Notes: Joseph

I. JOSEPH Vol. I (pp. 1—184) 1 BR 84. 2-4; MHG I, 552-553. On the conception that the life of the pious is a pilgrimage, see Tan. B. I, 179; Aggadat Bereshit 57, 117; notes 327, 260 on vol. I, p. 280. Concerning Abraham’s proselytizing activity, see vol. I, p.219. On Isaac’s activity in this direction, see R. Bahya on Gen. 26. 15. 2 Seder ‘Olam 2. During this short period, however, his life was very happy (Josephus, Antiguz., II, 2. 1), especially from the moment Esau emigrated from the Holy Land (Tan. B. I, 178; MHG I, 541542), so that Jacob could live at his father’s place in Hebron (MHG I, 553-554), and discharge his filial duties, which he had been compelled to neglect for twenty-two years; see Seder ‘Olam, Joc. cit. 3 BR 84. 5 and 87.°8; Mekilta Beshallah 3, 29b; Mekilta RS 48 (an entire sentence, which fell out through a homoioteleuton, is to be restored in accordance with the text of our Mekilta, loc. cit.); Tan. Wa-Yesheb 9; Pekude 11; Naso 30; Tan. B. I, 179 and 188, as well as 206, and IV, 45; Tehillim 114, 475, and 20, 175 (which reads: The final redemption will take place on account of the merits of Joseph; see also MHG I, 544); Yelammedenu in ‘Arwk, s. v. ]pt; Zohar I, 180a, 182b, and 222a; II, 49a and 230b; III, 214a; 12 Testaments, Joseph 18 (according to Jub. 21, 9, it was Levi and Judah, not Joseph, who resembled their father most closely in appearance); Targum Yerushalmi Gen.

36. 2-3. Comp. also the following three notes. In 12 Testaments, Benjamin 12, Joseph is designated as ‘“‘the good and pious one” (the reading “the beautiful one’’ lacks support), and this is in agreement with the rabbinic and pseudepigraphic sources which frequently give Joseph the title poxn “the pious one”. Comp. Yoma 35b; ARN 16, 63 and 160; PRE 38 (=12 Testaments, Zebulun 3); BR 93. 7, 11, as well as 95. 4; ER 16, 83; 4 Maccabees 2. 2 (which has ‘‘the virtuous Joseph”, undoubtedly representing px, though it is not its literal translation); Ascension of Isaiah 4 (end); Shir 6. 12; Koheleth 19. 15; an unknown Midrash quoted in MHG I, 580 (t), 582 (w"*), 590 (top) 324 Joseph , (4-6 and 602. There can be no doubt that this title was conferred on Joseph on account of his virtuous victory over the wiles of his master’s wife, as expressly stated in 4 Maccabees, loc. cit. Hence the statement of the Kabbalists that he who keeps himself sexually clean deserves the title p’1x like Joseph; comp. Abkat Rokel 2. 2 and Zohar I, 59b. In the kabbalistic literature Joseph is hardly ever mentioned without this title; comp., e. g., Zohar I, 59b, 71b, 85a, 153b, 158a, 189b, 194b, 204a, 206b, 207a, 208a, 246b; II, 23a, 258a; III, 14a, 26a, 189a, 242b. In later books, owing to the influence of this literature, this title of Joseph is of frequent occurrence, and it is interesting to note that sometimes later recensions of liturgic compositions read p’7xm *}DV, whereas the old sources of the very same pieces only have 40” without any epithet; comp.

e. g., the prayer רבונו של עולם in Berakot 55b and Makiri, Prov. 24. 17, where all manuscripts and editions read יוסף only, whereas the prayer-books (רובן) have יוסף הצדיק. Attention is also to be called to the fact that the liturgic composition אגיל ואשמח which is of geonic times speaks of יוסף and not of יוסף הצדיק. Grünbaum, Gesammelte Aufsätze, 545, and Schapiro, Haggadische Elemente, 36, are to be corrected accordingly. Some of the Midrashim explain צדיק as ‘‘one who practises charity”, צדקה, and remark that only Joseph and Noah bore that name of distinction because both of them provided man and beast with food in the time of famine and distress; comp. Tan. B. J, 31; Tan. Noah 3; Yelammedenu in Recanati, Wa-Yesheb; Zohar I, 208a. The title חסיד is very rarely conferred upon Joseph; comp. Abba Gorion 2, and parallel passages cited by Buber. This passage reads: Joseph the first of the חסידים. See also Shemuel 5, 63 (the correct text is to be found in MHG f, 589); Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 744 (ב״נ); MHG I, 579. The Muslim writers, following Jewish custom, give Joseph the title al-Ziddik; but ignorant of Hebrew, they explain it in accordance with the Arabic meaning of צדק as “truthful one’. Comp. Excurs. II; Joseph. The use of the epithet הצדיק after Joseph’s name is by far more frequent among Arabic-speaking Jews than among other Jews; comp., e. g., Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, II, 34 and 48, as well as III, 46.

On the reason of this epithet see also Lekah, Gen. 45. 15. 4 BR 84. 6; BaR 14. 5; Tan. B. I, 179; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 1 (end) and Mikkez 3; MHG I, 554-555. Comp. vol. IV, p. 201 (top). 5 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 37. 2. Comp. notes 3 and 6. 6 MHG I, 553; Yelammedenu 24-25(=BHM VI, 82), with the additional remark that he studied under the guidance of Jacob and 325 7—1"7] The Legends of the Jews Isaac; Philo, De Josepho, 1; Josephus, Antiqui., II, 2. 1; Zohar III, 207. On the view that the life of a shepherd is the proper preparation for a ruler, comp. vol. II, pp. 300-301. 7 MHG I, 555; Yelammedenu 25 (=BHM VI, 82), which reads: The sons of the handmaids were treated by the other sons of Jacob with contempt, but Joseph offered his services to them, as though he were their slave. Comp. the sources quoted in the following two notes. 8 BR 84. 7; Yerushalmi Peah I, 15d—16a; Tan. B. I, 180; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 7. See the following note. 9 12 Testaments, Gad 2. The rabbinic sources cited in the two preceding notes, on the contrary, are of the opinion that the relation between Joseph and the sons of the handmaids were very friendly, whereas the relations between the ‘‘sons of the ladies’’, on the one hand, and the sons of the handmaids and Joseph, on the other, were strained. PRE 28 and Targum Yerushalmi Gen., 37. 2 share the view of 12 Testaments. ¥0 Zohar I, 216b. *t BR 84. 8-10; Tan.

Wa-Yesheb 4; Aggadat Bereshit 60, 123124; comp. also R. Bahya; Gen. 37. 3, who very likely made use of Aggadat Bereshit. According to the view of later authors, Joseph’s coat was the holy tunic of the priest; comp. Keli Yakar, Gen., loc. cit. The frankness of Joseph’s brethren may be taken as a contrast to Esau’s cunning in concealing his feelings towards Jacob; comp. note 109 on vol. I, p. 342. Philo, De Josepho, 2, likewise remarks: The virtuous man loves and hates openly; hidden hatred is evidence of fear. But he maintains that Joseph’s brethern acted like cowards, and tried to conceal their enmity. See also Palkera, Ha-Mebakkesh, 17a. On the dividing of the Red Sea, comp. vol. II, p. 3 (below), and vol. III, p. 201. ™2 Lekah Gen. 36. 6; MHG I, 559. *3 MHG I, 560; BR 84. 10. Comp. also Josephus, Antiqui., II, 2. 2. ™4 Josephus, Antiqui., II, 2. 3. *5 BR 67. 10 and 84. 11; MHG I, 560. Comp. the following note. a 6 MHG I, 560; comp. Dan. 12. 3, and Yerushalmi Nedarim 3, 38a. Josephus, Antiqui., II, 2. 3, gives a somewhat different interpretation of the dream. 17 BR 84. 11-12. Similarly Philo, De Josepho, 2, and Josephus, 326 Joseph » [18-29 Antiqui., II, 2. 3, assert that Jacob was convinced of the truth of the dream, but for the sake of peace, in order not to arouse the envy of his other sons, he rebuked Joseph for telling his dreams. Berakot 55a-S5b reads: A dream may be partly fulfilled, but never in its entirety, as may be seen from Joseph who dreamed that his mother would appear before him, and yet she had already been dead.

Comp. notes 18 and 20. 78 Lekah Gen. 37. 10, according to which rmx 5m) is to be translated ‘‘in the presence of his brethren”, The same view is expressed by Josephus, Antigui., II, 2. 3. Comp. preceding note as well as note 20. 79 BR 84. 11. 2° Lekah, Gen. 37. 11. Comp. notes 17 and 18. 7. BR 84. 13; Sifre N., 69; Mishle 26. 99; ARN 34, 10; second version 37, 99. In all these sources, with the exception of the lastnamed, the dots on ns in Gen. 37. 12 indicate that it is to be read as Ooms (they went to enjoy themselves), whereas according to ARN, loc. cit., these dots draw attention to the fact that the sons of Jacob drove the flock to the pasture for their own pleasure, to enjoy the meat of the fattened animals. Comp. vol. II, p. 6. Accordingly there is no need to emend the text of ARN. See Theodor, BR, ad loc. and Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen, 23-25. 22 Yashar Wa-Yesheb 80b; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 37. 13; similarly Josephus, Antigquz., II, 2. 4. 273 BR 84. 13; Tan. B. I, 183; comp. Hasidim 233 and note 442 appertaining toit. Philo, De Josepho, 2, reads: Jacobsent his sons away for a time, retaining only Joseph with him, as the suffering of the soul is cured only by time; and when he thought that the ill-feeling of his sons against Joseph had subsided, he sent the latter to inquire after their welfare. 24 Hullin 91b. Comp. vol. II, pp. 99, 115, as well as vol. IV, p. 137; See also notes 254 and 292.

25 MHG I, 562. On unconscious prophecies see note 239 on vol. peli. 26 BR 84. 13 and 86. 1-2; Tan. B. I, 183 and 185, as well as 188; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 4; Sotah 11b; Shabbat 89b; Aggadat Bereshit 69, 122-123; Tehillim 115, 450. Comp. note 32. 27 Sanhedrin 102a; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 2. 28 Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 80b. 29 PRE 38; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 37. 15; Tan. B. I, 183, 327 30-41] The Legends of the Jews 163; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 2; Hadar, ad loc. (which reads: Raphael); BR 84. 14 (three angels). Comp. also MHG I, 562. Philo, Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat, 7, seems to have known the Haggadah about the angel meeting Joseph, and in his rationalistic manner changed the angel for the soul; comp. Zohar I, 184a. The name Dothan (דתנה) in Gen. 37. 17 refers to the angel, who is thus designated becausehe observes the law (דת) of God. Comp. Tan., loc. cit. S°RP REGS: 3* Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 37. 17. Comp. notes 22 and 26, as well as Targum Yerushalmi 14. SaaS. 33 BR 84. 14; Tan. B. I, 183. These Midrashim take מרחוק (Gen. 37. 18) as qualifying להמיתו, i. e., to kill him while he was still far off by setting dogs on him. According to some’ authorities, they drew lots to decide upon the mode of killing him. Comp. Aggadat Bereshit 60, 23; R. Bahya on Gen. 37. 3; Mishle 3, 45. 34 12 Testaments, Zebulun 2. According to a widespread view in rabbinic literature (comp. note 41), it was Simeon and Levi who advised to put Joseph to death, and if not for Reuben and Judah they would have killed him.

In the 12 Testaments Levi is idealized as a prophet and priest, and therefore the réle of a bloodthirsty plotter had to be taken away from him and assigned to another brother (comp. note 41). Gad and Dan (12 Testaments, Gad 2 and Dan 1) are the competitors for this unenviable réle of the villain. As to the dry pit, comp. note 63 on vol. I, p. 324. 35 BR 84. 15. 36 Josephus, Amtiqui., II, 3. 1-3. Reuben hoped to enable Joseph to escape during the night; Josephus, Joc. cit., and PRE 38. On the conception that to cause one’s death is not as grievous a sin as to commit murder, see vol. II, p. 251, as well as the Halakah in Baba Kamma 24b. 37 Lekah Gen. 37. 30; comp. Zohar I, 185a-185b, which is very likely the source of Sabba, Wa-Yesheb, 48a. 38 MHG I, 562-563 and the parallel passages cited by Schechter, as well as ARN 45, 125. iy 39 BR 84. 15; Shemuel 9, 75; Makkot 10a. 4° PK 25, 159b; MHG I, 563. For another version of this Haggadah see note 314 on vol. J, p. 416. 47 BR 84, 16; Tan. B. I, 184; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 2; Yashar WaYesheb, 81a; Shabbat 22a; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 38.27. Josephus 328 Joseph , [42-50 Antiqui., II, 3. 2, asserts that Reuben himself threw Joseph into the pit, but with the intention of saving him; comp. note 36. It is to be observed that although both Simeon and Levi are described as the plotters against Joseph’s life (BR 99. 10; Tan. B. I, 183; Tan.

Wa-Yesheb 9; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 37. 19), yet it is only Simeon who is declared to have thrown him into the pit in all the sources mentioned above, with the exception of Mishle I, 44, where Levi is said to have been Simeon’s accomplice in this undertaking also.. In view of the remark of note 34, it is possible that Mishle has preserved the original form of this legend, while the other sources attempted to exonerate Levi, with the result that in the Testaments (comp. note 34) and Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 42. 24 there is not the faintest allusion to Levi’s enmity towards Joseph. Philo, De Josepho, 30, likewise puts the entire blame on Simeon. 42 Tan. B. J, 184, whence it was incorporated in Yalkut I, 142. 43 BR 84. 16, which is followed by Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 37. 3. פרגוד מצוייר is a paraphrase of פסים, which accordingly is not to be translated ‘‘a coat of many colors’, but ‘‘an upper garment in which figures are woven,’’ in accordance with mishnaic פספסין; comp. Nega‘im 11. 6. 44 Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 8la. Comp. notes 33 and 34. 45 12 Testaments, Zebulun 4. 46 PR 10, 40b; Tan. Ki-Tissa 2. Against this view which praises Judah’s interference is directed the statement of R. Meir in Sanhedrin 6b, blaming Judah for his half-hearted stand, for he could have saved Joseph from slavery just as he saved him from death. See also Tosefta Berakot 4. 18 and 1 Alphabet of Ben Sira 13a, as well as note 388 on vol.

III, p. 195. 47 Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 81b. Comp. the following note. 48 PRE 38; BR 84. 17; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 2. Against this view comp. vol. II, p. 217, according to which Judah sold Joseph without the knowledge of his brethren. 49 Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 81b-82a. As to Simeon’s terrible voice see vol. II, pp. 86 and 106, as well as vol. IV, p. 35. That Simeon is here the spokesman of his brethren is to be explained in accordance with notes 34 and 41. 5° Tehillim 10, 93. The great sin of the sons of Jacob was never forgiven, so that each generation of Israelites has to bear its share of suffering as an atonement. The death of the “‘ten martyrs’’ (comp. Index, s. 2.) especially was a partial payment of this debt. These 329 51-59] The Legends of the Jews great men suffered for the crime of the ten sons of Jacob. Comp. Mishle 1, 45; Elleh Ezkerah 64; Midrash Shir 3a-3b; Kaftor wa-Ferah, 412. See further BR 84.17; note 62 and note 14 on vol. II, p. 216. 52 Tan. Wa-Yesheb 2; PRE 38 (the text of the editions is very likely incomplete; comp. Da‘at and Hadar, Gen. 37. 2); MHG J, 564; ‘Asarah Haruge Malkut 20. On the text of the last-named source see Da‘at and Hadar, loc. cit. According to the reading of the lastmentioned sources, the angel changed Joseph’s sallow and sickly complexion into a rosy and ruddy one, and that is the reason why the brethren asked a higher price for him.

The Midianites added a pair of shoes for each one of them. The shoes as part of the price (comp. Amos 2. 6) are also mentioned in 12 Testaments, Zebulun 4, and in Targum Yerushalmi Gen., loc. cit. Comp. the sources cited in the following note. 52 ‘Asarah Haruge Malkut 20, whence it was borrowed by Da‘at, Hadar, and Imre No‘am on Gen. 38. 22-23. In Hadar and Imre No‘am Raphael (comp. vol. II, p. 10 and note 28) is substituted for Gabriel. This is due tothe fact that the former is the angel of healing (comp. Index, s. v.), and is thus more likely to have been the one to bring about an improvement in Joseph’s health. Comp. the previous note. Schapiro, Haggadische Elemente, 27, is to be corrected accordingly. The view that the shoes were an addition to the price proper removes the contradiction between Gen. 37. 28 and Amos 2. 6. Comp. previous note. 53 Yerushalmi Shekalim 2, 46d; PK 1, 19b-20a; BR 84. 18; Tan. Ki-tissa 10; comp. MHG I, 564, and vol. III, p. 148. 5412 Testaments, Zebulun 3; comp. notes 51, 52. He who refuses to enter into a levirate marriage shows that he is lacking in brotherly love, and hence the ceremony of taking off the shoes brands him as one who is like Joseph’s brethren. 55 Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 82b. Concerning the various masters who possessed Joseph, see note 99. 5® Tosefta Berakot 4. 16; BR 84. 17. 57 Midrash Shir 3a. Comp. vol. IV, p. 242, and the following note.

58 Aggadat Shir 1, 12, where the general assertion is made that by the odor of the dead bones one may distinguish between the pious and the wicked, between Jew and Gentile, between man and woman. Comp. note 92 on vol. I, p. 334, and note 2 on vol. III, p. 5. 59 Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 82b-84a and 85b-86a. The author was 330 Joseph | [60-65 perhaps acquainted with the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Comp. vol. II, pp. 34-42 and 220-221. 6° BR 84. 19; PK 25, 159a-159b; Mishle 1, 45; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 37. 29. Reuben is very often referred to in the Haggadah of the earliest Tannaim and the latest Amoraim as the type of the “penitent”’; comp. the sources cited in the notes on vol. I, p. 416; vol. II, pp. 36, 131, 141, 190; vol. III, pp. 199, 220, 223, 232, 462; vol. IV, p. 360. Comp. also Schechter, Zadokite Fragments, 27, note 66. Charles, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Introduction, 15, note 1, is accordingly in error when he maintains that the old rabbinic literature does not know of the ‘‘penitent Reuben”, and the conclusion he draws from this assumption is quite untenable. Comp. Ginzberg in Journal of Bibl. Lit., XLI, 119. 6% Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 84a-84b, partly following older sources; comp. BR 86. 14, and vol. II, pp. 30, 205. Issachar, as the ancestor of the “tribe of the wise’’ (comp. note 391), gives a wise counsel. 62 MHG I, 565; BR 84. 19; Lekah and Targum Yerushalmi on Gen.

37. 31. Zohar I, 185b adds: Just as Jacob deceived his father by means of a young goat, even so was he deceived by means of a young goat. Comp. notes 65, 87-88 and note 88 on vol. I, p. 332. As to the gravity of the sin, comp. note 50. 63 12 Testaments, Zebulun 4. 64 Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 84a-85a, which in many points resembles the description given by Philo, De Josepho, 3. The lamentation on Joseph closes with the acknowledgment of God’s justice צדקת הדין. Comp. vol. I, p. 286 and note 256 appertaining to it. Joseph’s coat, soiled with blood and dust (comp. Philo, Joc. cit.; Yashar 84b; Da‘at. and Hadar on Gen. 37. 31), was brought to Jacob. According to Yashar the coat was brought by the swift messenger Naphtali (comp. note 216, on vol. I, p. 371); but the older sources maintain that it was Judah (BR 84. 8 and 95. 2; Tan. B. I, 209; BaR 13. 14; Aggadat Bereshit 60, 124), and that lots were drawn to decide who should bring the message to their father. Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 37. 25 agrees with the older sources, but in 37. 32 it states that the sons of the bondwomen brought the sad news to their father. 65 Jub. 34. 14-19; comp. note 62. According to the views of the Rabbis, Bilhah survived Jacob; see vol. II, p. 167. Dinah is mentioned in Gen. 46. 15 among the members of Jacob’s family who emigrated to Egypt many years after Joseph had been sold into slavery, Comp. note 96. 331 66-74] The Legends of the Jews 66 Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 85a-85b.

This legend seems to be of Arabic origin, since in genuinely Jewish legends animals do not talk. 67 Soferim 21; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 37. 33. The latter source made use of BR 84. 19, but changed the unconscious prophecy of the Midrash into a conscious one. On the number 12 in Jewish legends, comp. Zunz, Literaturgeschichte, 601-602, and see further ER II, 29-30; Tan. B. I, 181 and 222; MHG II, 4. 68 PRE 38; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 2; MHG J, 564. Comp. notes 66, 198, and 370. 69 BR 84. 21; comp. Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 85a, where Isaac’s mourning for Joseph is spoken of. Different views have been expressed with regard to Jacob’s daughters mentioned in Gen, 37. 35. According to one opinion, the daughters-in-law are meant by the word ‘‘daughters’’, but another view maintains that this word refers to the twin-sisters of the twelve sons; comp. the soyirces cited in note 170 on vol. I, p. 362. Yashar, Joc. cit., has yay mia, the daughters of his slaves, instead of yma. On Isaac ‘‘the prophet”’ comp. note 78 on vol. I, p. 330. . 7° Tan. B. I, 180 and 221. BR 24. 5, Shir 15. 6, and Aggadat Bereshit 72, 141-142, dwell upon the fact that the existence of the twelve tribes is a part of the plan of creation. Were it not for his sin, Adam would have been the father of the twelve tribes. See also notes 67 and 428. 7* Rashi on Gen. 37. 35, which is based upon an unknown midtashic source somewhat similar to Tan.

B. I, 204 and Tan. Wa-Yiggash 9; but neither of these two is Rashi’s source. Comp. note 320. 7? BR 84. 20; Megillah 17a. Comp. note 2 and note 240 on vol. I, p. 381. 73 BR 84. 20; Esther 4. 1. 74 Tan. B. I, 181, 183, 209; BR 85. 3; DR 7. 4; Tan. ‘Ekeb 6; ShR 42. 3; Aggadat Bereshit 60, 123-124; Sotah 13b; Tan. Ki-Tissa 22; Zohar I, 186a. In all these sources Judah is blamed for two things: First for his failure to complete the good deed he began, since he might have restored Joseph to his father after he saved him from death and not sold him into slavery (comp. vol. II, p. 37). Secondly, for having delivered Joseph’s coat to his father with the words “ Discern now whether it is thy son’s coat or not’? (Gen. 37. 23). Judah’s punishment for these deceitful words correspond to his sin: Tamar said to him: ‘‘Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, etc." (bid. 38. 332 Joseph , [75-80 25). Comp. notes 46, 64. That Judah was the leader of his brethren is also found in Philo, De Josepho, 32. On the basis of the Haggadah in the Midrashim just quoted, Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 38. 1 paraphrases 177) by ‘‘And he became poor”; comp. Yerushalmi Peah 1, 19a, and WR 34. 13, for the explanation of o’T110 in Is. 58.7. Comp. note 95. 75°12 Testaments, Judah 9, 8, and 11 (verses 1-2 in the last passage ought to be transferred to 8. 2). On Judah’s marriage see also vol. II, pp. 37 and 199.

76 MHG I, 569-570. Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 38. 3 dwells upon the fact that Judah did not marry his wife before converting her to Judaism. Comp. note 96. 77 BR 85. 1; Tan. B. I, 182; Aggadat Bereshit 63, 128. 78 BR 85. 4; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 38. 3; MHG I, 570. 79 12 Testaments, Judah 10. The Bible does not specify the nature of Er’s sin; but the Rabbis maintain that he committed the same sin as Onan; see Yerushalmi Ketubot 7, 31 (y= yp); BR 85. 4; Yebamot 34b; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 38. 7; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 90b. It is possible that in the Hebrew original of the Testaments the same view was expressed. Comp. Excursus II; Judah. On the expression 7 1N2D ANN ODI WT and m2 w71N used in BR to describe onanism (severely condemned in rabbinic sources; comp., e. g., Niddah 13a), see MHG I, 570; PRE 21 (beginning); Shir 4. 13. While 12 Testaments, Joc. cit., and Jub. 41. 1 describe Tamar as the daughter of Aram, the rabbinic sources declare Shem to have been her father. It is true that Shem was the father of Aram (Gen. 10. 21), and there would be no difficulty in taking “father” in the sense of “grandfather’. Moreover in view of the fact that Shem is by far more famous than hisson Aram, thereason for describing Tamar asthe daughter of Shem is quite obvious. Nevertheless the context in which the Rabbis speak of Tamar as Shem’s daughter (comp. vol. II, p. 35) shows clearly that they were of the opinion that she was his daughter and not his grand-daughter; comp.

BR 85. 10; Tan. B. I, 187; Aggadat Bereshit 63, 129; Ruth R (end); Targum Yerushalmi, loc. cit. Only Yashar, loc. cit., considers Tamar to have been a grand-daughter of Shem by his first-born son Elam. Comp. Excursus II; Judah. For the etymological explanations of the name Tamar, see Lekah and Sekel on Gen. 38. 6. 0° BR 85. 4; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 38. 4; MHG I, 570. 333 81-86] The Legends of the Jews 8t 12 Testaments, Judah 10-11. In Sotah 13b and in the sources cited in note 74 the death of Judah’s wife and children is declared to have been his punishment for having sold Joseph into slavery. For he was mainly responsible for this sin; comp. vol. II, pp. 31-32. Many etymological explanations are given of the name Shelah, see BR 85. 4; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 38. 5; MHG 1,570. With regard to 3132 (Gen. 38. 5) an opinion is quoted according to which it is not a name of a place but a noun derived from the root AID; this verse is thus to be translated: ‘‘And she stopped bearing children after the birth of this one”; see BR, loc. cit., where two explanations of a’?1D3 are combined into one; Targum Yerushalmi and MHG, loc. cit. 82 BR 85. 6-9; Sotah; 10a—-10b; Yer. Ketubot 13 (beginning) ; MHG I, 569 (3); Zohar I, 188a-188b. According to Seder ‘Olam 2, the difference in age between Er and Onan was only one year; they married at the age of seven, and died a year after their marriage.

Philo, De Virtutibus, De Nobilitate, 6, gives an idealized picture of Tamar, “who was reared in the house of idolaters, but became converted to the belief in one God, and by the purity of her life she acquired nobility for her descendants.” He further adds that although Tamar was of the race of the Palestinian Syrians (not Canaanitish!), she was nevertheless a free woman; her parents, too, were free people, yea, probably distinguished persons. On the view that Tamar was a convert to Judaism from idolatry, see note 76 and Sotah 10a, where she is described as a proselyte. For a different opinion comp. note 79. 83 MHGI, 572. 84 Sotah 10a, as a haggadic interpretation of ory mnDa (Gen. 38. 14), which is explained to mean: The gate to which the eyes of all are turned. For other haggadic interpretations of these words comp. Yerushalmi Sotah 1. 16d-17a; BR 85. 7; Tan. B. I, 186-187; Shemuel 6, 67; MHG I, 573 (1"5); Targum Yerushalmi, ad loc. See also note 86. 85 Megillah 10b; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 38.15 BR 85.8 and Tan. I, 187 warn against following Judah’s example and refraining, out of excessive prudery, from looking at one’s female relatives. If Judah had not been too modest, the shocking incident with Tamar would never have happened. 86 BR 85. 7, and the sources referred to in note 84. Tan. B. I, 187, has Michael instead of the ‘‘angel of love’’, of the other sources. On the text of Tan.

see Hadar, Gen. 38. 15. When Moses ascended into heaven, ‘‘the great prince’’ Michael met him, with the intention 334 Joseph, [8790 of consuming him with the breath of his mouth, and said unto him: “What hast thou, that art born of woman, to do here in the place of the holy ones (=angels)?’”” Moses rejoined: ‘And who art thou, and what is thy rank?” “‘I am as important as Judah the son of Jacob”, replied Michael. From this it may be inferred that Judah was a very pious and holy man. He betook himself to Tamar only after he had been compelled to do so by an angel; Tan. B. (Introduction) 128-129; read "77 instead of 7 byw. 87 BR 85. 9; 12 Testaments, Judah 15. 3, and in abridged form 12. 4. Shu‘aib, Wa-Yesheb, 18d, quotes, from an unknown Midrash, a different explanation of the three pledges.—Just as Jacob deceived his father by means of a young goat (comp. note 62), even so did Tamar deceive Judah by means of a young goat; BR, Joc. cit. Comp. note 74, 88 Tan. B. I, 187; BR 85. 10; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 38. 24. Comp. note 79, and the following note. 89 Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 38. 25-26; Sotah 10b, which reads: Sammael hid the pledges, so that Tamar’s innocence should not be proved thereby; but Gabriel (=Michael in Palestinian sources; comp. Index, s. v.) brought them back. See also Tan. B., Introduction, 127 (here also Gabriel is mentioned; but this passage is not based on the Talmud); Makkot 23b, where it is stated that Shem was the presiding judge, and accordingly in Tan.

B. I, 187 py should be read and not ov; BR 85. 1 (here the Holy One, blessed be He, m’apn, takes the place of the angel); Koheleth 10. 16; Tehillim 72, 325; Shemuel 14, 91. In the last-named five sources the additional remark is found to the effect that on this occasion, as well as at the time when Samuel asserted his incorruptibility and disinterestedness (1 Sam. 12. 3, seq.), and when Solomon pronounced his judgment on the dispute of the two mothers (1 Kings 3. 24, seg.), a heavenly voice was heard to corroborate the statement made by the mortals.—Tan. B. I, 187-188, and Aggadat Bereshit 17, 35, remark that the “‘three youths” were saved from death in the furnace as a reward for the pious deed of their ancestor Judah, who had saved three lives from death by fire: Tamar and her two sons. Comp. also MHG I, 577-578. 9° Sifre D., 348; Midrash Tannaim 214; Tan. B. I, 188. Comp. note 60, and vol. III, p. 455. As a reward for his frank confession of his sin, Judah was granted royal dignity; Tosefta Berakot 4. 17; 335 91-97] The Legends of the Jews Mekilta Beshallah 5, 3ib, and parallel passages cited by Friedmann; ShR 30. 19. 9< BR 85. 9; Tan. B. I, 188, which remarks: They were kings like their father; MHG I, 574. 92 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 38. 29, and somewhat different in BR 85. 19, where the name Perez (=/7) is taken to be an allusion to the Messiah, who is called ‘‘the breaker’ (comp.

Micah 2. 13), and who is a descendant of Perez, the son of Judah. See also Lekah Gen., loc. cit., and MHG I, 579, which reads: Perez, he who broke through his mother’s womb. 93 MHG I, 579; Lekah Gen. 38. 29. Comp. also Targum Yerushalmi Gen., Joc. cit., which remarks: Zerah, the shining (=the scarlet) thread. 94 MHG I, 336-337. The source of MHG is Mishle, but not of our editions. 95 BR 85. 2-3 and the sources cited in note 74. To exonerate Judah of the sin of having married a Canaanitish woman, it was necessary to explain °3929 (Gen. 38. 2) as “‘merchant’’; comp. BR, Joc. cit., and Pesahim 50a, as well as Onkelos,and Targum Yerushalmi, ad loc. For a different view see vol. II, p. 32, and notes 75-77. The name ‘Alet is only found in Yashar, Wa-Yesheb, 89b; comp. also Sekel, ad loc., 226. On Hiram=Hirah see note 105 on vol. IV, p. 336. Concerning the wives of Jacob’s sons; comp. note 69, and vol. eps 302. 96 BR 80. 11; MHG I, 682; Yashar Wa-Yishlah, 60b and 89b. The older sources would not admit that any one of Jacob’s sons married a Canaanitish woman (comp. the preceding note), and this gave rise to the view that m3y3D (Gen. 46. 10) refers to Dinah, whereas Yashar in an uncritical manner makes Simeon marry Dinah, and, as his second wife, the Canaanitish woman Bunah. As to the name ma, comp. 1 Chron. 2. 25; but there it is the name of a man, and it is quite possible that in Yashar it is the Latin bona; comp.

vol. I, p. 400 (top). On the basis of the statement in BR, Joc. cit., that Dinah’s body was brought from Egypt to Palestine, the medieval authors maintain that her grave is at Arbel; see Shu‘aib, Wa-Yishlah, 16a, and Wa-Yehi, 24a, as well as Seder ha-Dorot, 2198. Comp. note 65. 97 PRE 38, which is the source of Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 41. 45 and 46. 20; Abkir in Yalkut I, 146; Judah b. Barzillai 63 (the source is not given); Soferim (end). A somewhat different version of this legend is found in Hadar and Da‘at on Gen. 41. 45 (only these 336 Joseph , [98-101 sources give the episode about Asenath handing over her amulet to Joseph), as well as R. Bahya, ad loc. Hadar, Gen. 34. 1, however, literally agrees with PRE, and in Da‘at loc. cit. (Tosafot), reference is made to this passage of Hadar with the word mwnp 1D. For a third version of the Asenath legend comp. vol. II, pp. 139, 170, as well as note 188. The very elaborate Asenath legend found in Syriac, though undoubtedly of Jewish origin, differs in many essential points from the rabbinic version of this legend. An eagle (not an angel; in PRE it is Michael) brings the babe from Palestine, and places her on the altar of an Egyptian temple, where she is found by the priest Potiphar who, being childless, adopts her. See Oppenheim, Fabula Josepht et Asenathae, Berlin 1886, 4-5. Abu’l-Rabi‘, in Perushim leRashi, on Gen.

46. 10, gives an abridged form of this Syriac legend, as he “found it in the words of our masters’; comp. Perles, R.E.J. 21, 254, and 12, 87-92, as well as in Magyar Zsido Ssemle 8, 294. The old Midrashim take Asenath to have been the real daughter of Potiphar; see note 109. 98 Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 80a-90b. It is to be noted that of all the sons of Jacob, only Reuben, Simeon, and Judah took Canaanitish wives. The Bible (Gen. 35. 2 and 46. 10) is the authority for this statement of Yashar with regard to Simeon and Judah; but it is difficult to give the reason for assuming that Reuben married an undesirable woman except that it is likely that the two younger brothers followed the example of the oldest one. Comp. note 96 which has some remarks concerning Simeon’s second wife. According to Jub. 44. 13 Simeon’s Canaanitish wife came from Zephath; comp. Judges 1. 17. On Benjamin marrying at the age of eighteen, see Abot 6. 2 (does not belong to the Mishnah) and Kiddushin 39a (top). 99 12 Testaments, Joseph 11-16. On the text and the rabbinic parallels to this description of the life of Joseph, see Excursus II., Joseph. 100 BR 86. 3, where several explanations are given why the same man is called Potiphar as Joseph’s master (Gen. 39, 1), and Potiphera as his father-in-law (ibid. 41. 50). The identity of Potiphar with Potiphera is also assumed in Jub. 40. 10; 12 Testaments, Joseph 18. 3; Origen and Jerome on Gen.

37. 36. See the following note. 191 Sotah 13b; BR 86. 3; Tan. B. I, 185; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 39. 1; MHG I, 579 (this passage is abridged in Shemuel 5, 63); Jerome on Gen. 37. 36. The question how the eunuch Potiphar could be the father-in-law of Joseph has already attracted the attention of Philo; see De Allegor., 84. The rabbinic Haggadah offers two answers 337 102-107] The Legends of the Jews to this question: 1) Asenath was Potiphar’s adopted daughter (comp. note 97); 2) she was born before he was made a eunuch by an angel as a punishment for his evil intentions towards Joseph. Comp. the gources quoted at the beginning of this note, as well as R. Bahya, Gen. 41. 45. Tehillim 105, 451, states: As soon as Joseph became powerful, he put Potiphar in prison for life. Was this a punishment for his evil intentions towards Joseph? 102 Tan. Wa-Yesheb 8; Tan. B. I, 186; BR 86. 4-5. Comp. also Tan. B. IV, 44; Tan. Naso 30; BaR 14. 3. In the last-named three sources it is stated that Joseph’s master said to him: ‘‘I should like to see your God.’’ Whereupon Joseph replied: ‘‘Thou canst not look straight at the sun; how canst thou expect to see God?’’ The proof for the invisibility of God from the impossibility to stare at the sun is very likely taken from Hullin 60a (=Abkir in Yalkut I, 396), where it is quoted as the answer of R. Joshua to a Roman emperor (=Hadrian); it is already found in Xenophan’s Memor.

IV, 3. 14. Jewish and Christian apologists often mention this proof; comp. Giidemann, Religionsgeschichtliche Studien, 117. To the references given by him the following are to be added: Philo, De Abrahamo, 16; Mangey I, 12. Theophilus, 1..2; Origen, Con. Cels. 6. 66. Comp. Marmorstein in Debir, I, 123 and Ginzberg in Ha-Goren, IX, 62. Schapiro, Haggadische Elemente, 76, misunderstood the Midrashim, and speaks of Joseph’s attempt to convert the king of Egypt. Comp. note 195. 703 BR 86. 6; ShR 1. 32; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 39. 6. On the euphemistic expression “‘to eat bread” for ‘‘to have sexual intercourse’’, see Shabbat 62b and Ketubot 13a. 04 MHG I, 581; BR 86. 5. Comp. also Berakot 42a; BR 86. 6; Zohar I, 189. 105 Josephus, Antiguz., II, 4. 1. Philo, De Josepho, 8, likewise remarks that in Potiphar’s house Joseph was given the opportunity to acquire the knowledge necessary for a statesman; for the management of a house is the management of a state in miniature. 106 BR 87, 3-4; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 8; MHG I, 583. Lekah, Lam. 1. 67, reads in Ekah 1.71: '1D) oxn3...7),0” 7D; but this reading is certainly untenable. fe 107 BR 87. 4. 12 Testaments, Joseph 3, speaks of the ten temptations which Joseph withstood; comp. vol. I, p. 217. The wish of the pious to prove their piety under temptations is also mentioned with regard to David; see vol. IV. p. 104. 338 Joseph , [108-118 408 BR 85.

2 (87. 4 is very likely to be explained accordingly); MHG I, 596. In these sources Asenath is considered as Potiphar’s real daughter, and not as his adopted child; comp. note 97. SOB RASS wile rx 12 Testaments, Joseph 3-7. On the text of this passage and on the rabbinic parallels to this description of Joseph’s steadfastness, see Excursus II; Joseph. *t% Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 86b. In the older Haggadah the wife of Joseph’s master is nameless. But Philo, Leg. Alleg., 84. 7, speaks of Pentophoe, the wife of Pharaoh’s chief cook. The description of Potiphar as Pharaoh’s chief cook is in accordance with the translation of m’naUA Aw (Gen. 39. 1) in the Septuagint and Jub. 34. 11. Of course, the author of the Hebrew original of Jub. quoted Gen., loc. cit., literally, and there is no means to ascertain in what sense he took it. Zohar III, 213b, maintains that at first Joseph pretended not to understand the Egyptian language, in order that he might be spared the passionate words of the infatuated woman. After a while he could no longer feign ignorance of the language. When she saw that her words were of no avail, she attempted to use force. 112 Yoma 35b; comp. also BR 87. 9; ARN 16, 63; MHGI, 591; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 9. Concerning the daily change of garments and the threats, see also Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 86b-89a. This source clearly shows that Yoma, Joc. cit., speaks of changing Joseph’s garments, not those of the woman; comp.

Rabbinowicz, ad loc. 113 BR 87. 5. The name Zulaika (of Persian origin) is only found in Yashar; comp. note 111. As to the intention of Potiphar’s wife to kill him, see vol. II, pp. 46, 183. On the view that the night is the time for divine revelations see note 221 on vol. I, p. 373. 114 MHG I, 586 (not from BR), and similarly Philo, De Josepho, 9. 116BR 87, 4; Ruth R. 3. 9. The indecent language used by Potiphar’s wife is contrasted with the modest words of Ruth. Comp. Ruth 3. 9. 116 Tan, Wa-Yesheb 8, and, in a more elaborate form, Philo, De Josepho, 9. 117 MHG I, 584. Comp. the passages referred to by Schechter, ad loc., and ER 26, 131. 118 Yashar וישב 87a-87b. The episode with the oranges (more accurate citrons אתרוגים) is also found in Tan. Wa-Yesheb 5, where it is introduced with the formula ‘‘our masters say’’ (אמרו רבותינו), which indicates that an old source was made use of. MHG I, 590, has 339 119-130] The Legends of the Jews “bread and meat’’ instead of oranges, and is not directly based on Tan. Yerahmeel 91 and Sikli in the manuscript of his Talmud Torah quote Tan. See Ginzberg’s remarks (badly corrupted by the printer) in Ha-Zofeh, 1V, 34-35. Whether Yashar made use of the Koran 12. 30-33 is doubtful; the Jewish origin of the legend as given in Tan. is beyond dispute. The feigned illness of Potiphar’s wife is already mentioned in 12 Testaments, Joseph 7.

See also Mahzor Vitry, 342, whose source is neither Yashar nor Tan. 119 Tan. Wa-Yesheb 8, and reference is made to this passage in ‘Aruk, s.v. nw. In BR 87. 9 it is said that the shackles were used on Joseph during his imprisonment by his master. 120 Yashar Wa-Yesheb 88a, which essentially follows older sources; comp. BR 87. 7; Sotah 36b; PR 6, 23a; Shir 1. 1. 121 Sotah 36b; Yerushalmi Horayot 2, 46d; BR 87. 7 and 98. 20; Shemuel 5, 63; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 9; Abkir in Yalkut I, 145, and 146; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 49, 24. 122 MHG J, 589, and Abkir in Yalkut I, 146. See also 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 22b, and note 237 on vol I, p. 279. 123 MHG I, 588-589. t24 According to Luria on PRE 39, note 21, Eben Shettyyah is here used as a metaphor for the likeness of Rachel. But this interpretation seems to be very far-fetched. t25 Abkir in Yalkut I, 145, and comp. citation from an unknown Midrash in Tosafot piv Sotah 36b. 126 Vashar Wa-Yesheb, 88a-88b. This passage does not record the inner struggle in Joseph’s soul between passion and virtue, to which the old sources refer; comp. the references in note 121. But even in these sources another view is quoted, according to which Joseph was not swayed by passion for a moment. 127 BR 87. 8. 128 Vashar Wa-Yesheb 88b. According to BaR 14. 6 (119a—-119b) and Josephus, Antigqui., II, 4. 4, she threatened Joseph that if he did not gratify her desire, she would charge him with a terrible crime before his master, who would certainly kill him for it.

t29 Abkir in Yalkut I, 146, and in a somewhat different form in MHG I, 590. Comp. also Mahzor Vitry, 342. ™3° Yashar Wa-Yesheb 88b. Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 39. 14 and 20 gives a detailed description of the wicked woman’s intrigues, by means of which she expected to prove Joseph’s guilt. He was, however, defended by the Egyptian priest, who exposed the trick she 340 Joseph ; [131-141 attempted to play on him. See Sekel 240; note 340, as well as note 312 on vol. I, p. 415. ™3% Abkir in Yalkut I, 146. *3? Josephus, Antiqui., II, 4. 5. It is stated by Josephus, ib1d., II, 4. 3, that Potiphar’s wife feigned illness, and remained home on a festive day when all the people rejoiced in public festivities. This is in accordance with the view of the Rabbis; see vol. II, p. 53 (top), and note 120. 33 BR 87. 9. Potiphar intended to kill Joseph whom he believed to be guilty, but his wife prevented him from doing so, and advised him to imprison him, giving as a reason the monetary loss they would sustain by the death of the slave. In truth, however, she hoped that Joseph in prison would be more tractable than Joseph at large; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 9; comp. also note 135. *34 Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 88a–89a. Instead of מעבד׳... עבד׳ the context demands מילד׳... ילד׳. See also note 189. The speaking of babies is a favorite subject in Jewish and Christian legends; comp. Ginter, Die Christliche Legende, 89; see also 4 Ezra 7.

21, which reads: And one-year old children shall speak with their voices. As to the establishing of Joseph’s innocence, see notes 130 and 340. 138 BaR 87. 9; MHG I, 591; Lekah, Gen. 39. 20. 136 Tan. B. I, 180; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 7. Comp. note 8. Joseph was the cause that his father and brethren should rend their garments (Gen. 37. 34), and his punishment was that the rending of his garment was the cause of his imprisonment; see the unknown Midrash in Shu‘aib, Wa-Yesheb, 22a. The view which holds Joseph responsible (partly at least) for the crime committed by his brethren against him is old; comp. vol. II, pp. 5-6, where it is stated that Joseph’s tale-bearing caused the hatred against him. 137 WR 23. 10; Sotah 36b; Tehillim 81. 368; Targum Ps. 81.6. On the changes of names by adding or taking away letters, see Index s. v. “Abigail”, “Abraham”, “Ephron’’, “‘Jonadab”’, and “ Joshua”’. 138 Tan, Wa-Yesheb 9; comp. notes 129, 133, and 134. As to the machinations of Potiphar’s wife against the prisoner Joseph, see also 12 Testaments, Joseph 9. 139 BR 87. 10; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 9; Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 89a—89b. Comp. notes 112 and 119. 140 Vashar Wa-Yesheb, 10b; comp. 12 Testaments, Joseph 9. 142 BR 87. 10; MHG I, 595. Comp. Mattenot Kehunnah and Einhorn, BR, ad loc. 341 142-155] The Legends of the Jews 142 Onkelos and Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 39. 21-23; Josephus, Antiqui., II, 5.

1. Philo, De Josepho, 16, dwells upon Joseph’s kindness and wisdom, by means of which he succeeded in making the criminals lead a better life, without using punishments and fines. See also BR 87. 10. 143 BR 87. 1-2; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 40.1 (which reads: Poison was found in the beverages and food served to the king). Comp. vol. IV, p. 391. R. Bahya, Da‘at and Hadar on Gen. 40. 1 and 21 maintain (they undoubtedly follow midrashic sources) that the guilt of the chief baker was greater than that of the chief butler, as the fly might have fallen into the king‘s cup, while it was served, whereas the pebble in the bread was obviousely due to the gross negligence of the baker. Comp. note 152. ™44 BR 88. 3; Megillah 13b; Esther R 2. 21; Lekah Gen. 40. 4. 145 MHG I, 594-595. Perhaps mmnw is to be read instead of winw3, and the Midrash thus speaks of the years which Joseph spent in prison; comp. note 155. Yashar Wa-Yesheb, $1a; Lekah and Rashi on Gen. 40. 4 maintain that the two officers were imprisoned for one year; comp. Ketubot 57b, which reads: ימים שנה and hence ימים (Gen., loc. cit.) is as much as a year. ; 146 BR 88. 4; Berakot 55b. ™47 Lekah Gen. 40. 4-6. We ought to read wena wibn “with confusion in his head”, instead of 1wN73 wn of the editions. 748 BR 88. 4; comp. note 173. ™49 MHG I, 595. S° BR 88. 5-6; Hullin 92a; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 40. 20. According to Josephus, Antiqui., II, 5.

2, Joseph saw a great omen in the dream of the vine, because wine banishes care and conciliates men. *S¥ Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 91b. According to old sources (BR 88. 6; Targumim on Gen. 40. 20; Yerushalmi ‘Abodah Zarah 1, 39c) יום הלדת את פרעה in Gen., loc. cit., means Pharaoh’s birthday. Yashar takes this expression to mean ‘“‘when a child was born unto Pharaoh”’. *S? Lekah Gen. 40, 21. As to the reason for this decision, see note 143. *53 Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 40. 22; Sekel 298. *54 BR 89. 2-3; Tan. B. I, 189-190; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 9; Tehillim 105, 451; MHG I, 594-595 and 598-599, as well as 610; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 40. 14, 23; Yashar Wa-Yesheb, 91b. 255 BR 88. 7. Philo, De Josepho, 19, likewise remarks that God did 342 Joseph . i [156-171 not wish to bring about Joseph’s freedom by the hand of man. Josephus, Antiqui., II, 5. 1, emphasizes the fact that Joseph, trusting in God and in Him only, did not care to defend himself against the accusation of Poitphar’s wife. As to the ‘making of knots’’ (BR, loc. cit.), see Goldziher, Berliner-Festschrift, 152. Comp. also Tan. B. I, 190. 156 MHG I, 601-602; BR 87. 7 and 89. 1; comp. note 154. *57 Tan. B. I, 190; BR 89. 4; MHG I, 617-618. 158 BR 89. 5; Berakot 55b. 159 MHG I, 611 and 618 (ל״ח). 160 Tan. B. I, 190; MHG I, 618; comp. BR 18. 4 and Zohar I, 194a. 16% MHG I, 618. 162 BR 89. 6. 163 Yashar Mikkez, 94a-94b. It is obvious that Dan.

2. 1, seq., is the model for this legend. Comp. Excursus II, Joseph. A vague reminiscence of the close political relations between Egypt and Palestine in pre-Israelitish times is discernible in this legend. As to other references to these relations in the legendary literature, see Ginzberg’s remarks in Eine Unbekannte Sekte, 339. 184 BR 08. 7. 165 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 41. 10, which is based on older sources. Comp. note 144. 166 Yashar Mikkez, 94b-95a. 167 BR 89. 7; BaR 14. 16 (19b). 168 VYashar Mikkez, 95a. 169 BR 89. 9: Zohar I, 194b. As to Joseph’s raiment given to him by the angel, comp. note 52. According to old sources, Joseph left the prison on New Year. Comp. Rosh ha-Shanah 11a; Tehillim 81, 368; Targum Ps. 81. 6. Joseph’s joy at regaining his freedom was, however, incomplete, as at that time the death of his grandfather Isaac took place; Seder ‘Olam 2; MHG J, 609; Demetrius 9. 12 (424c). The last-named authority maintains that Joseph spent thirteen years in prison, but according to the Rabbis, only twelve years; comp. note 243. 17° Yashar Mikkez, 95a. 171 Josephus, Antigqut., II, 5. 5; Philo, De Josepho, 20, remarks that as soon as Pharaoh looked at Joseph he immediately perceived him to be not only a free and noble man, but also a wise one, who would be able to interpret the dream. 343 172-185] The Legends of the Jews 172 MHG I, 625; Josephus, Antiqui., II, 5.

4, which reads: The vague recollection which Pharaoh had retained of the interpretation was sufficient to convince him that his ‘‘wise men’ were deceiving him. This is evidently the meaning of Josephus, and MHG is to be explained accordingly. 173 MHG I, 625; Tan. Mikkez 3; BR 89. 9. Comp. note 148. 174 Tan. Mikkez 3; Yelammedenu 26=BHM VI, 82; Zohar I, 196a. 175 MHG I, 611. 76 An unknown midrashic source in Sabba, Mikkez, 51b, where a lengthy exposition is given on the impropriety of connecting God with evil; comp. MHG I, 612, and note 9 on vol. I, p. 5. 177 BR 89. 9; Baraita of 32 Middot, 10; MHG I, 625-626; comp. note 411. 178 Yashar Mikkez, 95b-96b. 27 °SBRIGO LL: 80 Yashar Mikkez, 96b. As to the wisdom ‘of Joseph’s counsel to Pharaoh, see citation from an unknown Midrash in Sabba, Mikkez, Sic. r8x MHG I, 626; Sotah 36b. Pharaoh’s councillors said unto him: ‘Is it possible that a slave should become king?’’ When Joseph, notwithstanding their opposition, became ruler of Egypt, he imprisoned them until the arrival of his brethren who established the nobility of his descent; Tehillim 105, 451. Comp. the following note as well as notes 171 and 285. 182 Yashar Mikkez, 96b-97a, which is, in the main, based on old sources; see Sotah 36b, where the angel, nameless in Yashar, appears as Gabriel. Comp. vol. IV, p. 360, and Sotah 33a; PK 4, 34b; PR 14, 60a; Tan. B. IV, 111; Tan. Hukkat 6; BaR 14.

5 and 19. 3; Koheleth 7. 23; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 831 on Ps. 41 (Yelammedenu is given as the source in the first edition only); MHG I, 626-627; Zohar III, 213b. Comp. notes 137 and 415. 783 BR 90. 3; WR 23. 9; BaR 14. 6 (119b); Tan. Bereshit 12 and Mikkez 3; Zohar I,19b; an unknown midrashic source in Mahzor Vitry, 333. That Joseph reached his high position as a reward for his virtuous life is also stated in: Maccabees 2. 53; ‘Wisdom 10. 14; 12 Testaments, Joseph 10. 184 Yashar Mikkez, 97a . מצרים refers here, as is often the case in this work, to the capital city of Egypt, and not to the country. ™85 MHG I, 628-629; BR 98. 18; BaR 1. 6 (119b); PRE 39, 844 Joseph , [186-195 On the view that Joseph and his descendants are proof against the evil eye, see Berakot 30a and the parallel passages cited on the margin. Comp. vol. II, p. 38 and note 97. 186 Yashar Mikkez, 97a-97b. For a similar description of a festive procession see vol. IV, p. 439. 787 BR 90. 4. For other explanations of this name, see Da‘at, Hadar, and Toledot Yizhak on Gen. 41. 45. Pa‘aneah, ad loc., employs the system of Notarikon thirty times, by which he finds the history of Pharaoh’s dream and Joseph’s interpretation in the name Zaphenath Paaneah. The author displays great ingenuity in some of these Notarika. The explanation of this name given by Origen and Jerome, ad /oc., is on the whole identical with that found in BR, loc.

cit., in Targumim, and Josephus, Antiquz., II, 6.1. Philo, Mut. Nomin., 15, takes this name to mean ‘‘a mouth judging in an answer’’. *88 Midrash Aggada, Gen. 41.45. Concerning the Asenath legend see note 97. 189 Abkir in Yalkut I, 146 and, in an abridged form, Origen on Gen. 41. 45. Comp. note 134. ro basaiiied las Compmelk. 20) 112.ande255 1202 1.167, and 15, 198. Ben ha-Melek, 12 (following a Mohammedan legend?), writes: It is said that Joseph used to eat so little during the years of famine, that he was always hungry. The people said to him: “O thou, on whom God has conferred wisdom, why art thou hungry, while storehouses filled with grain are at our disposal?’’ Hé answered: “T fear that, if I am satisfied, I might forget the hungry.’’ Comp. Ta‘anit, Joc. cit., and note 250, as well as 54 on vol. I, p. 166. 19 Yashar Mikkez, 98a—98b. 192 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 41.47. Comp. also BR 90. 5, where two explanations of oxnp> (Gen., loc. cit.) are given, both of which, however, are obscure. 193 BR 90. 5; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 41. 48; Yashar Mikkez, 98b. Comp. the following note. 194 Yashar Mikkez, 98b-99a. It is very likely based on PRE 39, where it is said that only the grain preserved by Joseph did not rot—it remained in a perfect condition as long as he lived—whereas all the other grain rotted as soon as the seven years of famine began. 195 MHG I, 631. The blessings taught to the Egyptians consisted of Ps.

136. 25, which forms part of the grace after meal; comp. vol. I, p. 271, and note 224 appertaining to it. The suddenness of the famine is also referred to in BR 90. 6 and Josephus, Antiqui., II, 345 196-198] The Legends of the Jews 6. 1. Pharaoh, the king of Egypt in Joseph’s time, is the one who later oppressed the Jews (comp. note 429), and it is this Pharaoh of whom MHG says that he later became arrogant. The Mohammedan legend speaks of two Pharaohs in Joseph’s time: the first became converted to the true religion of Joseph, while the second remained an infidel; comp. Schapiro, Haggadische Elemente, 75-76. On p. 76 Schapiro erroneously maintains that this legend is found in rabbinic literature. Comp. note 102. ™96 BR 91. 5 and 90. 6; Tan. Mikkez 7; MHG I, 631. Comp. also Yelammedenu (in Yalkut II, 285 on Jer. 11, no source is indicated, but ‘Aruk s.v., מולים quotes it from Yelammedenu). It says: The Egyptians introduced circumcision amongst them in Joseph’s time, but later abandoned it. 197 BR 90. 6; Yashar Mikkez, 99a. Philo, De Josepho, 27, maintains that, on the contrary, the famine spread like a plague from country to country, until the entire world had become affected by it. BR 89. 4 remarks that the famine caused scabies among the men. Comp. Josephus, Antiqui., II, 6. 1. 198 BR 91. 1 and 6; Tan. B. I, 192-194; Tan. Mikkez 5; Aggadat Bereshit, 69, 136-138; MHG I, 632, 635.

Philo, De Josepho, 32, also remarks that Jacob had a vague presentiment of Joseph’s stay in Egypt. On the idea that a joyful mood is necessary for a prophet, see note 294. In contrast to the view of the Midrashim just quoted, Tan. B. I, 192 (comp. also ibid. 188) maintains that Jacob and his sons, who were great prophets, were abandoned by the prophetic spirit, in order that they should not think that they were able to foresee everything and thus become proud.—In BR 91. 6; MHG I, 635, and in many other places the statement is made that Jacob sent his sons to Egypt that they, the descendants of Abraham, should begin the Egyptian servitude, which, as announced to their ancestor, was to last four hundred years. Comp. Lekah Gen. 42.1. When suffering is inflicted on the pious, they attribute it to their sins; and hence when the famine broke out Jacob saw in it a punishment for having held on to Esau’s heel at the time of their birth. Indeed it was this very sin with which the angel charged him before God, saying: ‘In his womb he took his brother by the heel’”’ (Hosea 12. 4); see Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 758, on Ps. 49. To his sons who were greatly agitated by the fear of the famine, Jacob said thus: ‘God always assists the pious in the time of famine; so He did in the time of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and so will He do unto me.” 34€ Joseph, [199-211 *99 Ta‘anit 10b.

200 MHG I, 635; Yelammedenu (?) in Yalkut I, 148. In the first edition ילמדנו רמז י״ז does not refer to what follows, but to the supplement of Yalkut, where paragraph 17 contains a quotation from Yelammedenu bearing upon the same biblical verse as the one on which Yalkut comments. 7°r BR 91. 6; Tan. B. I, 193-194 and 195; Tan. Mikkez 8; Yashar Mikkez 99b; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 42.5; MHG I, 635; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 148. Comp. preceding note. 202 Yashar Mikkez, 99a-100a (in the main, it follows older sources; comp. BR 91. 4 and 6); Koheleth 9. 15; Tan. Mikkez 8; Tan. B. I, 194, 202; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 42. 6. See also Josephus, Antiqui., II, 6. 2. 203 BR 91. 4. 204 Yashar Mikkez, 100a-100b (following BR 91. 6 and the other sources cited in note 202). As to מצרים in the sense of the capital of Egypt, see note 184. 205 Yebamot 88a and parallel passages cited on the margin; BR 91. 7; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 42. 8. Comp. also Yashar Mikkez, 100b; Josephus, Antiqui., II, 6. 1; vol. IJ, p. 112. 206 Velammedenu 28=BHM VI, 84 and in a very elaborate form, Aggadat Bereshit 72, 142-143. The source of Ba‘al ha-Turim, Gen.42.6, is very likely Yelammedenu, though he states that it was the angel Gabriel who incited Joseph against his brethren. Comp. note 29. 207 BR 91. 6; Tan. Mikkez 8; Yashar Mikkez, 100b. 208 BR 91. 6-7 and see sources referred to in the preceding note. 209 Yashar Mikkez, 100b-101a, mainly following older sources.

See BR 91. 6; Tan. Mikkez 8; Tan. B. I, 194 and 203. Comp. also citation from Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk, s. v. }op 4. The idea that disreputable houses are hiding-places for spies is in accordance with Joshyg2 1: 210 BR 91. 7; Tan. B. I, 203. A different view is found in ER 26, 131, and BaR 14. 6 (119a), according to which Joseph kept his oath, though he did not take it by God, but by the life of Pharaoh. Comp. Mekilta Beshallah ("nmnb) 24d, which is very likely the source of BaR. 21I Yashar Mikkez 101a, following BR 91. 6; Tan. Mikkez 8. Sabba, Mikkez, 53a, quotes the following from an unknown Midrash: They did not accept Joseph’s proposal to send one of them to Canaan 347 212-221] The Legends of the Jews for Benjamin, for they feared lest their families should die of hunger, since it was impossible for one person to take with him the grain needed for so many families. 2t2 BR 91. 7; comp. also Targum Yerushalmi 41. 1; Esther R. 5. 3; Tehillim 22, 182-183. 273 MHG I, 637-638. 2714 BR 91. 8; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 42. 23. 215 MHG I, 639; BR 91. 1 and 99. 7. Comp. notes 34 and 41. 216 Abkir in Yalkut I, 148. On the view that Levi possessed wisdom, prophecy, and priesthood, see vol. I, p. 175, and vol. III, p. 364. Levi is glorified not only in Jub. and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, but also in rabbinic literature; comp. Sifre Z., 109; PK I, 1b, and the numerous parallel passages cited by Buber, as well as the sources referred to in notes 174 and 251 on vol.

I, pp. 363, 387. 2717 BR 91. 7; Tan Wa-Yiggash 4; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 42. 24. Comp. notes 34 and 42. 218 BR 91. 7; Tan. Wa-Yiggash 4; Yashar Mikkez, 101b; Abkir in Yalkut I, 148. Comp. note 275. 2719 Tan. Wa-Yiggash 4; Abkir in Yalkut I, 148; Yashar Mikkez, 101b; BR 91. 7. Comp. vol. II, pp. 104-105, 110. 270 BR 91. 8; Tan. B. I, 184; Lekah, Gen. 42. 8; Zohar I, 198b and 200b. Comp. also BR 91. 7 and 92. 4; MHG I, 639. Josephus, Antiqui., II, 6. 6, seems to have been acquainted with a similar Haggadah. 22r Vashar Mikkez, 101b-102a; MHG I, 640, and comp. Schechter, ad loc.; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 42. 27 and 2 Targum Yerushalmi 42. 36; Zohar I, 200b. How it came about that it was just Levi and no other of the brethren who made the discovery is explained in three different ways. In his excitement over the separation from his favorite brother Simeon he forgot to take provender for the road so that it was necessary for him to open the sack intended to be used at home, and thus he found the money; see the unknown Midrash in Sabba, Mikkez, 53a. That he should not be suspected of theft, he immediately communicated his find to his brethren; MHG I, 640. Other authorities say that Levi, who was very pious (comp. note 216), was the first to give food to his donkey, for according to the law, before partaking of food, one must first feed the animals entrusted to one’s care (comp. Berakot 40a).

In opening the sack he found the money. See the unknown midrashic source in Shu‘aib, Mikkez, 19d. The third explanation is that Levi took with him tiie sack of 348 Joseph | [222-253 his favorite brother Simeon who was detained by Joseph in Egypt, and in order to alleviate the burden of his donkey, his brethren took his own provender for the road. He accordingly had to open the sack intended to be used at home. See Hadar, 20b. They had intended to search all the sacks, for they suspected trickery, but fearing that the Egyptians were persecuting them, they made haste and reached their country in a very short time; Philo, De Josepho, 21. 222 MHG I, 640; BR 91. 9; Philo, De Josepho, 30. 223 Aggadat Bereshit 72. 142; MHG I, 640. Comp. vol. II, pp. 30-31. 7242 ARN 40, 112. ‘Satan appears as the accuser of men when they are in danger’’, and in consequence of his accusations they frequently die. Accordingly Jacob feared to expose Benjamin to the danger of travel; Yerushalmi Shabbat 2, 5b, and parallel passages cited on the margin. Jacob had all the more reason to fear the dangers of travel, as it was on the road that Rachel died, and it was away from home that Joseph disappeared and Simeon was taken captive; Yerushalmi Shabbat 6, 8c, and parallel passages cited on the margin. Man can protect himself against all illness except against cold and heat, which mostly attack one while travelling, and Jacob feared to expose Benjamin to dangers of this kind; Ketubot 30a.

225 MHG I, 641; BR 91. 9; Tan. Mikkez 8. 226 Vashar Mikkez, 102a-102b; Tan. Mikkez 8. 227 Yashar Mikkez,. 102b. 228 BR 91. 10; PK 17, 131a; Ekah 3. 35; Aggadat Berestit 45, 130. The last-named source contrasts Jacob’s impatience in time of distress with Abraham’s complete resignation to God’s will. 229 BR 91. 10; Tan. B. I, 203; Tan. Mikkez 8; Philo, De Josepho, 32. Comp. Brody’s remark in Berliner’s Rashz, 23. 23° Vashar Mikkez, 102b—103a. 23% BR 91. 10-11. ‘Tobe unable to satisfy a child’s demand for food is worse than to be at the gate of death”; Jacob could brave many calamities, but not the children’s cry for bread, and he was forced to permit Benjamin to go to Egypt; MHG I, 646. Comp. vol. II, p. 89 (top). 232 Tan. B. I, 202-203; Tan. Mikkez 10; BR 92. 1-2; MHG I, 644 and 646. Many more explanations are given in these passages why on this occasion Jacob addressed God as Shaddai (=‘'He who exclaimed: Enough’’). Comp. note 43 on vol. I, p. 13. 233 BR 92. 3; Tan. B. I, 203; Aggadat Bereshit 73, 142; MHG I, 349 234-240] The Legends of the Jews 648 (x"5) and 649. Comp. also Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 43. 14; 2 ARN 43, 118; Neweh Shalom, 42; Midrash Aggada, Gen. 22.5. On unconscious prophecies see note 239, on vol. I, p. 279. 234 Yashar Mikkez, 103a-104a. The text is to be read °3 0} wwyNY instead of 1yoOw °D DY, and OY INN stands here, in accordance with note 56 on vol.

I, p. 322, for qb0 “king’’. The assertion made by Griinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsdtze, 532, that this letter is modelled after an Arabic original is without the slightest foundation. The designation of Joseph as king is not borrowed from Arabic legends, as Griinbaum maintains, but is of frequent occurrence in the rabbinic literature of the pre-Arabic period; see, e. g., BR 91. 10 and 107. 19; ShR 1. 7; DR 2. 33 and 4. 7; BaR 14. 5 and 6; WR 16. 2; 2 ARN 10, 26 (comp. Schechter, note 11). Sifre D., 334, and Josephus, Antiqui., II, 7. 3, show the high antiquity of the view which considers Joseph as king of Egypt. In some passages Joseph is described to have been the ruler of the whole world, “cosmocrater”’; see Baite Midrashot III, 11 (a fragment of Yelammedenu?); PR 3, 10b; comp. also WR, loc. cit., and Aggadat Bereshit 66, 132. The allusions, in this letter, to the wars of the sons of Jacob against the Amorites undoubtedly presuppose -the legend given in vol. I, p. 408, which is unknown to the Arabs. The departure of Jacob’s sons with great weeping is also described by Josephus, Antigut., II, 6. 5. 735 Tan, Mikkez 10. For a different view see notes 3, 244. 236 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 48. 16; Tan. B. I, 197 and 202. Comp. notes 214. ?37 Hullin 91a; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 43. 16; ER 26, 131. 738 BR 92. 4; BaR 14. 2; Tan. B. IV, 43; Tan. Naso 28; ER 36, 131; Mekilta Beshallah (Nnmnb), 24b.

Aphraates, 28, on the contrary, writes: Joseph proved his piety in resisting the sinful temptations (of Potiphar’s wife), but not in the observance of the Sabbath, which had not yet been commanded at the time. It is rather strange that Schapiro, Haggadische Elemente, 78, misunderstood the explicit words of this Church Father. Comp. vol. II, p. 201, and vol. III, p. 183, as well as note 280, on vol. I, pp. 394-395. As to the discourteous way in which Joseph’s servants dealt with his brethren, comp. 12 Testaments, Zebulun, 3: 7=vol. II, p. 18: 239 MHG I, 649, 817. Comp. Hullin 91a. They feared not the Egyptians, but the consequences of their crime against Joseph; see citation from an unknown Midrash in Sabba, Mikkez, 53c. 24° BR 92. 4. As to Simeon, comp. vol. II, p. 87,and note 220 350 Joseph , [241-252 appertaining to it. On the merits of the fathers which came to the aid of Joseph’s sons, see BR 34. 12; Tehillim 27, 228; citation from an unknown Midrash in Sabba, Mikkez, 53c. 24% Yashar Mikkez, 104a. 742 BR 92. 5. Even to-day it is customary among Jews to hint at death, but not to announce it directly; see Shulhan ‘Aruk, Yoreh De‘ah, 402. 12. 743 MHG I, 609; comp. note 169. 244 Yashar Mikkez, 104a. Benjamin bore a close resemblance to Rachel his mother (comp. vol. I, p. 94, and note 235), and looking at him, Joseph could not refrain from thinking of their dead mother; he wept, for “‘only tears extinguish the burning coals of the heart”’; Tan.

B. I, 197; Lekah and Sekel, Gen. 43. 30; Zohar I, 202b. 245 BR 74. 10 and 92. 5. 246 Tan. B. I, 180; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 2; comp. sources referred to in notes 8 and 237. 247 Onkelos and Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 43. 32. 248 BR 92. 5; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 4; Mishle I, 45; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 42. 33. 249 Yashar Mikkez, 104a-104b, which follows the sources referred to in the preceding note. Jub. 42. 23 reads: Benjamin received seven times as much as his brethren. Comp. also Demetrius, 9. 12, 425. 260 BR 92. 5 and 98. 20; Shabbat 139a; Mishle I, 46; Yashar 7p, 104b; 12 Testaments, Joseph 3. 5. Philo dwells upon the frugality of the meal, as Joseph would not indulge in dainties while others were suffering hunger. Comp. Ta‘anit 11a and note 190. 251 Tan. Wa-Yiggash 4; BR 94. 8; Sotah 37b; Tan. B. I, 206207; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 47. 21; Yalkut I, 150; MHG I, 683684; Yashar Mikkez, 104b; Zohar I, 153b-154a. Comp. note 279, as well as note 6 on vol. II, p. 189. Joseph was destined to be the father of twelve sons, but as a punishment for having permitted for a moment illicit passion to enter his heart (comp. vol. II, pp. 53-54, and note 121), he begot only two sons, while his brother Benjamin was blessed with ten. See Sotah, loc. cit. 252 Vashar Mikkez, 104b-105a. That Joseph tried to ascertain the feelings of his half-brethren towards Rachel’s children is also stated in Jub. 42. 25 and by Philo, De Josepho, 39, as well as by Josephus, Antiqut., II, 6.

7. Comp. also the citation from an unknown midrashic source in Sabba, Mikkez, 53, which reads: Benjamin did not betray 351 253-261] The Legends of the Jews his brethren’s secret, and did not tell Jacob that they sold Joseph into slavery; Tehillim 15, 118, and comp. note 370. 253 12 Testaments, Benjamin 2; an unknown midrashic source quoted by Sabba, Wa-Yiggash, 54d. Comp. Excursus II; Benjamin and vol.II, pp. 220-221. 254 MHG I, 651; comp. Schechter, ad loc., and note 24. Sabba, Mikkez, 53b, quotes, from an unknown Midrash, several explanations of “pa (Gen. 44. 3). 255 Tan. B. I, 197-198; Tan. Mikkez 10; MHG I, 625. As to the distance from the city, comp. Yalkut I, 150 (in the first edition no source is given; but later editions have w17D), according to which they were still a mile from the city. This is based on an old interpretation of 1p’mmn (Gen. 44.4). Comp. note 236 on vol. I, p. 279. 256 BR 102. 8; Tan. B. I, 198; Tan. Mikkez 10; MHG I, 653; Yahsar Mikkez, 105a. Fora somewhat different description comp. Tan. B. Introduction, 130-131. Philo, De Josepho, 38, and Josephus, Antiqut., I1, 6. 7, likewise dwell upon the cleverness with which the search was carried out without exciting the suspicion that the searchers knew where the cup was. Philo, however, adds that when it was found in Benjamin’s sack, his brethren did not for a moment doubt his innocence, being convinced that the finding of the cup was the result of a conspiracy.

—According to Egyptian law, no one beside the king and the viceroy was permitted to use a silver cup, and therefore the stealing of the silver cup was a much greater crime than ordinary theft. See Sabba, Mikkez, 53d. Comp. notes 263 and 268. 787 Tehillim 10, 93-94; Aggadat Esther 40; BR 92. 8; Tan. Mikkez 10; Tan. B. I, 198, and introduction 131. The last-named passage reads: Happy are the righteous who are punished for their sins during their lifetime; woe to the wicked who receive their punishment after their death. 258 BR 92. 8; MHG I, 654, where Dyon is to be read instead of moan. Comp. Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 44. 3. #59 Tan. B. I, 198; Tan. Mikkez 10; Aggadat Bereshit 74, 146. Comp. MHG I, 653, and note 256. 260 BR 92. 8. 26t Tan. B. I, 198; Tan. Mikkez 10. This is the only occasion on which Joseph’s dream was fulfilled in its entirety, since on the two other similar occasions there were only ten brethren; on the first occasion Benjamin was absent, and on the second Simeon (and he had dreamed of eleven stars!). 352, Joseph , [262-274 262 Vashar Mikkez, 105a; Tan. B. I, 198; Tan. Mikkez 10. 263 BR 92. 9 (here Judah confesses his sin with Tamar, Reuben his sin with Bilhah, and all the brothers their unjustified war against Schechem); Tan. B. I, 198; Tan. Mikkez 10; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 44. 15; Aggadat Bereshit 74, 147; MHG I, 654-655. As to the question whether Benjamin was suspected of theft by his brethren, see notes 256 and 270.

264 Tan. B. I, 198; Tan. Mikkez 10. On the proverb about the rope and the bucket, see note 274. 265 BR 92. 9; Yalkut I, 150 end of Mikkez (did Yalkut have a different reading in BR?); MHG I, 656; citation from an unknown Midrash in Sabba, Mikkez, 54a, which reads: The brethren wanted to abandon Benjamin to his fate, though he protested his innocence by the life of his father and the captivity of Joseph (Maw), but Judah admonished them to hold together. As to the expression WDD WY) in BR, loc. cit., comp. Nehem. 5. 13. See Tan. Wa-Yiggash 1 (end). 266 Yashar Mikkez (end) and Wa-Yiggash (beginning). 267 BR 93.6. Here, as in the two Tanhumas (beginning of WaYiggash) and MHG JI, 659, Judah is highly praised for his sense of duty which prompted him to do his utmost in behalf of Benjamin, because he had “‘guaranteed”’ to his father to bring his youngest son back safely. See also Tan. B. Introduction, 131 and 146, a well as I, 209; MHG I, 661-662. 268 Tan. B. I, 205; MHG I, 663; BR 93. 6. Josephus, Antiguz., II, 6. 8, puts a grand oration in Judah’s mouth, which, however, has nothing in common with Judah’s address as found in the Haggadah. Strangely enough Josephus speaks of the crime alleged to have been committed by Benjamin as one punishable by death, whereas according to the Jewish law theft is not a capital offence. Comp., however, note 256. On 1717 in Tan., loc. cit., comp. Kiddushin 11a (top).

269 BR 93. 6; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 44. 18. 279 MHG I, 663 (here Judah accuses Joseph of having first put money in their sacks, and then the cup in Benjamin’s sack); Tan. B. I, 205; Tan. Wa-Yiggash 5; BR 93. 6. Comp. note 263. 271 BR 93. 6 and 8. Comp. the following note. On Manasseh see vol. II, pp. 87 and 106. 272 Tan. B. I, 295; Tan. Wa-Yiggash 5; BR 93. 6. 273 BR 93. 2; Zohar I, 206a; MHG I, 661 (a"°). 274 Tan. Wa-Yiggash 4 and 5; MHG I, 660; comp. Schechter, note 9. The application of the proverb concerning the rope and the 353 275-281] The Legends of the Jews bucket is that Judah might say to his father that one and the same fate overtook Benjamin and Joseph. Comp. note 264. 275 BR 93.7; Yalkut II, 897, on Job 4. 10 (in the first edition the reference to the source, 4’DV9 AVN W770) before DWIN Naw, is not in parentheses as in the later editions); Tan. B. Introduction, 131. On Judah’s terrible voice see vol. I, p. 406; vol. II, pp. 16, 86 (in the last passage it is Simeon who has a terrible voice), 107, 112. As to the stamping upon the ground (Tan., loc. cit., read YA), see vol. III, p. 268. 276 Tan. B. I, 131; Hadar, Gen. 44, 18, which has some variants. 277 BR 93. 6; Tan. B. Introduction, 131; MHG, 664-665; Tan. Wa-Yiggash 3; Hadar, Gen. 44. 18, which has the additional remark that the hair above Judah’s breast had the peculiarity to kill anybody touching it.

As to the strength of people being in their hair, comp. Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, II, 484, seq. 278 Yashar Wa-Yiggash, 107a-108a, which ig the main follows Abkir in Yalkut I, 150, and BR 93. 8, whereas Hadar, Gen. 44. 18 (read 1135” instead of 1305’) is directly based on Yashar. As to the part played by Manasseh, see Tan. B., Introduction, 131, which reads: During the dispute between Judah and Joseph, Manasseh attempted to pacify the former; but as soon as he noticed that the hair on Judah’s breast became hot (comp. vol II, p. 107, and preceding note), he cried to his father: ‘We are all dead men!’’ Comp. MHG I, 665, and vol II, pp. 87, 104. As to the dependence of Yashar on Abkir, it should be noticed that the first part of the dialogue between Judah and Joseph in Yashar is mainly based upon Abkir, although BR 93. 8 is also made use of. 2 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 44. 18, according to the editions, is entirely based upon BR, Joc. cit.; but a manuscript in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America gives the dialogue between Judah and Joseph in accordance with Abkir and Yashar. As to Naphtali’s swiftness, see note 216 on vol. I, p. 371. 279 Tan. B. I, 206-207. A different view is quoted in vol. II, p. 97, and note 251, according to which Joseph made himself known to Benjamin at their first meeting. 280 Tan. B. Introduction, 131-132; Hadar, Gen. 44. 20; comp.

MHG I, 665 (13). BaR 13. 18 likewise dwells upon’ the exceptional piety of Jacob’s sons who committed only one sin, the selling of Joseph into slavery. 281 Tan. Wa-Yiggash 5; BR 93. 8; Tan. B. Introduction, 132. This legend (concerning Judah’s terrible voice) and the one given in vol. 354 Joseph » [282-289 II, p. 106, are doublets. Joseph ordered the Egyptians to withdraw before he made himself known to his brethren, to spare the latter the shame of being exposed as abductors. Out of consideration for their feelings, he did not utter the words ‘I am Joseph your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt’’ (Gen. 45. 4) in the presence of Benjamin, who thus never learned what his brethren had done Joseph. Comp. Philo, De Josepho, 40; citation from an unknown Midrash by Sabba, Wa-Yiggash, 54d; the same(?) Midrash in Hadar and Da‘at, Gen. 45. 4; comp. also Yashar Wa-Yiggash, 108b (below), and note 370. In view of the fact that the brethren did not recognize Joseph (comp. vol. II, p. 82), he could only establish his identity by addressing them in Hebrew (Jub. 43. 15; BR 93. 10; Tan. Wa-Yiggash, Joc. cit.; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 45. 12) and by showing them that he had the Abrahamic covenant on his body; BR 93. 8; Tan. Wa-Yiggash 5; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 45. 4. Josephus, Antiqui., II, 6, 10, puts a lengthy oration in Joseph’s mouth, by means of which he accomplished his reconciliation with his brethren.

The Midrash likewise records Joseph's conciliatory words. Comp. vol. II. p. 112-113. 282 MHG I, 670; comp. Schechter, note 6; see also vol. II, p. 168. 283 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 45. 15. 284 BR 93. 12; Megillah 16b; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 45. 14; Zohar I, 209b. 285 Vashar Wa-Yiggash, 109a. Pharaoh was in such a fear of Jacob’s sons, that when he heard of the dispute between Judah and Joseph, he told the latter to comply with the wish of the Hebrews or leave Egypt; Yashar Wa-Yiggash, 108a. Pharaoh’s delight with the final outcome was very great, for the appearance of Joseph’s brethren confirmed the latter’s claim to noble descent. Joseph had maintained his claim all the time, but the nobles of the realm mocked him, saying: ‘Look at the slave, ruling over Egypt.” See citation, from an unknown Midrash, by Bekor Shor and Sabba on Gen. 45. 16. Comp. note 181. 286 MHG I, 671. 287 Tan. B. Introduction 132. 288 Megillah 16b; MHG I, 671. The three hundred Shekels which Benjamin received from Joseph had, like the other presents, a symbolic meaning; see R. Bahya, Da‘at and Hadar on Gen. 45. 22, as well as Tan. B. Introduction 132-133. 289 Vashar Wa-Yiggash, 109a, where it is said that although 355 290-295] The Legends of the Jews all the brethren received “‘royal garments’’, only Benjamin’s garments were beautifully embroidered. As a further mark of distinction, Benjamin received three hundred Shekels, while the brethren were only given one hundred each.

299 BR 94. 3. According to Egyptian law, it was not permitted to export wagons or animals, but on this occasion Pharaoh suspended the law; Lekah, Shu‘aib, and Sabba on Gen. 45. 19. 29% Vashar Wa-Yiggash, 109a-109b. Concerning Dinah comp. note 65. Lekah Gen. 45. 23 maintains that Benjamin remained with Joseph; hence Gen. 45. 23 speaks of only ten donkeys which Joseph sent to Canaan, one for each brother. 292 Ta‘anit 10b; BR 94. 2 (he admonished them to continue to study the Torah while travelling); PRK 57 (Griinhut’s edition), where the second precept reads: ‘‘Love one another’’. Comp. vol. I, p. 169; Targum Yerushalmi and Lekah on Gen. ¢5. 24, which reads: Do not quarrel as to who is responsible for my having been sold into slavery, in order that your fellow-travellers should not be angry with you. Comp. note 24. , 293 Yashar Wa-Yiggash, 109b-110a; MHG I, 672; Hada7, Gen. 45. 26, which is based upon a source independent of the first two. Hadar, loc. cit., states that Esau greatly rejoiced when the report of Joseph’s death had reached him (he knew that the house of Joseph was destined to destroy the house of Esau; comp. vol. I,p. 369), and therefore when this report turned out to be false, Jacob hastened to inform his brother that his joy was groundless, for Joseph was still alive-—The brethren excommunicated Asher when they heard that his daughter informed Jacob that Joseph was still alive.

They said: A child speaks in the street about the things its parents speak of at home (Sukkah 56b); hence Asher must have betrayed their secret about the selling of Joseph. According to the agreement they entered upon at the time of the sale, excommunication was the punishment for betraying this secret; Hadar, Deut. 33. 24. Comp. vol. II, p. 30. 794 PRE 37; Onkelos and Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 45. 27 (see, however, Targum Yerushalmi 43. 14); Tehillim 24, 204; MHG I, 672-673; Tan. Wa-Yesheb 2; 1 Alphabet of Ben Sira 13a; Zohar I, 180b and 216b. Comp. further Shabbat 30b; Pesahim 117a; ARN 30, 90; vol. II, pp. 80 and 136, as well as note 548 on vol. III, p. 282. 795 Vashar Wa-Yiggash, 110a. That Serah ‘‘did not taste death” is very likely presupposed in such old sources as BR 94. 9; PK 10, 86a-87a; 2ARN 38, 103; but explicitly it is stated in later sources. 856 Joseph ’ [296-307 only. Besides Yashar, Joc. cit., see also 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 28b, which is perhaps the source of Yashar; Derek Frez Zuta 1 (end); Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 46. 17. See also Ratner, Seder ‘Olam 1, note 50, and 9, note 19; Index, s. v. ‘‘ Paradise, Entering Alive Into”. 796 BR 94. 3 and 95. 3; ARN 30. 90. The “heifer whose neck is broken”’ is brought to atone for the sin of those who neglected to accompany the wayfarer (Sotah 46b), and hence the last conversation of Jacob with Joseph, while the latter started on his journey to his brethren was about the kindness one is to show to the wayfarer; comp.

Da‘ at, Hadar, Pa'aneah, and Shu‘aib on Gen. 45. 27, as well as Tan. B. Introduction, 132 and 145. That the last conversation between Jacob and Joseph consisted of a halakic discussion is already stated in Yerushalmi Berakot 5, 8d, according to the reading of Eshkol I, 23. 297 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 45. 28. As to Jacob’s wars against these kings, comp. vol. I, pp. 408, seq. 298 Vashar Wa-Yiggash, 110a. 299 MHG I, 675; comp. the following note. 3°° PRE 39; Josephus, Amtiqut., II, 7. 2; Lekah, Gen. 46. 3; MGH I, 676 (1) and 713-714. 3°t Jub. 44. 2-4. Here it is also stated that Jacob celebrated the Feast of Weeks on the fifteenth of the third month; whereupon, on the following day, God appeared to him. 30? BR 94. 45. 3°3 MHG I, 675; BR 57. 7, and comp. Theodor, ad loc. 3°4 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 46. 3. 3°5 PRE 29 (which reads: Also at the time of the Exodus the Shekinah brought up the number of Israel to six hundred thousand souls); Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 46. 4. Concerning the conception that the Shekinah goes with Israel into exile, see note 4 on vol. II, p. 188; on the number seventy which is used in connection with Jacob’s family, comp. note 321. Sabba, Wa-Yiggash, 56b, gives a text of PRE different from the one found in the editions; comp. also R. Bahya on Exod. 12. 37, and Zohar II, 16. 3°06 MHG I, 676 and 713-714. Comp. BR 94. 6 and vol. II, p. 117, and note 300 appertaining to it.

G 307 Yashar Wa-Yiggash, 110a-110b; Philo, De Josepho, 42. Yalkut Reubeni Gen. 45. 28, which is very likely based on Abkir (comp. Midrash Talpiyyot, s.v. ויגש) writes: Jacob apprehended that Joseph living in the midst of the sensual Egyptians, had lost his purity, and 357 308-319] The Legends of the Jews therefore wished to see his face, as Jacob possessed the faculty of telling a man’s character by looking at him. 3°8 BR 94. 4. Here, as well as in Yerushalmi Pesahim 4, 30d, it is stated that as late as in the fourth century C. E. the grove of cedars at Magdala was considered holy, the people believing that these cedars were planted (by the patriarchs) for the purpose of being used for the tabernacle. Comp. vol. II, p. 164. 3°9 MHG I, 676 and 700; Koheleth R. and Z. 9. 11; Hadar and Da‘at on Gen. 46.5. For an other view comp. the sources referred to in note 290 on vol. II, p. 114 (about the burning of the wagons by Judah) and Sekel 286. EZ 2, 175 reads: God bestowed His blessings on Jacob’s sons as a reward for the filial piety shown toward their father. 310 BR 95. 1-5; Tan. B. I, 209-211; Tan. Wa-Yiggash 9 and 11; Yelammedenu in ’Aruk, s. v. צמח. On the idea that Jacob was the head of an academy for the study of the Torah, see note 318 on vol. I, p. 421 Targum Yerushalmi has three translations of להורות (Gen. 46. 28): 1) to show the way; 2) to conquer the inhabitants (from Syriac הו to war against some one?); 3) to establish a dwelling-place.

The last translation is in agreement with BR, Joc. cit., and Onkelos, whereas Jub. 44. 9 read perhaps לראות. Septuagint, Samaritan, and Peshitta read להראות. 312 MHG I, 688. Were it not for the tribe of Judah, Israel, persecuted by the Egyptians, would have returned to Egypt (comp. III, pp. 21-22), and accordingly it is said here that on account of the descendants of Judah, Israel was led forth from Egypt. 372 MHG I, 688-689; Mekilta Beshailah 1, 27a; Mekilta RS, 48; BR 55. 8. The sources referred to in notes 285 and 428 say that the appearance of Joseph’s brethren proved the falsehood of the rumor about his being a slave. 3™3 Tan. Wa-Yiggash 7; PRE 39. 34 Yashar Wa-Yiggash, 110b. 375 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 46. 29. Comp. note 429. 316 MHG I, 689,where בן יומו is to he taken in the sense of “suddenly.” 377 Yashar Wa-Yiggash, 110b-111a. 318 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 46. 29. Comp. note 315. 379 R. Yehudai Gaon in Geonic Responsa (Lyck edition, No. 45, p. 19); Rashi and Midrash Aggada Gen. 46. 29. A different version is found in Kallah 8b, which reads: Jacob did not kiss Joseph be358 Joseph [320-325 cause he feared lest the latter’s beauty had caused the Egyptian women to lead him astray. Comp. notes 121 and 307, as well as note 14 on vol. III, p. 349. 37° Tan. B. I, 209; Tan. Wa-Yiggash 9; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 46. 30. Comp. note 71. 377 BR 94. 9; PK 10, 86b-87a; Baba Batra 123a; Targum Yerushalmi Gen.

46. 27; PRE 39; Shemuel 32, 146; MHG I, 676; Jub. 44. 12-33; Josephus, Antiqui., II, 7.4. In these sources the seventy souls of which Jacob’s household consisted are differently counted: 1)Jacob and sixty-nine of his descendants make seventy; 2) Jochebed was born just when they were about to enter Egypt; 3) the Shekinah which accompanied Jacob into Egypt is to be included in the number seventy (comp. note 305); 4) Serah the daughter of Asher was the seventieth, but she is not counted among Jacob’s family, either because she was only an adopted child (comp. vol. II, p. 39) or because she was one of those who never ‘“‘tasted death’’ (comp. vol. II, p. 116); 5) the seventieth soul was a son of Dan whose name is not given in the Bible. Comp. note 6 on vol. II, p. 189. Comp. also Tehillim 105, 449, which reads: God counts Himself among the pious. 322 MHG I, 682; Tan. B. II, 3; Tan. Shemot 3; MHG II, 5; Lekah Exod. 1. 1. 323 Seder ‘Olam 2; MHG I, 682. Comp note 82, and note 39 on vol. I, p. 202. 324 Baba Kamma 92a; BR 95. 4; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 47. 2. According to the Talmud and Targum, the weak among the twelve sons were Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher; whereas according to BR, they were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, and Benjamin. Comp. Sifre D., 354. 325 MHG I, 641; comp. Yalkut Reubeni Wa-Yiggash (end), and note 74 on vol. I, p. 223. The following is quoted by Reubeni from Tan.: When Pharaoh learned of Joseph’s descent, he feared lest the latter now reconciled to his brethren should return with them to his country.

In order to keep him in Egypt. he promised him the same kind of treatment as his ancestor Abraham had received at the hands of the Egyptians. This passage is not found in our texts of Tan., but Sabba, Wa-Yiggash, 55c, had it in his copy of that Midrash.—The aversion of the Egyptians towards shepherds is given by Demetrius 9. 11 (422d) as a reason why Joseph, before the arrival of his brethren, had not sent for them and his father to come and 359 326-330] The Legends of the Jews settle in Egpyt. For another explanation why Joseph did not inform his family of his whereabouts, see notes 360 and 370. 326 MHG I, 692; Sifre D., 128; Passover Haggadah, caption wd) RS. 327 MHG I, 692-693; DR 1. 25. Like Og, Pharaoh, king of Egypt at the time of Joseph, also knew Abraham by sight, and like him he mistook the grandchild for the grandfather; Lekah Gen. 45. 1 and 47.8. According to others, Pharaoh as a young prince spent some time at the court of Abimelech, where he made the acquaintance of Isaac. The resemblance between the latter and Jacob was so great that subsequently Pharaoh mistook the son for the father; Imre No‘am, Gen. 47.8. On the idea that life on earth is merely a temporary sojourn, see note 1, and note 260 on vol. I, p. 280; comp. also Philo, De Confusione Linguarum, 17; Lekah Gen. 10. 2 and 7. 9, as well as Tan. B. I, 179; MHG I, 402 (‘p) and 453 (w”). On Og see vol.

I, p. 263, and vol. III, p. 305. t 328 Tan. B. Introduction 132; Da‘at and Hadar on Gen. 47. 8-9, as well as Shu‘aib and Midrash Aggada, ibid. 47. 28. Comp. also Aggadat Bereshit 61, 125, and note 228. 329° MMHG T6092: TanessB., WVi4 39s Tan. Nasou26-s balwal2es Aggadat Bereshit 42. 85, which contains the variant that no sooner had Jacob blessed Pharaoh (podpa \DwiNwD) is not to be taken literally) than a messenger appeared and informed the king of the inundation of the Nile; comp. Jub. 45. 9-10 and note 177 on vol. II, p. 70.— Shu‘aib, Gen. 47. 28, cites an unknown Midrash to the effect that all the years that Jacob dwelt in Egypt no sickness afflicted that country; no person even suffered from toothache; no miscarriage occurred (comp. BR 96, end; Baba Mezi‘a 85a, with regard to the time of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi). Conscious of the blessings he brought to Egypt, Jacob feared at his death-bed that the Egyptians would not permit his body to be removed from their country; comp. vol. II, p. 129 (top). 330 Yashar Wa-Yiggash, 1lib. Philo, De Josepho, 42, remarks: Pharaoh was so greatly impressed by Jacob, that he treated him as though the latter had been his father and not his subject. At the same time he appointed Jacob’s sons as chief shepherds. The Egyptians wha were animal worshippers paid great respect to those in whose care the animals were entrusted, and Joseph therefore arranged it so that his brethren should be appointed ‘‘rulers over the cattle’ of Pharaoh; Zohar II, 250b-251a.

Comp. Imre No‘am, Gen. 46. 34, and note 3252 an 360 Joseph ’ [331-339 337 12 Testaments, Benjamin 3. Comp. vol. II, p. 221. 33? MHG I, 693-694; Lekah Gen. 47. 12. Just as Joseph received the title ‘the God-fearing one” on account of his charity and loving-kindness, even so Abraham, Job, and Obadiah received this title for the same reason; Tan. B. III, 9, and IV, 157; Tan. Wa-Yikra 7 and Matot 1. 2 ARN 10. 26 (comp. Schechter, note 11) has Jonah instead of Obadiah, whereas BaR 22. 1 mentions only three, Abraham, Joseph, and Job, on whom this title was conferred. 333 Tan. Mikkez 7. In Tan. B. I, 188, it is stated: Joseph was a scholar and a prophet, as well as the supporter of his brethren. Comp. Aggadat Shir 1, 26, and Josephus, Antigui., II, 6. 1. Joseph took such great care of his brethren and their families, that each and every one of them was entered on the list of the king’s pensioners. When, after Joseph’s death, the descendants of Jacob began to increase rapidly, the Egyptians felt that the pensioning of such a vast multitude was too heavy a burden. Unmindful of their obligations, they withdrew their support of Jacob’s descendants altogether. Lekah Gen. 47. 12 and Deut. 26. 5. 334 MHG I, 694. As to the explanation of mbm (Gen. 47. 13) given there, see Sa‘adya Gaon in Kimhi, Shorashim, s. v. iy. 335 Yashar Wa-Yiggash, 111b. For further details concerning the treasure, see vol.

III, pp. 11 and 286, as well as the notes appertaining to these passages. God had promised Abraham that his descendants would go forth from Egypt with great substance (comp. Gen. 15. 14). In order that this promise should be fulfilled God caused all the wealth of the earth to flow into Egypt. Zohar I, 196, which is very likely the source of Yalkut Reubeni, 15. 14, where 771 is to be read instead of wat. Comp. Reubeni, Gen. 41. 46. 336 Pesahim 119a; Sahnedrin 110a; Lekah Gen. 46. 49, whose source is not the Talmud. 337 Yashar Wa-Yiggash, 11fb. 338 Pesahim 119a (onmdix)comp. Harkavy, Responsen der Geonim, No. 398, p. 213, according to which it means an empty threshing-floor) and 87a; Mekilta Amalek, 53b; Mekilta RS, 169. Comp. vol. IV, pp. 182, 184, and 276. 339 MHG I, 695. Joseph is described by Artapanus, 9. 23 (429d), as a reformer of the taxation of the soil. The same author also narrates that Joseph was the inventor of measures, on account of which he was beloved by the Egyptians. Comp. also Josephus, Antiqut., Il, 7. 7. 361 340-345] The Legends of the Jews 34° Targum Yerushalmi, Hadar, Da‘at, Midrash Aggada, Pa‘aneah, and Shu‘aib on Gen. 47. 22, as well as Da‘at on Deut. 32. 12 and Yashar Wa-Yesheb 89b. According to Philo, De Josepho, 10, the proof of Joseph’s innocence consisted in the fact that his garment and not that of the woman was torn; for if he had used force against her, he would have torn her garment; but she, having attacked him, tore his garment.

In the Koran 12. 26-28 it is stated that a slave belonging to Potiphar’s household proved Joseph’s innocence by the fact that the garment was torn in the back instead of the front. As to the other trick which Potiphar’s wife tried to play against Joseph and as to the discovery thereof, see the sources referred to in note 130, as well as Imre No‘am, Gen. 47. 22, which follows Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 39, 14. Comp. note 312 on vol. I, p. 415. 34° MHG I, 696 (where 1n2’05 ‘‘as his reputation”’ is to be read instead of 1n31WD); Baraita 32 Middot according to the reading of MHG J, introduction, XIX. An explanation of Joseph’s ordinance that a fifth of the produce of the land should belong to Pharaoh is given in Lekah Gen. 47. 24. 34? Hullin 60b; Tan. B. I, 186; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 47, 21. 343 MHG I, 695. Comp. Yadayim 4. 4, and Berakot 28a. 344 MHG I, 701-702; Lekah, Shu‘aib (gives wD as source), and Da‘at, Gen. 48. 1; Zohar I, 180a and 216b. As to the happiness of the pious during the last years of their life, comp. Tan. B. V, 18; Tan. Ekeb 3; Aggadat Bereshit 40, 121-122; comp. note 2. 345 BR 96. 5; Tan. B. I, 213-214; Tan. Wa-Yehi 3; MHG I, 709-711. On the signs of approaching death, see Zohar I, 217b, and 227a. On Israel as the ‘lamb for atonement”, see Tan. B. IV, 20; BaR 4. 5; Ekah 1, 73 (below). Jacob’s fear that he would ‘be made an idol” is also mentioned in the sources referred to in note 329; comp.

further vol. IV, pp. 71, 328 (top). Ziyyoni, Beshallah (beginning), maintains that Jacob and Joseph wished to have their bodies removed from Egypt in order that they should not be desecrated by the Egyptians, whereas according to Tehillim 24. 19, the reason for Jacob’s last wish was that the pious are loath to have their last rest among the wicked; comp. note 21 on vol. IV, p. 246. As tothe superiority of the Holy Land to all other countries at the time of resurrection, - see Apocalypse of Baruch 29. 2, 40. 2, and 71. 1; 4 Ezra 13. 48-49: Midrash Tannaim 58 (this is very likely the source of Kaftor wa-Ferah 138); Mishle 17, 84; Ruth Z., 1. 47; Alphabet of R. Akiba 31 ('v); Ketubot 111a; Yerushalmi Kil’ayim 9, 32c; Abkat Rokel 2,4; Zohar 362 Joseph ; [346-351 I, 113b-114a, 128b-129a, 136b-137a. The statement in the kabbalistic sources mentioned above that the resurrection of the dead of the Holy Land will take place forty years earlier than that of the dead of other countries is based directly or indirectly upon Midrash Tannaim, Joc. cit. See Ginzberg’s remarks in J.0.R., XVI, 447, note 1. In connection with the widespread view that the reign of the Messiah will last forty years (comp. Sanhedrin 99a and Tehillim 90, 393), this statement very likely implies the doctrine that the messianic kingdom will be confined to the Holy Land, whose dead will therefore be resurrected forty years before the general resurrection takes place when the Lord Himself will be King and Ruler.

Zohar I, 137a, and II, 28b, in speaking of the resurrection of the dead, refers to a very small bone in the human body which is indestructible and will form the nucleus of the new body at the time of resurrection. There can be no doubt that this bone mentioned in the Zohar is identical with the ‘‘almond-shaped’’ bone Luz, concerning which see BR 30. 7; WR 18. 1; Koheleth 12. 5. Comp. Index, s. v. ‘Luz’. Hyrtl, Das Arabische und Hebrdische in der Anatomie, 165, draws attention to the fact that old German anatomists called this bone ‘‘ Jew-bone”’; comp. also Léw, Pflanzennamen, 375. The Luz legend came from the Jews to the Arabs; comp. Jewish Encyclopedia, 8, s.v. ‘Luz’. 346 Nazir 65a; MHG I, 711. 347 MHG I, 708-709. As to the idea that Jacob was ‘‘the goal of creation” and the deliverer ‘‘of Abraham from the fiery furnace”, see note 35 on vol. I, p. 317. 348 Megillah 16b. According to this view, 1mm) (Gen. 47. 31) is to be translated ‘‘and he bowed down to Joseph”, whereas others are of the opinion that it means: ‘And he prostrated himself before God’’. Comp. the sources referred to in notes 354-355. Yelammedenu 30 (=BHM VI, 83,and MHG I, 709) says: Jacob told Joseph that it was his duty to fulfil the word of God: ‘‘And Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes.’’ SASSP RET 39: 359 MHG I, 711. 35% Yelammedenu 29 (=BHM VI, 83, and MHG I, 358 and 711. 'b). This midrashic passage may also mean that Joseph as ‘‘a free man” did not at first want to affirm his promise by an oath; but subsequently consented to act in the same manner as Eliezer had done to Abraham.

Comp. note 349. 363 352-362] The Legends of the Jews 352 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 47. 30. Comp. Pesahim 51b and Semahot 12. 353 Hadar and Da‘at, Gen. 47. 30. 354 Sifre D., 31; Midrash Tannaim 24; MHG I, 711. Comp. Shabbat 12b and Nedarim 40a, in accordance with which Tan. WaYehi 3 (end), MHG I, 712 (rd), and Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 47. 30 are to be explained. 355 MHGI, 711; comp. note 383. Lekah, Gen. 47. 31, gives two explanations of nn) (Gen. 47. 12): (1) Jacob thanked God for having given him a son like Joseph; comp. Heb. 11. 21; (2) Jacob bowed to Joseph because he wished to fulfil the latter’s dream in which it was revealed to him (Gen. 37. 9-10) that his father would bow down to him; comp. note 348. 356 Sifre D., 31; Midrash Tannaim 24. In accordance with these sources, MHG I., 711, is to be read nobw onun mmm; comp. the use of this phrase in the prayer before retiring to bed at night (>>»pn no), Berakot 60a and Siddur (Baer’s edition, 573). See also note 383. As to Reuben’s penitence see note 60. 357 BR 45. 9. This sickness was the fourth great miracle since the creation of man; for until Jacob’s time people died suddenly, without having been warned by illness of their impending death: they sneezed and fell dead. Hence the custom to bestow the blessing “‘ Unto life’’ upon a person who sneezes; see PRE 52; note 272 on vol. I, p. 291, and note 20 on vol. IV, p.

246. In old sources (comp., e. g., Tosefta Shabbat 7. 5 and Babli Berakot 53a) the blessing used is 8D7D, or in Aramic smo ‘Unto health”. 358 MHG I, 712; Yelammedenu 31 (=BHM VI, 83) and in ‘Aruk, s. v. 01D and mn. 359 Yelammedenu 32 (BHM VI, 83); MHG I, 714. Comp. the following note. 360 PR 3, 10b; Yelammedenu 32, where, ]2181 must be read instead of }o"12. As to Joseph’s silence about the fact that his brethren sold him into slavery, see note 370. The source of Hadar and Da‘at, Gen. 48. 1, is PR, which has also another opinion that Joseph heard of his father’s illness.from Bilhah who nursed him, or from Benjamin who was constantly with his father. Comp. Sifre D., 352. See also Tan. Wa-Yehi 6; MHG I, 714 and 715-716 (here it is Manasseh who studied under Jacob); Sekel 306. 361 MHG I, 713-714. Comp. Schechter, ad loc., and note 306. 362 MHG I, 716; Yelammedenu 33 (=BHM VI, 83). This is 364 Joseph ’ [363-374 very likely the source of Hadar, Da‘at, and Sekel on Gen. 48. 2. Comp. note 348. 363 PR 3, 11a, and the other view 12a, line 7. 364 MHG I, 716. As to the tithe of Jacob’s sons, see note 250 on vol. I, p. 387 365 MHG I, 717. 366 PR 3, 11b-12a; MHG I, 717 (below) and 718-720; Yelammedenu 33-34 (=BHM VI, 83; read by sono) where it is also stated that the holy spirit had abandoned Jacob during the time that he grieved for Joseph (comp. note 294); Tan. Wa-Yehi 6; Zohar I, 207b; Targum Yerushalmi Gen.

48.9; Aggadat Bereshit 5,12. As to Rachel’s burial place, see note 310 on vol I, p. 415, and Lekah Gen. 48. 7. 367 PR 3, 12a-12b; MHG I, 720-721, in accordance with which PR is to be emended to read anv) =1b5nd) “asked in a foolish way”; Aggadat Bereshit 5, 11-13, the text of which suggests that 5173 in MHG, 721 means “according to the way of a spy”, 7. e., “I betray a secret to you” Very likely’ however °4) 1n is to be read. Philo, De Josepho, 6, \ikewise mentions that it was the prophetic spirit which revealed to Jacob that in the future Ephraim would be superior to Manasseh. 368 PR 3, 12 (as to the text, see Ketab Tamim, 88); Aggadat Bereshit 5, 12; BR 97. 4; Tan. Wa-Yehi 6. 369 BR 97. 4. 37° PR 3, 12b. The Haggadah often refers to Joseph’s nobility of character as shown by the fact that he did not tell anyone that his brethren sold him into slavery. His desire to keep this matter secret went so far that he did not attempt, after he had risen to a high position in Egypt, to communicate with his father, fearing lest he should have to explain his presence in Egypt and thus betray his brethren; see Philo, De Josepho, 41; Hasidim 479-480; Imre No‘am, Gen. 41. 16, and the sources referred’ to in notes 99, 281, 360, 442, as well as vol. II, p. 221. Comp. also note 68. 372 BR 97. 4-5; MHG I, 717 (top) and 722-723; Tan. Wa-Yehi 6; PR 3, 12b; Targum Yerushalmi and Lekah on Gen. 48. 20.

372 Aggadat Bereshit 80, 155; Shitah Hadashah 1, 373 BR 97. 3.. Comp. Aggadat Bereshit 5, 13, and note 371. Jacob’s guardian angel is Michael; comp. Zerubbabel 10; Sekel 309 and 318, as well a Index, s. v. ‘‘ Michael”’. 374 MHG_I, 723; where many other explanations are given of 365 375-383] The Legends of the Jews the blessing ab 17) (Gen. 48. 16) bestowed by Jacob upon his two grandchildren. Comp. also the following note. 375 BR 97. 3; Tan. Wa-Yehi 6 (the Ephraimites pronounced “Sibboleth’’ instead of ‘‘Shibboleth”; comp. Jud. 12. 6); Lekah and Targum Yerushalmi on Gen. 48. 16. Comp. note 50 on vol. II, p. 269. 376 WR 2. 3; Shemuel 1, 45. Ephraim received this distinction, as well as many others, as a reward for his humility; God exalts those who humble themselves; BR 6. 4; PR 3, 12b; MHG I, 720-721. The last-named source gives further instances of the reward for humility: Joktan, who became the father of thirteen sons (comp. note 70 on vol. I, p. 172), and David, who was exalted above all other rulers. The more luxuriant the vine the lower are its branches; the greater the man the deeper his humility, MHG, Joc. cit., and comp. Schechter note 31. 377 BR 97. 9; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 48. 22; Baba-Batra 123a. On Jacob’s war against the Shechemites, see vol. I, pp.403-411 and notes 289-292 appertaining to them. Concerning Adam's garments see notes 78-80 on vol.

I, p. 177. 378 Sabba, Wa-Yehi, 59c. On Dinah and Asenath see vol. II, p. 38. 379 Da‘at and Hadar, Gen. 30. 29-30. Comp. vol. I, pp. 318319, and preceding note. 38° BR 97. 6. Comp. vol. II, p. 330. 38t BR 97. 1; MHG I, 721; Shitah Hadashah I, Tan. Wa-Yehi 8; Aggadat Bereshit 82, 158. 382 BR 98. 1-3; Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 49. 1-2; Tan. WaYehi 8; Aggadat Bereshit 81, 157, and 83, 163. In all these sources it is presupposed that Jacob did not act rightly in attempting to reveal divine mysteries to his sons without having first obtained permission from God; comp. the following note. Shu‘aib, Wa-Yehi, 22d, quotes an unknown Midrash to the effect that the word x71p (Gen. 47. 29 and 49. 1), if explained according to the hermeneutical rule of Notarikon, contains the statement that Jacob revealed to Joseph the teachings of wisdom and the great mystery of the messianic age. 383 Sifre D., 32; Midrash Tannaim 24; BR 98. 3; Pesahim 56a; Tan. Wa-Yehi 8; Shitah Hadashah 1; DR 2. 6, where it is also stated that Moses learned the response “Praised be the name, etc.”” by listening to the angels. Comp. also Mahkim 111 (which gives a somewhat different version of the origin of this prayer of the angels); Aggadat 366 Joseph ’ [384-388 Bereshit 81, 157; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 48. 2; WR 36. 5; Tehillim 31, 239-240. Comp. notes 239-240. Several medieval authors quote the following from an unknown Midrash: God called Jacob’s attention to the fact that the names of the twelve tribes contain neither the letters 'p’n (=n “‘sin’’) nor 'y’p (=xp “end’’); the tribes are free from sin, but the knowledge of the ‘‘end”’ shall not be revealed to them.

See Da‘at, Hadar, Pa‘aneah, Shu‘aib on Gen. 48. 1; R. Bahya, Gen. 47. 28; Abudrahim, Shema‘; Zohar III, 188b. Sanhedrin 97b very strongly condemns those who occupy themselves with ascertaining the end of time, and the Rabbis speak of the “‘end”’ as a mystery which has not been revealed to man or angel; Sanhedrin 99a; Tehillim 9. 81; Pesahim 54b. Comp. Mark 13. 32. 384 BR 98.4 and 99.6; Tan. B. I, 218; Tan. Wa-Yehi 9; Aggadat Bereshit 82, 158-159; Shitah Hadashah 2; Targumim Gen. 49. 3-4; MHG J, 731-734. Concerning Moses and Reuben see vol. III, pp. 196 and 455. 385 Sabba, Wa-Yehi, 60a, quoting an unknown Midrash. Comp. BR 98. 4 monbnn ~ppyr bx and the following note. 386 Abkir in Yalkut I, 157, and MHG I, 732; comp. BR 82. 11; MHG I, 539-540; Sabba, as in preceding note, who very likely had before him a fuller text of Abkir. 387 BR 98. 5 and 99. 7; Shitah Hadashah 2; Tan. B. I, 218-219; - Tan. Wa-Yehi 9-10; Aggadat Bereshit 82, 159-160; Targumim Gen. 49. 5-7. The Church Fathers Tertullian, Adversus Marcion., 3, 18, and Adversus Judaios, 10 and Hippolytus on Gen. 49. 5 likewise mention the tradition that the Pharisees and Scribes belonged to the tribes of Simeon and Levi; comp note 5 on vol. II, p. 194. PR 7, 28a—28b, dwells upon the fact that the three oldest sons of Jacob received his blessings like the other brethren, though he severely censured them for their sins. As to the meaning of omm DD (Gen.

49. 5) see also, besides the sources mentioned at the beginning of this note, PRE 38 and Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk s. v. 13D 3. 388 Tan. Wa-Yehi 10; Targumim 49. 8-12; MHG I, 735-739 (based on different sources); Yelammedenu 35 (=BHM VI, 84, and ‘Aruk, s. v. DD 5). The Haggadah finds in the blessing of Judah not only praise for his valiant and gallant spirit displayed at Tamar’s trial and at the time when Joseph’s life was threatened by his brethren (comp. notes 46 and 90), but also a prophecy about his prominent descendants, the Judean kings, and particularly the Messiah. The Church accepted the messianic interpretations of the blessing; comp. 367 389-392] The Legends of the Jews e. g., Hippolytus, De Aniti-Christo, 9, seq.; De Consummatione Mundt, 18, and the reference to the patristic literature given by A. Poznanski, Schiloh, passim. Next to the Messiah it is David whose life history is found in the blessing of Judah; see the interesting passage quoted by Sabba, Wa-Yehi, 62a (top), from an unknown Midrash. 389 BR 99. 9 and 72. 5; Tan. Wa-Yehi 11; Aggadat Bereshit 82, 161; Shitah Hadashah 11; WR 25. 2; Batte Midrashot III, 26—27. Comp. note 391 and note 194 on vol. I, p. 367. 39° Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 49. 13; BR 98. 11. 391 Tan. Wa-Yehi 11; BR 98. 12 and 99. 10; Shitah Hadashah 11; Aggadat Bereshit 82, 161. Issachar as “‘the tribe of scholars’’ is very frequently referred to in the Haggadah; comp., e.

g., vol. I, p. 367; vol. II, pp. 25 and 188; vol. III, pp. 170, 193, 197, 221, 223, 237, 460, 462. Comp. also note 61. This legend is very likely based upon 1 Chron. 12. 33, where among those who came to David mention is made of the children of Issachar, ‘men that ‘had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do’’; comp. Targum, ad loc., and Megillah 12b, where with reference to Esther 1. 13 it is stated that “those that have understanding of the times’’ describes the scholars (239) who are well-versed in astronomy and understand how to fix the calendar. However, as there seems to be no trace of this legend in tannaitic sources, the following hypothesis may be suggested: During the amoraic period Tiberias was the main seat of Jewish learning in Palestine, and inasmuch as this city was located in the territory of the tribe of Issachar (comp. Sanhedrin 12a; Shitah, Joc. cit., and Megillah 6a on its identity with biblical npn), it was quite natural that this tribe should share in the glory of its metropolis. In support of this assumption one may quote Shir 8. 2, which reads: The tribe of Issachar studies in the house of learning situated in its territory (4. e., Tiberias); Naphtali does more than this: it wanders to foreign houses of learning, and hence its reward is greater. Comp. the sources referred to in note 389, and note 194:o0n vol. I, p:367. 39? BR 98. 14 and 99.

11; Tan. Wa-Yehi 12;.Shitah Hadashah 11, where it is stated that the Messiah was'a Danite on his maternal side; this view is very likely related to the one found in early Christian authors about the Danite descent of the anti-Christ; comp. Irenaeus, V, 30, Hippolytus, De Consum. Mundi 19; and ‘Bousset, Antichrist, Index, s. v. ‘‘Dan’’; Yelammedenu 36 (=BHM VI, 84; read sin mt yiwow 7D°--}wnw); Aggadat Bereshit 82, 161 (read yr) instead of yu); Targumim Gen. 49. 16-18. 268 Joseph , [393-400 393 BR 99. 11; Tan. Wa-Yehi 12; Yelammedenu 37. Comp. note 183 on vol. I, p. 365. Others find in the blessing of Gad a prophecy concerning the activity of the Gadites as the vanguard of Israel, armed to conquer the Holy Land; comp. BR 98. 15; MHG I, 744; Shitah Hadashah 2; Targumim Gen. 49. 19. 394 BR 99. 12; Tan. Wa-Yehi 13; ER 9, 52. For other interpretations of the blessing of Asher see BR 98. 16; Shitah Hadashah 11; Targumim Gen. 49. 20. 395 BR 98. 17 and 99. 12; Tan. Wa-Yehi 13. Numerous other interpretations of the blessing of Naphtali are found in MHG I, 745746, as well as in Hadar, Da‘at, and Targumim on Gen. 49. 2. Comp. the following three notes. 396 MHG I, 745; BR 98. 17. In the second passage as well as in many others (Aggadat Bereshit 82, 162; Shitah Hadashah 11; comp. especially the unknown Midrash quoted by Sabba, Wa-Yehi, 63a), the scholarship of Naphtali (z.e., of the tribe of this name) is praised.

Comp. note 391. 397 MHG I, 746-747; BaR 14. 11; Sabba, Wa-Yehi, 63a; ER 9, 51, and 11, 59. As to Naphtali’s extraordinary swiftness, comp. note 216 on vol. I, p. 371, as well as vol. II, p. 154; vol. III, pp. 171, 237-238; vol. IV, p. 161 (transferred to the descendants of Naphtali); Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 49. 21. 398 Sabba and Targum Yerushalmi on Gen. 49. 21, whereas in Targum Yerushalmi Num. 27. 46 it is Serah the daughter of Asher who brings the glad tidings to Jacob. In the quotation by the glossator of Pa‘aneah on Num., loc. cit., from Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 49. 20, to the effect that Asher was the happy messenger, Asher is very likely to be emended to “‘Serah the daughter of Asher’. Comp. vol. II, pp. 115-116, and notes 293-295. 399 BR 98. 18-20; Shitah Hadashah 2; Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 49, 22-26; comp. Sabba, Wa-Yehi, 63c, and note 184. 490° Midrash Aggada, Gen. 49. 23, and comp. Targumim on this verse. That Sarah’s likeness hung in Pharaoh’s bedroom is stated in Zohar II, 30a. As to the objection raised against Joseph that he was a slave, comp. vol. II, p. 72. Kimhi on Gen., éoc.cit., likewise refers to this verse concerning Potiphar’s enmity toward Joseph. Ben ha- Melek 6 reads: A man once said to Joseph: “I love thee very much”; to which Joseph replied: ‘‘Love caused me great suffering; my father’s Jove brought upon me my brethren’s hatred which resulted 369 401-413] The Legends of the Jews in my being sold as a slave; the love of Potiphar’s wife for me lodged me in prison.” 4°t BR 99.

3; Tan. B. I, 219-220; Tan. Wa-Yehi 14; Shitah Hadashah 2; Aggadat Bereshit 82, 162; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 49. 27; MHG I, 751. The interpretation of Gen. 49. 27, found in 12 Testaments, Benjamin 11, and Hippolytus, ad Joc., according to which the ‘‘wolf” refers to the Benjamite Saul (=Paul), is a Christianized form of the Jewish Haggadah which takes the ‘‘wolf” asa symbol of Saul, the first king of Israel. Testaments, loc. cit., finds in the blessing of Benjamin a hint that the temple would be erected in his territory; comp. vol. III, p. 458. 492 BR 99. 2; Tan. B. I, 219-220; Tan. Wa-Yehi 14; Shitah Hadashah 2. On Joseph as the adversary of Esau, see vol. I, p. 364; vol. III, pp. 57-58. : 4°93 Tan. B. I, 221; Tan. Wa-Yehi 16; BR 99. 4; DR 13. 8; PR 7, 28b. Comp. note 387. 4 4°45 RB R100%. 2: 4°S Tan. B. IV, 11; Tan. Bemidbar 12; BaR 2. 8; Yashar WaYehi, 112a-112b; a somewhat different version is found in BaR 5. 2. See also Hasidim 383 and Nahmanides, Gen. 48. 2. The passage in the Tanhumas escaped Nahmanides, for they explicitly state that, in accordance with Jacob’s last will, none of his grandchildren was alllowed to touch his bier, because their mothers (or the mothers of some of them) were Canaanitish women. In Tan. B. IV, 11, בכם is to be read instead of בהם. Comp. note 98. 496 Vashar Wa-Yehi, 112b. ER 18, 104, reads: Jacob admonished Joseph to be proud of his virtue, since God gives man knowledge and wisdom to be used only for the sanctification of His holy name, i.

e., to resist temptations. 407 BR 100. 1. 408 Baba Batra 16a-17a. Comp. note 276; on vol. I, 292, and note 35 on p. 317. 4°9 Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 50. 1. 40 Yashar Wa-Yehi, 112b—113a. 4%% Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 50. 3; Zohar I, 294. Comp. note 177. 472 BR 100. 3. Comp. vol. II, pp. 148-149. On Joseph's premature death see note 430. 4™3 Unknown Midrash quoted by Sabba, Wa-Yehi, 104a; BR 100. 6; Aggadat Esther 70. On the view that Pharaoh subsequently be370 Joseph , [414-422 came king of Nineveh, see vol. III, p. 29, and note 34 on vol. IV, p. 250, The Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea were brought to burial as a reward for their participation in the last honor paid to Jacob; PRE 39 (this is the source of R. Bahya, Exod. 15. 12); comp., however, the opposite view about the end of the Egyptians, vol. III, p. 31. R. Bahya, in his work Kad ha-Kemah, אבל 2, 16a, gives (following old sources?) a description of the nine divisions of which the cortége of Jacob’s funeral consisted. 474 BR 100. 4; MHG I, 761, where גדלת שפתים could hardly mean “‘friseuse’’; comp. ‘Aruk, s. v. גדל, and vol. IV, p. 287. 4™S Sotah 36b. Comp. vol. II, pp. 72-73. Midrash Aggada, Gen. 50. 2, is based on a combination of Sotah, Joc. cit., with Yashar Mikkez, 95a-95b. 416 Yashar Wa-Yehi, 113a. Comp. note 413. 417 Tan. B. IV, 11, and the sources referred to in note 405, as well as Da‘at and Hadar, Gen.

50. 12. The number of Jacob’s descendants at the time of his death amounted to sixty myriads; BR 79, 1. 4%8 Yashar Wa-Yehi, 113a—-113b. Comp. also vol. II, p. 147. 419 Yerushalmi Sotah 1, 17c; BR 100. 5. 42° Sotah 13a; Tan. B. I, 222; Tan. Wa-Yehi 17. 42l Yerushalmi Sotah 1, 17b; BR 100. 6; PK 10, 85a; Tan. B. I, 222; Tan. Wa-Yehi, 17. 422 Sotah 13a; PRE 39; Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 42. 21 and 50. 12; Yashar Wa-Yehi, 113b-114b (here this legend is given in a very elaborate form). As to the acquisition of the Machpelah by Jacob, see vol. I, p. 321, and note 50 appertaining to it. For another legend about the death of Esau comp. vol. I, pp. 418-419, given in accordance with Jub. 38. Closely related to the legend found in Jub. is the one given in Tehillim 18, 159-160, which reads: Jacob all alone occupied himself with the burial of his father; his sons withdrew themselves for a while, so that, unrestrained by the gaze of others, he might give himself up entirely to his grief for Isaac. At this very moment Esau sneaked into the Cave of Machpelah with the intention of killing Jacob whose life he had spared all the years their father Isaac was alive. Judah, however, noticed the attempt made by Esau upon Jacob, and killed his wicked uncle from behind. The reason that he killed him in this way was because Judah could not bring himself to kill Esau while facing him. The resemblance between the twin brothers Esau and Jacob was so great, that looking at one was 371 423-425] The Legends of the Jews as much as looking at the other, and Judah would never have been able to kill Esau while looking at his face which was the very image of Jacob’s.

That Jacob’s sons refrained from killing their uncle on account of his close resemblance to their father is also stated in Jub., loc. cit. Sifre D., 348, and Midrash Tannaim 214, as well as Yerushalmi Ketubot 1, 25c, seem to presuppose the legend found in Tehillim; Hadar, Gen. 49. 8, is directly based on this Midrash. In. quoting the other legend about Esau’s death, found in Sotah, loc. cit., Hadar wrongly gives pona as source instead of §3ppm3. Another inaccuracy in Hadar, Gen. 49. 33, is nm instead of xpbip of the Talmud. 423 PRE 39; Comp. 103 on vol. I, p. 339. As to the order in which the graves of the patriarchs and their wives were arranged, comp. Yerushalmi Ta‘anit 4, 68a, and Zohar III, 164a. As long as Jacob dwelt in Canaan a celestial light shone in the Cave of Machpelah, and as often as Jacob entered it the fragrance of paradise pervaded it. All these ceased the moment Jacob left Canaan for Egypt, and did not return until Jacob’s dead body was brought back to his native land; Zohar I, 250b. Comp. vol. I, p. 289. 424 VYashar Wa-Yehi 114b-117b, and Shemot, 118b-119b. That only Esau’s rump was buried is already stated in PRE 39. On the foreign kings whom Esau’s children appointed over themselves, see note 323 on vol. I, p. 424. The description of the flight of Zepho from Egyptian bondage to Africa and his great deeds in that country is very likely taken from Josippon 2, and it is possible that Yashar had before him a fuller text of this pseudepigraphic work which contained also the details given in it about the wars between the sons of Esau and Joseph and his brethren.

Yerahmeel 50. 4, seq., is taken verbatim from Josippon. The reading Agnias is not certain, and perhaps Angias is to be read. Comp. the following note. 425 Yashar Shemot, 120a—125b, partly based on Josippon 2-3. Kittim is, of course, identical with Italy, as is explicitly stated in Josippon 1, and the point of this legend is the explanation of the old tradition about the identity of Rome with Edom (comp. note 19 on vol. I, p. 314) by making Zepho, the grandson of Easu-Edom, the first king of Italy. Sikli in the manuscript of his Talmud Torah (comp. Poznanski in Ha-Zofeh, 111, 21) quotes, from Yelammedenu, the following legend: Zepho established the kingdom of Rome (or perhaps, founded the city of Rome), but was killed by Tiranus the king of Elisha in the war which was waged between these two countries. When Esau heard of the tragic end of his grandson, he left Palestine, 872 Joseph ,; [426-429 and betook himself to his son Eliphaz, who had settled down with his son Zepho at Rome, that he might comfort him in his bereavement. Tiranus (it is the Greek zipavvos “ruler’’) is, of course, identical with the king of Benevento, bearing the same name, mentioned in Josippon and Yashar. As to the centaur killed by Zepho, see vol. I, p. 423, where a similar incident is narrated of another descendant of Esau. On Zepho as king of Rome see Abarbanel, Mashmia‘ Yeshu'ah, 7. 18.

426 Vashar Shemot, 121a-121b, 127a, 128a, 131a-131b, 136b, 137a, 14la, and Joshua, 157a-157b. On the war between the Moabites and the Midianites see vol. III, p. 354. It is noteworthy that in the description of the wars between Carthage and Rome the defeat of Hannibal and his tragic end is ignored. The chief enemy of Rome is accorded in Jewish legend a better fate than was granted him in history. 427 BR 100. 8; Tan. Wa-Yehi 17, and Zaw 9; Tan. B. II, 2, and III, 18; Yerushalmi Targumim, Lekah, and Rashi on Gen. 50. 15-20. 428 BR 100. 9; PK 16, 126b; Megillah 17b. Comp. vol. II, pp. 30-31 and 113. 429 Yashar Wa-Yehi, 116b-117a; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 50. 23, where ]1"1 is not to be emended to ]17.39, but explained in accordance with Tehillim 35, 248; hence Targum takes °3723 (Gen., loc. cit.) to refer to the holding of the child on the knees during the performance of circumcision. On the view that Pharaoh is the title borne by all the Egyptian kings, see vol. I, p. 227, as well as Lekah, RSBM, Ibn Ezra, Pa‘aneah, Shu‘aib (giving Midrash as his source) on Gen. 41. 10; Zohar II, 19b; Imre No‘am, Balak (end). Several of these authorities refer to the use of Abimelech among the Philistines, Hiram among the Phenicians, Melchizedek among the Canaanites, and Agag among the Amalekites, as parallel to this employment of Pharaoh. As to the question whether Joseph bore the title king or not, see note 234, as well as vol.

II, p. 178. According to PRE 11 (this is the source of Yalkut Reubeni, Exod. 1. 8), Joseph governed Egypt forty years as viceroy and the same number of years as king. Comp. also note 195. As to Joseph’s premature death and the reason thereof, see Berakot 55a; PK 28, 184a, and parallel passages cited by Buber; 2 ARN 22,46. In the last-named passage Solomon and Joshua are quoted as further examples of the truth that dominion buries him that exercises it. In Pesahim 87b attention is drawn to the fact 373 430-432] The Legends of the Jews that the activity of some of the prophets extended over the lifetime of four kings; ‘‘the rulers’ died at a comparatively youthful age, while the prophets lived on to a very old age. It is to be noticed that in Berakot, loc. cit., Joseph’s premature death is attributed to the haughtiness displayed by him as a ruler, and the same view is maintained in BaR 13. 3, where mention is made of an additional punishment of Joseph: the standard of his descendants did not bear his name but that of his son Ephraim. In opposition to this view, 2 ARN, loc. cit., does not blame Joseph, but sees in his premature death the natural consequence of the cares and worries which he had in common with many other kings and rulers. 43° PRE 39 (comp. Luria, ad loc., and Hadar, Gen. 44. 31); BR 100. 3. Comp. notes 315 and 412. Hasidim 328 reads: EIisha declined the gifts offered to him by Naaman, and was rewarded by remaining the leader of Israel for many years; Joseph accepted Pharaoh’s presents, and for this he died before Kis time.

As a punishment for not having protested against the designation of Jacob as ‘‘thy servant” (comp. Gen. 43. 28), Scripture speaks of the corpse of Joseph (Gen. 50. 25) while he was yet alive; comp. Sotah 13a. 431 Sotah 2a. A Jewish sage was asked: ‘‘What is God occupied with since the creation of the world?’’ He answered: ‘He makes matches.”” PR 1, 11b-12a, and parallel passages. Comp. note 297 on vol. I, p. 296. 432 The Prayer of Asenath. Almost all scholars agree upon the Jewish origin of this pseudepigraphic work (comp. Schtirer, Geschichte, fourth edition, III, 399-400) and in view of the etymology it gives of the name Asenath, ‘‘a city of refuge’ (comp. Syriac text, 32, 1. 11), one is inclined to assume a Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) original of this Prayer, as this etymology clearly alludes to the similarity of miO& and nion. In Hebrew ]0n means ‘‘was strong’’, and in Aramaic 101M means “strength’’, as well as ‘‘a fortified place’, “citadel.” There are, however, not many parallels to this story in rabbinic literature. The legend about the bees bringing honey from paradise to Asenath is closely related to the widespread view that the manna was heavenly food prepared by the angels in the third heaven, where, according to an old conception, paradise is situated; comp. Index, s. v. ““Manna”’ and ‘Paradise’. The honey in the Asenath legend stands for manna, which, according to Exod.

16. 31, tasted “like wafers made with honey.” The enmity of the sons of the handmaids, particularly of Dan, toward Joseph is also alluded to in the rabbinic 374 Joseph ° [433-437 Haggadah and in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; comp. vol. II, pp. 6, 207, seg., and 216, seg. The glorification of Levi in the Asenath legend likewise agrees with the view of the Rabbis, Jub., and the 12 Testaments concerning Jacob’s third son; comp. Index, s. v. Jacob’s gigantic strength is often referred to in rabbinic literature; comp., e. g., PR 3, 12b; Tan. Wa-Yehi 6; BR 84. 3. Comp. also notes 151-152 on vol. I, p. 354. It is noteworthy that in the Asenath legend the strength of Jacob’s arms (a midrashic Haggadah of Gen. 49. 24, where "YI is taken to refer to the following APy’) is dwelled upon in agreement with Tan., loc. cit., which states that Jacob’s arms were like the pillars supporting the bath-house of Tiberias. As to Joseph being ‘“‘king of Egypt’’, see notes 234 and 429. On the rabbinic legends concerning Dinah, comp. note 97. 433 Mekilta Beshallah (xnmnb), 24b; Mekilta RS, 39-40; Tan. Beshallah 2; PK 10, 94b-95a; ShR 20 (end); MHG JI, 770 (following Mekilta RS?), where, by including the first human pair, ‘‘four fathers and four mothers’’ are spoken of. Comp. note 7 on vol. II, p. 191. 434 MHG I, 769-770; PRE 48; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 50. 25, which remarks: Two redeemers will appear, Moses and Aaron, corresponding to the words 1p5’ 1p5 with which the redemption was promised; comp.

vol. II, pp. 139 (below), and 330. 435 MHG I, 770; comp. the sources cited in the preceding note. PR 12, 49b, and Tan. Ki-Teze 10 remark: Joseph showed by his last words that he believed in the resurrection of the dead. An unknown Midrash quoted by Shu‘aib, Gen. (end), explains 1p5’ “pb (Gen. 50. 25) to mean: He will remember you in the present world, and He will remember you in the future world. ; 436 12 Testamets, Joseph 1, 10-11, 17-18, and 20. According to the view of the Rabbis, Bilhah survived Jacob (comp. vol. II, p. 167), whereas Jub. 34. 16 states that she, as well as Dinah, died in Palestine many years before Jacob, and was buried over ‘against the tomb of Rachel’’; the Testaments followed Jub.; comp. also note 65. 437 Mekilta Beshallah (NnmMnb), 24b; Tosefta Sotah 4. 7; Tan. Beshallah 2. The statement of Exod. 13. 19, according to this Haggadah, is not to be understood to mean that nobody in Israel, except Moses, thought of taking care of Joseph’s remains, but, on the contrary, all the Israelites, mindful of their duty toward Joseph, thought to honor him best by allowing their great leader Moses to take charge of the body of their dead leader. Similarly, when Israel subsequently 375 438-442] The Legends of the Jews entered the Holy Land, the descendants of Joseph did not think that the burial of their ancestor concerned only them, but saw to it that the entire nation participated in it; Tosefta, loc.

cit.; Mekilta RS, 40; Sotah 13b. Comp. vol. III, pp. 5-6. 438 Mekilta Beshallah (NNTPnD), 24a-24b; Mekilta RS, 24, where it is stated that the Egyptians had sunk the coffin in the Nile, so that its waters should be abundant; Tan. Beshallah 2; ShR 20. 19; PK 10, 85b-86a; DR 11. 7; Sotah, Tosefta 4. 7, and Babli 13a; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 13. 19; Petirat Mosheh 115; Zohar II, 46a, where it is stated that Joseph’s brethren sank their brother’s coffin in the Nile in order to prevent the Egyptians from worshipping his body; comp. note 345; Perek R. Yoshiyyahu 113; Sabba, Wa-Yehi (end), where np is either a misprint or Japsus calami instead of 51; MHG I, 771-772. As to the sinking of the coffins of the kings by the Babylonians, see Strabo, 16. 11. Arrian, Alexander’s Campaigns, 7. 2; Friedrich Delitzsch, Das Land ohne Heimkehr§ 12. Most of the above Midrashim contain the dissenting view that Joseph ‘‘was buried in the royal palace”. In Mekilta, Joc. cit., read, with Oxford MS., powpp instead of ?¥’3723P, which is undoubtedly a corruption; see Krauss, Lehnwérter, s. v. Comp. vol. II, p. 194, as well as vol. III, pp. 5 and 122. 439 MHG I, 772. Comp. the discussion of this legend in note 266 on vol. III, p. 122; see further vol. III, p. 5. 440 Mekilta Beshallah (N$MITND), 24a; Mekilta RS 39; Sotah 13a; DR il. 7; ShR 20. 7; Petirat Mosheh 112. Comp. the sources cited in note 438. AGE ESHIRG2On 19: 442 Mekilta Beshallah (NMMND), 24b; Mekilta RS, 39, containing essential variants (as to the expression MI 0’), see Baba Kamma 17a); Tan.

B. IV, 45; Tan. Naso 30; PR 22, 112a-112b; Yerushalmi Berakot 1, 4c; ER 26, 131. Moses took Joseph’s bones and wrapt them up in a sheep’s skin, upon which ‘‘the Name of God” was written; the dead bones and the skin then came to life again, and assuming the form of a sheep, it followed the camp of Israel during their wanderings through the wilderness; Haday, Exod. 13. 19..As to Joseph’s virtues enumerated in the text, comp. notes 23, 113, 210, 238, 270, as well as vol. III, pp. 82 and 202. Philo, De Josepho, 43, reads: Joseph stored up all the silver and gold he had received fer the grain sold by him in the king’s treasury, without appropriating a drachma for himself; comp. vol. II, p. 125. 376 Joseph ° [443-444 443 Sotah 13b; BR 85. 3, which contains the dissenting view that Joseph himself expressed the wish to be buried in Hebron; DR 8. 4; ShR 20. 19; Mekilta Beshallah (NnmMND), 24b; Tan. Ekeb 6. All the Israelites took part in the last honors paid to Joseph, to atone for the sins of their ancestors, who had sold him into slavery; Hasidim 222. Comp. note 437. 444 MHG I, 772. The difference in the pious when they are alive and dead is that in the latter state they lack the faculty of speech, but they nevertheless do not cease to praise their Creator; PR 2, Sb, and 12, 47a; Tehillim 30, 234; DR 11. 7. These passages as well as many others (comp., e. g., Ketubot 104a) speak of the three divisions of merciful angels who meet the righteous on their entering into the other world, and of the three divisions of the angels of destruction who seize the wicked as soon as they die.

A similar view is also found in 12 Testaments, Asher 6, whereas according to PR 44, 184a, man’s guardian angels meet him at the time of his death; comp. note 20 on vol. I, p. 59, and Index, s. v. ‘‘Guardian Angel”. Visio Pauli 14 is in agreement with this view. Zohar Hadash, Lek Leka, heading yow”) maintains that Michael and Gabriel, at the head of the angels who guard the gates of Paradise, meet the pious and lead them into paradise. As soon as a righteous person dies, God says to the three patriarchs: ‘‘Go and offer the righteous a heavenly welcome.” They, however, refuse, saying: ‘It is not for parents to pay respect to their children; but it is the duty of children to pay respect to parents.’ God thereupon addresses Jacob, saying: ‘‘Thou who didst suffer so much in bringing up thy children, go thou and meet thy righteous child, and I shall accompany thee’. Zohar I, 97a; comp. also 123b and 125b; note 49 on vol. I, p. 70. 372