Notes: Moses in Egypt

IV. MOSES Vol. II, (pp. 243-375) * BR 96. 1; comp. commentaries, ad loc. ? Seder ‘Olam 3. According to Shir 4. 7 and BaR 13. 8, Reuben died first, then Simeon, then Levi, and them Judah. Comp. the sources referred to in note 4 on vol. II, p. 188; see also vol. II, p. 330. 3 Yashar Shemot, 118a, and 122a-122b; ShR 1. 4; Tan. B. II, 3; Tan. Shemot 3; MHG II, 6, which reads: When Joseph died, his brethren considered themselves as though they were all dead, because at his death they lost their honored position among the Egyptians; Zohar II, 16b. Comp. also Tosefta Sotah 10. 10, which states: As long as Joseph lived his brethren enjoyed a pleasant life. According to a widespread tradition among the Kabbalists, Joseph, Moses, and David died on a Sabbath towards evening; comp., e. g., Zohar JI, 156a. 4 BR 79. 1; this is very likely the source of Midrash Aggada, Gen. 24. 34. The fecundity of the Hebrew women was quite miraculous: they bore as many as six and twelve (according to some, even as many as sixty or seventy) children at one time; Mekilta Bo 12. 13a, and Beshallah (Snmn5) 24a; PK 10, 85b; ShR 1. 5 (on o’wins see note 6 on vol. II, p. 189); Tan. B. II, 4; Tan. Shemot 5 and Pekude 9 (the number six hundred thousand is to be explained according to Shir 1. 15; comp. note 56); Aggadat Bereshit 5. 11; MHG II, 6, where it is also stated that they were of heroic valor; comp. also Shir 1.

16; Mekilta Bahodesh 2, 63a; Shabbat 30b (below). 5 Yashar Shemot, 112b and 125a—125b. Comp. vol. II, pp. 163164, 169, 178. For other reasons why the Egyptians changed from friends of the Hebrews into enemies, see vol. II, p. 259, and vol. III, p. 9: 6 Yashar Shemot, 125b-127a, partly based on older sources; comp. vol. II, pp. 360-361 and 336. On the idea that Balaam was the one who advised the enslavement of Israel, see vol. III, p. 363, and vol. II, pp. 254-255. The tribe of Levi, mindful of the fact that they were destined to be the servants of God in the temple, refused 391 7-13] The Legends of the Jews to serve Pharaoh, who did not press them, for he knew that Jacob exempted them from carrying his bier (comp. vol. II, p. 147), and even the wicked king feared to force to work those whom Jacob had exempted; Hadar, Da‘at, and Imre No‘am on Exod. 1. 13. On Malul =Maror, see note 36. 7 Sotah 11a; ShR 1. 10-11; Mekilta RS, 31. As to the king himself participating in the building, see the inscription of Nabopolassar in R. F. Harper’s Assyrian and Babylonian Literature, 131-133, where this king, in describing the restoration of Esagila and Ezida, writes: I arrayed myself in my gown, the robe of my royalty. Bricks and mortar I carried on my back, a dupshikku of gold and silver I wore; and Nebuchadrezzar the first-born.. .I caused to carry mortar ...with my workmen.

As to men performing the work of women, and vice versa, see Herodotus, II, 35. Philo, Moses, 1. 7, maintains that many of the Hebrews died because they were unable to stand the hardships imposed upon chem; their corpses were thrown out beyond the boundary (of Egypt), and nobody was allowed to cover them with earth. This is very likely to be understood to mean that the Egyptians granted to the Hebrews no respite from their work to enable them to bury their dead. On the cities built by the Hebrews, see Septuagint and Targumim on Exod. 1. 11. 8 ShR 1. 12; PR, addition, 197b; Koheleth 2.23; BR 27.2 (comp. Theodor, ad loc.); Tan. Wa-Yeze 9; Philo, Moses, 1.7; Abkir in Yalkut I, 153=MHG II, 8. 9 ER 7, 44; ShR 5. 21; Wa-Yosha‘ 45, which reads: Every Hebrew was compelled to make six hundred bricks daily. Tehillim 119, 497; PRE 48; Sanhedrin 111a; Mekilta RS, 170. Comp. vol. II, pp. 299, 337, and 372, as well as vol. IV, p. 49. TO PRE 48; comp. vol. II, p. 367; vol. III, p. 13. tr ShR 1. 8; MHG II, 8. Comp. note 4. *2 Yashar Shemot, 124a-124b, which is based on older sources; comp. note 21, and note 32 on vol. II, p. 236. Yalkut Reubeni, Exod. 1. 10, quotes an unknown Midrash to the effect that the agitation against the Jews was due to the fact that the Egyptians at that time apprehended an attack upon them by the kings of Canaan, and feared lest the Hebrews should support the enemies of Egypt.

As to the historical events reflected in this legend, see Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, pp. 338-339 and Index s. v. ‘Historical Reminiscence.”’ ™3 ShR 1. 14. Comp. note 36 on vol. II, p. 12. 392 Moses » [14-21 74 ShR 1. 18; ps.-Philo, 10 (top). As to the sensuality of the Egyptians, see ER 7, 40, and vol. I, p. 222. 75 ShR 1. 13-14; ER 7, 43; Sotah 11b. As to the different positions of the male child from the female at the time of birth, see BR 17. 7, and parallel passages cited by Theodor. Comp. note 17. 16 Sotah 11b; ShR 1. 15; Yashar Shemot, 127b. ™7 ShR 1. 15. The identification of Shiphrah and Puah with Jochebed and Miriam, respectively, is already found in old sources; comp. Sifre N., 78; Sotah 11b, which gives also the dissenting view that Puah is identical with Elisheba, the wife of Aaron and the daughterin-law of Jochebed; Shemuel 18, 113; Koheleth 7. 1. As to the meaning of the names of the midwives, see the sources cited above, and Philo, Quis Rer. Divin. Haeres Sit, 26. The last-mentioned authority maintains that in Hebrew Shiphrah signifies ‘‘a bird’’ and Puah “‘red”’. Philo confused 77D with AIDS and AW with AND (in mishnic Hebrew ANID “‘woad”’ is employed to describe the reddish or rather bluish dye obtained from the leaves of the ‘‘woad’’), for which blunders the inaccurate pronunciation of Hebrew by the Alexandrians is partly responsible. Philo speaks of these two women as ‘‘midwives of the Egyptians”, agreeing on this point with some of the Rabbis who are of the opinion that Jochebed and Shiphrah were not Jewish women; see Tadshe 21 (end), where they are declared to have been proselytes; Imre No‘am, Exod.

1. 15. See also Josephus, Antigui., L922: 18 Sotah 11b; ShR 1. 16, which draws attention to Jacob’s blessings, where several of his sons are compared to animals. 19 Sotah 1ib-12a; ShR 1. 17; Tan. B. I, 152; comp. further 1 Chron. 2. 18; vol. II, pp. 70-71, vol. IV, p. 78. The view that Miriam was the ancestress of David (and hence of the Messiah) is already found in Sifre N., 78; comp. also Yerushalmi Targumim on Exod. 1. 21. The Christian legend that Jesus is a descendant of the priestly family is very likely connected with this view of the Rabbis; see Julius Africanus, Epistle to Aristides, 1. 2° Sotah 11b. Comp. vol. III, p. 154. 22 Yashar Shemot, 128a-130b; Dibre ha-Yamim 1; MHG il, 12, where mw stands inaccurately for mov, Aramaic wou “kid” and “young child”. The older sources (Josephus, Antiquz., II, 9. 2; Sotah 12a-12b; Tan. B. II, 122; Tan. Wa-Yakhel 4; ShR 1. 18) maintain that the astrologers announced to Pharaoh the exact day upon which the redeemer of Israel would be born; but they could not tell whether 393 22-277] The Legends of the Jews he would be a Hebrew or an Egyptian. Pharaoh therefore commanded that all the male children, Hebrew as well as Egyptian, born on that day should be thrown into the river. The Egyptians, however, did not submit to the king’s command, protesting that the redeemer of Israel would certainly not be an Egyptian; and thus only the Hebrew male children were thrown into the river; comp.

note 56. On the three counsellors, see Sotah 11a, where, however, it is Pharaoh himself who advised the throwing of the children into the river; comp. the following note. According to ShR 27. 3 and 6, Pharaoh’s counsellors at that time were Balaam, Jethro, and Amalek. On Job see vol. II, pp. 250-251, 296; on Jethro comp. vol. II, p. 296. According to Zohar II, 33a, it was Job who advised the enslavement of the Hebrews, to save them from complete annihilation planned against them by Pharaoh. The sufferings subsequently inflicted upon Job had the purpose to make him realize the acuteness of pain and the troubles he had caused to Israel. It is very likely that YAshar is the source of Zohar, loc. cit. 22 Sotah 11a; ShR 1. 18 and 2. 1; Shir 2. 15; Aggadat Bereshit 1,2. God swore unto Noah never again to destroy the world by water or fire, but this oath applied only to the destruction of the entire world and not to parts thereof; comp. vol. I, p. 250-251, and note 55 on vol. I, p. 166. 23 Shir 2. 15; ER 7. 43; Mishle 19, 86; ShR 22. 1; Lekah Exod. 1.2. Philo, Vita Mosts, 1. 3, also speaks of the search for the Hebrew children in all hiding-places. Pharaoh who was informed of the approaching birth of the redeemer of Israel (see note 21), ordered to take a census of all the pregnant women of the Hebrews, and as soon as the time of their confinement arrived, the male children were seized and killed; Midrash Shir 25b-26a; MHG II, 12; Haggadat Teman 36.

24 Josephus, Antiqut., II, 9. 2. ?5 Yashar Shemot, 130a (based on older sources; see Sotah 11b; ER 7, 42; PRE 42). 26 Josephus Antiqui., II, 9. 2. 27 Mekilta RS, 3; Sotah 12a; ShR 1. 13, where pAIAYD YN is the same as 11777 5’7) in Talmud; see Pesahim 70b, and Biichler, The Political .... Leaders of the Jewish Community of Sepphoris, 9; PR 43, 180a-180b; BaR 13. 20; Koheleth 9. 17; MHG II, 12-13; Dibre haYamim 2. Another version of this legend is given by ps.—Philo, 10c, according to which the leaders of the people ordered all Israel to stop propagating the race; but Amram, trusting in God, the Savior 394 Moses , [28-32 and Redeemer of Israel, objected to the command of the leaders, and finally succeeded in making them repeal the prohibition against the propagation of the race. Comp. note 37. 28 Sifre N., 67; ShR 1. 8; Josephus, Antigqui., II, 9. 3, which reads: Amram, one of the nobler sort of the Hebrews. Comp. note 409 on vol. III, p. 211. 29 Sotah ila; ShR 1. 8; Tan. B. II, 4; Tan. Shemot 5. As to the dissenting view which maintains that Pharaoh the persecutor of the Hebrews is not identical with the king of Egypt at the time of Joseph, see note 5. Josephus, Antiguz., II, 9. 1, agrees with the latter view, and dates the anti-Israelitish policy of the Egyptians from the coming into power of a new dynasty. This author remarks that the Egyptians who were indolent and effeminate envied the industrious and successful Hebrews.

Tan., loc. cit., says that the theatres and circuses were filled with the Hebrews, and this caused envy and enmity. “Ingratitude is as grave a sin as idolatry’”’; Pharaoh began with the one and ended with the other. He pretended that he did not know of any service rendered by Joseph to,Egypt (comp. Exod. 1. 8), and subsequently said: ‘‘I know not the Lord” (ibid. 5. 2); MHG II, 7; ShR and Tanhumas, loc. cit. 3° Baba Batra 17a; Targum on Ruth (end); Ma‘ase Torah 94, where Benjamin is counted among the distinguished persons. On Amram ’s piety comp. also Tan. B. IV, 16, where it is said that Israel was redeemed from Egypt on acount of the merits of Amram and his wife Jochebed. The latter, however, was not the equal of her husband, as shown by her exposing the infant Moses to danger; ‘WR 2. 1 and Koheleth 7. 28. Comp. note 46, end. Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 2, describes this couple as the noblest of their time. See also Zohar II, 19; Sifre Z., 109; vol. II, p. 323; vol. IV, p. 158. 31 PK 1, 1b; PR 5, 18b; BaR 12. 6 and 13. 2; BR 19. 7; Shir 5. 1; Tan. Pekude 6 and Naso 16; Tan. B. IV, 24, and III, 110; Tehillim 75, 338; Hallel 101; comp. vol. III, p. 185. The Hellenistic writers, as well as the Rabbis, call attention to the fact that Moses was the seventh generation from Abraham; comp. Demetrius 10, 29, 438d; Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 2; Josephus, Antiquz., II, 9. 6; PK 23, 154b-155a, and the parallel passages cited by Buber.

Comp. note 17 on vol. II, p. 222, and Index, s. v. “Seven”. 32 MHG II, 8, A similar legend is found in Hadar, Da’at, and Imre No‘am on Exod. 1. 13, according to which the entire tribe of 395 33-40] The Legends of the Jews Levi was too wise to be deceived by Pharaoh. See also ShR 1. 11 and 5. 18; Tan. Ki-Teze 9; comp. note 9. 33 12 Testaments, Levi 12. Levi had two wives, from one he begot Kehath and from the other Jochebed. In view of the fact that before the revelation on mount Sinai only maternal relationships were taken into consideration, the marriage of Amram and Jochebed was in accordance with the law; see Sahnhedrin 58b; Onkelos and Lekah Exod. 6. 20; vol. III, p. 253. The name of Jochebed’s mother was Otah; Hadar and Da‘at on Num. 26. 59. 34 MHG II, 11 (based on a midrashic work on Prov., but not found in Midrash Mishle) and 13; comp. note 30 towards the end. 35 MHG IJ, 11 (read AY) instead of 701), where it is also stated that the same miracle happened to the two spies who lodged at the house of Rahab; comp. vol. IV, p. 5. 36 Yashar Shemot, 128a; Dibre ha-Yamim 2 (read 7°>wm o7D) N’?). The etymology of the name Miriam is fodnd in old sources; comp. Seder ‘Olam 3; PR 5, 50a; see also the etymological explanations given of the names Merari and Malol in vol. II, pp. 197 and 248. The etymology of Aaron })1778 as stdnding for }177 AN “woe to this pregnancy”’ is also found in 12 Testaments, Levi 17.

Jochebed’s age at the time of her marriage was, according to old sources, one hundred and thirty years; see Sotah 12a; ShR 1. 19; Baba Batra 12a; comp. note 38 and vol. III, p. 200. 37 Sotah 12a; Mekilta RS, 3; PR 43, 180b, and the sources referred to in note 27. Amram married “‘for the sake of heaven’’, and God swore that the issue of this union will carry the scroll of the Torah in their arms; ER 29, 157; EZ 3, 177; Nispahim 9. Maimonides, Yad ha-Hazakah, Melakim 9. 1, following an unknown source, writes: God revealed several laws to Amram. 38 Sotah 12a; Baba Batra 120a; ShR 1. 19. Comp. vol. III, pp. 200, 393, and 436. 39 Josephus, Antiqut., II, 9. 3-4. 4° Ps.-Philo, 10-11, from which it was incorporated in Yerahmeel 42. 8. The description of the man clothed in fine linen is, of course, taken from Ezekiel 10. 2, and according to the view of the Rabbis, he is identical with Gabriel; comp. Tan. B. III, 84. Zohar II, 19a, maintains that it was Gabriel who brought Amram and Jochebed together after they had been separated; comp. vol. II, p. 262 (below) with reference to the angels participating in the celebration 396 Moses + [41-45 of Amram’s second wedding with Jochebed. On Miriam's prophecy see vol. II, p. 265. 4% Sotah 12a; ShR 1. 20; Josephus, Antiqui., II, 9. 4. 4? Mekilta RS, 71; Sotah 12a; ShR 1. 20; Yashar Shemot, 130b; Zohar II, 11b. The primordial light, which God had hidden shortly after its creation (vol.

I, pp. 8-9), shone upon Moses during the first three months of his life; it was withdrawn from him as soon as Pharaoh’s daughter took him to her house; it came back to him when he ascended on mount Sinai, and remained with him till the end of his life. It was by means of this light that he was able to survey the whole of Palestine in the twinkling of an eye (vol. III, p. 442); Zohar II, lib; comp. also Kad ha-Kemah, Hanukkah, 11a. On the appearing of celestial lights at the birth of heroes, see note I, on vol. I, p. 145. $3 DR 11. 9, 120b; comp. vol. III, p. 468. Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 3, remarks: The boy, immediately after his birth, showed a noble appearance different from that of an ordinary child. On the speaking of babes, comp. Index, s. v. ‘‘Babes, Speaking of’’. 44 Mekilta RS, 3; Sotah 12b; Targum Yerushalmi on Exod. 2. 2; Yashar Shemot, 130b; Dibre ha-Yamim 2; MHG II, 13 (all prophets are seven-month children); ShR 1. 20. The last-named source, as well as Mekilta RS and Talmud, maintain that Jochebed had been pregnant for three months at the time of her separation from Amram (comp. vol. II, pp. 258, 262); but the Egyptians could not notice her condition. The same view is also found in ps.-Philo, 10d, where the text needs to be emended. The statement in MHG that Moses was born on the seventh of Adar is based on an old tradition; comp. Seder ‘Olam 10, and the numerous parallel passages cited by Ratner.

In all these sources it is remarked that Moses’ death also took place on the seventh of Adar, in accordance with the rule that the righteous die on the day of the anniversary of their birth; comp. note 60 on vol. I, p. 137. Hippolytus, on Deut. 33. 11, gives the seventh of Iyyar as the day of Moses’s death; but in view of the statement of the Rabbis, lyyar is perhaps to be emended to Adar. MHG is the only source for the legend that Jochebed was pregnant with Moses for only six months and two days. Kaftor wa-Ferah, XLVII, 640, reads: Moses, the light of the world, was born in the year two thousand and sixty-eight (A. M.), on Tuesday the sixth of Adar; the new moon of this Adar was Thursday, one hour and twenty-two parts of an hour. Comp. notes 3 and 23. 45 Josephus, Antigqui., II, 9. 4. 397 46-48] The Legends of the Jews 46 Sotah 12a-13a; ShR 1. 21-22; Mishle 14, 74-75, and 31, 111, BaR 13. 20; Mekilta Shirah 10, 44a; Mekilta RS, 71. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1, 22, gives a similar description of the ark. In Talmud, loc. cit. (ShR is a literal quotation from it), two views are cited conerning the meaning of 41D {(Exod. 2. 3). According to one, it is the same as 10 0” ‘“‘Red Sea’’, while according to the other, it signifies “swamp’’. Jochebed did not endanger the life of the infant Moses, as she abandoned him only for a short time, so that the Egyptian astrologers (comp.

vol. II, p. 268) may be misled in believing that the promised redeemer of Israel found his grave in the water. The astrologers sometimes have visions of future happenings, but they never ‘‘see clearly’; ShR, loc. cit. This tendency to exonerate Jochebed of the crime of exposing her child to danger is also noticeable in the tragedian Ezekiel, 475, and Josephus, Anéiquz., II, 9. 4, who state that Moses’ mother placed Miriam near the water to see “whether the ark would be carried away”. Fot the other view, blaming Jochebed for this act, see note 30. 47 Sotah 12b; ShR 1.24. The answer given by God to the angels is also mentioned, in a somewhat different form, by Josephus, Antgui. II, 9. 4. Sotah, Joc. cit., quotes an opinion that Moses was put into the river on the sixth day of Siwan, the day of the revelation of the Torah on mount Sinai; comp. MHG II, 13. 48 Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 2. 5 (in the source cited by Ginsburger there is nothing bearing upon this legend); PRE 48. Yashar Shemot, 130b-131a, Dibre ha-Yamim 3, and Ephraim on Exod, loc cit., speak of an unusual heat which God sent upon Egypt, and thus the princess was compelled to go to bathe in the Nile. The name Thermutis is only found in Josephus, Antiqui., II, 9. 5, and Jub. 47, as well as in later, mostly Christian, sources dependent on these two authorities; see Rénsch, Das Buch der Jubilden, 265. In rabbinic literature the name of Moses’ foster-mother is Bithiah; see note 60.

Sibyll. 3, 253, speaks of the queen who saved Moses from death by drowning; this is not to be taken literally, as proved by Josephus who makes Miriam address the woman who delivered Moses from death as queen, though he himself .explicitly states that she was the daughter, not the wife, of the king. Artapanus 9, 27, 432, calls Pharaoh’s daughter Merois and her husband Chenephes, king of Memphis. She adopted Moses because she was childless; this view is also found in Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 4, and Josephus, op. cit., 7. Philo adds that she was the only child of Pharaoh and very much loved by 398 Moses / [49-56 him; on account of her childlessness she was always depressed and sad. In an attack of melancholy, Pharaoh’s daughter, accustomed to indoor life, left her house to seek solace for her aching heart in God’s free nature. She betook herself to the river where she found the infant Moses. Comp. note 226. 49 Sotah 12b; ShR 1. 23; comp. Lekah, Exod. 2. 10. 5° Josephus, Antiqui., II, 9. 5; Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 3. On the beauty of Moses see vol. II, pp. 271, 285, 322. §1Sotah 12b; ShR 1. 24. The view that the Hebrews only were circumcised, but not the Egyptians, so that the infant was easily recognized as a Hebrew child, is shared also by Ephraim, I, 178c, and Theodoretus on Exod. 2. 6, whereas Aphraates, 210, rejects it on the ground that Joseph introduced the ceremony of circumcision among the Egyptians.

The last statement is also found in rabbinic literature but with the modification that the Egyptians abandoned this rite after Joseph’s death; comp. note 196 on vol. II, p. 79. According to a widespread legend, Moses was born with the sign of the covenant on his body (comp. Sotah 12a; ShR 1. 20; DR 11. 9; comp. note 318 on vol. I, p. 306). PRE 48, on the contrary, dwells upon the fact that the parents of Moses circumcised him on the eighth day after his birth. As to the infant’s refusal to take milk from the breast of an Egyptian woman, comp. vol. II, p. 264, according to which he did not take any milk, not even from the breast of his own mother. This Haggadah takes p'1mM (Exod. 2. 9) in the applied sense: the woman was called to nurse him ‘‘and not to give him the breast”’. In the fuller form of the suffix 17p’:, instead of 1p’2m, the Haggadah finds support for this view. Comp. the following note. 5? Josephus, Antiqui., II, 9. 5, who remarks also that Miriam acted as though she had come that way by chance. The same observation is made by the Rabbis, Sotah 12b and ShR 1. 24. 53 Sotah 12b; ShR 1. 25; MHG II, 14, with the addition that Jochebed pretended to fear to take charge of the child, and she consented to do it only after she had been assured by the princess that there was no reason to apprehend any unpleasant consequences. $4 Yashar Shemot, 131; Dibre ha-Yamim 3. 55 ShR 1. 25.

56 Sotah 12b; ShR 1. 18 and 24; Sanhedrin 101b; Shir 2. 15; BR 97. 3; Koheleth 1. 4; MHG II, 12. Opinions differ as to the time during which this edict was in force. Sotah limits it to one day, ShR 1. 18 to ten or twelve months, Jub. 47. 2 to seven months, 399 57] The Legends of the Jews and PRE 48 to three and a half years. If the last view, which is difficult to explain, is disregarded (comp. Luria, ad loc.), the difference of opinion among the other sources is easily understood. The edict against the Hebrew male children was due to the information Pharaoh had received from the astrologers concerning the approaching birth of the redeemer of the Hebrews (comp. note 21). According to the Talmud, they were mistaken in believing that the night on which they saw their vision was the night of the conception, and hence they counted seven months from that time. In this they erred, for Jochebed had already at that time been pregnant for three months (comp. note 44), so that on the day when the edict was put into execution Moses was already three months old. ShR is of the opinion that the edict was put into force immediately after the astrologers informed Pharaoh of the impending danger, on the very night when Jochebed conceived, and was continued to be applied until they informed him that the danger had passed, that is, when Moses was thrown into the river and they believed him drowned; hence the edict lasted for ten months (this supposes that Moses was born after seven months of pregnancy; comp.

note 44), or twelve months (if he was born after the regular time of pregnancy). The text of Jub. is certainly corrupt, since it flatly contradicts the statement of Scripture that Jochebed put Moses in the river when he was three months old, and accordingly the edict must have lasted some time after his birth. It is quite likely that the Hebrew original of this work read 12 nddwn wx orn jy, but the Greek translator misread n>bwn as nbn, and the seven months are to be counted from the third month of Jochebed’s pregnancy until Moses was three months old; comp. ps.—Philo, 10D, and BR 85, 10, where it is stated that the pregnancy of a woman becomes noticeable at the end of the third month. On the number of children thrown into the water; see note 4. 57 Yashar Shemot, 131a; WR 1. 3; Dibre ha-Yamim 3 (the text is corrupt); PRE 48; Megillah 13a; Targum on 1 Chron. 4. 18; comp. also Lekah Exod. 2. 10 and the piyyut (geonic?) oDNbn ysapnn_ for the Day of Rejoicing of the Law according to the Ashkenazic ritual. In the last source Moses has two‘additional names: » Nathaniel (= Nethanel) and Tobiah; this is due to a peculiar interpretation of WR, where, according to the context, the three names comprising the word Abi are to be counted double, and hence Moses had ten nantes including the name by which he is generally known; but the paitan considered Abi as the inseparable part of the name, and in order to secure ten 400 Moses ’ [58-64 names for the prophet, he was obliged to add two names.

Ps.—Philo, 11A, states that Jochebed named her son Melkiel (dwn), and Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1. 21, agrees with this. 58 DR 11. 9. Comp. vol. III, pp. 468-469, and vol. II p. 264. 59 MHG II 14; Lekah, Exod. 2. 10. The Haggadah attempts to answer the question why the baby was called nw ‘“‘the drawer”, instead of "WD “the drawn’’. Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 4, and similarly Josephus, Antiguz., 11, 9. 5, as well as Contra Apionem, 1. 31, derive the name Moses from the Egyptian Mcy ‘water’. The similarity between the names Moses and Musaeus is responsible for the identification of the lawgiver of the Hebrews with Musaeus the Greek sage found in syncretistic writings; comp. e. g., Artapanus, 434. See note 69. 6° WR 1. 3; Megillah 13a, and in many other passages of rabbinic literature (comp. Index, s. v. “‘Bithiah’’). The daughter of Pharaoh with the name Bithiah, mentioned in 1 Chron. 4. 8, is taken to be the foster-mother of Moses, and this view seems to have been known to Eusebius. On Caleb see vol. II, pp. 253 and 287. 6t Mishle 31, 111; 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 28b; Derek Erez Zuta 1 (end); comp. Index, s. v. “‘ Paradise, Entering Alive Into”. According to Artapanus, 433c, Moses’ foster-mother died before he had fled from Egypt. 62 Artapanus, 432; Philo, Vita Mosts, 1. 3; this opinion is very likely shared by Ezekiel, the tragedian, 458b. Comp. Hebrews 12. 23, and vol. II, p. 282 (top).

63 Tan. Shemot 8; ShR 1. 26. Comp. the following note as well as note 50. 64 Josephus, Antiqut., II, 9. 6-7. Philo, Vita Mosts, 1. 5, and ShR 1. 26 also dwell upon the precocity of the infant Moses. The statement of ShR that he remained for twenty-four months with his mother is to be explained in accordance with Tosefta Nedarim 2. 1 and Ketubot 60a, where the time of nursing is fixed at twenty-four months. Josephus accordingly says that Moses began to display his extraordinary faculties in his third year, 7. e., after he was taken from his nurse Jochebed and brought to the royal house. Comp., however, note 50. On the beauty and charm of Moses see notes 50 and 63, as well as Ecclesiasticus 44. 22-45. 1. It is a prominent feature of legend to paint the infancy and youth of their heroes in glowing colors; comp. e. g., Luke 3. 52, and the numerous Christian legends about the infant Jesus. See Acts 8. 20 and notes 42-43. 401 65-67] The Legends of the Jews °S Yashar Shemot 131b-132b, and, in abridged form, Dibre haYamim 3-4. In ShR 1. 26 it is Jethro who advised the test with the burning coal. As to the age of Moses at this occurrence, see vol. III, p. 469 (top). The name Alfar‘anit seems to be Arabic, the feminine of Pharaoh; but comp. Syncellus, I, 227: Oepyod@is kat 4 gapéin. Tertullian, Ad Nat., 3. 8, and Apologia, 16, maintains that Faria is the same as Isis.—Josephus, Antiquz., II, 9.7, does not know of the test with the burning coals, but is acquainted with the legend that Moses, while still a small child, threw the crown down from Pharaoh’s head and stamped on it with his feet.

The sacred scribe (astrologers, in rabbinic sources), who had forseen the birth of Moses and warned Pharaoh of the danger that threatened him insisted that the child be put todeath. Ina similar strain is the version of the legend in Tan. Shemot 8 and ShR, Joc. cit., whereas in Yashar, Balaam takes the place of the sacred scribe. On the Arabic version of this legend see Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, 155-160. On an old Slavohic translation of this section of Yashar, see Bonwetsch, Die Mosessage. Comp. also Hamilton in Zeitschrift f. Romanische mnofetis XXXVI, 129-159. 66 Josephus, Antigui., II, 9. 7. 87 Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 5-7, who gives a very elaborate description of the course of studies of the youthful Moses. Among other things he remarks that Moses received instruction in the wisdom of the Greeks, Egyptians, and—the—neighboring nations. A similar déscription is found in Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1. 23, which is very likely taken from Philo. What Moses borrowed as a youth he repaid with considerable interest as an adult mature in years. The benefits derived by the nations, directly or indirectly, from Moses’ wisdom by far outweighed those he had received from them. Moses, “the first sage’’, taught the Hebrews the art of writing, and the Phenicians, who subsequently learned it from them, taught it in turn to the Greeks; Eupolemus, 431c. Numa, the king of the Romans, following the precepts of Moses, prohibited his people to represent the deity in human or animal form; yea, even the great Plato, to quote the Pythagorean Numenius, what was he, ‘‘but Moses speaking in Attic Greek”; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1.» 15; Eusebius, Praep.

Evang., 410-411. The strangest expression of these syncretistic tendencies is found in the life of Moses by Artapanus, 432, seg. According to this author, Moses, or as he calls him, Moyses (comp. note 59), is identical with Musaeus of the Greek legend, which erroneously styles him the disciple of Orpheus, whereas he was his 402 Moses + [68 master. Philosophy, medicine, the invention of numerous instruments, utensils, and weapons, the hieroglyphic characters, the administrative division of Egypt into thirty-six districts, and the allotment of one district to the priests are all the work of Moses. There is therefore nothing surprising in the divine honors paid to Moses by the Egyptians who called him Hermes. On these syncretistic legends see Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 143-198; Krauss, Ha-Goren, VII, 2934; note 955 on vol. III, p. 474. The description of Moses’ education given by the Hellenist Ezekiel, 438b, is closely related to the one found in Philo and Josephus, and one is justified in assuming a common source (not Artapanus) upon which these three authors drew. 8 Liipschiitz, Tif’eret Israel, Kiddushin (end). The author does not give his source, but a similar legend is found in Shita Mekubbezet, Nedarim (end of the third chapter; here the hero is a sage whose name is not given), and No‘am ha-Middot, letter 'p (from here it was incorporated in Midrash Eliyyahu 8), where this legend is told of Aristotle.

Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 6, and De Praemtis et Poenis, 9, likewise dwells upon Moses’ discipline over himself. Comp. also Berakot 33b, which reads: Moses spoke of the fear of God as though its attainment were a light task (comp. Deut. 10. 12), because he had reached the stage where the fear of God became second nature to him.—The rabbinic sources generally speak of ‘‘Moses our master’’ (1737 7D), whereas the designation ‘“‘our master Moses’’ is extremely rare; see Midrash Tannaim 14; WR 10. 3; PK 10, 45b; ShR 50. 2. In the three last-named passages Moses is addressed directly. It is very difficult to explain why in the case of Moses the title 1729 is put after the name, whereas in connection with other names the similar titles, like }29, °29, and 34, are placed before the name. Attention should be called, however, to the fact that 1Y38 ‘‘our father’, qbon “the king”, and 217, “the prophet” in post-biblical literature, follow mostly the names to which they refer. Thus, e. g., the Rabbis speak of soon 17, in contrast to the use of the Bible, where, with one doubtful exception (2 Sam. 13. 39) 17 qbnn is always employed. The talmudic and midrashic literature, in contrast to the post-talmudic literature, hardly ever uses the title 1729 before any other name than that of Moses, if we except YINp7 17" as the title of the compiler of the Mishnah, and 37 19 for Abba Arika, the founder of the academy at Sura.

Comp. Ginzberg, Geonica, I, 42. The explanation of the unusual expression 11.29 wD given in Or ha-Hayyim 12 and Sefer ha-Hayyim (introduction) is of a homiletical nature. An403 69-70] The Legends of the Jews other title given to Moses is “the pious”, in Tadshe and the sources depending on it; comp. Epstein in the introduction to his edition of this Midrash 23. Comp., however, WR 1. 4, where Yon is used as an attribute of David (see Berakot 4a) and Moses, whereas in Tadshe Jacob shares this honor with Moses. ‘The father of wisdom’’ or “of the wise” and ‘‘the father of prophecy” are often used to describe Moses; comp., e. g., Sifre N., 134, and Sifre D., 306, 132b; 2 ARN 1, 3; Mishle 25. 97; DR 9. 3; WR 1. 3; Tehillim 106, 454; ER 5, 21; 6, 33; 13, 68 (here he is called “the wisest of the wise, the greatest of the great, the father of the prophets”); 18, 83; EZ 12, 194. Moses is called ‘“‘the master of all prophets’? (Midrash Tannaim 213; DR 1. 10 and 2. 1; PR 41, 144a; Tehillim 5, 56); ‘‘the master of all Israel’’ (Ruth R 2. 4); ‘‘the elect of the prophets” (BR 76, 1); ‘‘the best and most chosen of the prophets’’ (Shir 4. 9; Tehillim 1, 3); ‘the most chosen, the most prominent, and the most indefatigable man among all the tribes’’ (Shir 4. 9); ‘‘the first of the prophdts” (Esther R, introduction), where “‘first’’ is to be taken in the temporal sense: ‘‘the father of all seers’’ (Kalir, Shahrit for w1nm ne7p; Confession of Sin at the end of the Selihah for the eve of New’ Year); “‘king and master of Israel” (Tehillim 24, 207).

On Moses as king, see Index, s. ». “Moses’’., 69 Yashar Shemot, 132b-133a. Opinions differ as to Moses’ age at the time of his fleeing from Egypt. Some authorities think he was twelve years old (ShR 5. 2), while according to others he was twenty, twenty-two, or forty years at that time; see BaR 14. 18; ShR 1. 27 and 30; Tan. Shemot 5. The Haggadah is extremely fond of symmetry, and accordingly divides the life of Moses into three equal periods. He is said to have lived forty years in Egypt, forty in Midian, and forty in the wilderness; Sifre D., 357; MHG I, 771; Acts 7. 23. Comp. note 76.—Moses, though brought up as a royal prince, soon learned from his ‘‘nurse’’ Jochebed the truth about himself, and it was she who also taught him the history of his people, their former grandeur, their present enslavement, and their hopes for the future; the Hellenist Ezekiel, 438. As to the sons of Balaam, see vol. II, p. 283. be . 7° ShR 1, 27; Tan. Shemot 9; WR 37. 2. Moses endangered his life for the sake of Israel, the Torah, and the execution of justice. His reward for this is that God speaks of ‘‘the Torah of Moses"’, of Israel “‘the people of Moses”, and of “the judgment revealed to Moses”; comp. Mekilta Shirah 1, 34b; Midrash Tannaim 96; Tan. 404 Moses, [71-75 B. V, 29; ShR 30. 4, and parallel passages marked on the margin; Batte Midrashot, IV, 2-3. The devotion of Moses to his nation and his attempt to alleviate its sufferings are very elaborately described by Philo, Vita Mosis, 1.

7-8, and it is very likely that the author of Hebrews 12. 24-25 was acquainted with the Philonic Haggadah. 71 Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 8. 7™2ShR 1. 28; Yashar Shemot, 133a; Shibbole ha-Leket 55-56. According to the version of this legend given by Abudrahim (on now mwa) and by Treves (who follows the former), Kimha Dabishuna (‘Amidah for Sabbath morning), Moses chose Saturday as the day of rest, because it being an unlucky day, ‘‘the day of Saturn’’, Pharaoh, it was hoped, would not object to the Hebrews refraining from work on it, since the work done on that day would anyway bring ill-luck. Saturday, and especially the night preceding it (according to the Jewish conception, the day follows the night), is the time when the demons and the evil spirits (Q°p’1D) hold full sway; Pesahim 112b; Seder R. Amram 25a and 26a; Mahzor Vitry 81 and 83-84; Shibbole ha-Leket 100.—The Hebrews in Egypt spent the Sabbath in reading the scrolls dealing with the promised redemption of Israel from Egyptian bondage; ShR 5. 18; Tan. Wa-Era 6; Tehillim 119, 498. R. Azariah de Rossi, Meor ‘Enayim, 4. 4, quotes the following from Origen: On Sabbath Moses used to show the Hebrews the book of Job, that they might learn from it that the suffering of the righteous is only for a time and finally makes room for joy and pleasure. As far as can be ascertained, nothing of this kind is found in the writings of Origen.

It is hard to tell whether this supposed quotation from Origen, which de Rossi claims to have read in a work of Pico di Mirandola, is contained in the latter’s writings or not. In Shalshelet haKabbaiah, 13a, this supposed quotation from Origen is changed into a quotation from an old treatise }¥’ 01W21p. Comp. Straschun in HaMaggid, IX, No. 12. 73 ShR 1. 28; WR 32. 4-5; PRE 48; Tan. Shemot 9 and Emor 24; Tan. B. III, 102-103; Sifre 24. 10; Dibre ha-Yamim 4; Targum Yerushalmi Lev. 24. 10; comp. vol. III, p. 239; on the brothers Dathan and Abiram, see note 75. That the Egyptian attempted to slay the Hebrew is also maintained by Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 8. 74 Yashar Shemot, 133b; Dibre ha-Yamim 4. The name Dathan is supplied in accordance with ShR 1. 28. 75 ShR 1. 29-31; Tan. Shemot 9-10; Abkir in Yalkut I, 167; Tehillim 29, 206; DR 2. 29; ARN 20, 72 (this is the source of Lekah, 405 76-78] The Legends of the Jews Exod. 2. 12); Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 8-9; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1. 22. The brothers Dathan and Abiram were the most bitter enemies of Moses from his first appearance before the public until his death. They were the men who at the Red Sea attempted to make the people return to Egypt (comp. vol. III, p. 13), and they also tried the same thing at the time the spies returned from Canaan (comp. vol. III, p. 276). They transgressed the commandment concerning the manna (comp.

vol. III, p. 48); they were also the ringleaders at the rebellion of Korah. See the sources cited at the beginning of this note, and further ER 18, 106-107; Megillah 11a. As to the justification of the killing of the Egyptian, see the sources cited in the preceding note; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 2. 12; Sanhedrin 58b; vol. III, p. 428 (the only passage where Moses is blamed for this action). Comp. also vol. IV, p. 240 (concerning the young men cursed by Elisha). 76 ShR 1. 31; DR 2. 29; Yerushalmi Berakot 9, 13a; Tehillim 4, 40-41; Shir 7. 4; Mekilta 58b; Mekilta RS, 86; Yashar Shemot, 133b; Dibre ha-Yamim 5. The view that an angel assumed the form of Moses (Docetism?) is also found in WR 6. 5, where, however, the text ought to be corrected in accordance*with Midrash Tannaim 57. Comp. also Yerushalmi Peah 1, 22a. The miracle of the sword refusing to cut the neck of a saint is of very frequent occurrence in Christian legends; comp., e. g. Acts of Andrew and Matthias. As to the age of Moses at the time of the flight from Egypt, see note 69 and further Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 9, according to whom the punishment of Egypt followed shortly after Moses’ flight, whereas Artapanus, 431, maintains that Moses spent thirty years in Midian. The statement (Jub. 47. 10 and 48. 11) that Moses fled from Egypt in his twenty-first year is based on Exod. 2. 11, where it is said that Moses’ first appearance in public took place when he ‘‘grew up”, which is taken by the Haggadah to refer to the age of majority, and this, according to the old Halakah, is the age of twenty; see Ginzberg’s remarks, Unbekannte Sekte, 64-65.

The other statement, found in rabbinic sources, that Moses fled from Egypt at the age of eighteen, is to be explained in the same manner, since according to some authorities, eighteen is the age of majority; comp. Niddah 5. 9. 77 Yashar Shemot, 133b and Yerahmeel 45. 2. In Dibre haYamim 5 ') is to be emendedto 'p. 78 ShR 1. 30; Abkir in Yalkut 167. Many passages state that Israel was redeemed from Egypt on account of the greai virtue in 406 Moses | [79-80 refraining from slander and tale-bearing; comp. Mekilta Bo 5, Sa, and the numerous parallel passages cited by Friedmann, ad loc. 79 Seder ‘Olam 21; Targum on 1 Chron. 14. 12; Yashar Shemot, 133b; BaR 14. 12; Dibre ha-Yamim 5. The five sons of Zerah are, according to 1 Chron., loc. cit., Zimri, Ethan, Heman, Kalkol, and Darda. As to Aaron’s activity as the leader of his people, see ShR 3. 16; MHG II, 35; Midrash Tannaim 215; vol. II, p. 188. 8° Yashar Shemot, 133b—136b and 138a (read 412) or 173, with Yalkut in 138a, |. 14); Dibre ha-Yamim 5-7; Yerahmeel 45 and 46. 6-9; Yalkut I, 168.—With regard to the names of the persons occurring in this legend, the following is to be noticed: DIND30 in Yashar and dm in Yalkut are scribal errors for DI3730 = wovdpxosThe Grecized forms of the names Jannes and Jambres representing the Semitic names 737” and 89D, occurring in Mehahot 85a, cannot be taken as proof of the Greek origin of this legend, as these forms are found in Aramaic and Hebrew sources of legends directly borrowed from the Talmud; see, e.

g., Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 7. 11, and Tan. Ki-Tissa 19 (read: DIN3D1) DI”) and comp. it with Menahot, Joc. cit. It is, however, true that the legend in rabbinic sources concerning Moses’ stay in Egypt has some points of contact with the following story given by Artapanus, 432, seg. This author writes: Chenephres, the husband of Moses’ foster-mother, became envious of Moses, and sought to slay him on some plausible pretext. And so when the Ethiopians invaded Egypt, Chenephres sent Moses in command of a force against them, and enrolled a body of husbandmen for him, hoping that through the weakness of his troops Moses would be easily destroyed by the enemy. Moses, however, was victorious in his campaign which lasted for ten years (in Yashar the siege of the capital of the Ethiopians lasted ten years), and on account of his excellence even the Ethiopians became so fond of him that they learned from him the custom of circumcision. Moses built a city as quarters for his vast army, and therein he consecrated the ibis (in Yashar, the stork), because this bird destroys the animals that are noxious to man. When Moses returned to Egypt, he was welcomed by Chenephres, who in reality continued to plot against him. He took the troops away from him, and sent them to the frontier of Ethiopia. He also ordered to demolish the temple of Divispolis which had been built of baked bricks, and erected another of straw.

He appointed Nacheros (identical with bDI72}[D] in Yashar?) superintendent of the building. Having alienated the Egyptians from Moses, Chenephres 407 80] The Legends of the Jews induced Chanethothes to undertake to slay Moses. ‘The plot conspired against him was reported to Moses, and on the advice of Aaron he sailed across the Nile from Memphis, intending to take refuge in Arabia. Chanethothes, informed of Moses’ proposed flight, placed himself in ambush with the intention to kill him. When he saw Moses approach, he drew his sword against him. But Moses seized his hand and slew him with his own sword. Self-evident is the affinity between this story of Artapanus and the following Moses legend given by Josephus, Antiqui., II, 10-11. The Jewish historian narrates: The Egyptians, sadly oppressed by the Ethiopians, betook themselves to their oracles and prophecies, and when God had given them the counsel to make use of Moses the Hebrew to assist them, the king commanded his daughter to produce him, that he might be the general of their army. After she had made him (the king) swear he would do him (Moses) no harm, she delivered him to the king. At the same time she reproached the priests, who, though they had _ before urged the Egyptians to kill him, were not ashamed now to own their need of his help. So Moses, at the persuasion, both of Thermuthis and the king himself, cheerfully undertook the campaign against the Ethiopians.

And the sacred scribes of both nations were glad; those of the Egyptians, because they would at once overcome their enemies by his valor, and by the same strategy Moses would be slain; but those of the Hebrews, because they would escape from the Egyptians, since Moses was to be their general. Now Moses led his army against the Ethiopians before they were apprised of his attacking them; for he did not march by the river, but by the land, where he gave a wonderful demonstration of his sagacity. For when the ground was difficult to pass over, because of the multitude of serpents which it produces in vast numbers, some of which come out of the ground unseen, and also fly in the air (comp. Is. 30. 6). Moses invented a wonderful stratagem to preserve the army. He made, of sedge, baskets like unto arks and filled them with ibes, and carried them along with them; now this animal is the greatest enemy of serpents, for they fly from them when they come near them, and as they fly they are caught and devoured by them. As soon, therefore, as Moses:was come to the land which was the breeder of these serpents, he let loose the ibes, and by their means repelled the serpents, and used them for his assistants before the army came upon the ground. When he had, therefore, proceeded thus on his journey, he came upon the Ethiopians before they expected 408 Moses ’ [80 him, and joining battle with them he defeated them and went on capturing their cities.

At length the Ethiopians retired to Saba, which was a royal city, afterwards named Meroe (comp. note 226) by Cambyses after the name of his own sister. The place was besieged with great difficulty, since it was both encompassed by the Nile and by two other rivers, besides having a strong wall and great ramparts between the wall and the rivers. However, while Moses was uneasy at the army’s lying idle—for the enemy dared not come to battle—this accident happened. Tharbis was the daughter of the king of the Ethiopians; she happened to see Moses as he led the army near the walls and fought with great courage, and admiring the subtlety of his undertakings, and believing him to be responsible for the success of the Egyptians, she fell in love with him, and sent to him the most faithful of all her servants to discuss with him about their marriage. Moses thereupon accepted the offer on condition that she should deliver the city and gave her the assurance of an oath to take her for his wife, and that when he had taken possession of the city, he would not break his oath to her. The agreement took effect immediately. And when Moses had cut off the Ethiopians, he gave thanks to God, and consummated his marriage, and led the Egyptians back to their own land. Now the Egyptians after they had been saved by Moses, entertained hatred toward him, fearing he would take advantage of his success to raise a sedition, and introduce innovations into Egypt.

They therefore told the king that he ought to be slain. The king had similar intentions himself out of envy of Moses’ glorious expedition at the head of his army, as well as out of fear of being brought low by him; and being instigated by the sacred scribes, he was ready to undertake to kill Moses. But when Moses had learned of the plots being hatched against him (the slaying of the Eygptian, the cause of Moses’ flight according to Exod. 2. 12-15 is ignored by Josephus in true apologetic fashion), he went away privately, and because the public roads were watched, he took his flight through the desert, where his enemies could not suspect he would travel; and though he was destitute of food, he went on courageously. It is very likely that the story in Josephus, or to be more accurate, in Alexander Polyhistor, his authority, is based entirely on Artapanus, although the present text of the latter does not contain the incident about Moses’ Ethiopian wife. The old rabbinic sources know neither of Moses’ wars against the Ethiopians nor of his marriage with an Ethiopian princess. They 400 81-84] The Legends of the Jews maintain that the Ethiopian wife of Moses, mentioned in Num. 12. 1, is identical with Zipporah; comp. note 488 on vol. III, p. 250. This view is also held by Demetrius, 439d, and the Hellenist Ezekiel, 348. ShR 1. 27 and Tan. Shemot 5, though late Midrashim, do not know yet of Moses’ stay in Ethiopia, and the oldest rabbinic source where reference is made to it seems to be Targum Yerushalmi Num.

12. 1. Comp. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 143-198, and Isidore Lévy, R.E.J., LIII, 201-211. 8 Josephus, Antiqui., II, 11. 1, which is very likely based on Demetrius, 439b, seg., who gives a lengthy exposition of the relationship between Moses, ‘‘the seventh from Abraham”’, and Zipporah, “the sixth from Abraham.” As to Medan, the son of Abraham, see vol. II, p. 23. 82 ShR 1. 32; Tan. Shemot 11; Mekilta Yitro 1, 57b and 59a; Mekilta RS, 86 and 88; PR 35, 161a; Koheleth 3. il. The Hellenist Ezekiel, 439, describes Jethro as a monarch and sole chief in war... ruler, judge, and priest. Josephus, Antiqui., II, 11. 2, likewise dwells upon the high position which Jethro held. in his country. According to an opinion recorded in the first four sources cited at the beginning of this note, ]7> (Exod. 2. 16) signifies ‘‘prince’’ and not “‘oriest’’; comp. also vol. III, pp. 384 and 388. 83 Mekilta Yitro 1, 57a; Mekilta RS, 86; Sifre N., 78; Sifre Z., 73-74 (this passage also gives the dissenting view that Reuel was the father of Jethro); ShR 1. 32 and 27. 8; Tan. Yitro 4; Tan. B. II, 6; PRK, 37b; Lekah Exod. 4.18. See also Philo, De Mut. Num., 17. The contradiction between Exod, 2. 18 and Num. 10. 11 did not escape the Rabbis, and in the passages referred to (see also the rabbinic sources cited in the preceding note) two solutions of the difficulty are offered. According to one, Reuel is an attribute of Jethro; according to the other, Reuel was Jethro’s father.

It is true that in Exod. Reuel is described as the father of Jethro’s daughter; but this is merely due to the fact that children are in the habit of addressing their grandfather as father. Ephraim, I, 254 E, agrees with the second view, Theodoretus, Num. Joc. cit., with the first. Comp. also Josephus, Antigui., II,-12. 1, and Vulgate, Num., Joc. cit. 84 ShR 1. 34; Tan. Shemot 11; ARN 15, 72; MHG II, 18. Comp. also BR 70. 11. According to Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 10, Moses arraigned the shepherds in a lengthy address, with the result (he spoke like a prophet) that they repented of their unkind treatment of Jethro’s 410 Moses ’ [85-91 daughters, and made amends for it by taking Jethro’s flock to the troughs. See also Abkir in Yalkut I, 169; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 2. 18-19; Zohar II, 13b and vol. I, pp. 354-355. 85 ARN 20, 72; this is the source of Midrash Aggada, Exod. 2. 19. Comp. vol. I, pp. 354-355. 86 Zohar II, 12b. Comp. note 127 on vol. III, p. 52. 87 ShR 1, 32; Tan. Shemot 2. 88 Wa-Yosha 42. The description of the rod in the text is in accordance with PRE 40. A somewhat different version of this legend is found in Hashkem 2b; comp. Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 2. 21, 4, 20, and 14. 21, as well as Deut. 34. 12. According to Targum, the rod was hewn from the sapphire of the divine throne, and weighed forty seah; comp. Mekilta Beshallah 6, 58b; Mekilta RS, 81; Tan.

B. II, 25, and III, 37, as well as the parallel passages cited by Buber. For further details concerning the rod of Moses (it is often confused with Aaron’s staff), see note 95; vol. III, pp. 19, 431, 477, and note 894 of vol. III. According to ps.-Philo, 20c at the death of Moses the rod was placed by God as a ‘“‘witness”” between Him and His people, so that when the Israelites sin and God is wroth against them, He remembers the rod, and has mercy on them, according to His loving-kindness. See also Abrahams, Rod of Moses.—Zipporah (on the etymology of this name see note 147) is praised in the legends not only on account of her piety and virtue (Mo‘ed Katan 16b; Tan. B. II, 7; ShR 1. 32, end; Yashar Shemot, 143a; Dibre ha-Yamim 7), but also for her beauty; comp. Sifre N., 99; Sifre Z., 82 and 204; Tehillim 7, 71. Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 11, describes her as the most beautiful of the seven daughters of Jethro. As to the position held by Jethro at the court of Pharaoh, see vol. II, pp. 254 and 296. 89 ShR 1. 32. 9° Abkir in Yalkut I, 169; Lekah Exod. 2. 20. A somewhat different account is given in ShR 1. 32 and Tan. Shemot 11, where it is said: Jethro said: He is very likely the descendant of Jacob for whom the water of the Nile rose from the bottom; comp. vol. I, pp. 354-355. 91ShR 1. 32; Tan. Shemot 11, and similarly Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 11. Comp. also Sanhedrin 103b-104a; Berakot 63b-64a, and Shir 2.

3 (end). The last passage presupposes Jethro’s descent from Abraham (comp. note 81), and hence his words MAN M12 “for the merits of our fathers.” According to the sources referred to above, Jethro, from the moment he heard of Moses’ arrival, wished to have him as 411 92-101] The Legends of the Jews as his son-in-law; but there is also a dissenting view to the effect that he greatly objected to Moses’ marriage with Zipporah; see vol. II, pp. 293, seq. 92 DR 2. 8; Tan. B. II, 134, and, in abridged form, Wa-Yosha‘ 42. Comp.vol. III, p. 422. 93 Tan. B. II, 6; Lekah Exod. 2. 20. Comp. note 147. 94 Wa-Yosha‘ 43-44. Comp. also Philo, Vita Mosts, 1. 11. 95 Wa-Yosha‘ 42, and comp. note 88. According to Yashar Shemot, 141a, Jacob wrested the rod from Esau, and from the time it came to his possession he always kept it with him, so that it was the only thing he took with him when he left his father’s house for Haran - (comp. Gen. 32. 11). At his death he bequeathed it to his favorite son Joseph. 96 Wa-Yosha‘ 43 (read O'I¥D "DDN instead of bNTWw 'n). Different versions of this legend are found in Yashar Shemot, 138b, 140141a, and Dibre ha-Yamim 7. According to the first-named source Jethro imprisoned Moses for ten years, because he thought he had run away from the Ethiopians, and he wished to return him to his masters. Dibre ha-Yamim maintains that when Jethro heard Moses’ life story from his own mouth, he imprisoned him for a time with the intention of giving him up to Pharaoh.

Finally Zipporah prevailed upon her father to release Moses, who appeared, with the miraculous rod in his hand, before Jethro. Moses then received the hand of Zipporah as his reward. Artapanus, 434b, writes: Jethro intended to wage war against Egypt, and put his son-in-law on the throne; but Moses’ patriotism would not permit him to engage in war against his native land. Instead of that he proposed to invade Arabia. Jethro, however, disapproved of this undertaking. 97 Wa-Yosha‘ 43; Yashar Shemot, 141b-142a. Comp. the opposite view in ShR 5. 8 and note 148. 98 ShR 1. 33; 12 Testaments, Levi 11 (here the etymology refers to Gershon the son of Levi); Mekilta Yitro 1, 57b; Mekilta RS, 86; MHG II, 19. Lekah Exod. 2. 22 remarks that Zipporah’s pregnancy was hardly noticeable because she was very young; comp. vol. II, p. 365, where a similar statement is found with reference to Bilhah. 99 Wa-Yosha‘ 43-44. Comp. vol. II, p. 328. *0° Wa-Yosha‘ 44. Comp. note 75 for further details concerning these two brothers, the chief enemies of Moses. rer Yashar Shemot, 138b; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 2. 23; MHG 412 Moses [102—106 II, 20; ShR 1. 34. As to the three advisers of Pharaoh (only in MHG and in Haggadat Teman, which is very likely based on MHG), comp. vol. II, pp. 254-256, and note 21. That Pharaoh’s illness was leprosy is also mentioned by Artapanus, 344b, who writes: About the same time (7.

e., shortly before Moses’ return to Egypt) Chenephres died, having been the very first person attacked by elephantiasis; and he is said to have incurred this misfortune because he ordered the Jews to wear linen garments and forbade them to wear woolen clothing, so that they might be conspicuous and be punished by him. The statement about Pharaoh’s leprosy is the reply of the Jewish legend to the account that the Hebrews were driven out of Egypt because of their leprosy; see Josephus, Contra Apionem, 1. 26. Bathing in blood as a remedy for leprosy among the Egyptians is mentioned by Pliny, Nat. Hist., 26.1,5. Shortly before the outbreak of the French Revolution, King Louis was accused of bathing in children’s blood; comp. Carlyle, French Revolution, I, 2. 12. R. Solomon ben Ha-Yatom on Mo’ed K. 18a reads: 19¥°D1) “his name was Girsi”’. Very likely we should read "YD ‘‘the leper,’ less likely is "YO = Sakiri, king of Egypt about 1391-1387. 102 Sotah 11a. Comp. Index, s. v. ‘‘Job”’. 103 BR 57. 4. Comp. Index, s. v. “Job”. 104 Yashar Shemot, 138b-140a. This source, in describing Pharaoh’s death, has very likely made use of 2 Maccabees 9. 5, seg. As to Pharaoh’s ungainly appearance, see Mo‘ed Katan 18a. Yashar seems to have misunderstood the obscure word }pnwo 5D occurring in the last-named passage. On Alfar‘anit (incorrectly MY DN), see note 65; on Bithiah comp. note 60. On the legend that babies were used instead of bricks, see vol.

II, p. 20. In contrast to Yashar, the old sources maintain that Pharaoh of the Exodus was the father of Bithiah, not her brother; see Tan. B. III, 36, and note 226. The statement in ShR 1. 34 that Pharaoh recovered from his leprosy seems to be directed against the view of Yashar, according to which the Pharaoh of the Exodus was a son of the king who had been afflicted with leprosy on account of his cruelty to the Hebrews. See also Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 14. 105ShR 1. 36; DR 3. 9 and 2. 23, where it is said: Israel’s sufferings, the merits of the fathers, God’s mercy, the advent of the (promised) ‘“‘end”’, all combined, brought about the redemption of Israel: Yerushalmi Ta‘anit 1. 63d-64; Tehillim 106, 457; PR 44, 184b; MHG II, 20-21. Comp. the following two notes. 106 Mekilta Bo 5, 5a; ER 17, 85 and 23, 123-24, 125, where 413 107-112] The Legends of the Jews it is stated: They observed the Abrahamic covenant although, by abandoning it, they would have gained their complete liberty; comp. vol. II, p. 259, where a different view is expressed; ShR 1. 28, 29. 36 and 15. 4. The redemption was due to the merits of the fathers; WR 32. 5; BaR 3. 6 and 13. 20; Shir 2. 8 and 4. 12; Tehillim 114, 472, and 122, 508; Tan. B. IV, 146; PRE 48; PK 10, 83b; comp. also Mekilta Bo 16, 19b-20a; Mekilta RS, 171; ER 27, 138; Tehillim 44, 268; 107, 461; 114, 172-173. The manifold reasons given for the redemption of Israel may be reduced to four: 1) merits of the fathers (including the mothers); 2) Israel’s own merits; 3) merits of the pious in Israel destined to be born in the future generations; 4) the mercy of God who helps the sufferers, even though they do not deserve it.

—As to the use of the Egyptian language by the Hebrews, see vol. III, p. 94. 107 Unknown Midrash in Sifte Kohen on Exod. 2. 25. 108 ShR 1. 33; Tan. Shemot 12. As to the different explanations of bx) (Exod. 2. 21), see Mekilta Yitro 1, 33; Mékilta RS, 169; Sifre D., 4 and 27; Midrash Tannaim 4 and 16; Tan. B. II, 7; Nedarim 65a. Vulgate has juravit in accordance with the view shared by most of the Rabbis. Comp. note 148. ; 409ShR 2. 2-3; Tan. B. I, 6; Tehillim 78, 357. Philo, De Josepho, 1, and Vita Mosts, 1. 11; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1. 22 (based on Philo); Aphraates, 196. Comp. vol. IV, pp. 82-83. Moses is often called the ‘‘faithful shepherd”. This designation is a favorite with Zohar, a part of which work is called Niuo°ND NYT (“The Faithful Shepherd”), after Moses, who is introduced as revealing certain mystic doctrines; comp. also IV, 308-309 and 416, where it is said: “God elevates no man to an office, unless He has tried him and found him worthy of his calling”’; see vol. III, p. 211, and, in abridged form, ShR and Tan., Joc. cit. Commenting on Moses’ working as a shepherd, Gadol u-Gedolah, 125-126, remarks: Great is the dignity of work, since the prophets occupied themselves with work, as, for instance, Jacob, Moses, David, and Amos were shepherds. The designation of David as prophet sounds rather strange, but see Yerushalmi Sotah 9. 24b, where Samuel and David are described as ‘the early prophets’’ ts * pa oebans Ballon Sn Reon Sse t1X PRE 40; MHG II, 23, which reads: Moses used his miraculous rod as his shepherd’s staff.

Comp. vol. I, p. 374. 112 ShR 2. 4; Tan. B. I], 7; Tan. Shemot 14; comp. also Philo, 414 Moses ; [rx3-1T5 Vita Mosis, 1.12. On Moses as the head of his generation at the time of resurrection, see vol. II, pp. 315-316 and 373, as well as vol. III, pp. 35 and 481. *t3 Tan. B. IV, 7-8; BaR 1. 8; ShR 2. 14 and 51. 8 (this passage gives only three names: the first, the fifth, and the sixth of the text); PRK 20a (this source does not know of names 2, 3, and 4, but has an additional name not mentioned elsewhere, namely: ‘Mount of the Kings’”’); Lekah Exod. 3. 1; Rimze Haftarot, Pinehas; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 503, on Is. 60. See further Sa‘adya, Emunot we-Deot, 3, 92; Lekah Num. 13. 17; Kaftor wa-Ferah 118; Poznanski, Einleitung, 64, on Paran and Seir as additional names of Sinai. Efodi and Shem Tob, in their respective commentaries on Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed 1, 66, remark that they saw stones of this mount upon which the signs of thorns were discernible, and it is on account of these thorns that the mountain is called “Sinai”. As to God’s hatred of the heathen, see Mekilta RS, 93; Midrash Tannaim 111; vol. III, p. 8, seg., where other names of Sinai are given. Mount Horeb was known as a holy mount even before the revelation took place on it, and for that reason the shepherds did not allow their flocks to graze there; Josephus, Antiqui., II, 12. 1; comp.

vol. II, p. 203. After the revelation the mount did not lose its significance entirely. Every day a heavenly voice goes forth from it, proclaiming these words: ‘‘Woe to mankind for the contempt of the Torah.” Abot 6 (Kinyan Torah); Nispahim 17. Comp. also Berakot 16b and Baba Batra 74a. As to the defective spelling of Horeb (A47n, not ann), see Haserot, No. 90. 114 Zohar II, 21a (as a magnet draws iron, even so did the holy mount draw Moses) which is very likely the source for Shu‘aib, Shemot, 25b, whereas the somewhat different version in Recanati, Exod. 3. 1, is independent of Zohar. There are mountains, and Horeb is one of them, upon which neither man nor beast can set foot without immediately causing thunder-storms to come down at the first sound made by them, and only complete silence will stop these thunderstorms; Hasidim 426. 11S ShR 2. 5; Tan. Shemot 14-15. As to the peculiarities of the heavenly fire, see Yoma 21b; Darmesteter, R.E.J., I, 187, seq.; note 60 on vol. I, p. 16. The angel who appeared to Moses was the archangel Gabriel, according to ShR, Joc. cit., whereas Aggadat Bereshit 32, 64, maintains that it was Michael, who from this moment until the worship of the golden calf watched over Moses and Israel. 415 116-117] The Legends of the Jews The appearance of Gabriel or Michael served the purpose to indicate the presence of the Shekinah, for it was God Himself, and not the angels, who spoke to Moses; see ShR, Joc.

cit., and 32. 9; BR 97.3; Trypho, in Justin’s Dialogue, 20 and 128. See Index, s. v. “‘Angels”’. As to the symbolic significance of the bush, see Tan. B. II, 8; Lekah Exod. 3. 1; PRE 40; Sabba, Shemot 66d and 67a; Al-Barceloni, 134; Tehillim 37, 223; PK 1, 2b; Emunah u-Bittahon 18; the vast collection of material dealing with this point in MHG II, 25, and the parallel passages cited by Hoffmann, ad Joc. Philo, Vita Mosts, 1. 12, in agreement with many of the Rabbis, sees in the bush a symbol of Israel, and in the fire that could not consume it a symbol of Israel’s enemies. The symbolic explanations of the bush given by Ephraim I, 102 and Theodoretus Exod. 3. 1, are also found in the Midrash. On the “lowly’’ bush, see Shabbat 67a; Sotah 5a; vol. III, p. 83; on the “purity”? of the bush, see vol. III, p. 84. On the conception that God suffers when Israel is in distress, see note 4 op vol. II, pp. 183184, and vol. III, p. 63. 116 ShR 2. 5-6; Tan. Shemot 15; Tan. B. II, 8. *t7 For the first paragraph, see ShR 3, 1 and 455; Tan. Shemot 19; Tan. B. II, 9; Mekilta RS, 167; MHG II, 26; Lekah; Exod. 3. 7 (emphasis is laid upon the fact that it was an angel, not God Himself who appeared to Moses; see note 115). As to Amram, see Sifre N., 116; vol. II, pp. 259-260 and 320; on Moses’ humility, see vol. III, pp. 84-85. The description of the ascension of Moses is taken from a small Midrash entitled Gedullat Mosheh which is devoted entirely io this subject.

The Midrash published, from a manuscript, by Wertheimer, Batte Midrashot IV, 22seg., under the title Midrash Ketappuah Ba‘aze ha-Ya‘ar, is identical with Gedullat Mosheh, of whose existence Wertheimer was ignorant. A manuscript of an Arabic translation of this Midrash is found in the library of Berlin.—A few remarks on this Ascension of Moses will not be out of place. The ascension takes place amidst the sounds of music, like the ascension of the Shekinah to heaven (vol. I p. 124). On the view that Moses’ body was changed to fire, see vol. J, p. 40, and Zohar I, 66a. The “tall angel’’, whom Moses saw in the third heaven, is undoubtedly identical with Sandalfon (see vol. III., p. 111). The name Nuriel given to him in Wertheimer’s edition is due to a scribal error, since Nuriel is stationed in the second heaven, as is explicitly stated a few lines before. On the angels of destruction Af and Hemah, see vol. II, p. 328; vol. Ili, p. 124; vol. IV, p. 150. They are very likely identical with Azza and Azazel 416 of Moses [117 mentioned elsewhere; see Index, s.v. The prince of the Torah Zagzagel is, of course, identical with Zagzagel who, according to Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 3. 2, appeared to Moses in the bush (for other views concerning the angel of the bush, see note 115), and who is said by the Kabbalists to have been the teacher of Moses, while Adam’s teacher was Raziel (see Index, s.

v.), Shem’s Yofiel, Abraham’s Zadkiel (comp. Is. 41. 2 and note 98 on vol. I, p. 232), Jacob’s Raphael, Joseph’s Gabriel (see vol. II, p. 72.), and Elijah’s Maltiel; see Recanati, and Ziyyoni, Exod. 3.2. The legend knows of several ascensions of Moses; the first, at the beginning of his career, is elaborately described in Gedullat Mosheh and hinted at in ShR 3. 1; the second took place at the revelation of the Torah (see vol. III, pp. 109-114); the third was shortly before his death (see vol. III, pp. 443-448). Medieval authors quote fragments from descriptions of Moses’ ascension, but we are not in position to tell which of the three is referred to. See, e. g., Hasidim 394 with regard to the praise of God which Moses learned from the angels. The anonymous author of Orehot Zaddikim (26, beginning) quotes the following from a Midrash on the ascension of Moses: In the first heaven Moses saw a division of angels reading in the Torah the section concerning the the first day of creation. Having finished reading, they chanted the praise of the Torah. In the second heaven he saw a division of angels reading in the Torah the section concerning the second day of creation. Having finished reading, they chanted the praise of Israel. In the third heaven he saw the angels reading in the Torah the section concerning the third day of creation. Having finished reading, they chanted the glory of Jerusalem.

The Er’elim (the fourth rank of angels; comp. the sources referred to in note 64 on vol. I, p. 16) in the fourth heaven read in the Torah the section concerning the fourth day of creation. Having finished reading, they chanted the glory of the Messiah. In the fifth heaven Moses saw the angels reading in the Torah the section concerning the the fifth day of creation. Having finished reading, they announced the torture of the wicked in Gehenna. The angels in the sixth heaven read in the Torah the section concerning the sixth day of creation. Having finished reading, they announced the joy of the righteous in paradise. On entering the seventh heaven, Moses was greatly terrified at the sight of the Seraphim, Ofanim, angels of mercy, angels of love, angels of grace, angels of fear, and angels of dread. In his terror of the numerous awe-inspiring angels he caught hold of God’s throne for protection (comp. vol. III, pp. 112-113). He 417 118] The Legends of the Jews then heard the angels surrounding the throne read in the Torah from the section concerning the Sabbath, the seventh day of creation. Having finished reading, they proclaimed the great power of repentance. He then knew that repentance reaches God’s throne. Comp. Yoma 86a; PK 25, 163b; PR 44, 185a. As to this description of the seven heavens, see vol. I, pp. 9-10, and Index, s. v. “‘Heavens”’, as well as the legend about the first seven things created, vol.

I, p. 3. 118 Gedullat Mosheh= Midrash Ketappuah Ba‘aze ha-Ya‘ar; see preceding note. The part dealing with paradise and hell is not only faulty, but also incomplete. Of the seven divisions of hell only six are described, and inasmuch as the description of the sixth division is a doublet of that of the fifth (in both descriptions the sinners are punished with fire and snow; on the cold hell see Seder Rabba deBereshit 17-18), it would seem that two sevenths of the text are missing.—A few remarks on this description of hell may not be out of place here. Gabriel leads Moses to paradise; the same is found also in vol. III, p. 477. As to the fire which consumes the fire of hell, see vol. I, p. 16, and vol. II, p. 303. On Sargiel who fills hell with the souls of the wicked, -see 2 Alphabet R. Akiba 63 (o’ adn); Apocalypse of Daniel (end); comp. further ‘Abodah Zarah 17a; Tehillim 31, 241; ER 18, 108 (on the text comp. Recanati, Wa-Yelek); Shabbat 104a. In view of the fact that Nergal is the Babylonian God of hell, it is inadvisalbe to look for a Persian etymology for Nasargiel. Sar-++ Nergal, or Nergal+Sar (prince, Nergal) could easily become Nasargiel. Of theological importance is the statement of this Midrash that God makes no distinction between Jew and Gentile; the pious Gentile enters paradise, and the wicked Jew is punished in Gehenna. The prevalent view in rabbinic literature is that hell is exclusively reserved for the heathen; see note 318 on vol.

I, p. 306; ARN 16, 64; Zohar Hadash, Balak; ‘Emek ha-Melek, 117a. It is, however, true that the Kabbalists maintain that even the righteous have to pass through Gehenna before entering paradise. This view is probably influenced by the Christian doctrine of Jesus’ descent into hell to save the righteous who died before his time. As to God’s descent into hell to save the pious, séé Tehillim 1, 21,and Nispahim 35.— As to the thrones upon which the pious sit, see Ascension of Isaiah 7. 22, 8. 26, 9. 10, seg., 11. 40; Enoch 108. 12; Matthew 9. 28; Revelation 3. 21 and 4. 4. Attention should be drawn to the fact that in old rabbinic literature the thrones are said to be reserved for the time after the resurrection; comp., e. g., Hagigah 14a. While in our Mid418 Moses [119-122 rash the ‘greatest of all the thrones is Abraham’s”, in Zohar I, 97 it is Jacob who has this distinction. The rivalry beween Abraham and Jacob is already found in old sources; see note 35 on vol. I, 317. Of theological importance is the view of our Midrash that Terah, though a sinner, received a seat in paradise on account of his son’s merits. The old rabbinic sources emphatically declare that ‘‘no man can by any means redeem his brother’’ (Ps. 49. 8), nor a father his son, nor a son his father; see Sifre D., 328; Tehillim 46, 272; Sanhedrin 104a. In the last source, however, the statement is made that while a father cannot redeem his son, a son can redeem his father.

The warning against relying on the merits of the fathers (2 Enoch 53. 1) is, in content and form, in full agreement with the rabbinic sources referred to. Charles’ remarks on the Pharisaic doctrine of intercession are to be corrected accordingly. The reading in Gedullat Mosheh yw minw °p p'1¥ aN) is the correct one, and not the one of Ketappuah ‘D> 1% N13) YAN) PTS NW, as our Midrash very likely based the view concerning intercession on Sanhedrin, loc. cit. The doctrine of intercession as taught by later authorities (comp., e. g., Lekah and Midrash Aggada on Ley. 1. 6; Shu‘aib, Lek, 7a; Hashkem 3a-3b) may safely be attributed to Christian influence. Comp. also EZ 17, 2223 and the parallel passages cited by Friedmann in connection with the story about the origin of Kaddish; 2 Maccabees 12. 43, Index, s. v. ‘“Intercession”’ and ‘‘ Merits of the Fathers’’.—On the four streams see vol. I, p. 20.—The description of paradise and hell in this Midrash displays a striking resemblance to the Christian (?) Revelation of Peter. The oldest source in which Moses’ visit to paradise and hell is mentioned is the Apocalypse of Baruch 4. 5 and 59. 4. Comp. also Tan. Mass‘e 4. SUS ME Ps 120 Sukkah 52a. Comp. Index, s. v. ‘‘Shepherds, Seven’’. 121 BR 55. 6; ShR 2. 6; DR 2. 7; Zebahim 102a; Tan. B. II, 9; Tan. Shemot 19; Mekilta RS, 167; MHG II, 26; ER 18, 90. The descendants of Moses did not inherit his dignities; he was king and priest (see note 139 and Index, s.

v. “Moses’’), but they were merely ordinary Levites. 122 Zohar III, 198a; comp. the numerous other passages of Zohar dealing with this legend in Yalkut Reubeni on Exod. 3. 5. That Moses lived apart from his wife from the time of his election by God until his death is maintained in the old sources; see vol. III, pp. 107, 256, 394, 472, 480; vol. IV, p. 260; Philo, Moses, 2 (3). 2. Among 419 124-127] The Legends of the Jews mortals Moses was ‘‘almost perfect’’; he would have been “entirely perfect”, if he had fulfilled his conjugal duties. The small letter of N1p") (Lev. 1. 1) hints at this shortcoming of Moses; Yalkut Reubeni, Lev., loc. cit. Moses like his disciple Joshua, received the same command to remove his shoes (comp. Exod. 3. 5 and Joshua 5. 15). But there was a difference between the two commands: to the former it meant the renunciation of conjugal joys for life; to the latter only during the campaign. Comp. Zohar Hadash, Ki-Teze, and see also MHG II, 26; Lekah, Exod. 3. 5. In connection with taking off the shoes, the following remark is found in ShR (end): One must stand barefoot in the presence of the Shekinah....and for this reason the priests were barefoot while performing the service in the temple. The same remark is also found in Theodoretus, Exod. 3. 5. Comp. Rosh ha-Shanah 31b and Shekalim 5. 48d. 123 ShR 3. 2 and 2. 4; Tan. Shemot 14 and dgevol weap: 2ODsEvOlell yap.

530 nvoloe! Menpal2 7: t24 Tehillim 18, 150; comp. PK 5,47a—47b, and parallel passages. As to the compounding of the four hundred years of Egyptian slavery, gee note 126; vol. I, p. 237; vol. III, p. 18. x25 ShR 3. 4. 126 Tehillim 18, 150, and 102,435. The rabbinic literature offers many solutions of the contradiction between Gen. 15. 13 and Exod. 12. 40. The prevalent view is that the slavery of Abraham’s descendants began with the birth of Isaac (Mekilta Bo 14, 15b;Mekilta RS, 27; Seder ‘Olam 3; PRE 48; Targum Yerushalmi Exod., Joc. cit.), while their stay in Egypt amounted only to two hundred and ten (according to some, to two hundred and four) years, of which eighty-three (PRE) or eighty-seven (Seder ‘Olam) were years of suffering. Comp. also ps.-Philo, 10C, and Ephraim J, 202 A, who agree with these chronological theories of the Rabbis. An unknown Midrash, quoted in Shitah Mekubbezet, Nedarim 31b, maintains that God hastened the course of the planets during Israel’s stay in Egypt, so that the sun completed four hundred revolutions during the space of time of two hundred and ten regular years. 127 ShR 3. 6; Tan. Shemot 20; Berakot 9b. As to the name of God first revealed to Moses see vol. II, pp. 320 and 339. The proverb ‘‘Sufficient unto the day, etc.”’ is also found in Matthew 6. 34. On the appearance of God’s majesty in the hair of man, see note 6 on vol. II, p. 227, and vol.

IV, p. 48, The suffering of Israel in the Egyptian exile was worse than in any of the other exiles; Me420 ,20; comp. Shir 1. Moses [128-136 kilta RS, 168; MHG II, 27. Comp., however, Yerushalmi Sukkah 4, 54c, where Israel is said to have suffered more in Babylon than in Egypt. 128 Tehillim 72, 324; ShR 3. 3. Comp. vol. I, p. 414, and vol. I], p. 303. This explanation of the name Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, like the numerous other expositions given in rabbinic literature (comp., e. g., Alphabet of R. Akiba 25=MHG II, 29) are based on the view that these words imply the immutability and unchangeability of God in His attributes of goodness, sublimity, and faithfulness. According to an unknown Midrash, quoted by numerous authors, these words signify: As thou (art) to Me, so shall I be to thee, 7. e., God deals with man according to his merits; see R. Bahya, Gen. 2. 4, and Kad ha-Kemah, Shebuah, 74a; Ziyyoni, Exod. 3. 14; Gabbai, ‘Abodat haKodesh, 16; at great length in Wehizhir, Exod. 85, which is perhaps the source of the last three authorities referred to. Revelation 1. 8 likewise contains an interpretation of the name Ehyeh, as may be seen by comparing this passage with ShR, Joc. cit. See also Philo, Quod Det. Potiort Insid. Soleat, 46, and De Mut. Nom., 3. 29 PRE 40; comp. Alphabet of R. Akiba 26; vol. IV, p. 360. See also Josephus, Antiqut., II, 12. 3. 73° ShR 3. 8-9 and 5.

12; WR 211. 8; Tan. Shemot 29; Sifre N., 92; Mekilta Bo 11, 11a; Mekilta RS, 20 and 96; MHG II, 30. 13% Abkir in Yalkut I, 171. %32 ShR 3. 12-13; PRE 20; Tan. Shemot 23; MHG II, 32-33; Abkir in Yalkut I, 171; Lekah, Exod. 4. 6-8. The last-named source reads: The rod, as well as the hand of Moses, proclaimed in a loud voice what happened to them. Comp. note 53 on vol. I, p. 78; vol. III, pp. 319, 335, 472. As to the statement made in the last passage referred to above to the effect that Moses was never afflicted with leprosy, see Lekah, Joc. cit., and Josephus, Antiqui., II, 12. 3. 733 Mekilta RS, 3; MHG II, 33 and 34. 134 Tan. B. V, 4-5; Alphabet of R. Akiba ('D) 42-43, whence it was borrowed by Hadar and Da‘at on Exod. 4. 13. Comp. also Targum Yerushalmi and Lekah, Exod., loc. cit. 135 Mekilta RS, 3; MHG II, 34-35. Comp. Matthew 26. 53. On Amram see vol. II, p. 262; on Aaron see vol. II, p. 329. 136 ShR 3. 15-16, 15. 14, and 17.5; Tan. B. II, 10. For different versions concerning Moses’ impediment of speech see vol. II, p. 326 and note 140. On Hagar see vol. I, p. 239. 421 137-144] The Legends of the Jews 137 PRE 40; Targum Yerushalmi, Exod. 4. 13; comp. also 2 ARN 40, 111. 138 Abkir in Yalkut I, 173 (in ed. prin. w17p without the addition D2" found in the later editions); Alphabet of R. Akiba ('s); MHG II, 35. Comp. vol. III, p. 115. 139 Zebahim 102a; WR 11.

6; ShR 3. 17; Shir 1. 7; Tehillim 18, 157, and 99, 424; PK 4, 38a—-38b; PR 14, 63b; Ta‘anit 11b; Yerushalmi Yoma 1, 38b and 38c; Seder ‘Olam 5 and 7. Opinions in these sources differ as to whether Moses performed .the priestly service during the week of dedication only or also after Aaron and his sons had been appointed priests. According to one view, Moses remained high priest even after the dignity of that office had been conferred upon Aaron. Comp. note 121 and vol. III, pp. 190 and 400. 14° Lekah, Exod. 15. 14; ShR 3. 17 (the text is incomplete); MHG II, 37 (note 1). According to the legend recorded in vol. II, pp. 324325, Moses’ impediment of speech was for a time removed by God’s will. Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 14 (comp. also De Praemits et Poen., 9), maintains that Moses became slow of speech at the time when he heard God’s voice addressing him. A similar statement is found in MHG II, 33 and 86. For another legend on the cause of this imperfection of Moses, see vol. II, p. 274 (bottom and note 136). T4AxS PRs 142 Nedarim 64a and Yerushalmi 9, 4ic; ShR 5. 4; PRE 40; BR 71. 6; Ekah 3, 124; Tan. Zaw 13; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 4, 19 and 10. 29, as well as Gen. 30. 1. On the view that the poor, blind, leprous, and childless are considered like dead, found also in ps.-Philo, see vol. I, p. 364. ™43 Nedarim 65a; ShR 4. 1-4; Tan. Shemot 20; Tan. B. II, 10; ER 17, 83; MHG II, 38-39. Comp.

vol. II, pp. 300 and 328, with reference to the conditions imposed upon Moses by his father-in-law on the occasion of his marriage to Zipporah. Moses, although he obtained Jethro’s permission, did not proceed to Egypt until a heavenly court, presided over by God, absolved him of the oath he had given to Jethro; see the sources quoted at’ the beginning of this note. The Hellenist Ezekiel, 440, maintains that the cause of Moses’ return to Egypt was a dream, which, as interpreted by Jethro, implied the prediction that Moses would become king of his people and the teacher of humanity. Comp. vol. II, p. 329. t44 PRE 31, which is probably directed against Mark 11. 21. 422 Moses * [145-149 ‘ This ass is undoubtedly considered in legends to be an “immortal”; comp. Index, s. v. ‘‘Animals, Immortal’’; PRK 30b. ™45 Midrash Aggada, Exod. 3. 24, which should read: by>” mMapn rby. Comp. note 126. 146 Nedarim 32a, which contains also the dissenting view that it was Satan himself who attacked Moses; this view is adopted by Wa-Yosha‘ 43 (comp. the extract from it in vol. II p. 295), and perhaps also by Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 4. 25. Yerushalmi Nedarim 3, 38b has 790 instead of Juv, and even in Babli some texts have the same reading as Yerushalmi; see also MHGIJI, 41. ShR 2. 8 takes pains to explain that it was a “benign angel’’ who attacked Moses for the sole purpose of urging Zipporah to circumcise her son.

Midrash Aggada, Exod., loc. cit.. identifies this angel with Uriel, whereas Zohar I, 93b, says that Gabriel, in the form of a fiery serpent, attempted to slay Moses. Comp. Yashar Shemot, 141b. As to Uriel’s attack on Moses, comp. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 35-37, and note 2 on p. 245. ™47 Lekah, Exod. 4. 25, which is very likely based on Tan. B. II, 6 (comp. Lekah, Exod. 2. 21), but in our text of this Midrash Zipporah’s “‘nimbleness”’ refers to her speed in bringing Moses from the well to her father’s house. Tan., loc. cit., offers still another explanation why Moses’ wife was called ‘‘bird’’: she purified her father’s house of idolatrous pollution, even as a bird purifies a leper of his uncieanliness; comp. Lev. 14.43, seg, Allegorical interpretations as to the name Zipporah (=‘“bird’”’) are given by Philo, De Sacrif. Ab. et Caini, 12 and 13, as well as De Mut. Nom., 20. 148 Mekilta Yitro 1, 58a. According to other authorities, it was Moses’ second son who was uncircumcised; see vol. II, p. 295, and ShR 5. 8. The Church Fathers Aphraates, 110, and Ephraim, I, 200 D, blame Zipporah, and not her father, for having prevented Moses from circumcising his son. The Haggadah finds in bx (Exod. 2. 21) a hint at the fact that Moses “swore” to his father-in-law; comp. notes 108 and 143. 149 Nedarim 32a, which contains also the dissenting view to the effect that it was Moses’ younger son who was attacked, and not he himself.

The views of the Rabbis differ also with regard to the subject of "bib (Exod. 4. 25). According to some, Zipporah touched the feet of her babe, while others think that she touched Moses feet. There are still others who are of the opinion that she touched the feet of the angel. Opinions differ as to whom Zipporah applied the 423 150-155] The Legends of the Jews term “bridegroom of blood” to, Moses or his young son; see Mekilta Vitro 1, 58a; Babli Nedarim, Joc. cit., and Yerushalmi 3, 38b; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 4. 25-26; Wa-Yosha’ 43. Ephraim I, 205 A-205 B, following Jewish tradition, refers vbind to the angel and }nn to Moses.—As to the name Gershom, see note 98; on the name of his brother Eliezer, see 4 Maccabees 6. 5, where it is explained to mean ‘the divine seed”’, 7.¢., aybsx=ds yo. On the angels Af and Hemah see vol. II, p. 308; vol. III, p. 129. 15° Tan. B. II, 11-13; Tan. Shemot 26-28; ShR 5. 9-10; Shir 1. 10; Midrash Shir 34a; Shemuel 9, 73; Shabbat 139a; Batte Midrashot III, 16 and 18; 2 ARN 40, 111. Comp. vol. II, p. 323; vol. III, p. 257. 15' Mekilta Yitro 1, 57b; Mekilta RS, 86; Ephraim I, 205D. Comp. vol. II, p. 327. 15? Shir 4. 5; ShR 5. 11. In Shir, as in mamy other passages of rabbinic literature, emphasis is laid on ‘‘the complete equality” of the two brothers; comp. BR 1. 15, and the numerous parallel passages cited by Theodor. Comp also Philo, De Mut.

Nom., 37. 753 ShR 5. 13-14; Tan. Shemot 24; Tan. B. II, 13; PRE 48; MHG II, 42 (where it is stated that Jacob before his death performed the same three miracles which were later repeated by Moses to prove that he was the promised redeemer); Midrash Shir 76. Comp. also ShR 5. 2 and 15. 26 (on the text see MHG, .loc. cii.); vol. II, pp. 139, 179, 320, 363-364. *54 Tan B. II, 19; Tan. Wa-Era 5; Midrash Shir 7b; ShR 5. 14; MHG I], 43. *55 Abkir in Yalkut I, 173; MHG II, 45. As to the vastness of the palace and the large number of the armies, see Midrash Shir 7b; MHG II, 28. The printed text of Abkir is very likely abridged; see the reading of this Midrash quoted by Epstein, Ha-Eshkol, VI, 205, from a nanuscript. Artapanus, 434d, narrates that Moses was cast by Pharaoh into prison on the very day he delivered the divine message unto him. On the following night the gates of the prison opened themselves; some of the guards died, and others sank in a deep sleep, while their weapons broke into pieces. Moses then entered the royal palace, where Pharaoh, like his guards, was sunk in adeep sleep. When the king awoke he asked Moses the name of his God: but no sooner did Moses whisper it in his ear than the king fell down like dead, and remained so until Moses brought him back to life. Thereupon Moses wrote the ‘‘Name’’ on a tablet, which he sealed. 424 Moses , {156-164 A priest, ‘who made light of what was written on the tablet”, was seized with convulsions, and died.

On the miraculous opening of doors, see note 88 on vol. IV, p. 392. Comp. Index, s. v. ‘‘Name of God”. 156 Dibre ha-Yamim 8 (which is very likely based on Yashar Shemot, 142a, which the author of Dibre ha-Yamim had in a fuller form). As to animals being affectionate to saints, see Giinter, Legende, s._ v. ‘‘Thier”’. *57 Alphabet of R. Akiba (‘p), 44-45; MHG II, 43; Midrash Shir 8a; Abkir in Yalkut I, 241; Wa-Yosha’ 40; Mishle 26. 101; ShR 5. 14; Tan. Wa-Era 5. As to the angelic forms of Moses and Aaron, see Artapanus, 436c, and Yashar Shemot, 142a. Comp. vol. III, p. 24. ™58 ShR 4. 14; Tan. Wa-Era 5; comp. the sources quoted in the preceding note. The phrase “‘to seek the living among the dead’”’ is also found in Luke 24. 5. *59 Alphabet of R. Akiba (‘p), 45-46; ShR 5. 14; Tan. Wa-Era 5. Comp. also the sources referred to in note 157. 160 Mishle 27. 101; Yashar Shemot, 142b-143a; the sources referred to in note 157. Midrash Shir 8a adds that from that moment the wisdom of the Egyptians began to decline. 16x Vashar Shemot, 142a-142b; Dibre ha-Yamim 8. Jannes and Jambres, the opponents of Moses, are mentioned in 2 Timothy 3. 8, whereas Zadokite Fragments 18 speaks of Jannes (7M) and his brother. Pliny, Natural History, 30. 1, 11, and Apuleius, Apologia, 90, know only of Jannes. It is therefore safe to assume that the older form of the legend knew only of Jannes; see Ginzberg’s remarks in Unbekannte Sekte, 240; Schiirer, Geschichte (4th edition), III, 402-405; Index, s.

v. “‘Jannes”’. 162 ShR 9. 6-7; Tan. B. II, 27-28; Menahot 85a (here the original names of the two magicians are given; they are NOP ,I7; comp. note 80); Dibre ha-Yamim 5. 163 ShR 9. 7, based on Menahot 85a, while 9. 6 is independent of the Talmud; Yashar Shemot, 142b; MHG II, 61, which gives an elaborate form of this legend. 164 ShR 5. 14-23; Tan. Wa-Era 1 and 6; Tan. B. II, 20-21 and 33. Comp. note 75; note 110 on vol. I, p. 235; vol. II, pp. 248, 250. As to the scrolls read by the Hebrews on Sabbath, see note 72 and vol. III, pp. 193, 249. Mekilta RS, 13, gives two views; according 425 165-171] The Legends of the Jews to one the Hebrews were slaves of the royal domain; while according to the other, they were the slaves of the common people. 165 Mekilta RS 5; MHG II, 46; Ozar Midrashim 62b. Comp. vol. II, p. 317. 166 ShR 6. 4; Tan. Wa-Era 1; Koheleth 7. 7; Sanhedrin 111a. Comp. vol. I, p. 288; vol. II, p. 319; vol. IV, p. 428. It is not on account of Moses’ superiority to the fathers that God-revealed unto him the Name which remained unknown to. them, but because the time demanded that this revelation be made to man; Alphabet of R. Akiba (1), 26, and Shua‘ib, Wa-Era, 27a. On the difference between the revelations made to the fathers and those made to other prophets, comp, Mekilta RS, 170-171, and MHG II, 50. The fathers are the ‘‘Merkabah’’, 7. e., the bearers of the divine throne; their life was an uninterrupted revelation of God; BR 82.6.

A similar statement is made by Philo; comp. note 227 on vol. I, p. 375. 167 Mekilta Bo 5, 5a, and 11, 11a; Mekilta RS, 20 (trydx '1= pn oy'5); ShR 6.5, 7.3, and 16.2; Sifre N., 91; Zebahim 102a. Comp. vol. II, pp. 320, 361; vol. III, p. 249, and note 628 on p. 320. 168 Mekilta Bo 5, 5a—5b; ShR 6. 5; WR 22. 8; BaR 13. 8 and 20 (end). Comp. vol. II, pp. 259, 300; vol. III, pp. 201, 211. The first commandment given to the Israelites was to release the Hebrew slaves in the seventh year, in order that they themselves should be found worthy to be redeemed from the Egyptian slavery; Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shanah 3, 58d. 169 ShR 8. 1-2; a somewhat different version is given in MHG II, 54, according to which Aaron was first commanded to address the people, then to appear with Moses before Pharaoh, and finally to speak to the king. As to the question whether Aaron received direct revelations from God or not, see note 405 on vol. III, p. 210. 170 Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 17; Tan. Wa-Era 14; ShR 12. 4 and 15. 27. Comp. vol. II, p. 348. The gnostic Manoimus (Philosophoumena, 8. 7) finds some connection between the ten words of creation (see vol. I, p. 44) and the ten plagues; the power of God was manifested in the ten words as well as in the ten punishments brought upon the Egyptians. The Rabbis find in the.ten plagues the reward of Abraham who stood firm in the ten temptations (see vol. I, p. 217); comp.

ShR 15. 27; ARN 33, 95; Yelammedenu as quoted by Sabba, WaEra (end). 171 Tan. Bo 4; Tan. B. II, 40; PK 7, 66b-67a; PR 17, 89b and 426 Moses ’ [172-175 197a; Wa-Yosha' 44-45. As to the noise makers, see vol. II, p. LOSS vol VLU pos. Lo. *7?2 ER 7, 40-43; Tan. Wa-Era 13-14 and, with essential variants, Tan. B II, 43; Wa-Yosha‘ 49-51; Dibre ha-Yamim 9-10 (the text is to be completed in accordance with the parallel passages); ShR 9-14. For further details on the plagues, comp. vol. II, pp. 347-352. The saying ‘‘one receives the measure with which he measures” (Mekilta Amalek 2, 55a; Sifre N., 106; Sotah 1, 7, and in many more places of rabbinic literature, as well as in Matthew 7. 1) is applied by the legend to explain the punishments of the Egyptians as ‘measure for measure”’ (for this phrase see Sanhedrin 90a; it is of very frequent occurrence in post-biblical literature), maintaining that each plague corresponds to a crime committed by the Egyptians against the Hebrews. This view is found not only in the later Midrashim referred to above, but also in Mekilta Beshallah 6, 32; Tosefta Sotah 3, 13 as well as in Wisdom 11. 5, seg. The striking resemblance between these passages of Wisdom and the Midrashim would lead one to assume that a Palestinian Midrash was the source of this apocryphal work. The parallels which Wisdom draws between the plagues and the miracles, later performed for Israel in the wilderness, are also found in rabbinic literature; comp., e.

g., ARN 33, 95. 173 Yelammedenu quoted by Sabba, Wa-Era, towards the end; Yalkut I, 182 where 17D is given as the source. Comp. note 170. ™74 ‘Eduyyot 2. 10; Seder ‘Olam 3. According to one view, a warning of three weeks preceded each plague, which lasted for a week; but according to the other view the duration of each plague was three weeks, preceded by a warning of one week. See ShR 9. 12; Tan. Wa-Era 13; Tan. B. II, 29; Tehillim 78, 349. A dissenting view quoted in Lekah, Exod, 8. 10, from an unknown source, states that the plagues began the first of Shebat, and ended ten weeks later, on the fifteenth of Nisan. The difference of opinion concerning the duration of the plagues is in one way or another connected with the legend that Moses left Egypt for some rime (three or six months) after his first visit to Pharaoh; see PK 5, 49a, and parallel passages cited by Buber; comp. also Buber’s notes on Lekah, Joc. cit.; vol. II, p. 295. See note 34 on vol. II, 240. ™75 ShR 9.8; Tan. Wa-Era 14; Midrash Aggada Exod. 8. 16 (this is the only passage which remarks that the Egyptians are like asses; comp. vol. I, p. 279); Lekah, Exod. loc. cit. which quotes Hashkem. This legend, which is a satire on the deification of the Caesars, is found in 427 176-179] The Legends of the Jews an expanded and elaborate form, in MHG II, 67. According to Mo‘ed Katan 18a, Pharaoh was a magus and was therefore in the habit of bathing every morning in the water to perform his religious duties; comp.

Rashi, ad Joc.; Shabbat 75a; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 7. 15. On the deification of the Caesars see vol. I, p. 178; vol. IV, p. 335. 176 ShR 9, 9-11; Tan. Wa-Era, 13; Tan. B. II, 29. As to the warning, see note 174 and Lekah, Exod. 8. 15, 10. 23, where it is maintained that no warning was given before the third, sixth, and ninth plagues. Lekah is the source for many of the medieval writers (Shu‘atb, R. Bahya, Hadar, and many others), who have this statement about the warning. The proverb ‘‘beat the idols, etc.” is found in Ahikar (comp. Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. “‘Ahikar’’). That the first plague was a punishment for worshipping the Nile is also found in Philo, Vita Mosis, 1.17 and 2 (3). 24. Artapanus, 435c maintains that the inundation of the Nile never took place before Moses (Aaron?) smote it with his rod. The plague of blood was the punishment for drowning the male children of the Hebrews; Wisdom 11. 6 4nd MHG II, 62. t77 ShR 9. 11; ER 7. 41 (see Friedmann, note 14); MHG II, 62. In the later source it is stated that even the juice of the fruit was changed into blood, and that all the liquids had the odor of blood. See also Yashar Bo, 143b, and vol. II, p. 367. 178 Tehillim 88, 349; MHG II, 63; ShR 9. 10; Tan. Wa-Era 13; Zohar II, 28. Comp. also Josephus, Amziiguz., II, 14. 1; Wisdom 11. 6-8; Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 26. All these authors dwell upon the fact that the very same water which turned blood for the Egyptians remained in its natural state for the Hebrews.

Artapanus, 435c writes: Threatened by Pharaoh with death, the magicians brought forth a serpent which made the water return to its natural state; hence Pharaoh remained stubborn. According to MHG II, 62, Pharaoh himself was not affected by the first plague (three reasons are given why he was spared), and hence the hardness of his heart. Comp. note 181. 179 ShR 10. 2-6; Tan. Wa-Era 14; Tehillim 78, 450 and 452; ER 7. 41; Yashar Bo, 143b; Dibre ha-Yamim 9, which reads: The plague of the frogs was the severest of all the ten; see ShR 15. 21. In Sanhedrin 67b one opinion is quoted to the effect that only one frog came from the water, but in. the shortest time conceivable it produced innumerable frogs. As to the croaking of the frogs, see, in addition to the sources referred to above, MHG II, 64, and note 171. On the sacrifices brought by the frogs in the fulfilment of their mission, see also Pesahim 53b; Tehillim 28, 226. Comp. also Philo, Vita 428 Moses ’ [180-185 Mosis, 1. 18, and Josephus, Antiqui., II, 14.2. The crocodiles in the Nile are descended from the frogs sent over Egypt; MHG II, 64. 180 Tehillim 27, 299. 8 ShR 10. 5-6; Tan. Wa-Era 14, Comp. also MHG II, 64 (1) and 67, where Pharaoh’s sufferings are described in detail; it is also stated that the king was the first to be attacked by the frogs; see ShR, loc. cit., and ER 7. 41. Moses prayed for Pharaoh in a synagogue which was situated outside the city (comp.

Exod. 9. 29 and Lekah, ad /oc.), because he did not think it right to pray to God in a ‘‘city defiled by idols’; Mekilta Bo 1b; ShR 12. 5-6. Shemuel 8. 69, on the contrary, maintains that God revealed Himself to Moses in Pharaoh’s palace; comp. vol. II, p. 361. 182 Philo, Vita Mosts, 1. 26. 183 ShR 10. 2, 6-7 and 15. 10; Tan. Wa-Era 14; MHG II, 62. The third plague is, according to the unanimous opinion of the Rabbis, the plague of lice (ER 7, 41 gives the names of fourteen kinds of them), whereas Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 19, understands oxtmue used by the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew 0)5 to signify a certain kind of gnat; Josephus, Antiqui., II, 4. 2, agrees with the view of the Rabbis. Meiri, Abot 5. 5, quotes, from the Talmud, the following sentence concerning the lice: $$> oms opto Ndv Ody O’NxD? Yaw. As far as can be ascertained, this passage does not occur in our texts of the Talmud. Shu‘aib, Wa-Era, quotes the same sentence as $°rm nyt, and does not give the Talmud as source. 184 Mekilta RS, 172; MHG II, 66. Comp. the following note. 185 ShR 10. 7 and 11. 2; Tan. Wa-Era 14; Sanhedrin 67b. These sources also give the dissenting view to the effect that the magicians were no more able to produce the first two plagues than the third; all they succeeded in doing was to produce an optical illusion upon Pharaoh, who was thus deceived in believing the claim of the magicians. Lekah, Exod.

8. 12, writes: Magicians are only able to perform their art when their feet touch the ground, and since the ground was covered by the lice (ShR 10.6 and Yashar Bo, 142b), they were doomed to failure. The same statement is also found in Shu‘aib, Hadar and Da‘ at on Exod., loc. cit., who are very likely based upon Lekah. The first two plagues were produced by the magicians with the assistance of Ben Zadua‘, the chief of the demons; Sabba, Wa-Era, 69d; comp. ShR 10. 4. “The finger of God’’ was apparent in the third plague, as it was a small gnat which caused such a lot of harm to the Egyptians; Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 19; see the similar remark of the Rabbis concerning 429 186-190] The Legends of the Jews the small ‘‘gnat” in Gittin 56b. The ground turned into lice (which stung the Egyptians like needles as soon as they put down their feet), with the result that the Hebrews were no longer forced to make bricks, as the material necessary was no longer available. MHG II, 65. 186 Mo‘ed Katan 18a; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 7. 5; comp. note 175 (end). 187 ShR 11.1. Sabba, Wa-Era 69d, quoting from the ‘Book Concerning the Laws of Kings’’, writes: On the day of new moon and on the day of full moon the kings of Egypt used to offer sacrifices on the bank of the Nile before sunrise. ShR, loc. cit., also presupposes that Pharaoh was in the habit of betaking himself every morning to the river’s bank for the purpose of praying.

Comp. the sources referred to in the preceding note and in note 175. 188 Tehillim 78, 349-350 (NMNy2 from “Yy) “he mixed’? =217y); ShR 11. 2-3 and 16. 27; Yashar Bo, 143a; Dibre ha-Yamim 9; WaYosha‘ 50; MHG II, 67-68; Tan. Wa-Era 14 and Bo 4; Tan. B. II, 43. The panthers and nko (see Yashar and Dibre ha-Yamim, not mibo> or mibno as in Tehillim) are mentioned in particular as the animals which caused the greatest havoc and destruction among the Egyptians. See also Midrash Aggada (which is very likely based on Yashar, reading 0°” instead of MDX) and Sekel on Exod. 8. 20. The prevailing view in rabbinic literature, shared also by Josephus, A ntiqui., II, 14. 3, and Wisdom II. 15-20, is that the fourth plague Anny consisted of a mixture of wild animals attacking the Egyptians, whereas Septuagint, Exod. 8. 17, and Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 23, take ANY to be the Hebrew name of the stinging fly. Some of the Tannaim (comp. ShR and Tehillim loc. cit.) agree with the latter interpretation of 317y; hence the statement in ShR that the any darkened the sun and the moon. The later rabbinic sources combine the two old views concerning 2199; comp. also Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 8. 17 and ER 7, 42. After the third plague had forced the Egyptians to release the Hebrews from the work of making bricks (comp. note 185), they employed them as domestic servants to attend to their children. God therefore sent the fourth plague aoe killed many oF the Egyptian children.

189 ShR 11. 2-3. Comp. also MHG II, 68-69, and I, 160. 19° Mekilta RS, 172; MHG II, 68-69 (here it is shown in detail how each plague caused death to man and beast alike); ShR 10. 2; Tehillim 78, 355. After the fourth plague had killed the children of the Egyptians (comp. note 188), the Hebrews were employed by 430 Moses * [191-198 their masters as shepherds to take care of the animals. Whereupon the fifth plague came, and annihilated the live stock; MHG II, 68. *9* ShR 11, 4-6; Tan. Wa-Era 14. BR 5. 7 and parallel passages cited by Theodor, as well as Midrash Tannaim 56, maintain that on this occasion a miracle happened and the ‘‘narrow space held much more than its capacity’: the fist of Moses and Aaron held enough ashes to spread all over Egypt. Comp. the similar miracle vol. III, 180. The phrase “it reached God’s throne”’ is also found in vol. I, p. 389. 192 Baba Kamma 80b; comp. also Ketubot 77a; BR 41. 2 and Ozar Midrashim 55, with regard to the twenty-four kinds of this disease. 93 PRE 48 (the complete text is only found in Yalkut I, 184); comp. ShR 11. 6 and 20. 1, as well as note 185. 794 ShR 12. 1-7; Tan. Wa-Era 14-17; Tan. B. II, 34-37; Tehillim 78, 353-354; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 9, 20-21 and 29; MHG II, 71-75; PK 1, 3b-4a; Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 20; Wisdom 16. 15-23. Comp. also note 181; vol. I, p. 244; vol. IV, p. 10. On Job see Yerushalmi Sotah 5, 20c (bottom), and Zohar II, 34a.

Sabba, Wa-Era (end) quotes an unknown midrashic explanation of Exod. 9. 32. 795 ShR 13. 4-5. 196 | ekah on Exod. 10.10. Comp. vol. III, p. 13. Another version of this legend is found in Midrash Shir 15a—15b which reads: Pharaoh said: I see that the unlucky star by the name of Ra‘ (=evil) will meet you, and this indicates blood. His mistake was that this blood had reference to the blood shed at the circumcision performed by Joshua when entering the Holy Land (Josh. 5. 3), and not to the slaying of Israel. 197 ShR 13. 6-7; Tan. Wa-Era 14; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 10. 19. Zebahim 102a asserts that on this occasion Pharaoh boxed the ears of Moses who let this incident pass unnoticed, since one ig obliged to be respectful to a king; comp. vol. II, p. 361 (end of paragraph). 198ShR 14. 1-3; Tan. Bo. 1-3; Tan. B. II, 38-40; Yashar Bo, 114b; Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 21; Wisdom 17-18; Josephus, Antiqut., H, 14. 5. The last-named writer speaks of the death of many people caused by the darkness. Similarly the Rabbis maintain that the wicked in Israel died during the darkness; Mekilta Beshallah (SNTN5), 24a; Mekilta RS, 38; PK 5, 50b; Shir 2. 13; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 10. 23; comp. vol. II, p. 345; vol. III, p. 42, As to the darkness 431 199-206] The Legends of the Jews at the Red Sea, see vol. III, p. 21; on the darkness of hell see Seder Rabbah de-Bereshit 15. Comp. note 233.

199 Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 21. 200ShR 18. 1. Comp. Zohar I, 195b and II, 26a; vol. II, pp. 340-341, as well as note 197. According to PR, 197b, God revealed to Moses on this occasion that He would bring upon Egypt ‘‘one more plague”, without informing him of the nature of the last plague. When the death of the first-born took place, Moses knew that this was the last plague of which God had spoken. Comp. note 181. 20% Hallel 94; Tehillim 114, 472; PRE 29; ShR17. 3; Tan. WaEra 4 (the redemption is described here as a reward for Abraham's piety); PK 5, 47a, and 7, 63b; Shir 1.5; Mekilta Bo 11, 11a, Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 12. 21. Comp. notes 105-107 and 204. 202 Mekilta Bo 1, 2b-3a; PK 5, 54b; PR 15, 78a; Tan. Shemini 8; Tan. B. II, 48; III, 28, IV, 46; WR 13. 4; BaR 15. 4; ShR 15. 28 (only this passage speaks of the holy anointing oil); Sifre N., 61; Menahot 29a; Hullin 42a. Comp. Astruc, 99. 203. PK 5, 55a; PR 15, 78a—-78b. According to ShR 15. 20, the first Nisan was “proclaimed holy’’ by the court consisting of God as the president and Moses and Aaron as His assessors. On the ‘secret of the calendar” (Waynm ND) revealed to Moses, see PRE 8; Leket Midrashim 2a; PK 5, 43b. Sabba Bo 71ib, quotes, from an unknown source (the same as that referred to in note 194?), the statement that the Jewish calendar was introduced as a protest against the Egyptian one which was a part of their system of idolatry.

204 PK 5, 47b; Shir 2. 8; ShR 15. 4. Comp. notes 105-107 and 201. 205 ShR 15. 2-3 and 11. 3. Comp. the sources referred to in note 202. 206 PK 5, 55a-55b; PR 15, 78b; ShR 16. 2-3; Mekilta Bo 5, 5b, and 6, 6b; Philo, Exod. 1. 6 and 2. 11-12. Comp. also the quotation from Tan. in Makiri, Ps. 119, 220; Targum Yerushalmi and Lekah on Exod. 12. 6. A different view is given in Wisdom 19. 9, according to which the Hebrews brought their sacrifice in secret, so that it should not be known to the Egyptians. Thelegend about the selection of the paschal lamb is an attempt of the Haggadah to explain the Halakah (see Tosefta Pesahim 8. 11-18), according to which the command concerning the selection of the paschal lainb, as well as several other regulations about the Passover service given in Exod. 12, are of temporary character, applying only to the first Passover. 432 Moses [207-213 Many medieval authors quotea Midrash to theeffect that the Egyptians attacked the Israelites on the tenth of Nisan, when they saw the preparations made by them to kill the animals which the former worshipped. In remembrance of the great miracle performed to the Israelites on that day, the Sabbath preceding Passover is called The Great Sabbath brn naw), the tenth of Nisan at that time happening to be on a Sabbath. See Ha-Orah 20; Mahzor Vitry 222; Shibbole ha-Leket 159; Orehot Hayyim 1, 70a; Hadar, Exod.

12. 3; Shu‘aib, Zaw, 47c. On the origin of the name ‘‘The Great Sabbath’’, see Zunz, Ritus, 10; Chwolson, Passamahl, 65, note 3 (ignorant of Zunz’s remarks); Elbogen, Jtidischer Gottesdienst, 550-551. 207 ShR 16. 1. For the opposite view see vol II, pp. 330-331, and vol. III, p. 87, as well as MHG II, 43. In the last-named source it is said that the elders refused to accompany Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh. Their motive for this refusal was honorable, though mistaken, and was not due to lack of courage. 208 ShR 1. 36 and 17. 2-3. 209 ShR 19. 5; BaR 11. 3 and 14. 12; ShR 1.12 and 3. 7 (Tpwo =Ys1D?); Ruth R 3. 8; Wa-Yosha‘ 47-48. Comp. note 201 and Index, s. v. ‘‘Circumcision’’. 27° Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 19. 4. which is perhaps based on a text of Mekilta Yithro 2, 62b, different from that of the editions. “Flying in the air’ is quite a common feat of saints in Christian legends; see Giinter, Legende, 57 and 63. 21k PK 7, 65a; PR 17, 88a; Tehillim 136, 520; Tan. B. II 5152; Wa-Yosha‘ 50-51; Dibre ha-Yamim 10 (with some variants). In the battle between fathers and sons not less than sixty myriads (equal to the number of Israel at the time of the Exodus) were slain. 272 PK 7, 64b; PR 17, 87band 197b; Tan. B. II, 52; Dibre haYamim 10; ShR 18. 3; Tehillim 78, 355, and 105, 452. The text of )Tan. as given in the printed editions is abridged; Makiri, Ps. 105, 155, and Dibre ha-Yamim had the complete text before them.

On the dissolute life of the Egyptians see note 68 on vol. I, p. 222. ; 213 Mekilta RS,52. This does not form part of the genuine Mekilta; see Ginzberg’s remarks, Geonica, I, 167, where references are given to several medieval authors who mention this legend. The following references may be added: Kozari III, 73; Pa‘aneah on Exod. 13. 18; Mahzor Vitry, 293; Passover Haggadah according to the Bagdad and Bene Israel rituals; comp. also Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 12. 12, and vol. III, p. 26. In tannaitic sources great stress is laid on the 433 214-220} The Legends of the Jews fact that the slaying of the first-born and the redemption from Egypt were directly accomplished by God Himself (see Mekilta Bo 7, 7b, and 13, 13b; Midrash Tannaim 173; Passover Haggadah, and many other tannaitic sources), whereas in later literature the view is also expressed to the effect that the slaying of the first-born was performed by an angel; see ShR 15. 5 and 19, as well as 17. 5 and 29. 8; BaR 11, 89a (God appeared in Egypt alone without being accompanied by angels) ; Shir 1. 14; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 20. 16 is a literal translation of the Hebrew text. Zohar I, 117a, and III, 149a, gives a semi-mystical explanation why the redemption from Egypt was performed directly by God Himself. Comp. Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2, 20a (where, perhaps, xd) instead of 9) is to be read), and note 216.

That the last plague took place exactly at midnight (Moses, as a human being, said ‘‘about midnight’’; see Exod. 11. 4) is also stated ~ in Mekilta Bo 13, 13a. Comp. note 44 on vol. III, p. 26. 224 ShR 18) 2; Shir 1914 215 Unknown Midrash quoted in Eshkol I, 17: Shibbole ha-Leket 41 (read Pn” instead of ON73N); Orehot Hayyim I, 43 ('A); Shu‘aib, Bo, 29c. It is quite likely that Eshkol isthe source (directly or indirectly) of the other authorities mentioned. 216 Jub. 49. 2. Yalkut, Song of Songs 5. 2, quoting an unknown Midrash, reads: On that night God sent a sweet sleep over Israel, so that they should not be terrified by the “destroyer” (see Exod. 12. 23); they nevertheless noticed, in their sleep, the death agony of their enemies. Comp. Midrash Shir 38; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 12. 42, and note 213. In Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 4. 25 “the destroying angel’’ stands for Satan, which is in agreement with Jub. 48. 2, where it is explicitly stated that Moses on his way to Egypt was attacked by Satan (comp. notes 99 and 146). See also Mekilta RS, 21. That the punishment of the Egyptians took place at night was due to the fact that the wicked are punished by God in the darkness of the night; see PR 19a; ShR 18.9, and parallel passages given by Buber, Aggadat Esther 59. Comp. note 170 on vol. I, 253. 217 Mekilta Bo 7, 7b and 13, 13b. 218 Mekilta Bo 13, 13b; Mekilta RS, 23-24 (the number of the first-born who died amounted to'sixty myriads; see hote 211); comp.

also Midrash Shir 24a, which is very likely the source of Lekah, Exod. #1. 9, and Al-Zulm, 110; PK 7, 64b-65a; PR 17, 87b-88a. 219 PK 7, 65b; PR 17, 88b; ShR 18. 10. 220 Mekilta Bo 13, 13b. 434 Moses f [221-226 22% Mekilta Bo 13, 13b; Mekilta RS, 13-14; Yashar Bo, 144b; Targum Yerushalmi Exod 12. 12 and Num. 33. 4; Tan. B. V, 32; Sukkah 29a. Comp. vol. II, pp. 250 and 348, as well as vol. III, p. 10. For further details on the punishment of the “gods” and the “heavenly princes”, see note 41 on vol. III, p. 25. 222 Mekilta Bo 13, 73a; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 12.29. Comp. Berakot 9b. Pharaoh himself, the first-born of his parents, was the only one who escaped death on that night; Mekilta, loc. cit. For a dissenting view see vol. II, pp. 297-298. 223 Wa-Yosha‘ 48, which is very likely based on a fuller text of Tan. B. II, 52. Comp. the following note. 224 Tan. B. II, 52; Wa-Yosha‘ 47 (a different source is made use of on p. 48). Comp. Mekilta Bo 13, 13b. 225 Wa-Yosha‘ 48; Tan. B. II, 52-53. Moses refused to leave the house; see Mekilta Bo 13, 13b; Tehillim 113, 469; Hallel 87. That the Hallel was first sung on this night is also mentioned in Yerushalmi Pesahim 5, 32c, ShR 18. 9, and is very likely presupposed in Wisdom 18. 9; whereas according to Pesahim 117a, this paean was composed by Moses and Israel after they had crossed the Red Sea; see note 238 and vol.

III, p. 31. Pesahim 117a, seg., contains several other views concerning the composition of the Hallel. Towards the end of the second Commonwealth the Hallel was chanted in the temple during the sacrifice of the paschal lamb and at the time of the Passover meal. The latter custom is still observed to-day; see Pesahim 5. 7 and 10. 6.—The episode of the meeting between Pharaoh and Moses is differently narrated in Midrash Shir 24a, where it is said that Moses even refused to look at the king, reminding him of his own words warning him (Moses) never to see his face again; see vol. II, p. 361. On the death of those who had not been known to have been the first-born of their parents, see vol. II, pp. 365-366.—Jub. 49. 5 reads: And Israel até the meat of the paschal lamb, drank wine (see Pesahim 10. 1), and gave praise and thanks. The Hebrew original read perhaps 667 14DN) mM, which means ‘‘they gave praise and chanted the Hallel”’. 226 Vashar Bo, 144b-145a; PK 7, 65a; ShR 18. 3; Mishle 31, 111. On the view that Bithiah entered paradise alive see note 61. Artapanus, 433c-433d, maintains that Moses (before his flight from Egypt) called the place, where he buried his foster-mother, Merois, after her name, which was Meroe. The Egyptians, he adds, pay as much homage to Merois as to Isis. Comp. note 58 and vol. II, p. 297. 435 227-233] The Legends of the Jews 227 Wa-Yosha‘ 48-49; Tehillim 113, 469-470.

Comp. the following note. 228 Pesahim 94a; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 12. 31; Yerushalmi Pesahim 5, 32a, which has the additional remark that the voice of Moses was heard through the whole land of Egypt. The Hallel chanted on that occasion consisted of the first part (7. e., Ps. 113) only. Comp. note 225. As to the voice of Moses see vol. III, p. 93. 229 Tan. B. II, 52-53; Wa-Yosha‘ 4 (the text is incomplete); ARN 39. 8; Tehillim 113, 469. 23° Mekilta RS, 24; Zohar II, 45a—45b (very likely on the basis of older sources), remarks that during this night three calamities befell the Egyptians: 1) the battle between the first-born and their fathers, which resulted in many deaths (see vol. II, p. 355); 2) the slaying of the first-born; 3) the carnage caused by Pharaoh among the magnates who had advised him not to release the Hebrews from bondage. 73% Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 12. 32. Comp. Mekilta Bo 13, 14a, and Onkelos Exod., Jocl cit. 232 Mekilta RS, 25-26; comp. vol. III, pp. 11 and 27, as well as vol. IV, p. 411. The holy spirit rested upon the Israelites, and caused the Egyptians not only to love them but also to fear them, as if they were gods. Although Moses and Aaron were too busy with other things (comp. vol. II, pp. 181-182, and vol. III, pp. 5-6; but nothing is said there about Aaron being extremely busy) to spend their time in borrowing silver and gold from the Egyptians, they nevertheless did not go out empty-handed, as they were in possession of many treasures deposited with them by the Egyptians, who had great confidence in them.

Comp. the following note. 233 Philo, Vita Mosis, 1. 25; Jub. 48. 18 (which reads: In return for the service which they were forced to render to the Egyptians); Sanhedrin 91a; Megillat Ta‘anit 3 (scholiast); BR 28. 7 (which reads: The treasures which the Israelites took with them from Egypt became the cause of misfortune for them); Josephus, Antiqui., II, 14. 6, who says: The Egyptians gave presents to the departing Israelites. The same view is held by Sa‘adya (Responsum published by Kis, Gaonic Responsumok, 17 and comp. J.Q.R., New Series, III, 427, as well as Poznanski, Mabo, 48)'who remarks that byw, Exods73.22 and 11. 2, has the same meaning as ]N}; accordingly God's command to the Israelites was to solict gifts from the Egyptians. The commentators R. Hananel and RSBM on Exod., loc. cit., foliow Sa‘adya Gaon without mentioning his name; whereas the Church Fathers ex436 Moses , [234-235 cuse ‘“‘the borrowing” on the same ground as Philo and the old rabbinic sources; comp. Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. 2. 30; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1. 23; Augustine C. Faustum, 12, 71; Theodoretus Exod. 11. 2. See Lévi, R.E.J., LXIII, 211 and 310. In Berakot 9b it is emphasized that the Israelites did not want to borrow from the Egyptians as they were commanded; they were satisfied with the regaining of their freedom, and did not care for riches. But God insisted that they should “‘oblige Him” in this matter, so that Abraham should not complain, saying: ‘God fulfilled His saying ‘and they shall serve them, and they shall afflict them’, but did not carry out His promise ‘and afterwards shall they come out with great substance’ ’’.

Comp. Gen. 15. 13-14. Lekah, Exod. 11. 2, maintains that a part of the Egyptian treasure was appropriated by the Israelites during the three days of darkness, when the Egyptians could not see what the Israelites did to them. This view, however, flatly contradicts that of the old sources; see Mekilta RS, Joc. cit.; Tan. B. III, 39, and the references given in note 198. 234 PRE 48 and Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 24. 10 (which partly follows Yerushalmi Sukkah 4, 54c, where it is said, with reference to Exod. loc. cit., that the “brick of sapphire’ =the paved work sapphire, was placed under the divine throne in remembrance of the bricks which the Israelites had to furnish to their masters). Hadar, Exod. 4. 4, reads, in PRE, /oc. cit., Gabriel instead of Michael, and this reading is indirectly suggested by Targum Yerushalmi, Joc. cit. According to a commonly accepted view, however, the Israelites at this time had ceased to serve the Egyptians; comp. Rosh ha-Shanah 11b, which reads: On the first of Tishri (z. e., six and a half months before the Exod.; comp. note 174) our fathers ceased to serve the Egyptians. 235 1 Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 12. 42 and 2 Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 15. 18 (on the text of 2 Targum see Eisler, Beitrage, IV, 144— 145, who is of the opinion that two readings are blended together in our present text; according to one, the second memorable night was the night in which God appeared to Abraham, and according to the other, this night refers to the one when Jacob crossed the Jabok); PK 17, 129b; PR, 195b-196a.

It is quite likely that in the last-named passage reference is made to the time of darkness when God punished the wicked and not to the night of Passover; see ShR 18. 12; Yelammedenu in Yalkut, Ps. 25; note 216, and note 170 on vol. I, p. 253, Comp. note 76 on vol. I, p. 224; vol. IV, p. 431. As to the part to be played 4387 236-242| The Legends of the Jews by Moses in the time to come see vol. II, p. 302, and vol. Iil, pp. 312313... Comp. Mekilta Bo 14, 16b; Tertullian, De Baptismo, 19; Alfred Jeremias, Babylonisches im Neuen Testament, 41.—In the time to come the redemption from Egypt will lose its significance, for the redemption fron the ‘‘ Kingdoms” will be uppermost in men’s minds; Tosefta Berakot 1. 10; Babli 12b-13a; Yerushalmi 1, 9a. On the Passover in the Messianic times, see Lekah Exod. 12. 16. See also Berakot 1 (end). 236 Tosefta Pesahim 10. 9 (at noon); Shabbat 86b; Mekilta RS, 24; PRE 48. There is a close relationship between this view and the legend that the first-born suffered the agony of death from midnight till the following morning, when they finally expired; see PR, 17, 87b; Semahot 1; comp. also for a dissenting view in ShR 18. 2; note 116. 237 Zohar IJ, 38a-38b. A similar view is found in Wisdom 18. 15-20. 238 Zohar III, 149a; comp. vol. III, p. 32. 239 Tehillim 105, 452, and 114, 470. 24° Zohar II, 45a. On “‘the exile of the Shekinah” comp.

note 9 on vol. II, pp. 187-188; vol. III, p. 63; on the heavenly fragrance see vol. II, p. 364. Comp. vol. III, p. 78. 74% Mekilta Bo 14, 14b, and Yitro 2, 62b; Mekilta RS, 26 and 40-41; Tan. Bo 9; Tehillim 107, 462. On the view that Moses’ voice was heard throughout the land of Egypt, see note 228; on the extension of Egypt see vol. III., p. 364 and vol. III, p. 6. The ‘‘seven clouds of glory” are often spoken of in rabbinic literature; see Tosefta Sotah 4. 2; Sifre N., 83 (according to some authorities there were only four, while others maintain that there were only two clouds of glory); Sifre Z., 192; Baraita di-Meleket ha-Mishkan 14; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 12. 37; BaR 1. 2; ER 12. 60; Mekilta Beshallah (Nnmnb), 25a; Tan. B. IV, 2-3, and N39, 146-147; comp. also Sifra 24, 43, and Justin, Dialogue, 131. See further vol. III, pp. 38, 54, 234, 316, 335. 242 Sifre N., 83; Sifra 24, 3; Shabbat 22b; Baraita di-Meleket ha-Mishkan 14; Midrash Tannaim 13; comp. the references cited in the preceding note. The garments given to them by the angels (at the revelation on Sinai?) grew with them, and the clouds of glory caused them to remain clean and perfect during the forty years of their wandering through the wilderness; see PK 10, 92a—92b (?DUYD implies that the clouds covered their garments like a cloak); DR 7. 438 Moses [243-248 , 11; Tehillim 13, 200; Shir 4. 11; Justin, Dialogue, 131.

Comp. vol. Giles pp Sou 4 ol. 243 Mekilta RS, 41; Tehillim 105, 452. For the opposite view see Midrash Tannaim 13. They distinguished between day and night by the shade of the light spread by the clouds: it was red (glaring bright) after sunset, and white (pale) after sunrise; Baraita di-Meleket ha-Mishkan 14; Makirion Is. 60,1. Comp. vol. I, p. 162 (bottom). 244 Mekilta Beshallah (SNTND), 25b; Shabbat 23b; Tosefta Sotah Ame? 245 Sifre N., 83; Sifre Z., 192; Zohar II, 191b (it is the only source which excludes the mixed multitude); comp. vol. III, p. 57. 246 Mekilta Bo 14, 15a, and Shirah 9, 42b; Mekilta RS, 26; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 12. 37-38. According to Philo, Vita Mosts, 1. 27, the mixed multitude consisted of two distinct classes: one was made up of bastards, the sons of Egyptian women and Hebrew men; to the second belonged all those who out of love for the God of Isreal followed His people. ShR 18. 1 likewise speaks of the pious among the Egyptians who even before the last plague had proclaimed their belief in the true God, and celebrated the Passover together with the Israelites. Comp. Index, s. v., ‘‘Mixed Multitude”. 747 Mekilta Bo 14, 15b; ER 17, 85. Comp. vol. III, p. 37. 248 Mekilta Bo 13, 14a; Mekilta RS, 24; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 12. 34, 439 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF TITLES OF BOOKS Abkat Rokel 59°37: bo Nnpas, Warsaw 1876, quoted by book and chapter.

Abudrahim 079977138, Warsaw 1877, quoted by section and page. Aggadat Bereshit MWN 13 NWS ed. Buber, Cracow 1902, quoted by chapter and page. Aggadat ‘Olam Katan wp obdvy nik ed. Jellinek, Bet Ha-Midrasch, V, 57-59. Aggadat Shir Do VW Vw NTN ed. Schechter, Cambridge 1896. Al-Barceloni ---39nb AVY ADD WIND ben ed. Halberstam, Berlin 1885. Aphraates. The Homilies of Aphraates ed. by Wright, London 1869. Alphabet of R. Akiba 1 and 2 w77D NUpY 277 NA NSN ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch III, 12-64. Alphabet of Ben Sira 1 and 2 npbx 720) TDR NVO JIT XNA ed. Steinschneider, Berlin 1858. Alphabetot nin’a xpos wD ed. Wertheimer, NPY 277 AYMS wI7D oben 81-121, Jerusalem 1914. ARN 1 and 2. °NW3 jn] °377 MAX No msmdi2 ed. Schechter, Vienna 1887, quoted by chapter and page. Artapanus epi "Iovdaiwy in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. ‘Asarah Haruge Malkut Wy TwyD mab 07 ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch VI, 19-35. ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot NIM Mwy w11D ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I, 62-90 (quoted by page) and in nyYwyn san MTN MwA, Venice, 1605, quoted by Commandment. ‘Aseret Melakim o3%o Mwy wITD ed. Horowitz, Bibliotheca Haggadica I, 38-55, Frankfort o. M. 1881. R. Asher. Glosses on the Pentateuch by R. Asher b. Jechiel; comp. Hadar. } 441 Astruc. R. Solomon Astruc M7)N7 (wD ed. Eppenstein, Berlin 1889. ATAO. A. Jeremias, Das alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients, Leipsic 1907. Ayyumah Ka-Nidgalot mbo> mY by R.

Isaac Onkeneira, Berlin 1701. Baer, Siddur $xtw may 3D, Roedelheim 1868. R. Bahya. Commentary on the Pentateuch by R. Bahya b. Asher, Warsaw 1853, quoted by chapter and verse. BaR 739 134703 WWD ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and paragraph. Baraita di-Ma‘aseh Bereshit ed. Chones in Buber, nDbw my? 47-50, Warsaw 1896. Baraita di Mazzalot m>17 NN12 ed: Wertheimer, 7’ (AnD OWNTD TIN I, 1-28, Jerusalem, 1913. Baraita di-Shemuel Up Demet xa ed. Frankfort 0. M. 1863. Barceloni; See Al-Barceloni. Baruch, Greek. The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch ed. James, Texts and Studies vol. V, Cambridge, 1897. 3 Baruch. See Baruch, Greek. Batte Midrashot MwW779 °na Vols. I-IV ed. Wertheimer, Jerusalem 1893-1897. Ben ha-Melek 117) soon ja ed. Mantua 1557, quoted by chapter. Bertinoro. Glosses on the Pentateuch in TWN WON Twn by mpoinn rSya, Warsaw 1876. BHM Vols. I-VI. U1107 MS ed. Jellinek, Leipsic 1853-1877, quoted by volume and page. BR 7139 MOR ID WIND ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and paragraph. Comp. also Theodor. List of Abbreviations Caro, Isaac pny’ min, Constantinople 1518, quoted by chapter and verse. Codex Naz. Codex Nazareus ed. Norberg, Copenhagen s. a. Da‘at by Soo Than Nim Np? nyt BD “MboWN rbya wma pws Nn J TN WAI ATT NMpD WDD v7) ays, Leghorn 1783. Debir bxrw’ noon> *ny AOND 37, Berlin 1923, Demetrius repi tev & 7H ‘Tovéaia Baotdéwy in Eusebius, Praep. Evang.

Derek Erez Z. ROW PAN 717 ed. Tawrogi, KGnigsberg 1885. Dibre ha-Yamim_ or Hayyamim 137 ay ivan nwo by opm ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch. II, 1-11, DR 739 O37 OND ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and paragraph. DZ [Ron] oat mAbs wrtop orp ed. Buber, Vienna 1885. Ekah 727 FDS WII ed. Buber, Wilna 1899, quoted by chapter and page, or ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and verse. Eldad 9370 abs ed. Epstein, Presburg 1891. Eleh Ezkerah DIR ON wD ed. Jellinek, Leipsic 1853. *Emek ha-Melek qbon poy by R. Naphtalib. Elchanan, Amsterdam 1648. Emunot we-Deot MYT MONT DD Myo wat. ..MAN, Cracow 1880. 2 Enoch. The Book of the Secrets of Enoch translated from the Slavonic by W. R. Morfill and edited ...by R. H. Charles, Oxford 1896. Enoch Hebrew; See Sefer Hanok. Ephraim. Ephraemi Syri Opera Omnia ed. P. Benedictus and Assemanus, Rome 1737-1743. ER and EZ kv” ibs 710) 737 ws yD ed. Friedmann, Vienna 1900, quoted by chapter (old numbering) and page. Eshkol *o7m m7 397 aad Spon Sour Goslow 1836, quoted by No., folio and column. Eshkol 73 of7a8 327 110° S2wNA ADO pnx’ ed. Auerbach, Halberstadt 18671869, quoted by volume and page. ha-Eshkol °y701 *NIDD FOND S1DwNT ed. Fuchs and Giinzig, Cracow 18981909. Eupolemus wept tov ev tH lovdaig Baovdewy, in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica ed. Gifford, Oxford 1903. EZ. See ER. Ezekiel, the tragedian. ’Efaywy in Eusebius, Praep. Evang.

4 Ezra, Liber Esdrae Quartus ed. G. H. Box, Ezra Apocalypse, London 1912. Gadol u-Gedolah m9: 5171 wat ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch III, 121-130. Gedulat Mosheh goondyn ed. Amsterdam 1754. Ginzberg, Compte Rendu. Compte Rendu des Mélanges Israél Lewy, Paris 1914Rev. d. Etud, Juiv. LXVI, 297-315 and LXVII, 133-151. Giidemann, gionsgeschichtliche 1876. ReliLeipsic Religionsgeschichte. Studien, Hadar oN Ow yA ...pr ITT ADD s List of Abbrevigtions 6 Hekalot or Hekalot VI mbon 72D IN DD 5 5) Spin Jellinek, Bet haMidrasch V, 170-190. Hemdat ha-Hemdah mon ‘pp ppd mom sed. Wertheimer, obvi 110) III, 13b-15a, Jerusalem, 1902, Hemdah Genuzah N17) nl) MDM 7DD ONNIT Mawn, Jerusalem 1863. Hesed Le-Abraham. Azulai, pmmaxd on ed. Lemberg 1860. Hibbur ha-Ma‘asiyyot; Dibrot. Hippolytus, Philosophumena ed. Migne Pe Gr. os Ps.-Hippolytus. Sermo in Sancta Theophania, Migne Pat. Gr. 10. ha-Hoker nponb wipp *ny ans “pI byw ed. Fuchs, Cracow 1891-94. Huppat Eliyyahu 75x npn ed. Horowitz ADIN NID 45-56, Frankfort o. M. 1888. See ‘Aseret haTrenaeus, Adversus Haereses ed, Migne, PBoGre7. R. Isaac ha-Kohen YIVY5S OY AYN TDD y7> pny’ 7anv, Constantinople 1545. Jerome. Hieronymi Quaestiones Hebraicae in libro Geneseos e recog. P. de Lagarde, Leipsic 1868. Joel, Chronography, Chronographia ed. Bekker, Bonn 1837, Joel, Blicke. Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte...I-II, Breslau and Leipsic 1880-1883, JOR.

NS. The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series ed. Adler and Schechter, Philadelphia 1910 seg. Jub. The Book of Jubilees by Charles, London 1902. Judah b. Barzilai; See Al-Barceloni. Kad ha-Kemah Mdpn 75 ed. Breit, Lemberg 1880-1892. Kaftor wa-Ferah. Estori Parhi, Wn Mp) ed. Luncz, Jerusalem 1897-1898, Kaliah SN”2M YD NIDD ed. Coronel, Vienna 1869, also reprinted in Talmud ed. Romm, Wilna 1895. Kaneh or Kanah 15D S17) Mpr wD mN’2DT ed. Koretz 1784. KAT. E. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und d. alte Testament; third edition by Winkler and Zimmern, Berlin 1902— 1903. Kebod Huppah; See Huppat Eliyyahu, Kebuzzat Maamarim NN) oO OND NxIap omnay bow op Sy---ay oma *PDINIIND, Warsaw, 1910. (with notes by Louis Ginzberg), Ketoret ha-Sammim by- “Op = nwp wobwiy ym oan, Amsterdam 1671. Keli-Yakar. Solomon Ephraim b. Aaron, ap? °2D, Lublin 1602 and frequently reprinted. Kinyan-Torah 71n }2p. The so called sixth chapter of Abot found in most editions of this Treatise. Koheleth 729 nbnp w77D ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and verse. Koheleth Z. 8O1T nbmp wD ed. Buber, NOW WITD 83-130, Berlin 1894, Konen 7313 W717 ed. Jellinek, Bet haMidrasch II, 23-29. Lekah NP'DD ANID aw np> wap Gen. and Exod. ed. Buber, Wilna 1880, Lev. Num. and Deut. ed. Padua, Wilna 1884, quoted by chapter and verse or Book and page. Leket Midrashim ow77D vp? “DD Ed. Wertheimer, Jerusalem 1904. Likkute ha-Pardes DTD '01P?, Venice 1519.

Likkutim I-VI 0°01p771 15D ed. Griinhut, Jerusalem 1898-1902. Maamar ‘Aseret Melakim MWY “DNxt ora>p ed. Horowitz, MTN NWN 54-55, Berlin, 1881. Ma‘areket mnoxm ndqyp, Mantua 1558. Ma‘aseh Abraham ed. Horowitz 7wyp n’y Wak OFDN in NTS NWN 43-46, Berlin, 1881. 2 Ma'‘aseh Abraham O7738 yp ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 118-119. Ma‘aseh Abraham WS8 O78 MwyD 10) DY 19 YYNW TOD A"y ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I, 25-34. 443 List of Abbreviations Ma‘aseh R. Joshua b. Levi ‘17 nwyn n> 12 ywrt ed. Jelinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 48-51. Ma‘aseh Rokeah -*3N-- -NpNAwYyD ADO wrsunp pndp Va AT: -ya- yd Sanok 1912. Ma‘aseh Torah 71)N AWYD wD ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 92-109. Maasehbuch iA Nwyn, Amsterdam 1723, quoted by No. and page. Ma'‘asiyyot or Ma‘as. ed.G. Gaster, The Sefer ha-Ma‘asiyoth, in ‘Judith Montefiore’’ College, Report for the year 1894-1895, Cambridge, 1896. Ma‘ayan Hokmah 103M )}’yd ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I, 58-61. Magen-Abot. Duran, MSs 11D, Leghorn 1762. Maggid. R. Joseph Caro, 0°90 199, Amsterdam 1708. 'Malala, John. Chronographia ed. Din~ dorf, Bonn 1831. Masnut; See Ma‘ayan Gannim. Masseket Gan ‘Eden ]7Y ]) n200 in jopn dxrpw7 Nn” 13 ed. Frankfort 0. M. 1863. Comp. also Seder Gan Eden. Masseket Kelim $3 n>pD ed. Jelinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 88-91 Mattenot Kehunah. R. Issachar Baer b. Naphtali 7273 M3nd on Midrash Rabbah in ed. Wilna, 1887.

Ma‘ayan Gannim. Masnut, °°°O°2}yp ars 0 by ed. Buber, Berlin 1889. Mekilta Sxynw vat andy 7D ed. Friedmann, Vienna 1870, quoted by massekta and folio. Mekilta RS °NM ]3 Pyne "397 NNdYDD ed. Hoffmann, Frankfort 0. M. 1905, quoted by page. Melchizedek Fragment Enoch 85-93. MHG I and IL Ponta aD: -dyrma wD ed. Schechter, Cambridge 1902; W179 mow DD: 7171 «ed. ~=Hoffmann, Berlin 1913-1921. Midrash Abraham 138 OF S87 wD ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch V, 40-41, Midrash R. Akiba }}OY J2 NIpy 9 wT ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch V, 31-33; in Charles, 2 ed. Wertheimer, Leket Midrashim 18a+ 23b. Midrash le-Hanukkah m>in> wrt ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I, 132-136. Midrash Jonah 7) W179 ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I, 96-105. Midrash ha-Ne‘elam; See Zohar Hadash. Midrash Shir D°Y0N VW WIT ed. Griinhut, Jerusalem 1897. Minhat VYehudah, see Da‘at. Mishle *9up wip ed. Buber, Wilna 1893, quoted by chapter and page. Monatsschrift. Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, Dresden (later Breslau) 1852 seq. Moses bar Cepha. De Paradiso ed. And. Masius, Antwerp 1569. Mota Muse. Faitlovitch, Mota Muse, Paris 1906. 4 Nahmanides, Derasha ADDN ‘A NN y"ap77 wITw WIT ed. Jellinek, Leipsic 1853. Neweh Shalom. Taussig, ody M3), Munich 1872. Nispahim, Friedmann, 1P9X 77109 oNDD) NOM, Vienna 1904. Nur al-Zulm, Light of Shade and Lamp of Wisdom, by Nathanel Ibn Yeshaya, ed. Kohut, New York 1894.

Nistarot R. Simon; See Pirke Mashiah. Or ha-Hayyim '3 0"n '7...0"N TSN bybxa, Mezirow 1801, Orient. Ltz. Orientalistische LiteraturZeitung ed. Peiser, K6nigsberg 1898 seq. Otot ha-Mashiah Mwon Ninis ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 58-63. Ozar Midrashim VP °AN3 OWI AIS I-IL ed. Wertheimer, Jerusalem 1913-1914. ,,Pa‘aneah by mD* WPD NIT) NM MyD aS pny? 13... ....7TN Vpn AweN m7, Prague 1607 Panim Aherim OMS OD BID ed. Buber NN7N7 DD 45-82, Wilna 1886. Pardes Mnbr "wn prand...oTmeT 7D Constantinople 1802. 444 List of Abbreviations Perek Gan ‘Eden; Conip. Note 90 on 5 Pesikta Hadta NNIN NNp’DD ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch VI, 36-70. Pirke Mashiah mvp *prp) webs 7D SM j3 pyow ‘7 nN ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch III, 65-82 Petirat Moshe M”y 1y35 Two NV W717 ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I,115-129. Pirke RHK; See PRK. Ps.-Philo. Philonis Judaei Alexandrini, Libri Antiquitatum, Basel 1527. Philosophumena; See Hippolytus. PK ximaand>nonyp.. .Nnp’op ed. Buber, Lyck 1860, quoted by Piska and folio. Poznanski, Einleitung or Mebo by wivdD .osndan ay dss and awy eam Sxpir sapor-wrpp np» wan by sian mo Warsaw 1913-1914. PR °N27 NNP’DD WIT ed. Friedmann, Vienna 1880, quoted by Pesikta and folio. PRE ‘“Wy’78 '27 °plb, Amsterdan 1709 or Warsaw 1852. PRK wrpn W537 pl ed. Griinhut, Likkutim III, or BIIPA WAIT Spr ed. Schénblum Onn] ODD mew, Lemberg 1877. Pugio Fidei. Pugio Fidei Raymundi Martini.....

Adversus Mauros. et Judaeos, Leipsic 1667. Rabbinovicz; See \/ariae Lectiones. RAsh; See R. Asher. Raziel ~xoo7 DTT 7D, ed. Wilna 1881, quoted by caption and page. REJ. Revue des Etudes Juives, Paris 1880 seq. RSBM. oO”a07 and NWR TANNA HID ed. Rosin, Breslau 1881. Ruth R. 7235 NN Y7D ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and verse Ibn Sabba‘ °37 ...9vn@ mon by wrvp son WY we NAP) 9") y"Ip OFTIN Venice 1523, quoted by Parasha and folio. Seder R. Amram...).99N8 272D2 N'7]Nn 71D now ony 37 770 oY ed. Frumkis, Jerusalem 1912. Seder Gan ‘Eden ]TY ]1 19D ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 52-53. Seder Rabba di Bereshit MYST 737 AID bya 779 Sxyne "97 maT ed. Wertheimer, Batte Midrashot I, 1-31. Seder Ruhot MM 77D ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch V, 176-180. Sefer ha-Hayyim OM '9...0"MM “DD bebxa 92 Cracow 1593 Sefer Hanok 7121 “DD ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 114-117. Sefer Noah Mj 15D ed. Jellinek, Bet haMidrasch III, 155-160. Sefer ha-Yashar on ab wn 1D ed. Rosenthal, Berlin 1898. Sekel or Sekel Tob by aw b2w w>TD 93 om IPI AN Mw) MwNI3 WDD 928 ed. Buber, Berlin 1900-1901. Sha‘are Gan ‘Eden 0377) JY 7] ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch V. 42-51. Sha‘are Simhah. R. Isaac b. Judah ibn Gayyat, TMDW YY, Fiirth 1862. Shalshelet ...0909 mbapn nbwbe >» NP 7! PPT, Venice 1587. Shem Tob b. Shem Tob ...771n7 me77 FOV ‘93 aw ow '97, Venice 1547. Shemuel 281DY W17D ed. Buber, Lemberg 1893, quoted by chapter and page.

Shir 729 OVA VOW WIND ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and verse. ShR 737 ND WI7D ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and paragraph Shu'aib. Joshua ibn Shu'aib by ment mun, Constantinople 1523, quoted by Parasha and folio. Shitah Hadashah apy’ ns12> nwan Aww in 727 MYRIAD W7ID, Wilna 1887 pp. 376-377. Sibyll. The Sibylline Oracles. ken, Leipsic 1902. Sifra DTD NWN WO NIT 337 ND ed. Weiss, Vienna 1862, quoted by chapter and verse. Sifre D. and N. 329°37°5Ded. Friedmann Vienna 1864, quoted by paragraph (D=Deuteronomy, N = Numbers) and sometimes the page js added. ed. Geff445 List of Abbreviations Sifre Z. Der Sifre Sutta...von Dr. S. Horovitz, Breslau 1910. Sifte Kohen ...105n...J73 °ndw@ 150 yNan °3779, Wansbeck 1690. Sikli, Talmud Torah. Poznanski, 137 by bean 2 apy ab min mob wipon *D0 (= Hazofeh III, 1-22) and in Festschrift-Maybaum, Leipsic 1915, apy 'a arin adn wipoon bw ines Spo Senn 7"3. Syncellus. Chronographia ed. Dindorf, Bonn 1829, Tadshe om» /I7 NN IW RVTN WIT “YR? J3 ed. Epstein in OWT NN Tp, Vienna 1887 pp. I-XLVI. Tan. PY1F)OV IY IVD OY. . .NOMINGITD hor a Sar qun ond...Aor Wilna 1833, quoted by Parasha and paragraph. Tan. B.]@"m onmpa NDIMIN OID ed. Buber, Wilna 1885, quoted by Book and page. Tan., Introduction. Buber, bya na xoimn wtp by Ws prDDA, Wiina 1885. Targum Jerushalmi (1) Pseudo-Jonathan ed. Ginsburger, Berlin 1903. Targum Yerushalmi(2) Das Fragmententhargum ed.

Ginsburger, Berlin 1899. Tehillim 210 AMv ANIA odan wD ed. Buber, Wilna 1891, quoted by chapter and page. Ps.-Tertullian— 1) De Jona et Ninive. 2) Sodoma. 3) Genesis. 5) De Execrandis Gentilium Diis. 6) Adversus Marcionitas or Adv. Marcionem. 7) Libellus Adversus Omnes Haereses, Testament of Job. Greek text in James, Apocrypha Anecdota pp. 104-137; English translation by Kohler in Kohut Memorial Volume pp. 264-338. Theodor °2n2°» dy ...829 MwNIA WTI oNND ...WIVD) ““MDIPD ANW OY ...1 “WIRY TTT Berlin 1912-1916. Theodoretus, Quaestiones in Genes. ed, Migne, P, Gr, 80, Theophilus or Theophil. Theophilus of Antiochia, rpds’AuréAuKov ed. Otto fn Corpus Apol. 8. Tola‘at Ya‘akob. Gabbai, apy’ nydin ed. Constantinople 1560. Toledot Yizhak. See Caro. Tosafot. See Da‘at. Tosefta Jy" UTD AY 7 and °» 2y NNDoIN ed. Zuckermandel, Pasewalk 1881. Tosefta Targum. Additions to the Targum on the Prophets found in ed. Leiria 1494 and in Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, Leipsic, 1872. TShBZ py1¥ 12 wow Ip3 yo p"awn Do Warsaw, 1875. Variae Lectiones. Rabbinovicz, Variae Lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud Babylonicum, Munich 1867-1897. Wa-Vekullu 153) wD ed. Griinhut in Likkutim II, 16b—19b. Wa-Yosha‘ Ywrlg WI1D ed. Bet ha-Midrasch I, 35-57. Wa-Yissa‘u 190°) W11D ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch III, 1-5. WR 7D Np) WIND ed, Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and paragraph. Jellinek, Yad Yosef. Joseph b. Hayyim Zarfati Mw "DY 1, Venice 1616.

Valkut Reubeni by aN vIpy> ADD munn, Amsterdam 1700, quoted by chapter and verse, sometimes the folio is also given. Yashar WT “DD, Venice 1624, quoted by Parashah and folio. Yelammedenu W109 WT7ND [ANS OTN ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch VI, 7990, quoted by No. ZATW. Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Giessen 1881 seq. Zawaat Naphtali 7229 apy’ 13 ‘nbs nex ed. Wertheimer in his edition of ‘P15 mbar, Jerusalem 1890. ZDMG. Zeitschrift der deutschen mor« genlandischen Gesellschaft. Leipsic, 1847 seg. Zerubbabel or Zerubabel $aaint 4D ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 54~-57, ed. Wertheimer, Leket Midrashim, 9b-13b. Zohar Hadash WIN “WT “BD Leghorn 1866, quoted by Parashah and caption, sometimes the folio is added. Zohar Ruth. See Zohar Hadash. 446 The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.38% accurate Ss s _ — ne 7 : a ae a rae The text on this page is estimated to be only 24.80% accurate = bb -Se ii The text on this page is estimated to be only 39.90% accurate . an = 7 aii hc, ll + Fis DATE DUE CaT# say 2 2 rae PER 8 5 2003 eg NOV 2 5 one GUN « 0 8 FEB 2 | 2003 JOAY 13 We | UL § 1 2m6 ‘ «© Aue Sgr [Ne 22m : 06 i OF 27 Aue ‘GUN 25 WT MAY 29 1897 AUG 6 97 GAYLORD PRINTED IN U.S.A.

GTU Librar; PAO Ridge Ro ag Berkeley, CA 94709 Frees val (510) 649-2 All i are saihviert 2 WE