Volume 1, Chapter 3: THE BIRTH OF CAIN

Ill. THE TEN GENERATIONS (103-142) X Abot 5, 22; ARN 32, 92 (a view is cited here, according to which some among them were God-fearing, and it was they who prevented the flood from coming for some time), and the second version 34, 92. The tenth belongs to God; Noah was the tenth after Adam, and Abraham the tenth after Noah; Tan. B. V, 27. So also Philo, De Congressu Quaerende Eruditionis Causa, 17. That these sinful generations nevertheless lived longer than others has its good reasons: their longevity enabled them to study the movement of the heavenly bodies, so that they bequeathed their astronomical knowledge to later generations (BR. 26. 5; comp. vol. I, p. 121. below, and Josephus, Antiqui., I, 3). They likewise received, during their long and care-free life, their reward for their good deeds which was due to them, so that after their death their punishment was severe; BR 16. 5. Furthermore, God wished to test these generations; He therefore granted them long life in order to give them the opportunity to show kindness to one another. But they did not stand the test. The sons were ready to care for their parents, but not for their grand-parents, and Noah was the only one who was willing to care for his grandfather and all his ancestors; ER 16, 80. God spoke to no one in this generation until Noah came (BR 34. 5 and Koheleth 7. 19), just as Abraham was the first to whom God spoke during the ten generations from Noah to him; BR 39, 4; Koheleth Joc. cit. This seems to be directed against the view prevalent in pseudepigraphic writings that Seth, Enoch, Shem, and other patriarchs were the bearers of God's revelations; comp. Index under these names; comp. also Luria’s note 4 on PRE. 22. ? BR 28. 4; Hagigah 13b; ARN 31, 93; Shabbat 88b; Koheleth 1. 15 and 4. 3; Tan. Lek 11 and Yitro 9; Tehillim 90, 392, and 105, 449; Aggadat Bereshit 49, 100; Zebahim 116a; ER 2, 9; 6, 33; 13, 61 and 68; 26, 130; Targum (from a manuscript quoted by Levy, Chalddisches Worterbuch, 1, 186) on Job 22. 16. The version found in some of the sources just cited. according to which the Torah was 132 The Ten Generations [3 written down 974 generations prior to the creation of the world, is a comparatively recent presentation of this Haggadah, which, in its original form, has nothing to do with the doctrine of the preexistence of the Torah. Comp. note 5 on vol. I, p. 4. 3 PRE 21 (on the text comp. Luria, ad loc., and MHG I, 88-89, and 105); Shabbat 146a (top; the filth with which the serpent infected Eve clung to the rest of humanity, but was removed from Israel as soon as they received the Torah); Yebamot 103b; ‘Abodah Zarah 22b; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 4. 1 and 5. 3; BR 19, end (on the text comp. Theodor, ad loc., and Recanate Gen. 3. 13); Zohar I, 31a and 54b; III, 117a (the heavenly origin of Cain and Abel as stated here agrees with the heresies of Archonites in Epiphanius, Haer., 40.5); Hippolytus, Haer., 5. 21; Irenaeus, I, 30. 7; Epiphanius, Joc. cit. Comp. further 1 John 3. 12; Augustine, In Epistolam Joan. ad Parthos, 5. 3, and Quaestiones ex Novo Test., III, 2282 (Migne’s edition). Tertullian, De Patientia, 5, has no bearing on the subject discussed here, and the statement in Ginzberg’s Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 59, is to be corrected accordingly. This passage of Tertullian is to be translated: Impatience, conceived of the devil’s seed, produced, in the fecundity of malice, anger as her son. Comp., however, Tertullian, Haer., 2, concerning Abel, who was born of an ignoble spirit. But independent of the legend concerning Eve’s sexual intercourse with the serpent is the statement that the original sin consisted in this that the serpent had awakened in her a sexual desire. Comp. Apocalypse of Abraham 23; Philo, De M. Optf., 56; Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch, 97; WR 14. 5; Protevang. of James 13. Comp. vol. I, p. 96, and the following note., as well as note 131 on vol. I, p. 98. The view that serpents still have the desire to have intercourse with women, just as the first serpent felt violent passion for Eve (comp. note 60 on vol. I, p. 72), is found not only in Shabbat 110a, but also in 4 Macc. 18, where it is stated that the serpent not only sullied the maidenhood of Eve but also that of other women. The assertion of the Gnostics mentioned by Epiphanius in WHaer., 26. 5 (sdipsum— lignum vitae—de menstruis mulierum profluviis interpretatur) is found among the Kabbalists, with this difference that the latter connect it with the tree of knowledge (is the reading r#s {wis in Epiphanius a scribal error for rod ywaoxev?). Comp. Recanati on Gen. 3. 6. and note 85 on vol. I, p. 78. The latter Kabbalah (comp. the reference in Yalkut Reubeni on Gen. 4. 1) allegorizes the legend of 133 475] The Legends of the Jews Cain, ‘‘the son of Satan”; he was Satan’s spiritual son, since Eve followed his false doctrine. It should also be noted that among the various etymologies of the word Eve (mn) there is one, according to which it means “‘serpent”: she was Adam’s serpent; see BR 21. 11 and 22. 2; note 48 on vol. I, p 69. 4 Vita Adae 18. Comp. the more detailed description of these events as given in vol. J, pp. 88-89. The Vita, as well as its numerous Christian versions (comp. Preuschen, Adamschriften, 41; Book of Adam and Eve 73. 90-91), and the Church Fathers (Jerome, Adv. Jovinianum, 1. 16; Slavonic Palaea, and others; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 57) presuppose that not only the birth of the children of Adam and Eve took place after the expulsion from paradise, but that the first “human pair’ lived in paradise without sexual intercourse. The older Haggadah, as found in Jub. 4. 1 (Cain was born when Adam was seventy, and Abel seven years later, while the expulsion of Adam from paradise took place after he had spent his first seven years there) and some utterances of the Midrash (BR 22. 1 and 2; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 57-58, as well as Zohar I, 60b-61a, on the pure, spiritual married life which Adam might have enjoyed in paradise, and the immortal children that he might have begotten there if he had not sinned) practically make the same assertion. Later, however, in opposition to the Christian view which considers married life as a consequence of the original sin (BR, loc. cit., even asserts that the animal world, following Adam’s example, copulated before the fall), and prefers celibacy to marriage, the prevalent Jewish view was that the married life of Adam and Eve preceded their fall; BR 18. 6; Sanhedrin 38b; PRE 11 (before the fall, but also before their arrival in paradise); ARN 1, 5 (where mn71, however, need not necessarily imply married state) and 6. Comp. vol. I, p. 72, and Theodor on BR, Joc. cit., as well as Apocalypse of Baruch 56. 6. The legend prevalent in the Haggadah, according to which Cain and Abel and their twin-sisters were born on the day on which their parents had been created (BR 22.2; Sanhedrin, loc. cit.; PRE 11; ARN 1, 6), has no connection with the question whether their birth took place before or after the fall, since according to the Haggadah, the stay in paradise lasted only a few hours; comp. vol. I, p. 82. 5 Vita Adae 19-21 (on the ‘‘virtutes’, powers, virtues, comp. Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, 1, 179), and its various Christian versions. Midrash Aggada Gen. 4.1, on the contrary, emphasizes, 134 The Ten Generations [6-10 the fact that Cain’s birth was without pain. This accords with the view that his birth took place before the fall; comp. the preceding note. 6 Vita Adae 21, according to which Adiaphotus in Apocalypse of Moses 1 should be changed to Diaphotus, ‘“‘full of light”. On Cain’s luminous countenance comp. PRE 21 (Eve saw that his countenance was heavenly) and Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 4. 1. The similarity of Cain (7p) to Kewan (73) “‘Saturn’’ may have given rise to this legend about the shining countenance, particularly if one considers, on the one hand, the relationship between Cain and Sammael (=Satan; comp. vol. I, p. 105), and, on the other hand, the fact that Saturn represents the star of evil which brings misfortune to Israel. Comp. PR 20, 96a, and 203a, as well as Baraita de-Mazzalot 27a. 7 Vita Adae 21-22. The name of Cain is also explained as PRD, ‘‘as nought’’ (MHG I, 105 very likely dependent on PRE), as NIP, “the wrathful one” (Wisdom 10.3), and as mp ‘‘who sought to seize everything’’ (Philo, Cain 20). Comp. also the preceding note, as well as notes 6, 8, 20, 41, 53. On the view that Cain was able to run about immediately after his birth, see vol. I, p. 59, which has a similar statement with reference to Adam, and see also vol. I, pp. 152-153, the legend about the ante-diluvian generations, as well as the legend about Moses in vol. II, p. 264, and vol III, p. 468. 8 Yashar Bereshit 9a; Josephus, Antigui., I, 2. 1, which reads: Abel which signifies sorrow, a midrashic explanation which is based on the similarity of sound of am and bax, “sorrow”. This is already found in Philo, De Migr. Abrah., 13. Amilabes in Apocalypse of Moses 1, as a name for Abel, is very likely a corruption of 73ND7 ““the destroyed one’. According to some, Cain and Abel were twin brothers; BR 22. 2 and 3 (comp. Theodor on 205, 5); PRE 21. ° Vita Adae 22; Apocalypse of Moses 2; comp. Preuschen, Adamschriften, 42. 0 Theodotion on Gen. 4. 4; Aggadat Shir 6. 40 (this heavenly fire came down again at the time of Noah’s sacrifice when he left the ark; at the time of the consecration of the Tabernacle when it consumed Nadab and Abihu; at Manoah’s sacrifice; at Solomon’s consecration of the Temple; at Elijah’s sacrifice on mount Carmel. It will come down again when the temple will be erected in Messianic times. Comp. Index, s. v. ‘‘Fire, Heavenly”); MHG I, 107; Yashar Bereshit, 9a; Rashi and Lekah on Gen. 4. 4 (most likely based 135 11-12] The Legends of the Jews on an old source; Aphraates, 63; Jerome on Gen., loc. cit.; Ephraim, I, 143 D; Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphura., 1. 3. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 62-63; Theodor on BR 22. 6 (p. 209, 4), and note 13. Philo, on Gen. 1, 63, reads: Cain noticed from the sad mood that came upon him at the time of the sacrifice, instead of the expected sense of joy, that ‘‘God did not accept his sacrifice.’’ On the religious importance of sacrifice in general, comp. Haserot Wiierot in Batte Midrashot I, 33-34; Kad ha-Kemah, Sukkah, 16b. II PRE 21 (on the text comp. MHG I, 106-107); Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 4. 3; differently in BR 22. 4, where two views concerning the day of the sacrifice are given; according to one it was on Pentecost, while according to the other, Hanukkah. It may, however, be noted that both views are based on the supposition that Abel did not live longer than fifty days, and the difference of opinion is due to the controversy whether the world (1.e., Adam and his two sons; comp. note 97 on vol. I, p.82, and note 4) had been created in the month of Tishri or Nisan. According to Tan. Bereshit 9, Cain and Abel were forty years old at the time they .brought their sacrifice; comp. also Preuschen, Adamschriften, 33 (Cain was thirty, and Abel forty), and Book of Adam 77 (end), where the age of the brothers is given as fifteen and twelve, respectively. See also ps.—Philo, 1 (end): Cain was fifteen years old when he did these things. By these things are meant his marriage and becoming a father. According to Zohar Hadash, 25a, on Gen. 4. 2, they offered their sacrifice on New Year. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kuirchenv. 64 and 71. t2 BR 22. 5; PRE 21 (hence the prohibition against using flax and wool together: the sacrifice of the wicked Cain should not be brought in contact with that of the pious Abel; comp. Zohar III, 87a); Tan. Bereshit 9; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 4. 3; Yashar Bereshit, 9a; Philo, Sacrific. Abel., 13 (Cain did not offer the firstborn, nor did he do it in proper time) and 20; Ambrose, De Cain, 2. 10; Ephraim, II, 313 E. Comp. further Philo, Confus. Ling., 25; Josephus, Antigui I, 2. 1; Hadar, Gen. 4. 3 and 4, as well as Imre No‘am, ad loc., and Midrash Aggada Gen. 4. 2. The Haggadah endeavors to prove that Cain, through selfishness and lack of fear of God, had incurred God’s displeasure. Zohar Hadash 24a, on Gen. 4. 2, reads: Cain offered his sacrifice haughtily, Abel with humility; but the real sacrifice to God is with a contrite spirit; Ps. 136 The Ten Generations [13-16 51. 19. Abel’s tragic end is to be ascribed to the following circumstance. When he brought his sacrifice he looked too much at the appearance of God, and therefore Moses, profiting by this lesson, hid his face (Exod. 3. 6), when God appeared to him; Recanate on Gen. 4. God prefers the persecuted; hence Abel having been persecuted by Cain, was favored by God, and his sacrifice was graciously accepted; WR 27. 5; Koheleth 3. 15; Tan. B. III, 91; Tan. Emor9; PK 9,76a. Here it is presupposed that Cain had been hostile to his brother even prior to the sacrifice incident, as is described in detail in the Book of Adam 76; comp. note 17. On the basis of the Septuagint on Gen. 4. 7 (‘‘hast thou not sinned if thou has brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it?’’), Philo asserts that Cain on account of his greed only brought part of his gift to the altar, whereas Abel sacrificed the whole gift without taking any of it home; Quaestiones, Gen. 1, 62. The rabbinic sources (BR 22. 5; Yerushalmi Megillah 1, 72b; Zebahim 116a; WR 9. 6; BaR 13.2; Shir 4. 16; PR 5, 16b) cite two views on the question whether Abel brought a whole offering or a peace-offering (of this kind of sacrifice the one who brings it consumes the greater part). 73 BR 22. 6 (this statement is based on 1b51=19DN) ‘“‘and it became dark’’); comp. Preuschen, Adambticher, 34; ps—Tertullian, Gen. 184, and Emerson, Legends of Cain, 848, concerning the smoke which almost suffocated Cain. The rising of the smoke as a sign of acceptance, and its descending as a sign of rejection, alluded to in the old-English legend, quoted by Emerson, is also found in Jewish sources; comp. Tan. Tezawweh 15; Midrash Shir 28b (below). The blackening of the face is perhaps to be taken as a contrast to its original heavenly splendor; comp. also Peshitta, ad loc., and note 6. 14 BR 22. 6; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 4. 7; MHG I, 107 and 109. On the basis of Gen. 4. 7, the Rabbis state that the evil inclination is born with man (according to others, at the time of conception), whereas the good inclination does not arrive until the age of thirteen 7. e., when one attains majority; comp. BR 34. 10; Yerushalmi Berakot 3, 6d; Sanhedrin 91b; ARN 16, 62-64; Koheleth 4. 13; Tehillim 9, 82; MHG I, 107-109. Philo, Confus. Ling., 22, asserts, on the contrary, that the good inclination comes at the time of man’s birth. Comp. note 25 on vol. I, p. 60. 15 On this point comp. vol. J, pp. 4 and 5. 6 Verushalmi Targumim Gen. 4. 8, and this is very likely the source of Lekah and Midrash Aggada, ad Joc. Philo, De Migrat. 137 17] The Legends of the Jews Abrah., 13, as well as Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 1, 10-11, and 14, also speaks of Cain’s challenging Abel to a dispute, to convince him, by mere force, using all plausible and possible sophisms. It may be noted that Philo, like the Targumim, finds this challenge to a dispute in the worlds of Gen. 4. 8: ‘“‘Let us go into the field’ (Septuagint, the Samaritan, the Targumim, the Peshitta, and others read or add here: 77¥7 &¥)). Like the Targumim, Philo, too (in his second book 10 cited above), takes the subject of the dispute to have been whether everything is to be ascribed to God (Abel’s view), or to man (as maintained by Cain). 17BR 22. 7; PRE 21; Ephiphanius, Haer., 40. 5; Irenaeus, Haer., 1, 6; Theodoretus, Haer., 1, 11; Schatzhohle, 34; Clementine, Homilies, 3. 25 (hence he was called Cain, because he was jealous of his brother on account of his wife; comp. zibid., 26 and 42, concerning the meaning of the name Abel; see further note 7); Book of Adam 76, and comp. Malan, note 44, on the later statements of Christian and Mohammedan writers concerning the struggle of the brothers on account of their sister. See also Griinbaum, Neue Beiirdge, 6870, as well as Ronsch, Buch der Jubilden, 373-374. According to another version in BR, Joc. cit., it was the first Eve about whom the brothers could not agree; but it is not clear what is meant by “the first Eve”; comp. Theodor, ad loc., and Ginzberg, Haggada bet den Kirchenv. 60-61. This passage is somehow related to the gnostic doctrine concerning the first mother Sophia-Prunicus (comp. Preuschen, Adamschriften, 60, seq., and 78, seg. It may likewise be noted here that Jaldabaot =mma x14 “the progenitor of shame’’). Along with the view that Abel had two twin-sisters, there is also another which maintains that each of them had one twin-sister only; a third view states that Cain, but not Abel, had a twin-sister. Comp. BR 22. 2 and 61. 4; PRE, Joc. cit.; Yebamot 62a, and Yerushalmi 11, 11d; Sanhedrin 58b, and Yerushalmi 5, 22c, as well as 9, 26d; ARN 1, 6; Sifra 20. 7; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 4. 2 (thus the passage is to be understood that Cain was born with a twinbrother, and Abel with a twin-sister; Abel’s twin-sister became Cain’s wife; comp. PRE, Joc. cit.); Zohar I, 54b and III, 44b. See further note 42 concerning the names of this daughter of Adam.— That Abel died in the state of urisoiled chastity is emphasized in ps.-Matthew 7, which corresponds to the old Haggadah (Jub.

4. 1 and 8, as well as Sifra, loc. cit.), which knows only of Cain’s wife. See, however, note 172 on vol. I, p. 37. Some sources (BR 22. 7; 138 The Ten Generations [18-20 Tan. Bereshit 9, and Mishpatim 13; ShR 31. 17; Aggadat Shir 7, 43, and 91-92) ascribe the enmity between the brothers to the circumstance that they divided the possession of the world in such a manner that the older brother took the soil, and the younger all the movable things. This division naturally could not be maintained for any length of time. Comp. on this point Siegfried, Philo, 150151, and Ginzbeg’s Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 69. According to a third view cited in BR, loc. cit., the subject of their quarrel was concerning the territory on which the temple would be erected. 18 Yashar Bereshit, 9a (based on old sources; comp. BR 22. 7; Tan. Bereshit 9, and Mishpatim 13; ShR 31. 17; Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 4. 8). *9 BR 22. 8; Tan. Breshit 9; Aggadat Shir 7, 43, and 91-92. Philo, De Migr. Abr., 13, and Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat, 11, and 14, as well as one of the versions of Vita Adae (in Preuschen, Adamschriften, 34-35), reports that Cain knew how to overcome his brother by cunning. See further Ephraim, I, 41. According to a Jewish legend, cited by Jerome, Ezek. 27. 18, Cain killed his brother in Damascus (=sanguinem bibens; Jerome, Is. 17; comp. Philo, Quis...haeres sit, 11), which is undoubtedly the well-known city in Syria, in the proximity of which primitive man is supposed to have lived (comp. Amos 1. 5, and Griinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsdize, 160). It is a whimsical idea of John a Lapide (commentariuwm in Genesim) to assume that another Damascus in the neighborhood of Hebron is meant here. Comp. also the Greek legend about the founding of Damascus recorded by Stephanus Byzantinus, s. v., according to which one of the giants, whose name was Askos was killed by Hermes on the same place where he flayed him (Darmaskus = Aépua “Ackov). Abel hid himself for some time, for he feared the wicked Cain. The latter, however, searched for him, and told him what God had said to him (Gen. 4. 6-7), and thereby won his confidence, and believed that Cain abandoned his wicked life; Hadar, Gen. 4. 5. 2° BR 22. 8 (three views are given: 1) with a stone; 2) a cane=a play on the words }?p and mp; comp. vol. I, p. 106, and notes 6-8; 3) hecut Abel’s throat with a sword, having seen that Adam slaughtered one of his sacrifices in this manner); Sanhedrin 37b; Tan. Bereshit 9; PRE 21; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 4. 8; Yashar Bereshit, 9b (with the iron part of the plough-share); Zohar I, 54b (bit him with his teeth to death), and II, 231; Lekah, Gen. 4. 8 (with a club; this is the 139 21-25] The Legends of the Jews meaning of mbx, and not sword, as Buber, ad loc., takes it); Jub4. 31; Book of Adam 79 (he first tried to flog him to death with a stick; comp. Lekah, loc. cit.); Preuschen, Adamschriften, 33. In the last passage, as in BR, Joc. cit., is described how Cain discovered what kind of blow would kill his brother; comp. note 43. That Cain did not believe in God’s omniscience, and sought to conceal, by denial, the real facts, is remarked by Josephus, Philo, and the Midrashim; comp. notes 6 and 24. 2 BR 22. 9; Mishnah Sanhedrin 4. 5, and Babli 48b; ARN 31, 91; 2 Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 4. 10; Apocalypse of Moses 40 (here it is stated that the earth did not receive Abel’s remains); comp. further Aggadat Shir 7, 43, and 91, which reads: God showed Cain the place, where he had killed Abel, where the blood bubbled (comp. vol. IV, p. 304), and where nothing grows till this day. In view of this passage and the one of Apocalypse of Moses, Joc. cit., one is justified in taking BR, Joc. cit., and Sanhedrin 4. 5 to mean that the blood remained clinging to the wood andsstones without being absorbed. This, however, is not only against Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 4. 10, but also against the literal meaning of the Bible; comp. ps.—Philo, 16D, and notes 23 and 31. 22 Tan. Bereshit 9; BR 22.10 (two views are given: 1)the curse consisted in that the earth did not yield to Cain; 2)that the earth lost its former fertility; comp. vol I, pp. 112-113); MHG I, 112 (below; it had a different text of Tan., Joc. cit.); Sifre N., 161. ?3 Yashar Bereshit, 9b. The old sources (Mekilta Shirah 9, 42a; Tehillim 22, 189; Ekah 1, 74) speak only of the receiving of the blood and not of the remains; comp. note 21. Josephus, Antiqut., I, 2. 1, and PRE 21 (comp., however, Luria, ad loc.) speak of hiding the remains in the ground. Ephraim, I, 41, reads: He hid the remains under the high ears of grain and the earth. By this is very likely meant that the lower part of the body was hidden in the earth and the upper part under the ears. 24 Tan. Bereshit 9; MHG I, 113; Shitah Hadashah (Judah); Josephus, Antiqui., I, 2, 1; Philo, Quaestiones, 1, 69. Comp. also BRE22540- tans al LOD Resend *5 BR 22. 11. In this passage, as well as in many other Midrashiin (comp. the sources cited in the preceding note) and Targumim (Onkelos and Targum Yerushalmi, Gen. 4. 13), 81020 is explained “that it could be forgiven”, in agreement with Septuagint, Philo (Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat, 41), Peshitta, and Vulgate. 140 The Ten Generations [26-30 Comp. further Sanhedrin 101a and PRE 21; Tan. B. (introduction), 157. In the last passage the interpretation favored by modern exegetes is also given: ‘Indeed, very grievous is my sin, that I can hardly bear it.” 26 Tan. B. (introduction), 157, and I, 19; Tan. Bereshit 9; BR 22. 12-13. On Cain’s repentance, which was not sincere, and therefore his sin not entirely forgiven, see further PK 25, 160a—-160b; PR 47, 188b (repentance removes only half of the punishment decreed on account of a sin); Yelammedenu 45; Sanhedrin 101a; WR 10. 5; DR 8. 2; Josephus, Antigqui., I, 2. 1; comp. note 28. On the arguments of the heavenly court of justice in favor and against Cain, comp. Yalkut Reubeni and Yalkut David on Gen. 4. 16 (both are based on the same source, the Sefer ha-Tagin, in manuscript). 77 PRE 21; Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 4. 15. This is somewhat different from Sefer ha-Tagin in Yalkut Reubeni, ad loc., which reads: He received the letter 0 (nine) on his arm (not on his forehead; likewise in PRE) as a sign that he will not die before he has begotten nine descendants (comp. Gen. 4. 17-22). On the sign of Cain comp. the following note, and further Zohar I, 36b. 28 BR 22. 12-13, where seven different views are given on the sign of Cain: 1)God caused the sun to rise (as a sign that Cain was not to be slain by animals); 2)He marked him by inflicting leprosy on him; 3)He gave him a dog to protect him against animals; 4)He marked him with a horn on his forehead (as a degradation of his human form?); 5)He punished Cain as a sign (=warning) to future murderers; 6)He partly pardoned his sin as a sign (=example) for future sinners who repent; 7)He allowed him to live until the flood. Some of these views are also to be found in Tan. Bereshit 10, where an eighth is given: the Sabbath, the sign between God and Israel (Exod. 31. 13), came in and saved Cain from death, as it had formerly done in the case of Adam (comp. vol. I, pp. 8586); BaR 7. 5; Yelammedenu 43 (leprosy was inflicted as a punishment upon those who devoted their lives to the acquisition of possessions, as in the case of Cain, Job, and king Uzziah; on this point see BR 22. 3; Mekilta RS, 92; Tan. Noah 13=Makiri on Is. 6. 50. Comp. further vol. III, p. 214, as well as Ecclus. 10. 13); Preuschen, Adamschriften, 35 and 43. Comp. note 43. 29 Yerushalmi Targumim and Midrash Aggada on Gen. 4. 16. Comp. the following note. 3° Tan. B. (introduction), 158; Genizah fragment in the lx 141 31] The Legends of the Jews brary of Cambridge University, published by Ginzberg in HaGoren IX, 58—59 and 66; Shulhan Arba‘ I, 9d; Shu‘aib, Bereshit 5d. Oh the wonderful fertility of the earth in Messianic times, when conditions will be the same as before the fall, comp. Apocalypse of Baruch 29. 5; the Papias Apocalypse (a conversation of Jesus) cited by Irenaeus 5. 23 (as a parallel to the statement ‘‘ And when one of the saints will take hold of a grape, another will exclaim: I am a better grape, take me; praise the Lord through me’”’, one may cite the Haggadah: If some one will try to pick a fig on the Sabbath, in the time to come, it will exclaim: ‘‘It is Sabbath”; Tehillim 73, 335); Enoch 10. 19; Revelation of St. John (beginning); Visio Pauli 22; Ketubot 111a-112a; Sifre D., 317. Comp. further note 105 on vol. I, p. 86; Index, s. v. ‘‘Wine’’; Alfred Jeremias, Babylonisches im NT., 332-33. 31 Tan. Bereshit 10; PRE 21; BR 22. 8 (this is, however, not found in the manuscripts; comp. Theodor, ad loc.); Slavonic Palaea, 52; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv.,s66. In contrast to the rabbinic legend about the burial of Abel, it is recorded in Apocalypse of Moses 40, and in the literature dependent on it (Christian Book of Adam; Preuschen, Adamschriften, 45), that the earth did not receive Abel’s remains until Adam’s body was returned thither; comp. note 21 and vol. I, p. 100. The earth, which originally consisted of a level surface, became mountainous as a punishment for having received Abel’s blood; Wa-Yosha‘ 53 (comp. vol. I, pp. 14, below, 18, and 80, top, for other opinions concerning the origin of mountains), and the earth will not become level again until Messianic times; vol. IV, p. 234. The conception that the mountains did not originally belong to the earth’s form is prevalent in legend; comp. Dahnhardt, Natursagen, I, index, s. v. ‘‘Gebirge’’. See further Mishle 8, 59. Abel is the type of the pious (12 Testaments, Issachar 4. 4), and in the heavenly court he is the one appointed to judge every soul entering there, and decide whether it should be punished or rewarded; Testament of Abraham 12-13; comp. note 142 on vol. I, p. 102. Abel’s soul, according to the Kabbalists, came to the world again in the persons of Jacob and Moses; comp. the numerous quotations from kabbalistic writings in Yalkut Reubeni on Gen. 4. 1, seg. Abel’s soul appeared as the accuser against Cain, until the latter and his seed were destroyed from the face of the earth; Enoch 22. 7; comp. vol. III, p. 101. A combination of two legends concerning Abel’s burial is found in the Slavonic Enoch 142 The Ten Generations (32-37 (addition to 4, 91), where it is said that the bird from which Adam learned to bury the dead was the “jack-daw.’ On the raven COMP Vole pr 39s 3? On this point comp. vo. I, p. 118. Concerning the darkness which came upon Adam after the fall, comp. note 108 on vol. I, p. 89. 33 The seven products mentioned in Deut. 8. 8 are here referred to. Comp. Berakot 6. 4. 34 Instead of pwa pand read porxn pon yind. On the twoheaded Cainites comp. vol. IV, p. 132; Zohar I, 9b, and II, 80a. In the first passage of Zohar mention is made also of the two monsters Afrira and Kastimon, who were placed as rulers of the abode of the Cainites, and are the cause that Naamah (=Lilith) appears to men in sleep. The entire passage is rather obscure, but this: much is certain that the Zohar conceives the Cainites as a species of genii, demons, and monsters. This view is prevalent in the legends of medieval Europe; comp. Emerson, Legends of Cain, 878, as well as the sources cited in note 36, and further Otot ha-Mashiah, 58 (below). 35 Comp. Greek Baruch III, and vol. I, p. 180 on the part of the earth near to Gehenna. 36 Zohar Hadash Bereshit 8a—8b (instead of 1229 4287 read "Sou 135); Zohar Ruth, 97b (beginning ’N91M7'1 7981); Zohar I, 9b, 39b—40a, 54b, 157a, and additions to I, 3a—3b; II, 41b, and 80a; III, 9b-10a. For further details on the monsters, half-men and half-animals, in the nether-world (to which reference is made in the last passage), comp. note 34, as well as vol. I, pp. 10-11. On the thirst of the inhabitants of the nether-world, comp. note 135 on vol. III, p. 54 and Dietrich, Nekyia, 97, seq., where reference is made to the prevalent view concerning the thirst of the dead. Of Greek origin is the conception of the place of ‘forgetfulness’; comp. Rohde, Psyche, II, 310, and 390-391. See the following note. 37 Zohar (additions) I, 3a—3b; Zohar Hadash Bereshit 8a—8b and Ruth 97b (beginning *NoINN ‘7 DN); Yalkut Reubeni Gen. 3 (end) cites the description of the ‘‘seven worlds” from the Zohar, in the Hebrew language, whereas in our texts of the Zohar it is in Aramaic. In many details this Hebrew presentation deviates from the Aramaic. The view that the punishment was inflicted upon Cain in the seventh generation (i. e., Lamech; comp. vol. I, p. 116) is based on Gen. 4.14, and 24, where o’nyaw is explained in this sense; comp. Onkelos and Targum Yerushalmi, ad loc.; BR 23. 4 (comp. Theodor, ad /oc.); 143 38-41 The Legends of the Jews Tan. Bereshit 11; MHGI, 118; Theodoretus, Quaestiones in Gen., 43; Jerome, ad Damasum, 125 (explicitly in connection with the Lamech legend), who adds that, according to Jewish tradition, 77 decendants of Lamech perished at the time of the flood, in fulfilment of the words of Gen. 4. 24. Comp. Josephus, Antiqui. 1,2, 2 and note 42. Somewhat different is the (Jewish?) tradition cited by Ephraim, I, 43 E, that seven generations of Cain perished with him, whereas the Midrash speaks only of the four generations of Cain (corresponding to the four generations which Abel should have reared); comp. Tan., loc. cit. Jerome cites another Jewish tradition, according to which the Bible speaks of the seven sins, which Cain had to atone for: 1) He did not divide his sacrifice properly (comp. note 12); 2) he was jealous of his brother; 3) he deceitfully lured him to death (comp. note 19); 4) he killed his brother; 5) he denied this act; 6) he asserted that his sin could not be forgiven (7. ¢., he doubted God's mercy?) comp. note 25; 7) he did not repent of his sin during his long life, which God granted him in order to make amends; comp. note 26. The Haggadah in 12 Testaments, Benjamin 7. 1-5 on Gen. 4. 24, is somewhat confused: instead of the seven generations of the rabbinic sources, this passage has ‘‘seven centuries’’, during which Cain suffered for his sins so that every century brought its plague with it until he perished in the flood at the age of 900. That Cain perished in the flood is also stated in rabbinic sources; BR 22. 12 and 32.5; ShR 31.16 (here it is stated that wherever Cain came he was driven away by the inhabitants); Koheleth 6. 3; Koheleth Z. 106; Tan. Mishpatim 13 (in an abbreviated form; the hundred sons of Cain are also alluded to in the three last-named sources). Comp. 43 and Ginzberg’s Haggada bei den Kirchenv. 65-69. 38 Midrash Aggadah Gen. 4. 17, according to BR 23. 1 and Tehillim 9, 85. Comp. further Rashi and Lekah, ad loc. 39 Yashar Bereshit, 9b. 4° Ps.—Philo, 2, where the name of these cities, that of Cain’s wife (Themach=non ‘‘may she be destroyed’; in 35 A, the same name is given of Sisera’s mother), and those of his three sons (besides Enoch) and two daughters are given. Cain, it is further recorded here, begot Enoch at the age of 15, and died 730 years old. But Jub. 4. 1 and 31 read: Cain died 930 A. M., which, according to the chronology of this book corresponds to the statement that Cain lived 860 years; comp. notes 11, 37. 4% Josephus, Antiqui. I, 22. The observation of Josephus that Cain was the first to introduce weights and measures is based onthe 144 The Ten Generations [42 , haggadic interpretation of the name )p=mp ‘‘the measuring rod”. Comp. notes 7, 20 and 53. 4? BR 23. 2. Here Lamech (comp. also vol. I, p. 117) is also counted among the sinful descendants of Cain, whereas Josephus, Antiqut., 1, 2,2, designates him as a prophet who had predicted that he would have to atone for the murder committed by his forebear Cain. This interpretation of Gen. 4. 24 is closely related to the Haggadah given by Jerome; comp. note 37. On the wickedness of the Cainites, comp. vol. I, pp. 121 and 151.—The verse Ps. 89. 3, which, according to the rabbinic view, is to be translated: ‘‘The world has been established by love’’, refers, according to the Haggadah, to God’s goodness, who had provided Cain with a sister whom he could marry. For without God’s goodness this is forbidden by the law; but this marriage was permitted to Cain in order to insure the propagation of the human race. Sifra 20. 17; Yeru‘shalmi Yebamot 11, 11d; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 5, 22b, and 9, 20d; Babli 58; PRE 21. On the translation of Ps., loc.cit., see Targum and Peshitta, as well as ARN 4, 21. Comp. further Aphraates, 455 and Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, 1, 665, note. These sources presuppose (comp. the polemic against this view in Philo, De Posteritate Caini, 11) that only Cain married his sister (NINN NM) War in Yerushalmi is a later addition based on the legend of the twinsisters; comp. note 17), whereas Seth married his niece, Cain’s daughter. Thehigh esteem in which Jub. holds all the patriarchs, from Adam to Noah (comp., on the other hand, note 1 about the adverse opinion of the Rabbis), precludes this book from referring to the union of Seth or his descendants with the wicked Cainites, and hence it is stated that Seth, Enoch, and Mahalalel married their sisters. The fictitious names frequently found in this pseudepigraphic work and in ps.-Philo (particularly the names of the women of ancient times) are entirely unknown in old rabbinic literature (comp.

the adverse comment on such vagaries in Baba Batra 91a, which are regarded as a specialty of the heretics, 7), and are only found in the writings of the Arabic period (Yashar, and already in PRE), when the Jews became more familiar with the Christian and Mohammedan pseudepigraphic writings. The three lists of the wives of the ante-deluvian patriarchs, which we possess in Hebrew sources, Algazi’s Toledot Adam, 2a-2b, Damascus manuscript, published by Harkavy in Ha-Pisgah I, 58, and Munich manuscript (published by Perles in his Beztrdge aur Geschichte heb...Studien, 90), are never145 43-44] The Legends of the Jews theless important for the history of these names, since they enable us to establish their Hebrew forms, which very often cannot be recognized from the Greek and Ethiopic transliterations. The following examples will illustrate this point. Adam’s oldest daughter, whose name has been transmitted in no less than twenty-two forms (comp. Rénsch, Buch der Jubilien, 373; MHG I, 106; Theodor on BR 22. 2, pages 205-206), is called Azurah in Jub. 4, written M11¥Y in Hebrew, in agreement with Kiddushin 6a, where ’nxy ‘‘my wife” occurs. In PRE 2isin1y, ‘‘his wife’’, an allusion to Gen. 2.18. Noah’s wife is Emzaru in Jub., Joc. cit., and yntos in Hebrew (this is how it should be read in Algazi, instead of y7)98; in Munich manuscript it is abbreviated to y71D), z. e., ‘‘mother of the seed of man’”’. The theophorous names, as Razuyal byixn and Azrial, bxry, Jub., loc. cit., and 8. 1 (with Algazi, Sason is to be read instead of Susan; }1ww not WW) appear in the Hebrew texts in their original forms 7X7 and Wy. Later on the termination 7, so frequently employed in proper names, was substituted by by. Noah’s mother is properly called in Dam. MS. 38 na (in order not to mistake it to mean ‘‘the daughter of Enosh”’, the word pw is added; this word, therefore, must not be emended to ANDY, as\is done by Marx, Orient. Ltz., IV, 358, on the basis of Baidawi), corresponding to Betenos in Jub., Joc. cit. On the other hand, the names of Noah’s daughtersin-law appear (Jub. 7. 14-16, where Adataneses= 8¥) NIT “‘ princess of women’’) to be badly corrupted in the Hebrew sources. The names of Jacob’s daughters-in-law in Dam. MS. are entirely different from those of Yashar (comp. vol. II, pp. 37-39), and this source deserves closer investigation. The same source knows also the name of Ishmael’s wife, Gigit (comp., for another view, note 218 on vol. I, p. 269), and the name of the prophet Jonah’s wife, who is called Yoam the daughter of Azen; comp. note 39 on vol. IV, p. PSS), 43 On the sign of Cain, comp. note 28. 44 Tan. Bereshit 11 (on the text comp. Yalkut I, 38; MHG I, 118-119; Rashi and Midrash Aggada on Gen. 4. 23-24); Yashar Bereshit, 10b-i1a; BR 23. 4; Jerome, ad Damasum, 125; Ephraim, I, 26D; Book of Adam 2. 13; Preuschen, Adamschriften, 35-36; Schatzhéhle, 78. Comp. Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraphicus, 120122 (this passage contains the views concerning the death of Cain found in the works of the chronologists Johan Malala, and Michael . Glycas); Griinbaum, Neue Beitrége, 71-72. According to Jub. 146 The Ten Generations [45 4, 31, Cain met his death in the following manner: his house fell in over him. Just as he had slain Abel with a stone (comp. note 20), even so was he killed by the stones of the house which fell in. Aggadat Bereshit 26, 53-54, reads to the same effect. Philo, Quod Deterius Potiort Insidiari Soleat, 48, seems to explain allegorically a legend, according to which Cain never died. This may be compared with the legend about the immortality of the giants; comp. vol. III, p. 269. It would not be surprising if Philo already knew of the legend that Cain was the son of Satan (comp. note 3) and his celestial origin would explain his immortality. EZ 2, 174, appears to be an allusion to an unfamiliar Lamech legend; but perhaps we ought to read ?}Pp=VAs 73x, and the passage merely implies that Lamech, who was mourning over the death of his grandfather, was endowed with long life and other blessings. It is difficult to ascertain what ps.—Philo 2 wishes to record concerning Lamech, since “the text is obscure, and very likely corrupt. Comp. note 37. 45 BR 23. 2-3; Yashar Bereshit, 10b; Yerushalmi Yebamot 6, 7c (on the meaning of the name Zillah comp. Philo, De Posteritate Caini, 33, whose explanation agrees with Yerushalmi); Yalkut I, 47 (in the Oxford MS. nm 0’»D is given as the source; comp. also Theodor on BR 22. 3); ps.—Philo, 2 (the sentence et coepit...psalteria should be read after organorum, and the words et corrumpere terram before indigna est deus); Theophilus, II, 30. Opinions differ concerning Naamah, Tubal-cain’s sister. According to one, this Naamah, ‘‘the lovely one’, was Noah’s wife (BR, loc cit; comp. also Mishle 31, 111, where it is said that the piety of Noah’s wife was like that of her husband), whereas another view maintains that it was another Naamah whom Noah married. Naamah, Tubal-cain’s sister, is further identified with the beautiful woman to whose charms the angels became victims; comp. MHG I, 118 (this is very likely based on PRE, as remarked by Schechter); Zohar I, 55a; Zohar Ruth 99a (beginning mnp mom'7); Midrash Aggada Gen. 4. 22. Whatever has been said in other sources concerning Istehar (comp. vol. I, p. 149) is referred to Naamah in the last passage: she did not consent to gratify the desire of the fallen angels. But in the kabbalistic sources cited above (comp. further Zohar III, 76b, as well as Kaneh 103b; for more details see Griinbaum Gesammelte Aufsdtze, 57, seq. and 447, as well as Ginzberg’s article ‘‘Ashmedai”’ in Jewish Encyclopedia) Naamah, the sister of Tubal-cain, is said to be the wife of Shamdan, from whose union sprang forth Ashmedai (=the devil 147 46-50] The Legends of the Jews par excellence), who together with Lilith strangles little children (comp. vol. I, pp. 65-66), while Naamah, like the latter, fools men in their dreams. On Naamah the musician, and the influence of her sensual music which corrupted humanity, comp. further Yerushalmi Targumim Gen. 4. 22; Griibaum, Neue Beitrdge, 72-74; note 14 on vol. I, p. 152. 46 BR 23. 4; Tan. Bereshit 11; BaR 14. 2; ‘Erubin 18b; Tan. B. I, 20. The justification of Adam’s celibacy in the text is taken from the last passage (this statement presupposes that Abel scarcely lived a few months; comp. note 11), whereas in ‘Erubin his celibacy appears to be as an atonement for his sin, and it is also presupposed that the first two sons were born before the fall, or at least begotten before that occurrence. Comp. note 4. 47 ‘Erubin 18b (po°> “spectres”, as in Apocalypse of Baruch 10. 8); Tan. B. I, 20; BR 20. 11 and 24. 6. Only the last mentioned source contains the assertion that Eve likewise became the mother of spirits through her union with male spirits; see Zohar I, 54b, and III, 76b, where it is said that even now the propagation of this species is continued by virtue of the union of men with spirits in their sleep. Comp. note 45. It is possible that this conception of the origin of spirits (evil ones? comp., however, BR 20. 11) is intended to oppose the assertion of the Persians that the redeemer ‘“‘Saoshyant’’ will spring up from the seed of Zarathustra that went to the ground. Comp. Bund. 32. 8, 9 and Yt. 13. 62. 48 Concerning this number of languages comp. note 72 on vol. Wh, jos WBE 49 Ma‘aseh-Buch 143, 40a-40b and the Hebrew from a MS. collection of legends, published in R.E.J., XX XIII, 239, seg. The long-winded biography of R. Haninah, or, as the Hebrew version reads, R. Johanan, in this source is identical with the narrative found in Arabian Nights concerning the gratitude of three animals (the fish, the dog, and the raven) towards their human benefactor. This narrative, as is well known, is based on an animal fable found in Pantschatantra. On the acquisition of language through swallowing its written characters see Bet Nekot ha-Halakah 1,58, and Goldziher in Berliner- Festschrift, 150. 50 BR 23. 4-5; PK 5, 43b; PR 15, 67b; Ruth R. 4, 12; Makiri, Prov. 14.28. Ruth Z. 55; Tan. B. I, 20. In allusion to the words of Scripture °> nw (Gen. 4. 25), the name nw is interpreted as “plant” (=>-nv); Aggadat Bereshit (MS. additions), 37. Is the legend con148 The Ten Generations’ {51-53 cerning Seth and the branch of the tree of life in various compilations of the Vita Adae (comp. Preuschen, Adamschriften, 41 and 46) related to this interpretation of the name? The name Seth is also connected with mw ‘foundation’: he became the foundation of mankind; BaR 14. 12; MHG I, 119; Lekah and Midrash Aggada on Gen. 4. 2. 5 ARN 2, 12; Tan. Noah 5; Tan. B. I, 32; Tehillim 9, 84. Comp. note 318 on vol. I, p. 306. $2 PRE 2. Hardly anything is known in the older rabbinic literature of the glorification of Seth, which has prevailed for some time, as may be seen from the existence of a gnostic sect, the Sethiani, who identified him with the Messiah (comp. Preuschen, Adamschriften, 48-51; Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraphicus, 141, 143, 145). Certain traces of this glorification have been retained by Josephus, Antiqut. 1, 2, 3, and in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature (Ecclu. 49. 16; Jub. 19. 24; Enoch 85. 8-9; 2 Enoch 33. 10. See also index, s. v. ‘‘Seth, Descendants of”). Only in kabbalistic writings has this view, supposedly favored by BR 23.5 and PRE 22, attained importance. Hence, for instance, it is asserted that the soul of Seth entered into Moses and will again reappear in the Messiah. The account by Syncellus, 1. 16-17 concerning the translation of Seth to the angels, who instructed him about the fall of the angels, the fall of man, the deluge, and the advent of the Messiah, seems to go back to an apocryphal book of Seth (very likely of Jewish origin). Comp. note 1 and the following note. 53 Josephus, Antiqui., I, 2. 3. On the astronomic studies of the ante-diluvian generations comp. also BR 26. 5. The chronologists Suidas (s. v. 270), Michael Glycas, Annales 228-233, and Johannes Malala 1. 151, Joel, Chronographia, p. 3, know not only to report about Seth’s astronomical knowledge but also about his invention of the Hebrew characters, as well as the division of time into weeks, months and years. He received his knowledge from the angel Uriel who came to him (Syncellus 1. 16-17, on the other hand, speaks of Seth’s stay among the angels), and revealed to him this knowledge, as he subsequently did to Enoch. The legend concerning the two tablets, which Seth and his children respectively made, reads differently in Vita Adae 50. 1-3. For a detailed discussion concerning this legend, see Ginzberg’s Hebrew essay bran wrx bw (reprinted from Ha-Goren VIII, 35-51), which also contains a discussion on the conception about the conflagration of the world mentioned by Philo (Moses, 2. 36, Mangey’s edition, 175) and the 149 54) The Legends of the Jews Rabbis. See also Bousset, Zeitschrift fiir NT. Wissenschaft, 1902. It should also be noted here that Josippon 2. 8 (which was borrowed by Yashar Bereshit, 10a, below) considers these tablets as the work of Seth’s grandchild Kenan. Josippon knows also to report that these tablets with their Hebrew characters could still be seen on some island in India in the time of Alexander the Great. It is further maintained that in that place there is a city, full of all kinds of treasures, which Kenan had founded but which no one can enter, because he rendered it inaccessible by means of astronomical and astrological knowledge and witchcraft. Kenan’s bewitched town appears to be based on Arabic sources. Kenan is already described in Jub. 8. 3 (comp. the references to the chronologists by Charles) as a master of great wisdom (comp. note 41 on »pp=n)p, which also signifies ‘‘writing stylus”). This, however, refers to Kenan the son of Arpachshad who is known to Jub. as well as to Septuagint, but not to the masoretic text. Aggadat Bereshit (introduction) 37, on the other hand says of Kenan that through him his generation came in possession of evil (j”_p=Mp ‘“‘possessed’’; comp. note 7), since he induced them to worship idols. His son Mahalalel, on the contrary, repented of his sins, and returned to God, whom he praised (bm) and extolled. On Mahalalel comp. Jub. 19. 4 (one of the seven pious men of the pre-Abrahamic times: Adam, Seth, Enosh, Mahalalel, Enoch, Noah, and Shem) and 2 Enoch 33. 10, which mentions the books composed by Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, and Enoch. These books were guarded by the angels Arukh and Parukh. Comp. Yerahmeel 24. 7, and the parallel passages cited by Gaster, where Tubal-Cain is described as the one who had made the tablets. 54 Yerahmeel 23. 6, and in a somewhat abbreviated form in Hadar, Gen. 4.26. Comp. also PRE 45, with respect to the golden calf: Sammael roared out of the mouth of the calf in order to mislead Israel. The origin of idolatry occupied the minds of the Greeks, and the Jewish-Alexandrian schools accepted, with some modifications, the theory of Euhemerus, according to which its origin was due to the worship of dead heroes. Through the Jewish writers this theory reached the Church Fathers; comp. Wisdom 14. 12-13; Ciementine Homilies 9. 5 (which reads: This is the beginning of idolatry: When Nimrod, jater known as Zoroaster, was struck by lightning, the masses perceived in it a special distinction, and therefore erected a temple on his grave. Whereupon the princes of var150 The Ten Generations [54 ious countries laid claim to similar glory; comp. note 85 on vol. I, p. 178); Jerome on Ezek. 23. 12 and Hos. 2. 10 (Ninus, after a victorious struggle against Zoroaster, placed his father Belus among the gods). Comp. further the sources cited in Griinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsdize, 198-199. The statement frequently found among Church Fathers that the demons and the fallen angels, respectively, seduced men to idolatry (comp. e. g. Minucius Felix, Octav., 26. 7; Justin Martyr, Apologia, 2. 15; Clementine Recognitiones, 4. 13-15; Tatian, Or. Ad Graecos, 8; Athenagoras, Legat. Pro Christianis 24; Lactantius, Institutiones, 2. 16), and taught them the making of images and statues, goes back to pseudepigraphic writings of the Jews (comp. e. g. Enoch 66. 6 and 99, 7; Jub. 11. 4) but is entirely unknown to the older rabbinic literature. This view is only found in later writings (comp. e. g. the legend in ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 71) and especially in the Kabbalah. Comp. Griinbaum, Gesammelte Aufsdtze, 93. The beginning of idolatry, according to the older rabbinic sources, based on their interpretation of Gen. 4. 26, took place in the time of Enosh (hence his name is ‘‘sickly”’, 7. e., mankind became ill in his time; Aggadat Bereshit, introduction, 37; Yashar Bereshit, 10a); Sifre D., 43; Shabbat 118b; WR 23. 3; Mekilta Bahodesh 6, 67b; Midrash Tannaim 20 and 195; BR 2. 3; 5. 1 and 5; 23. 7; Tan. B. I, 52, and IV, 24; Tan. Noah 18 and Yitro 16; Tehillim 1, 11; 88, 380; Yerushalmi Targumim and Onkelos on Gen. 4. 26 (on the reading of Onkelos comp. Berliner, ad loc.). Jerome, ad loc., knows of the rabbinic interpretation of this verse (Gen., loc. cit.,) together with that of Septuagint, Aquila, and Peshitta with which Ecclu. 49. 16 is in agreement. See also Philo, De Abrahamo, 2, and De Praemiis, 2 (end), where Enosh is considered as the type of the pious. Comp. also Theodoretus, Quaestiones in Gen., 247, who takes Seth as the subject of bmn. It is noteworthy that the passages cited above, as well as other passages (comp. Ekah, introduction, 24, 26; PR 42, 178b and 193a), speak of the wicked generation of Enosh, but not of the wicked Enosh. Maimonides, however (Yad ha-Hazakah ‘Abodat Kokabim 1. 1) observes (very likely on the basis of older sources; comp. Hekalot 6, 173, and Shabbat Joc. cit.: WIND) that Enosh himself was an idolater. In Baraita 32 Middot (Yalkut I, 47; comp. note 45) it is explicitly stated that at the time of Enosh images and immorality were introduced by the descendants of Cain. Comp. vol. IJ, p. 260, and vol. III, p. 374. Comp. note 56 (end). 151 55-56] The Legends of the Jews 55 BR 23. 6-7; Baraita 32 Middot (in Yalkut I, 47) reads: As soon as this generation committed three sins (idolatry, murder, and incest; comp. the end of the preceding note), three visitations came upon them: the ocean flooded a third part of the earth; there arose mountains, valleys, and rocky ground, whereas prior to that everything had been smooth and even (comp. notes 29, 30); man’s stature was shortened. In Messianic times everything will regain its former position. The overflowing of the ocean in the time of Enosh is frequently alluded to; comp. Mekilta Bahodesh 6, 67b; Sifre D., 43; Midrash Tannaim 20 and 195; BR 5. 6; Shekalim 6, 50a; Tan. B. I, 52, and IV, 24; Tan. Noah 18 and Yitro 16; Tehillim 88, 300. On the transformation of men into apes comp. vol. I, p. 180, and the notes appertaining to it; Enoch 19. 2 (the women who seduced the angels were transformed into sirens); Koran 2. 60 and 7. 174. 56 Hekalot 6, 172; Hakam ha-Razin in Yalkut Reubeni 25b25c; Ziyyoni, Gen. 4. 26. On the view that thé Shekinah dwells under the tree of life comp. vol. I, p. 97. On the withdrawal of the Shekinah from the earth to heaven sce vol. II, p. 260. Those who came near the Shekinah remained safe from vermin; comp. vol. III, p. 472, and IV, p. 242. On the opposition of the angels to the creation of man, see vol.

I, pp. 53-54 and note 15 on vol. I, p. 152. On the subjugation of the heavenly bodies through the power of magic, comp. Tan. Bereshit 12 (read ]? 1019 instead of ~"19); MHG I, 131; note 150n vol. I, p.152. The two fallen angels bear the names of Uzza and Azzael, Azza and Azzael, Shemhazaiand Azazel. The identity of Azzael with Azazel does not require any proof; but it has not hitherto been noticed that Uzza or Azza were originally the same as Shemhazai. Since nearly all the names of angels are theophorous (this was already noticed by the old Midrashim; comp. PK 12, 108b, and the parallel passage cited by Buber, which reads: The name of God is combined with every angle), Uzza and Azza are therefore to be taken as abbreviated forms of Jehouzza and Jehoazza (comp. the name WY or MY in the Bible; on the abbreviation of theophorous names, particularly those containing the particles WW and 7, comp. note 42). This abbreviation is due to the fact that it was not considered proper to combine the names 17” and 7” with the fallen angels. Another way of avoiding this combination was the substitution of a8 ‘‘the Name”’ for 17°. Hence the name Shemhazai, which differs only slightly from Jehouzai (y and Nn are often interchanged), 152 The Ten Generations [57 goes back to "tyow=1yim’. On the ascending of the Shekinah amid the sounding of the trumpets, comp. Hanok, 114, and vol. II, 306. On Enosh as the originator of idolatry, see Zohar I, 56a, where, however, Helakot, Joc. cit., and Maimonides, Yad ha-Hazakah, ‘ Abodat Kokabim 1. 1, were very likely made use of. Comp. also Luria’s note 4 on PRE. 22 and note 45 (énd). 57 Enoch 6-8, where two different sources were probably combined into one, since twenty archangels are enumerated in 6, whereas 8 has only ten (in our texts nine only are given, owing to the fact that one name fell out), and it is well known that the number of the members of the heavenly court is differently given in the different sources, as twenty, ten, and seven, respectively; comp. vol. I, p. 140, where, according to the Hebrew book of Enoch 176, the twenty archangels are enumerated. Comp. further Index, s. v. “Archangels’”. On the names of the angels in this part of Enoch (see the vast material given by Charles 17), the following may be noted: Artakifa="pn xyIN; Ramiel=>sxnyr (occurs also in the Hebrew book of Enoch, loc. cit., as the ‘‘angel of thunder’’); Tamiel =bxpinn, “angel of the deep”’; Danel isa Greek scribal error, Aaveujd for Aaveenh =Aaderhr bwhb “angel of the night”, as in the Hebrew Enoch, Joc. cit.; Batarrel stands for Matarel, bynun in the Hebrew Enoch, ‘‘angel of rain’’; Zakiel is in Hebrew Enoch Swpr “angel of storms”, and similarly in the magic text published by Stube, Jtidish-babylonische Zaubertexte 26. Satarel occurs in Berakot 57b as the name of a person. As the name of an angel it signifies “angel of hidden things’’, 7. e., the secrets of nature. It may, however, be remarked that 1nbdy, ‘‘Venus’’, appears in Jewish texts as an angel (comp. Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, index, s. v.). Accordingly Satarel may stand for bxindy.—The fall of the angels plays an important part in Jewish folk-lore, as well as in Jewish theology, and the following summary of the development of this belief may therefore not be out of place. In connection with Gen. 6. 1-4 we find in Enoch (in addition to the passages cited above, comp. Charles’ index, s. v. ‘‘Angels’’, as well as Bousset, Religion, 328, seg., and 560, seg.) a legend concerning the angels who in the time of Jared (on the playof the word 17 ‘‘descended”’, comp. Jub. 4. 15 and Midrash Aggada Gen. 5, 18, as well as Aggadat Bereshit, introduction 37, not in reference to the angels, but the generation which ‘‘sank low’’) rebelled against God and descended from heaven to earth where they were degraded (2 Peter 2.4 reads: ‘“‘cast 153 57] The Legends of the Jews them down’’, which is a midrashic interpretation of ord53, Gen. 6. 4, deriving it from the Hifil and not from the Kal. This interpretation is also known, along with others, to BR 27. 7. Comp. also Aggadat Bereshit, Introduction 39, where it is connected with xbp, according to which it means ‘‘the distinguished”), because they had sexual intercourse with the daughters of man. These fallen angels are the originators of all evil; through them witchcraft, astrology, and idolatry came down to man. They themselves were judged by God, and in accordance with His judgment, are awaiting punishment in the infernal regions at the end of time. But their descendants do mischief as spirits and demons all the time; they entice man to idolatry, immorality, and all kinds of sins (comp. note 54, and Bousset, index, s. v. ‘‘Daemonen”’), and lure them on to their destruction. Jub. 4. 15, 22, and 5. 1, also speaks of the sexual intercourse between the angels and the daughters of man, and likewise ascribes the origin of evil to the demons (comp. especially 10. 1, seg.), the descendants of these sinful union’; but no mention is made of any rebellion of the angels in this pseudepigraphic work. On the contrary, it is stated there that these angels were sent by God to the earth (4. 14), “that they should instruct the children of men and that they should do justice and uprightness on earth”, but having been lured by the beauty of women, they fell victims to them. The same view is to be found also in Apocalypse of Baruch 66. 11-15. Still more striking is the agreement between Jub. and the elaborated legend concerning the fall of the angels in the Clementine Homilies, 8. 11-15. This was also known to Commodianus, Instructiones 3. On the fall of the angels comp. also vol. I, pp. 148, 149, and note 10 appertaining thereto. In 2 Enoch 18 the fall of the angels at the time of Jared seems to be taken as a continuation of the original rebellion of Satan and his hosts (comp. on this point vol. I, pp. 14, 18, 53-54, 62-64, and the notes appertaining thereto, especially note 34 on the last passage), and this may be compared with Enoch 18. 15-16, where the rebellionof the stars (=angels) at the beginning of creation is spoken of. The literal interpretation of Gen. 6. 1-4 is found not only in the above-mentioned pseudepigraphic works, but also in the Septuagint (on the correct reading of this text comp. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss, 46-47, and Vorstudien 67. See also Dillmann in commentary on Gen., ad Joc.); Philo, De Gigant., 2; Josephus, Antigui., I, 3. 1; Aquila and Peshitta, ad loc.; 2 Peter 2. 4; Jude 6. The older Church Fathers follow this 154 The Ten Generations [57 view, and make use of it in their explanations of the existence of evil in this world (comp. above and note 54); see e. g., Justin Martyr, Apologia, 11, 5, and Dialogue, 79; Clementine, Homilies, 8. 11, seqg.; Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata 5, 1, 10; Tertullian, De Virgin. 7 and De Idol. 9; Lactantius, Institutiones, 2.15. The first attempt at a different interpretation of this Gen. passage is found in 12 Testaments, Reuben 5. 6. Here the intercourse of the angels with the women is described in the following words: ‘‘They (the angels) transformed themselves into the shape of men, and appeared to them when they (the women) were with their husbands. And the women, lusting in their minds after their forms, gave birth to giants.’’ The giants, therefore, are not the physical descendants of the angels, but for their size they are indebted to their mothers whose imaginations were filled with the beauty and tallness of the angels (on their high stature, see vol. III, p. 268; hence in the Testaments: ‘“‘for the watchers appeared to them as reaching even unto heaven”’; this is in agreement with the explanation given by the Rabbis of the name D’piy as jNDIpanonn ypyow; comp. Sotah 34b; BR 26. 7, and many of the parallel passages cited by Theodor, ad loc.). The same view is also explicitly stated in Kallah 2, 8a, and the obscure passage in Tan. B. I, 26, is very likely to be explained accordingly. BR 27. 7 is a rationalistic interpretation (comp. Theodor, ad loc.) of this verse. While the literal meaning ot ‘‘the sons of God”’ is still adherred to in the 12 Testaments, Reuben, Joc. cit., as well as in the 12 Testaments, Naphtali, 3. 5, Philo interprets this phrase to signify ‘‘virtuous men”, and ‘‘the daughters of man” as ‘wicked and corrupted women”’ (Quaestiones in Gen., 1, 92). In the authoritative writings of the Synagogue great stress is laid on the fact that Scripture does not know of any sexual intercourse between angels and women. ‘The sons of God” is declared to signify ‘‘distinguished men’’, particularly the ante-diluvian generations, who enjoyed happy and long lives, like the angels. See Sifre N., 86; Sifre Z., 194; BR 27.2-5; Symmachus, Onkelos, and Targum Yerushalmi on Gen. 6. 2 and 4; Trypho, as quoted by Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 79. The first Christian author who discarded the literal interpretation of “the sons of God"”’ was Julius Africanus (according to a quotation by Cyncellus, I, 34; comp. Charles, Jub., 4.15; Origen, Contra Celsum, 4. 31, a contemporary of Africanus, knows that obs may mean “judge”, but does not assign this signification to bx, in Gen. 6. 2), who lived 155 58) The Legends of the Jews one hundred years later than Trypho and R. Simon (comp. BR, loc. cit.). These two Rabbis expressed themselves most decisively against the myth of the angels’ intercourse with the women. On the interpretation of the ‘‘sons of God’’as the descendants of Seth, met with among the later Church Fathers, comp. note 14 on vol. I, p. 152. On the traces of the myth of the fallen angels in the non-authoritative writings of the Synagogue, comp. vol. I, pp. 148150, and note 10 appertaining thereto. The designation of Adam as “the son of God” in Luke 3. 38 (in a genealogical sense) shows that already in the early days of Christianity the conception of the incarnation of a God-like being was not confined to Christ. The rabbinic sources (Tan. B. V, 77; BaR 16. 24 and paralle! passages) find in Ps. 82. 6-7 the contrast expressed between ‘‘the sons of the Most High” and Adam. 58 Enoch 12-16; Jub. 4. 17-23. Numerous legends are extant in the first mentioned pseudepigraphic work, as well as in 2 Enoch and in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, concerning the person of Enoch. He is the inventor of all sciences and knowledge; he has intercourse with angels in heaven, and is finally translated into paradise or heaven where he dwells‘ and performs the function of heavenly scribe or secretary. All these legends left no trace in the authoritative rabbinic sources, but are well known to the Church Fathers (comp. the numerous references in Schiirer, Geschichte, III, 284-286, to which many more may be added; see, e. g., Recognitiones, 4. 13), and other Christian writers of ancient and medieval times; comp. e. g., Visio Pauli 20, and extracts from Christian literature by Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraphicus, 106223. In the entire Tannaitic literature and in both Talmudim no mention is made of Enoch. This name, however, is found two or three times in the older Midrashim (PK 23, 155a=WR 29. 22; BR 25. 1), but without the glory conferred on it by pseudepigraphic and Christian literature. It is stated in BR, loc. cit., that Enoch was not translated, as the heretics (Christians or Jewish-Christians) assert, but that he died like any other human being. He even died before his time, because he had not been of a steadfast character, and God preferred that he should die young while he was yet righteous. Comp. also Koheleth 7. 15. But even pre-Christian authors like Wisdom 15. 11, and especially Philo, Quaestiones in Gen., 1, 82-86, as well as De Abrahamo, 3, and De Praemiis, 3, not only deny the translation of Enoch, but know to report that he was or 156 The Ten Generations 159 iginally a sinner, but subseqeuently followed the right path. The remark in PK, loc. cit., concerning Enoch as the seventh since Adam who pleased God (like everything else ‘‘that was seventh’’) is almost literally found in Enoch 93. 3 and Jude 14. But all the Midrash wants to say is that Enoch was better than the six previous patriarchs and this is no particular merit; comp. note 1. The superiority of Abraham’s piety to that of Enoch and Noah is emphasized in an old source from which Lekah on Gen. 5. 24 is an extract (it is another version of the Haggadah recorded in BR 30. 10; Tan. B. I, 81). Septuagint on Gen. 5. 24 is very likely to be understood to mean that Enoch was translated to heaven, which is stated also in Ecclu. 44. 16 and 49. 14 (0°15 in this verse stands in some relation to its use in later mystic literature, where the designation of Enoch-Metatron as 0°35 1, ‘‘angel of the face”’, occurs frequently), as well as by Josephus, Amtiqui., I. 3.4, and Hebrews 11.5. Hence Enoch and Elijah are the only two ‘‘witnesses’’ (comp. Revelation 11. 3) in Christian legends, because they were the only two that did not die (see the material collected by Bousset, Awtichrist, index, s. v. “‘Zeugen’’). In Ascension of Isaiah 9. 9, Isaiah sees Enoch in the seventh heaven, the residence of the righteous since the time of Adam. In view of the fact that no distinction is made here between Enoch and the other pious men it may be assumed that according to this apocryphal work Enoch came to heaven after his death. This would be in agreement with the official doctrine of the Synagogue (comp. above, and Onkelos Gen. 5. 24). Jub. 4. 23 and Enoch 70. 3-4 explicitly state that paradise was the abode of Enoch (comp. also Preuschen, Adamschriften, 37-38). This is also the opinion of later rabbinic writings. See further on this point note 61. The difference of opinion concerning Enoch’s abode after his translation corresponds to that about Elijah; comp. note 32 on vol. IV, p. 200. MHG I, 123, quotes the following from a supposedly tannaitic source (the introductory formula is INN): Three men ascended to heaven to perform service (7. e., they served as angels, Nw *oNdbD); they are: Enoch, Moses, and Elijah. This statement is followed by a remark that all the pious, after their death, are transformed into angels. This is certainly a later addition. On Moses comp. vol. III, p. 473, and on Elijah see vol. IV, p. 201. 59 Yashar Bereshit, 11a—i3a, and thence it was incorporated in BHM IV, 129-132. No real parallels are found in the older pseud157 60] The Legends of the Jews epigraphic and rabbinic literature to this description of the activity and translation of Enoch (the fiery horse, of course, goes back to 2 Kings 2. 11), although the books of Enoch, Jub., and other writings (comp. the preceding note) know to report a good deal about Enoch’s piety and wisdom. He is mentioned as the father of astronomy and calendation also in PRE 8, where it is stated that Noah received instruction from him after his translation (Luria, ad /oc., is to be corrected accordingly). See also Midrash Aggada Gen. 5. 24; Eupolemus, 419. In the source of Yashar mention was very likely made also of Enoch’s temporary stay with the angels concerning which the books of Enoch speak in detail. The idea that Enoch’s countenance was awe-inspiring, and could cause death, is probably related to 2 Enoch 27. 38, whose Enoch legends Yashar employs also elsewhere; comp. vol. I, pp. 136-137, and the following note. The view that Enoch solemnly buried Adam goes back to Seder ‘Olam 1 and Baba Batra 121b, whereas according to another legend, it was Seth who attended to his father’s funeral. Comp. vol. I, pp. 99-100. 6° An extract from Slavonic (=2) Enoch. The Ethiopic book of Enoch, though it is older than the Slavonic, is not of a uniform character. It consists of a series of revelations which were made to Enoch during the time of his wanderings through heaven and earth and his intercourse with the angels. These revelations, varied in their contents, embracing the laws of nature, as well as the history of the kingdom of God, were entered into this book by Enoch to teach mankind. Six quotations from ‘‘the book of Enoch” are found in Zohar (I, 37b;-72b; I], 55a; III, 240a; 248b; 253b); but, as may be seen from the nature of their contents, they were taken from a much later kabbalistic book, which has nothing in common with the pseudepigraphic work bearing that name. Comp. further Kaneh 19b and 107a (this passage is identical with Zohar I, 37b, where 75D2 is to be deleted) concerning ‘‘the book of Enoch preserved in heaven, which no eye can see.’’ On the other rabbinic books of Enoch, comp. the following note.—Some parallels to the Slavonic Enoch from rabbinic and other sources may be mentioned here. Enoch had three sons (1. 10); so Yashar Bereshit, 11b. The statement about the two hundred angels, which guide the stars (4. 1), is related to the corresponding number of rebellious angels in Enoch 6. 5; the stars had already revolted at the beginning of creation; Enoch 18. 15, comp. note 57. On the oil and the tree of iife (6; 8. 158 The Ten Generations [60 7; 22. 8; 56. 2), comp. note 113 on vol. I, p. 93. The description of the fallen angels reads (7. 3): Who obeyed not the commandments of God, etc. This is found literally in Zadokite Fragments, 2. The tree of life as God’s residence (8. 3) isalso met with in rabbinic sources; comp. vol. I, p. 23. Similarly the view that this tree covers the entire paradise (7. 4) is also found in Perek Gan ‘Eden, where, as in this pseudepigraghic work (7.

5), the four streams, of honey, wine, milk, and oil are mentioned; comp. vol. I, p. 20, and note appertaining thereto. The hell-fire burns and freezes (10. 2); so also in Seder Rabba di-Bereshit, 17. Concerning the chariot on which the sun is riding, and on the angels which accompany it, comp. the parallels in vol. I, pp. 24-25. The phoenixes and Chalkadri (more accurately, Chalkydri yadxtdpa, “brazen serpents”) on the chariot of the sun (13) are unknown in rabbinic “literature; but on the view that the singing of celestial beings causes the birds to sing their morning songs (15), comp. vol. I, pp. 44-45, and the note appertaining thereto. That there are angels, who, unlike the Cherubim, possess twelve wings (12. 1), is also stated in PRE 13. The seven hosts of angels who arrange the course of the heavenly bodies and guide the universe (19. 1, seg.) are met with in Jewish magic texts as seven archangels; comp. Stube, Jtidischbabylonische Zaubertexte, 22, where ?}357D means “‘setting in motion”’, and not “‘transforming”’, as Stube translates. The idea that there is “an angel over each single blade of grass’’ (19.4) occurs also in rabbinic writings; comp. BR 10. 6 (Mazzal=angel; comp. Tehillim 104, 440, which reads: Everything has an angel in charge of it. See further Zohar II, 80b and 171b; III, 86a, and note 101 on vol. I, p. 85). The division of the angels into ten groups (20. 1) is very often referred to in rabbinic literature; comp. note 64 on vol. I, p. 16 (below). Michael, the chief captain (22. 6), is based directly on Dan. 12. 1, whence also the title of the archangel in Hullin 40a, whereas Tosefta 2. 18 reads bytin wax Ww. Instead of Vretil, the angel who becomes Enoch’s teacher (22. 12), read Uriel, in accordance with Enoch 10. 1. The remark (24. 1): “Sit thou on my left hand with Gabriel” proves the antiquity of the view, found in rabbinic writings (PRE 4; comp. further note 440 on vol. III, 231-232), concerning Gabriel’s position on the left. The “song of triumph”’ of the angels, mentioned in 31. 2 and 42. 4, is perhaps due to a misunderstanding which goes back to an erroneous translation of M¥1 Vw (‘‘eternal song’’) as 159 60] The Legends of the Jews “song of triumph”, comp. the similar phrase, wap) qnw7p on) msi) in the Amidah. The statement (33. 4) ‘‘My word is reality” literally corresponds to BR 44. 22; comp. note 2 on vol. I, p. 49, The names of the two angels (33. 6) are perhaps composed of NO’ and RYN with bs; the angel of heaven and the angel of earth were charged to accompany him on his journey from earth to heaven and back. The angels who watch over the book of Enoch, Oriokh and Mariokh (33. 11) have no connection whatsoever with the fallen angels Harut and Marut of the Arabic legend (supposedly Persian; comp. Bousset, Religion, 560); they rather seem to be theophorous names with Y and 77’, or similar abbreviations of the first part of the Tetragrammaton. Thus r18 means “‘God is light” (comp. 78, Sse) and wp signifies ‘God is master’. In order to avoid the pronunciation of God’s name, people said “‘iok”’ instead of “io” (to this very day Jews say opr: instead of ody). The parable about the appearance before a prince (38. 8) is found almost literally in Berakot 28b afd ARN 25, 79, where it is ascribed to the dying Rabban Johanan B. Zaccai (comp. also note 132 on vol. I, page 99). The fact that Enoch finds Adam and Eve, as well as his other ancestors, in the lower world (41. 1 and 42. 5) has nothing to do with the Christian doctrine (not the Jewish, as Charles asserts) of the damnation of mankind until the advent of the Messiah. It merely wishes to say that Enoch’s ancestors were there as a punishment for their sins. This author, on the other hand, admits the possibility of absolute sinlessness (45. 2). On the view that God formed Adam with His own hands (44. 1), comp. vol. I, p. 49. On the rejection of the oath (49.11), see the rabbinic parallels in Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 130-132. On the protest against the belief in the intercession of the dead (53. 1), comp. vol. IV, p. 39, and note 19 appertaining to it. Concerning the attitude of the Synagogue on this important point it is not uninteresting to note the following words of the first paitan of the Snyagogue, Jose b. Jose. “This paitan, after enumerating the pious men of the Bible and describing the reward they received from God, who always accepted their prayers, observes: ‘‘O God, I trust in Thee, and not in the distinguished pious men; for they are in the grave, but Thy name is everlasting” (Zikronot in the Ashkenazic Mahzor). The great reverence for the pious, especially for those of biblical times, has not gone so far as to make them intercessors between God and Israel. In his prayers the Jew knows only his God, and thinks of no inter160 The Ten Generations [60 cessors among the angels or the pious.—On the transformation of Enoch from man to angel (see 22.9-10; 37; 56) comp. the preceding note, as well as vol. I, p. 140. With respect to the reward and punishment of animals (mentioned in 55. 5), comp. 4 Ezra 7. 66, and Index, s. v., “Animals”. The Halakah that animals must be bound at the time of slaughter (59. 3) is not altogether new; comp. Tamid 4.1, and Shabbat 54a, with respect to the temple sacrifices (where, however, binding in the manner perscribed in this pseudepigraphic work is prohibited); with regard to other animals, see Eldad, XLIV and Ginzberg, Tamid, the Oldest Treatise, 206. The parting scene (64 and 67) is related to the one given in Yashar (comp. vol. I, pp. 129-130). The view that the entire creation was for the sake of man (65. 3) is also frequently mentioned in rabbinic sources; comp. vol. I, p. 49. It is questionable whether the words _ ‘and God set him before His face” (67. 2) are related to the usual designation found in geonic mysticism of Metatron-Enoch (comp. the following note) as the ‘‘prince of the face’’, or not, since in this pseudepigraphic book the phrase ‘‘to be found in God’s presence’’ is of frequent occurrence; comp. 21. 1; 22. 6; 52.4. The assertion that Enoch was translated to heaven on the anniversary of the day and the hour on which he was born (28) goes back to a view prevalent in rabbinic writings that the pious die on their birthday. Comp. Tosefta Sotah 11. 7-8; Babli 13b; Kiddushin 38a; Seder ‘Olam 10, according to the reading of the older authors (see Ratner, note 12). The statement that it was the sixth of Sivan on which Enoch was born, and later translated, certainly proves that by this author this day was considered the day of the Revelation (comp. Seder ‘Olam 5; Tosefta ‘Arakin 1. 9, and the detailed discussion appertaining to it in Shabbat 86a-88a). In other words, this author regards Pentecost as the Festival of Revelation, a view with which we meet for the first time in the rabbinic sources of the middle of the second century of the common era. It may be remarked that the text is not quite in order, since if Enoch (68) reached heaven on the first of Sivan (one text reads Nisan; comp. also 1. 2 where the first month=Nisan), remained there for sixty days, and after a stay of thirty days on earth was translated for ever, his translation must have taken place in Elul (as in the case of Moses; comp. vol. III, p. 339). The number of books composed by Enoch (68) is given as 366, which is very likely to be corrected to 365 as it is connected with the 365 years of Enoch’s life; comp., however, Liber 161 61] - The Legends of the Jews Johannis Apocryphus, 890 (in a passage, where our pseudepigraphic work is made use of, the number of books given is 66). Ezra, to whom, in 4 Ezra, Enoch’s part is ascribed, wrote seventy books; comp. vol. IV, p.358. By the place Achuzan (68.5; also written Aruzan; comp. the Melchizedek fragment in the appendix to the Slavonic Enoch, 88) Jerusalem is to be understood as may be seen from the above-mentioned fragment 91, which reads as follows: He (Melchizedek) shall be priest and king in the place Achuzan, that is to say, in the middle of the earth where Adam was created; there shall at last be his grave. Since Melchizedek was king of Jerusalem (vol. I, p. 233), and the dust of the forming of Adam’s body was taken from the site of the altar at Jerusalem (vol. I, pp. 55, 101), there cannot be any doubt about the identification of Achuzan. Moreover, Jerusalem is said to be the centre of the earth (vol. I, p. 12). The only difficult question is about the etymology of the word Achuzan; comp. note 109 on vol. I, p. 89. It is perhaps to be emended to Arauna, since the site of the altar at Jetusalem belonged to Arauna the Jebusite; comp. Index, s. v. This is, of course, no proof that this pseudepigraphic work had a Hebrew original; still less would it prove that it is of Palestinian origin, although both assumptions appear probable. These two questions, it is hoped, will be discussed more fully in some other connection. 6t Hekalot 6, 170-171 (abbreviated in Sefer Hanok, 114116). The seventy names (on mow a"x, Hanok, p. 116, comp. Alphabet R. Akiba ed. Wertheimer, p. 13) of Metatron, which are very important for the history of mysticism, are given in Sha‘ar haHeshek. To the Metatron-Enoch literature belong also both versions of Alphabet of R. Akiba, as well as the different Hekalot books. The oldest source assuming the identity of Enoch and Metatron (to this still enigmatic name of the angel, which occurs very frequently in the Talmud, the Syriac Y}ITNDN NIOND, Adyou érpédriot is closely related) is Targum Yerushalmi Gen. 5. 24, where the text, however, has certainly not been preserved in its original form, as may be seen from 13nN, “was carried away.’’ Comp. 2 Targum Yerushalmi, ad loc. On the Enoch-Metratron cycle of legends, comp. especially the numerous extracts from the older kabbalistic literature in Yalkut Reubeni Gen. 5. 24; Kanah, 106d (Midrash Aggada, Gen., loc. cit., is based on this passage or on an older source from which both borrowed independently). See further Tellinek, Einleitung to BHM II, 30-32; IV, 41-43, as well as Theodor on 162 The Ten Generations [61 , BR 25. 1. It is questionable whether in BaR 12. 12 Metatron is identical with Enoch, or not. The designation of Metatron here as the “‘youth”’ is independent of this identification; comp. Tosafot on Yebamot 16b and Hullin 60a. The relation of the MetatronEnoch legend cycle to the legends found in the pseudepigraphic books of Enoch is not quite clear. There can be no doubt that there exists no literary relationship between the so-called rabbinic books of Enoch (the term ‘‘rabbinic” is here employed in absence of a better name; as a matter of fact the ‘‘Rabbis” were opposed to this literature) and with pseudepigraphic literature bearing the same name. This is quite obvious to any one familiar with both literatures. Yet as has been pointed outin the preceding note many conceptions are common to both, as, for instance, Enoch’s transformation into an angel (mentioned in 2 Enoch and in Hekalot) on his entrance into heaven. This, however, proves only that, des_pite the fact that the leaders of the Synagogue had no high respect for Enoch (comp. note 58, where reference is likewise made to Wisdom and Philo; hence this need not necessarily be ascribed to antiChristian tendencies), the older esteem of Enoch was not only retained in popular circles, but it was even enlarged until it reached its highest pinnacle in the identification of Enoch with Metatron. The Babylonian Nebo, the heavenly scribe, gave Enoch to the Palestinian, Metatron to the Babylonian Jews, and nothing could be more natural than the final combination of Enoch-Metatron. It is quite probable that a number of other elements were added to this combination, as, for instance, Philonian speculations on the Logos, and possibly also Christological conceptions; it is thus extremely difficult to separate it in its original component parts. Between the “‘official”’ depreciation of Enoch and his apotheosis in popular-mystical literature, some of the rabbinic sources have retained a middle course, and basing their views on the literal interpretation of Gen. 5. 24, maintain that Enoch belonged to those few (various numbers are given: seven, nine, ten, thirteen) who entered paradise during their life-time; comp. Derek Erez Zuta (end); PRK, 83; 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 38; Yalkut I, 42, and (two sources) Ezek., 367; Aggudat Aggadot (Carmoly) 12; Kimhion 2 Kings 2.1. Comp. on these ‘‘immortals”’ note 67 and note 307 on vol. I, pp. 74 and 297 respectively. None of the sources just cited can be designated with certainty as old. It is true that Derek Erez Zuta is old (comp. Ginzberg in Jewish Encyclopedia, IV, 528-529), 163 61] The Legends of the Jews but it is doubtful whether the original text counted Enoch among the ‘immortals’; comp. Tawrogi, ad loc., and further Mahzor Vitry, 721, whose author does not seem to have had the passage about the immortals in his text of Derek Erez Zuta. The view, however, that Enoch’s abode is in paradise is old (comp. note 58), and is frequently found in Christian legends; comp. Irenaeus 2. 66 (Enoch is said to have taught the disciples of the apostles); the Gospel of Nicodemus 9 (Latin version), etc. In Christian legends it is stated that Enoch and Elijah will also die at the end of time (it is even said that the anti-Christ will kill them); see History of Joseph the Carpenter 31-32 (as ‘‘immortals’’ are mentioned here: Shila and Tabitha); Nicodemus, Joc. cit,; Revelation of John (beginning). In Midrash Alphabetot, 89a, it is stated that before the creation of the new world, everything, even the most high angels, will disappear, so that God’s unity will be seen by all. Comp. also Tertullian, Adversus Hermog., 34, and Sanhedrin, 92a—92b.—On the twenty angels enumerated in Hekalot 175, (Sammfel, the head of all the Satans, is described as ‘‘the greatest of all the angels’; read ‘ond instead of nvzbn; comp., however, Seder Ruhot, 179, where Satan is distinguished from Sammael, ‘‘the prince of Rome”; see also DR 11. 9, which reads: Sammael, the head of all the Satans), comp. note 57. It is noteworthy that these angels are exclusively in charge of natural phenomena and heavenly bodies. Furthermore, it is strange that Michael is not mentioned among them, and that all the stars are assigned to the charge of one angel. On the other hand, an old tradition states (Al-Barceloni, 247) that each one of the seven planets has its own angel as follows; the sun has Raphael; Venus, Aniel; Mercury, Michael; the moon, Gabriel; Saturn, Kafziel; Jupiter, Zadkiel; Mars, Sammael. These seven planets and their seven angels, it is further said, correspond to the seven hours (? Read, perhaps, p°"w ‘‘princes’’ or ornnwn ‘‘attendants”’); these are: Kewan, Nebo, Shamsha, Bel (instead of $°D read by), Sin, Belti, and o' 1". The last-named must not be changed into *D1N, Hermes, since this text contains the chief gods of the Babylonian Pantheon. On the functions of the seven planets, comp. Shabbat 156a; Baraita de-Mazzalot, 27-28; Pick, Assyrisches und Talmudisches, 17-19. Al-Barceloni’s words are: DDD on IN) now 122 1D Myw ‘rt yD ody mo Oden myaw bx o'xw StD:n Od aya DNB IDNDD Ton ooNdD 't ODD ‘romdy1 oN onba (read bray b»> “S15 164 The Ten Generations [62-63 62 YVashar Bereshit, 13a, where it is said that the sinfulness of ‘the generation of the flood did not begin before the end of Methuselah’s life. The Melchizedek fragment 1-2 in appendix to 2 Enoch states that Methuselah was installed as ruler and leader after his father’s translation, and that man’s apostasy did not take place till after his death, as God had previously told him. The election of Methuselah had been announced through a clear sign that it was acceptable to God; for while he was praying, the altar shook, and a knife leaped into Methuselah’s hand in the presence of all the people. The Jewish legend (comp. the following note) about Methuselah’s wonderful sword is, of course, not to be dissociated from this ‘‘knife’’, and is closely related to the name Methuselah, since nbw may mean both “‘he sent”? and “‘sword’”. Is the statement made in an anonymous Midrash (cited in Yalkut II, 367, Ezek. 27) that Methuselah is one of those whom death did not destroy (in addition to him, there are: Enoch; Eliezer, Abraham’s servant; Hiram, king of Tyre; Ebed-melech; Bithiah, Pharaoh’s daughter; Serah, Asher’s daughter; the three sons of Korah; Elijah; the Messiah, and R. Joshua b. Levi, comp. preceding note and note 67 on vol. I, p. 74), connected with the etymology given by Philo (De Posterit. Caini, 13) ‘sending away of death” (=nnbiwo mm)? It is more probable, however, that we have here a reminiscence of a Christian legend. According to the chronology of the Septuagint with regard to the ante-diluvian patriarchs, Methuselah was still alive at the time of the flood. Now, since according to the Bible he was not among the inmates of the ark, the only solution of the difficulty was that he was taken away from this world to live in paradise at least for some time. Comp. Jerome, Gen. 5; Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraphicus, 224-227; Shalshelet, 93b. 63 Yerahmeel 23. 1-4; Sifte Kohen, Bereshit (end) and Noah, 4d. A Genizah fragment in the library of Cambridge University containing this legend in detailed form was published by Ginzberg, Ha-Goren IX, 66-68. Comp. also Vital, Likkute Torah, Bereshit (end), about Methuselah’s sword. See further Yalkut David on Gen. 12. 1, who cites Sifte Kohen, as authority for the statement that Abraham came in possession of this sword, with which he conquered the kings, and further that Esau thus received it, as heirloom, from Isaac, since he was the first-born. This sword passed to Jacob when he purchased the birth-right. This is not found in Sifte Kohen, but something similar occurs in other sources. Comp. vol. I, p. 321, and further the quotation 165 64] The Legends of the Jews from MS. in Midbar Kedemot, s. v. nbwinma. Agrimus is identical with Angro-Mainyu, also called Ahriman, the lord of Daeves, of the Persians. Comp. Ginzberg, Ha-Goren, loc. cit. 59-61. 64 Verahmeel 23. 5-6; Midrash Aggada, Gen. 5. 25; an anonymous Midrash in Yalkut I, 42 (in later edition Abkir is given as the source); Aggadat Bereshit (introduction), 38; Sikli, who cites Huppat Eliyyahu as the source in his MS. work Yalkut Talmud Torah (comp. Poznanski, Ha-Zofeh III, 11-12, and Ginzberg, ibid., IV, 28; the latter refers to Sabba, Bereshit, 9a, who is acquainted with a similar legend). Comp. further Kad ha-Kemah s. v. bax, 12a-13a, who made use of the same source as Sikli, and not the one of the Yalkut. All the sources state that the flood was postponed for a week in order to allow the people to mourn for a week for the ‘‘righteous Methuselah”; comp. Tosefta Sotah 10. 3, and the passages cited in note 20 on vol. I, p. 154. Of the ante-diluvian patriarchs, Jared and Methuselah lived the longest, because both of them were very modest and humble, as their names indickhte: Jared=‘‘he who condescended”’, and Methuselah=“‘he who is humble (nv), even as though he were dead” (md). The shortest lives were those of Enoch and Lamech, because they bore ‘the same names as the wicked descendants of Cain; Hasidim 247. The later Kabbalists (comp. Yalkut Reubeni, Gen. 5. 22, end of 27a) assert that Enoch was a shoe-maker who praised God with every stitch he made. I venture to suggest that instead of Enoch, Methuselah should be read, as this is very likely based on the fact that the numerical value of 413m j2 N>wind corresponds to the value of the words 751n 77 NIT odyia “he made shoes’’. Attention is to be called to the fact that nbw in mishnaic Hebrew means skin; comp. also note 62. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, II, 39, speaks of Methuselah and his court of justice; Maimonides’ source is not known. 166