Notes: Esther

XII. ESTHER Vol. IV, (pp. 365-448). 1 Yoma 29a; Megillah 13a (here several other etymologies of the name Esther are given; comp, also note 67); Tehillim 22, 185. On the meaning of the name Esther, comp, also 1 and 2 Targum Esther 2.7 ; Hullin 139b; vol. IV, p. 384. The description of Mordecai in 2 Targum Esther (end) as “Venus that glitters among the stars and is like the dawn of the morning” is taken from the oldpiyyut P3 HN1D (comp, note 42 on vol. I V, p. 145) , and has nothing to do with the etymology of his name. He who dreams of the Book of Esther will live to see miracles performed for him. See Berakot 57b. 2 2 Panim Aherim 55; 2 Targum Esther 1.1 (towards the end). 3 Esther R. 1, 9.9; Abba Gorion 12; Midrash Tannaim 37. 4 Megillah 11a, which gives also the different view that Ahasuerus owed his throne to his valor and other merits. In contrast to these views, which assume that Ahasuerus did not inherit the throne from his father, 2 Targum Esther 1. 1, 2, describes him as the son of Cyrus the Persian, who was the son of Darius the Mede. Alkabez, 20b, quotes from a Targum on Esther the statement that Ahasuerus was the son “Cyrus from the empire of Asia”. Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6.1, in agreement with the Septuagint, calls the king Artaxerxes, and adds that he was known by this name “to the Greeks, whereas his real name was Cyrus.” On the view that Artaxerxes was the name of all Persian kings, see Seder ‘Olam 30, and note 7 on vol.

IV, p. 346. Abba Gorion 4 states that Darius was the father of Ahasuerus. The Rabbis give several etymologies of the name Ahasuerus, which is said to contain a hint as to the sad plight of Israel in the days of the bearer of this name. Comp. Megillah 11a; Esther R. 1, 1.1 and 3. On the vast wealth of Ahasuerus see vol. IV, p. 367, end of the last paragraph. 5 Megillah 1 la-1 lb; Seder ‘Olam 28. The Talmud points out that even Daniel erred in computing the seventy years of the exile fixed by Jeremiah; comp. Vol. IV, 349 (end). See also Letter of Jeremiah 7, and the full discussion of this chronological problem in Lekah on Esther (beginning), as well as Kad ha-Kemah, Purim II, 43b and comp, further note 24 on Vol. IV p. 301. According to Esther R. 1, 3.15, Ahasuerus gave his feast after the work of the Temple had been stopped 6-13] The Legends of the Jews for three years. On Darius (“the last"), the son of Ahasuerus and Esther, see WR 13.3; Kallah 1, 6a; Esther R. 1.1. Comp. vol. IV, p. 344 in connection with the cause of Belshazzar’s feast. 6 Abba Gorion 8, which gives also the different view that the personal reason for the feast was the king’s birthday; 2 Panim Aherim 58; 1 and 2 Targum Esther 1.3; Esther R. 1, 3.15, which reads: Ahasuerus prepared a feast to celebrate the completion of his magnificent throne; comp, note 13. The statement found in Septuagint Esther 1.4 that Ahasuerus celebrated with a feast his marriage to Vashti was also known to the Rabbis; see Abba Gorion 12-13 (read nnP j’lnV n)UD and comp.

Yalkut quoted by Buber; nWM is a more common word than ruira); Panim Aherim 59; 2 Targum Esther 1.9, where the text is corrupt, but MS. K with its pnV suggests the correct reading fcTQ3 I’lilV. As to the wars of Ahasuerus, who at first was a small potentate ruling over seven provinces, and finally, by wars of conquest, became the ruler of one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, see Megillah 11a; Esther R. 1, 1.7. i Megillah 12a; Esther R. 1, 3.18. Opinions differ as to the guests described in Esther 1.3 as princes; according to one, they were the “ crowned heads ” of the hundred and twenty-seven provinces subject to Ahasuerus; but another view maintains that they were the sons of the “crowned heads”. Comp. 2 Targum Esther 1.3; Abba Gorion 8; Panim Aherim 58. By the “nobles" (D’Drns) are meant the Decumani and Augustiani, who were the guests of honor; Esther R. 1 , 3.19. Comp, note 52 on vol. IV, p. 315. As to Ahasuerus’ lack of common sense, see note 49. 8 Aggadat Esther 10-11. » Abba Gorion 8-9; Panim Aherim 58; Esther R. 1.4; ShR 9.7; 1 and 2 Targum Esther 1.4 (in 1 Targum rvtP is to be struck out, as the hundred and eighty kings correspond to the number of days mentioned in Esther 1.4). Comp, also PRE 49. 10 Panim Aherim 58; 2 Targum Esther 1.4. 1 1 Abba Gorion 9; Panim Aherim 58; 2 Targum Esther 1.4. Comp, also Esther R. 1, 4.2, according to the reading given in Mattenot Kehunnah, ad loc.

Septuagint on Esther 1.7 speaks of the precious cup used by the king at the feast; comp. 2 Targum Esther 1.11. 12 Megillah 12a; ShR 9.7; Esther R. 1.4; Panim Aherim 58. ,J Abba Gorion 2-8; Targum Esther 1.2, Comp, also 2 Targum 1.2, 4, and 7-8; Aggadat Esther 8-9; Esther R. 1.2, 12 and 1.3, 15 452 Esther [i3 As to the fate of Solomon’s throne, see vol. IV, p. 160, and the vast literature on the subject given by Salzberger, Salomos Tempelbau, 60-74. The sources differ greatly as to the history of the throne. The strangest form of this legend is found in 2 Targum Esther, loc. cit., which reads: When Nebuchadnezzar attempted to ascend and to sit upon Solomon’s throne, in possession of which he came at the conquest of Jerusalem, he did not know its mechanism. When he put his foot on the first steps, a golden lion stretched out its right paw, and struck him on his left foot, so that he became lame for the rest of his life. After the conquest of Babylon by Alexander the Macedonian, Solomon’s throne was brought by him to Egypt. Shishak the king of Egypt attempted to ascend the throne, as did Nebuchadnezzar before him, and the result of his presumptuousness was the same: his leg was broken by the golden lion, and he was therefore called the “lame Pharaoh” unto the day of his death. When Epiphanes the son of Antiochus (or perhaps Alofernes; the texts have D’ms’JN and D’JlB’JN) destroyed Egypt, he took the throne with him, and put it on a ship (to be sent to Greece).

While being moved about, a leg of the throne was loosened from the golden chain holding it (read NnW’&D instead of Nn^’eo). All the artists and goldsmiths of the world were brought to repair the damage, but none until this day succeeded. When Cyrus arose after Epiphanes, he was found worthy to be permitted to ascend and sit on Solomon ’s throne, because he assisted in the building of the Temple. Leaving the question of chronology out of consideration (it is hardly conceivable that Targum believed that Shishak lived after Nebuchadnezzar, and Cyrus after Epiphanes), one does not understand why the “pious” Cyrus is made to sit on a broken throne. It seems therefore certain that the text is corrupt, and that the order of the kings was: Shishak (comp. vol. IV, pp. 159-160 and 184), Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus (the only one who was found worthy to sit on it), Alexander the Macedonian, who in his great wisdom did not make any attempt to ascend the throne, and Epiphanes, in whose time the throne was damaged, so that no further attempts were made to ascend it. The statement in Esther R. 1.2, 12, that the “fragments” of the throne “could still be seen at Rome” as late as the second century C. E., is very likely connected with the above legend about its having been damaged in the time of Epiphanes. That it was finally brought to Rome is the natural inference from the preceding statement given in Esther R., to the effect that it came from Jerusalem to Babylon, from there to Media, from there to Greece, and finally from Greece to Rome.

The “four kingdoms” were each in its time in possession of Solomon’s 453 14-23] The Legends of the Jews throne, the symbol of “Cosmocratia.” Comp, ibid., which reads: Nebuchadnezzar sat on this throne; Cyrus sat on it; and when Ahasuerus became king, he too wished to ascend it, but was prevented (by the grandees of his realm) from doing so, as he was not a “Cosmocrator ”, like the other two. Comp. vol. VI, p. 415, note 80 and pp. 297—298. 14 2 Panim Aherim 56-57; 2 Targum Esther 1.2, 3; comp. Rashi on Micah 1.15. On Elam, comp, also Sanhedrin 24a. 1 5 Abba Gorion 32; Esther R. 3.9, 19. According to the first source, Ahasuerus did not force the Jews to take part in the festivities arranged by him. On God’s hatred of unchastity, see vol. I, p. 153; vol. Ill, p. 381; note 45 on vol. IV, p. 313. 16 Abba Gorion 9; Esther R. 1.5. 1 1 Abba Gorion 32-33; Esther R. 3.9, 19; Shir 7.8; Megillah 12a; Aggadat Esther 11 (an alleged quotation from the Talmud). Comp, vol. IV, pp. 382 and 415. Opinions in these sources differ as to whether Israel, because of their participation in the festivities, deserved punishment or not. According to Megillah and Shir, the trouble which overwhelmed Israel shortly after the feast was the punishment for their worshipping the idol erected by Nebuchadnezzar, a sin committed by the entire nation, with the exception of the three men who were thrown into the fiery furnace for refusing to obey the king’s command.

Comp, note 83 on vol. IV, p. 328. 18 Megillah 12a; PRE 49. As to the desire of Ahasuerus not to offend the religious feelings of his guests, see also Abba Gorion 13, and Esther R. 1.8, which has a statement with regard to the Samaritans, who consider it unlawful to keep wine in leather casks. Comp. Geiger, Kebuzzat Maamarim 73-74 and Ginzberg, Notes 389. 19 Abba Gorion 12; Esther R. 1.8. 20 1 and 2 Targum Esther 1.5-6; Megillah 12a; Abba Gorion 12; Panim Aherim 58-59; PRE 49; Esther R. 1.5-6. In the last source the sumptuous use of expensive marble is pointed out. 21 Abba Gorion 10; Panim Aherim 59; 2 Targum Esther 1.7. According to one view given in Esther R. 1.7, the cups were of glass that glittered like gold. 22 Abba Gorion 10-11; Panim Aherim 59; PRE 39; Esther R. 1.7; Megillah 12a, 1 and 2 Targum Esther 1.7. 23 Abba Gorion 11; Panim Aherim 59; 2 Targum Esther 1.8; comp, also Esther R. 1.7, 13, where NpriDH is to be read instead of NTlpM. Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6.1, also points out that Ahasuerus abolished the Persian custom of compulsory drinking at this feast. The words 454 Esther [24-35 of Septuagint on Esther 1.8 oil Kara irpone'ifjievov vo/jlov express the same view. 24 Abba Gorion 10; Panim Aherim 59. 26 Esther R. 1.7, 13. 26 Megillah 12a. According to Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6.1, Ahasuerus commanded all his subjects to stop their work for some time and to attend his feast.

27 Abba Gorion 10; Esther R. 1.5; comp, also 1.4. 28 Abba Gorion 13; Panim Aherim 59-60 (here it is stated that the women refused to participate in the desecration of the holy vessels in which the wine was served to the men ; they had therefore to be entertained separately) ; Esther R. 1.9, 9-10. On the reading nn® ]” “black wine”, comp, note 6, where it is shown that "Tint? pin “this noble man” is to be read instead. Comp, also Buber’s note 45 on Panim Aherim 59. 29 Panim Aherim 60:1 and 2 Targum Esther 1.9. 3 0 Esther R. 1.9, 10. 31 Abba Gorion 13, 14-15; Panim Aherim 60-61; Esther R. introduction (end) and 1.9, 9, as well as 1.11-12; Tehillim 10, 96, and 17, 133; Megillah 12b; 1 and 2 Targum Esther 1.10 and 12 (in 1 Targum Esther Vashti is said to have been the daughter of Evil-merodach). As to the father of Ahasuerus, see note 4. The legend about Vashti ’s refusal to appear naked reminds one of the story told by Herodotus, I, 8, about Candaules and Gyges. 32 1 Targum Esther 1.10. On the descration of the holy vessels, see vol. IV, p. 368, and note 28. 33 Abba Gorion 14; Esther R., Targum, and Lekah on 1.10. 34 Megillah 12b; Targum and Esther R. on 1.10; Aggadat Esther 13 (bottom). Comp., on the other hand, 2 Targum Esther 2.2, which reads: She did not deserve capital punishment, but it was so decreed against her in heaven, in order that the offspring of Nebuchadnezzar should perish.

A similar view is found in Panim Aherim 61; comp, also vol. IV, p. 379. Comp. vol. VI, p. 11, note 55. 35 Megillah 12b ('a'pzm’a, in Rashi and Tosafot, ad loc., is an erroneous reading of the abbreviation i. e., HIP m?H; comp. ]'3ia, No. 451, and Ginzberg’s remarks on it in the Additions to Raschkes’ edition of see also Rabbinovicz on Megillah, loc. cit .; Astruc, 215, and Buber, Yerushalayim ha-Benuyah No. 51); Midrash Tannaim 174; quotation from an unknown Midrash by Alkabez, 37a, and 42 (bottom). According to PRE 49, Ahasuerus followed the custom of the kings of Media, who had dancers appear before them at their carousals to en  36-42] The Legends of the Jews tertain them. According to Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6.1, Vashti refused to obey the king because the Persian law prohibited married women showing their faces to any man but their husband. On the favorable comments by the Rabbis on Vashti ’s refusal, see vol. IV, pp. 376 and 428. The statement: “ Venit Gabriel et fecit ei membrum virile ", is missing in many editions of Megillah, loc. cit. 36 AbbaGorion 15-16 (read, as in Panim Aherim, D’DDlD “mimus”, an allusion to pnPD); Panim Aherim 60-61; Esther R., 1 and 2 Targum on 1.12; Megillah 12b. Comp. PRE49. The statement that Nebuchadnezzar did not strip the convicts naked before their execution is based on Dan. 3.21. 37 2 Targum Esther 1.12. Comp, note 35.

58 Megillah 12b; Esther R. 1.13. The Jewish sages before whom Ahasuerus put the case of Vashti belonged to the tribe of Issachar; Esther R., loc. cit., as well as Abba Gorion 15 and Targum Esther 1.13. Comp, also Megillah, loc. cit. (OU0 1’jnw), and Index, s. v. “Issachar, Tribe of”. 3 9 Abba Gorion 16-17 ; 2 Panim Aherim 61 ; 2 Targum Esther 1.14. The text of none of these sources is quite correct ; but it is certain that this Haggadah considers the seven men as representing the seven countries enumerated there. The names, however, of the fifth and sixth countries are corrupt. 40 Esther R. 1.14. Here as well as in Megillah 12b and Targum 1.14 the seven names of the king’s counsellors are explained allegorically. Comp, the allegorical interpretations of the names mentioned in Esther 1.10 as given in vol. IV, pp. 374-375. 41 PRE 49; 2 Panim Aherim 61; 2 Targum Esther 1.16. Against the identification of Memucan with Daniel, see vol. IV, pp. 379, 380, and 394, where the former is identified with Haman. 42 Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4, 22b; Esther R. 1.16. These two sources also give another view, according to which, “among the nations” the taking of the vote begins with the most prominent member of the court. On the text of Esther R., see commentaries, ad loc., and Alkabez, 49b (bottom). The seven princes who sentenced Vashti to death were prominent in the affairs of state as early as the time of Belshazzar.

They escaped the doom which overtook this king because they refused to participate in the desecration of the holy vessels; Esther R. 1.14. It is the unanimous opinion of the Haggadah that Vashti was killed; comp. Megillah 12b according to the correct reading in Aggadat Esther 13 (bottom); PRE 49; 2 Panim Aherim 61; Esther R., introduction 456 Esther [43-52 (towards the end), and 1.21; Targum Esther 1.1 and 19; 2 Targum2.1-2. Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6.2, maintains that she did not lose her life. 4 3 2 Targum Esther 1.16. 44 Midrash Teman 174. 46 Aggadat Esther 15 (bottom). Abba Gorion 17 and Esther R. 1.16 give other reasons for Memucan’s hatred of Vashti. Comp. vol. IV, p. 394, and note 97 appertaining thereto. 4 0 2 Targum Esther 1.18-21. 47 Tehillim 22, 194. Comp. vol. IV, p. 445. Ahasuerus is regarded as a “cosmocrator ” not only in the Talmud (Megillah 11a, which says that the one hundred and twenty-seven provinces represent the entire world) and several Midrashim (as, e.g., Panim Aherim 56; 2 Targum Esther 1.1, 3; Aggadat Esther 8), but also in Septuagint Esther 3.13. Other Midrashim, however, maintain that he ruled only over half of the world. Comp. PRE 11; ShR 9.7; Esther R. 1.1, 5, and 2.13. In all these Midrashim it is stated that the diminution of Ahasuerus ’ power was his punishment for stopping the work of the Temple. According to 2 Targum Esther 4.1 (beginning; the text is obscure and very likely corrupt; read lN’lDIVtn instead of IN’mrVNt), the work of the Temple was stopped after its seventy-two towers had been completed.

On the “cosmocrators”, see note 13 (end); vol. I, pp. 177-178, and Index, s. v. The Haggadah draws attention to the correspondence between the number of the provinces over which Ahasuerus ruled and that of the years of Sarah, who lived one hundred and twentyseven years. The reward for Sarah ’s pious deeds performed during these years was that her pious descendant Esther ruled over this number of provinces. See BR 58.3; Esther R. 1.1 (end); Tehillim and Panim Aherim, loc. cit. 48 Abba Gorion 17; 2 Panim Aherim 60; Esther R. 2.1; Targum Esther 1.1. Comp, note 34. 49 Abba Gorion 1; Esther R., introduction, 9. The identification of Memucan with Haman is also found in Megillah 12b and Targum Esther 1.16. Against this identification, comp, note 41. As to the characterization of Ahasuerus as a “fool”, see also Esther R. 1.22; vol. IV, p. 424; notes 7 and 52. s° Megillah 12a. This passage also gives another view to the effect that Ahasuerus thereby displayed political wisdom. 51 Megillah 12b. 53 Abba Gorion 17-18 (this was their punishment for having advised the king to stop the building of the Temple; comp, note 47); 2 457 53-^2 [ The Legends of the Jews Panim Aherim 61; Targum Esther 2.1. In these sources Memucan is identified neither with Daniel (vol. IV, pp. 377-378), nor with Haman (379). Septuagint has “Man” instead of Memucan. S3 Megillah 12b. The Persians despised the Jewish women, who had lost their beauty on account of their great sufferings (comp, note 38 on vol.

IV, p. 355), and God therefore brought it about that among the multitudes of the Persian women not one was found worthy to become queen, and a despised Jewess was chosen by the king as his wife. s « Panim Aherim 65. Comp, also Megillah 13a (towards the end). ss 2 Panim Aherim 63-64; Aggadat Esther 20-21; 2 Targum Esther 2.8. As to the question why Esther did not suffer martyrdom rather than transgress the law that prohibits marriage with a Gentile, comp. Sanhedrin 74a; Aggadat Esther 11.9; 2 Targum Esther 2.8; note 80. s 6 The genealogy of Mordecai up to Jacob is found in 2 Panim Aherim 62-63; Aggadat Esther 19; Targum Esther 7.1 and 2 Targum 2.5. S3 Megillah 13a (top); 2 Panim Aherim 62 and 63; Tosefta-Targum 1 Kings 2.36; 2 Targum Esther 2.5. s* 2 Panim Aherim 82; Shemuel (end). s» Megillah 12b (below). 60 PRE 50; Panim Aherim 62. Comp. vol. IV, pp. 370 and 415. On the other hand Shir 7.8 is of the opinion that “most of the men of this generation ” were pious. With regard to the designation of Mordecai as “Jew” (’Tin’ literally the “Judean”) in Esther 2.5, though he was a Benjamite, 2 Panim Aherim 82 and Esther R. 2.5 remark that this word characterizes one “as confessing one God” (*”7irP — ■’’Tin’ from ID? “confessed the unity of God”); a similar explanation of the name “Jew” is also found in Constitutiones Apostolicae, 2.60. The Midrashim just cited say that Mordecai was like Abraham and Moses; like the former he was willing to suffer martyrdom for God, and like the latter he was ready to “stand before God in the breach” (Ps.

106.23) to save Israel. 61 Megillah 12b; 2 Panim Aherim 62; PRE 50; 1 and 2 Targum Esther 2.5. 6 3 2 Panim Aherim 62; Menahot 65a. In Ezra 2.2, Bilshan is taken as an adjective (“master of tongues”, a contraction of*?5n “master” and P&V “tongue” or “language”) of the preceding name Mordecai; 458 Esther [63-70 another name of his was Pethahiah. As to Mordecai’s mastery of languages, see vol IV, p. 391. 6 3 Menahot 64b. 6 « PRE 50. As a descendant of King Saul (comp, the sources cited in note 56) he is said to have been of royal blood. On the view that the aristocracy was exiled together with king Jeconiah, see vol. IV, p. 286. 6 5 Megillah 13a; 2 Panim Aherim 63; 2 Targum Esther 2, 6 and 7; 1 Targum 1.6. According to Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6.2, Mordecai moved to Shushan after Esther’s marriage to king Ahasuerus. The first passage of 2 Targum referred to above seems to be corrupt. It reads; Mordecai and Esther were deported into exile with Jeconiah. Mordecai returned with those who volunteered to go up and build the Temple anew, and Nebuchadnezzar deported him again. The source for this statement is 2 Panim Aherim, loc. cit. But there nothing is said about Mordecai’s going up to Jerusalem for the building of the Temple, as it had not been destroyed yet. The “two exiles” of Mordecai refer to his exile with Jeconiah and his second with Zedekiah. It seems fairly certain that the sentence • • •niy’J’n "imi is to be read after ]Tnn.

66 Tehillim 22, 192-193; Megillah 13a; Targum Esther and Esther R. 2.7. A miracle was performed for him, and his breasts supplied milk for the babe Esther. On the milk found in the breast of men, see Preuss, Biblisch-lalmudische Medizin, 476. 67 Megillah 13a; Panim Aherim 63; Esther R., 1 and 2 Targum on 2.7; Tehillim 22, 181. Opinions differ as to whether Esther was her real name and Hadassah her attribute, or vice versa-, comp, note 1. 6 8 Megillah 13a; BR 39.13 (here also two other views are given concerning her age; forty years, as well as eighty, are mentioned); Abba Gorion 18; Panim Aherim 63; Ekah 5, 155; Esther R. 2.7. As a punishment because Saul took away Michal from David by violence, his descendant Esther was taken by force to Ahasuerus and as a reward for his pious act toward his father Noah, Japheth’s descendant, Ahasuerus (the Persians are descended from Japheth) was found worthy to marry the virtuous Esther, the descendant of Shem. See Hasidim 397. 69 Abba Gorion 18; Esther R. 2.9 and 15; Aggadat Esther 23. 70 Megillah 13a; Abba Gorion 18; 2 Panim Aherim 64. The last passage adds: All the ladies of the court vied with one another in offering their services to Esther, as they knew that she would be queen. Comp, also Esther R. 2.15, which reads: The celestials as well the terrestrials loved her. 459 71-85] The Legends of the Jews 71 Megillah 7a and 13a; Aggadat Esther 23.

73 Aggadat Esther 21. Comp. vol. IV, pp. 380-381. 73 Abba Gorion 19; Panim Aherim 65; Esther R. 2.17. 74 Megillah 13a; comp, also Yoma 29a, which reads: Ahasuerus continued to love Esther all her life as much as on the day he married her. 7 5 2 Panim Aherim 63 and 64; 2 Targum Esther 2.7. That Esther did not partake of forbidden food is stated also in the Additions to Esther (Prayer of Esther); Megillah 13a and PRE 50. 76 2 Targum Esther 2.9. Some authorities, however, are of the opinion that the maidens waiting upon Esther were Jewesses. Comp, the quotation from an unknown Midrash by Alkabez, 72a, and the following note. 77 Targum Esther 2.9. Genunita, “garden”, is perhaps an allusion to paradise, which was fashioned on the third day of creation; comp. vol. I, p. 19. According to Alkabez, 71b, Hurfita is to be translated by “haste” (from *l"in “he sped”), and is an allusion to Friday, because on that day the people hasten to prepare for the Sabbath; comp. Baba Kamma 32a. See also Megillah 13a. 78 Esther R. 2.11; PRE 51. Comp, also Septuagint 2.20. According to some authorities the purpose of Mordecai ’s daily visits was to prevent witchcraft from being used against her; Esther R., loc. tit., and comp. Tehillim 22, 194, which reads: By means of witchcraft her enemies caused her to become ugly, but a miracle happened and she regained her former beauty. This is said to have happened when Esther sought to see the king in behalf of the Jews.

Comp. vol. IV, p. 428. 7 » Megillah 13a; Septuagint Esther 2.7. 80 Zohar III, 275b-276b; Tikkune Zohar 20. The old sources do not know of this docetism, and maintain that the last Darius was the offspring of Ahasuerus’ marriage with Esther. Comp. Sanhedrin 74a (Zohar, loc. tit., obviously polemizes against this statement of the Talmud); WR 5.13. Comp, notes 5 and 55. 81 2 Panim Aherim 64; 2 Targum Esther 2.10. 8 3 Esther R. 2.11. 8 3 2 Panim Aherim 64. 84 2 Targum Esther 2.18. Comp, also Megillah 13a and Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6.2. 85 2 Panim Aherim 65; 2 Targum Esther 2.19. Against this, see Megillah 13 a (towards the end), where it is said that it was Mordecai 460 Esther [86-89 who advised the king to “gather virgins together for a second time,” so that Esther might be provoked to jealousy. 86 Megillah 13a-13b; Esther R. 2.20. Comp. vol. I, p. 361, and vol. IV, p. 310. 87 Abba Gorion 19; Panim Aherim 65. On the descent of Mordecai and Esther from Saul, comp, notes 56 and 64. See also the following note. 8 8 2 Panim Aherim 65-66; Abba Gorion 20; PRE 50; 1 and 2 Targum Esther 2.21; Megillah 13b (the duties of the chamberlains became more burdensome since the king married Esther; for sexual intercourse causes thirst, and the king’s demand for drinks disturbed the chamberlains in their night’s rest. That is why they attempted to get rid of the king. Comp. Rashi ad.

loc., and Alkabez, 83a); Esther R. 2.21. See also Septuagint 2.21, which reads: And. . .the chiefs of the body-guard were grieved because Mordecai was promoted, and they sought to kill the king. On the miraculous “opening of locked doors” (which enabled Mordecai to surprise the conspirators), see Acts 5.19, 23. This kind of miracle is very often found in Christian legends. Comp. Gunter, Christliche Legende, index, s. v. “ Tiire offnet sich”. It is also known to Jewish sources; comp. Kallah 1, 6a; Ginzberg, Geonica, I, 28; vol. II, p. 331. Accordingto Josephus, XI, 6.4, a Jewish servant of the conspirators, by the name of Barnabazuas, betrayed his masters to Mordecai. Josippon 4 and later sources (as, e. g., Yerahmeel 79, 236) assume that the conspirators were relatives of Haman 's (thus explaining the latter’s hatred for Mordecai), and that the motive of the conspiracy was a political one. At that time Ahasuerus was engaged in a war with the king of Macedonia (or Greece), and the two conspirators attempted to come to the aid of the Greeks by assassinating the king of the Persians. Comp, the Additions to Esther, Addition A (end), which reads: And Haman sought to bring evil upon Mordecai . . . because of the two eunuchs of the king. In Addition E (Decree of Ahasuerus) Haman is described as a Macedonian, and hence the statement in Josippon that his kinsmen attempted to aid the Macedonians.

The statement about the war between Greece and Persia is perhaps based upon an erroneous interpretation of the “two dragons” in the Dream of Mordecai. As to Mordecai ’s reasons for preventing the assassination of Ahasuerus, see also BR 39.12. 8 9 PRE 50. Sammael removed the poison from the cup, so that Mordecai ’s accusation should prove false, but Gabriel put it back where it was, and the conspiracy was exposed. See Alkabez, 88a, quoting 461 90-93] The Legends of the Jews from the Commentary on Esther (in MS.) by R. Eleazar of Worms. Comp, a similar legend about Sammael and Gabriel in Sotah 10b, and note 89 on vol. II, p. 36. The midrashic basis in Sotah is (Gen. 28.28), and in Alkabez (Esther 2.23). 90 Megillah 13b. Rashi, ad loc., takes iDtfO to mean “office”, and accordingly the two conspirators are said to have held different offices. 9 1 2 Panim Aherim 66, where parin'? is to be read instead of ips-!*?, as it is the unanimous opinion of the Haggadah that they attempted to poison Ahasuerus, and not to strangle him; comp, the references given in note 88. 92 Aggadat Esther 26. The proverb found there, “Cursed are the wicked who never do a good deed completely”, is taken from BR 89.7. Comp. vol. II, pp. 67-68. 93 PRE 50; Panim Aherim 46; Esther R. 3.1. An unknown Midrash quoted by Alkabez, 153b, maintains that Haman found one of the treasures buried by Joseph; comp.

vol. Ill, p. 415. There are different versions of Haman ’s genealogy, showing his descent from Amalek the son of Eliphaz by his concubine; comp. Targum Esther 5.1; 2 Targum 3.1; Aggadat Esther 26-27; Soferim 13.23. Only few of the names in Haman ’s genealogy are found in the Bible, the majority are the names of the oppressors and enemies of the Jews in the Roman period. Pilatus (DlD’T’bN), Herod, Nero QT3), are easily recognized, but it is difficult to restore all the names, as some of them are badly corrupted. With regard to Haman ’s descendants it is stated that “some of them taught the Torah in Bene Berak;” comp. Gittin 57b; Sanhedrin 96b. It is well known that R. Akiba had his academy in Bene Berak (comp. e. g., Sanhedrin 32b), and as the legend which makes him a descendant of proselytes might perhaps have been known to the Talmud (comp. Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, 1, 304), it is quite possible that Haman ’s descendant teaching at Bene Berak is none other than this great Tanna. As the name Haman remained in use among the Persians as late as the third century (comp. ‘Erubin 63b; see Variae Lectiones, ad loc.), there is no reason to doubt the statement that one of R. Akiba ’s ancestors was called Haman, though not necessarily identical with the bearer of this name in the Bible. Comp. vol. VI, p. 195, note 72 (end). The description of Haman as the son of Hammedatha (Esther 3.1) is not to be taken literally, as Hammedatha is only used to describe him as the arch-enemy of the Jews.

Seen Yerushalmi Yebamot 2, 4a; Aggadat Esther 26. It is, however, difficult to tell by what principle 462 Esther [94-102 of exegesis the Rabbis make NTVTDn to convey this meaning. Did they think of DH “confounded” and “religion”? The name of Haman’s mother was Emtelai, the same as that of Abraham’s (comp. vol. I, p. 185), and his maternal grandfather was called Urbeti (’roil!?), i. e. “of the ravens”. On the view that Haman was a Macedonian, see note 88, 94 Abba Gorion 21. This passage also gives several reasons why “Haman was elevated before his fall”, one of which is that God made him very rich so that Mordecai might later make use of Haman’s treasures for the building of the Temple. Comp, the following note. 96 Aggadat Esther 55. Of Haman ’s sons, his assistants in his Jew-baiting, special mention is made of Shimshai, who occurs also in Ezra 4.8 as denouncing the Jews before the king; 2 Panim Aherim 55 and 66. On Shimshai, see also Megillah 16a and Esther R., introduction, 3. Comp, also note 168. On Haman as an opponent to the building of the Temple, see Abba Gorion 20; Esther R. 3.1; note 105. In the lastnamed passage it is said that God elevated Haman before his fall in order that people should know thereby how severe is the punishment of those who attempt to obstruct the building of the Temple. Comp. Ratner ’s note 20 on Seder ‘ Olam 29. 96 Megillah 12b; Targum Esther 1.16.

Comp. vol. IV, p. 379. 97 Abba Gorion 17; Esther R. 1.16. These sources do not state explicitly the identity of Memucan with Haman, but they seem to presuppose it. Comp, however, note 52 98 Lekah 2.32 (very likely quoting an old source). 99 Abba Gorion 21; Esther R. 3.1. 100 pre 50; Abba Gorion 22; Panim Aherim 46; Esther R. 2.5 and 3.1-2; Targum 3.2; Sanhedrin 61b (the king’s command was to pay divine honors to Haman); Josephus Antiqui., XI, 6.5 and 8; Additions to Esther (Prayer of Mordecai 7); comp, note 102. 1 0 1 2 Panim Aherim 66 1 02 2 Targum 3.4. This source obviously does not think that Haman asked for divine honors (comp, the references in the preceding note), and had not Mordecai been a Benjamite he might have paid homage to Haman. Comp., however, Abba Gorion 22; Panim Aherim 66; Esther R. 3.5 (where it is said that Mordecai cited the example of his ancestor Benjamin, though according to these sources Haman demanded divine honors, and the reference to Benjamin is therefore out of place, if we should not assume that it belonged to another source = Targum). On the reason why the Temple was built in the territory 463 io3-io8[ The Legends of the Jews allotted to the tribe of Benjamin, see note 926 on vol. Ill, p. 458. 10 3 2 Panim Aherim 66-67; Abba Gorion 23; Aggadat Esther 29. 10 * Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6.5; Panim Aherim 46. In Targum Esther 3.6, the hereditary enmity is traced further back to that between Jacob the ancestor of Mordecai and Esau the ancestor of the Amalekite Haman.

Comp. PRE 50. 10 s Targum Esther as quoted by Alkabez, 155a-155b, and in abridged form in the MSS. of the Talmud, Megillah 15a-15b, where the printed texts are very abrupt. A somewhat different version of this legend is found in Aggadat Esther 55. According to this text, the incident of Haman ’s selling himself as a slave to Mordecai took place when they both journeyed from Jerusalem to Shushan to appear before the king in connection with the rebuilding of the Temple (comp, vol. IV, p. 393). The bill of sale was written on Mordecai ’s sandal and not on his knee-cap. Comp. vol. IV, p. 430. 106 Megillah 13b. 1 ° 7 Abba Gorion 24-25 ; Panim Aherim 46, and 2 Panim Aherim 67; Esther R. and 2 Targum 3.7 (but not in all manuscripts of Targum). An essentially different version of this Haggadah is found in Aggadat Esther 27-29. On the view that the existence of the entire world depends on the existence of Israel, see vol. I, p. 3, and Index, s. v. “ Israel On the days of the week and Israel, see vol. I, pp. 51-52. x°8 Aggadat Esther 29, where it is also stated that Joshua made the sun stand still in the month of Tammuz; comp. Seder ‘Olam 11. That Moses was born and died in Adar is an old tradition; comp. Megillah 13b, and the references given in note 44 on vol. II, p. 264. For other versions of this Haggadah concerning the selection of Adar, see Abba Gorion 25-26; 2 Panim Aherim 67-68; 2 Targum (but not in MSS.

made use of by David), Lekah and Esther R. 3.7. The following memorable dates of the different months, as given in these sources, should be noticed : The death of Sarah in Heshwan, the organization of the Great Synagogue in Shebat, and the wars against the (worshippers of the) image of Micah in the same month. Comp. Megillat Ta‘ anit (Addition) . The source made use of by Ibn Yahya, quoted by Alkabez, 99a-99b, is very likely related to, if not identical with, Aggadat Esther, loc. cit. Haman was a great astrologer (comp. PRE 50) like his forebear Amalek, who hoped to conquer Israel by attacking them at the time when they were under the influence of unlucky stars, but he was defeated by J oshua, who surpassed him in the knowledge of astrology and magic. Joshua 464 Esther [109-112 selected as his warriors against Amalek men who were born in the second Adar, against whom witchcraft has no power. See R. Bahya on Exod. 17.9; R. Eleazar of Worms quoted by Alkabez, 100a. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 60 (top). 1 0 9 Aggadat Esther 30. Another version found in Abba Gorion 25-26; 2 Panim Aherim 67-68; Esther R. 3.7. According to PRE 50, the day chosen by Haman for the annihilation of Israel was Tuesday, because its constellation is the Lion; comp. Luria, ad loc. 110 Abba Gorion 26; Panim Aherim 46 (here it is said: As fish are swelled, even so shall Haman and his sons be swelled up by the fire of hell “every year”); Esther R.

1.7. Yalkut II, 1054, on Esther 3.8. seems to have read a similar statement in Megillah 13b. 111 Esther R. 3.7 (beginning); comp, also 2 Targum Esther 3.7, which reads: When Haman cast lots in order to destroy the holy nation, a heavenly voice was heard saying: “Fear not, congregation of Israel. If thou turnest with repentance to God, the lot will fall upon Haman instead of upon thee.” This passage is not found in the MSS. of this Targum made use of by David. 113 2 Targum 3.8, which partly follows old sources; comp. Megilah 13b; Abba Gorion 26; 2 Panim Aherim 68; Aggadat Esther 30-31; Esther R. and Targum Esther 3.8. See also references in notes 114 and 115. It is noteworthy that 2 Targun made use of Palestinian, as well as non- Palestinian (very likely Babylonian) sources. Haman speaks of eight days of Passover and the two days of the Feast of Weeks, and this reflects Jewish life in the diaspora, since in Palestine the first festival consists of seven days and the second of one day. On the other hand, the reference to the Sabbatical and Jubilee year points to the Holy Land, for it is only in that country that the Jews abstain from tilling the soil in these years. The very late date of the final redaction of the 2 Targum is betrayed also by the reference to the reading of the Torah and the translating (into Aramaic) from the books of the Prophets. In pre-Arabic times the custom was to translate the weekly sections of the Torah into the vernacular, that is, into Aramaic.

Only after Arabic supplanted Aramaic as the language of the Jews, was the use of Targum limited to the Haftarot. On the throwing down of apples, see Munk, ad loc. The explanation given of the custom of the procession with Hosha'anot is old; comp. PK 28, 180a-180b, and the parallel passages cited by Buber, ad loc. The statement that on the “Great Fast” (this designates the Day of Atonement only in Palestinian sources; comp., e. g., Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shanah 1, 57b, 465 II3-H5] The Legends of the Jews and ‘ Abodah Zarah 1, 39b) little children are made to fast is not to be taken literally. Comp. Mishnah and Talmud Y oma 82a. 1 1 s Abba Gorion 26-29 (in the last line of 26 read n’10 instead of n’3!) ; Panim Aherim 68-69; Esther R. 3.8-9; Aggadat Esther 33— 34. On Pharaoh as a “cosmocrator ”, see vol. I, p. 178. As to the vast number of his hosts drowned in the Red Sea, comp, note 43 on vol. Ill, p. 25. On Amalek, see vol. Ill, p. 56. On Sisera, see vol. IV, p. 36. On the idea that the existence of the universe is dependent on Israel, see vol. I, p. 3; vol. IV p. 399; Index, s. v. “Israel”. 1 1 * Panim Aherim 47 ; all the other sources (comp, the following note) state that Ahasuerus issued the decree of annihilation. The designation of Haman as “next unto the king” in Panim Aherim is no proof of its dependence on Septuagint (comp, the following note); both sources very likely gave Haman this title which, according to Esther 10.2, was borne by Mordecai.

115 Midrash Esther 68-69; Abba Gorion 29-32 (in Hebrew and Aramaic; the latter seems to be the original form, as the opening line of the Hebrew version is in Aramaic); Esther R. 3.8; Lekah 3.12; Aggadat Esther 36; Yerahmeel 81, 241-244 (the decree of Haman and the edict of Ahasuerus are here combined into one, to which are added many sentences, found in old sources, of the conversation between Haman and the king about the Jews); 2 Targum Esther 3.8 (towards the end) and 4.1. The text of the first passage of Targum contains several corruptions. The sentence l’J?T NITON IT1?! (p. 25, line 5, in David’s edition) is a gloss to p. 24, line 22, as a variant tol’JJT N*?l; p. 25, line 10, reads: j’Hf N’TEO 1’Un *73. The accusation made against the Jews is that they buy at low prices and sell at great profits. In contrast to the Midrashim, Targum maintains that Haman ’s denunciation of the Jews was made in oral conversation with the king. Comp. Megillah 13b, and Yerahmeel, loc. cit. As to the statement in Targum that “some of them are dealers in wax”, see vol. VI, pp. 264 (top) and 268, note 110 (end). The Greek Additions to Esther (Addition B) contain a letter of the king to the princes of the provinces and the subordinate governors, in which, after calling attention to his “moderation and mildness ”, he informs them that at the advice of the wise Haman, who is exalted to “the second place in the kingdom ” (comp, the preceding note), he decreed the annihilation of the Jewish people, the “nation that stands alone in opposition to all men continually.” Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6.6, used the apocryphal letter of the king, but allowed himself a great deal of liberty in reproducing its text.

The rabbinical versions of the letter are, on the 466 Esther [116-122 other hand, entirely independent of the Greek Additions. It is, however, to be noted that besides the letter of the king, Addition B knows also of the letters of Haman, just as the Midrashim have a decree by Haman and an edict by Ahasuerus. The Arabic version of Haman ’s decree (comp. Hirschfeld in Semitic Studies in memory of Kohut, 248, seq.) s an almost literal translation of 2 Targum Esther 4.1, and it is strange that this fact escaped Hirschfeld. Perreau published from a Parma MS. another letter of Haman which agrees with Aggadat Esther and Yerahmeel, in Hebrdische Bibliographic, VII, 46, seq. 116 Abba Gorion 27-29; 2 Panim Aherim 69; Esther R. and 2 Targum 3.9; comp. Tosafot on Megillah 16a (caption ’ITT). According to ShR 33.5, Haman offered all his silver and gold as a price for the Jews. See Abba Gorion 29 and Esther R. 3.11. When Ahasuerus said to Haman: “The silver is given thee” (Esther 3.11), the Holy Spirit called out: “The gallows is given thee.” This is a play on *102 “silver” and py “gallows”, both of which words have the same numerical value. On the half-shekel as the basis for Haman’s computing the price for the Jews, see Yerushalmi Megillah 1, 70d, and 3, 74a; Kad ha-Kemah, Purim, II, 47a. 117 Aggadat Esther 35. 118 Panim Aherim 51 and 2 Panim Aherim 69; Esther R. and 2 Targum 3.14-15.

The last-named passage reads: Because Joseph’s brethren sold him unto a foreign land, their descendants were sold unto a foreign land ( = to a foreigner) ; but as Benjamin did not take part in this transaction, his descendants Mordecai and Esther became the redeemers of Israel. Comp. vol. II, p. 16-17; Tehillim 10, 93. 119 Megillah 14a (top), and 11a; (here it is said that Ahasuerus hated the Jews more than Haman); Abba Gorion 29; Esther R. 23.10. Comp. vol. IV, p.406. The attacks of Ahasuerus and Haman on Israel are taken to have been aimed at God; comp. vol. IV, p. 406 ; 2 Panim Aherim 69. 1 2 0 2 Panim Aherim 69. 121 Esther R. 3.15; 2 Targum 4.2. Comp. Esther R., introduction^. 1 2 2 Abba Gorion 32-35; BHM V, 55-56; Esther R. 3.4 (towards the end); Aggadat Esther 38—40. Panim Aherim 47 reads as follows: God sent for the patriarchs and said unto them: “Your children deserve to be destroyed. ” “Why?” they asked. God replied: “ Because they did not sanctify My name in the days of Nebuchadnezzar the wicked, and made it appear as though I had no power to save them.” The 467 123] The Legends of the Jews patriarchs rejoined : “ Do Thou with them as Thou pleasest.” When God saw that the attribute of justice was about to prevail, He rose from the throne of justice, and seated Himself on the throne of mercy. The entire “heavenly family ” pleaded for Israel, saying: “Didst Thou not create the universe for the sake of the Torah given to Israel, so that its existence depends upon the existence of Israel? If Thou destroyest this nation, what will become of us?” God replied: “Israel did not act as they should.” The “heavenly family” continued to plead: “It is known and revealed before Thee that what they did (in obeying Nebuchadnezzar ’s command to worship the image erected by him) was out of fear.” On hearing this pleading God was filled with mercy for Israel.

As to the question whether Israel in Mordecai’s days deserved to be destroyed on account of their sins, and on the nature of these sins, see PK 19, 140a; PR 33, 151b (their lack of trust in God nearly brought about their destruction, were it not for the fact that even Jacob, when in distress, despaired of God 's help, and they followed the example of their ancestor; comp, note 240 on vol. I, p. 381); comp, further Ekah 3, 134, and the references cited in notes 16, 17. On the idea that the universe depended on the preservation of Israel, comp. vol. I, p. 3; vol. IV, pp. 399, 407 ; Index, s. v. “ Israel ”. Divination by passages from books (stichomancy), especially by passages from the Bible (Biblomancy) is found in the Talmud (comp. e. g., Hagigah 15a-15b; Hullin 95b), and hence it is quite natural for the legend to make Mordecai ask the children the scriptural verses they had studied. The three verses recited by the children were later inserted in the daily prayer; comp. Baer, ‘Abodat Israel (end of ‘ Alenu). On the wandering of the scholars from town to town, see Baba Batra 8a; on the intercession of the saints among the dead, see vol. IV, 39. The designation of Moses as the faithful shepherd is of frequent occurrence; comp. vol. II, p. 300; vol. IV, p. 308. As to the sealing of the heavenly decree, see vol. Ill, p. 417, and note 26 on vol. IV, p. 302. According to 2 Targum Esther 4.1 (beginning; part of the text is very obscure), the Holy Spirit revealed to Mordecai the danger threatening Israel (comp.

Alkabez, 125a), whereas Targum Esther 4.1 agrees with the Midrashim cited at the beginning of this note, that it was Elijah who gave him this information. 123 2 Targum Esther 4.1. The passage from lrrnnK 131 to Kin ’1111173 (p. 28. lines 4-9, in David’s edition) does not belong to the end, but is a variant of line 1 (p. 1 1 , line 12). On the covering of the ark with sackcloth, see Ta anit 2.1; on the inhabitants of Nineveh, see ibid., and vol. IV, pp. 250-251. The verses of the Bible read by Mordecai (Deut. 4.30-31) are taken from the section read on the Fast of Ab (Tosefta Megillah 4.9 and Babli 31b), but it would seem from this passage 468 Esther [124-130 of the Targum that it was read on all fast-days. The custom prevailing now to read Exod. 32.11-14 and 34.1-10 dates from the time of the Geonim; the Mishnah, Megillah (end), has Lev. 26 and Deut. 28 as the sections for fast-days. Comp, also vol. IV, p. 280. The prayer of Mordecai in the Greek Addenda reads like an insertion in the first benediction of the ‘Amidah, and accordingly it begins with the description of God in whose power is the entire world, and closes with the supplication to the God of Abraham to redeem His inheritance. This corresponds to Dm2K 11D ...JTIPIDl my .. TOip in the first benediction of the ‘Amidah. Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6.8, follows Septuagint, though not verbatim. 124 PRE 50.

This short prayer reminds one of the Prayer of Mordecai in the Septuagint. Comp, the preceding note. A Hebrew translation of the Prayer of Mordecai is found in Josippon 4 and hence in numerous later rabbinic works, as, e. g., in Esther R. 4.10, and Yerahmeel 89, 237. Comp. Schiirer, Geschichte, III, 450-451. 1 2 5 2 Panim Aherim 70, in explanation of Esther 4.1. A different explanation of this passage is given in Panim Aherim 51, which reads: He cried: Wrong will be done to the king who does wrong to the innocent. See also Septuagint, which reads: He cried with a loud voice: A nation which has done no wrong is going to be destroyed. On the correct reading of Panim Aherim, see Aikabez, 125a. Comp, also Megillah 15a with regard to the words used by Mordecai in his loud crying. 1 2 6 BR 67.4; Esther R. 4.1 ; Panim Aherim 51; comp. vol. I, pp. 321 and 339. 127 Abba Gorion 35; Panim Aherim 51 (this passage contains also another opinion to the effect that Esther took precautions to prevent pregnancy; comp., however, note 80); 2 Panim Aherim 70; Esther R. 4.9. Comp, also the different views about the effects of the queen’s fright as stated in Megillah 15a and PRE 50. ,a8 2 Panim Aherim 70; Aggadat Esther 42; Esther R. 4.1. Comp, also BR 84.20; Tehillim 10, 93; Panim Aherim 51; Aggadat Esther 40; vol. II, p. 100. 129 Megillah 15b; Baba Batra 4a (according to some authorities, Daniel was called so, because he “decided” the most important affairs of state; according to others, because he was “cut off by Ahasuerus” from the important position he held under the former king; Hathach is derived from "|nn “he cut off”, “he decided”); Esther R.

and Targum 4.5. 130 Aggadat Esther 43; comp. vol. I, p. 371. 469 131-140] The Legends of the Jews 131 Abba Gorion 36; 2 Panim Aherim 70 (read TD“Q instead of cmpn nra, which crept into the text from the next paragraph); Esther R. 4.7. 133 Esther R. 4.7; Midrash Esther 67; Aggadat Esther 43. The source upon which these Midrashim drew is very likely Josippon 4, where the Dream of Mordecai found in the Greek Additions to Esther is translated into Hebrew. BHM V, 1.16, contains a Hebrew as well as an Aramaic translation of this apocryphal piece. See Schiirer, Geschichte, III, 450-451. Mekilta Amalek 2, 55a and 56a ( = Esther R. 2.7), remarks: Mordecai took notice of the “hint’* given him from above. This refers perhaps to the dream in which the future history of Esther was revealed to him. Comp, however vol. IV, p. 421 and note 136. 133 Aggadat Esther 43; 2 Panim Aherim 70. 134 2 Targum Esther 4.1. Comp. vol. IV, pp. 387-388 and 427. 133 Targum Esther 4.11 Against this view, comp. Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6.3. 136 Targum Esther 4.10; Mekilta Amalek 2, 56a; Esther R. 2.7. Comp, note 132. 137 Abba Gorion 36; 2 Panim Aherim 70; PRE 50; 1 and 2 Targum 4.11. According to Megillah 15a, Hathach did not want to be the harbinger of a painful message, and accordingly Esther was forced to find somebody else to act as an intermediary. Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6.7, on the other hand, emphasizes the fact that the same person (Hathach) carried on the negotiations between Mordecai and Esther.

13 8 Targum Esther 4.12; according to 2 Targum, after the death of Hathach written messages were sent by the queen to Mordecai. A third view is that the Holy Spirit was the intermediary between the two. Comp. Abba Gorion 36 and 2 Panim Aherim 70. PRE 50 maintains that Esther communicated with Mordecai by word of mouth. 139 Esther R. 4.14. A somewhat different account is found in Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6.7, which reads: There would certainly arise help from God some other way, but she and her father’s house would be destroyed by those whom she now neglected. It seems that Josephus was acquainted with the haggadic interpretation according to which mpn (Esther 4.14) stand for God; comp. Tehillim 22, 182; Targum, Lekah, and Esther R., ad loc. See also Buber, note 50 on Aggadat Esther 44. The designation of God as DIpD “Place” is found in as early an author as Philo; comp. DeSomniis 1.11 and Index, s. v. “Place”. 140 2 Targum Esther 4.13-14. As to the view that Saul was responsible for the suffering of the Jews at the hands of Haman, comp 470 Esther [141-142 Esther R., introduction, 7, and vol. IV, p. 68. On the view that Joshua slew Amalek by the word of God (this is meant by N’DEH rb'D2), comp, vol. IV, pp. 3-4. The passage beginning with Dp 131 (not found in all MSS.) at the end of verse 13 is certainly a later addition. It is also possible that the sentence N^pn1? ...’T3TN nVn, if genuine, should be put at the beginning of this verse where Saul ’s guilt is pointed out.

The exhortation to prayer is also found in Septuagint 4.8, where "l^DH is referred to God; comp. Esther R. 1.9 and Megillah 15a with reference to the use of “King” in the book of Esther in the sense of the “Heavenly King”. Comp, notes 161, 171, 177. 1 4 1 2 Panim Aherim 70-71. The reason for this fast was to atone for the sin of the Jews who had partaken of forbidden food at the banquet of Ahasuerus; Tehillim 22, 182; vol. IV, p. 370. Megillah 15a, Esther R. and 2 Targum 4.16 (the MSS. show that the sentence in Targum beginning with tCIPn "Tjn is a later addition, based on the Talmud) maintain that the queen pointed out to Mordecai the great sacrifice she is bringing. By going voluntarily to Ahasuerus she was for ever cutting herself off from her legitimate husband (i. e. Mordecai; comp, vol. IV, p. 387), as the law does not permit the reunion of husband and wife if the latter of her own free will, had relations with another man. Opinions differ as to how the three days ’ fast is to be understood. Yebamot 121a and PRE 50 are of the opinion that the fast lasted for seventytwo consecutive hours. On the other hand, Tehillim 22, 183, maintains that this would have been a physical impossibility; accordingly the fast lasted really only a little more than twenty-four hours. They began the fast shortly before night, and finished it shortly after the beginning of the following night. The Bible calls it a three days' fast because it began on one day and ended on the third.

Comp. Yoma 81b; Torat ha-Adam 29-81b; Alkabez, 136. 1 4 3 Megillah 15a (comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc.) and Aggadat Esther 45; this is an explanation of *1DJH in 4.17, literally “and he passed over”. Targum, ad loc., interprets the word to mean “and he transgressed the law”, which forbids fasting on festivals; comp, references cited in the preceding note. According to Seder ‘Olam 39, PRE 50, and Esther R. 3.17, the three fast-days were the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and fifteenth of Nisan, whereas according to Panim Aherim 71 (is this the source of Rashi on Megillah, loc. cit.l ), they were the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth of that month. The latter view seems to have been shared by Koheleth 8.5, which reads: Whoso keepeth the commandment shall know no evil thing (Eccles. 8.5) ; this refers to Esther who was busy 471 143— 145] The Legends of the Jews in carrying out the commandment of “searching for leaven” (this ceremony takes place at night from the thirteenth to the fourteenth of Nisan), and knew not of the evil decreed by Haman against the Jews. The statement, however, that Mordecai went on the first day of Passover to Shushan to arrange for the fast (one of the main features of the fast was the gathering of the people for public prayer) could only be explained if the fast-days were on the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth of Nisan. Comp, note 146, and Luria on PRE, loc.

cit. 143 2 Targum 4.16— 5.1. The prayer ‘ A nenu taken from the ritual for fast-days is given in Hebrew. The second part of the prayer, beginning with a new alphabet (in the first alphabet read NITON I7N instead of NTO), is perhaps the oldest specimen of an ‘Akedah. On the view that Israel and the Torah are necessary for the existence of the world, see vol. I, p. 3, and Index, s. v. “Israel” and “Torah”. Ahasuerus is called in Targum Esther “a foolish king”; see vol. IV, p. 374, and notes 7, 49. In the days of this king the curse was fulfilled: “and there ye shall sell yourselves, etc.” (Deut. 28.68); see Megillah 11a; Esther R., introduction, 3. The suffering of innocent children does not fail to arouse God's compassion; see vol. IV, p. 251. God created the world with His left hand; see note 3 on vol. I, p. 3. The angels wept when Abraham was about to sacrifice his son Isaac; vol I, p. 281. The prayer of Esther as found in the Greek Additions to Esther occurs in Josippon 4, whence it is borrowed by many other writers (comp. e. g., BHM V, 5-8 and 12-16, where the Hebrew and Aramaic translations from the Greek [Latin?] text are found), but Targum did not make use of it. 1 4 4 Additions to Esther, Addition D; a Hebrew translation thereof is found in Josippon 4. Comp, also Yerahmeel 80, 240. 145 Megillah 15a— 15b; 2 Panim Aherim 71. The Talmud further remarks that Esther thought she had committed a sin in describing Ahasuerus, in her prayer, as a dog.

To make amends for her disrespect, she later, in her prayer, refered to him as a lion. This remark of the Talmud, as well as the other, that she cried out : “Eli Eli, Lammah ‘azabtani, ” is based on the assumption that in Ps. 22 we have the prayer of Esther before she appeared before the king. Tehillim 22, 180-197, contains a paraphrase of this chapter, giving details of Esther 's life alluded to therein. See also Yoma 29a. That in the apocryphal prayer of Esther Ahasuerus is called a lion by Esther, has very likely nothing to do with the rabbinical interpretation of this psalm as containing Esther’s prayer. Simonsen, R.E.J., XXII, 283-285, explains 472 Esther [146-148 the typological interpretation of this psalm by the authors of the New Testament (comp., e. g., Matth. 27.46; Mark 15.34), who refer it to the passion of Jesus, to be due to the fact that this Esther psalm was recited in the Temple and in the synagogue on the fourteenth of Nisan, the original fast of Esther, and it was quite natural for the early Christians to substitute, for the suffering of Esther, the passion of Jesus, which took place on the very same day. This hypothesis, however, cannot be accepted for two valid reasons. In the first place, it may be stated with certainty that the day on which the paschal lamb was sacrificed, far from being a fast-day, was a festival day (comp. Pesahim 4.1 and 5; Yerushalmi , beginning; Megillah Ta'anit 1; Judith 8.6).

Then t he old sources are of the opinion that Esther fasted not on the fourteenth of Nisan, but on the fifteenth; comp, note 142. It is true the Karaites observe the Fast of Esther on the three days preceding passover (comp. Bashyazi, Aderet Eliyahu, end of m^DH 311) but this obviously does not prove anything. A short praver of Esther is found in Targum Esther 5.1. 146 Tehillim 22, 188, 193, 194; Comp, also 183 (where the words addressed by Esther to God read differently) and 184. On the twentysecond psalm, see the preceding note. On the comparison between Esther and Vashti, comp, note 35. The words used by Ahasuerus, ‘‘O for the departed, etc.”, are a favorite phrase with the Rabbis; comp. e. g., vol. Ill, p. 339, with regard to the superiority of the patriarchs to Moses. The Addenda to Esther (Addition D) contain a description of Esther ’s appearance before the king, which in many points reminds one of that of the Midrash. Note especially the statement in Septuagint that the king beholding Esther looked upon her with fierce wrath, so that she swooned ; God then changed the spirit of the king into mildness and the king sprang up from his throne, and raised her in his arms until she came to herself again. Josippon 4 contains a Hebrew translation of this Addition to Esther. Comp, also Esther R. 5.1; BHM V, 13-14. Tehillim, loc. cit., is the source for Aggadat Esther 52-53, as well as for 2 Targum 5.1, where pm ’1331 is to be read instead of pn, in accordance with Tehillim 22, 193.

147 Megillah 15b; the three angels remind one of the attendants of Esther in the Addition to Esther; comp. vol. IV, p. 427. 1 4 8 2 Panim Aherim 71. Comp, also Tehillim 22, 194, which reads: An angel struck a blow upon the king’s mouth (the text is incomplete, and hence obscure; something was very likely said about a remark made by Ahasuerus derogatory to Esther; comp, ibid., 193), and said 473 149-158] The Legends of the Jews to him: “Thy spouse stands waiting, and thou sittest on thy throne.” The queen ’s charm captivated him against his will, and he arose to meet her. 1 4 9 2 Panim Aherim 71. Here it is also stated that Ahasuerus was blind, but his eyes became bright as soon as he directed them towards Esther; whereupon he held out the golden sceptre to her. A miracle happened, and the sceptre extended to the place where Esther stood (the distance is variously described as twelve, sixteen, twentyfour, sixty, and two hundred cubits), so that she was able to touch it. Yea, a still greater miracle happened. Whenever Esther visited the king, the sceptre of its own accord would move towards her; Megillah 15b; Tehillim 22, 194-195. 160 Targum Esther 5.3; Megillah 15b; comp. vol. IV, p. 393. 1 6 1 Megillah 15b, where several other reasons are given for this peculiar conduct; comp, also 2 Targum 5.8, and 2 Panim Aherim 71. 162 Panim Aherim 71. The somewhat obscure sentence '131 n$?DlE> nrrn means that up to this time Esther did not consent to gratify the king’s desire; but now she promised that she would no longer withhold her conjugal duties.

On the only wish of the queen that the king would not grant, see the references in the preceding note. 163 PRE 50; Esther R. 5.11 (end). The statement made in the latter source that God would not permit the pious to suffer more than three days, and that accordingly Haman’s fall took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, three days after the issue of the decree of annihilation (on the date, see note 142) is based on an old Haggadah; comp. BR 91.7 and 56.1; Tehillim 22, 183. 154 Aggadat Esther 55. Comp. vol. IV, pp. 398-399. 156 Abba Gorion 36,2; Panim Aherim 72 (read with Aggadat Esther 55: PW1? piB "lip1? ter “if thy husband left for the country, it is time for thee to visit the market-place”); Esther R. 5.11. 166 Megillah 15b (top). 1 67 2 Panim Aherim 72. 168 Abba Gorion 36-37 (on the furnace "from which Manasseh was saved, see vol. IV, p.279); 2 Panim Aherim 72; Esther R.5.11; 2 Targum 5.11, where read fODin “furnace” instead of MHO “ox”. On the number of Haman ’s children, concerning which opinions vary greatly (it is given as thirty, one hundred, two hundred and eight) , comp. Megillah 15b; Targum Esther 5.11; Tehillim 22, 181; vol. IV, p. 445. On the view that the pious are saved from all kinds of death, see also vol. II, p. 256. 474 Esther [159-165 1 69 2 Targum 5.14; Abba Gorion 37; Panim Aherim 48 (here Gabriel takes the place of the heavenly voice); Esther R.

5.11; BHM VI, 56; Aggadat Esther 61; an unknown Midrash in Yalkut II, 1059, on Esther 7. In the last two sources the carpenter and smith employed by Haman to make the cross are mentioned by name. According to 2 Panim Aherim 72, Zeresh advised her hubsand not to engage in any evil designs against Mordecai, because the Jews are like a stone: if any one falls on it, he gets hurt; and if it falls on any one, he gets bruised. Haman, however, did not follow her counsel, but that given him by his friends. On the comparison between Israel and a stone, see also Abba Gorion 24 and Esther R. 3.6. 160 2 Targum Esther 6.1; Panim Aherim 73-74; comp. PK 5, 55b; PR 15, 78, as well as the references given in note 76 onvol. I,p. 224, and vol. II, p. 373, with regard to the first night of Passover as the night of miracles. According to some, however, the “disturbed night” was the second night of Passover. Comp. Note 142. lei Megillah 15b (on the interpretation of “king”, Esther 6.12, as referring to the “King of the world”, i.e. God, see note 140); PRE 50; Panim Aherim 48; 2 Panim Aherim 73; Esther R. and Targumim 6.1. 162 Abba Gorion 37-38 (on the last sentence about the innocent babes, see Makiri on Ps. 8, 50); Esther R. 5.12; BHM VI, 56; 2 Targum Esther 6.1 (Munk’s edition). Comp, also Ekah 1, 69-70. 1 6 8 2 Targum 6.1. According to another reading, it was the “angel of insomnia” who kept the king awake.

Comp, also the following note, and note 167. 164 Abba Gorion 38-39; Panim Aherim 48 (this passage has Michael instead of Gabriel); 2 Panim Aherim 74. The number of times Ahasuerus was thrown out of bed corresponds to the days of the solar year. This correspondence to the solar year is to be noticed also in the number of Haman ’s counsellors (comp. vol. IV, p. 430). In Aggadat Esther “sixty-one” is to be corrected accordingly. Some maintain that Ahasuerus saw, in a dream, Haman assuming a threatening attitude, and this disturbed his sleep greatly. When shortly after that Haman in the presence of the king expressed his wish to be attired in the royal insignia, Ahasuerus saw in it the fulfilment of his dream; comp. PRE 50; Koheleth 5.2; Esther R. 6.1; BHM VI, 57; Yalkut II, 1057, on Esther 7 (derived from an unknown source); Panim Aherim 75; Targum 5.1. 1 e 6 Megillah 15b; Panim Aherim 48; 2 Panim Aherim 74. 475 166-172] The Legends of the Jews 166 Megillah 15b; Panim Aherim 48; 2 Panim Aherim 74; comp. Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6. 10. 167 2 Targum Esther 6.1 (David’s edition). Elsewhere it is Satan, the great adversary of man, who appears in the disguise of a beggar. Comp, note 226 on vol. I, p. 272. 168 PRE50;BHM VI,57;AbbaGorion39;2Panim Aherim 74-75; Yalkut II, 1057 (towards the end) ; 2 Targum Esther 6.1 and 9. Comp, also Alkabez, 159b; Midrash Eliyyahu II, 161b; the references in note 164.

Shimshai the son of Haman (comp, note 95) was secretary to the king, and in order not to be made to read the passage about Mordecai, he struck it out; but Gabriel (or according to 2 Panim Aherim 75 and Yalkut, loc. cit., Elijah) wrote it down again as soon as it was struck out. See Megillah 15b; 2 Targum, loc. cit.', comp, also Kad ha-Kemah, Purim, 2, 47-48. In 2 Targum 6.1 read fCIBD 'VDW instead of NTB1D Dy, which gives no sense. 169 2 Targum Esther 56.10 (the horse IJIS’P is very likely identical with the famous horse Shabdaz of the Persian king Khorsau 1 1 ; comp. Yakut III, 250 seq., and accordingly the correct reading is nS’P) ; Megillah 16a; PRE 50; BH VI, 57; 2 Panim Aherim 75; Aggadat Esther 62-63. In the last-named source, as well as in Abba Gorion 39, a badly corrupted passage is given about the royal raiment. Comp. Ginzberg’s remarks in Orientalistische Litter aturzeitung XVIII, 180, top, where it is shown that the Midrash speaks here of Labrat-Lilat as having woven those garments. Comp, also Targum Esther 6.10. 170 Megillah 16a; PK 8, 71b-72b (on the village DWlp where Haman or, according to others, his father, was a barber, comp. Schlatter, Verkanntes Griechisch 65-66 and vol. V, pp. 385-386); PR 18, 93a-93b; WR 28.6; Abba Gorion 40-41; 2 Panim Aherim 75-76; BHM VI, 57; Esther R. 6.10; 2 Targum 6.11; Aggadat Esther 63-64. That Mordecai first thought Haman was mocking him is also stated by Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6.10.

On the view that Haman ’s fall took place on the day of the ‘Omer, that is, on the sixteenth day of Nisan, see note 142. 171 2 Targum 6.11; 2 Panim Aherim 76. According to the latter source and Abba Gorion 41, Mordecai was led in a torch procession ; comp, the procession in honor of Joseph, vol. II, p. 74. On the interpretation of “king” in 6.11 as God, the King of the universe, see notes 140 and 161. 177 PK 8, 72b; PR 18, 93b; WR 28. 6; Abba Gorion 41; BHM VI 57; Esther R. and 2 Targum 6.11. The four first-named Midrashim give also the different view according to which Mordecai 476 Esther [173-176 did not pay any attention to the honors shown to him. The reason was because the procession started early in the morning when he was reciting the Shema‘ (comp. Abba Gorion 39, which reads: Haman intended to hang Mordecai at the time of the reading of the Shema‘), and he would not permit himself to interrupt his prayer. Comp, similar legends in vol. II, p. 121, with regard to Jacob and in vol. IV, p. 349 (top), with regard to Daniel. According to 2 Panim Aherim 76, Mordecai expressed his thanks to God by reciting the Hodu psalm (*• e., Ps. 136), the so-called Great Hallel; comp. Pesahim 117a, where it is stated that Mordecai and Esther composed the Hallel at the time when Haman arose against them. 173 Megillah 16a, and somewhat differently in 2 Panim Aherim 76 and Esther R.

6.11, where it is said that Haman ’s daughter threw herself out of the window when she realized her father ’s disgrace. Comp, also Buber’s note 38 on Abba Gorion 41. According to Targum Esther 5.1, this daughter of Haman was one of the maidens gathered together in Shushan from among whom a queen was to be selected in the place of Vashti. Her own hopes and her father’s expectation were sorely disappointed when a repulsive disease attacked her. Comp, also 2 Targum (Munk’s edition), note 291. 1 * 4 Megillah 16a; Abba Gorion 41; 2 Panim Aherim 76; Esther R. 6.12. The last-named three sources as well as 2 Targum Esther 6.12 point out that on this day Haman had to perform four kinds of menial services: he acted as barber, masseur, groom, and herald to Mordecai. Comp. vol. IV, pp. 438-439. Alkabez, 167b, quotes from the commentary of R. Eleazar of Worms on Esther that Haman became a leper on that day. Comp, also ibid., 172b. 1 7 s Targum Esther 6.13. According to Megillah 16a, Panim Aherim 48, 2 Panim Aherim 76, and Aggadat Esther 65-66, Zeresh told her husband that he might prevail against any other Israelite, but not against a descendant of the tribe of Judah (□’Tin’ in Esther 6.13 is taken in its original meaning) or the Rachel tribes, who, especially the latter, are always chosen by God to gain victory for Israel. Comp, vol. I, p. 369; vol. Ill, pp. 57-58 and 223. 2 Targum 6.6 makes Zeresh say to her husband that if his adversary is a descendant or a relative (read ’121“lp instead of ’11211) of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah he would certainly not prevail against him.

■76 Abba Gorion 41 (read ]’2irD “secretaries”, instead ofl”2n2, corresponding to ’1E51D in PRE 50; in Yalkut II, 1057, ]’“l1C3’ipD is very likely to be read instead of I’TIlpD) ; 2 Panim Aherim 76; Megil477 I77_I82] The Legends of the Jews lah 16a. As to the positions held by the sons of Haman, see references cited in note 168 and Ratner’s note 20 on Seder ‘Olam 29. 1 7 7 Targum Esther 7.3. The first "J^D in this verse is taken to refer to God, the second to Ahasuerus; comp, notes 140, 161 and 171. Ahasuerus was wroth with Esther because she continued to withhold from him the secret of her descent. See Panim Aherim 76; comp, the following note. 178 Megillah 16a; WR 26.8, which reads: The king hinted to her that she should appear as Haman ’s accuser even if he were not her enemy and that of her people. See Tan. B. Ill, 84; Tan. Emor 3; Ekah 1.13 (not in ed. Buber); 2 Targum Esther 7.5; Shemuel 24.121122. Targum maintains that at that moment the king did not yet know of Esther’s noble descent, and accordingly conversed with her through an interpreter. This is perhaps the view of the Midrashim cited above, but Megillah, loc. cit., explicitly states that on this occasion Esther told the king “who she was”. 1 7 7 Megillah 16a ; on the correct text of this passage, see Rabbinovicz ad loc. and Aggadat Esther 66. On Haman as the one who was responsible for Vashti’s death, see vol.

IV, p. 379. 180 Targum Esther 7.6; 2 Panim Aherim 76, which reads: He is the adversary of the celestial, the oppressor of the terrestrial, the enemy of the fathers (read nut*1? instead of niOIN1?) and the oppressor of their children. Comp, also 2 Targum Esther 7.6, which reads: This is the one (]Dn = |p «n) who wished to stretch his hand against the Jewish people, the children of the “Lord of All”. 18 'Megillah 16a; PRE 50 (where itis said Michael, assuming the form of one of Haman ’s sons, felled down the trees) ; 2 Panim Aherim, 76-77 ; Targum Esther 7.7 ; an unknown Midrash quoted in the commentary on Esther by R. Judah ibn Shoshan, as cited by Alkabez, 172a. Comp, note 178. According to 2 Targum 77, Ahasuerus commanded to fell trees in the park, so that his anger should find an outlet, but he failed of his object. 183 Panim Aherim 77. The proverb about the ox reads here: Once the ox has been cast to the ground, many slaughterers are found. Comp., however, Ekah 1, 71; Shabbat 32a. See also Yalkut II, 1059, where ruin is very likely to be read instead of tun As to the “ wicked ” Harbonah being originally a party to the plot against Mordecai, see also Megillah 16a, and 2 Targum Esther 7.9. On the identification of Harbonah with Elijah, see vol. IV, p. 202. 478 Esther [183-185 1,1 2 Targum Esther 7.10, where Haman’s entreaties are given in full. 184 Abba Gorion 41-42; Panim Aherim 47-48; Yalkut II, 1054; Aggadat Esther 60-61; Esther R.

5.11, where the description of the competition of the trees is given in a more elaborate form than in the other Midrashim. An entirely different version of this legend about the cross of Haman is found in 2 Panim Aherim 77 (here it is the cedartree which furnishes the cross) and Aggadat Esther 51-58, with which account 2 Targun 7.10 partly agrees. In these sources none of the trees was willing to furnish the cross, because it did not wish to be defiled by the “impure body” of Haman. There can be no doubt that originally those were two different legends: one about the refusal of the trees to furnish the cross for Mordecai, and another about the competition of the trees for the distinction to be used as the cross for Haman. The present form of the legends is rather confused owing to the fact that the cross used for Haman had originally been intended for Mordecai, and accordingly the different motives of the legends could no longer be kept apart. It is difficult to establish the relation of this legend to the Christian legend about the cross of Jesus, but there can be no doubt that there exists some connection between the two cross legends. In 2 Targum, loc. cit., read K1HJS “OT NbDDN1? p’DD1?, Haman is said to have taken the same “lodging” as the son of Pandora, i. e., Jesus. As to the provenance of the cedar of which the cross was made for Haman, comp, the two views given in Abba Gorion 37.

According to one, it was taken from the royal park (comp. Esther 7.8), while the other maintains that it was one of the cedar-trees used by Noah for the ark and was brought to Shushan by Haman’s son Parshandatha, who was governor of Nbrnp, where the ark “rested” (comp, note 48 on vol. I, p. 165). He gave it to his father to be used for the cross upon which to hang Mordecai. Comp, also Yalkut I, 256 (end), and II, 1059, as well as 2 Panim Aherim 72-73. According to PRE 50, the cross was made of a beam taken from the holy of holies. 1 8 5 2 Targum Esther 9.14; Aggadat Esther 73 and Lekah on 9.14, and somewhat differently 1 Targun, which contains also the additional remark that one hundred and eight children of Haman were killed in Shushan. Shimshai was decapitated, and seventy others, as well as Zeresh, fled and were reduced to beggary. That the cross was fifty cubits high and twelve wide is also stated by Abba Gorion 37, and Aggadat Esther 51. On the number of Haman’s sons, see notes 158, and 187. 479 186-192] The Legends of the Jews 188 2 Targum Esther 9.24. Comp. vol. IV, p. 111. 187 Megillah 15b, which gives also the different view that seventy of Haman’s sons became beggars; comp, notes 158 and 185, as well the following note. 188 Tehillim 21, 181. Comp. Megillah 10b (bottom). Esther received Haman 's house with all its treasures, and she appointed Mordecai as superintendent; Targum Esther 8.1-2; Aggadat Esther 70.

Comp, also Sabba‘, Ha’azinu, 162b, who quotes from the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel that those killed by the Jews in Shushan were the children of Haman, and those killed in other cities were all Amalekites. Our Targum of Esther 9.14-17 reads somewhat differently. 189 BR 39.11; PRE 50 (in Luria’s edition the text is abridged); Esther R. 8.15; 2 Targum 6.10 (towards the end). The sudden change in Mordecai 's life is dwelt upon in Tehillim 22, 184 and Tan. Mikkez 3, and a parallel is drawn between his history and that of his ancestor Joseph. Comp. BR 87.6; Abba Gorion 22; 2 Panim Aherim 66; Esther R. 3.4. A fantastic description of the five presents received by Mordecai from the king (Esther 8.15-16) is found in 2 Targum Esther (David’s edition, ad loc .); comp, also vol. II, p. 114. On the phylacteries (-]BE31C3), comp. Megillah 16a, which contains also the haggadic interpretation of Esther 3. 16 found in Targum ad loc. Another interpretation of this verse occurs in Haserot 35 and 31, whence in Aggadat Esther 71. i9° Megillah 16b. On the Jews as masters of the other nations, comp. 2 Targum Esther 10.1. 191 Tehillim 22, 194. Comp. vol. IV, p. 379, and 2 Targum Esther (end). Those among the Gentiles who became converted and were circumcized (this is how Septuagint and Josephus, Antiqui., XI, 6.13, render □"TiTno, Esther 8.17; in Judeo-German jiidischen means “circumcise ”) were not considered as perfect Jews, because their motive for circumcision was not above suspicion; Yebamot 24b.

The Amalekites were not admitted at all as proselytes, but were killed; comp, note 188 and vol III, p. 62. 1 92 2 Targum 8.13. The dependence of this edict in favor of the Jews upon the “decree of Artaxerxes concerning the Jews” in the Additions to Esther (Addition E) cannot be doubted, though the divergence between the two edicts is very great. In accordance with Septuagint NHCTD of Targum is to be emended to N’lnpD. The introductory sentences of the edict in Targum are copied from the “Letter of Artaxerxes” (Addition B), commanding the annihilation of the Jews. There is no trace in rabbinic literature of the last Addition in Septua480 Esther [193-194 gint, the Interpretation of the Dream of Mordecai. On the dream in rabbinic sources, see vol. IV, p. 420 and note 132 pertaining thereto. 193 Megillah 71a (this passage contains also the controversy whether the book of Esther “defiles the hands’’, that is, whether it is considered canonical); Makkot 23b; Yerushalmi Berakot 9, 14c; Megillah 1, 70d; Tan. B. I, 217; Tan. Wa-Yehi 8; Tehillim 57 ; 296; Ruth R. 2, 4; Shitah Hadashah (beginning); Aggadat Esther 77-78. The last-named source (76) has the following statement: The Megillah (book of Esther) was composed in Shushan, and was forwarded (by Mordecai and Esther) to the Holy Land, that it should be copied into the Assyrian script. The Talmud is given as source for this statement, but neither the printed texts nor the MSS.

of the Talmud, with the exeption of one late MS. (comp. Price, Yemenite MS. of Megillah), contain this statement. On the regulations concerning the writing of the Megillah, see Megillah 16b, which reads : The scroll of Esther must be written in lines as though it were the Torah (Pentateuch) itself. For an explanation of this talmudic passage, see Sha are Teshubah, No. 204, and Meiri ad loc. That the name of God is not found in the book of Esther (yet it is hinted at; comp, notes 140, 161, 171) is due to the fact that God did not care to testify to the mixed marriage between Ahasuerus and Esther (comp. Malachi 2.13, and vol. I, p. 69). The only other book of the Bible which does not contain the name of God (though it is hinted at; comp, note 2 on vol. IV, p. 125) is Song of Songs. This book is devoted to the description of the beauty of man and woman; yet it is not beauty, but the propagation of the human race which is the ideal of marriage. See Hasidim 183, and comp, note 3 of the editor. 194 Yerushalmi Megillah 1, 70d, which reads: In the time to come all the other parts of the Hagiographa, nay, even the prophetical books, will lose their value, and only the Pentateuch and the book of Esther will retain their worth; Aggadat Esther 81; Lekah 9.28 and 31 (refers it to the time of the Messiah); Mishle 9, 61. In the last source a view is quoted to the effect that of all the festivals only Purim and the Day of Atonement will be celebrated in the time to come.

Comp. A1 Kabez, 208b— 209b and vol. VI, p. 58, end. Esther risked her life for her people, and as her reward a book of the Bible bears her name, and Scripture speaks of Israel as the people of Esther; ShR. 30.3; Makiri, Prov. end. The source of the latter is a version of Midrash Mishle different from ours, see MHG. I, 339 and Aggadat Esther 23. 481 ■ LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF TITLES OF BOOKS Abkat Rokel T3D ’31.3311 np3N, Warsaw 1876, quoted by book and chapter, Abudrahim DmiUK, Warsaw 1877, quoted by section and page. Aggadat Bereshit n’PKT tn», ed. Buber, Cracow 1902, quoted by chapter and page. Aggadat 'Olam Katan pp D^iy miN, ed. Jellinek, Bet Ha-Midrasch, V, 57-59. Aggadat Shir D’l’Pn TP mi«, ed. Schech ter, Cambridge, 1896. Aggadat Tefillat Shemoneh ‘Esreh miB PlPy HllDP nVsn.ed. Jellinek, Bet HaMidrasch, V, 53-56. Aggadta de Shimon Kefa ]iyDP1 NnDN BB’3, ed. Jellinek in Bet Ha-Midrasch V, 60-62. Aguddat Aggadot □”n ..THIN mitt V’imn....TBD, Frankfort o. M„ 1881. Al-Barceloni ...lin1? m’X’ 1BD P1TB ed. Haiberstam, Berlin 1885. ‘Aliyyot Eliyyahu ...nr3in IH’Vk ni’^y ytrin,...n«D...wl7’na Tom ]itu it^n ‘r’l pyn, Stettin, 1861. Alkabez. See Menot ha-Levi. Aphraates. The Homilies of Aphraates ed. by Wright, London 1869. Alphabet of R. Akiba 1 and 2 PT1D B3’py ’311 Bfl’3 ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch III, 12-64. Alphabet of Ben Sira 1 and 2 TIPI nnrm KTD pi RTI’3, ed.

Steinschneider, Berlin 1858. Alphabetot mfl’3 NB^K PTTD, ed. Wertheimer, «3’py on nmiK miD D^rn 81-121, Jerusalem 1914. ARN 1 and 2. Tim |ni ’311 D13B n300 riBnoil, ed. Schechter, Vienna 1887, quoted by chapter and page. Artapanus irtpi 'lovdodotv in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. ‘Asarah Haruge Malkut HlPy Htyo JIIbVd ’inn, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch VI, 19-35. 'Aseret ha-Dibrot nil3in m»y rilD, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I, 62-90 (quoted by page) and in ITI’Pya 113n nniKm niPllDna, Venice, 1605, quoted by Commandment. ‘Aseret Melakim D’3^?D mty P11D, ed. Horowitz, Bibliotheca Haggadica I, 38—55, Frankfort o. M. 1881. R. Asher. Glosses on the Pentateuch by R. Asher b. Jechiel; comp. Hadar. Astruc. R. Solomon Astruc mini ’P11D, ed. Eppenstein, Berlin 1889. ATAO. A. Jeremias, Das alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients, Leipsic 1907. Ayyumah Ka-Nidgalot niVlllB HDl’K by R. Isaac Onkeneira, Berlin 1701. Baer, Siddur VmP’ muy 11D, Roedelheim 1868. R. Bahya. Commentary on the Pentateuch by R. Bahya b. Asher, Warsaw 1853, quoted by chapter and verse. BaR H3T 131D3 PHD, ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and paragraph. Baraita di-Ma‘aseh Bereshit, ed. Chones in Buber, HD^P fliy’T 47-50, Warsaw 1896. Baraita di Mazzalot m^TDl Nn”13, ed. Wertheimer, 1’ ’3H3 D’PTID 1S1M I, 1-28, Jerusalem, 1913. Baraita di-Shemuel ]»pn *7N1DPn Kn”13, ed. Frankfort o. M. 1863. Barceloni; See Al-Barceloni.

Baruch, Greek. The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, ed. James, Texts and Studies vol. V, Cambridge, 1897. 3 Baruch. See Baruch, Greek. Batte Midrashot niPTTD T3 Vols. I-IV ed. Wertheimer, Jerusalem 1893-1897, 483 List of Abbreviations Ben ha-Melek TT331 “lVD3 p,ed. Mantua 1557, quoted by chapter. Benjamin R., Itinerary of '1 niJIDD 3ED ]’D*33, ed.Griinhut and Adler, Jerusalem (Frankfort o. M.) 1904. Benjamin R. of Tudela. See Benjamin R. Itinerary of. Bertinoro. Glosses on the Pentateuch in min **oin nmn by msmnn *Vy3 Warsaw 1876. BHM Vols. I-VI : P33D3 3*3, ed. Jellinek, Leipsic 1853-1877, quoted by volume and page. BR 333 Il’ima ns, ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and paragraph. Comp, also Theodor. Caro, Isaac pnX’ 313^*13, Constantinople 1518, quoted by chapter and verse. Codex Naz. Codex Nazareus, ed. Norberg, Copenhagen s. a. Da'at Vy Win nun «im o*3pr njn 3bd ..niDoinn *Vy3 lrniana jirtnn minrt in min’ nmn min* nras 3sd *»m Leghorn 1783. Dhamari. See Manzur. Debir Vtntt” 3D331? *ny »]DNa 3*33, Berlin 1923. Demetrius irepl toiv tv rrj 'lovdaicjc fiacnXtaiv in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. Derek Erez Z. KISH p« "pi, ed. Tawrogi, Konigsberg 1885. Dibre ha-Yamim or Hayyamim *331 3"y 13*33 3BD *?r D*B*n, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch. II, 1-11. DR 333 0*333 033D, ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and paragraph. DZ [KISH] 0*3333 3I7N *33BB O’Bip^, ed. Buber, Vienna 1885.

Ekah 333 33’K P33D, ed. Buber, Wilna 1899, quoted by chapter and page, or ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and verse. Eldad *333 33I?K, ed. Epstein, Presburg 1891. Eleh Ezkerah 333TB 3I7B P330, ed. Jellinek, Leipsic 1853. ‘Emek ha-Melek l'?D3 pay by R. Naphtali b. Elchanan, Amsterdam 1648. Emunot we-Deot mj?331 3131DN3 3B0 3’3yD 13*33. ..133n, Cracow 1880. 2 Enoch. The Book of the Secrets ol Enoch translated from the Slavonic by W. R. Morfill and edited . . .by R. H. Charles, Oxford 1896. Enoch Hebrew; See Sefer Hanok. Ephraem. Ephraemi Syri Opera Omnia ed. P. Benedictus and Assemanus, Rome 1737-1743. ER and EZ 13’^>K 33D1 333 13*V« 330 B01T, ed. Friedmann, Vienna 1900, quoted by chapter (old numbering) and page. ‘Eser Galuyyot 31’Vl 3 B*y P33D, ed. Granhut in Likkutim III, 2-22. Eshkol 3313’ 1333 333^ 3D33 VoPH *D33 Goslow 1836, quoted by No., folio and column. Eshkol 3*3 D333K 1333 13 D* Vl3PB3 3DO pmc\ ed. Auerbach, Halberstadt 1867— 1869, quoted by volume and page. ha-Eshkol *y3Dl ’313DD »]DKB ^13*K3, ed. Fuchs and Gunzig, Cracow 18981909. Eupolemus irepl twv tv rfj ’IovSalf /3acrc\twv, in Eusebius, Praep. Evang Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, ed Gifford, Oxford 1903. EZ. See ER. Ezekiel, the tragedian. 'E^ctytoyq In Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 4 Ezra, Liber Esdrae Quartus, ed. G. H. Box, Ezra Apocalypse, London 1912. Gadol u-Gedolah 3*71331 *7133 P33D, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch III, 121-130.

Gedulat Mosheh 3PD 33133, ed. Amsterdam 1754. Geonica. Geonica by Louis Ginzberg, I and II, New York 1909. Ginzberg, Compte Rendu. Compte Rendu des Melanges Israel Lewy, Paris 1914 = Rev. d. Etud. Juiv. LXVJ, 297-315 and LXVII, 133-151. 484 List of Abbreviations Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv. Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern, Amsterdam 1899. Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern II. Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern und in der apocryphischen Litteratur, Berlin 1900. Gorion ]1’111 N3B P11D in WHIN! ’1BD, ed. Buber, Wilna 1886. Giidemann, Religionsgeschichte. Religionsgeschichtliche Studien, Leipsic 1876. Hadar tmiPNl bv imin...D’:pt 17H ISO by n'n^r niBoinn ’Vyn lrnm r'tnn Nin...rin nn...minn, Leghorn 1840. Hadassi. See Eshkol (1). Haggadat Teman. The Haggadah according to the Rite of Yemen ... by William H. Greenburg, London 1896. Haggoren or ha-Goren. “]iyj ...pin vols. I-IX, ’pSTI-nn N3N I7K1D» ’'y Berditschew-Berlin 1899-1922. Haiiei D’ipyDn iso tnpin bbr\ chid, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch V, 87-110. Haserot niin’1 nnDn mnc, ed. Wertheimer, Jerusalem 1900. Hashkem 0301 P11D in Grfinhut nBO 0’0ip^>n I, 2-20; comp. Likkutim. Hasidim D’l’Dn nBD, ed. Wistinetzki, Berlin 1891. Hazofeh 111 flND 1B1X1 vols. I-IV, v, vii nDPn1? nsixn, ed. Blau, Budapest 1911-1923. Hekalot or 1 HekaJot 'D31 JYiVd’H in Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch III, 83-108. 3 Hekalot 11^3’! ’plBD pnB in Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch III, 161-163.

5 Hekalot or Hekalot V 11^3’! TODD in Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 40-47. 6 Hekalot or Hekalot VI mVo’l 1BD inn 1BD ]3 03 Nlp31 in Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch V, 170-190. Hemdat ha-Hemdah lion 'DO D’tilpV llDni, ed. Wertheimer, ’111 III, 13b-15a, Jerusalem, 1902. Hemdah Genuzah Kill 1133 l!Dn 1BD D’llNll mmpn, Jerusalem 1863. Hesea Le-Abraham. Azulai, QllON^ nDn, ed. Lemberg 1860. Hibbur ha-Ma‘asiyyot; See ‘Aseret haDibrot. Hibbur Yafeh. See Rabbenu Nissim. Hippolytus, Philosophumena, ed. Migne P. Gr. 16.3. Ps.-Hippolytus. Sermo in Sancta Theophania, Migne Pat. Gr. 10. ha-Hoker noon1? ripo ’ny oiod npinn ^N10\ ed. Fuchs, Cracow 1891-94. Huppat Eliyyahu ll’^N IBH, ed. Horowitz HBin 1133 45-56, Frankfort o. M. 1888. Imre No'am D’PHn Kim 0yi3 ’1DK 1BD minn by Cremona 1560. Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses, ed. Migne, P. Gr. 7. R. Isaac ha-Kohen H1’3 oy 3VN 1BD ]13 pmc 1310, Constantinople 1545. Jerome. Hieronymi Quaestiones Hebraicae in libro Geneseos e. recog. P. de Lagarde, Leipsic 1868. Ps. Jerome. Quaestiones hebraicae in II Regum et in II Paralip., in Migne, Patrologia Lat. 23. 1329-1402. Joel, Chronography. Chronographia, ed. Bekker, Bonn 1837. Joel, Blicke. Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte . . . I— II, Breslau and Leipsic 1880-1883. JQR. NS. The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, ed. Adler and Schechter, Philadelphia, 1910 seq. Jub. The Book of Jubilees by Charles, London 1902.

Judah b. Barzilai. See Al-Barceloni. Kad ha-Kemah nopl 13, ed. Breit, Lemberg 1880-1892. Kaftor wa-Ferah. Estori Parhi, 1WB3 niBl, ed. Luncz, Jerusalem 1897-1898. Kaftor wa-Ferah. 1’3 3py’...rilBl 1WB3 IONS!1? pnX’, Basel 1581. Kallah Nn”1311 1*73 D3DD, ed. Coronel, Vienna 1869, also reprinted in Talmud ed. Romm, Wilna 1895. Kaneh or Kanah 1BD Kill 13pi 1B0 IN’^Bl, ed. Koretz 1784. 485 List of Abbreviations KAT. E. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und d. alte Testament; third edition by Winkler and Zimmern, Berlin 19021903. Kebod Huppah; See Huppat Eliyyahu, Kebuzzat Maamarim 71X0 D’nDXO HX13p omox ^xiop ’i’ ^y...mi annox ’pDiNJfND, Warsaw, 1910. with notes by Louis Ginzberg). PlD^nn ’^O. A. Marx: liaVnn ’^O VJOPX ’-\b in HoffmannFestschrift 179-218. Keli-Yakar. Solomon Ephraim b. Aaron, "»p* Lublin 1602 and frequently reprinted. Ketoret ha-Sammim Vy...D’DDn mBp ’dVpITI in:i’ omn, Amsterdam 1671. Kimha Dabishuna p^m J1PX1 p^n pits oj7 «an p'p imo ’bo -lirnono X31P’3X1 Mnap Bologna s. a. (1546). Kinyan-Torah min pjp. The so called sixth chapter of Abot found in most editions of this Treatise. Kisse we-Ipodromin. *7W J’DmiB’Nl NDO ed. Jellinek in Bet haMidrasch V, 34-39. Koheleth nil nVnp »na, ed.Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and verse. Koheleth Z. KBIT D^Hp BH10, ed. Buber, MBit rna 83-130, Berlin 1894. Konen pa ms, ed. Jellinek, Bet haMidrasch II, 23-29. Lekah Mnp’DD mioDn aiB npV rmo Gen.

and Exod. ed. Buber, Wilna 1880, Lev. Num. and Deut. ed. Padua, Wilna 1884, quoted by chapter and verse or Book and page. Leket Midrashim D’tTO Opb TDD, ed. Wertheimer, Jerusalem 1904. Llkkute ha-Pardes DTIBH ’Bip1?, Venice 1519. V'l HXn1? D'P ’BlpV. The edition used is that of Leghorn 1785. Likkutiml-VI O’Bipb’n IBD.ed.Grilnhut, Jerusalem 1898-1902. Maamar ‘Aseret Melakim TllPy 00X0 O’O^O, ed. Horowitz, TIHIX miK 54-55, Berlin, 1881. Ma'areket 7110^X0 TIOOyD, Mantua 1558. Ma'aseh Abraham, ed. Horowitz OPyO n'y irox omox in Tinax mix 43-46, Berlin, 1881. 2 Ma'aseh Abraham 0m3X OPyO, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 118-119. 3 Ma'aseh Abraham 1J’3X 0003X OPy 0 mm ay 11? y o’xp naa n’y , ed. jellinek Bet ha-Midrasch I, 25-34. Ma'aseh Daniel, n’y PX’H HPyD, ed. Jellinek in Bet ha-Midrasch V, 117-130. Ma'aseh R. Joshua b. Levi. 'TJ OPyO ’l1? ]3 y«nn\ ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 48-51. Ma'aseh ha-Nemalah. itVoin HPyD, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch V, 22-26. Ma'aseh Nissim. O’Dl ’PyDl 'n npyo Amsterdam 1723. Ma'aseh Rokeah ..nan..npn HPy D OBD x’sraa DiD'ii^p rmn\..p...-iry^x Sanok 1912. Ma'aseh Torah min HPyD PY7D, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 92-109. Maasehbuch ~J 13 HPy 0, Amsterdam 1723, quoted by No. and page. Ma'asiyyot or Ma'as. ed. G. Gaster, The Sefer ha-Ma‘asiyoth, in “Judith Montefiore” College, Report for the year 1894-1895, Cambridge, 1896. Ma'ayan Hokmah naan ]’y D, ed.

Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I, 58-61. Magen-Abot. Duran, ni3X ]1D, Leghorn 1762. Maggid. R. Joseph Caro, O’OPD T3D, Amsterdam 1708. Malala, John. Chronographia, ed. Din> dorf, Bonn 1831. Manzur. Notes on. . .commentary . . . by Aboo Manzur al-Dhamari. . . . by A. Kohut, New York s. a. (1894). Masnut; See Ma'ayan Gannim. Masseket Gan 'Eden py |3 n3DD In ]Bpn ‘jXlDPl Xn”03, ed. Frankfort o. M. 1863. Comp, also Seder Gan Eden. Masseket Kelim D’^O 71300, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 88-91. Mattenot Kehunah. R. Issachar Baer b, Naphtali 03103 013710 on Midrash Rabbah in ed. Wilna, 1887. 486 List of A bbreviations Ma'ayan Gannlm. Masnut, ...D’3J ]’ya 31’N 1BD ed. Buber, Berlin 1889. Mekilta ^NyBP’ ’311 Nn^’BD 1BD, ed. Friedmann, Vienna 1870, quoted by massekta and folio. Mekilta D. '1 'P I1ND...D’13lV Nn^BB lyBBy P, reprinted from Lewy-Festschrift, Breslau 1911. Mekilta RS ’NT’ p JiyBP ’311 NnV’BD, ed. Hoffmann, Frankfort o. M. 1905, quoted by page. Meleket ha-Mishkan. nBN^Bl NT’13 Ol^P P’N TND...p0nn, Vienna 1908. Melchizedek Fragment in Charles, 2 Enoch 85-93. Menot ha-Levi ...n3n»...’ll7n H1JD 1BD pip1™ in ’lVn HB^P, Venice 1585. Meshalim Shel Shelomoh. ^P D’^PB I^Dl HB^P, ed. Jellinek, Bet haMidiasch IV, 145; 152. mhg i and ii tpnib iBD...Vn:n mo, ed. Schechter, Cambridge 1902; Hip mar 1BD ... *71131, ed. Hoffmann, Berlin 1913-1921. Midrash Abraham 13’3N Dmam PHD, ed.

Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch V, 40-41. Midrash R. Akiba *]D1’ p N3’py ’I PHD, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch V, 31-33; ed. Wertheimer, Leket Midrashim 18a23b. Midrash Esther. T1DN n*73D Pina, ed. Horowitz in Aguddat Aggadot 56-75. Midrash le-Hanukkah nnin1? pud, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I, 132—136. Midrash Jonah nil’ PUB, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I, 96-105. Midrash ha-Ne‘elam; See Zohar Hadash. Midrash Shir D’l’Pl TP PUB, ed. Griinhut, Jerusalem 1897. Midrash Temurah miBn PUB, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I, 106-114. Milhamot Melek ha-Mashiah, ed. Jellinek in n’pan -^B niBn^B Bet ha-Midrasch VI, 117-120. Minhat Yehudah, see Da'at. Mishle’VPB (11B, ed. Buber, Wilna 1893, quoted by chapter and page. Monatsschrift. Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, Dresden (later Breslau) 1852 seq. Moses bar Cepha. De Paradiso, ed. And. Masius, Antwerp 1569. Mota Muse. Faitlovitch, Mota Muse, Paris 1906. Nahmanides, Derasha HB’Bn 71 nnfl 1’3Bin HIP nrn, ed. JeUinek, Leipsic 1853. Neweh Shalom. Taussig, □l^P HH, Munich 1872. Nispahim, Friedmann, lioil D’nBDl N011 ll’^N, Vienna 1904. Nur al-Zulm, Light of Shade and Lamp of Wisdom, by Nathanel Ibn Yeshaya. ed. Kohut, New York 1894. Nistarot R. Simon; See Pirke Mashiah. Or ha-Hayyim '13 0”n 'l...D”nn 11N Mezirow 1801. Or Zaru’a Tn pmo i3’ai...n3n ynr iw HPB Vols. I— II, Zhitomir 1862; vol. IIIIV, Jerusalem 1887-1890, quoted by folio and No.

Ha-Orah '13 HbVp 13’3lV...miNn 1BD pn*\ ed. Buber, Lemberg 1905. Orehot Hayyim D”n 1DD V’ll^B 1131 pn«...13n, Florence 1750. Orient. Ltz. Orientalistische LiteraturZeitung, ed. Peiser, Konigsberg 1898 seq. Otot ha-Mashiah TPB1 IHIN, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 58-63. Ozar Midrashim 1’ ’3nB D’PllB TON I— II, ed. Wertheimer, Jerusalem 19131914. Pa’aneah *7y IB’ P1TB Nil! W1 myB pnx’ i3'3i...n3Yi...rmn ’rain iran min’ 1‘3, Prague 1607. Panim Aherim D’HIN 0’3B P11B, ed. Buber NnilNl ’1BD 45-82, Wilna 1886. Pardes n’n^r ’’PI pN3nl7...DnBn 1B0 Constantinople 1802. Perek Gan ‘Eden; Corap. Note 90 on vol. I, p. 31. Pesikta Hadta Nmn Nnp’DB, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch VI, 36-70. List of Abbreviations Petahiah R., Itinerary of. See Pethahiah, R. of Ratisbon. Pethahiah, R. of Ratisbon. n’nnB...313D iniEDliynD, ed. Griinhut, Jerusalem (Frankfort o. M.) 190S. Petirat Aharon. pnN nn’DB BH1D, ed. Jellinekin Bet ha-Midrasch I, 91-95. Petirat Mosheh or 1 Petirat Mosheh. n'y wan nrn nmas mo, ed. jeilinek in Bet ha-Midrasch I, 115-129. 2 Petirat Mosheh. HE’D nTBB HID H’y U’an, ed. Jellinek in Bet haMidrasch VI, 74-78. 3 Petirat Mosheh ll’ET DIPD m’BE1? PWT, ed. Gaulmyn in HE’D bw D’D’n nan, ed. Paris 1629, f. 34-59. Ps.-Philo. Philonis Judaei Alexandrini Libri Antiquitatum, Basel 1527; sometimes the reference is added to James, the Biblical Antiquities of Philo, London and New York 1917.

Philosophumena; see Hippolytus. Pirke Mashiah n’PO ’pnBl ln’^N nED ’Rnr )3 ]iyOB> 'n nnnDOl, ed. Jellinek Bet ha-Midrasch III, 65-82. Pirke R. Yoshiyyahu. m’PN’ P ’pnB, ed. Jellinek in Bet ha-Midrasch VI, 11 2-1 16. PK Nina anb nDm’D...Nnp’DB,ed. Buber, Lyck 1860, quoted by Piska and folio. Poznanski, Einleitung or Mebo PH’S nry’^N ’an1? nE>y nni ^Nprn’ ^y name nan Vy Niao i1? nBDi...’SM^ao tnpon ’EHBD Warsaw 1913-1914. PR ’nan Rnp’DB r nno ed. Friedmann, Vienna 1880, quoted by Pesikta and folio. PRE nry’^N ’an ’pns, Amsterdan 1709 or Warsaw 1852. PRK Binpn Iran ’pns, ed. Griinhut, Likkutim III, or pnpn lrann NpnD, ed. Schonblum G’nnSl D’nflO 7wbv, Lemberg 1877. Pugio Fidei. Pugio Fidei Raymundi Martini . Adversus Mauros et Judaeos, Leipsic 1667. Rabbinovicz; See Variae Lectiones. '•ana nry’^N Iran nan...n’’3Nn nso ^NV. n*’aNn, ed. Aptowitzer, Berlin 1913. Rabbenu Nissim. man Kim ni’Pyn nED n’a d’di iran Dann1? nyiP’nD ns» apy’, Warsaw 1881. RAsh : See R. Asher. Raziel "|N*?Bn Vn’H nED, ed. WUna 1881, quoted by caption and page. rebn nryn i’aN Nnpin...nED nr nNn )’aNn Nnpin jna na nry’!?N...na’nB> Prague 1610, quoted by folio and No.,ed. Raschkes, Jerusalem 1913 (Vol. I> and 1915 (vol. II). REJ. Revue des Etudes Juives, Paris 1880 seq. Reshit Hokmah. np« naan n’E>Nn »Nmi ’n...in’VK...nan josefow 1868, quoted by chapter and folio. Responsen der Geonim Q’llETNn*? >ni; jikd ...n’y’an nnanD...o’innNl? c>.

’aann in^K onnaN, Berlin 1887, RITBA N’aD’nn ’rnn nED, Amsterdam 1729. rsbm. o'arn ana n»N nmnn bite, ed. Rosin, Breslau 1881. Ruth R. nan nn rnno, ed. wiina issr. quoted by chapter and verse. ibn Sabba' ’an...na’n» nmnn by rims ,man mns ide> mpi b't y'aD onnas Venice 1523, quoted by Parasha anu folio. Ps. Sa'adya. D’D’n nan b]! PP’D, ed R. Kirchheim, Frankfort o. M. 1874 Sa'arat Eliyyahu. ...niD ^y.-.in’b’N nnVD ...na ’*y □’aina...Ni‘?’iiD ^'pisr inna DnnaN, Wiina 1894. Seder R. Amram..ri3E>N iniD3 nVsn mns □Vsn anay an nno Dy, ed. Frumki* Jerusalem 1912. Seder Gan 'Eden py ]I nnD, ed. Jellinek Bet ha-Midrasch II, 52-53. Seder Rabba di Bereshit nan n^jna ^Nyap’ ’nn naanDn n’PNnai 7im, ed. Wertheimer, Batte Midrashcf I, 1-31. Seder Ruhot mmn nnD, ed. Jellinek, B List of Abbreviations Sefer Hanok *]13n "1DD, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 114-117. Sefer Noah ni TDD, ed. Jellinek, Bet haMidrasch III, 155-160. Sefer ha-Yashar On 13m1? nt’H 1ED, ed. Rosenthal, Berlin 1898. Sekel or Sekel Tob ^y 310 l?3E> HID omo li’on non niori ivrina nBD no'rp T3, ed. Buber, Berlin 1900-1901. Sha'are Gan ‘Eden Din’ll py ]J, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch V, 42-51. Sha'are Simhah. R. Isaac b. Judah ibn Gayyat, nriDP nyp, FUrth 1862. Sha'are Yerushalalm '-^...O’^PIT nyt n»’n V’niyo oniD To nro, Warsaw 1865. Sha'are Zedek ni3im...pT£ nyP nBD O’llNin, Saloniki 1792. Shalshelet ...DOn1? H^opn rhvb* nBD K”rv )'n ’t?13, Venice 1587.

Shem Tob b. Shem Tob ...minn mm HOT 'no 010 OP 'nn, Venice 1547. Shemuel VkIDP tnnD, ed. Buber, Lemberg 1893, quoted by chapter and page. Shibbale ha-Leket. non.-.OpPn ’^>3r BDinn onnoM n'o rrpnx 13’on, ed. Buber, Wilna 1886, quoted by paragraph and page. Shir non O’Trn TP PnnD, ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and verse. Shitah. See Shitah Hadashah. Shitah Hadashah Opy’ nono1? HPnn HO'P in non n’puno pnnD, wilna 1887 pp. 376-377.1 ShR non niDP pnno, ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by chapter and paragraph. Shu'aib. Joshua ibn Shu'aib by DlPnn nninn, Constantinople 1523, quoted by Parasha and folio. Sibyll. The Sibylline Oracles, ed. Geffken, Leipsic 1902. Sifra o’jno nmn noo mn on ’on moD. ed. Weiss, Vienna 1862, quoted by chapter and verse. Sifre D. and N. On ’01 ’nBD, ed. Friedmann Vienna, 1864, quoted by paragraph (D = Deuteronomy, N = Numbers) and sometimes the page is added. Sifre Z. Der Sifre Sutta . . . von Dr. S. Horovitz, Breslau 1910. Sifte Kohen . . .non . . . ]n0 ’nBD nBD inon ’OnnD, Wansbeck 1690. Sikli, Talmud Torah. Poznanski, non *?y 'no opy’ ’n^> nmn mnVn Dip^’n ’^’pD ^Nlin ( = Hazofeh III, 1-22) and in Festschrift-Maybaum, Leipsic 1915, nmn mo^n mp^n !?p in’pun ’^’pD ^Niin n'o opy’ n1?. smg. n'o npo ii’on...^ni mxD nBD ’XlpD Opy’, quoted by Commandment. Solomon ben ha-Yatom. DODD Pin’D ’os ’T ^y...oin’n p rmV* ’n^> pppD nvn piB, Berlin 1909. Spicilegium Syriacum. Spicilegium Syriacum, ed.

by W. Cureton, London 1855. Syncellus. Chronographia, ed. Dindorf, Bonn 1829. Tadshe Dnis 'nn nn”no in Nmn rnno n’N’ 10 ed., Epstein inD’mn’n ni’llDnpD, Vienna 1887 pp. I-XLVI. Taipiot lino n»N ni’D^n rnno nso inon in’VN...’T 'VyD, Lemberg 1870. Tan. «ioi’ »j3y pits oy...Nmmn rnnD *)Di’ n'o mnm -jun Tn^.-poi’, yyi Wilna 1833, quoted by Parasha and paragraph. Tan. B. p’m oinpn BDimn mno, ed. Buber, Wilna, 1885, quoted by Book and page. Tan., Introduction. Buber, *7113 MOD KDimn tnno by mu pson. wilna 1885. Targum Jerushalmi, (1) Pseudo- Jonathan ed. Ginsburger, Berlin x903. Targum Yerushalmi (2) Das Fragmententhargum ed. Ginsburger, Berlin 1899. Tefillat R. Sirneon.’Nim’ ]0 pyDP 'n n^Bfl, ed. Jellinek in Bet ha-Midrasch IV, 117-126. Tehiiiim oiD nriD nnoon D’Vnn rnnD, ed. Buber, Wilna 1891, quoted by chapter and page. Ps.-Tertullian — 1) De Jona et Nlnlve. 2) Sodoma. 3) Genesis. 5) De Execrandls Gentillum Dlla. 489 List of Abbreviations 6) Adversus Marcionitas or Adv. Marcionem. 7) Libellus Adversus Omnes Haereses. Testament of Job. Greek text in James, Apocrypha Anecdota, pp. 104-137; English translation by Kohler in Kohut Memorial Volume, pp. 264-338. Theodor ’303 ’3 Vy...rm rPrtHB BH1D ’nKD...»n’Bi...niDipD nma op...T “IN-mynB min’, Berlin 1912-1916. Theodoretus. Quaestiones in Genes., ed. Migne, P. Gr. 80. Theophilus or Theophil. Theophilus of Antiochia, irpos AvtoXvkov, ed.

Otto in Corpus Apol. 8. Tola'at Ya'akob. Gabbai, 3pJP fiyVin, ed. Constantinople 1560. Toledo t Yizhak. See Caro. Tosafot. See Da‘at. Tosefta DUBIJ) 1’ ’3173 ’3 by NnBDW JJl’ll, ed. Zuckermandel, Pasewalk 1881. Tosefta Targum. Additions to the Targum on the Prophets found in ed. Leiria 1494 and in Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice, Leipsic, 1872. TShBZ. 13 ]1»DP 1P31 JB y*3*fl ISO pllX, Warsaw, 1875. Variae Lectiones. Rabbinovicz, Variae Lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud Babylonicum, Munich 1867-1897. Wa-Yekullu lVs’l PHD, ed. Griinhut in Likkutim II, 16b — 19b. Wa-Yosha‘ J1PH tna. ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I, 35-57. Wa-Yissa‘u IJlD’l mo. ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch III, 1-5. WR H3-I mp’l tniD, ed. Wilna 1887, Quoted by chapter and paragraph. We-Hishir or Wehizhir. Trim 1BD )nd”ib tnd i7mp’...nior no1? Leipsic 1873. Yad Yosef. Joseph b. Hayyim Zarfati niPll «]D1’ T, Venice 1616. Yalkut David ...in...nKB...m DlpV’ "IJ13HS, Warsaw 1879. Yalkut Reubeni by ’131N1 Blp1?’ 1BD mirin, Amsterdam 1700, quoted by chapter and verse, sometimes the folio is also given. Yashar 1PYI 13D, Venice 1624, quoted by Parashah and folio. Yelammedenu PllDD ]nn« D’Hllp '-777’’, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch VI, 79-90, quoted by No. ZATW. Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Giessen 1881 seq. Zawaat Naphtali 3py’ )3 ’VnBl PINUX ed. Wertheimer in his edition of m73*n ’pl'B, Jerusalem 1890.

ZDMG. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft. Leipsic, 1847 seq. Zerubbabel orZerubabel ^>33nr 03D, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 54-57, ed. Wertheimer, Leket Midrashim, 9b-13b. Zohar Hadash Pin *imr 1BD, Leghorn 1866, quoted by Parashah and caption, sometimes the folio of this edition is added. Zohar Ruth. See Zohar Hadash. 490 » 296 G^3 ie v.6 Legends of the Jews 135U2 Ginzberg DATE DUE 3 PHILLIPS ACADEMY 867 000 6 7537