and took the iron tower by storm.—The conversation between Jacob and Esau is given in the text in accordance with Jub., loc. cit., which, it seems, is in need of emendation. Read: “Neither the children of men, nor the beasts of the field keep, etc.”, instead of ‘swear an oath”.

The Hebrew original probably had DWNT 19°p” xb, which the author employed in the sense of ‘“‘keep an oath”’, as in classical Hebrew; but the translator took this phrase in the sense used in Aramaic and later Hebrew, and hence rendered it by ‘‘swear’’. The statement of Sabba, Wa-Yishlah, 45a, that the Midrash describing the wars between Jacob and Esau (the 2 of monbna shows that monbp is not the title of the book; comp. note 292), speaks of a suddenattack by the latter on the former, very likely refers to Wa-Yissa‘u. In view of the fact that Sabba himself admits that he quotes from memory, the difference between his text 321 318-322] The Legends of the Jews and that of Wa-Yissa‘u (as, e. g., b-19 in Sabba instead of 772 in Wa-Yissa‘u) may be disregarded. Briill, Jahrbiicher, IX, 8, note 3, is to be corrected accordingly. For another legend about Esau’s death, see Sotah 13a, and vol. II, 154. A later hand added this account to the original composition of Wa-Yissa‘u. That this section did not form part of the original may be seen from the introductory words D918 Y. 318 Tan, B. I, 108; DR 2. 20; MHGI, 524. Wa-Yissa‘u (end) is accordingly to be emended to pny’ instead of apy’. On Eliphaz comp. further vol. I, pp. 346 and 356, as well as vol. III, p. 63. Hasidim 19 reads: Jacob had a Bet ha-Midrash which was attended even by the sons of Esau. This is perhaps based on Wa-Yissa‘u (end), where, according to our text, Eliphaz is considered a pupil of Jacob.

Comp. the following note. 319 Tan. B. I, 104 and 166; Aggadat Bereshit 55, 110-114; Tan. B. I, 108. See also Makiri, Obadiah (end), and Ma‘yan Gannim 4. 1, both of whom very likely made use of Aggadat Bereshit, and not of an unknown Midrash on Job, as maintained by Wertheimer, Leket Midrashim, 5. The identity of Job’s friend Eliphaz with Esau’s son bearing the same name is maintained also by Jerome, Gen. 36. 10. Comp. notes 31-32 on vol. II, p. 236. BR 82. 12 (see also MHG I, 54), on the contrary, asserts that Eliphaz was very wicked and had unchaste relations with his father’s wife, who bore him children. 32° Sanhedrin 99b; MHG I, 542; Yashar, Wa-Yishlah, 70a. BR 80. 14, on the contrary, says: As a reward for the honor which Esau paid to his father, he was so highly esteemed by his contemporaries that princesses considered it a great honor to become related to his house by marriage. From this one may infer the great respect enjoyed by Jacob who was by far his brother’s superior. Comp. BaR 14. 10; note 138 on vol. III, p. 55. 37% Yashar Wa-Yishlah, 70a. Similarly Zohar I, 188a—-188b, reads: Anah met demons in the desert, the place where evil spirits dwell. 372 Yerushalmi Berakot 8, 12b; BR 80. 15; Pesahim 54a. Zohar I, 188b, combines this view on 0°n"7 (Gen. 36. 24) with the one given in the preceding note. Jerome, Gen. /.c., offers three explanations of 0’2’"71 communicated to him by his Jewish masters.

According to one, it refers to the mules which Eliphaz produced by crossing the horse with the ass, or rather by observing these animals mating with one 322 Jacob , [323-326 another. The other explanation considers 0°9’7 to be identical with pon ‘wells of water’. The third view refers it to the hot springs (a’nm) which he found. Onkelos and Lekah on Gen. J. c., take DDN in the sense of D’ONT “‘the awful beings’? (comp. Hullin 6a), and Ephraim, I, 105 E, shares this view, whereas Targum Yerushalmi, ad loc., agrees with Pesahim, loc. cit. This talmudic reference records also another opinion, according to which Adam crossed the horse with the ass.—The Haggadah finds in the names of Esau and his descendants and in those of their dwelling-places hints at their wicked and impious mode of life. See BR 82 .4; PRE 38 (this is the source of Rashi, Gen. 36. 43), and in amplified form, Sekel 1, 207-212 (based on an unknown midrashic source). Comp. also Tan. Wa-Yesheb 1; Shabbat 85a, and MHG I, 542, where it is stated that the inhabitants of Seir were great experts in agriculture. 323 BR 83. 1-2; MHG I, 546 and 547-548. On foreigners as kings of Edom (Rome), see also Hullin 56b; ShR 37. 1; BaR 14. 10 (Bela, Jobab, and Husham were the only Edomites, while the other kings were foreigners); vol. II, p. 156. Just as the Romans (Edomites) had no kings of their own, even so they had to borrow their language and script from other nations; comp.

‘Abodah Zarah 10a; Yerushalmi Megillah 1. 7ic; Esther 1. 22; Targum 1 Chron. 1. 43; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 36. 32; Krauss, Lehnworter, s. v. 721)3. 324 Targum 1 Chron. 1. 43; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 36. 32. Comp. also Monatsschrift, XLIV, 35, as well as Ginzberg, Haggadah bet den Kirchenv., 123. According to BaR 14. 10 Bela is a surname of Esau; comp. the preceding note. 325 BR 83. 3. On the view that Job=Jobab, comp. note 3 on vol. II, p. 225. 326 MHG I, 548.