Notes: Noah

IV. NOAH (pp. 143-181) * Light at the birth of heroes is a favorite motive of legend; comp. vol. II, p. 264, and the note appertaining to it. Shu‘aib, Noah 4d, reports the same incident concerning Noah. See note 3. ? On the speech of new-born babes, comp. vol. II, p. 264, and vol. III, p. 464. In the Melchizedek fragments it is stated that Melchizedek, immediately after his birth, spoke with his lips, and blessed the Lord; comp. note 16. 3 On the idea that light is a sign of heavenly origin, comp. vol. I, pp. 105, 106. See also note 1. 4 Enoch 106-107. While in this pseudepigraphic work it is Methuselah who learns everything about the future and imparts the knowledge thereof to his son, in rabbinic sources it is Lamech, Noah’s father, who, as a prophet at the time of the birth of his son, foresaw that his son was destined for great things; comp. Da‘at and Hadar on Gen. 5. 29, and Sabba, Bereshit, 9b; Ephraim, I, 47. Whether Lamech to whom a pseudepigraphic work is ascribed (comp. Schiirer, Geschichte, 111, 358) is Lamech the father of Noah, or his name-sake, the descendant of Cain, is doubtful; comp. Josephus, Antiqui., 1, 22, where this Cainite is credited with the gift of prophecy and comp. also BR 23. 2; comp. note 6. It is an old tradition that Noah wasa prophet; Seder ‘Olam 21; Philo, Quts...Haeres Sit,52. Comp. further his remarks in Quaestiones, Gen. 1, 87, with reference to the naming of Noah by his father, according to which, the patriarchs (7.

¢., the ante-diluvians) prophesied sometimes. Philo agrees on this point with Jub., according to whose author (8. 18), not only Noah, but also Adam, Seth, Enosh, Mahalalel, Enoch, and Shem were prophets, as may be inferred from 19. 24. Comp. Ginzberg, Unbekante Sekte, 296-297. On the meaning of the name Noah, comp. the following note. 5 Aggadat Bereshit (introduction) 38; Yalkut I, 42, quoting an unknown Midrash (later editions give Abkir as source, but this is not found in the first edition); Sikli in his MS. work Yalkut Tal167 6] The Legends of the Jews mud Torah (comp. Ginzberg’s note in Ha-Zofeh IV, 28-29) quotes this legend from Huppat Eliyyahu; Da‘at on Gen. 5. 29; Vital, Likkute Torah, Bereshit (end). The last author adds that at the time of Noah’s birth, the magic sword of Methuselah (comp. vol. I, p. 141 and note 63 appertaining therteo), with which he destroyed demons and evil spirits, lost its power. That isthe reason why Methuselah feared the power of witchcraft. According to Yashar Bereshit, 13b, Methuselah named his grandson Noah, because the earth wasappeased, while Lamech called him Menahem, ‘‘a consolation”, as stated in the Bible, Joc. cit, The explanation of the name Noah as given in the Bible did not satisfy the later readers, since 110m)’, ‘‘he will console us’’, could only apply to om» or a similar name. BR 25. 2 gives no less than five explanations of the name Noah.

He was called ‘‘he that caused rest’’; 1) because it was in his time that the rebellion of animals against man came to an end; 2) because the earth then enjoyed rest from the waters of the sea (vol. I, p. 147); 3) because the heavenly bodies rested during the time of the flood; comp. note#¥1; 4) because the ark was at rest. According to others, this name signifies ‘‘the pleasant one’’ (mrm3 =n), because his sacrifice was pleasant to God. Some of these explanations are also found in pseudepigraphic and patristic literature; comp. Enoch 106. 18 (the Ethiopic version reads: Call his name Noah, for he shall be left to you, thus connecting m) with min “‘left behind”, while the Latin version reads: Qui Interpretatur requies quia requiem praestabit in Arcam, and accordingly connects M) with min “caused one to find rest’’), and 107. 3, which reads: Noah, for he will comfort the earth after all the destruction; Philo, Aleg., 3. 24; De Abrahamo, 5; Quaestiones in Gen. 1, 87; 2, 245; Theophilus, 3. 19; Ephraim, I, 47 F; Jerome, Gen. 5. 29. Comp. also Tan. Bereshit 11. The translation of the Septuagint, dvavaraboa jwas does not render OMY but MY; comp. BR, loc. cit. 2 (he should have called him mY). See Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 73-74, and vol. I, p. 16. © Tan. Bereshit 11 (this implies that Lamech was no prophet, but had good reasons to call his son ‘comforter’; comp. note 4; BR 25.

2; Abkir in Yalkut I, 42). The last-named Midrash is introduced in Pa‘aneah, Gen. 5.29, as a source for the legend that until Noah the hand of human beings consisted of one piece, the fingers not having been separated from one another. Seeing the new form of Noah’s hand, his father Lamech concluded that henceforth men would have to till the ground, for which they would need flexible 168 Noah , [7-10 fingers. Before this time they did not cultivate the ground, and therefore they did not need such fingers. For the legend itself, without Abkir as its source, see Tosafot and R. Asher, in Hadar on Gen. Joc. cit., who cite R. Judah Hasid as their authority. See also Zohar I, 38a and 58a-58b. The curse on the earth after Adam’s fall lasted till his death, which took place not long before the birth of Noah; Hadar (Pesikta de-R. Eliezer is cited as source; but neither Pirke R. Eliezer, nor Pesikta R. Tobiah b. Eliezer has it) and Da‘at on Gen., loc. cit. On those born with the sign of the Abrahamic covenant on them, see note 318 on. vol. I, p. 306. 7 BR 25.2. On the dominion of man over the animal kingdom, comp. vol. J, pp. 71, 94, and notes appertaining to them. Concerning the overflowing of the sea, comp. vol. I, p. 123. On the ten famines see vol. I, p. 221, as well as Yashar Bereshit, 13a. 8 Yashar Bereshit, 13a. Comp. note 62 on vol. I, p. 141. ®° Enoch 9-10. Comp.

further 67-69 for the exact description of the sins of the angels. On the angels mentioned in the last passage the following is to be remarked. Yikon=))p’s, «ixé»ov, image, and is employed in the sense of the Hebrew 705 ‘“‘idol’’, a name properly applied to the ring-leader of the rebellious angels. Peneme is, as has already been noticed by others, 25, and it should be added that in Tan. B. I, 17, and BR 21.1, '1p is the name of an angel. Kasbiel is practically the same as Kaspiel, and is derived from "w> ‘‘sorcery”’; hence it is the name of “the chief of the oath”’. 1° An unknown Midrash in Yalkut I, p. 44 (in later editions the source is given as Abkir, but not in the first edition); Aggadat Bereshit (introduction) 38; Pugio Fidei, 837-838, whose text is more correct than that of Yalkut. The episode of the woman who was transformed into a star is found, with some variations (she caused the angels to give her wings, with which she flew up to the heavenly throne, in order to seek shelter with God, who rewarded her for her constancy by transforming her into the star Virgo), in Hadar, Gen. 6. 2 and 28. 13 (also in BHM V, 156, with the erroneous reference to the source). This passage also adds that both of these angels had to remain behind on earth, because they had given away their wings to the virgin, and only reached heaven by means of Jacob’s ladder. According to this version of the legend, it is assumed that, though the angels had entertained evil thoughts, they never carried them out, otherwise their return to heaven would hardly have been conceivable.

Accordingly the Midrash found in Yalkut, 169 Io] The Legends of the Jews Pugio Fidei, and Yerahmeel 25, concerning the fall of the angels, is composed of different sources. Concerning the old legend about the angels opposing the creation of man, comp. vol. I, pp. 52-54. See also Hekalot VI, 172, where it is said that Uzza and Azzael, during the sinful generation of the flood, called attention to the fact that their opposition to man’s creation was justified (the text is not entirely in order; the expression >yan7 na aN 19d oPIaD Nd clearly proves that this passage was borrowed from an Ascension of Moses; comp. vol. III, pp. 109-110). Whereupon (this is to be added) these angels descended on earth in order to prove that they were by far superior to man. This motive for the descent of the angels is rather old, since it is already found in the Clementine Homities, 8. 11-12; comp. further ER 29, 162; EZ 25, 49 (the fallen angels are: Azza, Uzzi, and Azzael. This is surely the combination of a double reading, as we find the pair Azza and Azzael next to Uzza and Azzael; comp. note 56 on vol. J, p. 124); PR 34, 159a; DR (end). The transformation of the chaste virgin into a star is rather a later legend, and is hardly of Jewish origin, as may be seen from her foreign name Istehar. The account that Metatron, as God’s messenger, was sent to the fallen angels is a later version of the part ascribed to Michael (in Enoch 10.

11-12). This corresponds to the angelology of the Babylonian Talmud, which transfers to Metatron all the functions that had formerly been ascribed to Michael. Hiwwa and Hiyya, the sons of the fallen angels, are directly borrowed from Niddah 61a, where Shemhazai’s son is called Ahiah. Hence also the remark in Pugio Fidei, loc. cit. (where the names are written 8”"M and 4"n) that these were the ancestors of Sihon and Og (comp. vol. III, p. 340). Although the Talmud knows only of a son of Shemhazai, but not of one of Azazel, the dependence of those works on the Talmud is obvious. In opposition to this statement that Shemhazai suspended himself between heaven and earth as a sign of repentance (one foot on the ground, and the head in heaven), it is affirmed in DR (end) that these fallen angels have been suspended by God between heaven and earth as a punishment. This has been amplified in later sources, which assert that these angels were fastened to the ‘‘mountains of darkness” by chains, and they teach witchcraft to those who seek them. Comp. Aggadat Bereshit (introduction) 39; Zohar I,96 and 126a; III, 208a and 221a; Zohar Ruth, 99a (beginning Tm) '7); ‘Emek ha-Melek, 107c. Comp. further EZ 25, 19, as well as Enoch 7. 3. Azazel as the seducer 170 Noah r [11 to sensuality is not only found in Enoch 8. 1, but also in Yoma 67b, where also the ceremony of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement is explained on the basis of this legend.

It may, however, be noted that neither in this talmudic passage nor in Niddah 61a, where Shemhazai is mentioned, is he or Azazel designated as a fallen angel. Another legend has it that Azazel was originally an angel, and once on the day of Atonement he accused Israel before God, saying: ‘‘Why hast Thou mercy on them when they provoke Thee? Thou shouldst rather destroy them.’’ And God replied: ‘If thou wouldst be among them (men), thou wouldst also sin.”’ Azazel then requested to be tested. When, with God’s permission, he descended on earth, the evil inclination overcame him and he fell a victim to Na‘amah (comp. the following note), a very beautiful woman. Thereupon God said: ‘‘Since he sinned and cannot return to heaven, he should remain in the desert until the end of time, so that he should close the mouths of the accusers; for they will be warned by his fate, and will be silent.’”” On the Day of Atonement, therefore, the scapegoat is sent to the desert, the dwelling-place of Azazel, in order to remind the accusers of his fate. Imre No‘am, Ahare Mot (end). Comp. also Yoma 20a, and PRE 46, with respect to the silencing of Satan “the accuser’ on the Day of Atonement. Imre No‘am gives the source of this legend in a very vague manner (771723 a)nD5), and the text is somewhat obscure. The accusation of Israel by Azazel is certainly to be understood to mean that, in the beginning of creation, he was the one to oppose the forgiving of Israel’s sins on the Day of Atonement as foreseen in the Torah.

The view given in Zohar I, 23a, 25a, and 37a, concerning the fall of Azza and Azzael goes back to a source identical with the one found in Aggadat Bereshit (introduction) 38. This source is Huppat Eliyyahu, which is explicitly named by Sikli in his MS. work, Yalkut Talmud Torah (comp. Ginzberg’s note in Ha-Zofeh, 1V, 29-30). Besides the passages referred to in this note and in the two that follow, there is hardly any other passage in rabbinic literature dealing with the fall of the angels. On the whole question of the fallen angels comp. Grtinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsdtze, 59-61, 63-66, 75-70, 442-448; see also note 57 on vol. I, p. 125. Comp. also note 35 on vol. I, p. 64. 11 PRE according to reading of Nahmanides on Gen. 4. 2; comp. MHG I, 118; Zohar IJ, 155a; Zohar Ruth, 99a (beginning mnD mom '3); Aggadat Bereshit (introduction) 38. See further note 45 on vol. I, p. 118; Imre No‘am, Ahare Mot (end); Kanah 105b; 171 12-14] The Legends of the Jews Griinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsdtze, 58 and 447. Na‘amah, Noah’s wife, was the daughter of Enoch, and is not to be confounded with the sinner bearing the same name, the daughter of the Cainite Lamech; Yashar Noah, 14b. Comp. note 42 on vol. I, p. 116. 12 PRE 22; Zohar I, 58a; Zohar Hadash Ruth, 99a (beginning mpm’), which has the addition that they could not return to heaven because they had been absent for more than a week.

A passage which literally corresponds with one in PRE is that in Ketab Tamim 61, cited from Tosefta Sanhedrin. This is very likely based on an error, for our text of the Tosefta has no trace of this passage. Moreover, in view of the strong opposition of the authoritative rabbinic sources to the doctrine of the fall of the angels (comp. note 57 on vol. I, p. 125) any reference to this doctrine in the Tosefta is quite inconceivable. Aggadat Bereshit (introduction) 38, asserts that the angels, after their intercourse with the daughters of man, wished to return to heaven, but God said: ‘‘Ye have become defiled, and ye cannot become pure again.” Similar words occur also in Clementine Homilies, 8. 13. Comp. further Kallah 3, 8a. 13 BR 26. 7 (on the text comp. Hadar, Deut. 2. 20); DR 1. 24; Tan. B. V, 6. On the tallness of the giants, comp. Enoch 7. 2; Zadokite Fragment, -2. See further vol. III, pp. 268-269 and 340; Clementine Homilies, 8. 15. Josephus, Antzqui., V, 23, like his contemporary Rabban Johanan b. Zaccai (Tan., loc. cit.), undertakes to prove, from the skeletons found in the caves, the extraordinary tallness of the giants. The number of giants who perished in the flood, as given in the Greek Baruch 4. 10, amounts to 409,000. ¥4 Yerahmeel 24. 10-12. On the identification (supposed in this passage) of ‘‘the sons of God” with the descendants of Seth, and that of “the daughters of man” with the generation of Cain (the last idea occurs also in PRE 22), comp.

note 45 on vol. I, p. 118, and Gaster, ad loc., as well as Ginzberg’s Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 75-76; Zohar Hadash Bereshit (end); Hadar, Gen. 6. 2. The description of the gradual fall of the descendants of Seth, given by Yerahmeel, essentially agrees with the Evangel of Seth (Preuschen, Adamschriften, 37-38 and 82, seg.). On Damascus as the place where Abel is supposed to have been slain, comp. note 19 on vol. I, p. 109. According to another view, ‘‘the sons of God”’ are the descendants of Cain. They were called so because their ancestor Cain (comp. vol. I, p. 105) was of heavenly origin. After they had mingled with the descendants of Seth, they begot children who possessed the physical strength and 172 7 Noah [15-17 beauty of the Cainites, but also their demoralized nature; Aggadat Bereshit (introduction) 38-39 (comp. Ginzberg’s note on this passage in Ha-Zofeh IV, 29-30); Zohar I, 37; Kanah 102d and 107a. See further Hasidim 455, and Kozari II, 14. 18 Tan. Bereshit 12. The care-free and happy life which the ante-diluvian generations enjoyed, is frequently alluded to in the Haggadah, in order to show that the excess of good things has its bad consequences for mankind; Tosefta Sotah 3. 6; Mekilta Shirah 2, 35b; Sifre D., 43; Mekilta RS, 58; Midrash Tannaim 36; Sanhedrin 108a; BR 206. 5; 28. 6-7; BaR 9. 14; PK 27, 169b-170a; EZ, 10, 190. Comp. Clementine Homulies, 8.

15, where it is said that God had given manna to the ante-diluvian giants, ‘‘suited to their various tastes’’ (comp. vol. III, p. 44), so that they should not be eager to eat meat. See also note 19. On the subjugation of the heavenly bodies by means of witchcraft, comp. EZ, 25, 49, and vol. I, p. 124. ™© BR 36.1; WR 5. 1 (the expression 77n°x? °y5i is also found in Koheleth 2. 20, and the Hebrew 483 pinw occurs in PR 14, 56b); Aggadat Bereshit 10, 24; PRE 22 (only this passage has the statement that they begot six children at one time; see note 4 on voi. II, p. 245); comp. the sources cited in the preceding note, and Griinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsdtze, 86. The crowing of the cock drives the demons away; comp. Yoma 21a. The well-known legend that heroes speak immediately after their birth (comp. note 2) is here transferred to the entire race of the ante-diluvians. 17 BR 26. 5; Yerushalmi Sotah 1, 17a; BaR 9. 33; Tan. Bereshit 12; WR 23. 9; Tan. B. I, 16 and 23-24. In some of these sources the immoral life of this wicked generation is minutely described, and it is furthermore remarked that they exhibited their shamelessness by appearing naked in public; comp. PRE 22; EZ 10, 190. See further, Singer, Buch der Jubilien, 82, note 1, where the talmudic passages concerning the prohibition of uncovering the body are given, comp. further note 67. That unchastity was the cause of the deluge (as well as the destruction of the sinful cities; comp.

vol. I, p. 253) is maintained by 2 Enoch 34, which with regard to some details agrees with the Midrashim. In Jub. 7. 21 three sins are recorded: immorality, idolatry (uncleanness=? M729 nxopiw), and violence as the causes of the flood. Similarly BR 31. 6. Comp. PRK, 69; Halakot Gedolot (Hildesheimer’s edition, 588; five sins caused the flood); ER 15, 74 (eight sins); Shu‘aib, Noah, 5a (the trespassing of the seven Noachite com173 18-190} The Legends of the Jews mandments); ShR 30. 13. See further notes 36 and 32; vol. III, p. 381; vol. IV, p. 369; Index, s. v. “‘Immoral Life.’’ 18 BR 31. 3-5; Sanhedrin 108a; Koheleth 1. 13; Tan. Noah 4; Wehizhir I, 92. Comp. vol. I, p. 245, the description of the sins of the Sodomites. 19 Sanhedrin 108a-108b (the measures against fire and water, of which they boasted, are mentioned, but the meaning of the words used in the description is obscure); BR 30. 7; Tan. Noah 5; Tan. B. I, 25 (God could have saved Noah without the ark; but its construction was to serve as a warning to the sinners to arouse them to repentance); Aggadat Bereshit 1, 2; Koheleth 9. 14; Koheleth Z., 125; PRE 22 and 23 (hereit is stated that the construction of the ark took fifty-two years); Yashar Noah, 14a-14b, where Methuselah and Noah are said to have endeavored to induce the sinners to repent. The 120 years are of course inferred from Gen. 6. 3, which these sources as well as others (Sifre N., 43, end; Midrash Tannaim 39; Mekilta Shirah 5, 38b; Mekilta RS, 32; EZ 2, 174; ER 16 80; Onkelos and Yerushalmi Targumim on Gen., Joc.

cit.) understand to say that God made this time an allowance to the sinners in order that they should repent and that Noah should exert his influence as an admonisher and preacher. This conception is also prevalent in ancient Christian literature; comp. Aphraates, 138; Origen, Contra Celsum, III, 41; ps.Tertullian, 3, 30; Julius Africanus (cited by Syncellus, 21); Ephraim, I, 47 E-F; Christian-Palestinian Homilies in Anecdota Oxon., Semitic Series I, part IX, 56; Methodius, Symposium; Ewangel of Seth (in Preuschen, Adamschriften, 39); Jerome, Gen., loc. cit. Some Church Fathers like Origen, ps.—Tertullian, and Julius Africanus, speak of a 100 years, during which the ark was constructed. This is not an inaccuracy, but, as was explicitly stated by Africanus, it wishes to convey that the word of God (Gen., loc. cit.) reached the wicked generation when the youngest of them was twenty years old (this is to be explained in accordance with note 69 on vol. I, p. 326), and to these the opportunity of 100 years for repentance was extended. The reason for this view is to be found in the chronological difficulty which Gen., loc. cit., offers; comp. Rashi, ad loc. Zohar I, 62, speaks of 300 years during which Noah was active as.a preacher for repentance. On Noah’s preaching for repentance, comp. further Clemens ‘First Epistle,” 7. 6; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1, 21; Visio Pauli, 50 (the construction of the ark lasted 100 years); Theophilus, 3.

19: 1 Peter 3. 20. Comp. also Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 77-78. The 174 Noah / [20 view that Gen., loc. cit., wishes to say that henceforth the duration of a man’s life will not be longer than 120 years is given by Philo, Quaestiones, Gen., 1, 91; Josephus, Antiqui., I, 32; Lactantius, Institutiones, 2. 14-15. This is also the view of later rabbinic writers; romp. Ibn Ezra, ad loc.—On the changes of the course of the sun, comp. Ascension of Isaiah 4. 5; Enoch 80. 4-5, where this and similar miracles as preparations for the last day are mentioned. Shabbat 156b (top) reads: God causes the planet Jupiter to appear in the east instead of in the west in order to teach Abraham not to attach any importance to astronomy. Comp. Steinschneider, Hebrdische Bibliographie, XVIII, 61-62, concerning similar statements in Arabic literature. On the additional week, after the lapse of the period of respite, during which he was granted the anticipation of the enjoymnent of paradise, comp. Yerushalmi Targumim on Gen. 7. 4 and 10; Tosefta Sotah 10. 3-5; ARN 32, 92; Ephraim, IJ, 5. 2 E, and the sources cited in the following note and note 15. 2° Tosefta Sotah 10. 3-5; ARN 32, 92-93; Sanhedrin 108b (on the text comp. Lekah, Gen. 6. 3, where the reading seems to be }nmd instead of ]7DDn, according to which it is said that the death of the pious has the atoning power to avert impending misfortunes for some time; comp., however, Lekah, Gen.

7.4); BR 3. 6 (in the week of mourning for Methuselah God caused the primordial light to shine) and 32. 7; Yerushalmi Mo‘ed Katan 3, 82c; Tehillim 26, 220 (God did not wish Methuselah to die at the same time as the sinners); Yashar Noah, 14a-14b (compiled from different sources. First it is said that Noah and Methuselah were the only pious persons left one hundred and twenty years before the flood; then it is asserted that the pious people died five years before the flood; finally it is remarked that Lamech, Noah’s father, died about the same time, but that he followed the path of his father and son whole-heartedly; on Lamech comp. note 64 on vol. I, p. 142, and note 4). Comp. also Philo, Quaestiones, 2. 13, who, together with the explanation given in rabbinic sources concerning the seven days of respite to induce the sinners to repent, mentions the view that the last week before the destruction of the world corresponds to the first week of the creation, in order to show that both came from God. The same explanation is found in Lekah, Gen. 7. 4. The last week is regarded as a week of ‘‘mourning’’ for the men destroyed in the flood; BR 27 (end) and 32. 7; Mo‘ed Katan, Joc. cit.; Tan. B. I, 30, and III, 21; Tan. Shemini 1; ER 31, 162. God, of course, knows everything beforehand; when Scripture 175 21] The Legends of the Jews says (Gen. 6. 6) that He repented because He had created man, it merely implies that He repented in the same manner as a father rejoices at the birth of a son, although he knows that sooner or later he must die; for joy, as well as mourning, has its time.

Comp. on this point BR and Tan., loc. cit.; Philo, Quaestiones, ad loc.; Quod Deus sit immutabilis, 5; Clementine Homilies, 3. 39. See further Sukkah 52b, and PRK, 19b, concerning four and six things, respectively, of which God repented of having created them; they are: The evil inclination, idolatry, the generation of the flood, the Chaldeans, the Ishmaelites, and Israel’s captivity in Babylon. It should be observed that, with the exception of ARN, Joc. cit. (upon which Yashar, loc. cit.,is dependent), which makes mention of the pious and the righteous of the antediluvian generations, the other sources know only of the pious Methuselah. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, II, 39, cites the following expressions, from unknown sources: “The court of justice presided by Methuselah” and ‘the house of learning of Methuselah’’. He rightly remarks that these terms mean persons who taught their contemporaries, and endeavored to guide them in God’s ways. Comp. notes 1 and 64 on vol. I, pp. 105 and 142, respectively. 21 BR 31. 13 and 32. 11. On the plan, of the ark comp. further BR 31. 11; Sanhedrin 108b; PRE 23; Targum Yerushalmi Gen 6. 14-15; Philo, Moses, 2.11; Josephus, Antiqui., I, 3. 2. It is to be noted that the two last-named authors speak of the four stories of the ark. The question as to how the different stories were divided according to the various species of animals is very exhaustively treated, and the sources differ greatly from one another as to the details; comp.

also ps.—Hippolytus, 2-3. The construction of the ark was so difficult, that the ‘‘ark itself took part in the act’; BR 31. 11. Comp. Evangel of Seth 39, which reads: And when he had built the ark, the axe, the hammer, and the wood exclaimed: ‘‘Behold, there will come a flood which will destroy the earth.” Concerning the question how room could be found in the ark for so large a number of animals and food for them all, comp. Origen, Contra Celsum, 4. 41, and the Melchizedek fragment 5, where the view is expressed that the cubit mentioned in the Bible, with regard to the measurements of the ark, is different from the ordinary one. It is further added that “according to this number the Jews keep this measure of the ark of Noah, as the Lord said to him, and so they made each measure and each rule, even up to the present time.” On this point comp. BR 30. 10 with reference to [pan TON “the ark cubit". 176 Noah 7 [22-25 22 This legend was published by Ginzberg in Ha-Goren, IX, 38-41, from a compilation of legends in a MS. of the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. On the attempt of the angels to worship Adam, comp. vol. I, p. 64. 73 Sefer Noah, 150-160, of which three recensions are extant. According to one, Noah received, after the flood, a medical book from the archangel Raphael (vol. I, pp. 173-174); according to the second Adam, after the fall, received a book from Raziel, out of which all mysteries could be ascertained (vol.

I, pp. 90-93), and it is this book from which Enoch derived his wisdom; later Noah received it from the angel Raphael, in order to be able to erect the ark. The third recension does not seem to know of any connection between Noah’s book, which Raziel had handed over to him before the flood,and the book given by this angel to Adam who later transmitted it to Enoch. Based on the legend recorded in vol. III, p. 119, this recension adds that the sapphire on which the book was engraved gave the light necessary for the inmates of the ark (comp. vol. I, p. 162, below). See Jellinek, Hinleitung to BHM, III, 30-33. The second recension was made use of in Zohar I, 37b and 58b, and perhaps also 72b. 2 Enoch 33. 12 also seems to speak of the book of Enoch which was revealed by the angels to Noah and _ his descendants. In Enoch 10. 1-3 it is Uriel who informs Noah beforehand of the coming of the flood, and who advised him about the erection of the ark; but 67. 2 states that the angels erected it; comp. 89. 1 and BR 31. 11. Comp. also Zohar Hadash Terumah beginning of last paragraph. ?4 PRE 23; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 5. 20; Philo, Moses, 2. 12; BR 32. 8; Tan. Noah 12; Zebahim 116a; Ephraim, I, 52 C-D; Augustine, Civitas Dei, 15. 27; Theodoretus, Quaestiones in Gen. 18 (comp. on this passage Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 80-81); Evangel of Seth 39. In all these sources it is emphasized that the animals of their own accord, by God’s command (according to PRE and Targum Yerushalmi, Joc.

cit., they were assembled by the angels), came to the ark. Comp. also the following note. 25 Yashar Noah, 15a—-16a, apparently based on old sources; comp. BR 3i. 13 (whenever the male ran after the female, Noah took the pair into the ark; if the female ran after the male, they were excluded from it) and 32. 8; Tan. B. I, 36; Tan. Noah 7. On the 121 years, during which Noah preached for repentance, see note 19. It should be observed that Josephus, Antigui., I, 3. 1, also knows of Noah’s activity as a preacher. He, how177 26-28] The Legends of the Jews ever, adds (this occurs nowhere else) that when Noah realized that he failed in his efforts, he emigrated to another country. By this he probably wishes to explain how the ark came to the ridge of Ararat in Armenia (comp. note 47), though Noah, like all ante-diluvian patriarchs, had lived in Palestine. On the eclipse of the sun during the flood comp. Philo, De Abrahamo, 8, and vol. I, p. 162 (below). On the attempt of the sinners to enter the ark by force, comp. also Evangel of Seth, 39; Shu‘aib, Noah, 5b; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 7.16; PRE 23; Aggadat Bereshit 4, 10; Yalkut I, 57 (the first part perhaps from Abkir). With respect to the animals which were included in the ark, comp. also note 32. 26 Sanhedrin 108b; Rosh ha-Shanah 12a; Zebahim 113b; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 29b; WR 7. 6; Koheleth 9. 4; PRE 22; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 508, on Is.

64. 1 (according to this passage, punishment by fire came upon the generation of the flood because of the robberies they had practised; comp. also Jerome, on Is. /oc.cit., who reproduces this tradition somewhat inaccurately); Hashkem 15a; Tan. B. III, 13; Tan. Zaw 2; Tehillim 11, 100; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 7. 10; Aggadat Bereshit 4. 10. On the sexual dissipation of this generation (onanism, sodomy, and other abominations), comp the sources cited in note 17, as well as BR 26. 4-5, 30. 2, and 32. 7; Zohar I, 62a and 66a. See further note 39. The punishment by fire during the flood is connected with the conception of the worldconflagration which then took place for the first time; comp. Ginzberg, ws bw dian, 19 = Ha-Goren IX, 51. 27 Tan. B. I, 35-36; Tan. Noah 7; Aggadat Bereshit 4, 10; Makiri, Nahum 10; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 7. 12. 28 BR 28. 9 and 30. 9 (‘‘the one-eyed is regarded among the blind as keen-sighted’’; Noah was the pious one when all others were sinners); Sanhedrin 108a; Tan. B. I, 31-32; Tan. Noah 5; Philo, De Abrahamo, 7 (also Philo’s haggadic remark that ‘‘the generation of Noah” stands for his pious deeds, and that Noah is called ‘‘man” in Scripture on account of his piety, is found in rabbinic literature; comp. BR 30. 6-7; Tan. B. I, 29; Tan. Noah 2; see further the utterance of the Rabbis which is frequently quoted and usually misunderstood: Israel is called ‘‘man?’.

O48, but not the other nations; Yebamot 61a, and parallel passages; comp. notes 6, 8 on vol. I, p. 50); Jerome, Gen. 5.9. Midrash Tannaim 226 asserts that Noah survived only on account of the merits of Moses (the latter lived 120 years, as announced to Noah; comp. Gen. 6.3). Had Noah nerished, 178 Noah 4 [29-30 there would have been no Moses. Comp., on the other hand, ibid. 62, where it is said that the idolatrous nations existed only on the merits of Noah. In the Talmud, as well as in the Midrashim cited above, another view is also given to the effect that Noah, despite the wickedness that prevailed in his days, was a pious man. Had he lived in a better generation, he would have certainly been righteous. BR 29, 4 and Tan., loc. cit., in contrast to Midrash Tannaim 62 and Jub. 4. 19, maintain that God was gracious to Noah for the sake of his descendants, 7. e., for the sake of the later patriarchs, prophets, and other pious men; comp. BR 30. 10, where the superiority of Abraham to Noah is emphasized. For the opposite view see Tan. B. I, 32. Noah’s sons (including Ham) are similarly mentioned as pious men; Tan. B. I, 31 and Tan. Noah 2; 4 Ezra 3. 11; Clemens’ First Epistle, 7. 6; comp., on the other hand, Jub., oc. cit., and Aggadat Bereshit 10, 24. The title pytx applied to Noah (Gen. 6. 9) signifies one who gives alms, because he cared for all the living during the time of the flood; Tan.

B. I, 31; Tan. Noah 5; Yelammedenu quoted by Recanati on Gen., Joc. cit. Comp. Alphabet of Ben Sira 13a; Gerson, Justinus Martyrer und die Agada, 46-47. See also the following note. 29 BR 32. 6; an anonymous Midrash quoted by Shu‘aib, Noah, 4b. Comp. Matthew 24. 38 concerning the lack of faith of this generation, which remained obstinate until the coming of the flood. According to PRE 23 and Alphabet of Ben Sira 12b—13a, Noah, on the contrary, spent a whole week in the ark before the flood came. According to the prevalent Haggadah (BR 32. 8; comp. vol. III, pp. 444-445) Noah entered the ark in full day-light, in the presence of his wicked surroundings, in order to show that because of his faith in God he feared no one. This expresses a rather favorable view of Noah. On Noah’s wife, whose good deeds equalled those of her husband, comp. BR 23. 3; Yashar Noah, 14b; Mishle 31, 111; Tobit 4, 12, where Noah is mentioned along with the three patriarchs, who married their kin. This remark wishes to convey that Noah did not marry any of the Cainitish women. According to Jub. 4. 33, Noah’s wife was called Amzara, yr o€ (in the Evangel of Seth 39, she is called Noamzara=y7t 0Yy)), and was the daughter of Bakiel, his father’s brother. Comp. note 42 on vol. I, p. 116 and note 11. 3° Tan. B. I, 25-26; Yashar Noah, 14a-14b, where Japheth is said to be the oldest, Ham the second, and Shem the youngest.

In the older sources there is a difference of opinin whether Japheth or 179 31-32] The Legends of the Jews Shem was the first-born. The following authorities consider Shem the oldest: Jub. 3. 33; PRE 8; Origen, Gen. 12, 10d; Augustine, Civitas Dei, 16. 11; Clementine Recognitiones, 30; Cyprian Epistolae, 62.3. But most of the Rabbis consider Japheth to have been the oldest and Shem the youngest; Midrash Tannaim 73; Sanhedrin 69b; BR 26. 3; 36. 7; 37. 7; BaR 4. 8; Tan. B. I, 142; Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 10. 21. With this view agree Septuagint, Gen., loc. cit., and Philo, Quaestiones in Gen., 2,79. Comp. MHG I, 142 and 176; Aphraates, 234; see also the following note. 3™ BR 26. 2; BaR 14. 12; Tehillim 1, 11-12. These sources assume that Noah had been married long before he begot children, whereas the sources mentioned in the preceding note (comp. also Evangel of Seth 39, where it is said that he was compelled by an angel to marry against his will and that he preferred celibacy; this is a Christianization of the old Jewish legend) assert that he married late in life. 32 Sanhedrin 108a, 108b (with the exception of ‘‘Tushlami”, the animals gave up their previous manner of living after the flood); Tan. B. I, 36 and 45; Tan. Noah 12; BR 28. 8-9 (even the earth became untrue to its nature, so that when wheat was sown there grew darnel instead); Yashar Bereshit. (end); 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 35b36a; Jub.

5. 2. Since it was man who set a bad example to the animals, he was the one to be destroyed first in the flood; Tosefta Sotah 4. 11; Sifre N., 18; Sifre Z., 25; BR 50. 8; BaR 9. 18. Comp. on this idea vol. II, p. 353. The corruption of the animal world readily explains its destruction in the flood. Another explanation is that the whole world was created for the sake of man (vol. I, p. 49), and when man, with the exception of Noah and his family, was destroyed, the animal world was no longer entitled to exist. Those animals which were saved were spared for the sake of Noah and his descendants. Comp. BR 28. 6 (this passage gives the interesting view that the animals allured man to the eating of meat; hence they were destroyed because they were instrumental in causing sin; comp. Clementine Homilies, 8. 15); MHG I, 132-134, 151, 158-159 (where various old sources are cited, all of which express the same idea that the existence of the animal world depends on the existence of man); Philo, Quaestiones in Gen., I, 94, and 2, 9. With regard to the animals which were found worthy of entering the ark, the following statement is made in Sanhedrin, loc. cit., and Zebahim 116a: Noah caused the animals to pass in front of the ark, and those which 180 Noah ‘ [33-37 remained firmly rooted in the ground (Qnubip is thus to be understood) were admitted into the ark. 33 PRE 23, where the sum total of the animals is given.

The text is not quite correct; comp. Luria, note 10, and Shua‘ib, Sa—5b, who quotes, from PRE, the sentence, found in Hullin 65b, concerning the numberless kinds of birds. The unclean animals mentioned in Gen. 7. 2 are described in the negative (77110 xd WN), and not positive (MND), though the latter is the shorter way. Hence it is inferred that one must be careful not to use improper language; Pesahim 3a; PR 14, 57b, and the parallel passages cited by Friedmann. 34 BR 31. 13 (according to one view, the young of the Reém were in the ark); comp. also Shu‘aib, 5a (below, which also has the statement that all the animals, which were intended for the ark, were born shortly before they entered there); Zebahim 113b; Sanhedrin 108b, according to the reading of some MSS. (comp. Rabinowicz, note 2), and MHG I, 150, note 53. Concerning the Reém see Index, s. ». A less fabulous description of this animal is found in Lekah, Num, 23. 22: its size is larger than that of a camel, its horns, which are as sharp as a sword, are five cubits long, so that no animal can resist it. 35 PRE 23; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 2. 11 and 3. 10 (a more detailed description of this legend, taken from the Targum, is found in Yalkut Reubeni on Gen. 7. 22); Zebahim 113b. In the last passage it is further remarked that the giants, who had not been carried off by the waters on account of their size, perished from the heat (concerning this point see vol.

I, p. 159). The Reém and Og had such gigantic strength that the heat had no effect upon them. Different is the version of this legend in MHG I, 159: The men of the generation of the flood were fifteen cubits high, and they tried to save themselves on the lofty mountains when the flood broke forth (comp., however, Yoma 76a and BR 32. 11), for which reason God caused che waters to rise fifteen cubits over the high places. Comp. also Tan. B. I, 36; Tan. Noah 7; Aggadat Bereshit 4, 10. On Og comp. also note 54, and vol. III, pp. 340, 343. 36 Tehillim 6, 68-69 (instead of }pno read minpd ‘‘stipulating”’). Comp. also PR 24, 125b, and EZ 3, 175, which reads: God created everything with the exception of falsehood and deceit, which man invented. See further ps.—Tertullian, Adversus Omnes Haereses, 2. 37 Sanhedrin 108b; MHG I, 160. Yalkut Reubeni, Gen. 7. 14, cites, from Sode Raza, the statement that Noah took care of the wild 181 38-30] The Legends of the Jews animals, Shem of the domestic, Ham of the birds, and Japheth of the reptiles. The sources cited above assume that Noah took with him food for each species of animals, the kind of food fit for each one; but, on the other hand, some authorities (BR 31. 14; Tan. B. I, 29 and 37-38; Tan. Noah 2 and 9; Augustine, Civitas Dei, 15. 27) assert that the dried fig served as food for both man and beast. That all the animals of the ark became tame, so that Noah walked on snakes and scorpions without being injured, is asserted in Tehillim 91,400, and also in MHG I, 158 (comp.

Schechter, note 25), whereas Tan. B. I, 38, states that Noah was struck by a lion, which made him lame for the rest of his life, because he once gave him food at a late hour. In the numerous parallels to this legend (BR 30. 6, and the sources cited in note 51) it is stated that Noah’s encounter with the lion occurred on leaving the ark. Onthe many hardships, which Noah and his family underwent in the ark on account of the animals for which they cared, see note 223 on vol. I, pp. 270-271. On the animal Urshana (the writing is doubtful), comp. Griinbaum, Gesammelta Aufsdize, 23 and 162-163, as well as Giidemann, Religionsgeschichthiche Studien, 55, seq. The word is most likely of Persian origin, but it must not be identified with the phoenix, though both of thent.are considered among the immortals; comp. also Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds, 224, 337, and 353, who misread the word "19 “bran”, as "1? ‘‘fruit”’. 38 Yashar Noah, 16a; see also ibid., 16b, where Noah’s prayer, at the opening of the window of the ark, is given. Comp. further Tehillim 29, 233, which reads: God heard the prayer of the inmates of the ark. According to BR 32. 11, and the parallels cited by Theodor, Noah suffered very much from the cold, while the same source, 9, and Tehillim 1, 11, state that the ark, despite the mass of water, rested quietly ‘‘as a ship in port”. Comp. also BR 33. 7, concerning the eleven cubits of the depth of the ark.

Zohar I, 68a—68b and 69a, states that Noah by hiding in the ark escaped the angel of death. 39 PRE 23. Just as the wicked generation indulged in unnatural sexual passions, even so was their punishment unnatural: The female waters rose from the abyss, and united themselves with the male waters which came from above; BR 32. 7. Comp. also note 42. The view that the flood was brought about by the union of the male and female waters is found also in Enoch 54. 8-9, and goes back, as has already been remarked by others, to the Babylonian conception of Apsu and Tiamat. Comp. Yerushalmi Berakot 9, 14a; Yerushalmi Ta‘anit 1, 64b, Babli 6b; Tosefta 1. 4; Tehillim 182 Noah [40-43 42, 267; PRE 5; Koheleth Z., 87. Comp. further the designation of the rain-drops and water bubbles as bridegroom and bride (Ta‘anit 6b), and the explanation of this designation by Al-Fasi in his responsum cited by Abudrahim, Berakot 8 (end). See also Tan. B. I, 24 (Awe poo opm ody Ia) which likewise alludes to the female waters. 4° Berakot 58b-59a; Rosh ha-Shanah 11b-12a; MHG I, 156157; Ma‘yan Gannim, 125-126. The last source speaks of the theft committed by mn°’D ‘‘Pleiades” in carrying off two children or stars of wy ‘‘The Great Bear’. Comp. Griinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsdtze, 65-66. 4° BR 25: 2, 31. 11, 33. 3, and 34. 11 (with reference to this legend concerning the name of Noah, comp. note 5); Sanhedrin 108b; PRE 23; Targum Yerushalmi Gen.

6. 16 (the glistening precious stone was fetched by Noah from the river Pishon, at God’s behest; this is inferred from Gen. 2. 11-12); an anonymous Midrash in Yalkut I, 57; MHG I, 158. Comp. also vol. I, p. 157; vol. IV, pp. 24 and 249. 42 BR 32. 5 and 33. 7. Comp. note 45, particularly concerning the chronology of the time of the flood. The forty days of punishment are brought into connection with the forty days of Moses’ stay on Sinai; they did not obey the Torah, which Moses learned in forty days, hence they were destroyed in forty days. The other explanation of the forty days as given in the text (the author is the Amora R. Johanan; comp. Shemuel 20, 106) is also known to Philo, Quaestiones in Gen., 2. 14, and Ephraim, I, 149E. Comp. note 97 on vol. I, p. 82. The tendency to find some relationship between the punishment inflicted on the wicked generation and the sins they committed is to be noticed in several passages of the Midrashim; comp. vol. I, p. 159, and note 39, where various reasons are assigned why they were punished with water. In all these Haggadot the idea of “measure for measure” is noticeable; comp. Sifre N., 43; Midrash Tannaim 36; Mekilta Shirah 2, 35b; Mekilta RS, 58; Tosefta Sotah 3. 9; Sanhedrin 108a; BR 32. 7; Tan. Beshallah 12; MHG I, 150-151. Opinions differ as to whether fish were among the animals which perished, or not; according to one view, punishment was not inflicted on them; according to another, Noah brought a number of fish into the ark, whence many of them escaped to the ocean; Zebahim 113b; Sanhedrin 108a; BR 32 (end).

43 BR 22. 12 and 32. 5; ShR 31. 16; Koheleth 6. 3; Kohelet? 183 44-45] The Legends of the Jews Z., 106. Comp. further particulars on the death of Cain in note 44 on vol. I, p. 117. 44 BR 28. 3; Tan. B. I, 19. A further illustration of the power of the masses of the waters is given in BR, loc. cit.; mill-stones were entirely dissolved (this is also mentioned in BR 30. 8; WR 31. 1; Shir 4. 1), and so did the ‘‘almond bone”’ of the human body, which is otherwise never destroyed, so that it forms a nucleus for the new body in the time of resurrection (comp. Index, s, v. ‘‘Luz’’). This legend wishes to convey that the generation of the flood will not be resurrected, as is explicitly stated in Sanhedrin 10. 3; Tosefta 13. 6; Babli 108a; Yerushalmi 10, 29b; Seder ‘Olam 4; BR 26. 6; WR 4. 1; Tehillim 1, 12; ARN 32,93. The source just cited differs as to whether these sinners will be completely destroyed, or will suffer eternal damnation; comp. also Zohar J, 69. The remark concerning Adam’s remains is probably anti-Christian, since in the Christian versions of the Book of Adam (Book of Adam and Eve 3. 6, seq.; Schatzhohle, passim; Preuschen, Adamschriften, 26; ps.—Hippolytus, 2-3) the removal of Adam’s body from the ‘‘Cave of Treasures” into the ark plays a great part. In this source the corpse is made to speak. Yerushalmi Nazir 7, 56b, remarks that after 120 years Adam’s remains were destroyed, so that only a spoonful of decayed matter was left.

The same fate awaits every human being. Comp., on the other hand, Shabbat 152b, where it is asserted that the remains of the pious, particularly those who were never jealous, will endure in their perfect state, and will be turned into dust only shortly before their resurrection. The remains of all those who perished in the flood were carried down by the waters into the lowland of Babylon, where the soil was manured with those bodies; Shabbat 113b; Zebahim 113a. 45 Seder ‘Olam 4 (a different view is also quoted here, according to which the second month in which the flood broke out was Iyar, and by this calculation the entire chronology is to begin with the spring, and with this latter view Philo, Quaestiones, 2, 17, 45, and 47 agrees; see also Jub., where the year commences with Nisan); Rosh haShanah 11b-12a; BR 33. 7; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 7. 11 and 8. 4-5, 13; PRE 32; Josephus, Antiqgwi., I, 3. 3. Comp. also note 97 on vol. I, p. 82. Just as the flood lasted twelve months, even so does, according to R. Akiba (‘Eduyyot 2. 10; numerous parallel passages are cited by Theodor, BR 28, 9, 1), the punishment of the sinners in Gehenna last twelve months. 184 Noah . [46-47 46 Sanhedrin 108; BR 33. 5 (God bade Noah to receive the raven into the ark once more, because the bird was destined, on another occasion, to bring food for Elijah; comp. 1 Kings 18. 6); 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 26-27 (which contains many additions; comp.

vol. I, pp. 38-39); PRK 32b. For particulars concerning the raven see vol. I, pp. 166. Philo, Quaestiones, 2, 35, observes that the raven is a bird able to foresee the future (a similar statement about the raven is to be found in Gittin 45a, where, however, the same quality is also ascribed to the dove), and that is the reason why Noah sent him. Comp. also Zohar Hadash Noah, 28b-29a, where, among other things, it is said that Noah, by sending the raven, wished to indicate that God appeared cruel to mankind, even as this bird is cruel to his children (comp. vol. I. p. 39). Although it was very impious of Noah to think of God in this manner, he was not punished for it, for ‘‘a man is not held responsible for what he does, if he is driven to it by suffering.’”’ This adage is taken from Baba Batra 16b. Towards the end of the flood God’s wrath was turned into mercy, and He remembered Noah’s good deeds, who had cared for the animals for a whole year; He also thought of the clean animals which Noah had with him; BR 33. 3 (see the parallels cited by Theodor); Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 8. 1. BR 1. c.: The wicked change God’s mercy into severity, while the pious change this severity into mercy. Hence the name ” in Gen. 6.5 and obs in 8.11, since the Tetragrammaton stands for God’s mercy and obs for His severity. Philo, Quaestiones, 2, 28, in agreement with Targum Yerushalmi and Tan. B. I, 36-37, understands mn as ‘‘the spirit of God’’, z.

e., His mercy. Comp. Ginzberg in Ha-Zofeh, 1V, 39; Targum Ps. 29. 10 and note 6 on vol. I, p. 4. 47 PRE 23 (he who sends a message by an unclean person is the same as though he sent it through a fool; he who sends it by a clean person is as though he sent it by a faithful servant); BR 33. 6; WR 31 (end); Shir 1. 15 and 4. 1; Sanhedrin 108b; Zebahim 113a; ‘Erubin 18b; Mishle 31, 109; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 8. 11; MHG I, 163; Evangel of Seth 40 (the statement made here that the raven did not return is in agreement with Septuagint and Vulgate on Gen. 8. 7, which have the reading aw nbn; comp. Griinbaum, Neue Bettrdge, 82-83); Codex Naz., Ill, 72; Ephraim (Lagarde 80, 22.). That the dove found an olive-tree on the mount of Olives is to be explained by the fact that the flood did not reach the Holy Land, although the vapors of the hot water caused destruction also there (comp. vol. 185 48-50] The Legends of the Jews I, p. 159). See ps.—Philo, 8D; Zebahim, Joc. cit, and the four Midrashim mentioned at the beginning of this note. Comp. further Yoma 67a (woby xb1D2) and vol. III, p. 63. According to those who think that the Holy Land was also visited by the flood, the olive-leaf came from paradise, whose gates opened themselves to the dove; BR, WR, and Shir, Joc. cit. 48 BR 39. 3; Koheleth 10. 4; Tan. B. I, 41; Aggadat Bereshit 7, 17-18. Of the hot springs which broke out at the time of the flood, three remained (in Palestine) open; Sanhedrin 108a; BR 33.

4; MHG I, 162. On the other traces of the flood comp. Zohar I, 63, and vol. IV, 156. On the place where the ark rested, comp. Josephus, Antiqut., I, 3. 5-6; BR 33. 4; Onkelos and Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 8. 4. See further the literature cited by Dillmann in his commentary, ad loc. Reference may also be made to the following passages: Jub. 5. 28 (Lubar, one of the mountains of Ararat, is the same as in Sefer Noah, 155, beginning; for other sources dependent on Jub., comp. Rénsch, Buch der Jubilden, index, s. v. ‘‘Lubar”’); EpiphAnius, Haer., I, 1. 4, and the sources cited by Malan in his notes on the Book of Adam 239 and 241-242. It is noteworthy that the rabbinic sources (besides the sources quoted above, comp. also Onkelos Gen., Joc. cit.; Abba Gorion 37; Tosefta-Targum 2 Kings 19. 37), with unusual accord, describe Kardu (Korduene in Armenia) as the mountain on which the ark rested, just as Berosus (Richter’s edition, 56), in his account of the flood, makes Xisuthros come out of his ship in Korduene. Comp. also Julius Africanus, as quoted by Syncellus, I, 21. 49 Zohar Hadash Noah, 29a; Zohar I (supplement), 4a and 68a; Sabba, Noah, 10d. Comp. further vol. III, p. 427, concerning Noah’s selfishness, who was anxious for his own safety, for which he prayed to God (MHG I, 154), but did not trouble himself about all the other people when God revealed to him their approaching doom. While in the ark, however, Noah constantly prayed to God; comp.

note 38. See further Tan. B. I, 42; Tan. Noah 9; Aggadat Bereshit 7, 18; PRE 23. ‘ 5° BR 25. 2. On the signification of this name comp. note 5. The anthropomorphic expression ‘‘and God smelled the sweet savour” (Gen. 8. 21), against which the Clementine Homilies, 3. 39, strongly expressed themselves, is explained in BR 34. 9 to mean that God had accepted Noah’s sacrifice mercifully for the sake of his pious descendants, Abraham, the three youths in the fiery furnace. as well 186 Noah " [51-52 as many martyrs in the time of religious persecutions (in the time of Hadrian), who were ready to sacrifice their lives for the sanctification of God’s name. 5* BR 30. 6 and 36. 4; PK27, 168a; WR 20. 1; Koheleth 9. 2; Koheleth Z. 119; Tan. B. I, 38, and V, 7; Tan. Noah 9 and WaEthanan 1. According to some of these sources, it was when leaving tha ark that Noah was hurt by the lion; this assumes that during their stay in the ark all the animals were tame; comp. note 37, and further Book of Adam 3. 11. In 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 29b and 35b-36a it is the eagle and the raven who, after leaving the ark, set an example of immorality and murder. It was the raven who advised the animals not to obey Noah’s command to lead a monogamous life, and + it was the eagle who was the first to slay a bird. At first even the rest of the birds tried to punish the eagle (God only enabled it to escape by means of its high flight), but gradually they got accustomed to it.

On Shem, the priest, comp. note 102 on vol. I, p. 233. In Zohar Hadash Noah, 29b, it is said that God appointed Shem priest as a reward for his devotion to the study of the Torah, in which he first instructed his brother Japheth and subsequently Abraham. The latter then prayed to God that He should cause His Shekinah to rest in “the house of Shem”’ (2. e., Jerusalem), and this request was granted to him. The knowledge of the Torah was directly transmitted to Shem by Enoch, who had received it from Seth, to whom Adam had imparted it. After the flood God decided that it would be better for man to observe a few important precepts of the Torah rather than possess the whole of it and neglect it on account of the vast number of the precepts. Whereupon He assigned to them seven Noachite laws, and waited for the advent of Abraham to observe the entire Torah. According to another view, Noah and his family forgot the Torah during the time of the flood because of their sufferings. After the flood God revealed to him the seven precepts. Comp. note 55 on vol. I, p. 71. 52 BR 26. 1 and 34. 9; Tan. B. II, 127; Tan. Wa-Yakhel 6; ShR 50. 2; Tehillim 1, 11; PRE 23 and 31 (concerning the number of the sacrifices comp. Luria’s note 70 on the first passage); Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 8. 20 and 22. 9; Ephraim I, 148B. Jub. 6. 1, seg., connects this sacrifice of Noah, and the covenant appertaining to it which God made with him on this occasion, with the feast of Pentecost, and makes them both take place in the month of Siwan; comp.

187 53-54] The Legends of the Jews note 60 on vol. I, p. 137. Mount Lubar is designated as the site of the altar (comp. note 48). 53 BR 34. 12 (the complete dominion of man over the animals was not established until the time of Solomon; comp. note 113 on vol. I, p. 94 ); Midrash Aggada, Gen. 9. 2(read nw own); MHG I, 168. Noah did not wish to leave the ark, since the earth had no people at all. On account of this God said to him: ‘Be fruitful and multiply on earth”. But Noah and his family were not inclined to comply with this command, for they feared another flood. They were finally calmed only when God promised him never to destroy the earth again; MHGI, 165 (comp. Schechter, note 20); BR 34. 6; Sanhedrin 108b (this is how on xb omnpwnd is to be explained; comp. Pa‘aneah and Hadar on Gen. 8. 19; differently Midrash Aggada, ad loc., according to which ‘npwnd indicates that only the young of the animals, which were born in the ark, left it, but not those which entered it; comp. the midrashic quotation in Shu‘aib, 50); Zohar Hadash Noah, 28b; Midrash Aggada 8, 18. 54 Sanhedrin 108b; BR 31. 12, 34. 7, and 36. 7; Yerushalmi Ta‘anit 1, 64d; Tan. B. I, 42-43; Tan. Noah 11 and 12; PRE 23; an unknown Midrash in Yalkut II, 960 (end); it is related to, but not identical with PK 29, 189a; an unknown Midrash inD a‘ ai, Gen. 7. 7; ER 31, 162; MHGI, 165 (comp. Schechter, note 18); Philo, Quaestiones, 2, 49; Aristeas 35; Origen, Gen.

Selecta, 7. 19; Ephraim, I, 150 C and 54 B; Book of Adam 3. 11; Evangel of Seth 40; ps.-Hippolytus, 2-3 and 4. On the statement, found in Book of Adam 3. 8, that the women had quarters in the western and the men in the eastern side of the ark,comp. vol. J,pp.94-95. Onthe underlying idea of this legend expressed in the saying “‘the individual should participate in the suffering of the community’’, comp. note 190 on vol. II, p. 77, and vol. III, p. 61. Regarding the three sinners, Ham, the dog, and the raven, the following may be noted. Shemhazael (sic!) shortly before the flood had intercourse with the wife of Ham, who, in order to protect his wife, trespassed the commandment of abstinence in the ark, and claimed the bastards Sihon and Og as his own children (comp. Index, s. v.); Yalkut Reubeni, Gen. 7. 7, and R. Bahya, Hukkat (end), who cites this legend in an abbreviated forms The dog followed Ham’s bad exainple secretly (as a punishment the male remains attached to the body of the female after copulation). Finally the raven followed this example openly, and called upon the other animals tu violate Noah’s prohibition. See 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 35b. Different is 188 Noah : [55-56 the reading ibid., 26b-27a, and in the older sources cited at the beginning of this note. Comp. also MHG I, 162 (end). On the punishment of the raven, comp. vol. I, pp. 38-39, and on that of the dog, note 178 on vol.

I, p. 39. 55 BR 35. 2 (}100 in MS. 2 cited by Theodor means “going through” =“studying”; comp. vm and 1D); Yerushalmi Berakot 9, 13d; Ketubot 77b; PR 10, 87b; Tehillim 36, 252. On the question whether God’s oath (comp. Shebu‘ot 36a; MHG I, 172, and the sources cited by Schechter, on the sevenfold oath not to destroy the world), not to bring a flood again, precludes His destruction of the world by other means, or not, see Ginzberg, wx bw Sian 14, seg., where all the material bearing on this subject, found in ancient literature, has been collected. See further Philo, Quaestiones, 2. 63. The rainbow is a sign to the effect that God laid aside His weapon, the bow, with which He had destroyed the world during the flood: it was stretched at that time, but never again; Lekah, Gen. 9. 16, undoubtedly based on older sources; comp. the Midrash in MHG JI, 172, where reference is made to Hab. 3. 9 concerning the bow as God’s weapon. A different view is given in BR 35. 3, where the rainbow is conceived as the reflection of God’s majesty. On the basis of an old tannaitic tradition (comp. vol. I, p. 83), according to which the rainbow, which first became visible in Noah’s days, belonged to the primordial creations, we meet, in the old sources, the rationalistic explanation of Gen. 9. 12. This explanation takes this verse to mean that during the time of the flood, on account of the uninterrupted pour of rain, no rainbow was seen, since it is only visible in clear weather; comp.

Sa‘adya Gaon, quoted by Kimhi, ad Joc., who bases his view on BR, though our text of that Midrash contains nothing to that effect. See further MHG I, 173. Philo, Quaestiones, 2, 64, opposes the view which considers the rainbow as God’s weapon. 56 BR 36. 6 and 34. 13-14 (in the first passage the view is also cited, according to which animals are not punished); Sanhedrin 57a— 57b; MHG I, 171; Onkelos and Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 9.6. Comp. also DR 2. 25. On the seven Noachite laws, comp. note 51 and note 55 on vol. I, p. 71. On the reward and punishment of the animals, comp. Slavonic Enoch 58, and Ginzberg’s Compte Rendu, 34. Some authorities contest the view that Adam was forbidden to eat meat; comp. BR 16 (end); Tan. B. I, 30; Tan. Shemini 8 (middle). The Church Fathers also differ on the point whether Adam was permitted to eat meat or not; comp. Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 20; The189 57-59] The Legends of the Jews odoretus, Gen. 9. 3, and 29; Aphraates, 310. Comp. also note 56 on vol. I, p. 71. Justin Martyr and Aphraates, loc. cit., as well as Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 2. 1, oppose the Jewish dietary laws on the basis of Gen. 3. 3, and we have the answer to this in the Tanhuma, loc. cit., as well as in Tehillim 146, 535, in the sentence that a son of Noah (i. e., a non-Jew) was permitted to eat all kinds of meat; but on mount Sinai God gave laws and precepts to Israel, which restricted the enjoyment of meat, in order to grant them reward for the observance thereof.

57 BR 36. 3 (on other men to whom agriculture caused injury, comp. note 28 on vol. I, p. 112); Tan. B. I, 46 (in the Tanhuma the designation “a man of the soil’’ is considered by some as a sign of honor; similarly Philo, De Agricultura, 1); Tan. Noah 13; PRE 23; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 9.20. That the grapes came from paradise is mentioned only in the two last sources; the opposite view is found in BR, loc. cit.; Tan. B. I, 48; Tan. Noah 15, which reads: Noah took along with him all the possible plants for the future cultivation of the ground, among them the seeds of the vine. Comp. note 59. 58 Tan. Noah 18; Tan. B. I, 48; BR 36. 3-4; PRE 23; Abkir in Yalkut I, 61 (this passage speaks of the sheep, the lion, and the pig only), and in a MS. quoted by Epstein, Ha-Eshkol, II, 205; Shu‘aib, Noah 5d(is probably based on a more correct text of Tan., and has the sheep, lion, ape, and pig); Midrash Aggada, Gen. 9. 21 (agrees with Shu‘aib). Hadar, Gen., loc. cit., quotes a somewhat different version of the legend, according to which the animals are: the pig, he-goat, sheep, and ape. In ShaJshelet,92b, it is the he-goat which became drunk on wild grapes. Whereupon Noah tried to plant grapes, and he washed the roots with the blood of a lion, pig, sheep, and ape. On the views of the old sources concerning wine, comp. ‘Erubin 65a; Ketubot 65a; Sanhedrin 70a; BR 36. 4; Tan. B. I, 58, 50-51, and III, 24-26; Tan.

Shemini 11; WR 12. 1; Mishle 23, 95-96. While intoxication is said in these sources to be the cause of all sins, and the ruin of individuals, as well as nations, and therefore severely condemned, the moderate enjoyment of the vine is not only permitted, but also recommended. Similar views on the use and misuse of wine are found in Greek Baruch 4. 59Sanhedrin 70a; Greek Baruch 4. 8; Apocalypse of Abraham 23; Enoch 32. 4. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bet den Kirchenv., 3845, and note 70 on vol. I, 75. Origen, Gen. 9. 20, maintains that Noah’s vine was the offshoot of the tree of knowledge, and this view 190 Noah [60-61 seems to be shared by PRE 23 and Targum Yerushalmi, Joc. cit. (comp. note 57). The whole earth is either watered from paradise or Gehenna (from their streams); where good wine grows, the soil is watered from paradise; but where bad wine grows, the soil is watered from Gehenna; BHM V, 67. 6° BR 36. 4-5 and 7; Tan. B. I, 49; Tan. Noah 15; PRE 23; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 9. 24-25; Midrash Haserot 50 (while intoxicated he ventured to have intercourse with his wife, which he would not have done if he were sober, owing to the fact that the lion had hurt him and rendered him incapable of conjugal relations; comp. BR, Joc. cit., and vol.I, pp. 165-166; but differently in BR 25. 1, where the evil that had befallen Noah is declared to have been the punishment for his refusal, after leaving the ark, to resume conjugal relations which had been interrupted during his stay there; comp.

note 53 and BR, loc. cit., where, according to one view, this abstinence of Noah is highly commended); Sanhedrin 70a (according to one view Ham committed, sodomy); Clementine Recognitiones, 1. 30; Theophilus, 3.19; Book of Adam 3. 13. The emphasis laid in Jewish sources on the fact that Ham prevented his father from begetting a fourth son seems to be directed against the view found in the Book of Adam, Joc. cit., and in other Christian writings, according to which Noah begot several sons after leaving the ark; comp. Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, 86-87. In the above-mentioned rabbinic sources, as well as in patristic lit: erature (Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 139; Ephraim, I, 56 F, 57 A and B; Theodoretus and Origen, Gen., loc. cit.), opinions differ as to whether the fault was entirely Ham’s (yet he, having been blessed, could not be cursed; comp. note 85 on vol. I, 78) or whether Canaan, Ham’s son, had a share in it; comp. the following note. Noah learned of the disgrace perpetrated on him by his son through a dream; Targum Yerushalmi, Joc. cit. According to others (Shu‘aib, Noah, 5b, quoting a Midrash, perhaps BR 37. 7: byopn 12), Noah took it for granted that only his immoral son could have committed this act (comp. vol. I, p. 166). On the interpretation of BR 36. 4 that “tent” is a metaphor for wife (nex =n>bmx), comp. Mo‘ed Katan 15b and BR 39. 16. A favorite metaphor for wife is house, comp.

e. g. Shabbat 118b; Yoma 13a. 61 BR 36. 7; Tan. B.I, 49; Tan. Noah 15. PRE 23 goes even a step further and asserts, in agreement with some of the Church Fathers (comp. the preceding note, and Ginzberg, Haggada bet den Kirchenv., 84-87), that it was really Canaan who committed this 191 62-66] The Legends of the Jews disgraceful act (the castration of Noah); Ham, however, divulged the secret. Sforno, Gen. 9. 25, quotes a similar version from Berosus the Chaldean. Comp. also Philo (De Ebrietati, 2, 7, and 10; Quaestiones, 2, 65, 70, 77), who, in agreement with the Rabbis, makes Canaan participate in his father’s disgraceful deed, and is also acquainted with the haggadic interpretation of BR 36. 2 and 7 concerning Gen. 9. 18 and 24 (Ham and Canaan, because they are both equally base in character, are designated as father and son; hence jUpn signifies ‘‘the debased’’). It is probable that similar statements of the Church Fathers go back, directly or indirectly, to Philo. 62 Pesahim 113b. PRK (Schénblum’s edition, 15b and 19a) has: Love sleep, and hate work, as a part of the Testament of Canaan; comp. also Pesahim 40b, below, as well as Kiddushin 49b, concerning the indolence of slaves; see note 292 on vol. II, p. 115. 63 BR 36. 6 (they walked with their eyes closed); Tan. B. I, 48-50 (even after they had covered their father, they did not turn round); Tan. Noah 15.

Comp. note 59 on vol. IV p. 269, concerning the ‘‘death by fire” to which the army of Senacherib was doomed. Shem is already praised in Ecclu. 49. 16, and the rabbinic legend which identifies him with Melchizedek (comp. vol.I, p. 233,and MHG I, 187) does not only praise his piety, but considers him a prophet, who had in vain admonished the nations for 400 years about their wickedness. But he received his reward, for God blessed him with Abraham as his descendant; ER 20, 114; 24, 126-127; 28, 141-142; EZ 2, 174. The “house of study” and ‘‘court of justice’ of Shem and Eber are frequently mentioned in the talmudic and midrashic literature; comp., e. g., BR 63. 10, 85. 12; Makkot 23b, etc. That Eber was a prophet is already found in Seder ‘Olam 1 (comp. Ratner, ad loc.). See vol. III, pp. 355-356. 64 MHG I, 177-178; BR 26. 3. Comp. vol. I, pp. 375 and 414, concerning the combining of God’s name with that of a person. 65 BR 36. 8; Tan. B. I, 50; Tan. Noah 15; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 9. 27; Jerome on Gen., loc. cit. (who naturally conceives it in a Christian sense), and Irenaeus, Haer., III, 5. 3. The Church Fathers follow the old versions (including Onkelos), which translate nb’ ‘‘stretching out’’; this is perhaps the view of the Midrashim just cited. Comp. the following note. 66 Voma 9b; PR 35, 160a; BR 36. 8; comp. further Onkelos, ad loc.; Jub. 7. 12; Philo, De Ebrietati, 13. The last-named author wavers between the explanation which takes Japheth to be the sub192 Noah ’ [67—70 ject of }3¥, and that which refers this verb to God.

The view that the Shekinah was absent from the second temple is widespread;comp. note 341 on vol. III, p. 161, and note 36 on vol. IV, p. 355. Very popular is the interpretation that Noah’s blessing contains the prophecy concerning the translation of the Scriptures into Greek: “The beauty of Japheth, the Greek translation, will be used in the tents of Shem, the houses of study of the Jews”; Megillah 9b; Yerushalmi 1, 71b; BR, Joc.cit.; DR 1. 1—Wise sayings of Shem are given in Ben ha-Melek 21, according to Arabic sources. 67 Jub. 7. 13-39. Concerning Noah’s daughters-in-law, comp. note 42 on vol. I, p. 116; ps.Hippolytus, 2; in Sibyll. 3. 826 the Sibyl describes herself as one of them. Verse 20 of Jub. is perhaps an inaccurate translation of the Hebrew original, whose text may have read: wm nia dyn any nda by pan by o-mm “And he commanded them to mete out justice, not to commit incest, and not to blaspheme God’’; comp. Sanhedrin 56b, where these are included among the seven Noachian precepts. On ny by (literally “uncovering the nakedness’’=incest or unchastity), see the dictionaries on the Talmud, s. v.; comp. note 17. 68 Jub. 8. 10-30, where the possessions of each of the sons of Noah are described in detail. The parallels to this legend of Jub. (some are directly borrowed from it) in Christian literature are given by Charles, ad Joc. Comp. further Clementine Recognitiones, 1. 30; Ephraim, I, 153 C.

This legend is entirely unknown in rabbinic sources (PRE 24 does not belong here; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 88), but Sibyll. 3. 114 seems to have made use of Jub., loc. cit.; comp. note 71. On Jerusalem, or rather the site of the altar, as the centre of the earth, comp. vol. I, p. 12, and the Melchizedek fragment 3. On Palestine as the rightful possession of Israel, the descendants of Shem, comp. note 73. 69 Seder ‘Olam 1; BR 37. 7, where one view is given, according to which at the birth of Peleg (comp. Jub. 8. 8) the earth was divided and his father therefore gave him a name alluding to this event. Concerning Eber, comp. also note 63 and Jerome, Gen. 10. 25. 7° Yashar Noah, 17a. A different view is given in BR 6. 4 and 37. 7, according to which Joktan signifies ‘‘the modest one”’. As a reward for his modesty he became the progenitor of thirteen tribes. However, many of his descendants lived in great poverty. The inhabitants of Hazarmaveth lived only on herbs, and wore clothes made of paper, and daily awaited death; BR 37. 8. 193 71-72] The Legends of the Jews 7 Jub. 9. 14-15; Midrash Aggada Gen. 12, 6. Comp. note 73 and vol. III, p. 368. 72 MHG I, 182, from an unknown source. The text is corrupt in several places, and it is therefore only possible to restore some of the names to their original form. Instead of 0"D OFS read DX 'S; for (Pupp read *p7pp ‘‘Cappadocian’”’; and probably instead of ’17¥ read ‘x ‘‘Tyrian”.

Less probable is the emendation of *¥*ppD to ‘p2D ‘‘Phenician’’, whereas ’o1M™ for "D177 “Roman’’ (this is the usual orthography in Syriac) is very likely only a printer’s error. It is very strange that ‘‘Jebusite” is ascribed to the Japhethic and Persian to the Hamitic system of writing, particularly in view of Gen. 10. 16. It is unknown what ’DINW1] is; it seems to be Persian. Accordingly we may say with certainty that the systems of writing known to this source are: Roman, Cappadocian, Greek, and Median, which were employed by the Japhethites; the Hamites employed the Persian, Agogian, African, Syrian, and Phenician writings; whereas the Semites used Egyptian, Libnian (comp. Sanhedrin 21b: an myn), Assyrian, Hebrew, and Chaldean. On the biblical table of nations in rabbinic literature comp. Krauss, Monatsschrift, XX XIX, 1-11 and 49-63; Schtirer, Geschichte, II, 406,note 42, as well as Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 90.. The number of nations or “‘ tongues”’ (moix and miw> are used synonymously in this connection) is given in the source employed in MHG, as seventy-two. This agrees with Hippolytus 10. 26; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1. 26 and other Christian authors; comp. Schiirer, Joc. cit. Other rabbinic sources usually speak of the ‘‘seventy nations of the world”; comp. vol. I, p. 314; vol. II, p. 214; vol. III, pp. 97, 161, 351, 371, 493; vol. IV, pp. 6, 247, 360.

382, 391. See further ER 15, 76; 19, 111, 126; 31, 156; EZ 15, 175 (uses, with one exception on p. 111, pe and mnw> instead of max); DR 4. 9; Shir 1. 2 (end); Targum Song of Songs 1. 2 and 9; Midrash Tannaim 190; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 11. 7 and Deut. 32. 9; PRE 24; Midrash le-Hanukkah 135 (second version, 141); Sukkah 55b; PK 30, 194a, and 31, 195b; Tan. B. IV, 156; Tan. Pinehas 16; BaR 21, 24; Shir 4. 1; Tehillim 109, 465, and 9, 84. In the last-named passage a more detailed account of this number is given, in which it is asserted that the descendants of Japheth enumerated in the Bible are 14, those of Ham are 30 (with the omission of the Philistines who are designated in 10. 14 as a mixed people), and those of Shem are 26. The total is thus seventy. Different is the reading in Baraita 32 Middot in Yalkut I, 61, on Gen. 9. 18, and similarly 194 Noah [73 Ephraim I, 51 J (comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 91-92), according to which Japheth and Ham, and even the Philistines are included in the number, but Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, and Eber are excluded. The descendants of Noah thus amount to seventy. With the exception of the last-mentioned four, all of them were wicked; hence these four, who were pious men, were not included. The number 72 is very likely based on the assumption that Asshur named in 10. 11 must not be identified with the person bearing the same name mentioned in 10.

22. On the basis of Song of Songs 6. 8, some authorities speak of 140 nations (comp. Sifre, D., 311; Midrash Tannaim, Joc. cit.; Shir 6. 8; Midrash Shir 43b; BaR 9. 14 and 14. 10. Comp. further vol. III, 205 and 209), of whom sixty have their own languages and scripts, while the remaining eighty only have languages but not scripts. MHG I, 178-179 contains an unknown Midrash which endeavors to prove that these sixty nations are in accordance with the table of nations of Gen., where ten names are those of individuals (this is, however, done in a very forced way), while the remaining eighty sprang up later, as, for instance, the descendants of Keturah, the Ishmaelitic tribes, etc. Comp. also vol. I, p. 314, according to which the number of seventy nations was only completed by including Israel and Edom. It is possible that originally the seventy-two nations stood for the seventy descendants of Noahand thesetwo. Aggadat Bereshit 14, 32, reads: Isaiah and Obadiah (the first is one of the greatest of the prophets, and the second the least 4mportant) uttered their prophecies in seventy-one languages. If we should include the Philistines in the table of nations, we would have 71 nations and languages. Comp. de Rossi, Meor ‘Enayim, 455, who refers to 72 languages in Augustine, Civitas Dei, 16. 3 and 11. Comp. Steinschneider, Z.D.M. G., IV, 145-170, and LVII, 474, seg.; Krauss in Z.A.T.W., XIX, 1+, and XX, 38-43; Poznanski, ibid., XXV, 301-308.

Comp. also the following note. 73 MHG I, 179-180, quoting an unknown source. This, like the Haggadah referred to in the preceding note concerning the number seventy of Noah’s descendants, is based on Deut. 32. 5. The one passage refers ‘‘the number of the sons of Israel’’in this verse to the family of Jacob at the time of entering Egypt, which according to Gen. 46. 27, was 70, while the other refers it to the twelve sons of Jacob. The source of MHG is unknown. It is probably a tannaitic Midrash of which traces may be found in Sifre D., 39; Batte Midrashot 1, 4 (but there mention is made of the division of the entire earth into twelve parts, 195 74-75] The Legends of the Jews and not of Palestine; comp. note 33 on vol. I, p. 11); RShBM and Hadar on Deut., loc. cit. In the last-named source it is explicitly stated that twelve Canaanitish tribes had charge of the Holy Land prior to the time of Israel’s settlement; but the Canaanites never owned it, for “whatever the slave possesses belongs to his master’, and Canaan was made the slave of Shem, the progenitor of Israel. This is to serve as a rejoinder to the complaint against Israel for having despoiled the Canaanites of their possessions. Another Haggadah goes even further, and asserts that Canaan was the unlawful possessor of Palestine; comp. vol. I, pp. 219-220. The Torah, observes a widespread Haggadah (BR 1.

2 and parallels cited by Theodor), begins with the creation of the world, and not with the legal sections, in order that Israel should be able to retort to the accusation of the nations. The latter would assert that the Isrealites were robbers, who despoiled the inhabitants of Palestine of their possessions. But Israel replies: “The world and everything therein belongs to God who created it. When He wished, He gave it to you; when He willed otherwise, He took it away from you and gave it to us.” Comp. Sanhedrin 91a. 74 Sefer Noah, 155 (it is really the first chapter of the Asaf book; comp. Venetianer, Asaf Juddus, Budapest, 1915. XXXVIII Jahresbericht der Landes-Rabbinerschule), apparently in agreement with Jub. 10. 114; comp. also Clementine Homilies, 7. 18-19, concerning the instructions which the angels gave to the demons (the souls of the giants who perished in the flood) after the flood. In the Zadokite Fragment 16. 5, too, Satan is called Mastemah, or to be accurate, “the angel Mastemah.”’ 75 Sefer Noah, 155-156. The legend cited by many authors of the Middle Ages concerning the sages who sought to acquire, in India, certain plants of paradise, but perished miserably in their attempt, goes back, directly or indirectly, to the Asaf book (comp. the preceding note). See Nahmanides, Torat ha-Adam 30 (Sha‘ar ha-Gemul), 102a, who refers to the book of healing of the old Greeks and to the Jew Asaf; Shu‘aib, Bereshit, 3a,and Haazinu, 119a; Recanati, Gen.

3. 24; Ziyyoni, Lev. 18. 21. R Makir, Abkat Rokel, 2. 1 (end), narrates the story of the attempt of the sages in a way which suggests, as his source, a different version of the Asaf book. This R. Makir is not, as Venetianer, p. 36 (of the book referred to in the preceding note) maintains, identical with the scholar bearing the same name who flourished at Narbonne about the beginning of the ninth century. The author of Abkat Rokel not only quotes Rashi (1. 2) 196 Noah [76 and Bahir (2. 1), but he also made use of the Zohar, from which book (comp. note 4 on vol. II, p. 5) his explanation of the title Zaddik (‘‘the just”) given to Joseph is taken. Accordingly the tradition which considers this R. Makir as a pupil of R. Jacob b. Asher is well founded, at least in so far as it fixes the time.—An entirely different version of the origin of the books of healing is found in TShBZ, No. 445. The stay in the ark brought many diseases upon Noah and his family,apart from the discomfort caused by the bad odor of the spirits, demons, and Liliths. After the flood an angel took one of Noah’s sons (7. €., Shem) to paradise, where he revealed to him all kinds of remedies, which the latter wrote down in a book. This is the book of healing which Hezekiah (comp. vol. IV, p. 277) made use of. The motive of the legend concerning Noah’s book of healing is to establish the fact that all wisdom originated with the Jews, and that the philOsophers and the physicians of the Greeks have no claim to originality; comp.

vol. IV, p. 97, respecting Socrates, the disciple of Ahitophel, and the widespread legend of the relationship of Plato and Aristotle to Jeremiah and other Jewish sages, from whom they received their wisdom. Shu‘aib, Reéh, 107c, knows to record that Pythagoras (he is described as a small and ugly person) originally came from Haran. The legend wishes thereby to convey that he imported his wisdom (the gift of foreseeing the future is also ascribed to him) from the Hebrews, whose original seat was in Haran. On Kangar the son of Ur, see Graetz, Monatsschrift, VIII, 150-152, who correctly suggests the reading Kantar, who enjoyed a great reputation among the Sabeans (comp. Chwolson, Szabier, II, 514). Comp. note 95 on vol. I, p. 81. A mystical ‘‘book of Shem” is mentioned in geonic times; comp. Graetz, loc. cit., 150. 76 Ps—Philo, 5 A, 6 D-8D. Comp. also 3 (below) and 4 (top; the leader of the Japhethites is called Thanat and Theneth; perhaps ayn’), and Yerahmeel 28-29, who had a considerably better text of ps.—Philo before him than the printed one. But not even his text was entirely free from errors. The dependence of Yerahmeel on the Latin text of ps.—Philo becomes strikingly apparent from the names of the twelve pious men whose Hebrew names Yerahmeel did not recognize in every case. These were, as ps.—Philo clearly asserts, relatives of Joktan, and, with the exception of Abraham, Nachor, Lot, and Reu, correspond to the names given in Gen.

10, 26-29, whose Latin forms (Esar =n in n1x¥N; Tenute and Zaba are Latin corruptions for Evilaand Uzal =n and bn, respectively; comp. ps.— 197 77] The Legends of the Jews Philo, 4D) Yerahmeel reproduces. As to the legend given in ps.Philo, we have in it one of the oldest forms of a widespread legend concerning the rescue of Abraham from death by fire (comp. vol. I, pp. 201 and 216-217, as well as the notes appertaining thereto), which is brought in relation with the erection of the Tower of Babel, just as the rabbinic sources would have it that Abraham tried to dissuade the wicked generation of the Tower from their enterprise (Tan. B. I, 99-100; PRE 24; BR 38. 6). The puzzling remark occurring in ps.—Philo, 8C, that the place where Abraham was saved from the fire was called, in the Chaldean language, Deli, ‘‘quod interpretatur deus”’, is very likely a haggadic interpretation of Ur (read Uri instead of Deli); comp. Eupolemus, 418d, where instead of biblical Ur, the form Uria is given which is most likely a corruption of Ura=r7018, “the light of God’; comp. Baba Batra 25a and see further Jub. 11. 3. The depravity of mankind, according to Jub. 11. 2, seg., began in the time of Serug, who is designated as an idolater, whereas ps.—Philo, 5A, excludes him and his household from the general demoralization. Comp. vol. I, pp. 185-186. 77 Pesahim 94b, in an utterance of Rabban Johanan b.

Zaccai's, who, connecting the name Nimrod with 179 ‘‘rebelled’’, maintains that it signifies ‘‘he who caused man to revolt against God’’. BR 37. 2-4; Megillah 11a; Tehillim 105, 449; Esther R. 1. 1; Philo, De Gigant., 15 (he employs almost the same words as Rabban Johanan, his younger contemporary, in explaining the name Nimrod), and Quaestiones, 82 (here Nimrod is connected with 193 “‘spotted”’, hence: ‘‘nomen...interpretatus Aethiope’’); ps.—Philo, 4C (“‘ipse initiavit esse superbus ante dominum’’). Comp. also the sources cited in the following notes 78-88, concerning the wickedness of Nimrod, as well as Yerushalmi Targumim on Gen. 10.8. Another view given in a source which was made use of by Targum Yerushalmi 10. 11 (but not by 2 Targum Yerushalmi), states that Nimrod emigrated to Assyria because he refused to participate in the building of the tower. For this he was rewarded by God, and received four cities as an addition to his dominions, corresponding to the number of cities which he owned in Babylon, and which he abandoned in his emigration. Noah , (78-82 as well as note 34 on vol. I, p. 201. In Yashar Noah, 17b-18a, also two different sources are found; according to one Nimrod went (comp. zbid. 17. concerning the explanation of the name Nimrod: because man at the time of his birth rebelled against God) hunting in order to prepare sacrifices for the altar he erected to God.

But afterwards we read that he was instrumental in causing man to forsake God. Midrash Aggada Gen. 10. 8, asserts that Nimrod was the first who ate meat. 78 Yashar Noah 17a. On these garments, comp. PRE 24 (this is the source of Yashar); Pesahim 44b; notes 39 and 89 on vol. I, pp. 319 and 332 respectively. Comp. the following note. 79 PRE 24; Midrash ‘Aseret Melakim, 38-39; Zohar I, 73b and 142b; Sabba, Toledot, 28a; R. Bahya, Gen. 3. 21 (from Adam they came down to Cain, and after his death Nimrod took possession of them); Hadar and Da‘at on Gen. 25. 32 and 27. 15. These splendid garments which Adam and Eve received at the time of leaving paradise were made of the skin of the female Leviathan (comp. vol. I, p. 27); Hadar and Da‘at on Gen. 3. 21. Comp. BR 20. 12; Tan. B. I, 18, and Abkir in Yalkut I, 44, concerning these garments of Adam which served to the former generations as priestly garments. Comp. the preceeding note. 80 Yashar Noah, 17b; Zohar I, 73b-74a. 81 PRE 24. According to ps.-Philo, 5A, Nimrod was only the chief of the Hamites, whereas the Japhethites and Semites had their own chiefs; comp. vol. I, p. 175 (top). 82 Yashar Noah, 17b-18a; comp. also 23a concerning Nimrod’s war enterprises and the founding of the cities; see further vol. I, p. 229, about the identity of Nimrod with Amraphel. On the Haggadah concerning the rulers of the world, a number of versions are extant.

PRE 11 reads: God, at the time of the creation of the world was the first ruler; then Nimrod, Joseph, Solomon, Ahab, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander of Macedon, the Messiah, and at the end of time God, who was the first ruler, will also be the last. Maamar ‘Aseret Melakim, 54-55, and Mat‘asiyyot (ed. Gaster, beginning) go back directly to this source; both of these books are to be used for a correct text of PRE. A version of this legend closely related to that found in PRE is that of Midrash ‘Aseret Melakim, 38-55, whereas 2 Targum Yerushalmi 1. 1, which has (instead of Joseph, Solomon, Ahab, Cyrus, and Alexander) the following names: Pharaoh king of Egypt (either the one who ruled in the land in the time of Joseph 199 83] The Legends of the Jews or the Pharaoh of the Exodus), Israel, Ahasuerus, Greece, and Rome. At the end of this verse Targum has a second version, according to which there were only four rulers over the world, two Jews (Solomon and Ahab), and two non-Jews (Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus). This is apparently based on Megillah 11a, according to the modification of the talmudic statement in Panim Aherim, 56. Esther R. 1. 1 cites David, Solomon, Ahab, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, and Darius as the rulers of the world. To this list are probably to be added the first, as well as the last two names mentioned in PRE, in order to complete the number ten. ‘Aktan, 12 gives the following rulers: Nimrod, Pharaoh, Solomon, Ahab, Nebuchadnezzar, Ahasuerus, Cyrus, Alexander, Vespasian, Adarshan.

Comp. vol. III, pp. 146, 355; vol. IV, pp. 125, 186, 333, 407. See further Otot ha-Mashiah, 50 (on the expression mp°a> mp DD see Megillah, Joc. cit.), and 59; on Edom’s (=Rome’s) dominion of the world shortly before the advent of the Messiah for the duration of nine months. Comp. Sanhedrin 98b, top. 6 83 Yashar Noah, 18a and 23a. Comp. note 77 for the older sources concerning Nimrod, ‘‘the one who seduced men to evil”’. Recognitiones, I, 30 and 4. 28-29, asserts that Nimrod whom the Greeks call Ninus, after whom Nineveh is named, taught the Persians to worship fire. For this purpose he made use of magic, since otherwise he could not lead men astray from God to whom they were naturally devoted. However, the first sorcerer was Ham, who was later called Zoroaster (=‘‘living star’’, in Greek) by his worshippers. He was called so because by magical manipulation of a demon he tried to draw sparks from a star, and was burned. The foolish crowd, instead of discerning God’s punishment in Ham’s death, believed to have perceived a particular significance in his death by fire, and began to worship him as a living star (Zoroaster). Having been reduced to ashes, Zoroaster was worshipped by the Persians as the celestial fire. In Clementine Homilies, 9. 4-6, Nimrod is identified with Zoroaster, and is designated as the one ‘‘who chose, giant-like, to devise things in opposition to God, and who, after his death by fire, was worshipped by the ignorant populace.

This was the beginning of the worship of idols. Subsequent rulers demanded similar adoration to that which was accorded to Nimrod.” On heroworship as the source of idolatry, comp. note 54 on vol. I, p. 123. The view that Nimrod was one of those who claimed to be gods is frequently found in rabbinic literature; comp. the following three 200 Noah : [84-88 , notes, and vol. I, p. 191. On the worship of fire in connection with Nimrod in the different versions of the Abraham legends, see BR 38. 13, and the parallel passages cited by Theodor, as well as Index, s. v. “Fire”. On Ninus= Nimrod, comp. note 88. 84 Josephus, Antiqui., I, 4. 1-2. 85 BR 37. 2; Pesahim 94b (top). 86 Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 10. 9; 2 Targum Yerushalmi states that Nimrod demanded of the people to abandon Shem’s teaching and to follow his own (}7 in this place is used in its Arabic sense, and means ‘‘religion’’). 87 MHG I, 188; Ma‘asiyyot (Gaster’s edition, 2). This legend is only a somewhat different version of Hiram’s ‘‘heavenly seat’’; comp. vol. IV, p. 335, and the note appertaining to it. See further vol. II, p. 347, concerning the deification of Pharaoh, as well as Ma'‘asiyyot (Gaster’s edition, 6), and MHG II, 57. The legend found in the Christian Book of Adam 3. 23 and 25 about Nimrod as a god is based on Clementine writings (comp. note 83). When the old rabbinic literature speaks of Nimrod’s rebellion against God (comp.

BR 42 [41]. 4, and the parallels cited by Theodor), it primarily refers to his activity as the originator of the building of the tower; comp. the following note. On Nimrod =Amraphel, comp. vol. I, p. 229. It may be remarked here that Augustine, Civitas Dei, 26. 17, identifies Amraphel with Ninus. This presupposes the identity of Nimrod with Amraphel.. Comp. note 83. See also Eusebius, 484d, and Yerahmeel 32. 88 Yashar Noah, 20b—21a, based on older sources. That Nimrod was the instigator of the building of the tower, see Hullin 89a; ‘Abodah Zarah 53b (where the tower is called ‘‘the house of Nimrod’’); Pesahim 94b; ‘Erubin 53a; BR 23.7, 26.4, and 42.4; PRE 34; Josephus, Antiqui., I, 4. 2. Instead of Nimrod some sources (BR 38. 8; Tan. B. I, 53; Tan. Noah 1) speak of other Hamites, such as Cush (but according to BR 42. 4, this is only another name for Nimrod; see further Philo, Quaestiones, 2. 82), Put, Mizraim, and Canaan, who were the builders of the tower. These men are also meant by Lactantius, Institutiones, 2. 15, when he declares that the Hamites were the first idolaters. The three parties among the builders of the tower are already referred to in Sanhedrin 109a; Tan. Noah 18; Alphabet R. Akiba, 46-47 (where two contradictory views of the Talmud are combined into one); Tehillim 1, 12. In these, as in other haggadic passages, the reasons for building the tower are alleged te 201 88] The Legends of the Jews have been the revolt against God and the attempt to prevent a second deluge; comp.

BR 38. 1, 5, 7 (the midrashic interpretation of O7pa occurs also in Origen, Contra Celsum, 5. 30), and 8; Mekilta Mishpatim 20, 101a; Tan. B. I, 55; Josephus, Antiqui., 1, 4. 2. Comp. particularly the detailed description of this wicked plan in Tan. B. I, 100 (on Abraham’s attempt to prevent them from sinning, and the curse he pronounced against them when he failed in his effort, comp. BR, loc. cit., 6; PRE 24; Tehillim 1, 12; ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot, second commandment), and Yerushalmi Targumim on Gen. 11. 4. In ER 15, 74, eight sins (comp. Index, s. v. ‘Sins, Eight’’) are enumerated, which caused the destruction of this generation. The view given in Hellenistic literature that the building of the tower was a revolt of the giants against God (ps.-Eupolemus; comp. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 1, 92-93; Philo, Confus. Ling., 2) is closely related to this Haggadah and it is most instructive that as late as the ninth century this view was still championed by Hiwi Al-Balkhi, according to whom the builders of the tower were the Nefilim; comp. Davidson, Saadia’s Polemic against Hiwi al-Balkhi, 54-56. In the Bible the name Babylon is associated with the building of the tower. The Haggadah goes a step further, and also finds in the name of the place Shinar (2 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 11. 2 identifies it with Pontus) some reference to wicked Babylon; comp. Yerushalmi Berakot 4, 7b; Shabbat 113b; BR 37.

4; Ekah (introduction) 23; Koheleth 12. 7. The oldest haggadic interpretation of Shinar is the one found in Jub. 10. 26, where, in agreement with rabbinic sources, Shinar is connected with 1y3 ‘‘emptied” (not Babel, as Charles wrongly interprets it), and hence the explantion: ‘‘And they called its name Overthrow.”’ That the place was called Shinar in the Bible before the destruction of the tower, offers no difficulty to the Haggadah, since ‘‘God knew beforehand what would happen afterwards’’; comp. BR 42. 7. In the 43 years (Jub. 10. 21), during which they were occupied with the building, they succeeded in erecting the tower, but not the city which they undertook to build; BR 38.8. The tower was of extraordinary dimensions, particularly its height; comp. Jub., loc. cit.; Greek Baruch 3; BR, loc. cit.; Tan. B. I, 54; Tan. Noah 1; ER 21, 118; PRE 24 (this is the source of Yashar which, to be sure, does not state that the height was 70 miles, as maintained by PRE, but takes it to have been ten thousand; one year’s journey is, according to Pesahim 94a, about 10,950 miles); ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot (second commandment), which was incorporated in Midrash Abraham 202 Noah , [88 46. The last-named source also speaks ‘of the seventy stairs (so is mbyp to be understood, and not ‘‘steps’’) in the east, for the purpose of ascending, and seventy stairs in the west, for the purpose of descending, that is, one stair for each nation (comp.

note 91), because all the seventy nations participated in this enterprise under the direction of a thousand kings; Targum Eccl. 7. 28. When one considers the extraordinary dimensions, one marvels at the rapid progress of the building. God caused the enterprise to prosper, in order to be able to mock later at the builders all the more. First the building was erected, and then He caused it to be destroyed, Tan. B. I, 55; BR 38. 8. But they would never have succeeded in their undertaking, were it not for the fact that they found the books of wisdom of the ante-diluvian generations in the valley of Shinar, which had been carried thither by the flood (comp. note 44), and from which they derived their knowledge for the erection of the tower; comp. Zohar I, 76a, bottom. Respecting the books of wis. dom comp. Berosus, 56, 39, who also states that after the flood Xisuthros found the ante-diluvian books at Sippara (Babylon). Each one of the builders of the tower engraved his name on a brick, of which they made use (this is a midrashic interpretation of OY n> myn, Gen. II. 4); ps.—Philo, 6 D, and hence Yerahmeel 29. 2. Comp. vol. III, p. 56 (bottom). The passage in the text concerning the pregnant women is from the Greek Baruch 3 (that they wished to bore a hole in the heavens is found in Sanhedrin 109b); comp. vol. II, p. 372, about Rachel the daughter of Shuthelah. The story about the bloodstained arrows (Yashar, loc.

cit.) occurs also in the Titus legend, Gittin 56b. The rest of the account in Yashar occurs literally in the older sources, Sanhedrin 109a; Tehillim 1, 12; PRE 24; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 11. 7-8; Tan. Noah 18; BR 38. 10 (on the thirty nations which perished, after the flood, on account of their sins, comp. also Tan. B. I, 123, where it is likewise remarked that Abraham was made the father of thirty nations, in order to compensate for the loss of these thirty nations); Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk, s. v, "712; ‘Aseret haDibrot (second commandment); Ma‘aseh Abraham, 46; Greek Baruch 2 and 3; ps.—Philo, 8C. In the last-named passage, however, ‘‘mutavit eorum effigies’’ refers to the various complexions and features of the races of mankind, and not to their transformations into apes and monsters, as maintained by the rabbinic sources and Baruch. On transformation into apes as a punishment see vol. I, p. 123. The German mystics (comp. Ziyyoni, end of Noah) identify 203 89-91] The Legends of the Jews the woodmen, werewolves and similar monsters, known in German folk-lore, with the builders of the tower (their descendants?), and further maintain that they were Japhethites, who were punished in this manner; comp. also note 34 on vol. I, p. 114. Midrash Aggada, Gen. 11. 8, remarks that when the tower fell, some of the people found inside were thrown into the water, others into the forest, while still others into the desert; the first became water-sprites, the second apes, and the third demons.

89 Sanhedrin 109a (on the text, comp. MHG I, 186); BR. Rice lil 9° BR 38. 6; ARN 12, 52; MHG IJ, 186; comp. against this view, Josephus, Antiqui., I, 4. 1, who considers that the sin of this nation consisted in their disobeying God’s repeated demand to spread out into colonies. This commandment of God was for their own benefit, so that there should not be any strife between them in case they were to settle on a small tract of land. Comp. ER 31, 158. In many rabbinic passages the great prosperity enjoyed by fhis generation is dwelt upon. This brought about their ruin, as had formerly happened to the generation of the flood (comp. note 15); Tosefta Sotah 3. 10; Mekilta Shirah 2, 35b; Mekilta RS $8; Sifre D. 43; Midrash Tannaim 36-37. Sanhedrin 10. 3 and Tosefta 13. 7 maintain that this generation forfeited its share in the world to come; but, on the other hand, it will be punished on the final day of judgment. Comp. note 44. That the tower was overthrown by means of a violent wind is asserted in many of the oldest sources; Sibyll, 3. 101; Jub. 10. 26; Mekilta Beshallah 4, 30b (God’s judgment on the generation of the flood and later on the sinful cities was executed by means of storms); Theophilus, 2. 31. This judgment was carried out after the men refused the opportunity offered to them by God to repent; BR 38. 9; Mekilta Shirah 5, 38b; Tan. B. I, 56; Noah, 18. Comp also Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 2.

25. 9% PRE 24; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 11. 8 and Deut. 32. 8-9; Zawwaat Naphtali (end; second version, 12-14); ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 65; comp. vol. II., pp. 214-215. See further Midrash Tannaim 190-191. In the last passage the distribution of the nations between God, whom Israel chose, and the angels, whom the Gentiles chose, is said to have taken place at the time of the revelation at Sinai. This passage, however, reads like a learned reflection on the popular notion of the distribution of the nations by lot between God and the angels. With this learned presentation agree DR 2. 34and Pkah 3, 133, 204 Noah [oz , where the entire legend is so changed that it can scarcely be recognized. The official rabbinic writings contest the conception that Deut. 4. 19 admits the justification of the worship of the heavenly bodies and the angels by the Gentiles. Itis maintained that later on the sages who translated the Bible into Greek permitted themselves a very free rendering of Deut. loc. cit., in order to obviate any misunderstanding; comp. Mekilta Shirah 14, 16c; Yerushalmi Megillah 1, 71d, and Babli 9a; Soferim 5; Tan. Shemot (end). Comp. further the remarks of Trypho in Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 55 and 121, as well as ‘Abodah Zarah 55a. It is true that “‘the angels of the nations’’ are mentioned several times in authoritative sources; but this must not be understood to mean that the nations were placed under the care of the angels, whereas Israel is God’s portion in accordance with the statement of the pseudepigraphic works (Jub.

15. 31-32; Enoch 88 and 90. 22; comp. further Septuagint Deut. 32. 8-9) and the widespread view (besides the sources cited at the beginning of this note, it is frequently to be met with in the kabbalistic literature; comp. also Clementine Recognitiones, 2. 42 and 8. 50, where the distribution among the angels is set for the same time as that given in the rabbinic Haggadah) in popular Jewish literature. It rather wishes to convey that as each individual person has his own guardian angel (comp. Index s. v.), so also each nation, including Israel whose guardian angels are Michael and Gabriel, or according to some, Michael and Metatron; comp. Index under these names, as well as ‘Erke. ha-Kinnuyim, s. v. wD; see vol. I, p. 385. The authoritative view-point of the Synagogue is emphasized by Sa‘adya against the popular conception championed by his opponent Hiwi al-Balkhi; comp. Davidson, Saadia’s Polemic against Hiwi al-Balkhi 58. The presence of the angels at the time of the destruction of the tower is also referred to in Jub. 10. 23 and this view is based on the use of the plural (9973) in Gen. 11. 7. Comp. BR 38. 9,and the remarks of Theodor, ad loc. That Hebrew was the original language of mankind until the time of the confusion of languages, and that Eber was the only one who retained it, is a widespread view; comp. BR 18. 4 (odin ana signifies: God made use of this language at the time of the creation of the world which came into being when He uttered His word), 31.

8, and 42.8; PRE 24 (here it is said that each angel brought a language and a script for his respective nation) and 26; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 11. 1 and 8; Tan. B. I, 56; Jub. 12. 25-26 (‘tongue of creation” =ob1y7 N21 inv in BR 18. 4). This view is also assumed explicitly or tacitly in patristic literature; comp. 205 91] The Legends of the Jews Charles on Jub., Joc. cit., See further Clementine Recognitiones, 1. 30; Origen, Con. Cels., 5. 30; Zohar I, 75; Shu‘aib, Noah (end), which reads: All the languages therefore contain some Hebrew words. On the view current among some Jews and Christians to the effect that Aramaic was the primitive speech, comp. Charles on Jub. 3.28; Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, 63, and Ginzberg, Haggada bet den Kirchenv., 91-93.—On the descent of God to the earth, comp. vol. III, p. 93, and note 206 appertaining thereto.