Notes: The Later Kings of Judah

IX. THE LATER KINGS OF JUDAH Vol. IV, (pp. 257-287) 1 Seder ‘Olam 18; comp, note 23 on vol. IV, p. 246. * Megillah 14a; Horayyot 12a; Keritot 6a. Comp, also note 22 on vol. IV, p. 84, with regard to the pitcher out of which Samuel took the oil to anoint Saul. As to the “ holy oil ” being used for the anointing of kings, see vol. Ill, p. 179. Against this, see Josephus, Antiqui., IX, 6.1. 3 Alphabet of Ben Sira 10b. Comp, note 23 on vol. IV, p. 246. 4 Sanhedrin 102b (top). Comp. vol. IV, p. 181. Great is peace; although one performs many good deeds, he achieves nothing if he does not promote peace. This may be inferred from the life of Jehu; he abolished idolatry from among Israel, he caused the downfall of Ahab’s dynasty, and killed Jezebel; but all his good deeds counted for nought because he did not promote peace. See Midrash Gadol 129-130. On the worship of the golden calves even by the pious in Israel, see vol. IV, p. 199. According to EZ 7, 184, Jehu at first was a very pious man, and did not worship the golden calves, but when he became king, he deteriorated, and followed in the footsteps of his predecessors. 6 EZ 7, 184; ER 18, 88. A boon conferred by God upon one as a reward for a good deed remains not only with the person that merited it, but also with his descendants unto the fourth generation, whether they are good or wicked. God granted the kingdom to Jehu for his good deeds (see 2 Kings 10.30), and notwithstanding his own and his descendants’ sinfulness, his dynasty lasted for five generations.

See EZ, loc. cit. Josephus, Antiqui., IX, 8.5-6, describes Jehoahaz (the son of Jehu) as a repentant sinner, and his son Joash as a pious man, whereas EZ, loc. cit., puts Jehu and all his descendants among the sinners. 6 Sanhedrin 102b. According to one opinion, the Judaean kings Ahaz and Ahaziah, as well as all the kings of the northerm kingdom concerning whom Scripture uses the expression “and they did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord”, have no share in the world to come, but are spared the tortures of hell ; Sanhedrin 103a ; comp, note 107 on vol. IV, p. 107, and note 59 on vol. IV, p. 155. 7 Sanhedrin, 95b. 353 8-i6] The Legends of the Jews 8 Tan. B. II, 31; Tan. Wa-Era 9; Seder ‘01am 18 (comp. Ratner, note 7); Tehillim 18, 151; Shir 1.16; Targum 2 Chron. 22.11; ShR 8.2. In the three last-named Midrashim a different opinion is given, according to which Joash was kept during the summer in the upper chamber, above the holy of holies, and during the winter in one of the cells (KT)) of the Temple. • ‘ Abodah Zarah 44a; Targum 2 Chron. 23.11, and 1 Chron. 20.2; comp. vol. IV, p. 118. This crown, it is said, was so heavy, that it could not be placed on a person ’s head. David, however, engraved the “ Name” on it, and this had the effect that he and his rightful successors did not feel the heavy weight thereof. According to others, the crown was suspended over the heads of the Davidic kings by means of a magnet.

The child saved by Jehoash was called Joash because of the despair (BW “he despaired”) of the people of having a descendant of David occupy the throne once more. See Rimze Haf tarot, Shekalim; comp, the similar etymology of the name Joshiah in Haserot 17a. 10 Seder ‘Olam 18. 11 Ps.-Sa‘adya on 2 Chron., p. 54. Comp. Ratner, Seder ‘Olam 19 note 14; note 95 on vol. IV, p. 173 and Index, s. v. “Benaiah”. Opinions differ as to whether 2 Chron. 24.3 refers to Jehoiada marrying two wives or to his making Joash marry them. Maimonides, Yad haHazakah, Issure Biah, 17. 13, and Kele ha-Mikdash, 5.10, maintains that according to the Halakah (comp. Yoma 13a) the high priest is forbidden to have two wives, and therefore the biblical verse under discussion does not speak of the two wives of the high priest Jehoiada. RABD on Issure Biah, loc. cit., on the other hand, follows Rashi on 2 Chron., 24.3, and takes I1? in this verse to refer to Jehoiada in agreement with Septuagint; but Josephus, Antiqui., IX, 7.5, and Vulgate understand it in the same way as Maimonides. 12 Tan. B. II, 23 and 31; Tan. Wa-Era 9; Seder ‘Olam 18; ShR 8. 2; Makiri on Ps. 9(end), citing Tan.; ps.-Jerome on 2 Chron. 24.17. 13 Midrash Shir 3, 27a. 14 Yerushalmi Ta'anit 4, 69a; Ekah, introduction, 20-21; Koheleth 3.16 and 10.4. 1 6 Gittin 57b; Yerushalmi Ta'anit 4,69a; Ekah, introduction, 20-21; Koheleth 3.16 and 10.4. Comp. vol.

IV, p. 304. 16 Mekilta Amalek 1, 53a (as to the meaning of O’BISP, see Ginzberg,CompteRendu,7 = R.E.J.LXVI, 303); Tan. B. 11,23-24; Tan. WaEra 9; ShR 8.2; Yerushalmi Kiddushin 1, 61a; Makiri on Ps. 9 (end) ; psJerome on 2 Chron. 24.27. The Midrashim cited remark, four kings 354 The Later Kings of Judah [17-20 claimed to be gods : Hiram, Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh, and J oash ; they ended by being treated like women (“ coitu foemineo commixantur”). Joash was ungrateful to his benefactor Jehoiada (he killed the latter’s son), and he was killed by men who were descended from the Moabites and Ammonites (see 2 Chron. 24.26), the two ungrateful nations. See Mekilta, loc. cit. On the characterization of these two nations as ungrateful, see vol. I, p. 257, and vol. Ill, p. 373. 17 Josephus, Antiqui., IX, 9.3. Comp, also Seder ‘Olam 19. Amaziah’s violent death was the punishment for his cruelty against the Edomites; Ekah, introduction, 14. 18 BR 80.3; Tan. B. I, 171; Tan. Wa-Yishlah 7; Baraita of 32 Middot, No. 26. 19 Seder ‘Olam 19. This passage also states that Amaziah did not rule the last fifteen years of his life, his kingdom having been administered by his son Uzziah, who later, in his turn, had to leave the administration of the kingdom to his son Jotham for twenty years, from the time he was afflicted with leprosy unto his death. By means of these assumptions the Midrashim and the Talmud are able to explain several chronological difficulties offered by the data found in Scripture with regard to the lives of these kings; comp, the references in Ratner, notes 24, 26.

Amaziah ’s general is said to have ended his days in Morviedero, Spain. See Ibn Habib, Darke Noam, 6b and Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, I, 487. 20 Seder ‘Olam 20; Pesahim 87b; Baba Batra 14b; PR 33, 153b (this passage reads; Hosea prophesied for ninety years); EZ 9, 86. These sources speak of the four contemporary prophets, Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, and Micah. The last-named prophet, however, was a younger contemporary of the other three, as is explicitly stated in Seder Olam loc. cit. PR 33, 150b, seems to identify the prophet Micah with Micaiah the son of Imlah who prophesied in the time of Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22.8). Comp. PK 16.135b; Ibn Ezra on Micah 1.2; Ratner, note 6 on Seder ‘ Olam, loc. cit. Obadiah is also said to have been active as a prophet during the time of Jehoshaphat; Baraita of 32 Middot, as quoted by ps.-Rashi on BR 83.3. Comp. Ratner, loc. cit., note 7, and Grunhut, Likkutim, II, lib, note 3. This would agree with the widespread view that the prophet Obadiah is none else than Obadiah, the official of Ahab’s court. Comp. vol. IV, pp. 240-241. Our texts of Seder ‘Olam, loc. cit., state that Obadiah prophesied during the time of Amaziah, “when Edom fell never to rise again.” Yalkut II, Obadiah, and ps.-Rashi, loc. cit., read, however, Jehoshaphat instead 355 21-25] The Legends of the Jews of Amaziah. Griinhut, loc. cit., though quoting ps.-Rashi, did not notice that this author had the same reading in Seder ‘Olam as Yalkut.

Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 1.20, makes Isaiah, Hosea, Micah and Joel contemporaries, and Jerome (comp, his remarks on Hosea 1.1; Joel 1.1) partly depends upon this Christian author and partly upon Jewish tradition; hence his statement that Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, and Isaiah were cvyxpovoi ( = "inN p~!33of the rabbinical sources), contemporaries. Jerome and Clement find in the order of the biblical books a hint as to the times of the respective authors. Now as Micah (and Amos) were younger contemporaries of Hosea, it follows that Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah, whose books are placed between those bearing the names of Hosea and Micah, lived during the same period as the latter. As to the Jewish view concerning the time of Joel, see note 56 on Vol. IV, p. 191 and Index, s. v. On Micah, see also note 1 on vol. IV, p. 239. 11 PK 25, 159b, which reads: Beeri died in Exile, that the Godless exiles might rise with him at the time of resurrection. For a similar statement concerning the death of Moses in the wilderness, see note 615 on vol. Ill, p. 313. 1 2 WR 6.6 and 15.2. Beeri ’s prophecy consisted of two verses, which were later inserted in the Book of Isaiah, 8.19-20. 2 3 Pesahim 87a-87b (here it is also stated that the name Gomer of Diblaim, as Hosea 's wife is called in Scripture, was not her real name, but indicates her disreputable mode of life); EZ 9, 186-187; Targum as quoted in Kad ha-Kemah, I rDilN, 6b-7a; We-Hizhir I, 86.

As to the interpretation by the Haggadah of the prophecies given in Hosea 1 and 2, see BaR 2.12-14. The view that Hosea ’s marriage spoken of in Scripture is to be understood as a prophetic vision is unknown in the old sources. Ibn Ezra, ad loc., and Maimonides ( Guide of the Perplexed, II, 46) are perhaps the earliest authors maintaining such a rationalistic view. On the haggadic interpretation of the name Gomer of Diblaim, see also Jerome and Targum, ad loc. As to the celibacy of Moses, see vol. Ill, p. 316. 2 4 Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah, 19a. 26 PK 16, 125b; PR 33, 150b; WR 10.2. The activity of Amos as a prophet preceded that of Isaiah by two years; the latter began to prophesy on the “day of the earthquake”, the former two years before the earthquake. Comp. Seder ‘Olam 20, and the references given in note 29. In Greek transliteration the names Amos (DIDy) and Amoz (ElDN) sound alike, and hence the statement found in many Christian 356 The Later Kings of Judah [26-29 writers, who were ignorant of Hebrew, that Isaiah was the son of the prophet Amos; see, e. g., Clement, Stromata, 1.20; ps.-Epiphanius, De Vitis Prophetarum, s. v. “Isaiah”. In the original of Ascension of Isaiah 1.1 the text very likely read: N’nn piDN p liTyP1, which should be translated “the prophet Isaiah, the son of Amoz,” and not as the Greek translator has it, “Isaiah the son of Amoz the prophet.” Yahya, Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah, 99b, follows Christina authors (though he does not say so) in identifying Amoz the father of Isaiah with Amos the prophet.

It is, however, an old Jewish tradition that Isaiah’s father was also a prophet, living in the reign of Amaziah, whose brother he was. It was at his advice that the king dismissed the army he had gathered from among the Ephraimites (2 Chron. 25.7-10). Seder ‘Olam 20; Megillah 10b; Sotah 10b. Comp, also Megillah 15a; WR 6.6 (whih read: Wherever the names of the prophet and his father are given it is sure that he was a prophet the son of a prophet) ; Aggadat Bereshit 14, 32. In WR a different opinion is quoted, according to which all prophets mentioned in Scripture were the sons of prophets. With regard to the native places of the prophets, Megillah, loc. cit., states that all those whose birthplaces are not given in Scripture were Jerusalemites. PK 16, 128b considers Amos to have been a post-exilic prophet. Comp, note 20 and note 56 on vol. IV, p 191. 2 « Pesahim 87b; ER 17, 88; EZ 7, 184. 2 7 Yerushalmi Hallah 2, 58c. Comp, also EZ 7, 184. 28 Yahya, Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah, 97, undoubtedly based on a Christian source; comp, note 25. According to ps.-Epiphanius, De Vitis Prophetarum, s. v. “Amos”, this prophet met his death through a blow on his temples dealt him with a stick by the son of the false prophet Amaziah. Comp. Index, s. v. “Amaziah, Priest of Beth-el”. 29 Azariah the “chief priest" in 2 Chron. 26.20, is identified with Azariah the high priest, in 1 Chron. 5.36. Comp. Sifre Z., 112, and Josephus, Antiqui., IX, 10.4.

The Rabbis maintain that chapter 6 of Isaiah is the beginning of this prophetic book, and contains the first vision granted to the prophet on the day on which the impious king Uzziah attempted to sacrifice on the altar and was stricken with leprosy. As a “leper is like dead” (comp, note 177 on vol. I, p. 364), mD in Is. 6.1 does not mean death but leprosy. See Targum, ad loc.\ ShR 1.34; Tan. Zaw 13. Comp, also Seder ‘Olam 20; Mekilta Shirah 6 (beginning); Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 404 on Is. 6; Aphraates, 357 30—32] The Legends of the Jews 362 (read NJHN instead of NOy); Jerome on Is. 7.3, seq. ; ps.-Jerome on 2 Chron. 26.22. 30 Josephus, Antiqui., IX, 10.4. Tan. Noah 13 is not contented with a breach in the Temple; it says that the hall of the Temple (^O’H) was rent in two parts, separated from each other by a cleft of twelve miles (a favorite number; see Index) in width, and the Midrash transfers to the Temple itself that which Josephus tells of the Temple mount. Comp, also Targum Is. 28.21, as well as the references given at the end of the preceding note; add ARN 9, 42. On leprosy as a punishment for arrogance see ARN, loc. cit., and vol. Ill, p. 214. According to Tan. Noah 13, the passion with which Uzziah devoted himself to the cultivation of the soil (comp. 2 Chron. 26.10) caused him to neglect the study of the Torah. The evil consequence thereof was that he became arrogant, saying: “God is king, and so am I, and it behooves the terrestrial king to do the service in the Temple of the celestial king.” As the “love of husbandry” caused the downfall of Uzziah, even so was it the cause of that of Cain and Noah.

Comp, also Yelammedenu, No. 43 (here Cain, Job, and Uzziah are given); BR 22.3; Mekilta RS, 92 (where Cain, Noah, Lot, and Uzziah are described as the four men who were “greedy for husbandry”, and came thereby to grief). — The statement of Josephus that a ray of sunlight caused Uzziah ’s leprosy is evidently based on a haggadic interpretation of nmi nyixni in 2 Chron. 26.19, the usual meaning of mi being “shone” in regard to the sun. See, however, also vol. Ill, p. 303, and note 197 on vol. Ill, p. 90 (bottom) in connection with death by celestial fire as a punishment for the laity usurping the priesthood. 31 Tan. Zaw 13; comp. vol. Ill, p. 303. As to the earthquake taking place on the day on which Uzziah attempted his sacrifice, see references cited in the two preceding notes; and Jerome on Amos 1.3. 32 On Isaiah’s receiving the “call” on that day, see note 29. He was in his study when he heard a heavenly voice proclaim: “Whom shall I send? I sent Amos, and they (Israel) said : God found no better messenger than this stammerer (comp. vol. IV, p. 261, and Koheleth 1.1). I sent Micah, and they smote him on the cheek (I Kings 22.24; comp, note 20). Whom shall I now send, and who will go for us?” Isaiah replied: “Here am I, send me.” Thereupon God said to him: “My children are rebellious and troublesome; art thou prepared to stand their abuses and blows?” But Isaiah, far from being intimidated, said: “I am willing to give my back to the smiters and my cheek to them that pluck off the hair (Is.

50.6), but am not worthy to serve as 358 The Later Kings of Judah [33-36 Thy messenger to Thy children.” As a reward for his trust in Israel, whom he hoped to bring back to the path of righteousness by his prophecies, Isaiah was distinguished above all the other prophets in two ways. All the other prophets received their spirit of prophecy from their masters (the spirit of Elijah came over to Elisha; the spirit of Moses was put upon the seventy elders), but Isaiah prohesied from the mouth of the Almighty.” He was further distinguished by repeating the introductory words of his prophecy (comp., e. g., 40. 1; 51.9, 12, 16), indicating thereby that their fulfilment was certain. See PK 16, 125b; WR 10.2. Comp, also ER 16, 82, and notes 35, 36. 33 Jewish tradition in Jerome on Is. 6.6. This interpretation throws light on the obscure words N3N NrDlN1? 3”n in Targum on this passage. 34 As to the conception that the sight of the divine causes death to mortals, see vol. Ill, p. 137. 35 On Isaiah the ‘‘comforter of the mourners for Zion,” see Ecclus. 48.21-25. This shows that Isaiah’s authorship of the entire book now bearing his name was known at as early a time as that of Ben Sira. Comp. ER 16.82-83; Jerome, Ad Damasum 1.375. 36 PR 33, 150b-151a. About the Seraphim which Isaiah saw, see the quotation from an unknown Midrash in BHM, V, 162, according to which the Seraph has six wings to praise God each work-day of the week with one of them, whereas on the Sabbath the Seraphim are silent, and God is praised by the terrestrials, i.

e. Israel. Comp, also Orehot Hayyim, I, 18b. As to the supposition that Israel recites the Kedushah only on the Sabbath, see Ginzberg, Geonica, 11,48. According to PK 9, 75b, and parallel passages cited by Buber, the Seraphim praise God with two wings, they cover their faces with two wings, that they look not at the Shekinah, and with two wings they cover their feet, that the Shekinah be not reminded by them of the sin committed by Israel in worshipping the golden calf, since the ‘‘sole of their feet is like the sole of the calf’s foot;” comp. Ezek. 1.7. The two prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel saw the same heavenly vision ; the latter gave a fuller description thereof, than the former. ‘‘Ezekiel is to be likened to a villager, who saw the king, and Isaiah to the inhabitant of the capital city.” The former, not accustomed to the sight of the divine glory, gave a detailed description of what he saw, whereas the latter, being used to it, did not care to describe it. The “wings” spoken of by Isaiah are identical with the “faces” referred to by Ezekiel. It is true that the Seraphim 359 37-43] The Legends of the Jews which Isaiah saw had six wings, whereas the heavenly beings described by Ezekiel had only four faces. This discrepancy is to be explained by the fact that at the time of the destruction of the Temple the two wings ( = faces) used by these heavenly beings to praise God with were taken from them, and hence Ezekiel, living at that time, saw four faces only.

See Hagigah 13b. The Seraph that touched Isaiah with a live coal was Michael; Berakot 4b. On the day of judgment Isaiah will plead for the sinners that they may be permitted to look at the blissful joys of the righteous. His pleading in their behalf will not be granted, as “the congregation of Israel” HD33) will oppose it, insisting that the sinners are not entitled to such consideration. See Alphabet of R. Akiba ('3), 33-34. In BHM, V, 50, an allusion is found to the view, according to which Isaiah at this memorable vision was shown the punishment of the sinners in hell. 3 7 Seder ‘Olam 19, and the parallel passages cited by Ratner. 3 8 Sukkah 45b. Jotham’s piety is also referred to in BR 63.1 and by Josephus, Antiqui., IX, 11.2. Comp, further vol. IV, p. 180. 39 Megillah 11a; BR27.1; Esther R. 1.1; Tehillim 105, 449. In these sources an old tradition is given, according to which Scripture indicated with regard to five men that they were pious from “first to last ”, and with regard to other five that they were wicked from “ first to last”. The five pious men are: Abraham, Moses, Aaron, Hezekiah and Ezra; the five wicked ones are: Nimrod, Esau, the brothers Dathan and Abiram (counted as one), Ahaz, and Ahasuerus. Ps.Jerome on 2 Chron. 23.9 quotes this Haggadah with regard to Ahaz. 4° Sanhedrin 103b. Here, as in many other places (comp. EZ 9, 187-188; BR 42.3 and parallel passages cited by Theodor), Ahaz is said to have issued an edict against the study of the Torah.

Comp, note 112. 41 Tan. B. I, 153; Aggadat Bereshit 48, 98-99; Jerome on Is. 7.12. 4 3 On the view that Isaiah was a blood-relative of the king, see note 25. 43 Sanhedrin 104a; Yerushalmi 10, 27d; WR 26.3. Rimze Haftarot, Yitro, quotes the statement of the “wise” (^’r U’03n TIDK) according to which Ahaz, when passing women who were engaged in washing, closed his eyes to avoid looking at the bare parts of their bodies. It seems fairly certain that the author confused the statement in Sanhedrin, loc. cil. (n’SN? inrearn) with Makkot 24a (1JW HT ’111 *7jnDD), and attributed the virtue of modesty to the wicked kingf 360 The Later Kings of Judah [44-51 in direct contrast to the view of the Haggadah which maintains that Ahaz abolished the laws against incest; comp. Sanhedrin 103b. «« Sannhedrin 103b; Yerushalmi 10, 27d; VVR 36.3. There are. however, also others who maintain that this wicked king forfeited his share in the world to come; comp, note 100 on vol. IV, p. 75, and vol. V, p. 419, note 118. *s Seder ‘Olam 22; Ta'anit 30b; Yerushalmi 4, 69c; Baba Batra 121a; Gittin 88a; Ekah, introduction, 33; EZ 9, 188; ‘Eser Galuyyot 2-4; Aggadat Shir 1, 28; Jerome on Hos. 10.2. The last-named author gives, on Hos. 10.5, the following somewhat humorous Haggadah communicated to him by “the Hebrews”. The crafty and greedy priests at Beth-el and Dan had substituted gilded images of calves for those made of solid gold, which they appropriated for themselves.

When the Assyrian kings captured the golden calves, the people mourned the loss, but the priests laughed inwardly at the trick played by them. This is the meaning of the words of the prophet (Hos. 10.5): The inhabitants of Samaria shall be in dread for the calves of Beth-aven; for the people thereof shall mourn over it, and the priests thereof shall “laugh” over it. 4 6 Sanhedrin 63b. Another interpretation of the names of the idols mentioned in 2 Kings 17.30-31 is given in Yerushalmi Abodah Zarah 3, 42d, according to which the inhabitants of Samaria fashioned the images of Jacob and Joseph to whom they paid divine honors. This is the answer of the Jews to the Samaritans’ claim to be the only legitimate descendants of Joseph. Tosefta-Targum on Kings, loc. cit., contains, with slight modification, the views of Babli, as well as Yerushalmi, concerning these idols. Comp, also R. Hananel, as quoted by R. Bahya, Exod. 32.8. 47 Sanhedrin 63b; Targum on 2 Chron. 23.3; Tosefta-Targum 2 Kings 16.3. In the last-named source it is asserted that Hezekiah was saved from death by fire through the merits of his descendants, the three youths who willingly offered themselves to be thrown into the fiery furnace for the glory of God. On Salamander, see vol. I, p. 33, and notes 156-158 appertaining thereto; comp, also Bacher, Zeilschrift der Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft XXVII, 15. 4 8 Sanhedrin 47a; Makkot 24a; Tehillim 15, 118.

4 7 Sanhedrin 96a. j « Sanhecrin 94b; Sifre D., 34; Sifra 9.22; 45b; ER 17, 88, Shir 1.3; Koheleth 9.18. Comp. vol. IV, p. 271. 5 1 Megillah lib; BaR (end). The policy of Sennacherib wa» 361 52-55] The Legends of the Jews after conquering a country, to transfer the inhabitants thereof to another country, and thus it came about that to-day no land is inhabited by its original settlers; Yadayim 4.4; Tosefta 2.17; Sotah 46b; Yebamot 76a; Tosefta Kiddushin 5.4; Seder ‘Olam 23 (comp. Ratner, note 8); Berakot 28a; BaR (end) ; Midrash Tannaim 146. Comp, note 82 on vol. I, p. 178. On Sennacherib as “cosmocrator ”, see also Mekilta Beshallah 1, 26b; Sotah 9a (comp. Tosafot, caption I’D’ID); Tan. B. Ill, 37 and 38; WR 18.2; Mahzor Vitry 169; Makiri, Isa 9.11, quoting an unknown source. On other “cosmocrators”, see Index, s. v. s 3 Sanhedrin 93b, and, with variations, Tosefta-Targum Is. 10.31. Comp, also Mekilta Shirah 2, 36a; Apocalypse of Baruch 63.7; Seder ‘Olam 23; Tosefta Sotah 3.18; ShR 18.5; Tehillim 79, 358-359; Tan. B. Ill, 38; ER 7,44-45. 63 Sanhedrin 93b; Panitn Aherim 73; comp, also WR 5.3, where it is stated that on the very same day God decreed Uzziah’s punishment (comp. vol. IV, p. 262), the delivery of the ten tribes into the hands of Sennacherib, and the latter’s defeat by Hezekiah. The meaning of this Haggadah is very likely that God revealed these three things to Isaiah; comp.

vol. IV, p. 262. 64 ShR 18.5; Tosefta-Targum 2 Kings 19.35-37; Shir 1.12; Seder ‘Olam 23 (comp. Ratner, note 38) ; Yerushalmi Pesahim 9, 36d. On the first night of Passover as the “night of miracles”, see note 76 on vol. I, p. 224. Panim Aherim 93 = Yalkut II, 241 reads: When Rabshakeh heard the singing of the Hallel he counselled Sennacherib to withdraw from Jerusalem, as on this night — the first night of Passover many miracles were wrought for Israel. Sennacherib however did not accept the wise counsel given him. Here it is very likely assumed that Rab-shakeh was an "apostate”; comp, note 94. 66 Sanhedrin 95b; Tosefta-Targum Is. 10.32; Aggadat Shir 5, 39 and 8.45; Jerome on Is. 30.2. On the other hand, ShR 18.5, Tosefta-Targum 2 Kings 19.35, and Aphraates, 58, maintain that it was Michael who destroyed the host of the Assyrians. Targum 2 Chron. 32.21 assigns this distinction to both of the archangels. On the preference given to Gabriel over Michael in the Babylonian Haggadah, whereas the favorite of the Palestinian Haggadah is Michael, comp. Index, s. v. “Michael” and “Gabriel”. Very obscure is the following remark of Aggadat Shir 8.45; At the time Gabriel received the power to annihilate the host of the Assyrians, Leviathan was empowered to “destroy the rivers”. From the connection in which this passage is given it becomes evident that the “rivers of fire flowing from before 362 The Later Kings of Judah [56-59 the Shekinah” are meant.

According to Apocalypse of Baruch 63.6, it is the angel Ramael who destroyed the Assyrians. The co-operation of Gabriel and Michael in the destruction of Babylon is maintained in Tosefta-Targum Is. 21.5, and very likely also Aggadat Shir 5.39, where D’lOWn is to be explained in accordance with ShR. loc. cit. Hezekiah and Isaiah were in the Temple when the host of the Assyrians approached Jerusalem; a fire arose from amidst them, which burned Sennacherib and consumed his host. See Tehillim 22, 180. The burning of Sennacherib is not to be taken literally. See, however, vol. IV, p. 269. 66 Sanhedrin 95b; Tosefta-Targum 2 Kings 19.35 and Is. 10.32 (only Targum makes Nebuchadnezzar the son-in-law of Sennacherib). Comp. vol. IV p. 301 (top). 57 Sanhedrin 95b; Tosefta-Targum 2 Kings 19.35 does not mention Nebuzaradan. Sanhedrin gives different views which set the number of survivors at ten or fourteen. Jerome on Is. 10.13 has ten; ‘Eser Galuyyot 7 shares the view given in the text. 68 Sanhedrin 95b, and similarly Jerome on Is. 10.3. The latter states that Jewish tradition considers Hamon, “noise” (comp. Is. 33.3), to be the name of the angel Gabriel. This is corroborated by Aggadat Shir 5, 39. According to Sanhedrin, the angel clapped together his wings, and the noise caused by it was so terrific that the Assyrians gave up their ghosts. Another view given in Sanhedrin is that the angel blew out the breath of the Assyrians.

This means that he took their souls without injuring their bodies. Comp, the following note. Here it is also stated: God asked Gabriel, “Is thy scythe sharpened?’ The angel replied, “It is sharpened and ready since the six days of creation.” The use of the scythe by Gabriel is very likely connected with the view that he is charged with the ripening of the products of the fields; comp. vol. IV, p. 268 (towards the end). The rabbinical sources know nothing of the mice which caused the defeat of Sennacherib by gnawing to pieces in one night the bows and the rest of the armor of the Assyrians. Comp. Josephus, Antiqui., X, 1.4, who quotes Herodotus as his authority. 69 Shabbat 113b; Sanhedrin 94a; Jerome Is. 10 16; ToseftaTargum 2 Kings 19.35; Targum 2 Chron. 32.21. Comp, the preceding note. According to another view the bodies of the Assyrians were burned but not their garments, and this was the reward for the pious deed of their ancestor Shem who covered the nakedness of his father with a garment. See Apocalypse of Baruch 63.8; Tan. B. I, 50, and III. 13-14; Tan. Noah 15 and Zaw 2; Tehillim 11, 100; Shabbat and 363 60-64] The Legends of the Jews Sanhedrin, loc. cit. Comp, also Targum Yerushalmi Num. 11.26; note 482 on vol. Ill, p. 253, and note 382 on vol. Ill, p. 187. 80 Sanhedrin 95b-96a; Tosefta-Targum 2 Kings 19.35-37; ps.Jerome on 2 Chron. 32.21. Sennacherib brought severe punishment upon himself by committing eight grievous sins.

These were: Neglecting justice, idolatry, unchastity, bloodshed, desecration of the “ Name”, employment of obscene language, pride, and slander. These eight sins caused the doom of the generation of the flood, of the generation of the builders of the tower, of the inhabitans of the sinful cities, of Pharaoh, and of Nebuchadnezzar. See ER 15, 74. Arrogance is punished with “death by fire”, as may be seen from what befell the generation of the flood (comp. vol. I, pp. 151, 159), Pharaoh (comp. Exod.5.2and 9.23-24), Sisera (comp. vol. IV, p. 37, bottom), Sennacherib (on his arrogance, see Is. 10.8, seq.)\ Nebuchadnezzar (comp. Dan. 3.15 and 22). The same punishment will be inflicted upon the “wicked kingdom” in the days to come. See WR 7.6; Tan. B. Ill, 13; Tan. Zaw 2; Tehillim 11, 100; Aggadat Bereshit 1.1-2. Comp, also Sanhedrin 94a-94b, which reads: Sennacherib, who instructed his messenger (Rab-shakeh) to utter blasphemies against God, was punished through a messenger of God (the angel) ; Pharaoh who uttered blasphemies himself was punished by God Himself. Sennacherib represents here his people who were slain by the angel. Comp, also note 55 (end). 6 1 Tosefta-Targum 2 Kings 19.35-37, where pnrDl must be read instead of On the pious descendants of Sennacherib’s sons, see also Gittin 57a; Sanhedrin 96b; Tan. Wa-Yakhel 8. Comp, further vol. V, p. 195, note 72. Shemaiah and Abtalion are said to have been kings of Baalbek, and this seems to be connected with the legend about their descent from Sennacherib; comp.

ps.-Hippolytus 705; comp, note 103. On the graves of Sennacherib’s sons, see Ozar Tob, 38. 6 2 WR 5.5, which gives also the different view that Shebnah was only an Amarkol (high Temple official). The Jewish teachers of Eusebius and Jerome shared the view given in the text. Comp, the commentaries of these Church Fathers on Is. 22.15. 63 Sanhedrin 26a; Jerome on Is. 22.15. The latter maintains that Shebnah delivered into the hands of Sennacherib the entire city of Jerusalem with the exception of Mount Zion. 88 Sanhedrin 26a-26b; WR 5.5 and 17.3; Tehillim 11, 98-99; Zohar III, 199b. In Sanhedrin it is also said that Shebnah was the most prominent scholar of his time, being superior even to Hezekiah in his 364 The Later Kings of Judah [65-68 learning; but he was of a very lascivious character, and for his evil deeds he was punished with leprosy. 66 Sanhedrin 26a-26b. On being dragged to death by horses, see also Ekah 5, 115. A different view concerning the course of this campaign is given in Seder ‘Olam 23. Eight years after the capture of Samaria, Sennacherib undertook his campaign against Judea, being convinced that the punishment of Israel predicted by the prophets was meant for the entire nation including Judea. On his march to Judea he conquered the Moabites, Ammonites and Arabs, his former allies in the war against Samaria, and his general Rab-shakeh succeeded in persuading the party led by Shebnah to surrender to him voluntarily and to follow him to Babylon.

Sennacherib was forced to stop his campaign against Hezekiah for a short time, as he had to move hurriedly against Ethiopia. Having conquered this “pearl of all countries”, he returned to Judea. But before attacking Hezekiah, he sent his generals Tartan and Rab-saris to make him surrender voluntarily. Comp, also Ratner, notes 7—24. Opinions differ as to whether Sennacherib was a wise or a foolish king. See Sanhedrin 94a; Sifre D., 37; 2 ARN 20.43. 66 Sanhedrin 94b; PK 6, 59b-60a; PR 16, 82a; Mishle 13,74. According to Tosefta-Targum on Is. 7, 6, the “son of Tabeel” mentioned there is no other than Pekah; but according to Yerushalmi ‘Abodah Zarah 1. 39a Tabeel means “idol”. The haggadic interpretation of BN1? in Tosefta-Targum Is. 8.6 is taken from PK, loc. cit. 67 Shir 4.8; Aggadat Shir 8, 45; Ekah, introduction, 30, and the parallel passages cited by Buber. On Hezekiah 's refusal to sing a song of praise to God, see vol. IV, p. 272 and vol. VI, p. 309; on his great devotion to the study of the Torah, see Sanhedrin 20a; Mishle 28, 97; both versions of ARN 1, 2-3. Comp, further the references in note 59. The Midrashim attempt to explain in detail the nature of Hezekiah ’s activity referred to in Prov. 28.1. Comp, note 89. When Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai saw his end drawing nigh, he said; “ Prepare a chair for Hezekiah, king of Judah.” See Yerushalmi Sotah 9, 24c; ‘Abodah Zarah 3, 42c.

This great Rabbi, whose life was devoted to the study of the Torah and to the spreading of the knowledge thereof among the people, expected to be met at his death by the pious king, whose life was devoted to the same ideals as his. 68 Seder ‘Olam 23; Menahot 109b; Shir 4.8. In the last passage it is stated that Hezekiah thought that the miracle of the standstill 365 69-75] The Legends of the Jews of the sun (comp. vol. IV, p. 275) would proclaim the omnipotence of God Almighty more than he could do by words of praise and song. 69 According to the later mystics, the “prince of the world” is identical with Metatron. Comp. Index, s. v. ’“Sanhedrin 94a; Shir 4.8. The Church Fathers Justin Martyr ( Dialogue , 33) and Tertullian ( Adversus Marcionem, 5.9) maintain that the Jews interpret Ps. 110 as referring to Hezekiah. As to the haggadic explanation of the “closed” 0 in rmo1? (Is. 6.6), see also the quotation from an unknown Midrash in Kimhi, ad loc., according to which this “closed” □ in the middle of the word, and the open one at the end of DH (Nehem. 2.14) contain an allusion to the time of the advent of the Messiah. It is worthy of note in this connection that the old sources knew nothing of the explanation of Is. 9.5 as given by the medieval commentators, according to whom “the child” mentioned here (i. e., Hezekiah) was called “prince of peace” by the wonderful Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father.

The Talmud and Midrash explicitly state that the names in this verse are those of the child to whom the “names of God were given ’’.though the authorities differ as to whether Hezekiah or the Messiah is meant by this “child”. See Sanhedrin 94a; PRK (Schonblum’s edition, 39a; Grtinhut’s edition 82. Here the child is identified with the Messiah); Ma’aseh Torah 100 (Child = the Messiah; the text is not quite correct); PR 46, 188a; Ruth R. 3.15; Makiri Is. ad loc., where the text of PR reads somewhat differently As to the names of God borne by men, see Baba Batra 75b; Sifre D., 355 (*7N3 ]’«); BR 79 (end); note 282 on vol. I, p.395. It is not quite sure whether cnp ]D in Targum on Is., loc. cit., is not a later “emendation” prompted by anti-Christian tendency. Comp. Aptowitzer, Ha-Zofeh, I, 81-82. 91 Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 243 (end) on 2 Kings 20; Eusebius* and Jerome on Is. 39.1; Ephraem I, 560. Seder ‘Olam 23, on the other hand, maintains that the downfall of Sennacherib took place on the very same day on which Hezekiah became ill. Comp, also Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 424 on Is. 38 (end). 73 Aggadat Shir 1,12; Perek R. Yoshiyyahu, 133. 7 3 As to the point of etiquette, see Tosefta Horayyot 2.9, and Yerushalmi 3, 48b. Comp, also vol. IV, p. 46, with regard to the relation between Phinehas and Jephthah. 74 The allusion is to Jehoshaphat; comp. vol. IV, p. 186 and note 50 appertaining thereto.

75 Berakot 10a; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 28b (top); Hezekiab 366 The Later Kings of Judah [76-81 quotes his “grandfather” David as authority for the view that prayer, alms, and repentance ward off evil decreed against one, even after it had been announced to him in a vision or dream; Koheleth 5.9; Baraita di-Yeshu‘a 45a; Zohar I, 13a and 66a; ER 8, 46. In the last source Hezekiah’s illness is said to have been the punishment for unseemly language used by him in his prayer of deliverance from the hands of Sennacherib. It is difficult to tell to what words in Hezekiah’s prayer (as given in 2 Kings 19.15-19) the Haggadah objected. 76 Yerushalmi Berakot 4, 8b; Babli 10b; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 28b-28c; Koheleth 5.6. This prayer of Hezekiah was considered a model as far as its formal aspect is concerned; comp. ER 8, 46 (as to the correct reading, see Rokeah, 325, and iT’3t 82-89] The Legends of the Jews 83 This is a reminiscence of Merodach as sun god. Baladan’s dog-face is very likely a Jewish “explanation” of the dogs seen on the Assyrian-Babylonian monuments in the company of Merodach. Comp. Roscher’s Lexicon der Mythologie, II, 2371. 8 3 PK 2, 13a-14a; Shir 3.4; Esther R. 1.9; Tan. Ki-Tissa 5; ER 20, 115. Another version of this legend is given in vol. IV, p. 300. according to which Nebuchadnezzar was the secretary to MerodachBaladan, not his son.

Jerome on Is. 39.1 agrees with the Palestinian Midrashim in making Nebuchadnezzar the son of Merodach. 3 < Sanhedrin 104a; Shir 3.4 (on the text, see Sachs, in introduction to Sefer Tagin 15 seq.); ER 8, 47. Comp, also Aggadat Shir 1, 26. 8 s PRE 52; Targum 2 Chron. 32.31. As to the tables comp, vol. Ill, p. 409. 86 BR 19.11; BaR 20.6; Zohar III, 200a. The proper answer for the king to give to Isaiah would have been: “O prophet of God, thou surely knowest who the men are and what they want.” Hezekiah like Adam (Gen. 3.9-10), Cain (ibid. 4.9), and Balaam (Num. 22.9), on similar occasions, was tested and found wanting. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 358-359 and vol. VI, p. 421, bottom. 87 As to the origin of these treasures, see vol. II, pp. 125-126. 88 Sanhedrin 93b; Origen, Matth. 15.5; Jerome on Is. 39.7. 8 9 Baba Batra 15a; both versions of ARN 1, 2-3; Mishle 25, 96-97. In the last two sources it is stated that the “men of Hezekiah” (Prov. 25.1) were very careful before they decided a point of law, and as a reward long life was granted to them. The Haggadah very likely identifies the “men of Hezekiah” with the members of the Great Assembly (comp. vol. IV, p. 359), and hence the statement concerning their long life. Opinions in the above sources differ as to the exact nature of the work done by the “men of Hezekiah”. According to some, they “wrote down” the book of Isaiah and the three books of Solomon, whereas others maintain that they withdrew from public use the books of Solomon, because they were of the opinion that these books were not of a holy nature, and they remained “hidden” until the time of the Great Assembly.

The third opinion is that these men explained the words of Solomon (ARN 1, 2: WVB0 ip’nynP tfb), and owing to their explanation these books were admitted into the Canon. Hezekiah undertook six reforms; three were approved by the scholars of his time, and three were rejected. He “hid” the “books of medicine", broke in pieces the brazen serpent which Moses had made, and buried his father as though he had been a pauper (comp. vol. 368 The Later Kings of Judah [90-91 IV, p. 266). All this he did with the approval of the scholars. On the other hand, they did not approve of his stopping the upper spring of the waters of Gihon, of his scraping off the gold from the Temple (comp. vol. IV, p. 272), and of his declaring a leap year by adding a second month of Nisan. See Berakot 10b; Pesahim 56a (in the editions it is given wrongly as Mishnah); Yerushalmi 9, 36c-36d; Nedarim 6, 40a; Sanhedrin 12a-12b; Tosefta 2, 10-11; Yerushalmi 1, 18d (different opinions are given here as to the nature of the error committed by Hezekiah in the intercalation of the year mentioned in 2 Chron. 30.2); ARN 1, 11-12; PRE 9. Comp, also ‘Arakin 10b; Tosefta 2.6; Yerushalmi Sukkah 5, 55d. On the breaking in pieces of the brazen serpent, see also Hullin 6b; Yerushalmi Dammai 2, 22c; see also the following note. On the “books of medicine”, see the following note. 90 Berakot 10b; Pesahim 56a; Yerushalmi 9, 36c-36d (here: tablets of medical remedies”); Nedarim 6, 40a; Sanhedrin 1, 18d.

Comp, references at the end of preceding note. It is not explicitly stated in the rabbinical writings that these books had Solomon as their author, or that the people ascribed them to him. The Rabbis were very likely silent on this fact to avoid the impression of an implied unfavorable criticism on the wise king. See Josephus, Antiqui., VIII. 5; Maimonides, Mishnah Commentary on Pesahim 4 (end); Schiirer, Geschichte, III, 413, 418-419; Chajes, Marcus Studien, 37; Griinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsatze 25; Azulai in his commentary on ARN 2. The last-named authority quotes from a MS. of R. Eleazar of Worms the statement that until the days of Hezekiah a list of the healing springs was circulated among the people. In case of illness they did not pray to God for help, but made use of the healing springs. For this reason Hezekiah hid this list, which had been transmitted from generation to generation from the time of Noah. An attempt is obviously made here to connect the “stopping of the spring of Gihon” (comp. 2 Chron. 32.30, and the preceding note) with the hiding of the medical remedies. The breaking in pieces of the brazen altar by Hezekiah was due to the same reason as the hiding of the medical books. The “hissing of the brazen serpent” used to heal all sick people of Jerusalem, and the cure was so certain that in case of illness they never prayed to God for help. Hezekiah therefore broke the brazen serpent in pieces.

Until his time this serpent was attached to Solomon’s throne. See Kisse we-Ippodromon, 35. Comp, also note 74 on vol. I, p. 173. 91 Baba Kamma 17a; Ekah, introduction, 25. Comp. vol. IV, p. 188. 369 92— 94] The Legends of the Jews 92 Baba Kamma 16b; ps. -Jerome on 2 Chron. 32.33. This pious king bore the name Hezekiah because he had been made strong by God (pin “was strong”), and because he brought Israel nigh unto God. He had eight other names (comp, note 70), and his great adversary Sennacherib (i. e., he who uttered blasphemous words against God; comp, note 60) also had eight others names; these are: Tiglath-pileser, Palnesser, Shalmanesser, Pul, Sargon, Osnappar, Rabba-yakkira (“the great and honored”). See Sanhedrin 94a; Jerome on Is. 20.1 and 36.1. On Sennacherib’s eight names, see Einhorn in the supplement to his commentary on Ruth R. 93 On Hezekiah ’s original decision to remain unmarried, comp, vol. IV, p. 273. 94 Berakot 10a; but not in our editions; the passage is supplied by Rabbinovicz, Variae Lectiones, from the Munich MS. and old sources; comp, also Gaster, Exempla, 234. Jerome on Is. quotes the Jewish tradition, according to which Isaiah was the father-in-law of Manasseh. This is very likely a slip for the father-in-law of Hezekiah and grandfather of Manasseh, for not only Babli, but also Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 28c, declares that Manasseh was the grandson of the prophet.

As for Rab-shakeh, it is only said of him, in Sanhedrin 60a, that he was an “apostate”. This view is shared by Ephraem, while Jerome on Is. 36.1, following a Jewish tradition, makes him a son of Isaiah. Jerome was possibly inaccurate in reporting the tradition; he may have meant to say a grandson instead of a son. In this case his tradition would tally with that in Berakot, loc. cit. It is, however, hard to understand the statement of the Talmud that Rab-shakeh died in his childhood, without attempting to reconcile this view with the biblical account. It would not do to assume that Rab-shakeh, the son of Hezekiah mentioned in the Talmud, is not identical with the bearer of this name in the Bible, for Targum on Eccles. 10.9, following the Talmud, explicitly states that the Rab-shakeh mentioned in the Bible was the brother of Manasseh. The emphasis laid in the Ascension of Isaiah 1.1 upon the fact that shortly before his death Hezekiah had one son only is perhaps an allusion to the rabbinic legend that his other son (Rab-shakeh) died as a child; comp, also note 54 (end). Quite obvious is the connection between this pseudepigraphic work and the Talmud with regard to Hezekiah ’s intention to kill Manasseh when he was informed by Isaiah of the wicked deeds his son would commit one day. He was, however, prevented by the prophet from carrying out his intention ; for the latter said : “Sammael’s 370 The Later Kings of Judah [95-97 plan concerning Manasseh is determined upon, and words will not avail thee.” These words of Isaiah remind one of the talmudic passage cited above, Berakot 10a, where the prophet is said to have refused to give his daughter in marriage to the king, remarking: “The decree is decided upon” (that Manasseh would be wicked); comp.

vol. IV, p. 273. The text of Ascension of Isaiah, as given by (Ps-) Chrysostomus, Opus Imperfectum in Mattheum, homily I, shows still closer resemblance between the Manasseh legend as given in this pseudepigraphic work and in the Talmud. 96 Ascension of Isaiah 2.5 and Apocalypse of Baruch 64.3, as well as the rabbinic sources (comp, the references given in the following four notes), contain detailed descriptions of the wicked deeds of this king. His name Manasseh is derived, in Ascension of Isaiah 2, 1, as well as in Sanhedrin 12b, from nasha “he forgot”: he forgot his God and his pious father. On the act of incest committed by him, see note 112. 9 6 Sanhedrin 103b. This idol was made by his grandfather Ahaz, who did not dare to set it up in the inner space of the Temple, but kept it in the upper chamber over the holy of holies. When on the seventeenth of Tammuz the idol was set up by Manasseh (Ta'anit 28b; Yerushalmi 4, 68d, top), the prophet Isaiah addressed the people as follows: “Thus saith the Lord: The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool; why then do ye glory in the Temple built by you? On account of four sins I no longer take pleasure in this house, and have decreed to have it destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, and ye shall go into captivity.” These were the last words of Isaiah (the last chapter of his book begins: “The heaven is My throne, etc.”), as he was forthwith killed by Manasseh, who became enraged at hearing about the destruction of theTemple and Israel’s captivity predicted by Isaiah.

See Tosefta-Targum on Is. 66.1; PR 4, 14a. Comp. Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrage, 78; Bacher, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgeldndischen Gesellschaft, XXVIII, 16-17; Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia I, 81. The text of this Tosefta-Targum was printed from a MS., and privately distributed by Christian D. Ginsburg on the occasion of the International Congress of Orientalists held in Rome, 1898. That the last chapter of Is. contains the words of the prophet uttered at the time when Manasseh set up the idol in the Temple is also stated in EZ 9, 188. On the view that Isaiah met his death at the hands of Manasseh, see note 103. 97 DR 2.20; Sanhedrin 103b; EZ 9, 188; Peshitta 2 Chron 33.7. Comp, also Apocalypse of Baruch 64.3, which reads: And he (Manas371 98] The Legends of the Jews seh) made an image with five faces, four of which looked to the four winds, and the fifth was on the top of the image, as an adversary to the zeal of the Mighty One. Similarly it is stated in Sanhedrin, loc. cit.: Manasseh at first fashioned one face for it; then four (four additional ones, or three additional ones?), that the Shekinah might see and be provoked. The Talmud, as well as the Apocalypse of Baruch, connects 7DD in 2 Chron. 23.7 with HtCpn bw “image of jealousy” in Ezek. 8.5. A very obscure statement concerning the image set up by Manasseh is found in Ta'anit 28b-29a, and reads as follows; Manasseh set up two images in the Temple; but one fell down, and broke the arm of the other in its falling.

On the latter this inscription was found: “Thou desirest to bring about the destruction of this house (the Temple) and I am ready to give thee my assistance.” The setting up of the image in the Temple by Manasseh was the cause of Israel’s captivity into Babylon. See Gittin 7a; Apocalypse of Baruch 64.4. 98 Sanhedrin 103b. Apocalypse of Baruch 64.2-3 describes Manasseh ’s sins as follows: He slew the righteous, and wrested judgment, shed the blood of the innocent, and wedded women he violently polluted (this accusation is made in rabbinic sources against Jehoiakim; comp. vol. IV, p. 184), he overturned the altars, destroyed their offerings and drove forth their priests, lest they should minister in the sanctuary. And to such a degree did Manasseh’s impiety increase, that he removed the praise of the Most High from the sanctuary. The last statement wishes to convey that on account of Manasseh ’s sins the Shekinah left the sanctuary long before the destruction of the Temple. This agrees with the view of the Rabbis, according to which the Shekinah after leaving the sanctuary had stopped at various stations, until, after the capture of the city, it finally ascended to heaven, its original abode. Comp, the different versions of the Haggadah concerning the “ten stations of the Shekinah ” in Rosh ha-Shanah 31a; PK 13, 114b-115a; ARN 34, 102; Ekah, introduction, 25; Aggadat Shir 5,39; Makiri on Ps.

115, 200. The last passage agrees with Apocalypse of Baruch that the “first journey of the Shekinah” took place in Isaiah’s time, when Manasseh set up the image in the Temple. Comp, also note 96. In Ascension of Isaiah 2.4-5 it is said of Manasseh: And he (Satan) made him (Manasseh) strong in apostatizing Israel and in the lawlessness which was spread abroad in Jerusalem. And witchcraft and magic increased, and divination and auguration, and fornication, and adultery, and the persecution of the righteous. 372 The Later Kings of Judah [99-102 9 9 Sanhedrin 99b. On Manasseh ’s great mastery of the knowledge of the Torah, see the references cited in notes 109, 110. 100 According to Seder ‘Olam 20, the prophets Joel, Nahum and Habakkuk lived in Manasseh’s days. Here it is also stated that Micah was a younger contemporary of Isaiah. For other views concerning the times of the prophets, see Index, under the corresponding names. Josephus, Antiqui., IX, 11.3, makes Nahum a contemporary of king Jotham. 101 Ascension of Isaiah 2—3. This Samaritan is called Belchira or Belachora, which is very likely an opprobrious appellation formed of Vy3 “master” and ’in or rather Kin, “excrement”; comp. ‘Abodah Z. 46b and Beel-zebul (perhaps = *7131 ^y3). Tobiah the Canaanite and John of Anathoth are mentioned as the adherents of Belchira. In view of the fact that in Nehem. 3.35, seq., and 6.12, Tobiah the Ammonite appears not only as a great adversary of the Jews, but also as the supporter of a false prophet, it is very likely that we should read Ammonite instead of Canaanite in the pseudepigraphic work.

The faulty reading was caused by the “Canaanite” Zedekiah mentioned a few lines below. John of Anathoth looks like a reminiscence of Jer. 28.1, where the false prophet Hananiah ( = John) is mentioned. It is true that this one is described as hailing from Gibeon and not from Anathoth, but as he appears as the adversary of Jeremiah, who was a native of Anathoth, it was quite natural for the legend to make him a native of that city. Without much violence to the text, in Jer., loc. cit., might be explained to refer to the father of Hananiah and not to Hananiah himself. * 0 » The first charge against Isaiah occurs in Ascension of Isaiah 3 (here it is Belchira who appears as the accuser against Isaiah and the other prophets); Yebamot 49b; Origen, In Jesajam, homily 1.5, Jerome on Is. 1.10; Paralipomena Jeremiae (near the end); ps.-Jerome on 2 Chron. 33.10. The second charge is found only in Ascension of Isaiah, loc. cit.; ps.-Jerome, loc. cit.; Jerome, loc. cit. The last-named gives as his authority the oral information communicated to him by Jews. Comp, also Tosefta-Targum on Is. 66.1, and particularly the version thereof published by David Ginsburg (see note 96). Yebamot, loc. cit., has the following two further contradictions between Moses and Isaiah. The former said: ‘‘For what great nation is there that hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is whenever we call upon Him?” (Deut.

4.7), while the latter said: “Call ye upon Him while He is near” (Is. 55.6). Moses further said: “The number of thy 373 103] The Legends of the Jews days I will fulfil” (Exod. 23.24), whereas Isaiah said to Hezekiah: “ I will add unto thy days fifteen years”. Comp, also Tosefta-Targum on Is. 16.1, and Jerome, Ad Damasum, I, 369. As to the “adding of years”, see note 77. i»3 Yebamot 49b; Sanhedrin 103b; Tosefta-Targum on 2 Kings 21.16, and Is. 66.1; PR 4.14; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 28c. The three last-named Palestinian sources record the legend that Isaiah was swallowed up by a tree (in PR and Targum it is a carob-tree, in Yerushalmi it is a cedar-tree), which had to be sawed in pieces before Isaiah could be killed; but there is no trace in these sources of the legend in Babli that the prophet’s mouth was the only vulnerable part of his body. According to Yerushalmi, Isaiah ’s hiding-place was discovered through the fringes of his garment which were not swallowed by the tree. It seems that the form of the legend as given in this source is not complete. It may be suggested that this legend had a statement that the prophet had once neglected to fulfil the commandment of Zizit, and as a punishment his hiding-place was betrayed by the “fringes” of his garment. Comp. vol. VI, p. 239, note 81. Isaiah’s martyrdom is described in Ascension of Isaiah as follows; And he (Manasseh) sent and seized Isaiah.

And he sawed him in sunder with a wood-saw. And when Isaiah was being sawn in sunder, Belchira (comp, note 101) stood up, accusing him, and all the false prophets stood up, laughing and rejoicing because of Isaiah. . . .And Belchira said to Isaiah: “Say: I have lied in all that I have spoken, and likewise the ways of Manasseh are good and right. And the ways also of Belchira and of his associates are good.” And this he said to him when he began to be sawn in sunder. But the prophet refused to listen to the words of Belchira (comp. Yebamot loc. cit. for the reason of Isaiah’s refusal to defend himself against the accusation hurled at him), and while being sawn in sunder he neither cried aloud, nor wept, but his lips spoke with the Holy Spirit, until he was sawn in twain. That Isaiah, at the time of his martyrdom, conversed with the Holy Spirit is based on the haggadic interpretation of 2 Kings 17.9; comp. Yerushalmi Sanhedrin, loc. cit., and PR, loc. cit. To the prophets who were with him before he was put to death he said: “Go ye to the region of Tyre and Zidon; as for me only has God mingled the cup”. — The legend of Isaiah ’s martyrdom was very likely known to so early an authority as Josephus; comp. Antiqui., X, 3.1. It is generally assumed that in Hebrews 11.37 (kirpiadrjaav) allusion is made to the specific mode (being sawn in sunder) of Isaiah ’s martyrdom. In patristic literature 374 The Later Kings of Judah [104-108 there are many references to Isaiah ’s having been sawn in sunder; but as this legend was current among the Jews for centuries (comp, the sources quoted at the beginning of note as well as in previous note), it is not always certain whether the Church Fathers made use of the pseudepigraphic work Ascension of Isaiah (more correctly, the Martyrdom of Isaiah), or drew upon the oral traditions of the Jews.

See Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 120; Tertullian, De Patientia, 14; Visio Pauli, 49; ps.-Hippolytus 705. The last-named author also states that Manasseh restored the city of Baalbek which Solomon had built. Comp. Pesahim 117a, where ’33 very likely stands for ’33 *?y3 “Baalbek”. It is true Pesahim speaks of the “image fashioned by Micah” 173B rD’D Vp as being located at Baalbek, but we find the wicked king mentioned in connection with this image. See Seder ‘Olam 24, which reads: Manasseh was exiled to Babylon, and with him the image of Micah. Comp, note 61 and vol. V, p. 13, note 72. The Jewish sources contain nothing about the ascension of Isaiah, and accordingly the Jewish part of the Ascension of Isaiah is very likely limited to Isaiah ’s martyrdom, the rest being of Christian origin. 104 Aggadat Bereshit 14, 32. Here it is also stated that Isaiah, the greatest of the prophets (or one of the most prominent of the prophets), and Obadiah, the most insignificant of them, did not prophesy before they received permission from the Great Synedrion. They both prophesied in seventy-one tongues; comp. vol. VI, p. 344, note 6. Isaiah was as great a prophet as Moses; PR 4, 14a. Comp. vol. VI, p. 44, note 242, and see also Baraita di-Yeshu‘ah 45; Aggadat Bereshit, loc. cit; note 242 on vol. Ill, p. 108. According to a Jewish tradition found in ps.-Jerome, 1 Chron. 33.19, the prophet Hozai mentioned there is none else but Isaiah.

The book of Amoz, the father of Isaiah, is referred to in Ascension of Isaiah 4.22. Comp, note 25. ns On the kinship between Isaiah and Manasseh, see note 94. 106 Seder ‘Olam 24. Comp. Ratner, ad loc., and note 103. 107 Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 28c; Babli 103a; PK 25, 162a— 162b; MHG I, 113-114; DR 2.20; Ruth R. 2.14; Targum and ps.Jerome on 2 Chron. 33.13; PRE 43; Abba Gorion 36. The Prayer of Manasseh” offered while he was a prisoner in Babylon forms part of the Canon of the Greek Bible. On the oven, see the articles by Krauss and Nestle in Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, XXII, 309, seq.-, XXIII 326, seq. and 337 as well as Bacher, R. E. J., XLV, 291, seq. 108 Sanhedrin Mishnah 10 (11). 1; ARN 35, 108: EZ 9, 189 (it 375 109-114] The Legends of the Jews is said here that Manasseh’s repentance was accepted for the sake of the pious destined to be born of him) ; Aggadat Bereshit 9, 23. The apocryphal works the Prayer of Manasseh and Tobit 14.10 share this view favorable to Manasseh. On the other hand, the prevalent opinion in rabbinic literature is that Manasseh is one of the few Jews who lost their portion in the world to come; comp. Sanhedrin, loc. cit., and the references given in note 100 on vol. IV, p. 75, as well as Tan. B. Ill, 43; Tan. Mezora' 1; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 27a and 29b; Babli 102b-103a. Apocalypse of Baruch 64 agrees with this view, and maintains that Manasseh, though he prayed, did not really repent.

Aggadat Bereshit, loc. cit., likewise speaks of Manasseh’s prayer and words of repentance which were uttered “with lips of deceit’’. Comp. Sanhedrin 101b. 109 Sanhedrin 102b, Ahab and Jeroboam (the two other Jewish kings who, like Manasseh, lost their share in the world to come; comp, the references cited in preceding note) excelled Manasseh in learning; the former was able to interpret the Book of Leviticus in eighty-five ways, and the latter in one hundred and three. The “greater the scholar the stronger his evil inclination ” is a favorite saying with the Rabbis; see Sukkah 52a (bottom). Comp, also vol. VI, p. 311, note 34. I I 0 Sanhedrin 102b. III Constitutiones Apostolicae, II, 23, which is very likely based on a Jewish legend; comp. Yoma 8 (end), which reads: He who says: “I shall sin and then repent ”, no opportunity is given him for repentance. Comp, note 27 on vol. IV, p. 61. 112 Sanhedrih 103a. The statement about the burning of the Torah by Amon is taken from Seder ‘Olam 24, but here ~iy3 very likely means “swept away”. He committed incest with his mother (not out of passion, but to defy God and the Torah). This is very likely due to a play on the word 11DN with DN “mother”. Of his father Manasseh it is said that he committed incest with his sister, and of Ahaz that he set aside the Jewish laws of marriage. Manasseh is further accused of having cut out the divine Name from the Scriptures.

Comp, notes 40 and 95. 1 1 3 Sanhedrin 104a. Comp. vol. II, p. 314 (below). 114 Shabbat 57b; Seder ‘Olam 24. Another view (Shabbat, loc. cit.) is that Josiah was pious from his infancy. His repentance mentioned in 2 Kings 23.25 refers to the fact that when he reached the age of majority (at eighteen; comp. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 376 The Later Kings of Judah [115-118 64-65) he annulled all the verdicts pronounced by him before that time, and from his own pocket he re-imbursed all those who suffered loss by this annulment. 115 Sanhedrin 103, which is an attempt to exlplain the “finding” of the Torah. Comp, also Kimhi on 2 Kings 22.8, and note 112. 116 Yoma 52b (on the correct reading, comp. Rabbinovicz, ad loc •); Yerushalmi Shekalim 6, 59c and Kimhi on 2 Kings 22.11. Many medieval authors (comp, the references cited by Friedmann in HaG°ren VII 10-13, and Shu'aib, lOd; Lekah on Exod. 16.32) quote Shekalim, loc. cit., differently from our text. According to their reading the book ‘found ” was the book of Deuteronomy, and the same statement is made by Jerome in Ezek. 1.1 (comp. Nestle, Zeitschrift f. alt. Wissenschaft XXII, 170-171) undoubtedly on the authority of his Jewish teachers. The finding ” of the Torah was of such importance for the life of the Jews, that they began to date a new era from that event, and it is this era which Ezekiel used. The high priest Hilkiah found the Torah under the threshhold (read instead of NoVlN; comp.

Targum on Josh. 24.26) of the Temple hall at midnight after the setting of the moon. See Targum on Ezek. 1.1 and Tosefta-Targum in Wertheimer, Ozar Midrashim II, 53. 117 Megillah 14b. Here also it is remarked: Eminence is not for women; two eminent women are mentioned in the Bible, Deborah and Huldah, and both proved to be of a proud disposition. Deborah was haughty towards Barak (comp. vol. IV, p. 36, and note 75 pertaining thereto) and the prophetess Huldah spoke of Josiah as the “man” (comp. 2 Kings 22.15), without giving him the title of king. This “unpleasant” feature of their character is indicated by their “ugly” names, the former was called Deborah “bee”, and the latter Huldah “weasel”. On the kinship between Huldah and Jeremiah, see vol. IV, p. 5, and on her husband, see vol. IV, p. 246. The prophetess had an academy in Jerusalem; Targum on 2 Kings 22.14 and on 2 Chron. 24.22. 118 Yoma 52b; Horayyot 12a; Keritot 5b; Shekalim 6, 59c; Tosefta Yoma 3 (2). 7 and Sotah 13.1. In all these sources it is stated that besides the holy ark, the king also hid the following holy objects: the holy oil, the vessel with the manna, the rod of Aaron with its almonds and blossoms, as well as the coffer with the offering of the Philistines. In other sources different holy objects are mentioned as having been hidden; comp. ARN 41, 135; PRK 32a; ER 25, 129. Comp, vol. III. pp. 48, 179, 307; vol.

IV, pp. 320, seq., as well as Kimhi on 1 Kings 6.19 and on 2 Chron. 35.3. The last named author quotes a 377 1 19-123] The Legends of the Jews Midrash not found in the extant midrashic literature, according to which Solomon, at the erection of the Temple, provided a secret place to be used later for “hiding” holy objects. Ps.-Jerome on 2 Chron., loc. cit., quotes the Jewish tradition, according to which Ahaz had removed the holy ark from the Temple, which remained in the house of Shallum, the husband of the prophetess Huldah, until the days of Josiah. Yoma Mishnah 5.3 seems to presuppose that there was a holy ark in the second Temple. This, however, does not contradict the story of the hiding of the ark by Josiah, as it is quite probable that at the erection of the second Temple they fashioned another ark. The Talmud 52b explains the Mishnah differently. On the “hiding” of the altar of Moses by Solomon, see Mekilta Bahodesh 11, 73a, which reads: On the day upon which the one (altar) was built (that of Solomon), the other (that of Moses) was hidden. n® Ekah 1, 91-92 (comp, also ibid., introduction, 22, where it is stated that at first they worshipped idols secretly, then publicly): Ta'anit 22a-22b; Tosefta 2.10; PK 27, 168a; Yerushalmi Kiddushin 1, 61a; Shemuel 25, 62. Zohar III, 114a; ps.-Jerome on 2 Chron. 35.22-25. In the version of Ekah made use of by R.

Solomon haYatom, 119 the reading was n’E>D3 inn in agreement with Yerushalmi, loc. cit. Comp, also Tan. B. IV, 167; Tan. Mass' e 12. On Pharaoh the “lame”, see note 123. 12° Megillah 14b. 121 Megillah 3a; Mo'ed Katan 28b; Targum on Zech. 12.11. 122 Seder ‘Olam 24; Ta'anit 22b; Ekah 1, 92; Yerushalmi Kiddushin 1, 61a; Josephus Antiqui., X, 5.1. The Rabbis, as well as Josephus, understand 2 Chron. 35.25 to refer to the Book of Lamentations, in which Jeremiah laments the fate of the “anointed of the Lord” (4.20), by which Josiah is meant. Comp, also Targum on 2 Chron., loc. cit., and the references cited in note 119. 123 PK 27, 168a; WR 20.1 ; Tan. B. V, 7: Abba Gorion 3; Koheleth 9.2. In the last-named source it is said that this Pharaoh seized the throne in behalf of his widowed daughter who claimed her dowry from the estate of Solomon. According to this view, Pharaoh the “lame” is identical with Shishak, Solomon’s father-in-law; comp, vol. IV p. 182. The interpretation of Neco, the name of the Egyptian king, as though it were 7D3 “lame” is often found in Jewish and Christian writings; comp. Megillah 3a; Mo'ed Katan 28b; Targum Zech. 12.11, and 2 Chron. 35.20; Peshitta on 2 Kings 23.29; Aphraates, 471 (top). 378 The Later Kings of Judah [124-132 124 Horayyot lib; Keritot 5b; Shekalim 7, 49c^l9d. On the basis of 1 Chron. 3.15, the Rabbis maintain that Josiah had three sons: Jehoiakim, Johanan, (to whom the name Jehoahaz was given on his accession to the throne), and Zedekiah (also called Shallum and Mattaniah); comp, note 1 on vol.

IV, p. 291; Targum on 2 Chron., loc. cit.\ WR 10.8; Seder ‘Olam 24. Ratner, note 26, finds a contradiction between Seder ‘Olam and the other sources with regard to the question of who was the first-born son of Josiah. It is very strange that, though quoting Horayyot, he did not notice that the difficulty raised by him was raised and disposed of in the Talmud. 126 WR 10.6; Tan. Lek 20; Aggadat Bereshit 48, 99; Sanhedrin 103b (according to one opinion, he tattooed his “membrum” with the Name of God); Baraita di-Yeshua‘h 45; ps. -Jerome on 2 Chron. 36.8. Comp, note 112. 126 Sanhedrin 103b. To the reply made to him that God said: “Mine is the silver, and Mine is the gold”, he rejoined: “Did He not say: The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth hath He given to the children of men”? Sanhedrin 103a; ‘Arakin 17a. The reverse was the case in the time of Zedekiah. God would then have reduced the world to its original chaos on account of the sinfulness of that generation, were it not for the piety of the king. On Zedekiah ’s piety, see note 1 on vol. IV, p. 291. The view that the Jews went into captivity during the reign of a pious king, when the people had no excuse for their sinfulness, is also found in Apocalypse of Baruch. 1.3; vol. IV, p. 256. 138 BR 94 (end; is pn to be read instead of rr^’Bl?); WR 19.6; Shekalim 6, 50a; Seder ‘Olam 25; Josephus, Antiqui., X, 6.3. The Haggadah concerning Jehoiakim ’s peculiar death is an attempt to reconcile the contradiction between 2 Kings 24.6 and 2 Chron.

36.6. Comp, also Jerome on Jer. 22.12, and Hippolytus, In Daniele, 641, where the story of Jehoiakim is confused with that of Zedekiah. 139 Sanhedrin 82a and 104a. ’3° WR 19.6; Shekalim 6, 50a; 2‘Eser Galuyyot 114; Seder ‘Olam 25. On the legend concerning the keys, comp, note 24 on vol. IV, pp. 303-304. 131 Josephus, Antiqui., X, 7.1; comp, the following note. 132 Seder ‘Olam 25; Sifre D., 321; Tan. Noah 3; Gittin 88a; Sanhedrin 38a, and Yerushalmi 1, 19a (comp, also ibid., 18b-18c, concerning the scholars exiled to Babylon with Zedekiah); Nedarim 7, 40a; WR 11.7; BaR 11.3; Esther R., introduction; Hallel 97; Shir 379 133— I34l The Legends of the Jews 8.11 and 12; ‘Eser Galuyyot 10. With the exception of the first and last-named sources, all the others identify the “exile of the scholars’’ with the exile of Jehoiachin. The hegemony of Babylonian Jewry over the rest of the Jews is thus explained; comp. Tan. loc. cit. The “exile of the scholars” during the reign of Jehoiakim, as given in Seder ‘Olam and ‘Eser Galuyyot, loc. cit., must not be emended to agree with the other sources (comp. Ratner, note 9), since Josephus, Antiqui., X, 6.3, likewise maintains that the exile of the nobility took place during the reign of Jehoiakim; the nobility of Josephus and the flower of scholarship of the Rabbis are identical. Comp. vol. IV, p. 383. >J3 Josephus, Antiqui., X, 6.3; comp, the preceding note.

134 WR 19.6 (Nebuchadnezzar’s wife is called HDI’Dt? .n’DTDP and Djn’nP; the last form of the name is explained: “because she was born in thunder”) and 10; PK 25, 162b— 163b ; Shir 8.6; Sanhedrin 37b. See also Josephus, Antiqui,. X, 7.1, whose favorable opinion of Jehoiachin flatly contradicts the words of Scripture in 2 Kings 24.9 and 2 Chron. 36.9. It is quite likely that he drew upon the Haggadah which maintains that sorrow and suffering changed the wicked and Godless king into a saint. With Jehoiachin the holy ark came to Babylon (Seder ‘Olam 25; Tosefta Shekalim 2.18; Yerushalmi 6, 49c; Yoma 53b; against this view see the references cited in note 118), and it was in this land, in the city of Nehardea, that he erected a synagogue using as building material the stones and bricks brought with him from the Holy Land. The holiness of this synagogue was evidenced by the Shekinah which used it from time to time as its abode, see Megillah 29a; comp, the geonic interpretation of this passage in ‘ Aruk, s. v. 1; Rashi, ad loc.] Sha'are Teshubah 71; Iggeret R. Sherira 26; Epstein in Schwarz- Festschrift, 326. The life history of this king illustrates the truth of the wise adage, “Never despair”. For thirtyseven years he languished in prison, yet at the end of this time he not only gained his liberty but received great honors. When Nebuchadnezzar who had kept him prisoner died (as to the contradiction between the date given in 2 Kings 25.27 and that in Jer.

52.31, see Seder ‘Olam 28), the new king Evil-Merodach immediately set him free, and spoke to him comfortingly as follows: “Do not feel grieved at having been a prisoner this long time; forget not that thy captor was a king like thee, and not an ordinary man ; to avenge the injustice done by him to thee, I dishonored his dead body” (comp. vol. IV, p. 339). Evil-merodach gave Jehoiachin royal garments, and settled an allowance upon him. See 2 ARN 17, 38. 380 The Later Kings of Judah [135-136 135 PK 25, 163b; WR 10.56; Shir 8.6; Sanhedrin 37b-38a. In all these sources it is said that Zerubbabel was a son of Jehoiachin, but they differ as to how to harmonize this view with 2 Chron. 3.17, seq., which seems to contradict it. According to the Talmud, this scriptural passage contains a number of attributes of Zerubbabel, whereas the Midrash maintains that these attributes are assigned to Jehoiachin. The Talmud is also of the opinion that Zerubbabel is identical with Nehemiah. 136 Tan. B. I, 140; Tan. Toledot 14; Aggadat Bereshit 44, 89; Targum on 2 Chron. 3.24. Anani mentioned in 2 Chron. loc. cit., it said in these sources to be the name of the Messiah ( = “the one from the clouds”; comp. Sanhedrin 98a in reference to Dan. 7.13: UN K’DP ’Ey Dy, and 96b 13 “son of the cloud”, as a designation of the Messiah), and ny2tt> following this name describes the Messiah, “the one endowed with seven (nj73P) divine gifts.” Comp.

Is. 11.2, and vol. VI, p. 193, note 61. .581