Volume 3, Chapter 6: BALAAM, THE HEATHEN PROPHET

MOSES IN THE WILDERNESS Vol. Ill 1 Tosefta Sota 4.8; PK 10, 85b; Mekilta Beshallah (NnnTiD) 24a; Shir 1.7. Comp. vol. II, pp. 181-182. ShR 18.10 reads: Moses was occupied with taking care of Joseph’s body and with procuring the material Jacob had prepared for the tabernacle; comp. vol. Ill, p. 164. 2 An unknown Midrash quoted by Sabba, Beshallah 74b; BHM VI, 112; Aggadat Shir II, 3; comp, also Schechter on the last-named passage. Concerning the fragrance that emanates from the live as well as the dead bodies of the pious, see note 92 on vol. I, p. 334 and vol. II, p. 19. Comp, also Berakot 43b where it is said that in the time to come the young men of Israel will give forth a fragrance like Lebanon. As to the fragrance of the dead bodies of the pious in Christian legend, 6ee The Passing of Maria, second version, 10, and Smith, ZDMG 66, 167. 3 ShR 20.19; PK 10, 86a-86b. On the extension of Egypt see Pesahim 94a and vol. II, pp. 364, 374. The magic dogs are a reminiscence of Serapis who was represented as being of dog-like form ; see Tertullian, Ad Nationes, 11.8. Later sources speak of several kinds of magic animals such as dogs, lions, and bulls. As soon as a fugitive slave met any of these animals, they would bark, roar and bellow until the fugitive was captured; but at the time of the exodus from Egypt none of the animals raised its voice; see Yalkut David, Exod. 11.7. For further details on the finding of Joseph’s coffin, see note 723; vol. II, pp. 181-182, and vol. Ill, pp. 66, 122, and note 156. 4 Mekilta Mishpatim 20, 98a; ShR 31.9; Targ. Yer. Exod. 22. 30. s Perek Shirah (end); Yalkut I, 187. 6 Mekilta Beshallah (NniTTiS) 23b. Before the children of Israel left Egypt it had never happened that a slave escaped from that country, which was closed on all sides; Mekilta Yitro 1, 58b; Mekilta RS 88. Comp, note 3. — Moses kept the coffin containing Joseph’s body in his tent during the time that Israel journeyed through the wilderness; Pesahim 67a; comp, note 422 on vol. II, p. 183. 7 Zohar II, 45a-45b; comp, note 230 on vol. II, p. 371. 1 8-io] The Legends of the Jews 8 Mekilta Beshallah (NnrrnB) 23b; Mekilta RS 38; ShR 20.11— 17 (here many more reasons are given for Israel’s long wanderings through the wilderness). See also Sifra 18.3, where it is said: The Canaanites honored Abraham, and as a reward for this a respite of forty years was granted to them. Comp, note 413 on vol. II, p. 151. That the journey through the wilderness was an exercise in discipline and an encouragement to study is also mentioned in Recognitiones, 1.35. Comp. Josephus, Antiqui., II, 15.3, and vol. Ill, p. 285. 9 ShR 20.16. According to Hadar, Exod. 13.17, the Philistines were kinsmen of the Egyptians, and on account of this kinship God did not wish that Israel should march through the land of the Philistines. 10 Mekilta Beshallah (NniTOS) 23b-24a and Shirah 9, 42b-43a; Mekilta RS 37-38; Sanhedrin 92b; ShR 20.11; PK 10, 85a-85b; PRE 48; Wa-Yosha‘ 54; Yerushalmi Targumim Exod. 13.17; Targum Ps. 78. 9; Targum I Chron. 7.21-22; see also Yelammedenu in Yalkut II on Ps. 78, and Tehillim 81, 368. The chief of the Ephraimites is called ]Ul, ]ur, and in PRE — the correct reading is not certain; ]ir seems to be most likely; comp. Ps. 77. 17, and Sanhedrin 98b, where |1J* is one of the names of the Messiah — whereas according to the text of the Yerushalmi Targumim given in Mahzor Vitry 167, Ganon was the name of the king of the Philistines who attacked and destroyed the Ephraimites led by Jair. This legend very likely represents a kind of reminiscence of a historical event, the wars between Egypt and Canaan which are frequently mentioned in the TelAmarna Letters. See Levy, Monatsschrift, 55, 285, and Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte 339— 340. In the latter passage it is suggested that there is a connection between the legend about the premature exodus of the Ephraimites and the belief in the advent of the Messiah, the son of Ephraim, who will precede the Messiah, the son of David. As to the war between Egypt and Canaan in pre-Israelitish times, see, also Jub. 46. 9—11, where it is said that Amram participated in the war of Egypt against Canaan and died in the Promised Land. The obscure reference in Shir 2.7, to the premature attempt of the exodus in the time of Amram is to be explained in accordance with Jub., loc. tit., and the Midrashim quoted above, which record the failure of the Ephraimites. Comp, note 12 on vol. II, p. 251, and vol. IV, p. 332. Joseph, who rose to power and dignity in Egypt, gave himself up to the enjoyments of life to such an extent that he forgot his father who was mourning his son 's death and did not inform him that he was still alive (comp. vol. II, p. 44, and note 370 on vol. II, p. 137). As a punishment for this sin, two 2 Moses in the Wilderness [n-17 hundred thousand descendants of Joseph — the Ephraimites — perished at the hands of the Philistines; see Hasidim 231 and 232. This supposition is very likely due to the phrase D’3T D’D’ used in I Chron. 7.22, in connection with the death of the Ephraimites, and in Gen. 37, 34, when the tidings of Joseph’s death were brought to Jacob. Josephus, Antiqui., II, 15.3, likewise speaks of earlier wars that took place between the Philistines and the Hebrews. 11 Yashar Shemot 137a-137b; PRE 58; Mekilta Beshallah (WUTTIS) 24a; comp. vol. II, p. 246. 11 Mekilta Beshallah 1, 25a-26a and Shir 1.13; Mekilta RS 42-43. Dibre ha-Yamim 11 relates that the mixed multitude (aiy *llDBDN = ai; comp, note 462) attempted to force Israel to return to Egypt; but in the ensuing battle between the Hebrews and the Egyptians the latter were almost entirely annihilated, so that only few of them reached Egypt to inform Pharaoh of Israel’s flight. Comp, also Yashar Shemot, 145b-146a. 13 Mekilta Beshallah 1, 25b-26a; Mekilta RS41; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 14.2; comp. vol. II, p. 367. See vol. Ill, p. 13, where it is narrated that the Egyptians were furthermore misled by the felicitous course of their preparations for the war against Israel. 14 An unknown Midrash quoted in Sifte Kohen, Exod. 14.2; this is a combination of Mekilta Beshallah 1, 26a and Mekilta RS 41 with Pesahim 119b. On the treasures of Joseph and the Egyptians see Abkir in Yalkut I, 230; vol. I, 125, and vol. Ill, pp. 27, 286. 15 Mekilta Beshallah 1, 26b-27a; Mekilta RS 43-44. A sentence not found in our text of the Mekilta but quoted in Hadar, and Imre N&am, Deut. 25.18, reads: Amalek said: Pharaoh will attack Israel in the front and I in the rear. Comp, note 139. The magicians are mentioned only in Zohar II, 46b, whereas the Mekiltas have agents (this is how j’TiDpN, in Mekilta RS pncap, is to be translated)and messengers of Pharaoh. See vol. Ill, p. 10. As to Pharaoh the “cosmocrator”, see Abkir in Yalkut I, 241, and Mekilta Shirah 6. At the exodus the power of Egypt sank; Hallel 95; comp, note 738. Zohar II, 51a-51b. 17 Mekilta Beshallah 1-2, 27a-27b; Mekilta RS 44-45; Tan. Shofetim 13. The last named source adds that Pharaoh presented the chieftains of the army with pearls and precious stones, to win them over to his plans. As to the fact that pagans attribute great importance to omens, see vol. IV, p. 301. On the chariots of war see Yerushalmi Kii'ayim 7,31c. I 8-23] The Legends of the Jews 18 Mekilta Beshallah 1, 26a; Mekilta RS 41. That Dathan and Abiram, the implacable enemies of Moses (comp, note 75 on vol. II, p. 282), remained in Egypt is found only in Targum Yerushalmi, Exod. 14.3; this is probably based upon the midrashic source quoted in Sekel, Exod., loc. cit .; see also Haggadat Teman 22. 19 Mekilta Beshallah 2,27b; Mekilta RS 45; ShR 15.15; comp, vol. II, pp. 358, 367, vol. Ill, p. 10. 10 Mekilta RS 41. 91 ShR 21.5 and 15.15. Comp, also Tan. Shofetim 13-14; Mekilta Beshallah 1, 26a and 28b; Mekilta RS 41-42. On the guardian angel of Egypt, see note 41. The midrashic basis for the legend about the angel of Egypt is the use of the singular ($?D1) in Exod. 14.10. According to another interpretation this verse speaks of Mizraim, son of Ham (Gen. 10.6), who came to the assistance of his descendants the Egyptians, the inhabitants of Egypt-Mizraim. See Hadar, Exod., loc. cit.; Zohar II, 19b. 3 3 Mekilta Beshallah 2, 28a-28b; Mekilta RS 46. The sinners in Israel said: God cannot deliver Israel from the hands of their masters, and He therefore commanded them to flee from the Egyptians. To show mankind His power, God caused Pharaoh to follow the Israelites that He might perform His miracles at the Red Sea; see ER 7.44. As to the power Moses exerted over his people, comp. vol. III, p. 107. J3 Mekilta Beshallah 2, 29a; Mekilta RS 47; Yerushalmi Ta'anit 2, 65d; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 14.13 and 2 Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 14.3; PRK (Grunhut's edition) 43; Wa-Yosha‘ 51-52. The last two sources speak of the three divisions of the tribes. This is in agreement with ps.-Philo 11B who states that the tribes of Reuben, Issachar, Zebulun, and Simeon formed the first division ; Gad, Asher, and Dan the Second; Levi, Judah, the Joseph tribes, and Benjamin the third. Yashar Shemot, 146a, divides the tribes as follows: Reuben, Simeon, and Issachar formed the first party; Zebulun, Benjamin, and Naphtali the second; Judah, Dan (read pi instead of pi), and the Joseph tribes the third; Levi, Gad, and Asher the fourth. The task of the last-named was to intimidate the enemy by noise. The midrashic statement about the divided counsel of the tribes is derived from Ps. 68.28 (comp, the references given in notes 36 and 388), and not from Judges 5.15-16, as maintained by James on ps.-Philo, loc. cit. See also Philo, Moses, 2 (3). 33, who remarks that the Israelites were ready to throw themselves into the waters of the sea. Josephus, 4 Moses in the Wilderness 124-31 Antiqui., II. 15, 4, says: The people threw stones at Moses (see Num. 14.10); but he, self-reliant and fearless, calmed the people with his words, and made them stop the weeping and clamoring of the women and children. Reference to the weeping of the women and children is also found in Wa-Yosha‘, which, like Josephus, made use of Num. 14.1. 34 Abkir in Yalkut I, 233; comp. vol. Ill, p. 14, and ps. -Philo 11B. 35 Josephus, Antiqui., II. 16, 1; the prayer in Yashar Shemot, 146b, reads differently. 36 Mekilta Beshallah 3, 29-30a; Mekilta RS 47-48. The Derashot in these sources are based on the conception that just as the physical order of the world is maintained by fixed laws of nature, so the moral order cannot exist without Israel. Now inasmuch as the existence of the physical world depends upon the existence of moral man (see note 8 on vol. I, p. 50), it is manifest that Israel is indispensable to the world. The other point brought out by these Derashot is that the Israelites on account of their trust in God and because of the merit of their fathers, are entitled to expect that divine help would come to them; comp. Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 14.15. 3 1 ShR 21.7; Zohar II, 33a, 34a, and 181b, as well as III, 101b and 218a; PRK 33a. Comp, also note 34 on vol. II, p. 240, and Index, s. v. “Job”. A statement similar to that of the Midrash is found in Jub. 48.15-18, which remarks that God kept Mastemah bound from the fourteenth of Nisan to the eighteenth thereof, that he might not accuse Israel. See also the comment of Mekilta Beshallah 4, 30 and Mekilta RS 47, on the use of the name D’n^Nn in Exod. 14.19. 38 Abkir in Yalkut I, 241, and Wa-Yosha‘ 39. A somewhat different version of this legend is found in Hadar, Exod. 14.10. Comp, note 110 on vol. I, p. 235, and vol. II, p. 318. 39 ShR 21.1 and 6, which in the main follows Mekilta Beshallah 2, 29b-30a. 3° Wa-Yosha‘ 38-39; ShR 21.6; Mekilta RS 49-50. The sea did not want to divide i.ts waters before the Israelites because they rebelled against God; Tehillim 114, 475. Conflicting with this view there is the statement that Israel saw no other way to be delivered from the Egyptians than by passing through the Red Sea; for that day being Sabbath, they were unable to try their fortune in war; See BHM VI, 37. Comp, the following note, and vol. IV, p. 11. 31 Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 14.21. As to the rod of Moses, see PK 14, 140a; Tehillim 114, 475; DR 3.8; vol. II, pp. 291 and 293. 5 32-36] The Legends of the Jews 3 3 Mekilta RS 50; this is very likely a late source and is identical with that made use of in Sekel 182; ShR 21.6; DR 3.8; Hallel 95-97; Wa-Yosha‘ 51; Tehillim 114, 475; PRE 42; PR 19, 140; Haggadat Teman 55. In all these passages stress is laid upon the fact that it was God’s will, not the rod of Moses, that performed the miracles. BHM VI, 37, finds it even necessary to interpret 0"in (Exod. 14.16) in the sense of removing: God told Moses to lay the rod aside before dividing the sea. Hadar and Imre No‘ am on Exod., loc. cit., quote, from Tehillim, a lengthy passage bearing upon the controversy between Moses and the Red Sea. A poetical rendering of this dialogue is given in 2 Targum Yerushalmi Exodus 14.29, and in a somewhat different version by the Targum fragment in Kaufmann-Gedenkbuch, 235. 33 Mekilta Beshallah 4, 31a; Mekilta RS 50; Tehillim 18, 147; ShR 21.6. 34 Abkir in Yalkut I, 234; Makiri Ps. 136, 258; Hadar and Da1 at on Exod. 14.21; Eshkol 2, 105; Al-Barceloni 11; Or Zarua' II, 136b, No. 314; the last-named source gives an essentially different version. Comp, also Shu1 aib, Beshallah 30b and Aggadat Bereshit 17.35. An old stratum of this version is found in Mekilta Beshallah 5, 31b and 6, 33a, as well as in Mekilta RS 51 and 54. 33 Mekilta Beshallah 4, 30b-31a; Mekilta RS 49-50. Concerning the darkness, see vol. II, p. 359. According to PRE 42, it was the angel Michael who made himself “a wall of fire” between Israel and the Egyptians. Philo, in a similar manner, identifies the pillar of fire with an angel; see Moses, 1.29. 36 Mekilta Beshallah 5, 31a-31b; Mekilta RS 50-51; Sotah 37a; Tan. B. I, 208; Aggadat Bereshit 74, 145; PRE 42; Aggadat Shir 2, 29; Tehillim 68, 320; 76, 341; 114, 474; Hallel 95; Tosefta Berakot 4.18; Yerushalmi Targumim Exod. 14.16; Targum Ps. 68. 26; Wa-Yosha‘ 52. As to those who first entered the sea, comp. Josephus, Antiqui., II, 16.2, who maintains that Moses was the first to jump into the sea. See note 23; vol. II, p. 14; vol. Ill, p. 195. — On the ten miracles (this number is mentioned Abot 5, 4) see also Mekilta Shirah 6, 40a; Mekilta RS 64; Tan. Beshallah 10; PRE 42; Tehillim 114, 473; Hallel 96; ARN 33, 96 (second version 36, 94, and 38, 99); Wa-Yosha‘ 51; Midrash Shir, 38b; Midrash Temurah 111, quotation from Tan. in Makiri Ps. 136, 258. Several features of this legend are found in Wisdom 19.7-10 (the sea was changed into a pleasure-ground, as in Tehillim, loc. cit.), in Philo, Moses, 1.32, and 2 (3). 34 (the sea was changed into a highway, as in 2 ARN. 6 Moses in the Wilderness [37-41 99), and in Josephus, Antiqui., II, 16.2. Comp, also Theodoretus, Exod. 14.16. — In Mekilta Beshallah 6, 33b, Mekilta RS 55, ShR 23.9, and Passover Haggadah three different opinions are given as to the number of the plagues inflicted upon the Egyptians at the Red Sea. Fifty, two hundred, and two hundred and fifty, respectively are the numbers represented in these opinions. The conflicting views are based on the assumption that at the Red Sea the plagues were five times as many as in Egypt (“the hand of the Lord’’ was seen at the Red Sea, whereas in Egypt His “finger” only was visible; compare Exod. 8.15 with 14.31). On this point they all agree, but they differ with respect to the exact nature of the plagues in Egypt, which, according to all views, were composite. 37 ShR 21.10; Wa-Yosha‘ 51; 2 ARN 38, 10; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 764 38 Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 14.22; Wa-Yosha‘ 51. Comp, vol. IV, p. 5. This is the reply of the legend to the rationalists who maintain that the passage through the Red Sea took place during the low tide. Artapanus, 436b, is the oldest exponent of this rationalistic view. 39 Br 92.2; Midrash Shir 22b, where, however, the presence of these prominent persons is spoken of in connection with the redemption from Egypt; comp, also ShR 18.10 with regard to Jacob’s presence. Zohar II, 53a (this is the source of Shu'aib, 30a) further adds the presence of the twelve tribes, i. e., the sons of Jacob. “ The six mothers” i. e., Sarah, Rebekah, and Jacob’s four wives, are mentioned in this connection, it seems, only in this source and in the piyyut nr: ID for the Great Sabbath, in the Italian Mahzor. See Indexes. v. “ Mothers”. Rashi on Ta'anit 5b, catchword Kin Hasidim 34, Sekel, 190 read in BR, loc. tit., tOD (on this expression see vol. V, p. 276, top). According to these authorities, Exod, 14.31 (and Israel saw) is to be explained as “and Jacob saw”. The contrast to NDD is D’TSn iOD in the source quoted in note 21. «° Wa-Yosha‘ 39-40, which is based on Abkir in Yalkut I, 241. For another version of this legend see vol. Ill, pp. 17-18. Concerning Pharaoh’s blasphemous language see vol. II, p. 333; on the Hebrew child used as mortar see vol. Ill, p.372. Hadar, Exod. 24.10, combined two sources for this legend, the version on p. 28b being taken from Wa-Yosha‘, whereas in 40a an unknown Midrasb is reproduced. Abkir in Yalkut I, 243, has a third version of this legend. 4 1 Abkir (perhaps Wa-Yosha‘), according to Hadar, Exod. 7 42-43] The Legends of the Jews 14.10; ShR 21.5. That God first executed judgment on the angel of Egypt and then on the Egyptians is an old Haggadah; see Mekilta Shirah 2, 36b and Mekilta RS 58. The Mekiltas also know of the general rule that God 's wrath is first visited upon the guardian angels before the nations entrusted to their care are punished. This view is found in many passages of the Talmud and Midrash; see ShR, loc. cit., Shemuel 18, 98 (on the text comp. Abkat Rokel, 1.2); DR 1.22; Shir 8.14; Tan. Beshallah 13; Tan. B. II, 53, and V. 32; Sukkah 29a, according to Rashi ’s interpretation of this passage, which, however, is hardly correct, as the Talmud evidently refers to the idea that idols which are worshipped are punished; comp. vol. II, pp. 250 and 348. See also Wa-Yosha‘ 45; Midrash Temurah 110; PK 4, 41a; Zohar II, 52b and 54b; Batte Midrashot I, 27. The last-named source is the only one which refers to the guardian angel of every individual as well as to that of every nation. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 277, 340, and 369, and vol. IV, pp. 93 and 301. As to the burning of idols in Gehenna on the Day of Judgment, see EZ 21, 34; comp, also BR 28 (beginning), and Vol. V, p. 418, note 118 towards end of page. 42 Wa-Yosha‘ 46-47. As to the older view concerning Rahab, see vol. I, p. 18, and comp. Sekel 182. In the latter legend Rahab is the “prince of Egypt” and at the same time Uzza is the “prince of the sea”. See the quotation from Wa-Yosha‘ (not in our text) in Hadar, Exod. 14.16. Abkir in Yalkut I, 234, makes Sammael the guardian angel of Egypt, and gives the following dialogue between God and him. Sammael said: The Israelites worshipped idols in Egypt, and yet Thou wishest to perform miracles for their sake. When the prince of the sea heard these words he became exceedingly wrathful against Israel, and wanted to drown them. Whereupon God replied to Sammael: “O thou fool, did Israel worship idols voluntarily? Was it not due to their servitude which deprived them of their senses?” These words of God turned away the anger of the prince of the sea from Israel to the Egyptians. Zohar II, 270, made use of Abkir, but, in accordance with the above-mentioned sources, changed Sammael to Rahab. Comp, also Mekilta Beshallah 6, 33a. 43 ShR 22; Mekilta Beshallah 6, 32b, and Mekilta RS 53-54; Tehillim 18, 147. Josephus, Antiqui., II, 15.3, states that six hundred chariots of war, fifty thousand horsemen, and two hundred thousand footmen of the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea, whereas Jub. 48.14 gives a million and one thousand as the number of those that were drowned. Shalshelet 96 is based on Josephus and not on rab8 Moses in the Wilderness [44-51 binic sources which are by far more liberal with numbers, maintaining that the Egyptian army consisted of nine thousand myriads. Comp. Mekilta Beshallah 1, 27a-27b and Pa‘aneah Exod. 14.7. 44 Mekilta RS 51-52, taken verbatim from Aggadat Shir 1, 1617; Kaufmann-Gedenkbuch p. 3 (Hebrew); comp, also Tan. Shofetim 14; Midrash Shir lib; Mekilta Beshallah 6, 33a, and Shirah 4, 37b; Mekilta RS 54; Shir 1.9; Tehillim 18, 142-144; ARN 27, 183. The legend about the “heavenly mare”, mentioned in the sources quoted above, is very likely connected with the idea that the cherub has the form of a mare. Comp, note 94 on vol. I, p. 81 and note 47. 45 Tehillim 18, 14b; PR 21, 104a; Wa-Yosha‘ 45; BaR 8.3; ARN 27.83. Accompanied by nine thousand myriads of angels (on this number see note 43), God appeared at the Red Sea. The angels said unto Him : “ Permit us to execute Thy will upon the Egyptians. . . ” God, however, refused their request, saying: “I shall not be content until I Myself have inflicted punishment upon the enemies of Israel.” See Mekilta RS 52-53, and in abridged form Pa‘aneah, Exod. 14.7. This legend in its original form wished to narrate the execution of the last of the plagues, not the drowning of the Egyptians; see note 213 on vol. II, p. 366, and the following notes. 46 Mekilta Beshallah 2, 28b; Mekilta RS 46-47; Yerushalmi Sotah 7, 22b; Tehillim 18, 143; Midrash Shir llb-12a. Most of the sources add that Moses showed the Israelites the multitudes of the angels that came to their assistance; comp, preceding note. Josephus, Antiqui., II, 16.3, also speaks of the thunder and lightning at the destruction of the Egyptians. Ps. 18.13, seq., was taken by Josephus, as by the Rabbis (comp. Tehillim, ad loc.) to refer to the miracles which were performed at the Red Sea. 47 Aggadat Shir 1, 17; this is the source of Mekilta RS 52. WaYosha* 52 proves quite clearly that this legend is a modification of the one concerning the “heavenly mare ” = cherub ; see note 44. 4 8 Mekilta Beshallah 5, 32a; Mekilta RS 52; somewhat differently Aggadat Shir 1.7. The idea concerning the provenance of the treasures from the river Pishon is found only in Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 14.9, and Num. 38.8. Comp. vol. II, p. 371, and vol. Ill, p. 11. 4» Mekilta Beshallah 5, 32a; Mekilta RS 52; Tehillim 18, 143. 5° Mekilta Beshallah 6, 33a; Mekilta RS 54. In these sources ft is presupposed that the Egyptians suffered great agony before they perished, see note 55. Concerning the angels see note 45. s 1 Wa-Yosha‘ 52, which is a combination of Mekilta Shirah 9 52-54] The Legends of the Jews 5, 38b and 7, 41, Mekilta RS 62 and 65. The two parties among the Egyptians spoken of by Philo, Moses, 30, correspond to the first and third, respectively, of the Midrash. The Haggadah found in Exod. 18.11 is support for the view that the drowning of the Egyptians was the punishment for the drowning of the Hebrew male children; see Tosefta Sotah 3.13; Mekilta Shirah 6, 40a; Jub. 48.14. 5 2 Mekilta Beshallah 6, 33a, and Shirah 2, 36a-36b; Mekilta RS 54, 58. The Great Sea emptied itself into the Red Sea, and the enormous quantities of water tossed the Egyptians about hither and thither; Mekilta Shirah 5, 38b, and Mekilta RS 62. Furthermore, the abyss ascended and united itself with the waters above in the heaven, so that the Egyptians met their death while engulfed in gloomy darkness; Mekilta, loc. cit .; Tehillim 18, 137. The interpretation of D’D lDiyj (Exod. 15.8) as “and the water acted with cunning”, given in Mekilta, loc. cit., Onkelos, and Ephraem (I, 216D), ad loc., is the midrashic Support for the legend concerning the different punishments which the water inflicted on the Egyptians, according to the grades of wickedness. 53 Abkir in Yalkut I, 235; Wa-Yosha‘ 52; Yerahmeel, 159 (the Hebrew text is given by Schechter, Zadokite Fragments, LIX-LX) ; Hakam ha-Razim in Yalkut Reubeni Exod. 15.7. In the last-named source it is the “prince of the Face” (the angel of His presence, Is. 63.9) who executes punishment upon the magicians. This agrees with Yerahmeel who makes Metatron the executioner. The identity of these two angels is presupposed in numerous places in the mystic literature; see Index, s. v.“ Metatron”. Comp, also Hadar and Imre No1 am on Exod. 15.10. Concerning the seizure of the hair-locks, see note 276 on vol. I p 394 54 Wa-Yosha‘ 52-53 Dibre ha-Yamim 11; Midrash Aggada, Exod. 14b; Sekel, 186, Hadar, Exod. 14.28; PRE 43; BHM V, 51; Tosefta of Targum Jonah 3.6; Yerahmeel, 128. Comp. vol. II, p. 150, and vol. Ill, p. 467, where Pharaoh is said to keep guard at the portals of hell. In the old sources different opinions are expressed as to the fate of Pharaoh: he was drowned simultaneously with his army; he was the last Egyptian to be drowned after having witnessed the struggle of his people and their destruction; he was the only Egyptian who escaped death, in order that he might see the power and might of God. Mekilta Beshallah 6, 33a; Mekilta RS 54; Midrash Tehillim 106, 455. Pharaoh, the inhabitants of the sinful cities, the builders of the tower of Babel, Sennacherib, and Nebuchadnezzar to Moses in the Wilderness [55-59 committed the following eight sins which brought destruction upon them: Neglect of justice, idolatry, incest, bloodshed, blasphemy, arrogance, slander, and obscenity; ER 15.74 and 31.158. Comp. Index, s. v. “Noachian Laws”. Comp. vol. VI, p. 364, note 60. 55 Mekilta Beshallah 5, 32a-32b and 6, 33a-33b; Mekilta RS 53-54; Tehillim 22, 180 (on the text see Yalkut I, 240); Philo, Moses, 2 (3). 34; Wisdom 10.20; Josephus Antiqui., II, 16.6. Somewhat differently in ER 1, 12, where it is stated that the garments of the Egyptians did not sink with the bodies, but were washed ashore and appropriated by the Israelites. This source maintains that “as a rule ”, God punishes the wicked while they are naked; Comp.

vol. IV, p. 375. 5 6 Mekilta Shirah 9, 42a; Mekilta RS 67-68; PRE 42; Wa-Yosha‘ 53; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 15.12; Tehillim 22, 188-189; Ekah 1, 73-74. Comp, note 413 on vol. II, p. 151; vol. I, p. 80; vol. IV, p. 37. 57 Mekilta Beshallah 6, 33b; Mekilta RS 55; Tan. Beshallah 4. The advance of Pharaoh with his mighty army caused a change of heart among the Israelites. They repented of their sins, and, trusting in God, they invoked His help which did not fail them in their hour of distress; PRE 42 and ShR 25.5; comp, however, the conflicting view in vol. Ill, pp. 36-37, and the following note. 58 Tehillim 18, 137; Shemuel 29, 134-135; Shir 4.3. Comp, also ‘Arakin 11a and Yerushalmi Pesahim4, 30c with reference to the atoning power of the song of the Levites in the Temple The Midrashim quoted above speak at great length of the sin which Israel had committed ; comp, the preceding note. An unknown Midrash, quoted by Shu'aib, Beshallah, 30a-30b, maintains that the reason why the Israelites sang the song (Exod. 15) was to be found in the Halakah, Berakot 54b, according to which a man returning from a sea-voyage, in order to thank God for having escaped death, must recite the benediction (rona ^DUH) : “ Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who bestowest benefits upon the undeserving (literally, the guilty ), and hast also bestowed all good upon me.” s’ Mekilta Shirah 1, 34a-34b, and Mekilta RS 56-57. The “ten songs” are often referred to in the haggadic literature; but opinions differ as to the songs which are to be included in this group; see Targum Song of Songs 1.1; Aggadat Shir 1.10 and 2.29 on the Song of Abraham; Makiri Is. 5.37 and Ps. 96, 111; Responsen der Geonim (ed. Harkavy, No. 66) and the interesting essay on these songs by Epstein, Mi-Mizrah u-mi-Mc' arab I. 85-89. Concerning the song of the night of redemp11 60-63] The Legends of the Jews tion, see vol. II, pp. 368, 373. According to the Haggadah, Solomon composed Psalm 30, and the superscription of that Psalm is explained to mean: “A Song of the dedication of the house of David”, i.e., the Temple. 60 Tan. B. II, 60-61; Tehillim 106, 454; ShR 23.7; Ekah (Knn’rtS) 24. According to another legend, God silenced the song of the angels with the words: ‘‘The work of My hands is drowning in the sea, and ye wish to chant songs!” See Megillah 10b; Sanhedrin 39b (“God does not rejoice at the punishment of the sinners”); PK 29, 189a; Yalkut II, 940 (from an unknown source; the word ItmD is not found in the editio princeps, and its insertion in later editions is unjustifiable, as this Haggadah does not occur in Midrash Mishle which is designated by Yalkut as enm in the part of that work belonging to Prov.; it is perhaps borrowed from Yelammedenu) ; R. Solomon ben ha-Yatom, 120, based on an unknown Midrash (comp. Chajes, XXX); Zohar I, 57b, 61b, and II, 170b; see also Mekilta Shirah 5, 34b. PK, loc. cit.y is the source for the statement made by many codifiers (see, e.g., Bet Yosef, Orah Hayyim 490) that the entire Hallel is recited only on the first day of Passover because on the seventh day the Egyptians were drowned. Concerning the song of the angels which follows that of Israel, see Midrash Tannaim, 71; Yerushalmi Sukkah 5, 55b; vol. I, p. 17, and II, p. 373. An unknown Midrash quoted by Hadar, Exod. 15.8, speaks of the song chanted by the water at the drowning of the Egyptians. This statement is very likely based upon a misunderstanding of Onkelos, ad loc.; see Mekilta Shirah 6, 40a. See Index, s.v.‘‘ Angels, Song of”; “Water, the Song of”. The very angels who counselled God against the creation of man (see vol. I, p. 53) descended from heaven to listen to the song chanted by Israel, and then returned to their place to sing their song of praise to God; Tosefta Sotah6.5. Comp. vol. VI, 397, note 32. 61 Wa-Yosha‘ 40-41, which, in the main, follows older sources (comp, references cited in note 25 on vol. II, pp. 257-258, and add PK, 47, 189a-189b; BHM VI, 38; Haggadat Teman 35, which reads: The clean animals suckled the male children of the Hebrews); PRE 42; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 15.2; ShR 23.18. 62 Mekilta Shirah 1, 34a; Mekilta RS 56; Shir 1.15 and 4.1; Yalkut I, 241, giving Mekilta as source, but this passage is not found in our texts of this Midrash; ShR 23.9. Comp, the following note. 6J Mekilta Shirah 1, 35a, Mekilta RS 57 (better text); Sotah, Mishnah 5.4; Tosefta 6.3; Yerushalmi 5,20c; Babli 30b. The manner 12 Moses in the Wilderness [64-75 of reciting the Hallel is, according to the sources quoted above, the same as the song at the Red Sea; comp. Elbogen Studien z. Gesch. d. jtid. Gottesdienstes 57. According to Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 527, on Hosea 11, and ShR 22.8, Moses composed the song and the people sang it; comp. vol. Ill, pp. 338-339. ShR differs from the old source (comp, note 59) also in this respect that it declares the song at the Red Sea to have been the first ever sung in God’s honor. 4* Mekilta Shirah 1, 35a; Sotah, Tosefta 6.4; Yerushalmi 6, 29c; Babli 30b; Tehillim 8, 77; Zohar II, 60a. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 90. 64 Mekilta Shirah 3, 37a; Shir 2.14, 3.7, and 4.3; Zohar II, 60a. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 106. 66 Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 15.18. According to this authority verse 18 concludes the song, whereas others consider verse 19 as the end. See Mekilta RS 70-71, where the nineteen verses of the song are said to correspond to the nineteen benedictions of the ‘Amidah (according to Babylonian ritual); Lekah Exod., loc. cit., and 20.11. 4 ? Wa-Yosha' 55. 48 Kohelet 1.9. Comp. vol. II, p. 302. 49 Abkir in Yalkut I, 241. Mekilta Shirah 10, 44a; Mekilta RS 71; PRE 42. According to Philo, Moses, 2 (3). 34, the song was chanted by mixed choirs composed of men and women, whereas the Rabbis strongly disapprove of mixed choirs; see e. g., Sotah 48a. Comp, also Philo, De Vita Contemplativa, 11, concerning the mixed choirs among the Essenes. 71 Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 15.21. 7a ShR 24.2; Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 1, 44a; Mekilta RS 71-72. It is stated in the Haggadah that the Israelites brought along with them from Egypt an idol which they worshipped (or kept?) for a long time; see Mekilta Beshallah 3, 29b; PK 11, 99a; Sanhedrin 103b, where this idol is declared to be identical with that made by Micah; Pesahim 117a (on ’32a nDiy see Responsen der Geonim, No. 119, pp. 8688, and it is to be corrected as suggested by Lebrecht, Kritische Lese, 23-35); Yerushalmi Sukkah 4, 54c; ARN 34; Sifre N., 84; Tan. B. IV, 79, and V, 25; Shir 1.4; ShR 41.1; Tehillim 101, 427. Comp, note 127 on vol. IV, p. 49; Comp. vol. VI, p. 375 and Index, s.v. “Baalbek”. 7 3 Abot 5.4. On the ten temptations see note 708. 7« Tan. B. II, 63; this very likely is the source of Sekel 205; comp, note 55. 7s Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 1, 44b where the text is to be corrected in accordance with Mekilta RS 72; ShR 24.4. 13 76-82] The Legends of the Jews 76 Tan. B. II, 63-64. This legend is related to the one forming the basis for the Apocryphal work “Daniel and the Dragon”; see note 112 on vol. IV, p. 338. 77 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 1,44b; Tan. B. II, 63; Shir 1.4. Comp, vol. II, p. 375. 78 ShR 24.4; Wa-Yosha‘ 46, which reads: The snakes stretched themselves out in order to allow Israel to pass over them as over a bridge. See reference given in note 241 on vol. II, pp. 374-375. 77 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 1, 45a; Mekilta RS 72. Concerning the sweet waters of the Red Sea see vol. Ill, p. 22. 80 Philo, Moses, 1.33. Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 1.2, likewise attempts to excuse the behavior of the people. 81 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 1, 45b; Mekilta RS 72-73; Targum Yerushalmi 16.22. Comp, the following note. 83 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 1, 45b, and Mekilta RS 72-73; in abridged form, Tan. B. II, 64-65, 124, and Tan. Beshallah 23-24. On the conception that God employs the same means in inflicting pain and in curing it, see also Aggadat Bereshit 66, 132. The Mekiltas and the sources depending on them contain different opinions as to the kind of tree which made the waters of Marah sweet, and it seems as if the Tannaim attempted to explain away the miracle, maintaining that the change in the taste of the waters brought about by the tree was due to natural causes. A rationalistic view similar to this is expressed by Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 1.2, whereas Philo, Moses, 1.33, is not quite sure whether the tree caused the cure in a natural way, or whether “it was then created for that special purpose”. The Mekiltas offer also an allegorical explanation of the tree. According to this interpretation, the word “tree” represents the Torah which is “the tree of life”. This allegory presupposes the legend that this tree was identical with the tree of life, or, to be more accurate, a branch of that tree, It is true that our texts of the Mekilta have no trace of that legend, but Makiri, Prov. 3, 4b, quotes it from the Mekilta. Ps. -Philo 13A likewise writes: And He — God — showed him the tree of life, whereof he cut a piece, which he took and put into Marah, and the water of Marah became sweet. Closely connected with this legend is the one found in Zohar Hadash Beshallah, according to which Moses threw his rod, called here also py, tree or wood. This rod is said in other sources to have been taken from the tree of life; see ARN 157, ed. Schechter. Comp, also Kaufmann-Gedenkbuch 6 (Hebrew). An entirely different explanation of the events of Marah is found 14 Moses in the Wilderness [83-88 in Zohar III, 124b, where it is stated that the bitter waters of Marah served the purpose to establish which of the women were chaste and which were not (comp. Num. 5.18, seq.), and therefore Moses wrote God’s Name on the tree (this is taken from Targum Yerushalmi, Exod. 15.25) in accordance with the law concerning a woman suspected of adultery (see Sotah 2.3). Ps. -Philo, loc. cit., and 21A asserts that the waters of Marah “followed them in the desert for forty years, going up with them into the hills and coming down with them to the plains.” In another passage, 12C, ps.-Philo, in agreement with rabbinic and other sources, makes the same statement concerning “the well” (of Miriam), and the suggestion may be hazarded that the first passage contains an interpolation by a copyist who confused “the well”, which is very frequently spoken of in Hebrew sources as D’lD mtO (the well of Miriam; comp. vol. Ill, pp. 50, seq.), with HID bw mfcO (the well of Marah). Comp, note 126. 83 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 1, 46a; Mekilta RS 73-74; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 15.25-26; Sanhedrin 56b; Seder ‘Olam 5. Comp, also DR 2.18 and Tan. B. II, 65. 8 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 1, 45a; Mekilta RS 72; Baba Kamma 82a; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 15.22. As to the reading from the Torah, see vol. IV, p. 356. Comp, also the allegory concerning the tree quoted in note 82. 85 Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 1.3; Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 1, 46b where VpVlpD or ^lpD is to be read instead of in accordance with Mekilta RS 74 and MHG II, 170. 86 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 1, 46b; Mekilta RS 74; MHG II, 170-171. Josephus maintains that the quails episode took place at Elim (Exod. 19.12, seq.), where the people murmured on account of the dearth of water. His attempt to “improve” upon the legend, known to us from rabbinic sources, concerning the scant supply of water at Elim is rather a failure, as quails are a poor substitute for water. Philo, Moses, 1.34, against Josephus and the Midrashim, maintains that Elim was a place distinguished for ifs abundance of water and wealth of vegetation. 87 Philo, Moses, 1.34; comp, the following note, where references to rabbinic and patristic sources containing the same allegory are cited. Concerning the symbolic significance of the palm-tree, see BR 40.6 and the parallel passages given by Theodor. 88 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 1, 46; Mekilta RS 74; MHG II, 171; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 15.26 and Num. 33.9; Tertullian, C. is 89-94] The Legends of the Jews Marc., 4.24. The tragedian Ezekiel, 446 describes the appearance of a wonderful bird at Elim. The text is quite obscure, and it seems that the poet wanted to describe how it came about that the Israelites discovered the twelve wells at Elim. They followed the wonderful bird (phenix?), which, accompanied by many other birds — “for birds of every kind hovered in fear behind this stately form ” — flew over the wells. In legends birds are frequently spoken of as guides to water. 89 Philo, Moses, 1.35; Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 1.3-5. The Haggadah very frequently refers to the miracle in connection with the cakes they had taken along with them out of Egypt. See e.g., Seder ‘Olam 5; Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 1, 46b; Mekilta RS 74; Kiddushin 38a (the cakes tasted like manna); ShR 25.4; Mekilta Bo 14, 15a; Tan. Bo 9; Shir 1.8. Since ordinarily one partakes of two meals a day, the sources quoted above speak of the sixty-one meals which the cakes provided from the evening meal of the day of the exodus, i. e., the fifteenth day of Nisan, till the fifteenth day of Iyar. Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 1.3, remarks that the provision they took along with them out of Egypt became exhausted after thirty days, whereas the rabbinic sources emphasize the fact that they took food of one meal that lasted them for a month. 90 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 1, 47a, the text of which is to be corrected in accordance with Mekilta RS 74. The M-ekilfias quote an opinion according to which the Israelites spoke the truth when they declared that they enjoyed plenty of food in Egypt. As slaves of the royal household, they were supplied with food in plenty free of charge. For the status of Israel in Egypt see note 164 on vol. II, p. 334. On the three days of darkness see vol. II, p. 345, and vol. Ill, p. 390. 91 Philo, Moses 1.36. 9 3 ShR 25.4-5. That the manna, the well, and the other heavenly gifts which Israel received in the wilderness were rewards for Abraham 's kindness and piety is very frequently mentioned in the Haggadah; see Tosefta Sotah 4.2-6; Baba Mezia 86b; BR 48.10; Mekilta Beshallah (Knrrns), 25a; WR 24.8; PR 14, 57a; BaR 14.2; Kohelet 11.1; Tan. B. I, 87; ER 12.68. 93 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 2, 47a-47b; Mekilta RS 75; Sifre N., 89; Abkir in Yalkut I, 258; Yoma 76a; Sifre Z., 198; comp, also Philo, Leg. Allegor., 56. 9 4 PRE 3; Yerahmeel 1.3. The prevalent opinion, however, is that the manna was created in the twilight between the sixth day and the Sabbath; see Abot 5.6; Sifre D., 355; and the numerous references 16 Moses in the Wilderness [95-101 cited in note 99 on vol. I, p. 83. Luria’s suggestion, PRE, ad loc., to read nUPDPn ]’3 instead of ’3tPn 0V3 is not acceptable. It is obvious that the view of this Midrash is that the “bread of the angels” was created on the very same day on which the angels themselves were created (see vol. I, p. 16). Comp, also Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 16.15, and the following note. 95 Tan. B. II, 67; this is the source of Makiri Ps. 78. 26. The idea that the manna is the bread of the angels is based on Ps. 78.25; see Septuagint, ad loc.', Wisdom 16.20; Yoma 75a, where this interpretation of D’T3N on^ is maintained by R. Akiba. The colleague of the lattfer, R. Ishmael, however, strongly objects to the view that angels partake of food (comp, note 143 on vol. I, p. 243), and hence the change of “bread of the angels” to “bread prepared by angels” or “bread prepared in the place inhabited by angels”, i. e., in heaven. Comp. Targum Ps., loc.cit. See also vol. II, p. 173; vol. Ill, p. 117; Sibyl., proem 87, which reads: They will partake of the sweet bread coming from the starry heaven. 96 Hagigah 12b. 99 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 4, 50b; Mekilta RS 78. In view of the statement in PK 5, 49b, and BR 48.10, one is inclined to assume that in the Mekiltas the expression ton oViy1? is used inaccurately instead of HU1? Tny1?, i.e., the messianic times; see reference to Sibyl, at the end of note 95. 98 Tehillim 78, 345; Tan. B. II, 67. In these sources the two interpretations of O’TaN (Ps. 78.25) “the mighty”, i.e., angels, and “remaining in the body” — are blended together; comp. Yoma 75b; note 95; vol. Ill, pp. 246 and 278. 99 Tan. B. II, 14 and 61 (text is corrupt); ShR 25.3; Yoma 75a; Sifre N., 89; Sifre Z., 197-198; Tosefta Sotah 4.3; Wisdom 16.21; Ephraem I, 218. See also Josephus, Antiqui.,l\\, 1.6; Recognitiones, 1, 35; ER 12.60; BHM VI.39; vol. Ill, p. 65. *0° Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 3, 48b-49a; Mekilta RS 76; Tehillim 76, 346. The grains of the manna looked like pearls, and the ground upon which it fell was like a golden table; Yoma 75a. Sifre N., 89; Sifre Z., 198; Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 3, 48b-49a; Mekilta RS 76. As to the meaning of D’DDIN in Mekilta, loc. cit., see Low in Hoffmann- Festschrift. 119-120, who takes it to be a corrupt form of D’DIpDN “threshold”. The Bodleian MS. of the Mekilta has D’SDN, and a Genizah fragment of that Midrash in the same library reads □”BDN. 17 1 02-1 09] The Legends of the Jews 103 Tan. B. II, 67; Sifre N., 89, and Sifre, Z., 197. A somewhat different view is found in Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 47b; Mekilta RS 75. Yoma 75a reads: For the pious the manna fell at the door of their tents; ordinary men had to go to the field and gather it; the wicked found it only after a laborious search. 10 3 Midrash Tannaim, 191; Tan. B. II, 66-67; TargumYerushalmi Exod. 16.21 (read perhaps N’DDy ’U instead of '3); Abkir in Yalkut I, 258, whose text of Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 2 (beginning) reads ,□3*7 ’INT j’N, which is in agreement with the Bodleian MS. of that Midrash, and Mekilta RS 75. See also Lekah, Exod. 16.21, according to which Targum Yerushalmi, loc. cit., is to be emended to ’an I’TIDl. Zohar II, 191b asserts that even the mixed multitude could not partake of the manna. 10 ■* Yoma 76a; Tehillim 23, 201; Tan. B. II, 66-67; Mekilta WaYassa' 3, 49a-49b; Mekilta RS 77. 105 Tan. B. II, 66; Yelammedenu No. 51 = BHM VI 87-88; Abkir in Yalkut I, 258; Tosefta Sota 4.3. 106 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 3, 49b; Mekilta RS 77; Yoma 76a. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 73. 107 Yoma 75a, based very likely on Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 5, 51a, the correct text of which is found only in Mekilta RS 79. For the text of the Babli passage see Rabbinovicz, ad loc., and R. Bahya on Exod. 16.31, who seems to have had the reading given by Rabbinovicz. Lekah and Hadar, on the other hand, have the same text as our editions. See also Zohar II, 63a 108 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 2, 47b, and 4-5, 50~51a; Mekilta RS 75 and 78-79; Tan. B. 67-68. Tosafot on ‘Erubin38b, caption I’ttl, maintain that according to some Midrashim one would have to assume that the manna did descend on the holy days; but the Tosafists, it seems, failed to establish their view. — As to the phrase “the new world”, see the Apocalypse of Baruch 32.6. Concerning the manna as the food of the pious in the world to come, see vol. Ill, p. 44. 1 0 > Shabbat 118b. It is presupposed here that the commandment concerning the observance of the Sabbath was revealed at Alush, the place where the manna descended for the first time. This view is explicitly stated in Yerushalmi Yom Tob 2, 61a, and DR 3.1, whereas according to another opinion, the commandment concerning the Sabbath was given at Marah; see vol. Ill, p. 39; Seder ‘Olam 5; Yerushalmi, loc. cit., and references cited in note 83. The statement, Sifre Z., 66, that the Israelites observed one Sabbath only, very likely refers n Moses in the Wilderness [110-113 to the first Sabbath they had observed at Marah before they arrived at Alush; comp, also Tehillim 92, 402. A Haggadah, which seems to be another version of the one given in the text, reads: If the Israelites would but observe one Sabbath, they would forthwith be redeemed from exile; see Shabbat, loc. tit.; Yerushalmi Ta'anit 1, 64a; Tehillim 95, 420; ShR 25.12; WR 3.1. See also the very interesting collection, of midrashic sayings (among them quotations from unknown sources) on the observance of the Sabbath as leading to redemption, in Shibbale Ha-Leket 96—97. That some Israelites desecrated the very first Sabbath was partly the fault of Moses who failed to communicate the law of Sabbath in proper time; Tan. B. II, 67. Comp, the following note. 110 Tan. B. II, 67; Tan. Tezawweh 11; Mekilta RS 78; ShR 25. 10. In the last-named source, as well as in WR 13.1, it is stated that Moses forgot to communicate in due time the laws of Sabbath to the people (see Exod. 16.23). This negligence on his part was due to his indignation and excitement on account of the wicked action of Dathan and Abiram. On other occasions, too, anger had a bad effect on Moses (comp. vol. Ill, pp. 192 and 413); this should serve as a warning to all to avoid anger, since even “the wisest of the wise” neglected his duty in time of anger. Comp, note 862. — As to the worms which betrayed the sinners, comp. Targum Yerushalmi and Midrash Aggada, on Deut. 21.8. A rather confused account of this legend is also found in the Koran 2.67. 111 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 6, 51b, and Mekilta RS 80. Comp, vol. Ill, p. 7. 113 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 5, 51b; Mekilta RS 80; Shekalim 6,49c. For further details concerning “the concealed objects”, see vol. Ill, p. 161; vol. IV, pp. 24, 234, 282, 320, seq., and 350. The oldest form of this legend knows only of three concealed objects which Elijah will restore; these are: three jugs, one filled with manna, another with water from the well of Miriam (this is how D’a, Mekilta, loc. tit., is to be understood; m3 ’D of our editions is a later emendation; comp. PRK 32 a), and the third with the sacred oil. The rpccrcrd aij^ara in Sibyl. 2.188 correspond literally to the D’JD’D nvbv of the Midrashim quoted above. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 303. 113 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 5,51b; Sifre D., 304; Seder ‘Olam 9 and 10; Tosefta Sotah 11.10; Ta'anit 9a; Tan. B, IV, 2-3; Tan. Bemidbar 2; Mishle 14, 74; BaR 1.2 and 14.20 (towards the end); Shir 4.5; Hashkem 19b; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 15, 554, and 578, as well as 19 114-122] The Legends of the Jews ‘ Aruk, s.v. DimSN; PRK, 34b. Slight traces of this legend are to be found also in Philo’s remark {Moses, 1.36) that God caused the manna to descend in order to honor the leader (Moses), etc. Ps. -Philo 21A writes: “And afterwards, when Moses was dead, the manna ceased to come down... And these are three things which God gave His people for the sake of three persons: the well of the water of Marah, for Miriam’s sake (see note 82); the pillar of cloud, for Aaron’s sake; the manna, for Moses’ sake. And when these three came to an end, these three gifts were taken away.” The agreement of ps. -Philo with the sources quoted above is to be noticed even in the phraseology. 114 Sode Raza in Yalkut Reubeni Exod. 16.14; comp. Zohar II, 191b. 115 Midrash Shir 36a. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 53. 116 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 2-3, 47b-48b; Mekilta RS 76; Sifre N., 97; Yoma 75b, where the different kinds of quails are described. The Mekiltas are of the opinion that Exod. 16 13, seq., and Num. II. 31, seq., refer to the same event (see Friedman on Mekilta WaYassa' 3, note 5), whereas ER 12.60 maintains that, as a reward for Abraham’s hospitality (see vol. Ill, p. 43), God caused the quails to come down twice to the camp of Israel, once before the revelation at Sinai (see Exod., loc. cit.), and a second time after the revelation (see Num., loc. cit.). Philo, Moses, 1.37, presupposes that the quails came down regularly during Israel 's wanderings through the wilderness. See also Sekel 212, and vol. Ill, pp. 245, 253, seq. 11 f Yoma 75a-75b. 1 1 8 Berakot 48b. The prayer given in the text is the first benediction of Grace after Meals according to the Ashkenazic ritual. See also Hasidim 399, which reads: Before they ate the manna they pronounced the benediction: “Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who giveth bread from heaven.” This is a slightly modified form of the benediction on bread, substituting ‘heaven’ for ‘earth’. 119 Mekilta Beshallah (NnirnS), 23a; comp. vol. Ill, pp. 7 and 48. 120 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 6, 52a; Mekilta RS 80-81; Tan. Beshallah 22; ShR 26.2; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 17.1. 121 Tan. Beshallah 22. See Mekilta Bo (NniTriD), 2a, and vol. III, pp. 125, 283. 122 Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 6, 51a-52b. Tan. Beshallah 21; ShR 26.2; Mekilta RS 81. In this connection the Midrashim just quoted remark, with reference to Exod. 17.6, that God indicated to Moses 20 Moses in the Wilderness [123-132 the place where he should look for the presence of the Shekinah, namely, where the rock shows the imprint of a human foot. This strange statement is very likely the oldest reference to the religious significance of the dolmens, whose form is described here as being similar to that of the human foot (toes?). Is O^D (“ladder”) perhaps to be read instead of 0“TN? Comp, note 271. 123 ShR 26.2. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 311 (end of paragraph). 12 « Mekilta Wa-Yassa’ 6, 52b; Tan. Beshallah 22; ShR 26.2. See Index, s.v. "Moses, Rod of”. 125 Seder ‘01am 5; Tan. B. IV, 127; comp, also references given in note 113. 126 Mekilta Wa-Yassa ‘ 5, 51b, and parallel passages given in note 311. The name “Miriam’s well” is not found in tannaitic sources, but is of frequent occurrence in later literature; comp., e.g., Shabbat 35a; WR 22.4; BaR 18.22; Tehillim 24, 206. Comp, also note 84. 1 2 3 PRE 3; comp, note 94; vol. I, pp. 324 and 349, as well as vol. II, p. 291. 128 Yalkut I, 764, on Num. 21.18, excerpted, perhaps, from Yelammedenu; see Likkutim {ed. Grunhut), IV, 58, and vol. I, p. 324. 129 Tosefta Sukkah 3.11-13, and a somewhat different version in the unknown Midrash cited in Yalkut I, 426; BaR 1.2 and 19.26; Tan. B. IV, 3 and 127-128; Tan. Bemidbar 2 and Hukkat 21 Onkelos and Targum Yerushalmi Num. 21.16, seq .; Berakot 54b; Zohar II, 191b (the source of the last-named, if not Yalkut, loc. cit., is the Midrash itself cited there); vol. Ill, pp. 338-339. I Cor. 10.4 has an allegory of this legend, wehereas ps. -Philo in 12C speaks of the well of water following them in the wilderness for forty years, and in 13A he refers to the well that followed them in the wilderness for forty years, going up with them into the hills and coming down into the plains.

Comp, note 84. Ephraem 1, 263 is either based on ps.-Philoor on Jewish tradition communicated to him orally. Comp. Grunhut, Likkutim, II, lOa-lOb, and IV, 58b; Meleket ha-Mishkan 97-98. 139 Tan. B. IV, 127-128; Tan. Hukkat 21; BaR 19.26; Midrash in Yalkut I, 426; Yelammedenu in ‘ Aruk, s.v. 'DDOI. Comp, preceding note and Grunhut, Likkutim, IV, 49b. 1 3 1 Tan. B. Ill, 74-75, which has the additional statement that the Israelites will enjoy this gift in messianic times, and if not for their sins, they would have continued to enjoy it after they entered the Holy Land. 132 Tehillim 23, 200; Midrash Shir 36b, as quoted in Yalkut 21 133-136] The Legends of the Jews II, 588, on Song of Songs 5; Yelammedenu in ‘ Aruk, s. v. fpIN (comp. Griinhut, Likkutim, IV, 44b); Shir 4.11; PK 10, 93b. In Shir 4.14 and in the sources cited in note 115 it is the manna which is said to have served as a perfume. On other rival claims between the manna and Miriam’s well, see vol. Ill, p. 65, 1. 13; concerning the tastes of these heavenly gifts, see note 113 and vol. Ill, p. 44. Ephraem I, 287 A, follows the Haggadah which favors the well. 1 3 3 Midrash Shir 37a. Sifre N., 95, asserts that the well contained “fat fish.” 13,1 Shabbat 35a; Yerushalmi Kil’ayim 9, 32c (bottom); WR 22.4; Kohelet 5.8; Tehillim 24, 206; Tan. B. IV, 128; Tan. Hukkat 21; BaR 19.26. In all these sources it is presupposed that the well like the manna (see vol. Ill, p 44) will return in the time to come, and in PRE 51 we have a detailed description of the various services which the well will render at that time. This, in the main, follows the Kaggadah recorded in vol. Ill, p. 53. Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 15, on Josh. 5, as well as II, 378, on Zechariah 9, is closely related to PRE. See also Tosefta Sukkah 3.3-10; Sanhedrin 100a; Tan. Pinehas 14; the statement, in Tan. and in Sanhedrin, concerning the potion of healing in the time to come refers to the water of Miriam ’s well, as is explicitly asserted in Tosefta, loc. cit. See further Kaftor wa-Ferah, 139. 135 BaR 18.22; WR 22.4; Kohelet 5.8. A legend, mentioned by many medieval authors, maintains that at the termination of the Sabbath Miriam’s well moves about from river to river from well to well. It is therefore recommended to draw water at this time when one might be fortunate to get the “healing water” of the miraculous well. See Toratan shel Rishonim I, 59; Ha-Orah 230; Orehot Hayyim Shabbat 69a. We very likely have here a legend in which different elements are blended together. The drawing or drinking of water at the termination of the Sabbath is undoubtedly connected with the view that it is dangerous to drink water immediately before the termination of the Sabbath. The reason for the latter is because at that time the souls of the departed take their last sip before returning to Gehenna (comp. vol. V, p. 143, note 36), when the respite granted to them during the Sabbath is at an end; see Tehillim 11, 102, and references given by Buber. The story (John 5.4) about the pool and its heavenly power is very likely connected with our legend about Miriam’s well. See also Tertullian De Anima 50. 136 PK 2, 21a-21b; PR 12, 52a, and 13, 55a-55b; Tan. B. I, 41, and II, 70-71; Tan. Beshallah 25 and Ki-Teze 9; Shabbat 118a (con22 Moses in the Wilderness [137-140 cerning Amalek’s attack on Israel as a punishment for the desecration of the Sabbath, see note 109); Mekilta RS 81-82; PRE 43; ShR 26.2; Sanhedrin 106a; Berakot 5,6; Mekilta Amalek 1, 53a-53b. Comp, also Yalkut I, 938 (end). Concerning the seven clouds, see vol. II, p. 374. 137 PK 3, 26b; Tan. B. II, 71, and V, 40. The second etymology of the name is also found in Philo, Leg. Allegor., 2.66, and in De CongQuaer. Erud. Causa, 11. 138 Midrash quoted in Da' at, Exod. 17.18; a somewhat different version is given in Hadar: Esau made his son Eliphaz take an oath that he would kill Jacob and thus regain the birthright which Jacob had acquired through guile. Timna, the wife of Eliphaz, however, dissuaded him from attempting to take Jacob’s life, pointing out to him the danger involved in measuring his strength against that of a hero like Jacob. Eliphaz followed his wife’s advice, and had to content himself with taking away Jacob’s possessions (see vol. I,pp. 345-347) without attempting his life. Esau, disappointed in his son, adjured his grandson Amalek to kill Jacob, but he, too, was persuaded by his mother Timna to let Jacob alone, pointing out to him that the descendants of Abraham were destined to serve the Egyptians, and the killing of Jacob would transfer the servitude upon Esau’s children. As long as Israel was in Egypt, Amalek held his peace. But no sooner had the Israelites completed their term of servitude and left Egypt than they were attacked by Amalek. Sabba, Exod., loc. cit. 77a, on the other hand, quotes a Midrash according to which it was Timna who incited her son Amalek to attack Israel. See also vol. I, pp. 379 and 422—423; vol. Ill, pp. 272,331, and 411; ER 24, 125-126, where it is stated that Eliphaz is to be blamed for having neglected the education of his son Amalek, who, unrestrained by his father, became wicked. Lekah Gen. 27.45 and Exod. 17.8 reads: Eliphaz, a pious and righteous man, refused to obey his father’s command concerning Jacob. See also DR 2.29; Shu’aib, Zakor, 37c; Sekel 321; note 318 on vol. I, p. 421. 13 » Mekilta Shirah 11, 43a; Tan. Ki-Teze 9; comp. vol. Ill, p. 11. 1 1° Mekilta Amalek 1, 53a; Mekilta RS 81-82; Midrash Tannaim 170; Tan. B. V, 40-41 ; Tan. Ki-Teze 9; PK 3, 26b; Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 12.1; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 16.8, where sixteen miles are given as the distance between Amalek’s place of settlement and the encampment of the Israelites. The army of Amalek consisted of four hundred thousand warriors (Gorion III, 27; Yashar Shemot, 147a, and Dibre ha-Yamim 11, give different numbers), each of whom re23 141-144] The Legends of the Jews ceived great payment (Aggadat Shir 5, 46; text is corrupt). The war took place in the month of Iyar; Aggadat Esther 29; comp. vol. Ill, 272, and IV, p. 407. The ingratitude of Amalek is to be explained in accordance with the legend given in vol. I, p. 421. PK 3, 27a-27b; PR 12, 52a-52b; Tan. B. V, 41-42 (read n’n mr:);Tan. Ki-Teze 9-10; Sifre D., 296; Midrash Tannaim 170; PRE 44; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 17.8 and Num. 11.1, as well as Deut. 25.19. On the registers of the Jews kept in the Egyptian archives, see Mekilta Beshallah 1, 27; on the sinful Danites, see vol. Ill, pp. 171, 223, 232, 233, 244, 303, and vol. IV, p. 112; Sekel 321. Comp, also note 72, and Index, s. v. “Dan, Tribe of’’. The Christian legend accordingly declares the anti-Christ to be of the tribe of Dan. See Bousset, Antichrist, Index, s. v. “Dan”. Even the early tannaitic sources use Amalek as a designation for Rome (see note 147), and in the legend Amalek ’s sneering at the Abrahamic covenant characterizes the attitude of the Romans (especially during the Hadrian persecutions) towards this very important ceremony; see notes 19 and 25 on vol. I, p. 315. In later literature Amalek, i. e., Rome, stands for Christianity; see Zunz, Synagogale Poesie, 439, and Liter aturgeschichte, 620. In the Kabbalah Amalek = Sammael = evil inclination; comp. Zohar III, 289b. It is highly interesting to observe that Justin, Dialogue 131, is acquainted with this use of the name Amalek. As to the refusal of the clouds to protect the sinners and those that were levitically impure, see Sifre N., 83; Targum on Song of Songs 2.5; vol. I, p. 242; vol. II, p. 375. 141 PR 12, 49a-50a, 53a, and 13, 54a-54b; PK 3, 28a-28b; Tan. B. 5, 43; Tan. Ki-Teze 10; Mekilta RS 87; Aggadat Esther 65, which reads: Only when the descendants of Rachel participated in war were the Israelites victorious. Comp. vol. I, p. 369; vol. IV, pp. 240241. As to the contest between Joseph and Esau, see BR 99.2 and ShR 26.3. 14 3 Mekilta Amalek 1, 53b; Mekilta RS 82; ShR 26.3; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 17.9. 144 Midrash quoted by R. Bahya on Exod. 16.9 and Menot haLevi, 69a. Comp, the similar legend in Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shanah 3, 59a, to the effect that Amalek, who was a great magician, selected, for the attack on Israel, those of his warriors whose birthday was on the day of the battle. The reason for this was because “one is not easily slain on his birthday.” Moses, however, confounded the course of the heavenly bodies (ni^fD), and thus frustrated Amalek ’s device. 24 Moses in the Wilderness [145-150 The last statement refers to Moses’ causing the sun to stand still (see reference in note 146), so that Amalek’s warriors were not certain as to the actual time of their birthday. See also We-Hizhir Exod. 34a; Yashar Shemot 147a; Dibre ha-Yamim 11. 145 Mekilta Amalek 1, 54a-54b; Mekilta RS 82-83; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 17.10-13; PRE 44. Moses’ hesitation is recorded in Exod. 17.9, where it is said that he waited a day before he undertook to attack Amalek. The haggadic explanation of the raising and the lowering of the hands (found also in Mishnah Rosh ha-Shanah 3.8) would seem to be directed against the Christian view, according to which it was a symbolic representation of the cross (see Barnabas 12.2; Justin, Dialogue, 90 and 91), but Philo, Moses, 1.39, offers an explanation which is similar to that of the Rabbis. Philo’s other statement that Moses, before going to war, was sprinkled with the waters of purification is based on the correct assumption that in ancient Israel warriors had to be purified before going to war; see 1 Sam. 21.6 and comp, also the legends, vol. Ill, p. 57, line 17, note 849 and Index,s. v. “Purification”; Sifre D., 258. The statement of Bahir (quoted as Midrash by Nahmanides and Shu'aib on Exod. 17.11) that Moses lowered his hands because one should not pray with raised hands longer than three hours is perhaps intended to discourage this form of prayer which is so much in favor among Christians. On Joshua’s war against Amalek, see vol. IV, pp. 3-4; concerning Hur see vol. Ill, p. 121; vol. IV, p. 158. 146 ER 2, 10; Tehillim 19, 167; Tan. Tezawweh 9; Sifre D., 306, reads The sun stood still as soon as Moses said: “Give ear, ye heavens.” Comp, also note 947 and note 43 in vol. IV, p. 11. Concerning the different occasions when Moses caused the sun to stand still, see below note 245 147 Tan. B. V, 41 and 45; Tan. Ki-Teze 9 and 11; PK 3, 27a; PR 12, 52a; Mekilta Amalek 2, 55a, and 56a-56b; Mekilta RS 84-85; Tehillim 9, 86; Haserot in Batte Midrashot I, 32a. Comp, also the quotation from the Yerushalmi (not in our editions) in Bet Yosef, Orah Hayyim 137. In all these sources Amalek represents Rome; hence the reference to the destruction of the Temple by him; but comp, vol. Ill, p. 332 on the destruction of the first Temple by Amalek. 148 Mekilta Amalek 2, 56b; Mekilta RS 84; Tan. B, V, 44; Tan. Ki-Teze 11; PK 3, 28b; PR 12, 51a. 149 ER 24, 126. Comp, note 138. •so Mekilta Amalek 2, 56a, the text of which is to be corrected in accordance with the reading in Mekilta RS 84 and Bodleian MS. 25 151-154] The Legends of the Jews The conception “that God joins Himself unto His people when it suffers and when it rejoices” (vol. II, p. 88) is of frequent occurence; see Mekilta Bo 14, 16a; Mekilta RS 27; Sifre N., 84 and 161; Megillah 29a; Ta'anit 16a; Yerushalmi Sukkah 4, 54c; Ta'anit 1, 64a; Sanhedrin 4 (end); ShR 15.12 and 23.5; WR 9.3; BaR 2.2 and 7 (towards the end); DR 4.1; Ekah 1, 92 and 2, 110-111; ER 17, 89; Shemuel 4, 55; Tehillim 9, 89; 27, 223; 91, 401; Tan. B. Ill, 68 and 61, as well as IV, 9; Tan. Ahare 12; Aggadat Bereshit 71, 140; PK 5, 47a; Shir 4.7 and 5.2; BHM VI, 37. Comp, also vol. II, pp. 118, 187, 303, 374; vol. IV, p. 312. In practically all these passages two originally different conceptions are blended together: the primitive conception that the suffering of a people indicates the impotence of its god, and the mystic-religious one that the essence of God manifests itself in the history of mankind, and especially in the history of Israel. Accordingly God participates in the sorrows and joys of Israel. In Mekilta Bo, loc. cit., and Sanhedrin 6.5, the second conception is expressed in an individualistic manner, and it is accordingly stated that the suffering of an individual, even of a sinner who suffers for his sins, causes God to grieve; comp, note 60. Later mystics frequently speak of the “exile of the Shekinah” {Galut ha-Shekinah) which each and every Jew ought to bewail more than any national calamity or his own misfortune. 151 ShR 27.5; PK 3, 21a and 22a; Tan. B. II, 70; Shemuel 12, 81. It is said: Jethro was in Amalek’s army, and after the defeat of the latter, he came to Moses. See also Mekilta Yitro 1, 56b-57a; Zebahim 116a; Yerushalmi Megillah 72b (bottom); ER 5, 30, where three different views are given concerning the time of Jethro’s arrival: 1) he came immediately after the Red Sea had been crossed; 2) after the defeat of Amalek; 3) after the revelation at Sinai. Concerning Jethro’s position at Pharaoh’s court, see vol. II, pp. 254, 296; vol. Ill, pp. 11 and 74. See more details concerning Jethro vol. II, pp. 287-291. 1 5 3 Mekilta Yitro 1, 58a; Mekilta RS 87. 153 Tan. B. II, 73; Targum Yerushalmi and Midrash Aggada Exod. 18.6-7; Mekilta RS 87. Concerning the clouds which enveloped the camp, see vol. II, p. 375; vol. Ill, p. 57. 154 Mekilta Yitro 1, 58a-58b; Mekilta RS 87; ER 5, 30; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 18.6; Tan. Yitro 6. See also Zohar II, 69b (Jethro brought his sons with him to make them proselytes to Judaism); Lekah Exod. 18.5, whose text of the Mekilta seems to have been 26 Moses in the Wilderness [155-163 different from ours. On the idea of attracting proselytes by kindness, see the remarks of Tan. B. I, 63-64; DZ 1 ( = Yalkut I, 213); Batte Midrashot I, 45a. The Midrash quoted by R. Jacob of Coucy, SMG, positive precept 10, and negative precept 116, is identical with Tan., too. cit. 155 Mekilta Yitro 1, 58b; Mekilta RS 87 (the sentence about the importance of peace is taken from Perek ha-Shalom; comp. Reshit Hokmah end, who quotes it from that source), BHM III, 129. 156 Mekilta Yitro 1, 58b-59a; Mekilta RS 87-88; Sanhedrin 94a; Tan. B. II, 71-72; Tan. Yitro 7; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 18.8-11; Zohar II, 5a. Concerning the manna, the well, and the six gifts promised to Israel, see vol. Ill, pp. 44, 47, and note 132. Philo, De Ebriet., 11, seems likewise to assert that Jethro did not become a proselyte to Judaism prior to his visit to Moses. Comp, the different view found in DR 2.26, and vol. Ill, p. 289, according to which Jethro had abandoned idolatry even before Moses came to Midian. Mekilta and Sanhedrin 94a seem to assume that Jethro’s visit to Moses took place immediately after the Exodus, even before the crossing of the Red Sea; see note 151. As to the impossibility of escaping from Egypt, see note 3; Zohar III, 212a (the magic of Balaam made it impossible for anyone to escape); Shu'aib Wa-Era, 26d. 157 Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 3.1. 158 Mekilta Yitro 2, 59a; Mekilta RS 88; Sifre D., 38; Midrash Tannaim 30; Kiddushin 32b. 159 Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 3.1. 160 Lekah, Exod. 18.13; comp, also Pa'aneah ad loc. 161 Lekah Exod. 18.17. 163 Mekilta Yitro 2, 59b-60a; Mekilta RS 89-90. Concerning the seven qualifications of a judge, see Maimonides, Yad, Sanhedrin, 2.7, who very likely made use of an old source. Comp. Midrash Tannaim 95. l6s Sifre D., 11-13; Midrash Tannaim 6-8. Comp. vol. Ill, 248, seq., where the appointment of the seventy elders is described by the Haggadah in accordance with the rules governing the appointment of judges. — The appellative “son of Amram” is a derogatory one; see vol. Ill, pp. 109, 110, 118, 176, 177, 178, 273, 297, 310, 312, 349, 384, 432, 464, 476, 479; vol. IV, pp. 305, 306, 309. Tehillim 11, 45, and BaR 18.17 cite the scripture passages where David is called “son of Jesse”, and remark that those who spoke of him in this manner 27 164-170] The Legends of the Jews intended to slight him. See also I Maccabees 16.15. — On the blessing of Moses see vol. Ill, pp. 187 and 454. l6* Sifre D., 13-17; Midrash Tannaim 7-10. As to the number of the judges and officers, see Sanhedrin, Mishnah 1 (end); Babli 17b-18a; vol. Ill, p. 383, and vol. IV, p. 95. The number one hundred and twenty in Acts 1.15 is to be explained in accordance with Sanhedrin, loc. cit. Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 4.1, in contrast to the view of the Rabbis, maintains that the people had to ratify the appointment made by Moses; but the Rabbis are of opinion that the people acted only in the capacity of advisers. Comp, also Philo, Moses, I, 29; vol. Ill, p. 155. In the tannaitic sources quoted above (as well as in ‘Erubin 100b; Alphabet R. Akiba 19; ShR 30.10; DR 1.10; Midrash Tannaim 95) it is stated that Moses did not succeed in finding men for office who combined all these qualifications (on the nature of these qualifications, see above note 162 and Hashkem 7-10) of the ideal judge as described by Jethro. On the respect due to a judge, see vol. Ill, p. 220. 165 Mekilta RS 90-91, which fs very likely taken from a version of Perek ha-Shalom different from ours; see Perek ha-Shalom in Reshit Hokmah, end( = BHM III, 125). See also Midrash Tannaim 97; Hashkem 5a-5b. 166 Mekilta Yitro 2, 60a, the text of which is to be corrected in accordance with Mekilta RS 91. 167 Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 4.2. 168 Sifre N., 78 and 80. See a similar remark with regard to the daughters of Zelaphehad in vol. Ill, p. 394. 169 Tehillim 78, 345-346; comp. vol. Ill, pp. 45-46. Concerning Jethro’s love for the Torah, see Sifre N., 78; Tan. Yitro 4; Sifre Z,, 74; Mekilta RS 91. 170 Sifre N., 78-80; Sifre Z., 76-78; Mekilta Yitro 2, 60a; Mekilta RS 91; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 18.27. Moses is described as king (of Israel) not only in the Midrashim quoted above, but also in many other passages; comp. vol. Ill, pp. 142, 153, 187, 188, 251, 286, 288, 296, 298, 384, 455. See also Midrash Tannaim 213; Tan. Beshallah 2; Tehillim 1,3, where Deut. 33.5 is referred to Moses, who is thus described as “king in Jeshurun.” The Hellenistic writers Demetrius and Philo, as well as Justus of Tiberias, call Moses the king of the Jews; see Schiirer, Geschichte (third edition) IV, 449. Comp, also Ibn Ezra on Gen. 35.31. — ToseftaBikkurim 1.2 and Yerushalmi 1, 64a, maintain 28 Moses in the Wilderness [171-175 that the descendants of Jethro enjoyed the legal status of pure blooded Israelites and not of proselytes. Comp, note 783. 171 Sifre N., 81, and D., 52; Sifre Z„ 70; ARN 35, 105; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 10.32; Midrash Tannaim 5; Mekilta Deut. 5. In the text (vol. Ill, p. 73, end of second paragraph) Benjamin is to be read instead of Judah. 172 Sifre Z., 76-77; Sifre N., 78, and D., 352; Mekilta Yitro 2 60a; Mekilta RS 91-92 (the descendants of Jethro abandoned their lucrative enterprises, and devoted themselves to the study of the Torah, supporting themselves by making pottery; comp. ARN 35, 105); Temurah 16a. Comp. vol. IV, p. 29. 177 Mekilta Yitro 2, 60b; Mekilta RS 91-92; Sifre N., 78; Sifre Z., 77; Tan. Wa-Yakhel 8; PR 40, 167b. In Mekilta RS 85 Jonadab the Rechabite is censured for his friendship with Jehu (see 2 Kings 10.15, seq.) but the text is very likely corrupt. The parrallel passage in ARN 9,42 (second version 17,36) proves that it is Jonadab the nephew of David (see 2 Sam. 13.3) who is described in the Mekilta as wise but wicked. For further details concerning the descendants of Jethro see vol. Ill, p. 380. — The Holy Land, the Temple, and the Davidic kingdom were given to the Israelites conditionally, and they lost them as soon as they sinned; but the Torah, the priesthood, and the distinction of being called the Children of God were conferred upon the Israelites unconditionally. Israel therefore retained the latter gifts for ever. See Midrash Tannaim 39-40 and Ozar Midrashim I, 38-39 (read nKHp); but Mekilta Yitro 2, 60b, and Tehillim 132, 516, do not know of the last-named gift. 174 Tan. B. II, 74-75; PK 12, 103b and 106a; see also Midrash Aggada Exod. 18.27. A conflicting view maintains that Jethro’s visit to Moses took place before the revelation on Sinai; see note 151. 175 PK 12, 106a; Tan. B. II, 75. Medieval authorities quote the following legend from an unknown Midrash. While the Israelites were still in Egypt it was announced to them that fifty days after the exodus from Egypt the Torah would be revealed unto them. As soon as they were redeemed from bondage, they were so eager for the arrival of the promised day that they began to count the days, saying each day: “ Now we have one day less to wait for the revelation of the Torah.” To commemorate this counting, the Torah has prescribed to count the days from Passover to the Feast of Weeks (comp. Lev. 13.15-16), the so-called “Counting of the ‘Omer”. See Shibbale ha-Leket 210, 236; Orehot Hayyim 84a, 5; Abudrahim, Sefirat ha29 176-181] The Legends of the Jews ‘Omer; Shu'aib I, Pesah, 51c; Sabba, Emor 104c; comp. alsoR. Bahya Exod. 3.12. 176 PK 12, 104a and 106a-107a; Tan. B. II, 75-76; Shir 2.5; BHM 6.45; comp. vol. II, p. 374, and vol. Ill, p. 213, The Torah is personified in the legend, which accordingly narrates that the Torah rejoiced in the fact that it would be given to Israel. See vol. Ill, p. 188. 177 Mekilta Rs 97; Mekilta Bahodesh 3, 64a (on the number of Israelites necessary in order that the Shekinah might dwell in their midst, to which reference is made in the Mekilta, see also Sifre N., 84; Yebamot 64a; Ketubot 17a; Baba Kamma 83a); Tan. Yitro 9; Tehillim 119, 490; Semahot 7; DR 7.8; WR 13.2; BR 70. 9; PR, 198a-198b; ER 23, 124-24, 125; Zohar II, 78b, and III, 22b. Just as the “recipients of the Torah” and the place of its revelation were predestined and selected for various reasons, even so was the time of the revelation. The Torah was to remain in heaven for a thousand generations after the creation (see Ps. 105.8), and in view of the fact that “nine hundred and seventy-four generations” had elapsed before Adam was created (see note 5 on vol. I, p. 4) , the time of Moses, the twenty-sixth generation after Adam, was the proper time for the revelation. See Zebahim 116a; Shabbat 88a.; Tan., loc. cit.; Tehillim 105, 449; Aggadat Bereshit 49, 100; BR 28.4 and the numerous parallel passages cited by Theodor on “the thousand generations”. Concerning the generation of the revelation, see also vol. Ill, pp. 109 and 313. — The time that elapsed from the creation till the revelation was the “time of Grace”, since mankind without the Torah as a guide could only be sustained by the grace of God. See Pesahim 118a; Tehillim 136,519. 178 PR 12, 106b, Tan. B. II, 74; BHM VI, 40; Ekah (Nnrrns) 20; Mekilta Bahodesh 1, 62a; Mekilta RS 94; Targum Yerushalmi 19.2; WR 9.9; PRE 41. 179 PK 12, 105a- 105b (rwVlPD n’m’mN “the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are divisible by three”, since it amounts to twenty-seven); Tan. B. II, 73; Tan. Yitro 10; Midrash ‘Aseret haDibrot 41-42. 180 Shabbat 89a-89b; BHM VI, 90; Lekah, Exod. 19.18; Tan. IV, 7; Shir 4.4. Comp vol. II, p. 302. 1 8 1 Sifre D., 343, 142b; Midrash Tannaim 210; Mekilta Bahodesh 5, 67a, and 1, 62a; Mekilta RS 93; ‘Abodah Zarah 2b; ER 24, 122; EZ 11, 192; Hashkem 2b; WR 13.2; PK 5, 43b and 32, 199b-200a; PR 33, 142a; ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 68; Tan. B. Ill, 28, and V, 54-55; 30 Moses in the Wilderness [182-184 Tan. Berakah 4; Sifre D., 311; Baba Kamma 38a; Ekah 3.123; BHM VI 39; Zohar II, 91b, and 191a-192b; 4 Ezra 7.20-210; Apocalypse of Baruch 48, 40; ps.-Jerome, Quaestiones in Jud. 5.4-5. The idea underlying this widespread legend is that the heathen nations showed their unfitness to take upon themselves the yoke of the Torah by their immoral and lawless conduct, which knew no restraint, not even the seven restrictions imposed upon the children of Noah (see Index, s. v. “Noachian Laws”), which are the minimum of laws necessary for the maintenance of civilization. The people of the Torah is at the same time the boldest among the nations (as the dog is the boldest among the animals and the cock among the birds), ready to repel all attacks upon its teachings and doctrines; see Yom Tob 25b. Rashi, ad loc., takes this talmudic passage to mean that Israel was given the Torah, in order that, by its discipline, it might soften the “hardness” of the people that is the “hardest ” among the nations. This idea, though somewhat common in the rabbinic sources and in the New Testament (see e. g. Gal. 3.24), cannot be read into the passage of Yom Tob, loc. cit. — The six hundred and thirteen precepts of the Torah are frequently mentioned in the Talmudim and Midrashim, but are not found in tannaitic sources. Sifre D., 76 (mSD'l) refers to the three verses of Deut. 12.23-25 which contains the prohibition against the use of blood, and is not to be emended to niXD 3'1-in, as is done by Friedmann, ad loc., while in the parallel passage (Midrash Tannaim 53) the word JYIKD after '3 is to be stricken out. In Mekilta Beshallah 5, 57a, J'nro is a later addition, as may be seen from the parallel passage in Sifre D., 343. MHG I, 226, has jn3£D a",-in in the dictum of the Tanna R. Eliezer the son of R. Jose ha-Galili. — Concerning the refusal of the nations to accept the Torah, see also vol. Ill, pp. 205, 341, 454, and vol. IV, p. 307. 1 8 2 Abkir in Yalkut I, 276; BHM VI, 40-41 ; ER 6,35, where Adam and Noah, too, are cited as examples of piety. On Joseph, see vol. II, p. 183, and vol. Ill, p. 201. 183 Targum and Tosefta Targum Jud. 5.5; Targum Ps. 68.16-17; BR 99.1; Tehillim 68, 318; PR 7, 27a; Mekilta Bahodesh 5, 66b; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 47, and in Makiri Prov. 29, 85b; ' Aseret ha-Dibrot 66. On the reward of “the modest Sinai”, see also vol. Ill, p. 304. 184 Tehillim 68, 318; comp. vol. IV, p. 197. In the time to come God will cause the heavenly Jerusalem to descend upon these four mountains: Tabor, Hermon, Carmel and Sinai; see the quotation from an unknown Midrash (Yelammedenu?) in Makiri Is.

52, 195, 31 185-188] The Legends of the Jews and a similar statement in Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 319, on Isa. 2 (here, probably owing to a printer’s error, Hermon is missing, and the heavenly Jerusalem is substituted, as is often the case, by the Temple; see Vol. V, 292, note 141), as well as Zerubbabel (ed. Wertheimer, 12a) according to which a fifth mountain, Lebanon, is to share this glory. Comp, also Tehillim, loc. cit. 185 BR 99.1;comp. vol. II, p. 303 on the “cleanliness” of the thorn bush. The revelation of the Torah did not take place in the land of Israel, but in the wilderness. By this God showed that the Torah was not given exclusively to Israel, but to all the inhabitants of the earth. For the same reason the Torah was not revealed secretly, but openly, in the presence of all mankind (comp. vol. Ill, p. 91); see Mekilta Beshallah 1, 62a (DUIS = Moses in the Wilderness [189-191 and the references given by Ratner); Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 19.2-3. Jub. 1.1, in opposition to this view, maintains that the Torah was revealed on the fifteenth of Sivan. — Concerning the distinction of the third month as compared with all the other months of the year* see vol. Ill, pp. 78-79, and the sources quoted in note 179, to which the following should be added: BHM VI, 40; PR 20, 95a-96a; Tan. B. II, 76; PK 12, 107a. These read: The Torah was given in the month of Sivan when Gemini are in the Zodiac, to indicate that it does not belong to Israel alone, but also to his twin brother Esau (that is, the Gentiles). Comp, notes 181 and 185. 189 Mekilta RS 94 (read mnDN instead of D’33): Moses received this distinction for the sake of the fathers and the mothers; see Index,s.v. “Mothers, Merits of ”; ShR 25.2; 1 and 2 Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 19.3. Comp, also Shabbat 87a; Sifre N., 99; Mekilta Bahodesh 2, 62b. The statement in Mekilta RS, loc.cit., that “everything” was done for the sake of Jacob is also found in Yalkut I, 276. See note 35 on vol. I, p. 317; Index s.v. “Jacob, the Merits of.” 190 ShR 25.2; PRE 41. These sources remark: Because men do that which women wish them to do. See also Philo, De Ebriet. 13: Women adhere to customs. 191 Mekilta Beshallah 2-3, 62b-64b, and 9, 72a (concerning the employment of the Hebrew language by Moses, referred to in this passage, see also Sifre N., 39, and the parallel passages cited by Friedmann , as well as Mekilta D . 4, where the meaningless □’ mD31 is to be emended to D’nom “in proper order”, as in Mekilta, loc. cit.); Mekilta RS 94-96; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 19.4-7. Comp, note 242. Concerning the honor due to the elders, see vol. II, pp. 330 and 363-364. As to the view that God ’s messengers return to Him and make their report as soon as they have carried out His command, comp. Mekilta Bo (Nnn’ns) 2a and Midrash Tannaim 210. Philo, Moses, 1.27, explains the designation of Israel as a kingdom of priests to mean that Israel works for the salvation of all mankind. A similar remark is found in Alphabet of R. Akiba 28 ('r) : The righteous among the Gentiles act as the priests of God. The proverb that “hearing is not like seeing” is found also in Philo. De Special. Leg., De Judice 2, and De Confusione Ling. 27. Comp, also Vita Mosis I, 49; Herodotus, 1,8. As to the application of this proverb to the revelation of the Torah, see PR 41, 174a; Shir 1.2. Moses went beyond that which he was commanded by God: he was asked to tell the people to observe “two days of preparation, prior to the revelation of the Torah, but he added a third 33 192-195] The Legends of the Jews day. God, however, submits to the words of the pious, and the state* ment of Moses was not altered. See BHM VI, 41, which, in the main, follows Shabbat 87a. Comp, note 239. 192 Mekilta RS 96-97 (is this the source of Meiri, Magen Abot, 61?); Keritot 9a; Gerim 2; Mekilta Bahodesh 3, 63b-64a. The ablution before the revelation is also referred to by Philo, De Decalogo, 11; Yebamot 46a; Yerushalmi Shabbat 9, 12a. 193 Lekah Exod. 24.5; ER 9, 52. These read: The innocent youth, though not of priestly descent are worthy to offer sacrifices upon the altar. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 93 and note 205, for the dissenting view as to who "were the priests” on that day. 194 Mekilta Bahodesh 3, 63b; Mekilta RS 96—97 (this source does not know of the view found in the Mekilta that twelve pillars were erected, one for each of the twelve tribes) ; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 24.4. As for the exact nature of these sacrifices, see Hagigah 6a; Midrash Tannaim 57; Sifre N., 143. 195 Midrash Tannaim 56-57; WR 6.5, which contains the additional remarks that the angel assumed the form of Moses (probably a reminiscence of the legend, given in vol. II, p. 282, that Michael assumed the form of Moses), and that one half of the blood became black, while the other remained red; Haserot 41 in Leket Midrashim 11. Hadar, Exod. 24.6, has Gabriel instead of Michael. Comp. Index under the names of these two angels. WR explicitly states that one half of the blood was sprinkled upon the people ; but the tannaitic sources (Midrash Tannaim 57 and Mekilta Bahodesh 3, 63b), as well as the Targumim on Exod., loc. cit., maintain that the blood was sprinkled upon the altar "to atone for the people.” It seems that the older sources attempted to combat the Christological doctrine of the atoning power of blood, derived in Hebrews 9.19-22 from the sprinkling of the blood upon the entire people and the book. The last part of the statement is entirely unknown in rabbinic sources. The remark that "there is no atonement without blood”, made in Hadar in this connection, is a sacrificial law often referred to in the Halakah; see e.g., Sifra 1.4 and Yoma 5a.— Opinions differ greatly as to the nature of the book of the covenant which Moses read to the people on this occasion; see Midrash Tannaim 56 and Mekilta, loc. cit. As to the view that this book was the Torah (in its entirety), see 1 Macabees 1.57, where the Book of the Covenant is used as a synonym for the Torah. Concerning the covenant, see further Mekilta Mishpatim 20; 102a; Sifre D., 104; Midrash Tannaim 75; but Tan. Nizzabim (beginning) and Tan. 34 Moses in the Wilderness [196-198 B. V, 49, offer a somewhat different version of the Haggadah about the covenant. See also, on the covenant, Tosefta Sotah 8.10; Babli 37b; Yerushalmi 6, 21c; Hagigah 6a-6b; Mekilta Mishpatim 20, 102a; Lekah Deut 2.99. In Nedarim 25a it is pointed out that Moses told the people that no mental reservation would avail them, since their oath of allegiance to God would have to be taken in conformity with the meaning which He Himself assigns to it. 1,6 Shir 1.4; Tehillim 8, 76-77; ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 68 (according to this source, Abraham’s sin consists in having loved Ishmael); BHM VI, 42; Mekilta RS 100; Mishle 6,53 (here Israel offers the heavens, the earth, and the mountains as guarantors; but God rejects them because they are to perish in the time to come; see vol. Ill, pp. 431-432); an unknown Midrash quoted by Shu'aib, Wayyigash, 21a. On the sins of Abraham and Jacob, see vol. I, pp. 235, 411 ; vol. V, pp. 228, 316; on the children in their mothers ’ wombs see vol. 1 1 1 , p. 34. Concerning the death of infants as a punishment or atonement for the sins of their parents, see Shabbat 32b; Midrash Shir 13a; Hashkem 3a-5a. Until the revelation of the Torah God visited the sins of the generation upon all alike, without discriminating between the righteous and the wicked — many a “Noah” died in the deluge, and many an innocent child perished with the builders of the tower — but after the revelation of the Torah punishment and reward are meted out to each and every individual according to his merits; see Tan. Re’eh 3. 197 Mekilta RS 94; ARN (beginning); ShR 28.2; Yerushalmi Targumim Exod. 19.13 ( Hadar , Exod. 34b, top, is based upon 2 Targum Yerushalmi). Concerning the heavenly punishment by fire, see also Targum Yerushalmi Num. 1.51, 3.10 and 38. In contrast to the Yerushalmi Targumim, Mekilta Bahodesh 3, 64 understands Exod. 19.12-13 to refer to punishment by the hand of man. 198 Mekilta RS 85 and 99 (on the sounds see below, note 213); Mekilta Yitro 1, 57a, and Bahodesh 3-4, 64b-65a, as well as 5, 67a67b; Zebahim 116a; Mishle 21,90; PR 20,95a; PRE 41; Nispahim 55; Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 5, 2-3 (the address of Moses to the people presupposes that the book of the covenant mentioned in Exod. 24. 7 is identical with the part of the Pentateuch from Gen. 1.1 to Exod. 19; comp, the references cited in note 195); 4 Ezra 3.18-19. In the last-named source it is stated that the “four gates of heaven” opened on that occasion; see a similar remark in BHM VI, 41-42, but in this passage m^lp 'T is very likely to be read; comp. Mekilta Bahodesh 3, 64b (bottom). Lengthy descriptions of the violent motions of the 35 199-203] The Legends of the Jews entire universe at the time of the revelation of the Torah are given by ps.-Philo 11.5; 15.6; 23.10; 32.7-8. Obviously Jud. 5.4-5 and Hab. 3.3, seq., served as models for these descriptions as well as for those found in rabbinic sources. Comp, also vol. Ill, 95-96. 199 pr 21, 99b-100a, where it is also remarked that the earth feared lest the revelation of the Torah should increase the sinfulness of man and thus cause the destruction of the world. Comp. vol. I, p. 55. 2 0 0 PRE 41; Shir 1.12 and 5.3. Concerning the description of God as the “bridegroom of Jacob’s daughter” (i.e., Israel), see DR 3.12 and Aggadat Bereshit 41, 126 (CTID1, Exod. 20.10, is here derived from ND3 = NE>1 “to marry”), which is the source of Mahzor Vitry 311. Some rabbinic sources speak of Israel as the bridegroom and of the Torah as the bride, at whose wedding God (and Moses) acted as best man; see Orehot Hayyirn II, 67; ShR 41.6; Epstein, R. Moses haDarschan 42-43. 2 0 1 Mekilta Bo (unn’ns) 2a and Bahodesh 4, 65b; Mekilta RS 101; Sifre N., 116 (comp. Friedmann, note 22); Yerushalmi Targumim Exod. 21.19; Berakot 45a. Concerning Moses’ powerful voice, which could be heard throughout the entire camp, see Aggadat Shir 32 and note 228 on vol. II, p. 370; note 521. The later authorities (Jewish as well as mohammedan; comp. Goldziher, La Notion de la Sekina, 12) employ the expression “The Shekinah spoke through Moses’ mouth”, which is very likely nothing more than a striking paraphrase of this statement of the Mekilta. Philo, Quis . Haeres Sit, 5, seems to have shared this view. The Targumim mentioned above speak of “the heavenly music” heard on this occasion, and in all likelihood this is the meaning of ps.-Philo 11.3, who refers to the “music of the instruments sounding aloud” at the revelation on Sinai. 2 0 2 Mekilta RS 100; Mekilta Bahodesh 3, 65a (top); Shabbat 88a and 129b; ‘Abodah Zarah 2b; Midrash Shir, 44a; Shir 8.5; Tehillim 75, 337, and 76, 342; Tan. Noah 3. It is stated: “Israel was willing to accept the written Torah, but not the unwritten, and God was therefore obliged to use force (this Midrash is the source of Or Zarua‘ 1, 7a; Hadar and Da' at, Exod. 19.17); PRE 41. Concerning the idea that the existence of the world is conditioned upon the acceptance of the Torah, see also Shir 1.90; PR 21, 99b-100a; Midrash Aggadah Lev. 25.1. Note 26 and note 8 on vol. I, p. 50. 2 0 3 Shabbat 88a (this passage speaks of two crowns instead of the crown and the girdle of the other sources); PR 10, 37a; 21, 103b, 36 Moses in the Wilderness [204-206 28, 154a; PRE 27 (equipped with these gifts they became like angels); Tehillim 9r, 397, and 103, 435; ShR 45.2 and 51.8; Shir 1.3, 4.13, and 8.5; Tan. Tezawweh 11 and Shelah 13; Tan. B. IV, 76, and II, 25, 99; BaR 16. 25; PK 16, 124b; EZ 4, 179; Ekah (NnrTTlB) 24.24 and 2.117-118; ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 68; BHM VI, 46; Makiri Tehillim 50, 275. Yelammedenu in Recanati Ki-Tissa has a version of this legend which differs essentially from that found in the other sources. Sabba, Zaw, 95c, reads: They lost the second crown in Jeremiah’s time, when they refused to listen to the word of God, See also Menorat ha-Maor III, 1.5, which quoted an unknown Midrash. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 132. 104 PR 21, 101a and 102a; comp. Hadar, Exod. 33.7, and PRE 41 (end). As to the other explanations of Moses’s shining face, see vol. Ill, pp. 119, 137. 143, 438. The crowns as well as the other heavenly gifts are said to have been the reward given to the Israelites for tneir willingness to accept the Torah before they knew its contents. This willingness they expressed in the words “All that the Lord hath spoken will we do as soon as we have heard it” (see Exod. 24.7; yDPl, literally, we shall hear). This attitude is often referred to as the highest stage ever reached by Israel in the religious development; see, e.g., Shabbat 88a; Gittin 7a; Tan. B. II, 11, and III, 94. There is however, a dissenting view, according to which the Israelites, even at the moment when they expressed their willingness to accept the Torah, were employing nice words without intending to fulfil them; see Mekilta Mishpatim 13, 89b-90a; Tosefta Baba Kamma 7.9; Tan. B. I, 77; WR 6.1; DR 7.10; ShR 42.8. “>5 PRE 41; ShR 28.3; Mekilta RS 102; Mekilta Bahodesh 4, 65b-66a; BaR 12.7; PR 5, 20b,. Concerning the first-born as priests, see vol. I, pp. 320, 332, and comp, (on the other hand), Zebahim 115b, and vol. Ill, p. 88 (bottom) ; note 139. The sources quoted at the beginning of this note, as well as Ephraem I, 222D, maintain that Nadab and Abihu performed the priesly service not only on this occasion but also previously. 306 pre 41; Nispahim 55. The legend of the "ascent of Sinai” is also found in Philo, De Decalogo, 11, and in several of the sources quoted in note 202. Concerning the ten revelations (literally, “descents”) of God, see BR 38.9 and parallel passages quoted by Theodor. The individual opinion of a Tanna who flourished about the middle of the second century is quoted: The Shekinah never descended upon the earth, nor did Moses and Elijah ever ascend to heaven; the heavenly voice 37 207-210] The Legends of the Jews heard on Sinai made it seem as though the glory of God descended upon the mountain; comp. Mekilta Bahodesh 4, 65b, and Sukkah 5a, where instead of TQJ (“glory”) m’JP (“Shekinah”) is used. Comp, notes 296, 919, and note 32 on vol. IV, p. 200. 3°? Aggadat Shir 1.14; PR 21, 202b-203a; ER 22, 119; PR 12, 107b; Tan. Zaw 12; Tan. B. II, 76-77; III, 20; IV, 13; ShR 29.8; BHM V, 68; Tehillim 68, 318-319; Targum Ps. 68.18. On the crowns see vol. Ill, pp. 92-93, and on the piety of the Levites comp. vol. Ill, p. 130. The slaves and bondwomen who were present at the revelation of the Torah on Sinai saw more of the Glory of God than the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel; Mekilta Bahodesh 3, 64a; see a similar remark in Tehillim, loc. cit.; comp, also vol. Ill, pp. 94, 106, 227 and 230. >»* PR 21, 203b; PK 12, 108a. 209 pr 21, 105-106a, where numerous explanations of the “first word” Anoki are given; BHM VI, 42; ER 1, 22; Midrash ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 47. Comp., however, vol. II, p. 300, where it is said that the Israelites spoke the Hebrew language in Egypt; see also notel91. On the use of the word Anoki in God’s revelations to the patriarchs, see PR 33, 153a, and note 140 on vol. I p. 352. 3 1 0 ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 69-70, which is based on old sources; see Tosefta ‘Arakin 1.10 (on the twelve miles, the extent of the camps, see ‘Erubin 55a, as well as note 445 and Index, s. v. “Camps, Extent of”); Sifre D., 313; Mekilta Beshalah 2, 63b and 9, 71b; Shabbat 88b; Tehillim 31, 338 (God enabled the idols to worship Him, i. e., the whole of nature recognized God’s power) ; 68, 317-318; 119, 490-491; Midrash Shir 2b; BHM VI, 42; ER 22, 119-120; Shir 1.2 and 4.4; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 20.2; Mahzor Vitry 320 (probably based on Midrash Shir 2a, or ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot, loc. cit.); Shu'aib, Yitro, 33b (his source seems to be a text of Shir 2.4 different from ours; comp, his quotation, in Bemidbar, 73b, from “Midrash Hazita”). Ps.-Philo 23.10and 32.7-8 is acquainted with several features of this legend; comp, above note 198. — Concerning the angels who accompanied God on mount Sinai, see vol. Ill, pp. 92 and 94. Some sources, however, maintain that there were no angels on mount Sinai, since even these heavenly beings, had they been near there at that time, would have been burned by “the words”; PR 33, 156a— 156b; comp, also note 248. — Each of the two hundred and forty-eight members of the body urge man, saying: “Fulfil God’s commandment”, and each of the three hundred and sixty-five days of the years likewise says: “Beware of the prohibition decreed 38 Moses in the Wilderness [211-215 by God ; See PK 12, 101a; Tehillim 32, 244. On the six hundred and thirteen laws of the Torah see above, note 181. Concerning the dew which quickens the dead, see note 22 on vol. I, p. 10, and Index, s.v. “Dew”. Shabbat 88b, Midrash Shir 7a, 38b, 44b, and Zohar II, 84b, speak of the heavenly fragrance that spread over Israel at the time of the revelation. The purpose of this fragrance was very likely to restore the breath of life to the dead bodies. Comp. ps.-Philo 32.8, which reads: Then— at the giving of the Torah— did paradise give forth the fragrance of its fruits. 2 1 1 Mekilta Bahodesh 2, 66b, and Shirah 4, 37b. JIJ Mekilta RS 103-104; MHG II, 215; Mekilta Mishpatim 20, 102a. Comp, also ps.-Philo 11.2, which reads: For men might say : “We have not known Thee, and therefore have not served Thee .” I will therefore take vengeance upon them, because they have known My laws. This is. given by the author as a comment on the first commandment of the Decalogue. 213 ShR 29. 9, which has the additional remark that the voice heard on Sinai had no echo. With regard to this voice, the following statement of the Jewish philosophers is to be noted. “God”, says Philo, De Decalogo, 9, “commanded that an inaudible voice be formed in the air.” The very same view is expressed by Sa'adya Gaon (quoted by Judah b. Barzillai, 314) and R. Judah ha-Levi, Al Khazari, I, 89. A Christian parallel to this legend concerning the complete standstill of nature is the one given in Protevangelium of James 18, in connection with the birth of Jesus. The Jewish legend evidently wishes to emphasize the fact that the revelation came directly from God; comp, note 248, and vol. IV, p. 198. 2,4 ShR 5.9 and 28.6; Shabbat 88b; Tehillim 68, 317, and 92, 403; Tan. B. II, 13-14; Tan. Shemot 25; Midrash Shir 2b; BHM VI, 39 and 45; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 709 and 843 on Ps. 19 and 92, respectively. In all these sources “the seven voices” {i.e., sounds or tones) which were heard on Sinai are referred to, whereas in Berakot 6b and BHM V, 33 mention is made of only five voices, and in BHM VI, 41 (read '1 instead of comp. Judah b. Barzillai, 130-131, and note 198) the number is still futrther reduced to four. The seven sounds of the trumpet at the resurrection referred to in BHM VI, 58, are modelled after the seven sounds on Sinai. The seventy tongues stand for all the languages of the world; see vol. I, p. 173 and note 72 pertaining thereto. 213 ShR 28.6; Tan. Yitro 11; PRE 41; Lekah V. 99, where it is 39 216-219] The Legends of the Jews said that the same happened at the second covenant; concerning which see vol. Ill, p. 89. The idea underlying this legend is related to one of the legends given in vol. Ill, pp. 141-142. 316 PK 12, llOa-llOb; PR 21, 100b-102a, and 33, 155b; BHM VI, 39-40; Midrash Shir 39b; ShR 5.9 and 28.6; Tan. B. II, 13-13; Philo, De Posterit. Caini, 43. See also Mekilta Shirah 4, 37b ; v. VI , 359— 360. In the Decalogue the singular is used ( e.g ., I am the Lord thy God, and not your God), in order that everyone should say: On my account the world was created, and on my account the Torah was given. One righteous man is more precious in the sight of God than the whole of mankind: see ER 25, 126-127 (whence Lekah V, 17-18) and similarly Philo De Decalogo 10. Comp, also Sanhedrin, Mishnah 4.5, and Babli 103b, as well as ARN 31, which read: The soul of one righteous man weighs as much as the whole world. See note 8 on vol. I, p. 50. For other explanations of the use of the singular in the Decalogue see note 306 and PR 21, 106b. At the time of the revelation complete harmony existed in Israel (see vol. Ill, p. 79), the entire nation having only one mind and therefore addressed by God as one person; Zohar III, 84. 31 7 Mekilta 6, 67a-68b; Mekilta RS 105-106 (the Haggadot given in this passage concerning the five kingdoms are also found in BHM VI, 44, and Midrash Aggada Exod. 20.5); Targum Yerushalmi, Ephraem, and Theodoretus on Exod. 20.3-6. See also ps.-Philo 11.6, which reads: I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God, visiting the sins of them that sleep upon the living children of the ungodly, if they walk in the ways of their fathers. Comp, note 251. 318 Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 20.6. Theodoretus and Vulgate, ad loc., agree with this view that the second commandment forbids not only a false oath, but also swearing in vain. Comp. Yerushalmi Shebu'ot 3, 34c for the halakic discussion of this point. 319 Yalkut Reubeni Gen. 1.1,2b, quoting Sode Raza; Zohar II, 91b; Ma'asiyyot 111; Raziel 11a (beginning nnyi); comp, vol. IV, p. 96. God said to the Israelites: “Swear not falsely, that your young children die not on account of this”; BHM VI, 44, which, in the main, follows Shabbat 32b; comp, note 196. Besides this punishment for swearing falsely, Shabbat, loc. cit., mentions many other afflictions. Comp, also ps.-Philo 11.7, which reads: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, that My ways be not made vain. This is very likely a mistranslation of the Hebrew, which read: ’311 vb NIP1? ” DP rat NE>n “Thou 40 Moses in the Wilderness [220-223 shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, that the roads of My land (literally, that My roads) become not desolate.” See Shabbat 33a, which has: On account of swearing falsely or swearing in vain the roads become desolate. Perhaps the original read N’tPN “I shall not make desolate.” 320 Alphabet of R. Akiba 14 (']",7N7) and the second version 63 (n'E> 7” r), which has the additional remark that the joy of Sabbath is one-sixtieth of the world to come. The source for this statement is Berakot 57b. 331 BR 11.8; PR 23, 117b. The view that “everything was created in pairs” is a favorite with the Gnostics, but is also found in pseudepigraphic, rabbinic, and patristic writings. See Clementine Homilies 19.12 and Recognitiones 3. 59, 8.53; Apocalypse of Baruch 69.3-4; Lactantius, De Ira Dei, 13; Tertullian Adversus Omnes Haereses, 4; The “Midrash Temurah”, is, as the name indicates, entirely devoted to the explanation of the doctrine of syzygies. Comp. Joel, Blicke, I, 7, 161, and Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, II, 114, s. v. “Clementina, ”. — The variants in Exod. 20.8 and Deut. 5.12 gave rise to many a haggadic interpretation; comp. Shebu'ot 20b, which reads: Zakor (“remember”) and Shamor (“observe”) were uttered as one word, a feat which cannot be achieved by the human voice; Mekilta Bahodesh 6, 69a; Midrash Tannaim 21. In the last named source the statement quoted from Shebu'ot is applied as a solution for many other contradictions occurring in Scripture, as, e.g., the one discussed in Matthew 12.5. See also Bahir 57, which is the source of Zohar I, 48b; II, 92a; III, 92b, 224a; Nahmanides, Emunah u-Bittahon, 19. Medieval authorities quote the Midrash D’2 Tor ne’2’2 “llOtPl “ Remember while thou art at sea, and observe while thou art on dry land” (on the sea it is often impossible to observe the Sabbath laws strictly); see SMG, positive precept 29; Shibbale ha-Leket 50, No. 65; Shu'aib, Ahare Mot, 62d; Kimha Dabishuna rat? "13. This Haggadah is found in PR 23, 116b, but most of the authorities just mentioned did not quote it directly, as may be clearly seen from the introductory phrase of SMG (Ent03 t V' TiyD®). 233 PR 23, 121a-121b; Kiddushin 31a; BaR 8.4; Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Haeres Sit, 35. Comp. vol. I, p. 153. 3,3 ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 76. The commandment concerning the honor due to parents is the “severest” ( i.e ., the most important) of all the commandments of the Torah; Yerushalmi Kiddushin 1,61b; DR 6.2. He who honors his parents commits no sins, but if one fails 41 224-229] The Legends of the Jews to honor his parents, evil visitations come upon him; ER 16, 134. 224 Niddah 31a; Kiddushin 30b; Kohelet 5.10; Wehizhir II, 120; Yerushalmi Kil’ayim 8, 31c. These passages state: God, the father and the mother contribute three things each in the formation of a child, God giving the spirit, breath and soul. According to 4 Ezra 8.8, the human body consists of fire and water, whereas Philo, De Mun. Opif. 51, maintains that it is formed of four elements, fire, water, air, and earth. Comp, note 15 on vol. I, p. 55. 225 Kiddushin 31a; ER 26, 134. 226 Yerushalmi Peah 1, 15d, and Kiddushin 1, 61b; PR 23, 122b; comp, also Mekilta Bahodesh 8, 70a, which is at the same time the source of the well-known saying : God regards the honor shown to parents as though it were shown to Himself; and conversely He counts the neglect to honor parents as an insult to Himself; Mekilta RS 110; Sifra Kedoshim (beginning); Midrash Tannaim 23; Kiddushin 30b; Tan. B. V, 16-17; Tan. Ekah 2. See also Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 8.2, and Contra Apionem, 2.27-28; Philo, De Decalogo, 22, and Special. Leg., De Col. Par, 1; ps.-Phocylides, 5.8; Sibyl. 3, 594. The words of Philo, Special. Leg., loc. cit., “parents hold a middle position, between the divine and human kind”, go back to a Stoic source (see Prachter, Herakles der Stoiker, 45, seq.) ; but the idea underlying this statement is genuinely Jewish. 227 ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 78; Yerushalmi Targumim Exod. 20.13; comp. Abot 5.8 (’13J7 means “delaying”, not “suppressing”); ARN 28.114 (second version 41, 114-115). 228 PR 24, 124b (here is taken to stand for rri^n “cause to cry aloud”; similarly Mekilta RS 110 reads: As long as the murderer lives, the blood of the victim cries, i.

e., seethes); DR 2.25; Visio Pauli 18; Enoch 22.7. He who sheds the blood of his fellowman destroys the likeness of God; see Tosefta Yebamot 8 (end); BR 34.14 (see the numerous parallel passages cited by Theodor). A similar statement is found in Philo, De Decalogo, 25. 229 ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 79; ER 34.14; DR 2.25. These passages read: All ascend from Hell (that is, they are not consigned to eternal damnation), except adulterers, those who put their fellow-men to shame, and those who give opprobrious names to their fellow-men; Baba Mezi'a 58b; comp., on the other hand, Rosh ha-Shanah 16b-17a. A very realistic description of the punishment of the murderer is given in BHM V, 144-146 42 Moses in the Wilderness [230-238 1!0 Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 20.13; BR 26.5; Yerushalmi Sotah 1, 17a; BaR 9.33; Tan. Bereshit 12. A different view concerning the punishment for adultery is found in Abot 5.7. For “fourfold adultery” (*• «•. lustful eyes, etc.), see Mekilta RS 3; BHM VI, 45; PR 24, 124b. 331 Yerushalmi Targumim Exod. 22.13; comp. Abot 5.7. 333 PR 24, 125b; WR 22.6; comp. vol. I, 153. 333 Yerushalmi Targumim Exod 20.13; PR 24, 125b; EZ 3,175; comp. vol. I, pp. 160-161 and vol. IV, pp. 109-110. 334 Yerushalmi Targumim Exod. 20.14; comp. Abot 5.7. The division of the Decalogue as given in vol. Ill, 98, seq., is the only one known in rabbinic sources. Sifre N., 112, 113, does not consider Exod. 20.3-6 as forming part of the first commandment, but describes idolatry as being at the same time an infringement of the first commandment, “since he who professes idolatry denies God”. Philo, De Decalogo, passim, and Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 5.5, divide the Decalogue in a manner different from that of the Rabbis; they count 20.2-3 as the first commandment, 4-6 as the second, 7 as the third, 8-11 as the fourth, 12 as the fifth, 13 as the sixth, 14 as the seventh, 15 as the eighth, 16 as the ninth, and 17 as the tenth. Comp. Jewish Encyclopedia, IV, 495. 3 3 5 BaR 9.12; PR 16, 107a-107b. For a different version of the Haggadah about the sin which leads to the breaking of all the Ten Commandments, see Kad ha-Kemah (man) 86b; Orehot Zaddikim, 14. Concerning covetousness as the source of all evil, see also Philo, Special. Leg., De Concup. 2; Milhamot Melek ha-Mashiah, 117; Lactantius, Div. Instit. 5.6; comp. Ha-Hoker I, 67. 336 Mekilta Bahodesh 8, 70b (obviously the sentence n^lpP r'ytP DJa stands for r"y TIJ3 nVipP comp. PR 21, 107b-108a); BaR 9.12; Zohar II, 90a; see also Philo, De Decalogo, 12, and 12 Testaments, Reuben 4.6., which read: Fornication removes the soul from God, and brings it near the idols. See also Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, 6.17. 33 7 PR 21, 108a. For a differnt version of the Haggadah concerning the Ten Commandments and the words of Creation, see Lekah Deut. 5.6; BHM VI 46; Zohar II, llb-12a. Comp, vol I, p. 49. 338 Mekilta Bahodesh 9.71a-72b, and 3, 64a; Mekilta RS 113. As to the awful vision on Mount Sinai which almost caused the people to die, see vol. Ill, pp. 95-96, and Berakot 22a. As to the visibility of the audible and the audibility of the visible see also 4 Ezra 5.37, which speaks of imago vocis; Philo, Moses, 2(3). 97; De Decalogo, 11; De Migration*. Abrahami, 11. The last-named passage, in which the author 43 239-242] The Legends of the Jews allegorizes, is the source of Origen, Con. Cel., 6.62. Comp., however, the quotation from Philo, De Decalogo, 9, given in note 213. Concerning the idea that the divine visions granted to the Israelites on Mount Sinai were greater than those seen by the prophets, see also DR 7.8; Zohar II, 82a, 94a, 146a. Comp, note 64 and vol. Ill, p. 34. According to one view the Israelites were granted power over the Angel of Death at the time of the revelation; see Mekilta, loc. cit.; note 262; vol. Ill, pp.120, 278. 339 Shabbat 87a; ARN 1 (second version 2, 9-11); Sifre N., 103; PRK 24a; ER 18.101, which reads: Moses warned the people three days before the revelation not only to keep themselves clean from ritual impurities, but also from sin and evil which contaminate the soul and heart of man; comp. vol. II, p. 316, and vol. Ill, p. 256. In the sources quoted above mention is made, in this connection, of “the fence which Moses made around the Law”; he was commanded to tell the people to observe two days of preparation, but he added a third day “as a fence”. Comp, note 191. 340 Mekilta RS 114; Mekilta Bahodesh, 9, 72a, where the reading nrn DJD, found in Yalkut I, 301, and Lekah Exod. 20, 10 is supported by Mekilta RS. Israel received three gifts at Sinai: The feeling of shame ( i . e., modesty), the feeling of compassion, and the feeling of kindness; MHG II, 238; Nedarim 20a; Kallah 1, 4b; ER as quoted in Mahzor Vitry 317, but not in our texts. Comp. vol. IV, p. 110. As to the great influence of Moses upon the people, see Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 447, on Is. 40; ER 22, 120, and 23, 122; vol. Ill, p. 14. 341 Aggadat Shir, which is the source of Makiri Ps. 89.76. See also Mekilta Bahodesh 9, 72a; Mekilta RS 114; Yalkut I, 301, quoting an unknown midrashic source; DZ 4 = Yalkut I, 815; Shu'aib WaYikra 44b. Concerning the souls of the pious see also Philo, De Plant. NoV 4, which reads: The pure souls are in the loftiest places. 343 Mekilta RS 114; WR 1.14; Yebamot 44b; Tehillim 90, 387— 388, where it is stated that Isaiah, and according to some also Elijah, retained his consciousness in his moments of prophecy; comp. DR 2.4, which reads: Moses and Isaiah, the greatest of the prophets. Sifre Z. 83 and 84 reads: The revelation granted to Moses came directly from God, and not through an angel; comp, note 248; Sifre N., 103; Sifra 9.7; Zohar III, 261b-262a; Nahmanides, Emunah u-Bittahon, 18; Philo, De Plant. No'i, 6. The last-named authority uses the same phrase as the Rabbis to describe the clearness of Moses’ visions: Moses looked through a clear glass, the other prophets through a U Moses in the Wilderness [243-245 dark glass; comp. I Corinth. 13.12 and 2 Corinth. 3.18; Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 14. The view is also expressed that Moses was the only original prophet, whereas all other prophets confirmed the prophecies uttered by Moses; ShR 42.8; vol. Ill, p. 97. All other prophets received the divine communications in the language of the Targum (i.e., Aramaic), but Moses in the Hebrew language; Vital, Likkute Torah on Gen. 15.12; comp. vol. Ill, p. 87, and note 191. The angels, with the exception of Gabriel who is master of all the seventy tongues (Comp. vol. II, p. 72), are said not to understand Aramaic. The statement that God appeared in a pillar of cloud to three prophets only (comp Ps. 99, 6-7) is perhaps directed against Mark 9.7. Comp, vol. II, pp. 257-258, 356, and vol. IV, p. 69. 243 Shir 1.2; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 479 on Is. 14, and 317 on Jer. 31. In contrast to the view expressed in the sources quoted above, as well as in Makkot 24a (top ), Tan. Wa-Yelek 2; PR, 12, 111a, and in many other passages in rabbinic literature, to the effect that the first two commandments only were heard by Israel directly from the mouth of God, there is another opinion which maintains that all the Ten Commandments were heard by Israel from the mouth of God; see Mekilta Bahodesh 4, 66a, and 9, 71b (bottom); Mekilta RS 114 (verse 19); Philo, Moses, 2 (3). 27, and De Decalogo, 5; Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 5.4. Comp, also Horayyot 8a-8b; PRE 41; ShR 33.6; quotation from an unknown Midrash in Shibbale ha-Leket 7 (on the correspondence between the Ten Commandments and the Ten Words of Creation mentioned there, see vol. Ill, pp. 104-105). Rashi, on Makkot, loc. cit., quotes from the Mekilta the midrashic support for the first view, as given in PRE; but nothing to this effect is found in our texts of the Midrash (Bahodesh 6, 69a refers to Ps 62, 12 in an entirely different connection), and it is very likely that NnV’ZiO in Rashi stands for ’nsD; see Sifre N., 42. Comp. Geonica II, 307, note 2. 24 4 PRE 41 (end); Tehillim 22, 200; comp. vol. Ill, p. 79, for further details concerning the great distinction of the generation of the revelation. In striking contrast to this view is the opinion of R. Akiba, according to whom this generation lost its share in the world to come; see Sanhedrin Mishnah 9.3, Tosefta 13.10-11, Babli 110b, and Yerushalmi 9, 29c. It is true that, as may be seen from the passages just quoted, R. Akiba 's view is entirely rejected by the other scholars. See also WR 32.2; Tehillim 130, 490; vol. II, p. 302. 245 PRE 41, where *7150 DVn is to be taken literally. The sun stood still for Moses on the day of the battle with Amalek (see note 45 246-247] The Legends of the Jews 146) and on the days of the battles against Sihon and Og (see vol. Ill, pp. 340 and 469), as well as at the time when Moses commanded heaven and earth to stand still and listen to him, saying: “Give ear, ye heavens, and I will speak and let the earth hear the words of my mouth.” See Ta'anit 20a; ‘Abodah Z. 25a; Tehillim 19, 167; PR 3, 13b; Sifre D., 306 (131a, in the middle of page); Lekah, Deut, 32.1 and 24.12; DR 10.2-3; DZ 30. A Midrash quoted in Hadar, Deut. 32.1, reads: Moses refused to submit to the Angel of Death, saying unto him: “ I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of God.” The angel of Death replied: “God has the sun and the moon to praise Him and to declare His glory.” Whereupon Moses bade the sun and the moon stand still and he began to praise God. In Sibyl. 5, 256-259 it is said that Moses, the best of the Hebrews — Philo, Moses, 1 (beginning), and Midrash Tannaim 186 call him the greatest and most perfect man — made the sun and the moon stand still. Comp, note 947. 346 ARN , both versions at the beginning ; Seder ‘ Olam 6 ; Y oma 4b ; Yerushalmi Ta'anit 4, 68b. According to another view given in the sources just quoted, Moses ascended, without further preparations, in the morning immediately after the revelation on Sinai. See also Mekilta RS 96. 2 4 7 Ma'ayan ha-Hokmah 58-60; PR 20, 96a-98a; Yalkut Mishpatim (end). The fragment published in BMH V, 165-266 very likely forms part of Ma'ayan ha-Hokmah; comp, also Mahzor Vitry 323-325; Zohar I, 5a; II, 58a; III, 78b. The description of Sandalfon and Gallizur, quoted in Ketab Tamim 5, 9 from a Midrash which is no longer extant, agrees in the main with that of Ma'ayan. — As to how .Moses found his way through the dark clouds, see Yoma 4b and Philo, Quaestiones, Exod. 2.48. On the angels guarding the gates of heaven, see Ascension of Isaiah 24, seq. Concerning the opposition of the angels to the creation of man, see vol. I, p. 53. On Sandalfon and the crown which he places on the head of the Lord, see Index, s. v. “Sandalfon.” The description of a certain distance as “a journey of five hundred years” is of frequent occurrence in the legends; see vol. I, p. 11; vol. II, p. 307; comp, also Yerushalmi Berakot 9, 13a. The conception about the fire of Rigion is certainly of Persian origin, being identical with Hvareno of the Avesta, concerning which see Cumont, Mysteries of Mithra, index, s. v. That Moses saved himself by holding on to God’s throne is a very old legend; seeShabbat 88a; vol. V, p. 417, bottom; comp, note 273; vol. Ill, pp. 124, 138 (top). When the angels attempted to expel Moses from heaven, he said to 46 Moses in the Wilderness [248 them: “ I am permitted to sit in the place where ye are not even allowed to stand.” See quotation from Nahmanides in Neubauer’s The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah 1.76. As to the question whether Moses sat or stood in heaven, see Megillah 21a. 348 Ma'ayan ha-Hokmah 60-61 and PR 20, 98a, 25, 128a, which in the main follow old sources; see Shabbat 88b; ARN 2, 10; DR 7.9 and 8.2; Shir 8.11; Tehillim 8, 74—75. These sources read: When, owing to the worship of the golden calf, the first tables were broken, the angels rejoiced, thinking that Israel, because of his sins, lost theTorah. God, however, pointed out to the angels that they too, had transgressed the command of the Torah (comp. vol. V, p. 328, note 29) when, as Abraham ’s guests, they partook of forbidden food and ate meat with milk; PRE 46; Tan. B V, 51; Mekilta RS, 101—102 (not tannaitic); Zohar II, 3. When the angels were about to attack Moses, God changed his face, making him look like Abraham; He then said to the angels: “Are ye not ashamed to attack him in whose house ye ate and drank!” Turning to Moses God said : “ It is on account of the merits of Abraham that thou hast come into possession of the Torah.” On the “prince of the Torah” and his attitude toward Moses, see also BHM II, 116-117, and vol. Ill, p. 305. This legend, however, must not be taken to express the idea that the Torah was revealed by an angel; the function of Yefefiyyah is that of a teacher of the Torah and not that of one who reveals it. Concerning angels as teachers of a chosen few, see vol. V, p. 117, top. The old authorities very frequently emphasize the direct character of the revelation of the Torah; Sifre Z., 84; Mekilta Ki-Tissa 1, 103b (comp., however, Mekilta RS 160); Hagigah 3b; second version of ARN 1, 2. Philo, Moses, 2 (3). 23, writes: The laws were partly revealed by God Himself, through the medium of divine prophecy (hence Philo, Moses, 1, and the Rabbis, Yerushalmi Sotah 6.1, describe Moses as the interpreter of the sacred laws) partly in the form of questions and answers, revealing the will of God (comp. e. g. Num. 9.8), and some of them were promulgated by Moses while in a state of ecstasy. Though this tripartite division of theTorah is quite unknown to the Rabbis (they condemn as a heresy the view which would admit even that one word of the Torah was written by Moses himself, and not received by him from heaven; see Sanhedrin 99a), they agree with Philo that the revelation was not through the medium of angels. The view of Paul, Galatians 3.17, is not Jewish, but rather anti-Jewish; comp. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 246-249, where this passage of Galatians, as well as Josephus, Antiqui., XV, 5.3, and Jub. 1.17, is fully 47 249~254] The Legends of the Jews discussed. See also, above, note 242, and vol. Ill, p. 97. A rather advanced view is held by an unknown Jewish author of the middle ages according to whom, Moses, while inspired by the holy spirit, nevertheless made use of written and oral sources for the compilation of the history prior to his own times as recorded in the Book of Genesis. See Neubauer, Medieval Jewish Chronicles I, 163. 349 Shabbat 89a. A different version of this legend is found in Hadar, Num. 14.7. In Babylon it was considered bad manners for a pupil to greet his master before being greeted first, but in Palestine, on the other hand, a pupil was expected to greet his master first; see Berakot 27b and Yerushalmi 2, 4b; comp. Muller, Hilluf Minhagim 32, No. 33. as° Menahot 29b. For another version of this legend, see vol. II, pp. 325-326. Comp, also PK 4, 29b, which reads: Things not revealed to Moses were known to R. Akiba. See also the quotation from Sefer Tagin (not in our texts) in Yalkut Reubeni, Exod. 19.2. On the meaning of pip, Menahot, loc. cit., see Derenbourg, Journal Asiatique, I, 247. 1SI Sanhedrin llla-lllb; Baba Kamma 50b; PK 16, 166b; Yerushalmi Ta'anit 2, 65b; comp. vol. II, p. 304, and vol. Ill, p. 135, 138, 280. In one respect, however, it was Moses who made God to be more compassionate than He had intended to be. God first revealed to Moses that He would visit the sins of the fathers upon their children. Moses objected to this, saying: “Many a wicked man bore a pious child; why should the latter suffer for the sin of the former? ”God recognized the justice of this objection, and promulgated the law: The children shall not be put to death for their fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin (Deut. 24.16); see BaR 19.33. Comp, also vol. Ill, p. 98, and note 217. Yerushalmi Peah 2, 17a; WR 22.1; ShR 47.1; Kohelet 1.10 and 5.8; comp. vol. Ill, pp. 97 and 119. 353 PK 4, 40; BaR 19.7; Tan. B. IV, 118; Tan. Hukkat 8. 334 Tehillim 19, 166-167; ShR 47.5 and 8. God taught him by day, and during the night he repeated his lessons; Tan. Ki-Tissa 36; Tan. B II, 119; PRE 46; Targum Lamentations 2.19. The night is the best time for serious study, and hence it was devoted by Moses to the study of the oral law; see ‘Erubin 65a; WR 19.1; Shir 5.11; Shemuel 5, 57; Comp, note 83 on Vol. IV, p. 101 and Vol. Ill, p. 143, first paragraph. There is an angel on whom a label is attached bearing the inscription Hesed (“Grace”). During the day the label is 48 Moses in the Wilderness [255-258 attached to the angel s front, and by night to his back. By means of this the angels know to distinguish between night and day. See Pa'aneah Raza, Exod. 13.21, and comp. Index,s. v. “Israel”, Angel. As to the sun and moon worshipping God before they begin their task, see vol. I, p. 25. Concerning the grinding of the manna by angels, see vol. Ill, p. 44. 35s PR 20, 98b; PR 1, 4b; BaR 12.8; Shir 3.11. The place where Moses was during the forty days is described by ps.-Philo 12.1 as the one “where is the light of the sun and the moon”; comp, note 260. 2 5 6 ShR 41.6; comp. vol. Ill, p. 114. According to Jub. 32.25, Jacob likewise forgot the things cummunicated to him by an angel from the heavenly tables. While ShR and many other passages describe the great efforts Moses made to acquire the knowledge of the Torah, it is maintained by Yerushalmi Horayyot 3.48c that he became the great master of the Torah without the slightest exertion. Comp, the following note. 2 s 1 Shabbat 89a (comp, the Midrash quoted by Tosafot) ; Sanhedrin 26b; Kallah 8, 15a. Moses put his life in danger for the sake of the Torah, Israel, and the maintenance of Justice (comp. Exod. 2.12); as a reward for this, Scripture speaks of the “Torah of Moses”, of “Israel the people of Moses”, and of the “justice of Moses”; see Mekilta Shirah 1, 34b; Midrash Tannaim 96; Tan. B. V, 29; Tan. Ki-Tissa 35; PR 5, 14b (here the erection of the Sanctuary is substituted for Israel); BaR 12.9; ShR 30.4; Tehillim 1, 15, and 30, 235-236. For other explanations of the expression “The Torah of Moses” (Malachi 3.22), see vol. II, pp. 277, 278, 309; vol. III.pp. 117, 141,429. 258 PRE Wand 46; Abot 5.6 (the characters and the stylus, mentioned there as having been created during the twilight of the first eve of Sabbath, very likely refer to the character and stylus used for the tables; see, however, note 99, on vol. I, p. 83); Shabbat 104a (on this passage, see Hoffmann- Festschrift, 113-114); Shekalim 6, 49b where the following conflicting opinions are given: 1) five commandments were engraved on one table and five on the other; 2) all the Ten Commandments were engraved on each of the two tables; 3) the Ten Commandments were on both sides of each of the two tables; 4) the Ten Commandments were on each of the four sides of each of the two tables (read in Responsen der Geonim, ed.H3.rka.vy 11, instead of t«nD^«);Sifre D., 313;Sifre N., 101 ;Shir 5.14 (whence Lekah Exod. 31.18 states that the sapphire employed for the tables was taken from the Throne of Glory; see, however, Zohar I, 131b, according to which 49 259-261] The Legends of the Jews the tables were hewn out from the Eben Shetiyyah ); ShR47.6; Midrash Shir 40b; Zohar II, 84a-84b; Philo, Quaestiones, Exod. 2, 42. This legend about the nature of the tables is an attempt to express in popular form the view strongly emphasized by Philo ( De Decalogo, 29, and De Special. Leg. passim) that the Ten Commandments contain the kernel of the entire Torah. The division of the six hundred and thirteen precepts of the Torah into ten classes, with the Ten Commandments as headings, is first found in the writings of Sa'adya Gaon, who perhaps followed Philo, whose book De Special. Leg. is the first attempt in this direction. It is worthy of notice that the talmudic-midrashic sources never speak of the Decalogue as containing the entire Torah, though this view is expressed with regard to theShema' ; see Yerushalmi Berakot 1, 3c. In this connection it maybe mentioned that the section of Lev. 19, seq., is said by the Rabbis to contain the Decalogue; see WR 24.5. Comp, notes 302 and 306. Js9 Shir 5.14. 360 Tan. Ki-Tissa (end). God gave the Torah to Moses with His right hand; see EZ 11, 192; PK 32, 200a; Tehillim 1, 15; 16, 124; 18, 155; Mishle 6, 54; Tan. Berakah 3. God holds life and justice in His left hand, and grace and the Torah in His right, one who does justice and observes the Torah receives life from God as an act of His grace; see WR 4.1; DR 5.4; Koheleth 3.16 (end). On the radiance of Moses’ face see the references given above, note 204, as well as PK 4, 37a; Tan. B IV, 114, and the parallel passages cited by Buber; notes 295 and 309. Zohar II, 58a, and Shu'aib Ki-Tissa (end) are based on Tan., loc. cit., where an opinion is quoted to the effect that “the rays sent forth’’ from the countenance of Moses owed their existence to the sparks which emanated from the Shekinah at the time when Moses received instruction in the Torah from God. Zohar adds (on whose authority?) that after Israel worshipped the golden calf the radiance of Moses’ face lost its lustre, retaining only a thousandth part of its original strength, so that the angels who formerly dreaded to come near him attempted to attack him. Comp. vol. II, p. 306. Ps.-Philo 12.1 explains the radiance of Moses’ face in the following manner: He was covered with an invisible light, for he had gone to the place where is the light of the sun and moon' (comp, note 255), and the light of his face overcame the brightness of the sun and moon. The place of the great light is, of course, the place of the Shekinah. 361 PR 96b; PRE 41. 50 Moses in the Wilderness [262-266 363 EZ 4, 179-180. That originally the Torah was given to Israel as a weapon against the Angel of Death, is an old conception; see Tan. B. II, 112, IV, 76, and the parallel passages cited by Buber in his note on the latter place, as well as Batte Midrashot III, 14-15; vol. Ill, p. 278; note 238. 263 Yerushalmi Ta‘anit 4, 68c (top); Sanhedrin 102a; ShR 43.2; Koheleth 9.11; Ekah 1.62. *#4 Shabbat 89a; Tan. B. II, 112-113; Tan. Ki-Tissa 19 and Beha‘aloteka 14; ShR 41.7; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 32.1. The error of the people consisted in including, in their calculation, the day of the ascent, whereas Moses, in speaking of forty days, had “complete ones” in mind, excluding the day of ascent, which he partly spent on earth. See Rashi and Tosafot on Shabbat, loc. cit. Disappointed in their expectation to see their leader return, they came to Aaron with the request to appoint another leader (Q’nhN in Exod. 32.1 means judge, leader). See Hadar, ad loc., 42d and 43a. 365 PRE 45; ShR 41.5; WR 10.3., 7.1, and 2.1 (the women of this generation were pious); BaR 15.21 and 9.44; EZ 4, 180; Sanhedrin 7a; Tan. B. II, 113; Tan. Ki-Tissa 19; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 32.3-5; Zohar II, 191a and 192a. The legend that Aaron was intimidated by the people, especially when he saw the violent death of Hur, is also mentioned by Ephraem I, 224a. On Hur, see vol. Ill, pp. 60, 159. According to vol. Ill, p. 28, Jannes and Jambres met their death at the Red Sea; see Index, s. v. “Jannes and Jambres”. Concerning another attempt to exculpate Aaron, see below, note 351. On the piety of the women see vol. Ill, pp. 174, 393; on the New Moon as a festive day, see Menorat ha-Maor, Rosk Hodesh. 366 Midrash Shir 13a-13b. This is very likely the source of Hadassi, 45a (numbers 117-118) and 134d (numbers 362-363). For a different version of this legend, see vol. II, p. 182, and note 493 referring to it. Griinbaum Neue Beitrage, 151 gives the Arabic version. For a third version see note 126 on vol. IV, pp. 49-50. There is some relation between this legend and the one found in early Christian writings, according to which the Egyptians identified Joseph with Serapis; see Tertullian, Ad Nationes 2.8, and Specilegium Syriacum 89; comp, note 271. In PRE this legend is abridged in the following manner: Aaron found a golden plate, upon which the Divine Name was engraved, together with the form of a calf. When Aaron threw this piece of gold into the fire, a bleating calf came forth, for Sammael had entered it, 51 267-271] The Legends of the Jews and started to bleat to deceive the Israelites. See vol. I, p. 155, where a similar part is ascribed to Sammael. 367 PK 9, 78a; WR 27.8; Tan. B. Ill, 94; Tan. Emor 1 1 ; ShR 42.6; Shir 1.9, which reads: The Egyptian magicians made the calf move about as if it were alive. Comp, the preceding note; vol. Ill, pp. 120, 127, 211, 245. 368 Ginzberg, Haggadot Ketu'ot 53-54, 64-66 = Haggoren IX; BaR 15.21, and, on the other hand, comp. vol. Ill, p. 248. As to “the redemption of God from Egypt”, see note 150. =.69 pre 45. 370 Tehillim 3, 37; ShR 41.1; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 28b; WR 5.3. Yalkut David, Exod. 32.1, quotes Midrash and Targum Shir 2.17 to the effect that the clouds of glory departed from the Israelites as soon as they worshipped the golden calf. As far as can be ascertained, this legend is found neither in the Midrashim nor in the Targum (certainly not in the passage referred to). Did the author of Yalkut David use manuscripts? In vol. Ill, p. 374, it is said that the clouds of glory were not withdrawn from the Israelites when they worshipped the golden calf. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 93, top. 371 Ginzberg, as above, note 268; ShR 3.2, 42.5, and 43.8; Tan. Ki-Tissa 21. This legend presupposes an old Haggadah, according to which, Ps. 106.20 refers to “the ox of the Merkabah” (Ezekiel 1.10); but as early as the time of R. Akiba great objections were raised to this view; see Mekilta 6.33 (the text is rather “doctored"); Mekilta RS 45; Shir 1.9; Tehillim 106, 455-456. See also Lekah, Exod. 32.4, which reads: They noticed that the feet of angels were like those of calves (see Ezekiel 1.7), and therefore they made the golden calf.

The identification of the golden calf with the Apis of the Egyptians frequently mentioned by early Christian authors (comp, e.g., Apostolic Constitution, 6.20; Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones 4.10) is unknown in the old rabbinic sources. Ziyyoni, however, on Exod. 32.1 quoted from the “Book of the Magicians” a lengthy description of the Apis cult (introduced by a magician called Apis in the ninety-second year of Jacob), which is said to be identical with the worship of the golden calf. Comp, also note 3. Pa'aneah, Exod. 32.4, writes: They had noticed in the sand along the shore of the Red Sea that the imprints left by the feet of the angels were like those of the feet of calves, and therefore they adopted the form of a calf for their idol. This is a slight modification of Lekah, loc. cit. Comp, also note 122 on the imprints on rocks. At the request of Ezekiel, God changed “the ox 52 Moses in the Wilderness [272-276 of the Merkabah” into a Cherub (comp. Ezekiel 1.10 with 10.14), so that He might not be constantly reminded of Israel’s sin. See Haggigah 13b. 373 ShR 41.7 and 42.4; Tan. B. II, 113. Comp, the reference to Zohar cited in note 260. 3 7 3 See the sources given in previous note. On clinging to the throne, see vol. Ill, pp. 112 and 138. 3 7 4 PRE 45; ShR 41.7 and 44.8; DR 3.2; Tehillim 7, 65-66 (in this passage it is said: At first God did not consider the merits of the fathers, for even they were not free from sin. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 89—90), and 18, 142; Koheleth 4.2; PR 10, 38b. According to another version of this legend, Af and Hemah (on these angels see vol. II, pp. 308 and 328) were buried alive opposite the grave of Moses; see Imre No1 am (end); comp, also Sotah 14a and Tosafot, ad loc.; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 9.19 and 34.6. The episode of the struggle of Moses and the destroying angels, as narrated in this legend, is said in PRE, loc. cit., to have taken place after Moses had descended from Sinai. This is in agreement with many other sources which tell of Moses’ intercession for Israel after his descent; see vol. Ill, pp. 131, seq. 3 7 5 Midrash Shir 14b-15b (on Ra'ah see note 196 on vol. II, p. 358); ShR 42.5 and 44.9 (God hinted to Moses that He waited only for the prayer of the latter to avert the execution of the threatened punishment; this is also found in 42, end; ER 4,17; Ephraem I, 225B; Tertullian, Adversus Marc. 2.26; Theodoretus, Exod. 32.10); PK 16, 128b. As to the idea that Moses owed his distinguished rank to Israel, see vol. II, pp. 51 and 283. On the three-legged bench (*. e., the descendant of the three patriarchs), see vol. Ill, p. 279. Kimha Ddbishuna Shekalim quotes a Midrash to the effect that God intended to choose the pious among the Gentiles for His people and place them in Paradise instead of the wicked Israelites. Comp, note, 540. 376 ShR 42-44; Tan. Ki-Tissa 21-24; DR 3.11-15; BaR 5.15. Concerning the rejection of the Torah by the sons of Esau, see vol. Ill, p. 81; on the readiness of Israel to trust in God and in Moses, see vol II, p. 364; on the guilt of the “mixed multitude” in making the golden calf, see Zohar I, 25a, 26a, and 28b; note 207. That God had revealed to Moses, even before the exodus from Egypt, the future defection of Israel, is also recorded in vol. II, p. 317. The Haggadah often discusses the question why God is “jealous of idols”, though they are things of nought; see Mekilta Bahodesh 6, 68 (on the text see Ma‘ asiyyot ed.Gaster 33); Mekilta RS, 105; ‘Abodah Zarah 54b-55a. 53 277-28i] The Legends of the Jews As to the idea that God submitted to the law of absolving vows, see quotation from an unknown Midrash in Yalkut Reubeni Num. 30. 14; against this idea comp. vol. Ill, p. 421. 2 7 7 Lekah, Exod. 32.19. On the devotion of Joshua to his master, see Batte Midrashot III, 26, and Index,s. v. “Joshua”. 278 Koheleth 9.11; ShR 41.1; Yerushalmi Taanit 4, 68c (top); comp, also Philo, Moses, 2 (3). 19. In Koheleth attention is called to the errors committed by Joshua on these two occasions when he attempted to impress his views on Moses; see Num. 11,28-29. 279 Yerushalmi Ta'anit 4.68c; ARN 2,11 (both versions) ; Shabbat 87a; ShR 19.3 and 46.3; Pesahim 87b; PRE 46; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 32.19; Baba Batra 14b; Tan. Ki-Tissa 26 and ‘Ekeb 11; ER 21, 117; EZ 4, 180; Batte Midrashot III, 13 (Yelammedenu?) ; PR 20, 96b. The Pesikta is the only source in which Joshua is said to have participated in the breaking of the tables; see also Ziyyoni, Deut. 5.6. In Shabbat, loc. cit., three things are enumerated which Moses did on his own authority and which were later sanctioned by God; these are: He broke the tables, added a day of preparation for the revelation on Sinai, and gave up conjugal life. Concerning the two last-named points see vol. II, p. 316; vol. Ill, pp. 107 and 355356; note 191. In opposition to all the sources just quoted, it is maintained in DR 3.14 that God reproached Moses for breaking the tables in his anger at the sinners, and told him that the world would not exist for a moment if He grew angry as easily on account of the sins of man; see vol. I, p. 304 and vol III, p. 116. The disappearance of the writing from the tables is also referred to by ps-Philo, 12.5, who says: And he looked upon the tables, and saw that they were not written, and he hastened and broke them. On the gigantic struggle of Moses, see vol. Ill, p. 141; concerning the weight of the tables, comp, also Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 31.18. It is noteworthy that the tables and the rod of Moses were not only of the same weight (sixty seah), but also of the same material, that is, sapphire; see vol. II, p. 293, and note 280 on vol. II, p. 292. 280 Zohar II, 113b; comp, the .following note. 2 8 1 Yoma 66b, which also gives the dissenting view that the three different forms of death ( i e., execution by the Levites, death caused by the water, and death from the plague) depended upon the manner of worshipping the calf; ‘Abodah Zarah 44a; Yerushalmi Sotah 3, 19a; BaR 9.48; PR 10, 38a; Tan. Ki-Tissa 26; PRE 45; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 32.30, which says: The lips of him who had devotedly worship34 Moses in the Wilderness [282-284 ped the idol became tightly closed “like gold”; Tosefta ‘Abodah Zarah 4.19. A different version of this legend is found in ps. -Philo 12.7; And it was so, if any man willed in his mind that the calf should be made, his tongue was cut off (by the drinking of the water) ; but if any one was constrained thereto by fear, his face shone. Ephraem I, 126 A-B gives this legend in agreement with the Rabbis. PsJerome on 1 Samuel 7.6 maintains that Samuel preformed the same ordeal as Moses; comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv. I, 21-23. The Christian legend tells of a similar ordeal in later times; see The Gospel of ps. -Matthew 12. In opposition to the view that the execution of the idolaters was ordered by Moses on his own authority (ER 4, 17), there are some Rabbis who maintain that he did it at the command of God; see Mekilta Bo 12, 12b, according to the reading of Yalkut II, 43; Rashi and Lekah on Exod. 32.27. The Levites, who not only refrained from worshipping the calf, but, jealous for God, killed the idolaters (comp. Tehillim 1, 13, and vol. Ill, pp. 94, 170), received the reward for their piety, and became the servants of the Sanctuary; see Philo, Moses, 2(3) 20 and 37, as well as Special. Leg. (on Priests), 1.4, 322-24. Comp. Index, s. v. “Levites”. a8a ER 4,17. The same number of Israelites lost their life by drinking the water; Shu'aib, Ki-Tissa, 40b. a «3 Tan. Ki-Tissa 26; Berakot 32a. In the latter passage the intercession of Moses for Israel is very graphically described. 3 ® 4 Hadar, Exod. 27.20; Da' at and R. Bahya, 22.23; Zohar III, 246a; comp, also Pa'aneah Exod. (end). From the section of Shemot in which the birth of Moses is recorded, to the end of the Pentateuch, the section of Tezawweh is the only one in which the name of Moses is not mentioned. Another explanation of “Thy book” (Exod. 32.32) is that it refers to the book of — eternal — -life in which all the pious are entered; see Midrash Tannaim 211; Wehizhir I, 78; comp, also Berakot 32a and Sotah 14a, where this explanation is presupposed. As to ths readiness of Moses to sacrifice himself for the sake of Israel, see PR 22, 1 1 la; Zohar I, 67b; note 257. Moses, David, Habakkuk, and Jeremiah are four pious men, who, carried away by their prayers, addressed unbecoming words to God; see Tehillim 90.385. For further details concerning this prayer of Moses for Israel, see Berakot 7a— 7b and DR 13.11. In most of the passages where this prayer is spoken of, his supplications on Sinai (Exod. 32.11) and those which he made after the descent therefrom are dealt with as one prayer. Comp, note 274. 55 285-290] The Legends of the Jews 3 8 5 ShR 45.1-2. Zohar 1, 52b and 63b (on this occasion they lost their immaculate state; comp. vol. Ill, p. 108); Shu'aib, Ki-Tissa, 40b; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 33.6-7 (this is the only passage in which occurs the statement that Moses hid the heavenly gifts in the tent in which he taught the Torah); PK 17, 129b; Tehillim 25, 212; Ekah 1.58; EZ4, 180; Berakot 63b; DR 3.15; Tan. Ki-Tissa 26-27; Tan. B. II, 115-116. On the heavenly gifts, see also references in note 202. In most of the sources it is stated that these gifts will be returned to Israel in the time to come. See also vol. Ill, p. 463. 386 Seder ‘Olam 6. Moses ascended into heaven on Thursday, and descended therefrom on Monday; it is therefore customary to fast on these days; see Tan. B. I, 94 (on the text see Ketab Tamim, 88), and Midrash Wayekullu 18. These fast-days are mentioned in Luke 18.12 and BR 76.3. According to PRE 46, Moses spent only the first and last forty days in heaven, i. e., from the seventh of Siwan to the seventeenth of Tammuz, and from the twenty-ninth of Ab to the tenth of Tishre, whereas the forty days intervening between these two periods he remained on earth praying to God to forgive the sin of Israel. See Luria, ad loc., and EZ 4, 180. 387 ShR 44.5—9; Midrash Shir 13b; DR 3.15 (in this passage it is stated that there were at that time in Israel, besides Moses, seventy* seven pious men: the seventy members of the Sanhedrin, Aaron and his four sons, Caleb and Phineas; comp. vol. Ill, p. 127; Shir 1 (end); Aggadat Bereshit 5.13-14; Tan. B. II, 90-91. As to the conception that the pious are considered as living even after their departure from this world, see Berakot 19a-19b; Midrash Tannaim 101; Mekilta RS, 127; MHG I, 527; Philo, DeJosepho, 43; 4 Maccabees 7.20 and 16.25; Matthew 8.22 and 22.31— 32; 1 Timothy 5.6—7. Comp, also note 72 on vol. I, pp. 75-76. For a poetical description of the “living death” of the wicked, see Ben ha-Melek we-ha- Nazir 20. 3 8 8 Berakot 7a, where one opinion is recorded to the effect that God granted Moses also his third wish, and revealed to him “His ways” whereby He ordains good and evil in His world; Tehillim 25, 211. The difference between the presence of the Shekinah and that of an angel is the same as that between the immediate and mediate working of God; see note 62 on vol. I, 16; note 115 on vol. II, p. 304 and note 20 on vol. IV, p. 7. 389 ShR 25.6; Tan. Ki-Tissa 27; B. II, 116; comp, also Berakot 34b; Tan. B. V, 9; vol. Ill, p. 420. 3 9 9 Shu'aib, Debarim (beginning), 98c; this is very likely the source 56 Moses in the Wilderness [291-296 of Rimka Dabishuma, ’D (Musaf for the Day of Atonement), and of the Judeo-German rendering of this legend, concerning which see Griinbaum, Chrestomathie, 215, seq. The Hebrew original remained unknown to this author, as well as to Krauss, Ha-Goren, 215, seq., J. Q. R, New Series, II, 349 seq., and Friedlander, ibid. Ill, 179-180. Comp, also Gaster, Exempla, 432. On the German rendering of this legend, see Brockhaus in ZDMG, XIV, 706, who calls attention to the fact that the Persian poet Jclmi made use of this legend. From the Judeo-German writings this legend found its way into the hasidic literature. Modern writers, ignorant of the old sources in which this legend occurs, credit it to the Hasidim. A variant of this legend is No. 353 in Gaster l. c., where however it is Solomon to whom God’s justice is revealed. 3 9 1 EZ 6, 182-183. As to the problem of the theodicy, see also Berakot 7a; 2 ARN 22, 46, which is the source for Midrash Aggada Exod. 20.12. Next to Moses it was Habakkuk who wished to find out “the ways of the Lord"; comp. Tehillim 7, 70-71; 87, 343; 90, 389; Tosefta of Targum Hab. 3.1; Mahzor Vitry 170. The legend about Habakkuk refusing to leave the circle, which he drew, before God had given him an answer to his question (see Ta’anit 23a) very likely refers to Habakkuk ’s question concerning “the ways of the Lord”. For the view that God showed Moses all the generations, see also vol. Ill, p. 154; comp, further vol. I, p. 61. 393 PRE 46; comp. vol. II, p. 326. 393 Berakot 7a; ShR 45.5; comp, note 187, and vol. II, p. 305. 394 Megillah 19b; comp. vol. IV, p. 200. 395 PR 10, 37b; Tan. Ki-Tissa 37; ShR 47.7. As to the radiance of Moses’ countenance, see vol. Ill, pp. 93, 119, 143, and the notes appertaining to these passages. 3 9 6 PRE 46; PR 10, 37b; Sifra (end of Baraita de-Rabbi Ishmael). The phrase “born of woman ” is a designation of contempt in the mouth of an angel; see vol. II, p. 313; vol. Ill, p. 113; vol. IV, pp. 335, 395. Neither the angels nor the Holy Creatures ( Hayyot ha-Kodesh) see God or hear His voice; but the pious, after their death, see Him. See Sifre N., 103; Ta’anit, Babli (end). The same conception is also found in Recognitiones, 3.30, and Theophilus, Ad AutoU 7. — Concerning the attack of the angels on Moses,see vol. Ill, pp. 112, seq., 129. On the appearance of God on earth, see note 206. According to Sifre D., 343, and Midrash Tannaim 211, there are only four appearances of God: 1) He appeared in Egypt to redeem Israel (comp. vol. 1 1, p. 366); 57 297-301] The Legends of the Jews 2) on Sinai to reveal the Torah; 3)He will appear to take vengeance on Gog and Magog; 4)and finally He will appear in the Messianic age. 297 Rosh ha-Shanah 17b. As to the thirteen attributes of God, see the references given by Simonsen in Lewy- Festschrift, 271. This scholar also calls attention to 4 Ezra 7.132-139, which represents a Midrash on the Thirteen Attributes. Comp, also Ginzberg, Compte Rendu 23 ( R.E.J . LXVII, 137-138); see also EZ 4, 183; Hasidim 123; Kimha Dabishuna Maimonides’ Responsa, 87. The older talmudic-midrashic literature refers quite frequently to these attributes; comp. Rosh ha-Shanah, loc. cit., as well as Tan. B. I, 91; Nispahim 42 (EZ, 23); PK 6, 57a; PR 5, 22a; 16, 79b-80a, and 194a; Tehillim 93, 416; Hashkem 3b. Tehillim only knows of the dissenting opinions which count ten or eleven attributes of God. Comp, note 15 on vol. I, p. 8. 2.8 Sanhedrin 111a (bottom); Tehillim 93, 416. The views cited in these passages differ as to which attribute appeared to Moses to be the most exalted; each of the following attributes is named for this distinction: Long-suffering, grace, compassion, and truth. See also quotation from Tan. (not found in our texts) in Makiri, Ps. 92, 98, and vol. Ill, pp. 115-116- 280. 2.9 PRE 46; ER 1, 3-4. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 148. Philo remarks, in reference to Exod 33.23, that the human intellect cannot conceive the essence of God, but only His activities; see De Posteritat. Caini, 48 (end); De Profugis, 29; De Mut. Nom, 2. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, I, 21, gives an explanation of Exod., loc. cit., which is in almost every detail identical with that of Philo. On the very curious statement (Berakot 7a) that Moses saw God’s phylacteries (Tefillin), which is certainly not to be taken literally, see R. Hananel in Responsa der Geonim, Lyck edition, No. 115; Or Zarua’ I, 2 lb 2 lc ; REBN (]'3fcO) 42b. Baruk she-Amar 5d quotes, from Berakot loc. cit., a statement concerning the form of these phylacteries. This statement, however, is found neither in Berakot nor elsewhere. 3 0 0 EZ 4, 180-181; ER 17, 86; Tan. Pekude (end); Tan. B. I, 94; Seder ‘Olam 6; Ta'anit 30b; Baba Batra 12a. See also Yoma 20a, which reads: On the Day of Atonement Satan has no power to bring an accusation against Israel. 3 0 1 PRE 46; comp, also the reference given in the preceding note. As to the everlasting continuation of the institution of the Day of Atonement (i. e., its observance in the time to come), see Mishle 9, 61 and vol. VI, end. 58 Moses in the Wilderness [302-306 S03 ShR 46.1. For a conflicting view comp. vol. Ill, pp. 119, 197. 303 PRE 46; Mishle 23, 94, where should be read instead of D’JIPtnn. 304 PR 5, 21b; BaR 12.4; Tan. B. I, 193; Tan. Ki-Tissa 31 and Naso 17; Batte Midrashot III, 3 (Yelammedenu?). Comp, the dissenting view in an unknown Midrash quoted in Yalkut I, 854, according to which the second tables were given amid great ceremonies like the first. Lekah Deut. 10.3 agrees with this latter view. See the following note. 305 DR 3.17; Tosefta Baba Kamma 7.4. A different version is found in an unknown Midrash in Yalkut I, 854: God disapproved of the act of Moses in breaking the tables (see above note 279), and therefore spoke to him as follows: “If thou hadst made these tables thyself, thou wouldst not have broken them; make thou now another pair of tables, that thou mayest appreciate their worth.” God then showed him a sapphire quarry under the Throne of Glory (comp, note 258 and the following note), out of which Moses made an exact replica of the first tables. See also ps-Philo 12 (end), who writes: Hew thee out therefore two tables of stone from the place where thou didst hew out the former, and write upon them again My judgments which were on the first. In Exod. 34.1 it is plainly stated that God Himself wrote the words upon the second tables, and accordingly one is justified in assuming that the original Hebrew of ps-Philo had ’rQTDI which, however, was misread as rarDI by the translator.— If the first tables had not been broken, Israel would never have forgotten the Torah; ‘Erubin 54a; comp, also vol. Ill, p. 108. 306 Nedarim 38a; ShR 46.2 and 47.3; WR 32.2; Koheleth 9.11 (God showed Moses the sapphire quarry in his own tent); PRE 46; Tan. Ki-Tissa 29, 31 and ‘Ekeb9(in this passage, in agreement with the Midrash quoted in the preceding note, it is said that the sapphire quarry was under the Throne of Glory, in allusion to Exod. 24.10); BaR 9.48 (read “i’BD instead of ~isd); Sifre Z., 82; ARN 9, 41; Midrash Aggada Num. 12.2. In Vol. Ill, p. 141 line 6, Sapphire is to be read instead of diamond. On the fifty gates of wisdom, see vol. IV, p. 130, and the note appertaining to it. Concerning the qualifications of the prophet, see Maimonides, Shemonah Perakim 8. As to the idea that the Torah was originally intended only for Moses, see BaR, loc. cit.; DR 3.11; ShR 48.5 and 47.9; note 216; vol. Ill, p. 118. See also 59 307-309] The Legends of the Jews PR 21 106a, where the use of the singular in the Ten Commandments is commented upon in this connection. Comp, note 216. 3"i ShR 46.2. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 5-6. 3°8 ShR 47.1-4; Tan. Ki-Tissa 34 and Wa-Yera 5; Tan. B. I, 88 and 118; PR 5, 14b; Yerushalmi Peah 2, 17a; WR 22.1; BaR 14.10 (end); Koheleth 1.9; Megillah 19b. The anti-Christian tendency of the Haggadah is obvious. The Church has the Bible in Greek, and yet refutes the oral law. Concerning “the completeness” of the Torah revealed to Moses, see also vol. Ill, pp. 97 (where it is stated that all the souls were present at the revelation) and 197. As to Moses being a king, see note 170. On the idea that the existence of the world is conditioned upon Israel’s acceptance of the Torah, see note 202. On the verbal difference between Exod. 20.2, seq., and Deut. 5.6, seq., see references cited in note 221, to which should be added Lekah Deut. 5.12. In this source attention is called to the fact that the Decalogue in Deut. contains all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, whereas the letter D is missing in the Exod. version. The explanation of this missing D, as given in Baba Kamma 55a, is that the word 31D (“good”) could not be applied to the first tables, since they were broken. Lekah, loc. cit., though he had no variant reading of Baba Kamma, loc. cit., assigns an entirely different meaning to the simple words of the Amoraim. For other explanations of the missing D, see Emunah u-Bittahon 19 (this was borrowed by R. Bahya, notwithstanding his words EmD3 HDIIP HD) and Recanati, Exod. 20.17. Later authorities have a good deal to say about the distribution of the six hundred and twenty letters — corresponding to the six hundred and thirteen precepts of the Torah and the seven Noachian precepts — over the tables, which, according to an old tradition (see Shekalim 15, 49b) measured one by three hand-breadths; see Ginzberg, Geonica II, 23 and 35-36; Al-Barceloni, 68-69; BaR 13.16 and 18.21; Tan. Korah 12; Lekah Exod. 20.14; Ginzberg, Compte Rendu 21 ( =R.E.J . LXVII, 135); Ziyyoni, Deut. 5.6. 3 Of ShR 47.5 and 3.1; Tan. Ki-Tissa 36-37; Tan. B. II, 118-120; Makiri Prov. 30.3. Concerning the eating of the angels while guests of Abraham, see note 143 on vol. I, p. 243, and note 94. As to the idea that the radiance of the Shekinah sustains the angels, see Berakot 17a; Kallah 2,4a. The explanation of Exod. 14.11, found in the lastmentioned source, is identical with that given by Philo, who likewise declares that “seeing God ” was unto Moses the same as food and drink to other mortals; see Moses, 2(3). 2. The view that the rays coming 60 Moses in the Wilderness [310-314 forth from Moses’ face had their origin in the writing upon the tables is presupposed also in Corinthians 3.7. Comp, the following note, as well as notes 204, 260, 295. Hasidim 296 narrates that the radiance of glory was seen on a pious man at the time of his death, which phenomenon is explained in the following way: God, at the time of signing “the decrees of this man’s death”, caused a drop of ink to fall over him. — As to the manner in which Moses divided his study periods, see vol. Ill, p. 116, and Megillah 21a. 310 Lekah Exod. 34.10. See also op. cit. 24, where a reason is assigned for the fact that this distinction was conferred upon Moses on the occasion of the giving of the second tables and not before. According to ER 4, 17-18, this was Moses’ reward for his intercession for Israel after they had worshipped the golden calf. The earlier Midrashim, however, present a different view, and maintain that the radiance of the face of Moses preceded the giving of the second tables; see DR 23.11; PK 4, 37a; PR 14, 62b; Tan. B. IV. 114; comp, also references given in notes 204, 269, 295. Ps.-Philo, 12.1, is also of the opinion that Moses received this distinction when he ascended heaven for the first tables; see also Yalkut Reubeni Ki-Tissa (end). When Moses was commanded to write down the verse “And the man Moses was the meekest of all men” (Num. 12.3), he, on account of his humility, was very reluctant to obey and he therefore wrote a very small 1 in the word uy “meek”, so that it might also be read as qy “poor”. Not having used up the ink of his pen, he wiped it on the hair of his forehead, and from this the radiance of his face originated; see Onkeneira, Ayyumah Kannidgalot, 17a, who quotes an unknown Midrashic source. Comp. Sifre Z, 163, and note 490. 311 PK 5, 45a; PR 15, 69a; Shir 3.70; Shemuel 17, 97; BaR 11.3. Concerning fear as a consequence of sin, see vol. I, p. 76, and Berakot 60b. 31 2 ‘Erubin 54b; Mekilta RS, 6; Mekilta Bo 3, 3b. As to the studying of a text four times, see Mekilta RS, 117; Tan. Yitro 15 and Wa-Yakhel 4; BR 4.5; ShR 40.1; Yosippon (?) in Mahzor Vitry 88; Zohar I, 5a. 3,3 PR 10, 36b-37b; PK 2, 10b; Tan. Ki-Tissa 4. On the humiliation of Moses on account of Israel’s sin, see vol. Ill, p. 125. The Midrashim just mentioned play on the double meaning of twn PNI in Exod. 30.12, which signifies “count” and “hang". See also quotation, from an unknown Midrash, in Hadar, ad loc. 31< PK 2, 17b-18b (the numerical value of the initial letters of 61 3 I5-32I] The Legends of the Jews the names of the twelve tribes, if counted as thousands, corresponds to the number of people as given in Num. 1.46); PR 10, 40b; Tan. B. II, 197-108; Tan. Ki-Tissa 9. On the census at the time of the Exodus, see vol. Ill, p. 391; on the census during Saul’s reign, see Yoma 22b and Targum on 1 Sam. 15.4 (based on Pesahim 64a); on the inauspicious census in David’s time, see vol. IV, pp. 111—112. The counting of the number of Jews, whether of the entire people or of a section thereof, is forbidden by the Jewish law; see Berakot 62b, Josephus Antiq-ui., 181. ns PK 2, 18b- 20a; PR 10, 40a; Tan. B. II, 108-109; Tan. KiTissa 9-11; Shekalim 1, 46b, and 2, 46d. God produced the coin from under His throne; see Shekalim and PK, loc. cit. But PRE 48 remarks in this connection: God used each finger of His right hand to bring about deeds of salvation and redemption; with the little finger He pointed out to Noah the way to the ark; with the finger next to it He slew the Egyptians; with the middle finger He wrote the Ten Commandments upon the tables; with the finger next to it He pointed out to Moses the half-Shekel to be given by every Israelite for his atonement. He will use His entire hand to destroy Esau and Ishmael. On the text of PRE see Hadar (the source is erroneously given as Pesikta) and Da' at on Exod. 30.21. In the latter source it is said that God pointed out to Moses the New Moon (see vol. II , p. 362) with His fourth finger. Comp. vol. II, p. 18, and vol. Ill, p. 50. 3 16 ShR 51.4; Tan. B. II, 126-127; Tan. Pekude 2 and 6. Comp, also Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 723 (read nrtnD ]WI7 min ]’«; ER 30, 148. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 138 and 151. 3 1 i Midrash Aggada, Exod. 27.1, which quotes an unknown midrashic source. 3 1 8 Tan. B. IV, 35; Tan.

Naso 11, which reads: I have, in heaven, a temple, a hall (^D’n), and a throne; PK 2, 20a-20b; PR 16,84b; Tehillim 91, 395-396; BaR 12.3. Com. also Likkutim, II, 2a; 2 Enoch 45, 204; Ecclesiasticus 32.1-5. See vol. I, p. 3. 3 1 « PR 2, 18b (emphasis is laid upon the place where the Shekinah dwells, and not on sacrifices); Tan. Naso 22; BaR 12.6. Jao PR 5, 16a; Tan. Naso 19 and Terumah 9; Tan. B. II, 94; Shemuel 26. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 185. 311 Tan. Pekude 2; Midrash Aggada, Exod. 38.21; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 719, and supplement No. 54 ( = BHM VI 89); Shu'aib, Pekude 41c; comp. vol. I, pp. 51-52. The tabernacle is also explained to be, in its form, a symbolic representation of the human body, see 62 Moses in the Wilderness [322-326 Shu'aib, Terumah 36b-36c, and Shibbale ha-Leket 3 (BR is given as the source in this passage); Tadshe 2 and 10. A third view finds in the tabernacle a symbol of heaven and of what it contains. See Tadshe 2; PK 1, 5a; Likkutim II, 3b- 4a, and vol. II, pp. 165-166. Comp, note 346. 3” Tan. Terumah 5-8; Tan. B. II, 90-92; Shir 4.13; Zohar II, 148a. Yalkut I, 429 ( = Likkutim II, 8b, which is the source for Yalkut Reubeni Deut. 1. 1), counts only eleven materials, whereas Mahzor Vitry 314, which quotes Wehizhir (not found in our text of this work), has fifteen. See also Lekah and Midrash Aggada on Exod. 25.3. 323 Tan. Terumah 7 (during the reign of Ahasuerus the Mede the destruction of Israel was sought by Haman by means of money; see Esther 3.9; “ Red Rome” is an allusion to the identification of Rome with Edom; see note 19 on vol. I, p. 314); Tan. B. II, 91-92; Hashkem 10a; Lekah Exod. 25.3; Kad ha-Kemah, Lulab I 140, and ‘ Osher II, 28b; see vol. Ill, pp. 166-167. 3 3 4 ShR 40.2. Philo, Moses, 2(3). 3> speaks of the incorporeal patterns, according to which Moses was to make the furniture of the tabernacles. The same idea is expressed in his Quaestiones, Exod. 2, 52 and 82-83. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 160. Concerning the Book of Adam, see vol. I, p. 61, vol. Ill, pp. 136 and 398. 3 3 3 ShR 48.3-4; Tan. B. II, 121-123; Tan. Wa-Yakhel 4-5. As to the statement that Miriam was Bezalel’s great-grandmother, see vol. II, p. 253; concerning his father Hur, see vol. Ill, p. 121. Bezalel was thirteen years old at the time of the erection of the tabernacle, and his father was only eight years his senior. The “former generations” became mature, physically and mentally, at a very early age. See Sanhedrin 69b; Yerushalmi Yebamot 10, lib (Caleb begot his son at the age of ten); Kiddushin 1, 59c. Comp. vol. II, p. 122, and vol. Ill, p. 283. 336 Berakot 55a; Koheleth 7.11; Aggadat Shir 5, 36-37, where an opinion is quoted, according to which Bezalel and his assistant Oholiab went up Mount Sinai, where the heavenly Sanctuary was shown to them; BR 1.14; Yerushalmi Peah 1, 15b. The etymological explanation of the name Bezalel as meaning “In the Shadow of God” is also given by Philo who finds in it an indication that Bezalel’s conception of God was “shadow-like”, whereas that of Moses was a substantial one; see Leg. Alleg., 3.31, and De Plant. Noe, 6. As to the question whether the ark or the tabernacle was made first, see also vol. Ill, pp. 156-157, 160-161, and 176. It is very doubtful 63 327-330] The Legends of the Jews whether the combination of letters spoken of in the Haggadah is identical with the Philonic ideas. Comp. Index, s. v. “Letters”. On the assent of the people, comp, note 164. ShR 40.4; Tan. Ki-Tissa 13; PR 6, 26a; ‘Arakin 16a. Comp, also vol. Ill, p. 222. The names mentioned in 1 Chron. 4.1-2 are taken by the Haggadah to be those of Bezalel. 3 » s ShR 48.3; Tan. B. II, 122-123; Tan. Wa-Yakhel 5. Comp, also PRE 3. Concerning the spirit which God will shed over the animals in the time to come, see 2 ARN 43, 60. 3*9 ShR 50.1-2; Tan. Wa-Yakhel 5; Tan. B. II, 124. Comp, also vol. Ill, p. 155, where a different opinion is quoted, according to which the Sanctuary was first erected and subsequently the ark was fashioned. See also vol. Ill, pp. 160-161 and 176. God commanded Moses to make the entire nation participate in the work of the ark, in order that all might have a share in the Torah kept in the ark; ShR 34.2. Comp. Tan. Wa-Yakhel 7, which reads: Bezalel fashioned the ark with his own hands, whereas the rest of the work was done by others under his direction. 33° Tan. Wa-Yakhel 7; BaR 4.13 and 5.1; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 729; Tehillim 22, 185-186; Baba Batra 14b; Shir 1.2 and 3.5; DR 7.9; Yoma 21a, which states: The ark did not diminish the empty space of the Holy of Holies; see parallel passages cited on margin as well as Yerushalmi Baba Batra 6, 15c, and comp, note 65 on vol. IV, p. 156. Just as the ark, the receptacle of the Torah, was within and without of fine gold, even so must a scholar, the possessor of the Torah, take care that his inside is like his outside, that is, he must be sincere. See Yoma 72b, as well as Philo, De Ebriet. 21; Quaestiones, Exod. 2, 54. In 2 Clemens, 12, a saying attributed to Jesus, reads: The kingdom of God will not arrive before the inside of man will be like his outside. It is quite obvious that in this saying the rabbinic phrase 1133 13in (comp. Yoma 72b; Tan., loc. cit.; Leket Midrashim, 6b and 7b) is made use of. — The identification of the ark with the promised angel (see Exod. 23.20) is first found in Lekah, Exod., loc. cit. This identification is very likely based on old sources. Comp, the reference in note 435. Of all the furniture and vessels of the Sanctuary the ark is the only one whose measure is given in fractions (see Exod, 25.10); this indicates that, like the ark, the human receptacle of the Torah ought to be humble of spirit and contrite ( = broken) of heart; Kad ha-Kemah, Gaawah (end). See also the explanation of the four staves of the ark as given in Lekah, Exod. 25.12. 64 Moses in the Wilderness [331-339 331 Shekalim 6, 49b; Sotah, Tosefta 7.18 and Yerushalmi 8, 22b-22c; Baba Batra 14a-14b; Meleket ha-Mishkan 6; Sifre N., 82; Sifre Z., 191. A different view is given in Yerushalmi Sotah, loc. cit., according to which there was only one ark which served as a receptacle for the two sets of the two tables, for the scroll of the Torah, and for the presents offered by the Philistines (see 1 Sam. 6.8). 33* Meleket ha-Mishkan 7; Shekalim, Mishnah 6.1-2; Tosefta 2.18; Talmud 7, 49b; Tosefta Sotah 13.1; Yoma 53b-54a; EZ 25, 129. Comp. Friedmann’s remarks on Meleket ha-Mishkan, loc. cit.; vol. Ill, pp. 48, 161. 333 Tadshe 2; Sukkah 5b; ShR 41.6; DR 3.16. The symbolic representation of the ark, as given by Philo, Moses, 2 (3). 8, and Quaestiones, Exod. 2, 62, offers many points of resemblance to that of the Midrashim. With reference to the Cherubim, Josephus, Antiqui., 6.5, writes: Cherubim are flying creatures, whose form is not like any creature, but which Moses saw near the throne of God. 334 Sukkah 5a; Mekilta Bahodesh 4, 65; comp, also Yerushalmi Shabbat 1, 2d. 335 Baba Batra 99a; a somewhat different version is given in Yoma 54a-54b. Comp, also Onkelos and Targum Yerushalmi on Exod. 25.20. The raising of the curtain during the festivals is also mentioned by Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 6. 4. 336 Meleket ha-Mishkan 7; Yoma, Tosefta 2(3). 7 and Babli 64a; comp. vol. Ill, p. 163. 337 Meleket ha-Mishkan 8; Menahot Tosefta 11.9, and Babli 98b-99a; Shekalim 6, 50a-50b. On the qualities of the south and the north, see vol. I, pp. 11-12, and the notes appertaining to them. Philo, Moses, 2(3). 10, writes: The table on which bread and salt are laid (salt is in agreement with Septuagint Lev. 24.7; whereas the Rabbis, Menahot 11, 5-8, and Josephus, Antiqui., II, 6.6, know nothing of salt) was placed on the northern side, since of all the winds, the north wind is the most beneficial for the production of nourishment. See also Yelammedenu 53=BHM VI, 88. 338 BaR 15.9; Tan. B. I, 49-50; Tan. Beha'aloteka 6. The pattern, fashioned of fire, for the ark, the table, and the candlestick came down from heaven to Moses, that he might be able to make these vessels of the sanctuary. According to another view, it was Gabriel who taught Moses how to fashion the candlestick; see Menahot 29a. Comp, also note 315, vol. Ill, p. 219, and note 202 on vol. II, p, 362. 339 Tadshe 2; Meleket ha-Mishkan 10; Menahot, Tosefta 11.10, 65 340-344] The Legends of the Jews and Babli 99a; Shekalim 6, 50a. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 159-160, where a similar statement concerning Solomon’s tables is given. The symbolic explanation of the seven branches of the candlestick, as representing the seven planets, is given by Philo, Vita Mosis, 2(3). 9; Quis . Haeres Sit, 45; Josephus, A ntiqui., Ill, 6.7; as well as by the Midrashim, Tadshe 11; Tan. Beha'aloteka 6; Yalkut I, 219. The last-quoted source reminds one of Philo’s words. Comp, also vol. Ill, p. 151. 340 Tadshe 11. As to the view that paradise is situated in the north, see note 33 on vol. I, p. 11. The passage in Tadshe concerning the south is not very clear, and it may be translated: There — in the south— is only one light, that of the Shekinah. In Baba Batra 25b the candlestick is explained to be a symbolic representation of the Torah (comp. Ps. 119.105). A similar explanation is found in the Apocalypse of Baruch 17.4 and 59.2. 341 Tan. B. IV, 50; Tan. Beha'aloteka 6; BaR 15.9. Comp, vol. Ill, pp. 48 and 158. 342 Tan. Terumah 10-11. Concerning the heavenly beings, some of which are made of fire and some of water, see the statements in PK 1, 3a (numerous parallel passages are cited by Buber; comp, also ARN, second version, 24, 48-49, note 63 on vol. I, p. 16) which refer to Michael and Gabriel, as well as to those angels who are made partly of fire and partly of snow. On the sea of ice, see vol. I, p. 13. As to the idea that the cedars used for the Temple blossomed and bore fruit, see also Tan. B. IV, 32, which reads: Everything in the Temple, even the gold, was fruitful and multiplied; BaR 11.3 and 12.4; ShR 35.1; Shir 3.8; Yoma 21b and 39b; vol. I, p. 97 and vol. Ill, p. 159.’ The belief in the generative power of precious stones was widespread in the middle ages; see Kunz, The Magic of Jewels and Charms. 3 4 3 Tadshe 11. The view that the soul is sustained by fragrant odors is widespread; see, e. g„ Berakot 43b, and the explanation given by many medieval authorities concerning the custom of smelling spices at the termination of the Sabbath; comp. Mahzor Vitry 117. 3 4 4 Tan. Terumah 9-10; Tan. B. II, 91 and 94-95; ShR18.10, 33. 8, and 35.1; BR 15.1 (numerous parallel passages are cited by Theodor) and 94.4. Concerning Tahash, see vol. I, p. 34; concerning the view that Jacob prepared the necessary building material, see above, note 1, and vol. I, pp. 118-119. Shu'aib, Terumah 37b, quotes an unknown Midrash to the effect that the Shittim-wood for the tabernacle came from paradise, whence Adam took it with him when he was driven out of that place. Subsequently it came into the possession of Moses in the Wilderness [345-346 Abraham, who bequeathed it to Isaac. The latter, in his turn, bequeathed it to Jacob, who took it with him to Egypt. At the Exodus, the Israelites took it with them to the desert. According to Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 26.28, the middle bar was made of the wood taken from the tree which Abraham planted at Beer-sheba (comp. vol. II, p. 119). The angels felled this tree when the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, and threw it into the waters thereof, while an angel proclaimed: “This is the tree which Abraham planted in Beer-sheba.” The Israelites took the tree out of the water, and later made of it the middle bar, whose length was seventy cubits. This bar became circular when the tabernacle stood erect, so that it held all the boards together; but as soon as the boards were removed the middle bar became as straight as a rod. 5 45 Yoma 72a (bottom); Rashi, ad loc., who remarks that the boards were hidden and will be brought out again in the time to come. See vol. Ill, p. 194. 3 46 Midrash Aggada Exod. 26.7, based on an old source, since Abbahu, who flourished about the end of the third century, is quoted as the authority. See also ShR 33.4 and 35.6; PK 1, 4b-5a; BaR 12.8; Shir 3. 1 1 . The correspondence between the stars and the golden clasps, spoken of in the sources just quoted, is also referred to in Shabbat 99a and Yerushalmi Megillah 1, 72c-72d. The most elaborate symbolic explanation of the tabernacle, found in rabbinic sources, is the one given by R. Shemaiah of Soisson in his treatise on the tabernacle published by Berliner in Monatsschrift XIII, 225-231 and 258-264. A. Epstein, Mikkadmoniyyot (supplement), 2-4, calls attention to the close resemblance of the symbolic explanation, as given by R. Shemaiah, to that found in Tadshe and Bereshit Rabbete, all three attempting to show that man, the world, and the Sanctuary correspond to one another. Shu’aib, Terumah 36b, drew upon a source closely related to the three mentioned above, whereas Shibbale ha-Leket 3 is a direct quotation from Bereshit Rabbete, and accordingly ’D31 n’PN133 is to be read instead of N31 '133 as found in our texts. Noteworthy is the following quotation from a Midrash given by R. Shemaiah {op. cit., 226), which reads: God said unto Moses:“Behold the celestial sanctuary, and erect the terrestial sanctuary in like fashion.’’ Comp, vol. Ill, p. 53, last paragraph. The symbolic explanation of the tabernacle as given by Philo, Moses, 2(3), 3-10, and particularly Quaestiones, Exod. 2, 51-124, has many points of contact with that of the Rabbis. Clemens, Stromata, 4.6, is altogether based on Philo. 67 347-354] The Legends of the Jews 347 Tadshe 2; comp. Index, s. v. “Heavens”. 3 4 8 Tadshe 10. The seventy names of God, of Israel, and of Jerusalem are enumerated in Aggadat Shir 1, 8-10. Comp. Schechter ad loc. 349 Tan.Terumah 10. s s» ShR 35.5; Pesahim 118b. The Haggadah frequently speaks of Esau ( = Rome) priding himself of his descent from Abraham, and says that in the time to come he will attempt to save himself by claiming relationship with Jacob ( = Israel); see Yerushalmi Nedarim 3, 38a, and Tan. B. Ill, 15. All these Haggadot are very likely to be taken as anti-Christian. As to the gifts offered by the Gentiles to the Messiah, see also Enoch 53.1 and 90.30. Concerning the four kingdoms and their symbolic representations, see vol. Ill, p. 153. 3 s 1 ShR 37.1-4; Tan. Terumah 10; Shemuel 23, 112; Koheleth 7.1; Tehillim 101, 427-428, which read: The tribe of Reuben was rejected because of Reuben’s sin in connection with Bilhah; the tribe of Simeon on account of their sins at Shittim (comp. vol. Ill, p. 382); the Joseph tribes because Joseph slandered his brethren. Comp, vol. II, pp. 5 and 6; ER 13, 63, and 31, 157, which read: Aaron strove to reconcile Israel to his God (see vol. Ill, p. 328), and he was therefore chosen to perform the work of reconciliation (i. e., atonement) in the Sanctuary. Concerning Aaron ’s real motives in fashioning the golden calf, see vol. Ill, p. 121, as well as Da' at and Hadar on Exod. 3.2. As to Moses’s aspiration to the priesthood, see vol. Ill, p. 316. Comp, vol. Ill, p. 182. 353 Tan. B. II, 100-101; Tan. Terumah 10-13; ShR 38.1. 3 5 3 WR 10.6; Zebahim 88b; ‘Arakin 16a; Yerushalmi Yoma 9, 44b-44c; Shir 34.1; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 513 (this passage agrees literally with WR). See also Yoma 7a-7b (in this passage atoning power is ascribed to the mitre only and that in a limited degree) and 72a-72b. A very elaborate symbolic interpretation of the priestly garments is given by Philo, Moses, 2(3). 2-14, and Special. Leg. 15-6, of which Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 7.7, seems to have made use, but of which no trace is found in rabbinic literature. The tripartite division of the tabernacle, as a symbol of the tripartite division of the cosmos into water, dry land, and heaven, is given by Josephus and in Tadshe 2 (beginning). 354 ShR 33.8, with the additional remark that the Jews at that time were so rich, that any one of them would have been able to defray 68 Moses in the Wilderness [355-358 the cost of the erection of the tabernacle. See also Yoma 95a; Zohar HI, 23b; comp. vol. Ill, pp. 176, 193. 355 Maimonides’ Yad, Kele ha-Mikdash 9.9 (he undoubtedly follows a tannaitic source); Sotah 36a, and Yerushalmi 7, 2 Id. See the thorough study of Epstein, Mikkadmoniyyot, 83-90, and comp, also Responsen der Geonim, Harkavy’s edition, 3, as well as the following note. 35 6 Yoma 73b; Sotah 36b. Comp, also Epstein, Mikkadmoniyyot 83-90, as well as Aristeas 97, and Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 7.5. In order to have all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet engraved upon the stones, it was necessary to include the names of the three patriarchs, as well as the words “all these are, etc.” (Comp. Gen. 49.28). Had some letters been missing, the oracular sentences would not have been possible. See vol. Ill, p. 172. 3 5 7 R- Bahya on Exod., 28.17, which is the source for Toledot Yizhak, adloc.; Talpiyyot, s. v. n^PD, makes use of R. Bahya ’s description, but does not follow it in every detail. See also ShR 38.8-9; Lekah and Targum Yerushalmi on Exod. loc. cit.\ Targum Yerushalmi Num. 2.2-25 (this passage differs from Targum on Exod.) ; Targum Song of Songs 2.12. The old rabbinic literature has no remarks about the peculiarities of the twelve stones, and there can be no doubt that R. Bahya, or rather the source which he followed, is based upon some medieval lapidarium. Steinschneider, Semitic Studies in memory of Kohut 64, seq., gives a bibliography of lapidaria composed by Christian authors in the Middle Ages. Of course, the relation between the peculiarities of the stones and the history of the tribes is of Jewish origin. Comp. Index, under the names of the Twelve Tribes. See vol. Ill, pp. 233, 238; vol. IV, p. 24. 358 Yoma 73a-73b and Yerushalmi 7, 44c. The Urim and Thummim ceased to give oracular answers immediately after the death of the first prophets; Sotah 9.12. According to Tosefta 13.2 and Babli 48b, by the “first prophets” are meant those prophets who lived during the first commonwealth, so that the time when the Urim and Thummim ceased to function is identical with the time of the destruction of the first Temple. Yerushalmi 9, 24b, however, offers the opinion that the expression the “first prophets” refers to Samuel and David, and accordingly the Urim and Thummim did not function in the first Temnle. Targum Yerushalmi, Exod. 28.30, maintains that the high priest gave the oracular answers by means of the "great and holy Name" which was engraved upon the Urim and Thummim as well as up69 359-364] The Legends of the Jews on the Eben Shetiyyah. The sources quoted in notes 355 and 356 do not make the slightest allusion to the Name being engraved upon the stones of the breast-plate. Concerning the statement that the Name was engraved upon the Eben Shetiyyah, see Index, s. v. On the lustre of the stones, see vol. Ill, p. 455; vol. IV, p. 8. The view given in Lekah, Exod. 29.15, as that of DHD1N W' is quite unintelligible to me. ass Mekilta Shabbat 2, 104b; Mekilta RS 165. See also Sifra 19.3 and 4 Maccabees 2.10, with reference to the honor due to parents, which one is not to observe when it conflicts with the honor due to God. s 60 Tan. as quoted in Shibbale ha-Leket 67-68; Abkir in Yalkut I, 408; Rokeah 53 (the source, though not given by the author, is very likely Abkir). Comp, also Megillah 4a; Lekah, Exod. 34.34 (end); Zohar II, 203. The last-named passage reads: Moses communicated the laws of Sabbath to the Israelites before they worshipped the golden calf. But many of the people, misled by the “mixed multitude'* (see vol. Ill, pp. 122-123), did not observe them, and Moses therefore repeated them after the death of the “mixed multitude” (see vol. Ill, p. 130). This time he addressed himself exclusively to the Jews. The source of Zohar is Lekah, Exod. 35.4. The Sabbath as the day of study and religious instruction is of frequent occurrence in Jewish literature; see e. g., Pesahim 68b; Yer. Shabbat 15, 15a; PR 23, 116a and 121a; Philo, Special. Leg. 2.6; Vita Mosis, 2(3). 27 (in this passage it is regarded as an institution of Moses); ps-Philo 11.7. 3 61 Shabbat 90a. Comp. Lekah, Exod. 34.34. 3 6 3 Shekalim 1, 45d; Lekah, Exod. 35.22; ShR 41.2 (which remarks: All that was necessary for the building of the tabernacle was brought in the short space of “two morning hours”); BaR 12.37; Tehillim 101, 428; Tan. B. II, 90; Tan. Terumah 4(it is stated in this passage: God’s blessing was on everything which the people brought, so that even little things were put to great use). j63 Shabbat 74b and 99a; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 35.26. The goats came every day, with the exception of Sabbath and the New Moon, to the women, and offered their wool for the hangings of the Tabernacle; Shu'aib, Wa-Yakhel, 42b, On the New Moon as a festival of the women, see vol. Ill, pp. 121-122 and next note; on the animals participating in the erection of the Tabernacle, see vol. Ill, p. 156. 3 6 * Aggadat Shir 4, 79 (the word HD1?!? in this passage probably means, not "cloak”, but, as in Deut. 22.17, the garment used by the bride); BaR 9.14 (it says: They disposed of their mirrors as a proof 70 Moses in the Wilderness [365-367 of their chastity); Tan. Pekude 9, reads: The women provided their husbands with food consisting of fish which came to them in a miraculous way as soon as they let their pitchers down into the well to draw water. See Sotah 11a, and comp, further PRK 15a on fish as a food conducive to fecundity. The statement with regard to the praise of the women in the passage cited by Hadar, Exod. 35.22, reads somewhat differently from that in the sources quoted above; it also adds that the women received the New Moon as a festival (see the preceding note), as a reward for their devotion to their nation by bearing and raising children under very trying circumstances. In the legends about the mirrors of the women, expression is given to the thought that it is the intention which counts more than the deed; comp. Mishnah Menahot (end), which reads: Whether one does much or little — does not matter — provided the intention is for the sake of heaven. The story told in WR 3.5 of the poor widow and the high priest, as an illustration of the importance of the intention, is very much akin to that of Mark 12.44; Philo, Moses , 2(3). 15, seems to presuppose a Haggadah similar to that given by the Rabbis concerning the mirrors presented by the women. 3 65 Tan. B. IV, 40; Tan. Naso 27 (the text is corrupt); comp, vol. Ill, pp. 192-193. As to the provenance of these stones, see vol. Ill p. 169, as well as Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 35.27, where it is stated that the clouds fetched them from the river Pishon (see Gen. 2.12), and placed them in the wilderness (read instead of NrQlD), where the princes found them. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 27. A similar legend is given in the following verse of Targum, according to which the clouds brought the perfumes from paradise, and placed them in the wilderness for Israel. In Yoma 75a, the clouds which carried the precious stones are identical with those which brought the manna. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that Targum did not draw upon this passage. 366 Tan. B. II, 125; Tan. Wa-Yakhel 10; ShR 50.4-5. Comp, the different opinion concerning the order of the work, as given in vol. Ill, pp. 155, 156-157. 3 6 7 PR 24a-24b (on the text, see Orehot Hayyim I, 26d), which has the additional remark that the month of Kislev was later compensated with the feast of Hanukkah, in memory of the dedication of the Temple under the Maccabees; Tan. Pekude (end); ShR 52.2. On Isaac’s birthday see note 203 on vol. I, p. 261; vol. IV, p. 155. On the derogatory expression “son of Amram”, see note 163, and comp, the phrase 71 368-371] The Legends of the Jews “son of Bath-sheba” in vol. VI, p. 155. On the people finding fault with Moses, see vol. Ill, p. 69. 3 68 Tan. B. II, 129; Tan. Pekude 7, and Ki-Tissa 27; ShR 51.6; Kiddushin 33b; Yerushalmi Bikkurim 3, 65; Zohar II, 226 (which reads: A heavenly voice told the people of the use made of the supposedly missing item); Midrash Aggada Exod. 38.21; Hadassi, 132a. No. 358. Similarly Manhig, Tefillah, 39, knows the tale about the sudden appearance of the hooks which came to defend Moses against his accusers. See also Toledot Yizhak, Exod., loc. tit., and Ayyumah Kannidgalot, 16a, where this legend is given in accordance with the Manhig version. i & 9 ShR 51.2; Tan. Pekude 5; Tan. B. II, 127; Midrash Esfah in Yalkut I, 737; Sifre Z., 62 and 110. Comp. Hoffmann, Wichtigste Instanzen gegen die Graf- Wellhausensche Hypothese, 81. To remove all suspicion, Moses took Ithamar to participate with him in drawing up the accounts of the treasury of the tabernacle; ShR, loc. tit. 3 7“ Tan. Pekude 11; Tan. B. II, 132-133; ShR 52.2-3. As a reward to Moses for his great devotion to the work of erecting the tabernacle, Scripture speaks of the erection of the tabernacle “by Moses” (Num. 7.1) and not “ by Israel”. See Tan. Ki-Tissa 35; BaR 12.1. Com. note 257. 3 7 1 Horayyot lib and Keritot 5b; in both passages it is also stated that until Josiah hid the sacred oil (vol. Ill, p. 48) all the high priests and those kings who did not come to the throne by inheritance were anointed with the oil prepared by Moses. During the second commonwealth neither the high priests nor the kings were anointed with the "oil of ointment ”, though some of the kings were anointed with balsam. But according to PRK, 42a, Aaron and his sons and Zadok were the only “anointed priests”; among the kings, Saul, David, Joash, and Jehoash enjoyed this distinction. Comp. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte 319-320; WR 3.5 and 10.8; ARN 1, land 34, 100; BaR 12.15, 14.13, and 18.9; PK 1, 7a; Sifre N., 92, Sifre Z., 53-54 (this passage gives a very detailed description of the ceremony of anointing) and 57; Shekalim 9, 49c-49d; Sifra 7.35 and 8.10; Tehillim 133, 517; Tan.

Korah 6; Tan. B. IV, 90; Shir 1.10; Midrash Shir 34b (which reads: Through a miracle not a drop of the sacred oil was spilled;) Ekah 1,87; Batte Midrashot III, 16. The emphatic manner in which many of the passages just quoted state their view that neither Aaron nor the Messiah will be anointed in the time to come leads one to assume the probability that this opinion is directed against the Christian Messiah, literally 72 Moses in the Wilderness [372-380 ^the anointed one”. Com. Ginzberg, op. cit., note 4 on p. 348, and note 23 on vol. IV, p. 84. 3 7i PK 4, 38a— 38b (this passage quotes also the dissenting view, according to which Moses performed the services of high priest during the last forty years of his life; this opinion seems to have been shared by Philo, who describes Moses as a high priest; see Quis _ Haeres Sit, 38); Zebahim 101b-102a; Ta'anit lib; Yerushalmi Yoma I, 38b; WR 11.6; BaR 9.44; ShR 37.1; Tehillim 91, 423-424; PR 14, 63b-64a; comp, note 121 on vol. II, p. 316. 3 73 Tan. B. Ill, 19.21; Tan. Zaw 10-12; WR 10.9; Likkutim II, 4b; BR 5.7 (numerous parallel passages are cited by Theodor); DR 4.11; PR 1, 2a (on the text see Rokeah, 221); PK 12, 108a-108b, and 20, 143a-143b; ARN 35, 106; Baba Batra 76b; Sifre D., 1. The question as to how, at the time of the resurrection, all the numberless multitudes will find place in Palestine engaged the attention of Sa'adya Gaon; see Emunot we-Deot, 7 (=BHM VI, 148-149). See vol. Ill, pp. 212, 311-312; vol. IV, p. 6. An allusion to the legend that all the Israelites were assembled in the Sanctuary is very likely to be found in Enoch 89.36. As to the date of the consecration of the priests, see Sifre D., 44; Seder ‘Olam 7 and parallel passages given by Ratner. 3 7 4 Sifra 8.15 and 35; Seder ‘Olam 7; Tosefta Menahot 7.6, seq.; PK 6, 6a-6b; PR 5, 15a; Yerushalmi Yoma I, 38b; BaR. 13.2. 375 Tan. B. II, 21-22; Tan. Shemini 1; BR 100.7; Yerushalmi Moed Katan 3, 82c; comp, also Tan. B. I, 222, and Tan. Wa-Yehi 17, as well as note 64 on vol. I, p. 142. 376 Seder ‘Olam 7; Sifra 9.1; BR 3.9; Shabbat 86b; PR 7, 27b; BaR 13.6; Tadshe 10. Comp, also Sifre Num., 44, and Shekalim 1. 2a (beginning). 377 Tan. B. Ill, 24; Tan. Shemini 10; WR. 11.6; Comp, note 372; vol. II, p. 316 and vol. Ill, pp. 168-169. 378 Sifra 9.1. 3 79 Tan. B. Ill, 24; Tan. Shemini 3. Comp. vol. II, pp. 328-329. 380 Sifra 9.2-24. Concerning the atonement for the selling of Joseph, see ShR 30.7 and vol. II, p. 25. On the admonition of Moses to drive away the evil inclination, see Philo, Moses, 2(3). 17, according to whom one of the sacrifices offered up on this occasion was intended to convey to the Israelites the thought that even the virtuous are not free from sin. On the fire of the altar, see 2 Maccabees 2.10; vol. III.pp. 161-162, 245; vol. IV, p. 353. Besides the fire of the altar, it was the smoke by which God ’s grace was indicated; see Tan. Tezawweh 73 381-382] The Legends of the Jews 15; Midrash Shir 28b; PK 27, 171b (by the smoke of the fire of the altar on the Day of Atonement one could judge whether the new year would be prosperous or not); PR 47, 190b; Tan. B. Ill, 60; WR 20.4; Yoma 21b; Baba Batra 147a. On the likeness of the fire of the altar to a lion, see Yoma, loc. cit., and Zohar III, 32b-33a. 3 8 1 PR 5, 15a-16a, 18b, 20b-22b; Tan. B. IV, 37-40; Tan. Naso 16-19, 23, and 25, as well as Pekude 11; BaR 12.4, 7. 12. Concerning the Shekinah’s withdrawal to heaven, see vol. II, p, 260; Tehillim 8, 76-77. In the old sources the view prevails that the terrestrial sanctuary corresponds to the celestial one (comp. e. g., Mekilta Shirah 10, 43b; BaR 45.7; Index, s. v. “Sanctuary Celestial”), whereas the later Haggadah reverses the relation between these two sanctuaries, maintaining that after the destruction of the terrestrial sanctuary the celestial one was erected to serve as a place of atonement for Israel; see BHM V, 63, where Michael, not Metatron, is the celestial high priest, in agreement with Hagigah 12b and Seder Rabba de-Bereshit 24. An attempt to harmonize these two conflicting views is given in the text, in accordance with the sources cited at the beginning of this note, maintaining that the two sanctuaries were established simultaneously. See also Hadar, Lev. 9.2, which reads: Michael was appointed high priest — of the celestial sanctuary — at the same time as Aaron. R. Bahya, Exod. 40.17, cites Hagigah, loc. cit., as source for the harmonizing legend; but this is probably a slip of the pen, or his text of the Talmud contained this later addition. The Karaite writer Kirkisani, in his treatise on Jewish sects (still in manuscript), quotes a lengthy passage from the Talmud on Metatron ‘s priestly functions and activities as teacher. Comp. vol. I p. 385; vol. Ill, p. 149; Zohar II, 241a, and III, 3b. — Concerning Moses' fiery (red) face, see PK 27 (end); on the change of the intercourse between God and man after the establishment of the tabernacle, see Shir 2.3 and parallel passages. Concerning demons, comp. Tehillim 17, 130-131, and 55, 292; Ekah 1.63; Baba Kamma 21a. As to the blessings of Moses on this occasion, see Sifra 9.18; Tosefta Menahot 7.8; Seder ‘Olam 6; Likkutim II, lb-2a; quotation from later (unknown) Midrashim by Shu'aib, Pekude(end); comp, also vol. Ill, pp. 69 (bottom) and 454. 38 > Seder ‘Olam 7; Zebahim 102a; PK 27, 170a; Tehillim 75, 338; WR 20.2; Mishle 31, 112; Koheleth 2.2; Tan. B. Ill, 50-57; Tan. Ahare 1; Shir 3.6; Sifra 10.1-2; Sifre N., 44; Sanhedrin 52a; Tan. B. I, 50 (which asserts that their bodies were burned, but not their garments); Tan. Noah 15 and Shemini 12; Targum Yerushalmi 74 Moses in the Wilderness [383-388 Lev. 10.2. The tannaitic Midrashim just quoted cite an opinion’ according to which the angels pushed the two sons of Aaron out of the holy place before they were burned. On Moses’ kingship see note 170. On the position of Phineas as “priest of war”, see vol. Ill, p.389. 383 Tan. B. Ill, 61-64 and 67-68; Tan. Ahare 6; WR 29. 4-12; BaR 2.23; PK 27, 172a-174b; Tehillim 78, 356; Shebi'it 6, 36c; ‘Erubin 63a; Sifra 9.2; Sanhedrin 52a; Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk, s. v. nn (2), and No. 46 = BHM VI, 86. Concerning the improper conduct of Aaron ’s sons in looking at the divine vision on Sinai, see vol. Ill, 248 and note 187. Philo, De Profugis, is of the opinion that Nadab and Abihu, in their “love and affection for God, were willing to die in body, that they might live before the Lord.” A similar view is found in Sifra 10.1; comp, note 599. 384 PR 47, 189b. Moses, who was only a Levite and not a priest, was not permitted to enter the place of the tabernacle which was assigned to the priest; comp., however, note 372. As to the punishment of leprosy, see vol. Ill, p. 214, and note 30 on vol. IV, p. 262, as well as vol. I, p. 364. 383 Sifra 10.2-7 (this section does not belong to Sifra proper, but to a tannaitic Midrash of the school of R. Ishmael); Zebahim 115a (on the text see Al-Barceloni, 128 and Shittah Mekubbezet, ad loc .); Targum Yerushalmi Lev. 10.4-5. Concerning the conception that God is glorified by the death of the pious, see John 12.28. On Aaron, the lover of peace, see vol. Ill, p. 328; on the direct revelation received by him, see notes 387, 405. Opinions differ as to whether the bodies of Nadab and Abihu were injured by the heavenly fire, which brought about their death, or not; but all agree that their garments remained intact; Sifra 10.2; Sanhedrin 52a; Tan. B. I, 50; Tan. Noah 15. Comp, note 382. 386 Sifre D., 31; Rosh ha-Shanah 18b; Zohar III, 56b and 57b; on the atoning effect of the death of the pious, see further Yerushalmi Yoma 1, 38b; Tan. B. Ill, 64 and 66, and parallel passages cited by Buber. 387 Sifra 10,16, 19-20; WR 13.1; ARN 26 (second version 60), 111 (see Schechter, note 29); Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 139, and 1 Sam. 27; Zebahim lOla-lOlb; Hashkem 7a-7b; Wehizhir II, 171; comp, notes 110, 406, 599, 862. 388 BaR 12.16-21, which is based on older sources; see PK 1, 7a-10a; PR 7, 26b and 28a (in this passage it is explicitly stated that the story about Nahshon is derived from the similarity of the name 75 389-399] The Legends of the Jews |l»m to the word Vl»ra "billow”; hence this legend does not reflect the self-sacrificing character of the patriarchal house during the second century, as suggeted by Oppenheim in Ha-Hoker, I, 97—99); Sifre Z„ 54-56; ARN 11, 45-46; Tehillim 101, 428-429; Shir 6.4; Sifre N„ 45—47. Concerning the princes of the tribes, see vol. Ill, pp. 169 (the “notables” referred to stand for the princes), 175-176, and 249; on Issachar, the wise and learned tribe, see Index, s. v. On the animals living forever, see Vol. V, pp. 422—423 and note 345. Concerning David’s error see vol. Ill, p. 395, and vol. IV, p. 96. On the courage and self-sacrificing character of the tribe of Judah at the crossing of the Red Sea, see vol. Ill, pp. 21 and 221, as well as the sources cited in note 36, and BaR 13.4, 7. Comp. Tan. B. IV, 40, and Tan. Naso 27. 389 Sifre N., 47-51; Sifre Z., 56; BaR 13.2; Tan. Naso 20. Comp, also WR 8.3, and vol. Ill, p. 201. 399 BaR 13.14-16. It is often stated in the Hagadah that Jacob foretold the history of the future to his sons; see, e. g., vol. II, p. 141. On Solomon, the Cosmocrator, see vol. Ill, p. 355, and vol. IV, p. 125. Concerning Judah’s sin, see note 62 on vol. II, p. 25. For other explanations of the sin-offering, see Sifre N., 51; Lekah Num. 7.16. Comp. Sifre N., 52; Sifre Z., 56; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 7.19. 391 BaR 13.17; Sifre D., 354. Comp. Index, s. v. "Zebulun”. 392 BaR 13.18. On Reuben, the type of the repentant sinner, see note 60 on vol. II, p. 24. 393 BaR 13.19. The faithless woman died immediately after she tasted the dust on the floor of the tabernacle (see Num. 5.6, seq.)] hence the sanctuary is described as the “avenger of unchastity”. 394 BaR 13.20. On Jochebed’s age at the time of her death, see note 817. Concerning the undiminished spirit of Moses, see vol. III, p. 251. As to Israel’s three virtues, see vol. II, p. 300. On Israel’s idolatry in Egypt, see vol. II, p. 341. Concerning the merits of Jacob and Joseph, see vol. II, p. 7; vol. Ill, p. 16. 3 9 3 BaR 14.2 (end) and 5; Tan. B. IV, 42^14; comp. vol. II, pp. 94 and 183, as well as vol. Ill, p. 82. On the correspondence of the incidents in Joseph’s life with those of Jacob, see vol. II, p. 4 seq. 396 BaR 14,6-7; Tan. B. IV, 42 and 45; Tan. Naso 28 and 30. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 183. 3 9 7 BaR 14.8. On Herod’s atonement, see Baba Batra 3b-4a. 398 BaR 14.9. On Samson, see note 115 on vol. IV, p. 47. 399 BaR 14.10. Besides the seventy nations, the descendants 76 Moses in the Wilderness [400-405 of Noah (comp, note 72 on vol. I,p. 173), there are sixty kingdoms, twelve Ishmaelitic and forty-eight Edomitic; hence there are altogether one hundred and thirty nations. As to the refusal of the Torah by the nations, see vol. Ill, pp. 81 and 355. On the three, or rather four crowns, see Abot 4.13; ARN 41, 130 (second version 48, 130-131). The last-named passage reads: Moses acquired the first crown, Aaron the second, David the third, but the fourth may be acquired by everyone. See also Yoma 72b; Sifre N„ 119; ShR 34.2; Shemuel 23, 112; Koheleth 7.1. 400 BaR 14-11. On Naphtali’s swiftness, see note 217 on vol. I, 371. Concerning Abraham’s power over the evil inclination, see note 276 on vol. I, p. 292. As to Abraham’s age at the time of the “covenant between the pieces”, see vol. V, p. 230, note 115. The Hebrew word for “bowl” is piro, from the root p~ir, the meaning of which is “to throw.” 401 BaR 14-12 and 18; Tadshe 10; Alphabet of R. Akiba 35 (l?) ; PRK Griinhut’s edition, 89-90; comp. Excursus II, Naphtali. The vital parts of the human body are only slightly different from the “ten guides , as may be seen from Koheleth 7.19. It is therefore safe to assume that BaR and Tadshe have blended together the two different views concerning the anatomical division of the human body; but see vol. IV, p. 147. On the sons of Zerah comp. Seder ‘Olam 21, and vol. II, p. 283. 402 BaR 14.18; Tadshe 10. 403 Sifre Z., 57—58; Sifre N., 53—56; BaR 14.13. Symbolic explanations of the gifts of the princes are given, besides BaR 13-14 and Tadshe 10, also in Targum Yerushalmi Num. 7.84-88 and Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 714. 404 Tan. B. Ill, 4-5; Tan. Wa-Yera 3. Comp, also WR 1.5 and Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 940 on Prov. 8. 4 0 5 BaR 14.19-22, which is based on older sources; comp. Sifre Z., 48, 55, 58—59, and 108; Sifre N., 58; Sifra 1.1; Mekilta (beginning); ARN 2, 10. The view prevalent in tannaitic sources is that Aaron never received a direct revelation, and that the passages in the Pentateuch which apparently presuppose direct revelations to Aaron (see e. g., Lev. 10.3) are intended to convey that God told Moses to communicate certain revelations to Aaron. For a dissenting view see vol. II, p. 341 ; vol. Ill, pp. 190, 216. On demons, or rather angels of destruction, see vol. II, p. 226; vol. Ill, p. 186. It is noteworthy that, according to the Haggadah, the ministering angels, left the holy of holies as soon 77 406-415] The Legends of the Jews as the high priest entered it on the Day of Atonement; see PR 47, 190a, 191a; Yerushalmi Yoma 5, 42c. Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Haeres Sit, 5, remarks: God instructed him, not in brief sentences, but gave him an unbroken and continuous answer. These words seem to be directed against the view of the Rabbis that God always allowed a pause between the different laws which He imparted. 40 6 Qittin 60a; Sifre Z., 55, speaks of fifteen revelations received by Moses on this memorable day. 407 WR 26.6. 4° 8 Sifre 7.36; BaR 14.13. 4»» Tan. B. IV, 50-51; Tan. Beha'aloteka 8; BaR 15.12 and 1.12; Midrash Tannaim, 215; Sifre N., 67; comp. vol. II, pp. 259, 300-301, and 341; vol. Ill, pp. 94, 130, and 438. Yalkut II, 589, on Malachi 2.4, quotes a Midrash, according to which the prophet Malachi refers to the Abrahamic covenant as the “covenant of Levi” (see Malachi 2.8), because the tribe of Levi was the only one that held fast to the Abrahamic covenant during Israel’s stay in Egypt. 4 10 Midrash Aggada Num. 98.6-16; BaR 4.8, 12.7 and 15 (this passage reads: The Levites defiled themselves through the dead bodies of the worshippers of the golden calf — Exod. 32.26, seq. — and accordingly had to be purified). Comp vol. I, p. 320; vol. Ill, pp. 23 and 122. It was only through a miracle that the presence of all Israel at the consecration of the Levites was made possible. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 180. 4 1 1 WR 26.9; Koheleth 12.7; Ekah (terms ) 23.19. Comp. Aristeas 93. 4 1 a BaR 7.1, 4, 6; Mekilta Bahodesh 3, 64a, and 9, 71b; Sifre N., 1; WR 18.4; PR 7, 28a, and 15, 78b; Zohar II, 51b; Toratan shel Rishonim II, 26. Comp. vol. II, p. 374, vol. Ill, p. 78. 413 BaR 7.4-5; Tan. Mezora’ 4; Tan. B. Ill, 48-50; WR 17.3; Tosefta Nega'im 6.7; PRK 37a; Zohar III, 206a. Comp. vol. I, p. 112; vol. Ill, p. 259; vol. IV, p. 87. 04 Sifre N., 68; Sifre Z., 66-67; Pesahim 6a; Midrash Aggada Num. 1.1. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 107 and 356. os WR 21.7; PR 47, 189b-191b; PK 27, 176a-176b; Tehillim 10, 96; Yerushalmi Yoma 1, 39; Yelammedenu 49=BHM VI, 87, and in ‘Aruk, s. v. ffTT (this passage reads: The high-priest is greater than Michael; the latter pleads for Israel only with words, while the former intercedes in their behalf with deeds); Tan., quoted by Makiri on Prov. 24.6; an unknown Midrash cited in Imre No'am on Exod. 38.32 reads: Satan seized the high priest by the throat to prevent him from 78 Moses in the Wilderness [416-421 performing the service in the holy of holies. Comp, note 405- vol II, p. 226; vol. Ill, pp. 185, 210. «l6 WR 12.1 (end); but comp, note 405. It is, however, possible that the word in” in WR means: He revealed a law which referred exclusively to Aaron and his sons. Comp. Sifre Z. 48 and 108. 417 PK 4, 39a-39b, and 41b; PR 14, 46a-46b and 66a; Tan. B. IV, 117 and 120; Tan. Hukkat 8; BaR 12.15, 13.15, and 19.6; Batte Midrashot III, 8 (from Esfah?); Sifre N„ 44; Niddah 9a (bottom); \oma 57a (top), which reads: God dwells with the Israelites even when they are in a state of impurity (quoted as an answer given by a Rabbi to a polemical argument of a j’D, that is, a Judeo-Christian). See also Aggadat Shir 4, 37 (this passage reads: In the time to come God will remove the impurity of idolatry, unchastity, and bloodshed from Israel) ; Tosefta Parah 3.5, which reads: When the Israelites were exiled to Babylon, they took with them the ashes of the red heifer. The legend, found in Pahlavi literature (comp. R.E.J., 19, 51), that the Jews took with them to Babylon water and dust from Jerusalem is an inaccurate representation of the statement of the Tosefta. Shu'aib, Hukkat, 88c, quotes, from Mishnah Parah 3.5, the statement that the Messiah will furnish the tenth red heifer. But our texts of the Mishnah contain the remark that from Moses until the destruction of the Second Temple nine red heifers were furnished, one by Moses, etc. Nothing is, however, said about the red heifer in the time to come. 418 BaR 15.5-7; Tan. B. IV, 47-48; Tan. Beha'aloteka 4-5; comp. Shabbat 22b; ShR 35.23. 419 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 719 (beginning of Beha'aloteka), and Orehot Hayyirn I, 4b. Comp. BHM I, 134-135, and the following note, as well as vol. IV, pp. 36 and 6. 430 Midrash quoted in Or Zarua' I, 139, No. 321; Nahmanides on Num. 8.2. The passage quoted from Yelammedenu in Orehot Hayyim (comp, preceding note) very likely refers to the Hanukkah lights, and not to the lights in the Temple. Comp. BHM I, 135, and note 367. 431 Tan. B. Ill, 28-29; Tan. Shemini 8. For another legend concerning the candlestick, see vol. Ill, pp. 160-161. Comp, also vol. II, p. 362 with reference to the legend about the three things which God had to demonstrate to Moses. Sifre Z. 60-61, reads: God showed Moses the pattern of the candlestick four times; 1) when He showed him the patterns of all the sacred vessels; 2) when He made him watch Michael beat out the golden plates of the pattern (this is how the word 422-428] The Legends of the Jews irnoa is to be understood; this word is used instead of JJ’pID on account of the phrase nniD which is often quoted; comp. BR 3.9 and parallel passages cited by Theodor, ITPDD of MHG and the first edition of the Yalkut is a worthless reading); 3) He showed him the candlestick in the process of making; 4) when the candlestick was completed. See also quotation from Mekilta (R. Simon?) by Hadassi, Eshkol, 30a, Nos. 82, 338. 4” Rashi on Num. 1.1, based on an uknown midrashic source. Comp. BaR 1.10; Lekah Num. 2.1; vol. Ill, p. 146. 4*3 MHG Numbers I (in manuscript). 4 2 4 Midrash Aggada Num. 1.4-14 (the phrase DlPJ Dl1?’! “the small Nilus” is employed in contrast to "the great Euphrates;” comp. BR 16.3), and, in abridged form, Pa'aneah and Imre No' am on Num., toe. cit. As to Reuben’s repentance, see vol. II, p. 24. On Judah's confession of sin, see vol. II, p. 36. On Nahshon, see vol. Ill, p. 195. On Issachar and Zebulun, see vol. II, p. 144. On the explanations of the names of Elishama, Ammihud, Gamaliel, and Pedahzur, see also Tan. B. IV, 43; Haserot 49, and parallel passages cited by Buber on Tan. Concerning the meaning of the name Benjamin, see Midrash Aggada Num. 27.38; vol. I, p. 415. On the beauty of the women of Asher, see vol. II, p. 145; vol. Ill, p. 461. Concerning the tribes of Gad, see vol. IV, pp. 16-17 (□’^NyDI?’ is to be read instead of in Midrash Aggada). On the successful adversaries of Amalek, see vol. I, p. 369 and vol. Ill, pp. 57-58. On the sinful tribe of Dan, see vol. Ill, pp. 57 and 171. For other explanations of the names of the princes see Hadar, Num. 7.28, and Hasidim 438. 4 3 5 Lekah Num. 1.46. The taking of the census lasted only one day, the people and the leaders being equally anxious to carry out God 's command without delay; Lekah Num. 1.17. See vol. IV, p.23. 436 Pa'aneah on Gen. 49.2; Baal ha-Turim and Imre No' am on Num. 1.46. Lekah Num., loc. cit., on the contrary, maintains that this tribe consisted of males only. 43 7 BaR 1.12 and 3.7 which is very likely based on an old source, since Kalir in his piyyut )rVN for Shekalim, and Rashi on Num. 1.49 (Tan. Bemidbar 15, end, is not Rashi ’s source, as Berliner erroneously maintains), neither of whom was acquainted with BaR, made use of a source in which the tribe of Levi was described, as in BaR, as the body-guard (ira1?) of God. 4 3 ® PK 2, 20b; BaR 3.8; Tan. B. IV, 16-17; Tan. Bemidbar 16. Comp. vol. II, p. 122, and the note appertaining to it. 80 Moses in the Wilderness [429-440 ttt ^ 2’ 2°^ 21a’ 3-9 and ^'2; Tan- Bemidbar 16. Comp, vo * Z11- P- !4S. Aaron, though belonging to the tribe of Levi, was not included in the census of the Levites; ARN 34, 109, and parallel passages cited by Schechter. This is given as an explanation of the dots upon pnw (Num. 3.39). Comp. Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen, 9, seq. 430 PK 23> 154b-155a; WR 29.11; BaR 3.8; Tan. B. IV, 17-18Tan. Bemidbar 17; PRE 28 (in this passage we have instead of the seven worlds— see vol. I, p. 90 — the seven parts of the world, and the Holy Land is counted as the seventh); Tehillim 9, 86-87. For the praise of the “seven”, see also Philo, De Mun. Opif. 30, seq. Como Vol. V, p. 157, top; Index, s.v.“ Seven”. P' ,JI BaR 4-98- Comp. vol. I, p. 320; vol. Ill, p. 211. 434 Sanhedrin 17a and Yerushalmi 19c; Tan. B. IV 20-21Tan. Bemidbar 21;BaR 4.9-10; PK 2, 21a. Comp. voL III’ pp 94’ 230/249-250. PP‘ ’ 433 Sifre N., 63; Sifre Z., 62; Hullin 24a. 4 3 4 Ta'anit, Tosefta 4(3).2 and 2.1; Babli 27a; Yerushalmi 4, 67d-68a; Tehillim 1, 1; comp, also Sifre Z., 62. 4 3 3 BaR 6.1 and 8; Batte Midrashot IV, 35. Concerning the ark, see vol. Ill, pp. 157-158; Sifre Z., 192. In the latter passage the identity of the ark with the “angel of the Lord ” seems to be presupposed, comp, note 330. As to walking backwards while carrying the ark, see Yoma 53a. On the Levites being barefooted, see vol. V, p. 420, note 122. 436 BaR 7.6 and 8. 4 3 7 Yerushalmi Shabbat 10, 12c; BaR 4 (end); Batte Midrashot IV, 34; BHM III, 122. In the last source Aaron is also praised for his modesty, because he did not consider it beneath his dignity to remove the ashes from the altar; the last sentence is quoted from the Agur, a Midrash which is no longer extant; see Brull, Jahrbiicher, V, 98,’ and Gaster, Zeitschrift f. heh. Bibliographie X, 92-94. 438 Yerushalmi Shabbat 12, 13c; BaR 7.3 and 11. 4 3 9 BaR 2.3 and 8; Tan. B. IV, 11; Tan. Bemidbar 12; Shir 2.4 (quoted by Shu'aib, Bemidbar with numerous variants) and 6.11. On the number of angels who accompanied God on Sinai, see vol. Ill, pp. 49 and 227. On the instructions given by Jacob concerning the standards, see vol. II, p. 148. Comp, also Hadar, Exod. 13.17, which reads: They made use of the standards at the exodus from Egypt. 440 BaR 2.10 (here no reason is given for the statement that Reuben corresponds to Michael; but the reason is found in Targum 441-445] The Legends of the Jews Yerushalmi Num. 2.10); PR 46, 188a, here the text reads correctly b’tO’D nns, and not nt£>D nns, as BaR has it; BHM II, 39 (Michael in the front, Gabriel to the right), and VI, 49. In the last passage, as well as in the unknown Midrash quoted in Kimha Labishuna (on nvm, Minhah service of the Day of Atonement) the four Hayyot take the place of the four archangels. The identification of the Hayyot with the four archangels, Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel, was already known to the Gnostics; see Origen, Contra Celsum 6.30. In PRE 4 the order is: Michael to the right, Gabriel to the left, Uriel in front, and Raphael in the rear; comp, also Zohar III, 118b. An allegory of the old legend is to be found in ARN 43, 121, which reads: The throne of glory has four standards, righteousness, justice, grace, and truth. Concerning the three, or rather seven heads of the heavenly hierarchy see note 13 on vol. I, p. 54. The expression “Gabriel to the left” occurs also in Enoch 24.1, whereas according to Ascension of Isaiah 8.7, all “angels are to the left”. On the identity of Uriel with Suriel, see Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 35-37 and 245. Comp. Vol. V, p. 159, line 6 from bottom. BaR 2.10 and 3.12; Konen 38; PR 47, 188a-188b; BHM VI, 47; Kaneh 31d-32a. On Issachar, see vol. II, p. 144. On Reuben, see vol. II, p. 24. On Dan see vol. Ill, p. 57. As to the south being the blessed region, see vol. Ill, p. 160. Likkutim II, 2b-3b, and DZ 19, consider that the division of the twelve tribes corresponds to the twelve signs of the Zodiac. 4 1 2 Targum Yerushalmi Num. 2.3-25. Comp, the following note. 443 Kaneh 32b-32c; Midrash Aggada Num. 2.2; Yerahmeel 53, 149; Ziyyoni, Bemidbar (fragmentary); Imre No' am, Num. 10.34; Sabba, Bemidbar llOa-llOb; Al-Barceloni 8. Epstein, Mikkadmoniyyot 87-90, justly remarks that the Haggadah concerning the standards found in Targum Yerushalmi (see the preceding note) goes back to a source made use of by these medieval authors. Comp, also vol. Ill, pp. 237-238 and 243. in Sifre N., 84; Meleket ha-Mishkan 14, 83; Tan. B. IV, 12 (the short statements of the tannaitic sources are elaborated here); Midrash in Yalkut at the end of Exodus = Likkutim, 1 1 , 13b— 15b. Comp, also Yerushalmi ‘Erubin5, 22c; Yerahmeel 53, 151-152; vol III, p.243. ns Midrash in Yalkut I, 4:26 = Likkutim, II, 13b; Yerahmeel 53, 155-156. A different version of this legend is found in Yalkut I, 421 = Likkutim II, 13b. Comp. Tan. B. IV, 12; Tan. Bemidbar 12; Batte Midrashot III, 18; vol. Ill, pp. 53 and 288. The description 82 Moses in the Wilderness [446-448 of the camp as a square of twelve miles is already found in very old sources, see, e. g., Mekilta Bahodesh 2, 62b; 9, 71b, and in many other passages. Comp, note 210. 446 PR 10, 92a-92b; DR 7.11; Shir 4.11; Tehillim 23, 199-200; comp. vol. Ill, p. 109. Justin, Dialogue, 131, is acquainted with the legend concerning the miraculous growth of the garments.

4 4 7 BaR 2.7 ; Tan. B. IV, 12; Midrash Aggada Num. 2.2 (Issachar’s emblem was a donkey, that of Zebulun was a house); Yerahmeel 52, 153, where it is stated that Issachar’s emblem was a donkey, as in Midrash Aggada; Ziyyoni, Num. 1.1; Shu’aib Bemidbar, 74a; Imre No‘am at the end of Bemidbar. The old form of this legend, as given in Targum \ erushalmi Num. 2.3, seq., knows only of four insignia for the four main divisions of the camp, which are: Lion for Judah; manikin for Reuben (neither N^’rra of the editions, nor of the MS. is correct; read «'?na = wna, literally, “little son”); fish for Ephraim; serpent for Dan. These four images of animals are chosen in accordance with Gen. 48.16; 49.9, 17, where Judah is described as a lion, Dan as a serpent, Ephrain as a fish, while the manikin for Reuben owes its origin to the mandrakes found by Reuben, which looked like manikins; comp. Index, s. v. The later Haggadah could not resist the temptation of identifying the four insignia of the camp with the figures at the holy throne (comp. vol. Ill, p. 231, concerning the correspondence of the celestial divisions with the terrestial ones), and hence in Lekah Num. 2.2, seq., the eagle replaces the serpent. Epstein, Mikkadmoniyyot 87, seq., is to be corrected accordingly. Yerahmeel 53, 152-153, gives a lengthy exposition of the symbolic representations of the four elements by the four standards. Similar expositions in a somewhat abridged form are found in other writings of the Middle Ages; see Ziyyoni, loc. cit., and Epstein, loc. cit. As to the correspondence between the colors of the flags and those of the stones in the high priests 's breast-plate, to which the sources just quoted refer, see the description of these stones in vol. Ill, pp. 169-172. 448 Esfah in Yalkut I, 683. Comp, also BaR 13.8, where it is said: The tribes of Reuben, Simon and Levi preserved their family records, i. e., did not intermarry with those who were not of pure Jewish blood, and therefore Scripture describes their family trees separately from those of other tribes (Exod. 6. 14, seq.). Comp, note 6 on vol 1 1 , p. 189. The Gentiles said: “The Egyptians were the masters of the Hebrew men, how much more so of the Hebrew women!” God therefore commanded the angel who is appointed over pregnancy to make the Jewish child 83 449-452] The Legends of the Jews ren look like their fathers. No one doubted any longer the purity of the Jewish race; Shir 4.2; PK 10, 82b; BaR 9.154; comp, also BR 79 (end) and Kiddushin 70b. Comp. vol. V, p. 245, note 204. 449 WR 33.4-5; BaR 9.14; Tan B. Ill, 163; Tan. Emor 24; Targum Yerushalmi Lev. 29.10; comp, also BaR 3.6, which reads: Israel’s redemption from Egypt was rewarded for the chastity of the women, see also Zohar II, 4a; Sifre 24.10. 4 s o Yashar, Shemot, 133b. Another version of this legend is given in vol. II, p. 279; see also PRE 48 (here the wronged husband is described as belonging to the tribe of Levi), and note 7 on vol. II, p. 191. 4 s i WR 33.3; Tan. B. Ill, 162-163; Tan. Emor 23-24; Sifra, Lekah (cursed Moses!), and Tan. Yerushalmi on Lev. 24.11; Sabba1 (at the end of Emor). Zohar III, 106a, which is very likely based on a midrashic source (comp. Hadar, Da' at and Pa'aneah on Lev., loc. cit.), reads: The bastard attempted to cause the death of Moses by cursing him with the Name, and in this way to avenge his Egyptian father who had been killed by Moses in the same manner; see vol. II, p. 288. The secret of the bastard ’s descent was divulged in consequence of his quarrel with the Danites (comp, also Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 961, on Prov. 25), for Moses himself did not care to reveal family secrets (see Toesfta ‘Eduyyot, at the end), especially as bastards die young if their descent remains a secret; see Yerushalmi Yebamot 8, 9c-9d; WR 33.6-7; Wisdom 3.16 and 4.6. According to a later source (comp. Azulai, Petah ‘ Enayim on Yebamot 78a), the short-living of bastards dates only from the time of Ezra, who prayed to God to make the bastards die young, so that the purity of the Jewish people might be preserved. The mocking words of the bastard with reference to the law concerning the shewbread were without foundation. It is true that the loaves remained a whole week on the table; they were, however, as fresh at the end of the week as at the time they were taken from the oven; Menahot 29a. Comp. R1TBA (N'aD’l) on Yoma 21a. 452 sifre N„ 105, 113, 114, 133; Sifre Z., 103-105; Sifra 24.12; Shabbat 96b; Baba Batra 119b. To exculpate — partly at least — the father of the pious virgins (comp. vol. Ill, pp. 391, seq.), it is said that Zelophehad was willing to sacrifice his life that the people might learn by his death that the desecration of the Sabbath is a very grievous sin; comp. Targum Yerushalmi Num. 15.32-35 and Imre No‘am, at the end of Shelah who gives a Midrash, not Targum, as source for his statement. See also notes 813, 814. Philo, Moses, 2(3). 27— 28 84 Moses in the Wilderness [453-462 (which reads: They found Moses in the house of study; this is in agreement with Sifra), and Special. Leg., de Col. Par, 8, describes the episode of the Sabbath breaker in a manner similar to that found in rabbinic sources. According to Tosefta Yebamot 1.10, and parallel passages in Babli and Yerushalmi, the high-priestly family of Caiafas (ND’P, “ape") hailed from Bet Mekoshesh, “the house of the stickgatherer”. In view of the legend— undoubtedly Jewish— found in Koran 2.60, that Moses transformed the Sabbath breakers into apes, one is inclined to trace some connection between the Caiafas (“apes”) and their place of origin, “the house of the stick-gatherer ”, the &mpQ being the typical case of the Sabbath breaker. See note 790. <53 ER 26, 132; this is very likely the source of Mahzor Vitry, 637; Orehot Hayyim, 58d; Lekah and Imre No'am on Num. 15.38. 154 Sifra 24.12; comp, also the references to Philo and tannaitic Midrashim given in note 452. 463-471] The Legends of the Jews Targum Yerushalmi Num. 11.1; Kiddushin 75b; Yerushalmi Gittin 1, 43d (top); BR 95.4; Tan. B. IV, 60; Tan. Beha'aloteka 16 (the members of the Synhedrion were consumed by the fire=Sifre Z., loc. cit.); BaR 15.24. 463 PRE 52; Batte Midrashot, III, 30; comp. vol. I, p. 16.. . 4 6 ■* Sifre N., 86; Sifre Z., 194. 4 6 s PRE 53; Sifre Z., 80 and 194 (according to the second passage the fire disappeared in the same place where it broke out; the first passage is therefore a literal quotation from PRE, and not of tannaitic origin like the second); Sifre N., 85-86. Concerning the fire of the altar, see vol. Ill, p. 184. 4 66 Tan. Wa-Yishlah 2; Yalkut I, 732 (in this place the sources from which the extracts were taken are not described; the quotation from Sifre 86 closes with noipDS; the extract which follows it, up till nypP, is taken from PRE 53; the next passage is practically identical with Tan., loc. cit.; the closing remarks on the reason for the punishment by fire is found in Tan. B. IV, 60, though expressed in a somewhat different manner); Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 813. 467 Sifre N., 86; Sifre Z., 194. 4 6 8 Sifre N., 86-89; Sifre Z., 194-198; BaR 7.4; ShR 25.3. Concerning the manna, see details given in vol. Ill, pp. 44, seq., 334-335, and note 90. The rather obscure remarks of Tosefta Sotah 6.7 about the abundance of fish Israel enjoyed in Egypt are to be explained in accordance with the legend given in note 364. Comp, also DZ 19. A very interesting conversation between R. Meshullam (ben Kalonymos) and an Arabian prince about the ingratitude of the Israelites, who complained about the heavenly gift of manna, is recorded in Sabba‘, Beha'aloteka, 116b. 469 Sifre N., 87 and 90; Sifre Z., 195 and 198-199; Shabbat 130a; Yoma 75a; Yerushalmi Ta'anit 4, 68d; BaR 15.24; Tan. B. IV, 61; Tan. Beha'aloteka 16; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 11.5 and 10. In Mekilta RS 26, Djn is taken in its literal sense: they did not wish to use their cattle for food, and desired to receive meat like bread — manna — for nothing. 4 70 Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 13.1. The tannaitic sources maintain that Num. 11.7 is to be taken as the protest of Scripture against the slanderous words of Israel in the preceding verse; see Sifre N., 88; Sifre Z., 195; Tosefta Sotah 9.2. Josephus makes one of the people utter the protest! 4 7 1 Sifre N., 90; Sifre Z., 199; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 11.12-15. 86 Moses in the Wilderness [472-477 471 Tan. B. IV, 60-61; Tan. Beha'aloteka 16; BaR 15.24; quotation from an unknown Midrash in Yalkut I, 732 (on the source of Yalkut, see note 466). Comp.vol. Ill, pp. 123 and 188. According to BaR 13.20, the elders appointed by Moses were the same men who, braving all danger, accompanied him on his first visit to Pharaoh’s court. For the opposite view see vol. II pp. 330-331. The explanation of Exod. 24.2 in Lekah agrees with the view of Ephraem I, 223A, according to which the elders received their prophetic gift not at Sinai, but later when Moses appointed them. Concerning the death of the elders by the fire from heaven at Tabera, see reference in note 462. 473 Tan. B. IV, 61; Tan. Beha'aloteka 16; 15.25. 4 7 4 Tan. B. IV, 58; Tan. Beha'aloteka 13; BaR 15.20; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 11.16; Sifre N., 92; Sifre Z., 200. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 193. 4 7 5 Sifre N., 92; Sifre Z., 200. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 340. 476 Midrashic fragment (Esfah?) published by Buber, from a Vatican MS., in the Hebrew periodical Keneset Israel (1885), 309, seq., and thence by Chones, in his supplement to Rab Pe‘ alim, 149-150. Comp. Sifre N. 95; Sifre Z., 201—202; Sahnhedrin 17a and Yerushalmi 1, 19c; Tan. B. IV, 56-57; Tan. Beha'aloteka 12; BaR 15.19. Comp, vol. Ill, p. 227. The Vatican fragment made use of some, and perhaps of all, the sources just quoted. 477 Esfah in Yalkut I, 736, where two lists of names are given; a third list is found in the fragment quoted in the preceding note. But none of the lists has been carefully preserved, as quite a considerable number of names is corrupt. Despite the corrupt state of the texts, one easily recognizes the principle guiding the authors in the selection of the names. The elders of each tribe bear names which are found in Scripture to have been borne by persons belonging to that particular tribe; comp.,e. g., the names of the six elders of the tribe of Simeon with Gen. 46.10 and Num. 25.14. In view of this fact, it is safe to assume that iTJJ3 is to be read instead of rnjn, since the former name is that of a Levite (see 1 Chron. 15.22), but not the latter. A fourth list of names of the elders is found in Mahzor Vitry 388, giving as his authority a responsum of R. Nissim (flourished in North Africa at the beginning of the eleventh century), which enumerates the names of the seventyeight pious men (he counts six elders for each tribe, and adds Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Eliezer, Ithamar, and Phineas) who wrote the section of Haazinu ( = Deut. 32.1-43) in Scripture. It is hard to say anything definitely as to the meaning of “the writing of Haazinu”, but there 87 478-482] The Legends of the Jews can be no doubt that seventy-two of these seventy-eight pious men are meant to stand for the seventy-two elders appointed by Moses. See also Aristeas 47-50, which gives a list of the seventy-two elders who translated the Scripture into Greek. In Esfah (both lists), among the elders of the tribe of Benjamin, there is one named 3N3D or 3N’:D, for which nNUD or ntUD is to be read in accordance with Nehem. 11.9 and 1 Chron. 9.7. The tannaitic sources also call a Benjamite family "the sons of nKlD”; comp., e. g., Ta'anit 4.5. 478 Esfah in Yalkut I, 737. As to this tent, see vol. Ill, p. 177, and note 369. 479 Sifre Z., 200-201 (it was one of the ten times that God descended upon earth; comp, notes 260 and 919); Sifre N., 93; Tan. B. IV, 57-58 and 61; Tan. Beha'aloteka 12 and 16; BaR 15.19, and 25, as well as 13.20; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 11.23. That the gift of prophecy conferred upon the elders remained with them until the end of their days, is asserted by Onkelos and Targum Yerushalmi Num. 11.25, whereas Sifre, loc.cit., gives a different opinion. See vol. Ill, p. 252. The likening of Moses to a burning candle from which many others are kindled occurs not only in the Midrashim just quoted, but also in Philo De Gigantibus 6, from which Theodoretus, Num. 11.17, may have borrowed it. In the philosophic literature of the Middle Ages this figure of speech is of frequent occurrence with reference to the wise and their disciples; see, e. g., Tikkun Middot ha-Nefesh 5.2, Musare ha-Pilosofim 3.2 and 6.9. Comp, also Sifre Z., 163, and Aphraates, 122. 480 Tan. B. IV, 51-54, which also gives the conflicting view that not even David made use of the trumpets, neither of those fashioned by Moses nor of any others; Tan. Beha'aloteka 9-10; BaR 15.15-16; Koheleth 8.8; Menahot 28b; BR 96.3; Sifre N. 75; Z„ 70. A detailed description of these trumpets and the music produced by them is given in Sifre N., 72-74; Sifre Z., 70-73; Yerahmeel 53, 151-152. 481 Tan. B. IV, 57; Tan. Beha'aloteka 12; BaR 15.19 (here Eldad and Medad are identified with Elidad and Samuel mentioned in Num. 34.20-21; but comp. vol. Ill, p. 253). See also Sifre N., 95; Sifre Z„ 8 and 201-202; Sanhedrin 17a and Yerushalmi 1, 19c; note 476. As to the great piety of these two prophets, see vol. IV, p. 158. According to BaR 3.7, they survived Joshua. 483 BaR 15.19; Tan.B. IV, 57; Tan. Beha'aloteka 12; Yerushalmi Targumim Num. 11.26 (with regard to the punishment of the people of Magog, it is said here that a fire from under the holy throne will 88 Moses in the Wilderness [483-484 descend and consume their souls, leaving their bodies unimpaired. Comp, note 59 on vol. IV, p. 269, and Index, s. v. “Souls, Burning of”); Sifre N., 95; Sifre Z., 202; Sanhedrin 17a, and Yerushalmi 1, 19c. According to ps. -Philo 20.5, the prophecy of Eldad and Medad read: After that Moses resteth, the captaincy of Moses shall be given unto Joshua the son of Nun. This is in harmony with the tannaitic Midrashim quoted above, and Ephraem I, 25 7E, who know nothing of the prophecy referring to the time to come. Hermae Pastor, 2.3, quotes from the Book of Eldad and Medad who prophesied to the people in the wilderness as follows: “Nigh is the Lord to them that repent”. Comp. Ps. 145.18. In the Stichometry of Nicephorus the writing of Eldad and Medad occupied four hundred stichoi. Comp. Schiirer, Gecshichte (4th edition), III, 360-361. See also note 484. 4*3 BaR 15.19; Tan. B. IV, 57; Tan. Beha'aloteka 12; Sifre N., 96; Sifre Z., 202-203; Yerushalmi Targumim Num. 11.28, which read: Prevent the prophetic spirit from resting upon them (on the text see Shu‘aib, ad loc., who quotes from Targum Yerushalmi mi ]iniD y:D ttenp); Sanhedrin 17a(which reads: Appoint them to offices, and they will die a premature death). Comp, above, note 278, and note 57 on vol. IV, p. 17. 484 Hadar, Da' at, Pa'aneah, and Shu'aib on Num. 11.26; ps.Jerome on 1 Chron. 4.17. A certain R. Hillel, who flourished at the end of the twelfth century, visited the Holy Land, where he found the following inscription on the tomb of these prophets: “ Brothers of Aaron on the paternal side, but not on the maternal.” See the rabbinic sources quoted at the beginning of this note. Targum Yerushalmi Num. 11.26, on the contrary, maintains that Eldad and Medad were the sons of Jochebed and Elizaphan the son of Parnach (Num. 34.25), whom she married after she had been divorced from Amram (see vol. II, p. 262), shortly before the birth of Moses. It is very strange that Targum makes Amram re-marry Jochebed after she had been married to someone else, which is explicitly forbidden by the law (see Deut. 24.4). Yahya, Shalshelet, 13a, quotes, from PRE and Rashi on Chron., the statement found in Targum Yerushalmi, that Jochebed was the mother of Eldad and Medad. It is hard to believe that Yahya 's references are correctly cited, as it is unlikely that his texts of PRE and Rashi differed from ours. If it is not a slip of the pen, it is all the worse for that author, who purposely quotes wrong authorities to make a strange statement acceptable! R. Nissim, quoted in Imre No‘am 89 485-490] The Legends of the Jews Mass' e at the end, identifies Eldad with Elidad; comp, note 481, and Beer, Monatsschrift VI, 643-650. <8s Sifre N., 95; Sifre D., 31; Sifre Z., 201 (mi 13 3 means “excuse”, from 1133 “to be free from doing a thing”); Tosefta Sotah 6.6. This legend is an attempt to exculpate Moses of the sin of doubting God’s omnipotence, as expressed in his words in Num. 11.21. He never doubted that God was able to send down meat to “suffice” their bodily desires; but knowing the consequeces of their foolish desire, he argued with God that it would not be for the people’s real benefit to have their desire gratified. See also Tehillim 23, 199, and R. Nissim quoted in Imre No1 am on Num., loc. cit. Philo Quis Rer. Div. Haeres Sit, 5, likewise has some difficulty in explaining the audacious words of Moses as recorded in Num., loc. cit., and similar passages of Scripture. See also Ephraem I, 257, and Theodoretus, Num., loc. cit. 486 Sifre N., 97-98; Sifre Z., 81 and 201; Tosefta Sotah 4.4; Mekilta Wa-Yassa' 3.48b; Mekita RS 76-77; comp. vol. Ill, pp. 4950. Pa‘ aneah on Num. 11.33 quotes Tehillim (not found in our text) to the effect that those only were punished who asked for meat to satisfy their gluttony, but not the sick and weak who needed meat for their sustenance. See also Targum Yerushalmi Num. 11.31-33. 487 Targum Yerushalmi Num. 11.31; Yoma 75b. 4 s 8 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 738; Hashkem 17b; Sifre N., 99; Sifre Z., 81-82 and 203-204; ARN 9, 39; Tan. Ill, 46; Tan. Zaw 13. In all these passages and in many others (comp., e. g., Mo'ed Katan 17b; Tehillim 9, 70 and 72; 2 Targum Yerushalmi Num. 12.1; 2 ARN 43, 122; see also Theodoretus on Num., loc. cit.) it is assumed that the “Cushite woman ’’spoken of in Num., loc. cit., refers to Zipporah, “who was distinguished for her beauty and piety as the Cushite — Ethiopian — is distinguished for his dark color.” But Targum Yerushalmi Num., loc. cit., finds in this biblical verse an allusion to the “queen of the Ethiopians whom Moses was forced to marry while fleeing from Pharaoh.” Comp, note 80 on vol. II, p. 289. 489 ARN 11, 39-40; Hashkem 18a; Sifre N., 100 (the dissenting view is given here that they only spoke evil of Moses among themselves, but never in his presence; see vol. II, p. 7, with regard to Joseph’s attitude toward his brethren; comp, further vol. Ill, p. 262); Sifre Z., 82. See also the references given in the preceding note. On Moses’ continence, see vol. II, p. 316; vol. Ill, pp. 107, 258, and 394-395. Comp, also ARN 2, 9-10. 4 90 Esfah in Yalkut I, 739; Sifre N., 101 (the dissenting view is 90 Moses in the Wilderness [491-495 given here that the three patriarchs surpassed Moses in meekness; comp., however, Hullin 89a, and Philo, De Ebrietate, 23, who appraise Moses higher than the patriarchs, see also note 961) ; Sifre Z., 82-83 ; ARN 9, 41, and 12, 51-52. In the last passage the humility of the angels is described as the ideal type ; this is in agreement with the view given in the tannaitic Midrashim just quoted. See also Midrash Aggada Num. 12.3. The legend concerning Moses’ meekness, quoted from Ayyumah Kannidgalot in note 310, is partly found in Hadar, Num. 12.3. This passage also states that on this occasion only did Moses forsake his great virtue, when he said to the multitude clamoring for water: “Are we to bring you forth water out of this rock?” (Num. 20.10). He spoke as though he and Aaron could make the water flow from the rock, whereas they only acted as God’s messengers. Comp, note 613. 491 Sifre N„ 102; Sifre Z„ 83; Tan. B. Ill, 46; Tan. Zaw 13; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 738 and Esfah (?), ibid, 739. Comp. vol. II, p. 328. 492 Sifre Z., 83-84; Sifre N., 102; Esfah in Yalkut I, 739; Zohar III, 3a. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 108. 493 Sifre Z., 84; Sifre N., 103 (two views are given here with regard to the interpretation of Num. 12.7, whether “the house of God” includes or excludes the angels; comp, also Midrash Aggada, beginning, on Moses’ superiority to the angels); Esfah in Yalkut I, 739 ('?'« = O’^DH l1? nDK). Comp. vol. Ill, p. 107, and note 489 (end). For the proverb concerning the thief and the receiver, see also Kiddushin 56b, which reads: Not the mouse is the thief, but the hole where the stolen thing is hidden. 494 Sifre N., 104-105; Sifre Z., 84-85; Shabbt 97a; Tan. B. Ill, 46; Tan. Zaw 13; ARN 9.39. Concerning leprosy as a punishment for slander, see vol. Ill, p. 214. Comp, also PRE 45 (on the text see Batte Midrashot, III, 32-33), which reads: There is no cure for him who slanders his fellow-man; how great then should be the punishment of him who slanders his brothers! 4 9 s Sifre Z., 85 and 87; Sifre N., 105; ARN 39-40; Midrash Aggada Num. 12.10. The question why Aaron was not punished like his sister was raised by Irenaeus, Fragmenta, 32, and his answer is similar to that of of the Rabbis. The view that Aaron became leprous for a brief moment is not shared by all authorities; see the sources quoted in note 494, where it is asserted that Aaron was not punished at all. Comp, also PRE 45 (on the text see Batte Midrashot III, 32 and Sifre Z. . 85), which remarks: Aaron was not punished with leprosy, 91 496-503] The Legends of the Jews for if he were he would not have been able to perform his priestly functions. «’6 Sifre N., 105; Sifre Z., 85-86; ARN 9, 41; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 12.12, which is followed by Midrash Aggada, adloc. (nD3=^DJ). Concerning the idea that leprosy is equal to death, see vol. I, p. 364 and vol. Ill, p. 190. 497 ARN 9, 41 (on the drawing of the circle, see note 895); DR 6.13; Sifre N., 105-106; Sifre Z., 87; Berakot 32a and 34b; Zebahim 102a-102b; WR 15.8; Zohar I, 24b. See also Tosafot on Baba Batra 111a (catchword l'p), and R. Bezalel Ashkenazi TID^m ’^D, Marx’ edition, 188, where the quotation from Sifre (loc. cit.l) reads bp irDl I^D1? mm. The king and high priest is God, and not Moses, as the Tosafists maintain. Comp. Sanhedrin 39a, where God is described as priest. 4’8 Sifre N., 106; Sifre D., 275 (it is said here that they did not put down their tents until Miriam appeared); Sifre Z., 87 and 203; Sotah 1.9; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 1.15-16, and second version 13.1; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 742. Concerning the mode of procedure in breaking up the camp, see vol. Ill, p. 235. 4 9 9 Midrash Tannaim 157; Sifre N., 99; ARN 9, 40 (second version 42, 116). Comp, note 489. 5 0 0 BaR 16.6; Tan. B. IV., 64; Tan. Shelah 5; ARN 9, 39; Likkutim, IV, 28b-29a. s 01 Sifre D., 20; Midrash Tannaim 11. Comp, also ER 29, 144, and Sifre N., 136. s"3 Midrash Tannaim 11; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 743, as well as in 'Aruk, s. v. ’JDtD and (comp. Likkutim, IV, 28a-28b); BaR 16.7; Tan. B. IV, 64-65; Tan. Shelah 5. s°3 Sifre D., 20; Midrash Tannaim 11-12; ER 29, 144; BaR 16.8; Tan. B. IV, 65; Tan. Shelah 5. Philo, Vita Mosis, 1.40-41, likewise dwells upon the fact that the sending of the spies was due to the initiative of Moses, and was not by a command from God. The same view is shared by Josephus, Antiqui., XII, 14.1, who gives the address delivered by Moses to the people, in which he explains to them his plan to send spies. The contradiction between Num. 13.2 and Deut 1.22-23 was noticed by the Rabbis, who reconciled these verses, whereas Philo and Josephus ignore the passage in Num. It is noteworthy that ps- Philo, 15.1, takes the trouble to state explicitly that “Moses sent spies to spy out the land, for so was it commanded him.” Reference is frequently made to the piety, wisdom, and high position of the spies; 92 Moses in the Wilderness [504-511 see Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 743; BaR 16.5 (where it is stated that the spies were selected by Moses and the people on account of their piety, and God approved of the selection); Tan. B. IV, 64; Tan. Shelah 4; Philo, Moses, 1.41; Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 4.2; quotation from an unknown Midrash in Imre No'am on Exod. 28.12. 504 Zohar III, 158a, which is the source for Yalkut Reubeni, Num. 13.17 (the reference to Targum is very likely a printer’s error); comp, also BaR 16.1 (end), where O’yEHlYI means “they became wicked”, and not “they were wicked”, as maybe seen from the statement ibid. 16. 5, and in the other sources cited in the preceding note. 505 Midrash Aggada Num. 13.4; Tan. Haazinu 7. Comp. Sotah 34b; BaR 16.10; Tan. B. IV, 64-66. Concerning the name of Joshua, see Ecclesiasticus 46.1, as well as Matthew 1.21; Justin, Dialogue, 113, and Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos, 9. The Christian writers apply to Jesus ( = Joshua) the son of Joseph what the Jewish Haggadah claims for Joshua the son of Nun. so< Likkutim, II, 20c; BR 46.1; ShR 6.1; WR 19.2; Shir 5.11; Tan. Korah 12. s°7 Tan. B. IV, 66; Tan. Shelah 6; BaR 16.12; ER 29, 144; Sotah 33b; Yelammedenu in ‘ Aruk, s. v. Din; Lekah and Pa'aneah on Num. 13.17; Sifre D., 22; Midrash Tannaim 12. 508 Baba Batra 15a-15b. Comp, the following note and Index, s. v. “Job”. 5 0 9 Sotah 35a. Wherever the spies came they met mourners, for all the people mourned for Job. But not being acquainted with the real reason of this general mourning, the spies exclaimed: “This is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof” ibid. ; comp, also vol. Ill, p. 278. According to Yalkut David Num. 13.32, it was the custom of the Amorites to delay the burial of a pious man a long time, and then bury a number of other men with him in the same coffin, in order that “the merits of the pious may protect the other men.” When the spies saw the numerous corpses buried at the same time (they were all buried with Job), they thought that Palestine was a land that “eateth up the inhabitants thereof ”. See also the midrashic fragment published by Schechter in Semitic Studies, 494, and Lekah, Num., loc.

cit. 510 Seder ‘Olam 8; Ta'anit 29a; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 13.21. Comp. Ratner on Seder ‘Olam. Concerning the identity of Paran with Kadesh, see Lekah, Num. 13.18; Sa'adya Gaon, Emunot we-De'ot 3,92. 511 BaR 16.12-13; Tan. B. IV, 66-67; Tan. Shelah 6 and 8; 512-519] The Legends of the Jews Sotah 34b; Sifre D., 37. On the plague which raged in Palestine during the visit of the spies, see note 509, and vol. Ill, p. 278. 513 Sotah 34b; BaR 16.11; Tan. B. IV, 66; Tan. Shelah 7; Midrash Aggada Num. 13.22. Concerning the giants, see vol. I, pp. 25 and 151; vol. Ill, pp. 269, 340. On the “throwing up of plots from the ground”, see vol. II, p. 106. s 1 3 Midrashic fragment published by Schechter in Semitic Studies 492; comp. Hadar and Pa'aneah, Num. 13.2 and 28 as well as Gaster, Exempla, 321. On the gigantic statures of the spies, see Sotah 10b. 514 ER 29, 144-145. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 266, 273-274; vol. IV, pp. 9-10. 515 Zohar III, 160b; R. Bahya on Num. 13.7. The latter did not draw upon Zohar, but upon midrashic sources, as he explicitly states, and it is very likely that Zohar made use of the same source. Comp, also Rashi and Midrash Aggada, Num. 13.33. According to Mekilta Shirah 9, 43a, the spies remained undetected through a miracle: if anybody wanted to betray them, he was rendered as “still as a stone ”, that is, dumb. Ps. -Philo, 15.2, speaks of another miracle, which was performed for the spies. He writes: “For they (i. e., the spies) saw how that as they went up, the lightning of the stars shone, and the thunders followed, sounding with them.” Does this mean that the spies journeyed by night by the supernatural light of the stars which shone for them? 516 Sotah 35a. See the opposite view in vol. Ill, p. 274. 5,7 Sotah 34b; Zohar III, 158b-159a. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 264; Sotah 35a (top). 518 Yerushalmi Sotah 7, 21d; Babli 34a; PR 27, 132a; BaR 16.14 and 16; Tan. B. IV, 67-68; Tan. Shelah 8-9; Philo, Vita Mosis, 1.41-42. According to another view, none of the spies, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, was able to carry the vine. See the passage quoted by R. Bahya from a Midrash, Num. 13.23 (from Yelammedenu? See Likkutim, IV, 29b); Zohar III, 160b. 519 Shir 4.13, which gives also the dissenting view, according to which the wine required for the libations came from the vines growing around Miriam's well. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 3. Targum Song of Songs 1.14 maintains that the wine for the libations came from En-Gedi. In tannaitic literature we meet with the view that the Israelites brought no sacrifices whatsoever during their journey through the wilderness; see Sifre N., 67 ; Sifre Z., 66, and the parallel passages given by Horovitz (the first edition of Yalkut I, 555, has nsD correctly, and not NDH 'D 94 Moses in the Wilderness [520-527 as in later editions; Horovitz is to be corrected accordingly); Hagigah 6b. There is also a view that the Israelites in the wilderness were not permitted to partake of any meat except of a sacrifice; see Sifre D., 7 5 ; Hullin 16b-l 7d. As to the public sacrifices (immiaip) , it is said in the tannaitic Midrashim just quoted that they were taken care of by the Levites, with the assistance of the few pious men of the other tribes. sao BaR 16.16; Tan. B. IV, 68; Tan. Shelah 8. Concerning “the leaping of earth”, or to be accurate, the contracting of the earth, see note 287 on vol. I, p. 294. The extent of the Holy Land is four hundred parasangs in length by four hundred parasangs in width; see, e. g., Megillah 3b and Baba Kamma 82b. 5 1 1 ER 29, 145. Concerning the measurement of the camp, see note 445, and vol. Ill, p. 473. Instead of the enormous size of the house of study, Aggadat Shir 2, 32, (read TTDOa = )Sr\1D n’33 and comp. Schechter ad loci) refers to the supernatural strength of Moses’ voice which carried for twelve miles, from the house of study to the end of the camp. Concerning Moses’ voice, see note 201 and note 228 on vol. II, p. 370. *** Sotah 35a; BaR 16.17; Tan. B. IV, 68; Tan. Shelah 8; Lekah Num. 13.25-27 (based, in the main, on Ketubot 111b); Yelammedenu in ‘ Aruk, s. v. nps =Likkutim , IV, 29b. 523 Midrash Aggada Num. 13.28. For the opposite view see vol. Ill, pp. 268 and 273-274. Concerning Caleb’s visit to Hebron, see vol. Ill, p. 270. 5 24 Midrash quoted by R. Bahya on Num. 13.22; Zohar III, 159a. 525 BaR 16.18; Tan. B. IV, 68; Tan. Shelah 89; Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk, s. v. ~ibd 4; Zohar III, 162a. On Amalek, see Lekah Num. 13.29; vol. Ill, pp. 55-56. 526 Sotah 35 (tty’Dp P’"i “headless” i. e., a fool; comp. ShR 41.7, which has the expression N’-|N12£ 'y'Xp; on Joshua’s lack of intelligence, see Index, s. v.); BaR 16.19; Tan. B. IV, 68; Tan. Shelah 10. Joshua died childless (according to Megillah 14b however, he had daughters, but no sons) as a punishment for his audacity in giving advice to Moses, without having been asked for it (comp. vol. Ill, p. 253). According to others, he was punished for having kept the army in camp one night more than was necessary, thus preventing the men from joining their wives; comp. ‘Erubin 63a-63b; Comp, note 847. On “son of Amram”, see note 163. 527 Aggadat Shir 6, 41 and 88-89; a doublet of this legend is found in vol. Ill, p. 269. The text of Aggadat Shir is badly corrupted; 95 528-539] The Legends of the Jews read: •DnN...inDNE> m3 vb" ^’3P3 DDN3 HD1? DPI1? 1DN.. .11301 On Caleb’s mighty voice, see vol. Ill, p. 440. 538 Sotah 35a; Tan. B. IV, 66; Tan. Shelah 7 and Mass'e 4; BaR 16.11; Yerushalmi Ta'anit 6, 68d. Comp. Geiger, Kebuzzat Maamarim, 47, and Ginzberg in supplement to Geiger, 383-384. 539 Tan. B. IV, 66; Tan. Shelah 7; BaR 16.11. For the opposite view see vol. Ill, p. 70. 530 Tan. Mass'e 4; BaR 23.6. Comp, also Yerushalmi Ma'aserot 1, 48d, and Ta'anit 4, 68d. The last passage reads: When the spies returned to the camp they found Moses and Aaron instructing the people in the laws of Hallah and Orlah. Whereupon they remarked to them mockingly: “Ye have not entered the promised land; why then do ye trouble yourselves about laws which are to be observed in the Holy Land only?” Comp. Hallah 2.1. 531 Tan. B. IV, 84; BaR 16.3; Sifre D., 24; Midrash Tannaim 12. 533 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 743 on Num. 14.1, as well as in ‘Aruk, s. v. 131 2 = Likkutim, IV, 29b-30b; midrashic fragment published by Schechter in Semitic Studies, 492. Comp, also Sifre D., 24. On the text of Yelammedenu, see Epstein in Ha-Eshkol VI, 209-210. It is, however, best to read: '131 DlW? nVlD’ D’D bv DON1? ^>113 17)113 Comp. PR 20, 97, and accordingly 'I3mil3 = '13 nmto. See also the legend about the giants at the time,of the flood, vol. I, p. 159. On the “night of weeping”, see Sotah 35a; Ta'anit 29a; Yerushalmi 4,68d; Tan. B. IV, 690; Tan. Shelah 12; BaR 16.20; ER 29, 145; Ekah 1.60-61; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 14.1; Jerome on Zech. 8.18-19. Comp, sources quoted note 510. 333 Tehillim 106, 455; comp. Index, s. v. “ Dathan and Abiram.” 5 3 4 Midrash Tannaim 1-2. Comp, also Alphabet of R. Akiba 47 ('i). 3 3 5 Lekah Num 14.2-9. On the fall of the guardian angel, see notes 41, 670. 336 BaR 16.21; Tan. B. IV, 69; Tan. Shelah 12. 337 Sifre D., 24-25; Midrash Tannaim 12. 338 BaR 16.21; Tan. B. IV, 69; Tan. Shelah 12; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 743 on Num. 14. 1 ; Sotah 35a (where it is said that the cloud caught up the stones thrown at Moses and Aaron); ER 29, 144. The Talmud, and very likely also the Midrashim just quoted, presuppose that the Israelites, in their wrath against God, threw the stones towards the clouds. 3 3 9 Tan. B. IV, 75-78; Tan. Shelah 13; BaR 16.24; Makiri, Ps. 06 Moses in the Wilderness [540-546 82, 56 (quoting Tan. B. loc. cit.) and 78, 26. On the loam of the Red Sea, see ShR 24.1. See also the opposite view in vol. Ill, p. 22. On the manna, see vol. Ill, pp. 44, and 246. On the plague raging in Palestine during the visit of the spies, see vol. Ill, p. 267; comp. Yerushalmi Ta‘anit4, 68a. Concerning the Torah as a weapon against the Angel of Death, see vol. Ill, pp. 107 and 120. The explanation of Ps. 82.6, as referring to the “generation of the wilderness” who received the Torah, is found also in John 10.34-35. Comp. Likkutim IV, 31a-31b. s 40 DR 5.13; Yelammedenuin Yalkut 1, 743 on Num. 13.1. The promise of a blessing by God, even if made conditionally, is always fulfilled; Moses became the ancestor of a clan numbering six hundred thousand men, corresponding to the number of Israel at the time of the exodus; thus the promise made to Moses, “ I will make of thee a great nation ”, was fulfilled. See Berakot 7a; Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 24.10; BaR 16.25; Tan. B. IV, 79; comp, note 55 on vol, IV, p. 317. 541 Lekah Num. 14.13-15. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 126. Moses' prayer for Israel, which stayed the decree of annihilation from being executed against them, in connection with the worship of the golden calf, is made use of by the Haggadah for his intercession in connection with the slander of the Holy Land by the spies. S4j BaR 16.25; Tan. B. IV, 78; Berakot 32a. Concerning Lilith, see vol. I, p. 65. 543 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 743, on Num. 14, and II, 507, on Job 17; PK 16, 166a-167b; Likkutim, IV, 32b-33a. The special virtues of the patriarchs and other persons of biblical times, distinguished for their piety, are: Abraham was very zealous for the observance of the Abrahamic covenant; Isaac excelled in prayer; Jacob was famed for his truth; Joseph for his chastity (but perhaps rciTDn in this passage means “lovingkindness”; comp, note 3 on vol. II, p. 4 where Joseph is designated as TDn); Moses was distinguished for his modesty; Aaron for his love of peace; Phineas for his zeal for God. Comp, also the geonic (?) piyyut "D*TN KJom in the Sefardic and cognate liturgies. *44 Tan. B. IV, 81; BaR 16.22 and 28; DR 5.13; PK 26, 166a167a; ER 29, 144. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 115-116. S4S DR 5.13; BaR 26.25; Yelammedenu in Likkutim, IV, 33a (bottom); Tan. B. IV, 70; Tan. Shelahl3; Berakot 32a. s 4 6 BaR 16.23 and 3.7; Tan. B. IV, 70-71 (read at bottom of 70: D3D’: ) ; Tan. Shelah 13; Baba Batra 121b; Esfah (?) in Batte Midrashot III, 8. According to the old Halakah, one becomes of age at twenty "7 547-552] The Legends of the Jews years, see vol. Ill, p. 300, and note 69 on vol. I, p. 326, and this is the reason for the statement in Baba Batra, loc. cit. But the Midrashim do not accept this view of the old Halakah. This explains the difference between the Talmud and the Midrashim, quoted above, with regard to the punishment of the men below twenty. As to women being free from this punishment, see Tehillim 1, 13-14, and vol. Ill, p. 398. 547 Yerushalmi Ta'anit 4, 69c, and Babli 30b; Baba Batra 121a1 2 lb ; Ekah (ttflirns) 23. 36-37; Shemuel (end); Tehillim 78, 348; Lekah Num. 14.23. With the exception of the two last-mentioned sources, the other passages give many other reasons for the origin of the festival of the fifteenth of Ab. — When God decreed the death of these sinners He at the same time also decreed that Israel should in the future be exiled into foreign lands, so that “all the earth be filled with the glory of the Lord.’’ See Lekah Num. 14.22. Israel was severely punished for the slanderous report of the spies, in accordance with the gravity of the sin; for slander is the most abominable sin. See Midrash Tannaim 140; ‘Arakin 15a; vol. Ill, pp. 261-262. 5 4 8 Yebamot 72a (it is said in this passage that the blowing of the north wind is a sign of God ’s grace, and hence it did not blow in the years of His displeasure, except at the moment of midnight, which is “the acceptable time”; comp. vol. I, p. 12); PK 5, 50b; Shir 2.13. Comp. vol. IV, p. 7. SeealsoSifra 1.1 ; Mekilta Bo (KniTHE)), 2a (bottom) and the references given in note 550. 549 Sifre Num. 67; Zebahim 115a-115b; Mo'ed Katan 15b. Comp, above note 519. 5 5 0 Mekilta Bo 1, 2a-2b; Sifra 1.1; Ta'anit 30b, and Yerushalmi 3, 66c. According to MHG I, 673, Moses spent these years of God’s displeasure in mourning for Israel ’s severe chastisement. His dejected spirit was the cause of his not receiving divine revelations during this period, since the Shekinah dwells only on those whose spirit is joyful. Comp. vol. II, p. 116, and the note appertaining to it. A similar statement was very likely to be found in ER 29, 145, where the text after rO!P"'jmN bo is incomplete. As to the conception that Moses and all the other prophets owed their distinction to Israel, see vol. Ill, pp. 51 (end) and 125. 55 1 Sifre N., 135, and Sifre D., 29; Midrash Tannaim 17; Mekilta Amalek 2, 55a. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 317. 553 Sotah 35a (here also we have the dissenting view that they died of croup); Koheleth 9.12, which reads: They died because the members of their bodies fell apart. Comp, also Acts 12.23, where 98 Moses in the Wilderness [553-563 it is said that Herod was eaten up by worms as a punishment for his blasphemy. The same death overtook the blasphemer Antiochus IVsee 2 Maccabees 9.9. 553 Baba Batra 117b; comp. Tan. B. IV, 65; BaR 16.9, which says: Joshua took the reward of the spies. 554 Yerushalmi Kiddushin 1, 59c. Comp, note 325. sss Midrash Aggada Num. 14.25. ,Si6 Tan- B- Iv> 81-82; BaR 17.3; Likkutim IV, 35b-36b. According to some authorities, the Israelites were wounded, but not killed, by their enemies, so that the Name of God should not be desecrated’ Comp. Hadar and Da' at on Deut. 1.44. Concerning Zelophehad, see vol. Ill, pp. 240 and 392. 5 s 7 ER 29, 146. ss* Koheleth 3.11. Comp., however, Sifre D., 38, and vol. Ill, p. 7, according to which the Canaanites, hearing of Israel ’s design on Palestine, destroyed the buildings, felled the trees, and burned the crops. Concerning this passive form of warfare, see Herodotus IV 120. Koheleth 2.26. 5 BHM II, 108; Likkutim, I, 22b— 23a; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 16.19; Sanhedrin 110b, and Yerushalmi 10, 27d (bottom); Mishle 11, 70; Pesahim 119a; PRE 50; Gorion 46. Concerning Joseph 's treasures, see vol. II, p. 125; vol. Ill, p. 11. On Korah’s riches see also Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 2.2 and 4; BaR 18.13 and 22.7; Tan. B. IV, 160; Tan. Mattot 5; Aggadat Esther 56. 561 BaR 18.2 and 8; Tan. B IV, 85 and 89; Tan. Korah 1 and 5; Likkutim, IV, 39b and 41b; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 1080. On Samuel, as the descendant of Korah and his comparison with Moses and Aaron, see notes 242, 492 and Tehillim 99, 424. Comp, further vol. Ill, p. 293; vol. IV, p. 69. 5 6 3 Sanhedrin 109b; Mishle 11, 71. Comp, also Sekel II, 35-36; Likkutim, IV, 40b. 563 Tan. B. IV, 88 and 93 (for the proverb, “woe to the wicked, etc. , very frequently quoted in talmudic and midrashic literature, see references given by Buber, note 38, as well as note 116 on p. 12); Tan. Korah 4 and 10; Likkutim, IV, 40b; Sanhedrin 110a. According to some authorities, the Reubenites were angry with Moses for having conferred so many honors on the tribe of Judah and not on them, who were the descendants of Jacob’s first-born; see Likkutim, IV, 42b, as well as Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 2.2; Pa'aneah, Num. 16.1. Among 99 564-566] The Legends of the Jews the rebels there were to be found representatives of all tribes, with the exception of that of Levi. Each tribe was represented by twentythree men, corresponding to the number of the members constituting the lower courts. Accordingly, the congregation of Korah consisted of two hundred and fifty-three men, of whom only three are mentioned by name: Dathan, Abiram, and On (Num. 16.1-2), while the rest remained unnamed; Imre No' am Num. 16.2. According to the Midrash quoted by Shu’aib, Num., loc. tit., the men who rebelled together with Korah knew the Name, and hence Moses was afraid of them, since he realized that he could not use the Name against them. This is based on the midrashic explanation of the words OtP’IPlN (Num., loc. tit.), which is taken to mean “masters in the use of the Holy Name ". Concerning Moses’ employment of the Name in punishing sinners, see vol. II, p. 280 and vol. Ill, p. 240. Comp. Manzur, 8-9; Tan. IV, 86; PR 7, 27b-28a. 564 Sanhedrin 110a; Midrash Aggada, Num. 16.8. This legend is a doublet of the one which follows it immediately; see references in the following note. Comp, these references also with regard to Korah 's wicked wife. 565 BaR 18.4; Tan. B. IV, 86-87; Tan. Korah 3. Comp, also Zohar III, 49a and references in the following note. 5«« Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 27d-28a; Tan. B. IV, 85 (it is said here that the outbreak of the rebellion took place during the banquet given by Korah to his friends, when certain parts of the slaughtered animals were seized by Eliezer as his priestly share); Tan. Korah 2; Mishle 11, 70; Aggadat Esther 56 (in this passage it is stated that it was Korah ’s wife who called her husband ’s attention to the absurdity of some of the laws promulgated by Moses; comp, the preceding two notes) ; Likkutim, IV, 39b-40a. Ps.-Philo 16.1 likewise remarks: At that time did He give him the commandment concerning the fringes; and then did Korah rebel, and two hundred men (read: and fifty) with him, and spoke saying: “Wtiat if a law which we cannot bear is ordained for us?’’ One fails to see the hardship of this commandment concerning the fringes, whereas its absurdity under certain circumstances is very clearly shown by the Rabbis. The connections of the commandment concerning the fringes and the rebellion of Korah was assumed by the Haggadah in accordance with the hermeneutical rule of 1’JlDD “juxtaposition”, which implies that there is some connection between two passage of Scripture which are “near” one another. The Haggadah therefore presupposes that the rebellion of Korah, the 100 Moses in the Wilderness [567-573 narrative of which follows the commandment concerning the fringes, must be connected with the passages preceding it. Philo, Moses, 2 (3).2 1 and 38, is of the same opinion as the Midrashim just quoted that Korah denied the divine origin of Aaron’s priesthood. Comp, also Zohar 1,17. 567 Tehillim 1, 14 (read inn«ta after pj); Midrash Aggada, Num. 7.19; Manzur 7-8. A short version of this legend, lacking the ^?™Uwr°r °f the l0nger version- is found in Likkutim, I, 23a-23bBHM VI, 107-108; Hibbur Mads. No. 6; Neweh Shalom, 56. Comp also Matthew 23.14. 5 Tan. B IV, 86; Tan. Korah 3; BaR 18.4; Yelammedenu in YalkutI, 752 (which reads: Korah said:“We received the ten commandments on Mount Sinai, but no law concerning the gifts to the priests, nor concerning the fringes, which thou hast devised thyself ”); Likkutim IV, 40b. Comp, also references given in note 566. Concerning the fifteen thousand men who died annually, see vol. Ill, p. 282 (top). The Haggadah presupposes that the rebellion of Korah took place after the return of the spies, and this is explicitly stated in Seder ‘Olam 8, and in many other passages referred to by Ratner, ad loc. Midrash Aggada, Num. 14.22, on the contrary, maintains that the sending qf the spies took place after the rebellion of Korah. 569 Mo'ed Katan 18b; Tan. B. IV, 92; Tan. Korah 10; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 16.4; BaR 18.20; Tehillim 106, 455. 5 7 0 BaR 18.4. Comp. Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 2.3. 5 71 Tan- B. IV, 90, 92, and 96; Tan. Korah 6; BaR 18.9 and 12; Yelammedenu (?) in Yalkut I, 752; Likkutim, IV, 40a and 42b-43a; Tehillim 2, 25; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 28a. Moses (Num. 16.29)’ Elijah (1 Kings 18.36), and Micah (1 Kings 22.28) are the prophets who asked that a miracle should be wrought for them, otherwise they would be declared as impostors; see Sanhedrin, loc.cit. Comp, also Mishle 11, 71; Likkutim, I, 23b. 572 BaR 18.6-7; Sanhedrin 52a; Tan. B. IV 88; Tan. Korah 4-5; Likkutim, IV, 41a; Midrash Aggada Num. 16.5. 573 BaR 18.7-9; Tan. B. IV, 88-90; Tan. Korah 5-6; Likkutim, IV, 41a. On the idea of selection in nature and history, see also Pesahim 104a; Tehillim 24, 203, and the liturgical formula of the Habdalah recited at the termination of the Sabbath. The oneness of Israel’s God, Law, and Sanctuary, as contrasted with the multitude of gods, laws, and sanctuaries of the heathens, is a favorite topic with the Haggadists; comp., e.g., Philo, Special. Leg., 1 (de Sacrif. Offeren.il ) ; Josephus, 101 574-58i] The Legends of the Jews Contra Apionem, 2.23, and Antiqui., IV, 8.5; Apocalypse of Baruch 48.24; Sifre D., 354; Midrash Tannaim 218-219; vol. IV p. 32. Concerning the prophetic presentiment of Korah, see vol. Ill, p. 287. 5 7 4 Mo‘ ed Katan 16a;Targum Yerushalmi Num. 16.12. Moses was rewarded for his attempt to make Dathan and Abiram abandon their evil designs, although he did not succeed in saving them. The three sons of Korah, as well as On, were saved because they repented of their sin; see Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 752, and Likkutim, IV, 41b. Comp, also vol. Ill, pp. 300-303. 5 7 5 BaR 18.10; Tan. B. IV, 90; Tan. Korah 6; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 752 (the sentence '131 UK ]’«1 is to be taken as an unconscious prophecy) ; Likkutim, IV, 41b and 42a. 5 75 BaR 18.10-11; Tan. B. IV, 90-91; Tan. Korah 6-7. Comp, also Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 292, on Jer. 15, and in Makiri, 215 (on Is. 56), as well as 29 (on Amos); ER 17.73; ShR 4.1; DR 11.2; Tehillim 24, 206. Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 3.32, makes Moses deliver, on this occasion, a long oration, in which he gives a survey of his life history; this oration is addressed to God. 5 7 7 BaR 18.11; Tan. B. IV, 91; Tan. Korah 7 (end); Targum Yerushalmi Num. 16.24. 578 BaR 18.12; Tan. B. IV, 91; Tan. Korah 8; comp, also 4 Maccabees 2.17. 5 7 9 Targum Yerushalmi 16.26. On this pair of wicked brothers, see vol. II, p. 281; vol. Ill, pp. 13, 84, and the references given in the notes appertaining to these passages. Comp, also Targum Yerushalmi Exod. 14.11. 5 8 ° BaR 18.12; Tan. B. IV, 92 and 94; Tan. Korah 8; Likkutim, IV, 42b; Nedarim 39b; Mishle 11, 71. Comp, also the references given in the following note, as well as in note 571. 5 8 1 Nedarim 39b; Sanhedrin 110a; Tan. B. IV, 94; Mishle 11,71. On the sun and moon being forced to do their duty, see vol. I, p. 25, and vol. IV, p. 309. The designation of Moses as “son of Amram” in this passage is not to be taken in a derogatory sense (comp, note 163); it rather expresses pity for Moses, who is thus described as being helpless. In view of the fact that “there is nothing new under the sun”, the Rabbis maintain that the mouth of the earth which swallowed up Korah was created in the twilight between the sixth day of creation and the first Sabbath (comp. vol. I, p. 83), and that at the time of the punishment of the congregation of Korah it approached the spot where the sinners stood, and swallowed them up; see Abot 5.6, and the references given 102 Moses in the Wilderness [582-586 in note 99 on vol. I, p. 83. A dissenting view is given in Sanhedrin 3 7b, which states that the earth did not open its mouth from the time it swallowed up the blood of Abel until it swallowed up Korah. Th very same remark is also found in ps.-Philo, 16, where the translator from the Hebrew committed an amusing error. The words “ et Pocutus sum Sion, dicens: Non adicias ut deglutias sanguinem" (16, bottom) are a mistaken rendering of the Hebrew DT *)Dm ’mm |rxVl And I spoke unto the dry land, saying: Thou shalt not any more swallow up blood.” In view of the rare occurrence of the word ]1’$ the translator may be forgiven for misreading it as “Zion”. 582 BaR 18.13; Tan. B. I 96—97 (in this passage the view is also given that the earth was cleft asunder at different places wherever one of the sinners stood); Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 752; Likkutim, IV, 43a-43b; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 28a. 583 Shemuel 5, 62; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 28a. 584 Targum Yerushalmi and Lekah on Num. 16.22-34; Tan. B. IV, 97; Likkutim, I, 23b; BHM VI, 108; vol. Ill, 299-300. The Christian legend tells of similar punishments of sinners. Comp. The Acts of Philip, towards the end. 585 Tan. B. IV, 93; BaR 18.19 {op. cit. 15 speaks of the fire which consumed Korah’s wife); Sanhedrin 110; Sifre N., 117. According to Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 3.4, Korah was consumed by fire, whereas the Protevangelium of James 9.2 declares that Korah was swallowed up by the mouth of the earth. 886 Baba Batra 74a; Sanhedrin llOa-llOb; Tan. B. IV, 94; BaR 18.13; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 16.34; Shemuel 5, 61-62; Mishnah Sanhedrin 10.3 (in this passage the view is also given that they were punished with eternal damnation); Tosefta 13.89; Babli 109b; Yerushalmi 10, 29c (here it is stated that Moses prayed for them that they should be saved from the torments of hell, with reference to Deut. 33.6, the Reubenites being identified with the congregation of Korah, whose leaders belonged to the tribe of Reuben; comp. Num. 16.1); ARN 26, 107 (here it is said that they do not suffer torments of hell, but will not come to life at the time of the resurrection; this is also the view of ps.-Philo, 16.3); BHM VI, 108; Likkutim, I, 23b-24a; Alphabet of R. Akiba 16—17 (here it is said that at the day of final judgment, Metatron, the holy Hayyot, as well as Korah and his congregation, will bear witness that there is only one God in heaven, on 103 587-590] The Legends of the Jews earth, and in hell); Neweh Shalom, 55-56; comp, note 590; vol. I, p. 23; vol. Ill, pp. 298 and 476; vol. IV, pp. 60 and 321. 587 Tan. B. IV, 87; Tan. Korah 3(end); BaR 18.4; Likkutim, IV, 43b. Concerning the twentieth year as the age of majority, see above, note 546. s 8 8 Sanhedrin 109b— 1 10a; Tan. B. IV, 93 ; BaR 18.20; Manzur 8-9. s«9 Quotation from an unknown Midrash, as recorded from a manuscript, by Schechter in Semitic Studies, 493; Tehillim 45, 270. According to another legend, the sons of Korah had decided in their hearts to repent when Moses attempted to persuade their father to desist from his evil work, and they indicated their adherence to Moses by rising in his honor in the presence of Korah; see Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 752 (Tehillim 1,14 is to be emended accordingly); Likkutim, IV, 41b-52a. According to ps.-Philo, 16.4 Korah asked his seven (six) sons to join him in his revolt against Moses; but they refused to follow his counsel, and endeavored to dissuade him from his evil designs.

Comp . also the following note. s’0 Tehillim 45, 269-270; 46, 272-273; 1, 14-15 (here also the view is expressed that the earth was only cleft around the spot upon which they stood, but not beneath it); Sanhedrin 110a; quotation from an unknown Midrash, as recorded, from a manuscript, by Schechter in Semitic Studies, 493; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 752 and in II, 924, on Job 38. In the last passage and in Tehillim 49, 278 a view is quoted, according to which the sons of Korah were saved by “ flying in the air”. In a similar manner the righteous will be saved on the day of judgment, when the Lord will “take hold of the ends of the earth, and the wicked will be shaken out of it.” Concerning the ‘‘flying of the righteous” at the time of the destruction of the world, see also Sanhedrin 92b(top). The legend recorded in vol. Ill, p. 300, to the effect that Korah and his congregation were appointed the custodians of the sunken portals of the Temple, was originally applied to the sons of Korah who repented at the last moment, and hence, though they are in hell, they are not tortured, but take charge of the remnants of the Temple. According to the Midrash quoted in Yalkut II, 376, on Ezekiel 28, the sons of Korah entered into paradise alive. The statement that the world rests on three pillars (comp. Abot 1.2), means, according to some authorities, that the world owes its existence to the three sons of Korah. Other authorities, however, are of the opinion that the three piilars are the three patriarchs. Still other authorities maintain that the three youths, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, are the three pillars 104 Moses in the Wilderness [591-599 supporting the world; Tehillim 1, 15. As to the pillars (i. e., righteous men) upholding the world, see note 28 on vol. I, p. 11. In the legends concerning the sons of Korah it is assumed that the sons of Korah, mentioned in the book of Psalms as the authors of many psalms, are identical with the sons of that Korah who led the revolt against Moses; but with regard to the psalmist Asaph opinions differ as to whether he was related to this Korah or not. Some authorities maintain that Asaph was the son of this Korah, while others are of the opinion that he flourished at a much later period than Korah, but that he belonged to the family of Korahites. According to a third view, this Asaph was in no way related to this Korah. See WR 17.1; ER 30, 150-151 (this passage contains the midrashic basis for the legend that the sons of Korah are the custodians of the sunken portals of the Temple) ; comp, vol. IV, p. 321: Shir 4.4. 391 Sanhedrin 52a. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 187. 39 2 Lekah Num. 17.2. 553 Tan. Zaw 13; Makiri Is. 6, 54-55; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 17.5. For other versions of this Haggadah, see Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 271 on Is. 6; Tan. B. Ill, 19_ 20 ; Likkutim, IV, 43b-44a. Comp, vol. IV, p. 262. 399 Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 4.1. 595 Shabbat 89a. Whenever Israel deserved to be punished for its sins, the punishment came forth from the sanctuary; and since Moses lived near the sanctuary, he was the first to notice the appearance of the destroying angel. Whereupon Moses would hasten to Aaron and urge him to protect Israel against the approaching visitation; BaR 5.6. According to Targum Yerushalmi Num. 7.11, it was the angel Kezef (“Wrath”), the one who fought against Moses in Horeb, who came forth to destroy Israel; comp vol. Ill, pp. 124-125. See also below note 598. 396 Rashi and Midrash Aggada on Num. 16.11, probably based on Mekilta Amalek 6, 52a; comp. vol. Ill, p. 52, top. 397 Tan. B. Ill, 19; Tan. Zaw 9; Lekah Num. 17.11. 398 Tan. Tezawweh 15 (end); Likkutim, IV, 44a-44b; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 17.12-13. According to 4 Maccabees 7.11, the angel caused the death of the people by fire. 399 Lekah, Num. 17.13. Prayer can only have the power to ward off half of the punishment decreed by God, whereas repentance averts the entire punishment. Hence Moses ’ prayer saved only two of Aaron ’s sons from the death decreed on Aaron ’s four sons; see WR 10.5 and 18.1 ; BaR 9.47; DR 8.10; Tan. B. Ill, 67; Tan. Ahare 8; PR 47, 188b-189a; 105 6oo) The Legends of the Jews comp, also vol. Ill, p. 192 (top); Sifra 10.12; Yoma 87a, where it is stated that it was for the merits of Aaron that two of his sons escaped death. 6 0 0 BaR 18.23, which contains the statement that Aarons 's rod is identical with the rod of Judah; Tan. B. Ill, 66-67, which reads: Aaron ’s rod was placed in the middle, so that the people should not say that its proximity to the Shekinah (i. e., the ark) caused it to blossom; Tan. Ahare 8; Likkutim, IV, 44b. The rod which blossomed is the very same with which Jacob crossed the Jordan (comp, note 125 on vol. I, pp. 347-348), which later came into the possession of Judah (Gen. 48.18; comp, above, and vol. II, p. 34), and which Moses took with him on his journey to Egypt (Exod.4.17). It is the same rod with which Aaron performed the miracles before Pharaoh (Exod. 7.9, seq.), and which David held in his hand in his encounter with Goliath (1 Samuel 18.40). It remained in the possession of the Davidic kings until the destruction of the Temple, when it was hidden. It will again be made use of in the time of the Messiah when it will be taken out from the place where it is hidden. See Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 763, and II, 869, on Ps. 110; Midrash Aggada, Gen. 32.11 (in this passage it is said that Moses divided the Red Sea with this rod) ; Makiri, Prov. 20.3 and Ps. 110, 183. In this legend Aaron 's rod is identified not only with that of Moses (comp, note 88 on vol. II, p. 292), but also with the staff of the kings (i. e., Judah, David, and the Messiah), so that the blossoming of this rod proved not only the justice of Aaron’s claim to the priesthood, but also established David’s claim to the kingdom. See also Zerubbabel (Jellinek’s edition, 55; Wertheimer’s edition 10b), as well as vol. Ill, p. 310. — The rod brought forth blossoms on one side and almonds on the other, and when the blossoms turned into almonds, there were sweet almonds on one side and bitter ones on the other. As long as Israel walked in the ways of the Lord, the sweet almonds were fresh (literally, moist)-, but when they departed from the right path, the bitter ones were fresh; see Shu’aib and Hadar on Num. 17.23. The first-named source quotes, from an unknown Midrash, a symbolic explanation, according to which the buds represent the first Temple, the blossoms the second, and the fruit — that is, the almonds — the third, i. e., the Temple to be built by the Messiah. Comp, also Yerushalmi Horayyot 42a; Shekalim 6, 49c; references given in note 112 concerning the “hiding” of Aaron's rod (l Vpn), with its blossoms and fruit, by Josiah. See further vol. IV, pp. 234, 282. Legendary amplifications of the biblical narrative of the blossoming of the rod are also recorded by Josephus, 106 Moses in the Wilderness [601-607 Antiqui, IV, 4.2, as well as in Clemens’ Letter to the Corinthians 43. The latter is very likely based on the Jewish legend. Ps. -Philo. 17.3-4 comments on the miracle of the blossoming of the rod in the following words: And this likeness which was born there was like unto the work which Israel ( = Jacob) wrought, while he was in Mesopotamia with Laban the Syrian, when he took rods of almonds, and put them at the gathering of waters (comp. Gen. 30.37). This remark of ps. -Philo seems in some way connected with the rabbinic legend which identifies Aaron 's rod with that of Jacob. On the Christian and Mohammedan legends concerning Aaron ’s rod, see Ginzberg in Jewish Ecncyclopedia, I, 5-6, and Salzberger, Salomo-Sage, I, 66, seq. 601 Seder ‘Olam 8. Comp, note 568 and ps. -Philo 16.7. The latter maintains that immediately after Korah had been swallowed up, the people asked Moses for permission to move away from that place. 603 Yelammedenu (?) in Batte Midrashot III, 8-10; comp. Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 7.3. See also vol. Ill, pp. 48-49, and note 498. The death of the righteous possesses atoning power, and hence, in Scripture, the report of Miriam’s death (Num. 20.1) follows immediately the law concerning the red heifer which was used for the “ purificarion of sin”; see Mo'ed Katan 28a; Yelammedenu in ‘ Aruk, s. v. nD 2; Likkutim, I, 19a-19b, and IV, 48a-48b. Concerning the women of this generation, see vol. Ill, p. 281. 603 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 673; Likkutim, IV, 50a. Comp, vol. Ill, p. 262 (bottom). 604 Lekah, Num. 20.3. Concerning the number of deaths every year, see vol. Ill, pp. 282 and 291. The number fifteen thousand is a round one; see Tosafot on Baba Batra 121a. 6°s Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 763, and in Batte Midrashot III, 10; Esfah in Yalkut, loc. cit.\ comp, also Lekah, Num. 20-35. Concerning Aaron’s love of peace, and about the people’s affections for him, see vol. Ill, p. 328. 606 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 763; Lekah, Num. 20.6; comp, also vol. II, p. 228 (end of section). Yelammedenu, loc. cit., remarks that the righteous are as concerned about the welfare of their beasts as about themselves. This may be inferred from the fact that Jacob told Joseph to find out “whether it is well with thy brethren and well with the flock” Comp, also Mekilta Amalek 6, 52a; Tan. B. IV, 120; vol. II, p. 9; Nedarim 81a. 60 1 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 763; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 107 608-615] The Legends of the Jews 20.8, which reads: God said unto Moses and Aaron: “Adjure the rock by the Name, and only in case of its refusal should ye smite it” (on ]13,-in “adjure”, see Targum Is. 65.9, where "jin’ - ^p’) ; Lekah Num., loc. cit. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 320. 608 Targum Yerushalmi and Lekah on Num. 20.8. Comp, the preceding note, as well as notes 600 and 625. 609 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 763, and in II, 879, on Ps.78; Lekah Num. 20.10. 610 Tan. B. IV, 120-121; Tan. Hukkat 9; BaR 19.9; PK 14, 118b; PR 11, 42b; Hashkem 19b~20a; Shir 1.6; comp, also ER 13 65, and Midrash Tannaim 14, where it is said that Moses’ delinquency was a mere oversight. Comp, note 870. 611 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 763; BR 5.7; BaR 19.9; Tan. B. IV, 120; Tan. Hukkat 79. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 180andnote410. The rod upon which the Name was engraved was taken away from Moses , as a punishment for his having used it to smite the rock; Zohar I, 6b. On the identification of Aaron 's rod with the staff of Moses, see note 600. 61 J BaR 19.19; Tan. B. IV, 20; Tan. Hukkat 9; Tehillim 78, 345; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 763, and II, 819, on Ps. 78. The final portion of the last-named passage is taken from Tehillim, loc. cit., and does not form part of the Yelammedenu. 613 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 763. Comp, note 490, according to which this passage of Yelammedenu is to be understood in the following manner: Moses’ sin consisted in his having used words which might have been misunderstood by the people to mean that it was Moses, and not God, who made the water flow from the rock. See also Nahmanides, Num. 20.1—11, who fully discusses the different opinions concerning the sin committed by Moses at the Waters of Meribah. Comp, further vol. Ill, pp. 317-320. Concerning Moses (and Aaron) as leaders of Israel in the time of the Messiah, see vol. IV, pp. 302, 373, and vol. Ill, pp. 35, 313, 481. 61 4 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 764. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 16, 51, and 310. 6is BaR 19.13-14 (cnpDP is correct; comp. PK 5, 46a, which reads: At the crossing of the Red Sea it became known to Moses that he would not enter the Holy Land); Tan. Hukkat 10.11; Tan. B. IV, 121-122. These Midrashim point out that Moses on several other occasions had employed worse expressions in addressing God (comp, note 285), and yet was not punished for them. The reason given for this is because on those occasions he did not commit the offence publicly 108 Moses in the Wilderness [616-622 but privately. Concerning the question whether the “generation of the wilderness” shall have a share in the world to come, see Sanhedrin, Mishnah 10.3; Tosefta 13.10; Babli 110b; Yerushalmi 10, 29c; ARN 26, 107-108; references in notes 177 and 586 (the references in the last note deal with the congregation of Korah); ‘Abodah Zarah 4b-5a, which reads: The commission of that grievous sin (*'. e., the worship of the golden calf) was out of harmony with Israel’s nature; but God willed it so, in order to show thereby that even a whole nation might be forgiven the most grievous of sins, if it only repents. 616 Tan. B. IV, 121-122; Tan. Hukkat 10; BaR 19.12; Yoma 86b; Sifre D., 26; Sifre N., 137; Midrash Tannaim 13; Sifre Z., 160; DR 2.6. 617 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 764; BaR 19.13-14; Tan. Hukkat 11. Comp. BR 42.7. 618 BR 4.6. Comp. vol. I, p. 15. 619 BaR 19.9; Tan. B. IV, 121 ; Tan. Hukkat 10; Yelammedenu (?) in Likkutim IV, 526; comp. vol. Ill, p. 457. According to Lekah, Num. 20.12, Aaron’s sin consisted in his not having tried to prevent Moses from using angry words against Israel. For other legends about the Waters of Meribah, see vol. Ill, pp. 317-320. 6 2 0 Lekah, Num. 20.14; BaR 19.15; Tan. B. IV, 122; Tan. Hukkat 12. Comp. vol. I, p. 379, and note 234 appertaining to it. 621 Yelammedenu in ‘ Aruk, s. v. (comp. Likkutim, IV, 53b); Tan. B. IV, 122 and 129; Tan. Hukkat 12; BaR 19.15. Of the patriarchs, it is Jacob in particular who suffers with his descendants; see Tehillim 14, 115; PR 40 (end); Ekah 2.111. Comp. Vol. V, p. 275. Concerning the “inheritance”, see vol. Ill, pp. 55 and 332 (bottom). 622 BaR 19.15-16; Tan. B. IV, 122-123; Tan. Hukkat 12-14; Mekilta Beshallah 2, 28a; Mekilta RS, 45-46. Moses assured the king of Edom that the Israelites would not attack the Edomite women (Targum Yerushalmi Num. 20.17); but although the king knew that God commanded the Israelites not to destroy the Edomites, he feared lest they should subjugate them and make them pay tribute, so that in this manner the debts which Esau owed Jacob might be paid by the descendants of the former. See Mekilta Shirah 11, 49a (read miON “annonae”); Mekilta RS, 68. Greatisthe importance of bloodrelationship; if not for their kinship with Israel, the Edomites would have been excluded from “entering into the congregation of the Lord”, since their sin was greater than that of the Moabites and the Ammonites, who were punished in this manner; see Midrash Tannaim 146, with 109 623-633] The Legends of the Jews regard to Deut. 23.5-8. Edom threatened Israel with the sword; even so will God destroy Edom with the sword (see Is. 34.5) in the time to come; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 439, on Is., loc. cit. Concerning the cloud that went before Israel, see vol. II, p. 375. 6 2 3 Petirat Aharon beg. (read 3V3 131 “on that day”, forty years before, Aaron’s sons died at the dedication of the Tabernacle, see vol. Ill, PP- 187, seq)- Ta'anit 9a; Sifre D., 305; Seder ‘Olam 10; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 907, on Job 16. Concerning the day of Miriam 's death, see Ratner, note 20 on Seder ‘ Olam l. c. 624 Batte Midrashot III, 8-9. Comp. Tehillim 24, 219, as well as Tosefta Sanhedrin 9.9. For a different view, see vol. Ill, p. 283. 625 Petirat Aharon 91. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 310-311. On the great mourning for Miriam, see Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 4,6. 626 Rashi and Midrash Aggada on Num. 20.10; PetiratAharon 92. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 63. An allusion to this legend is perhaps to be found in Targum Yerushalmi Num. 20.8 where pD’in is to be taken literally. Comp, note 607. 6 2 7 Petirat Aharon 92, where D’D 1FN is to be read. Concerning the blood flowing from the rock, see Targum Yerushalmi Num. 20.11 ; ShR 3.13; Tehillim 78, 344. See also Sibyll. 3.803 and 4 61; vol. II, p. 322. Concerning the honey flowing from the rock, see vol. II, p. 257, according to which D^TI “on which they were brought up” is to be read in Petirat Aharon, loc. cit. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 308-311. 628 PK 14, 118b-119a; Tan. B. V 14; DR 2.2 and 8; Likkutim V, 97a-97b (on this passage see II, p. 340, bottom, and note 610); Petirat Aharon 92. 629 Petirat Aharon 92. 639 Tan. B. IV, 123-124; Tan. Hukkat 14; BaR 19.17. 631 Petirat Aharon 93. Comp, the following note. 632 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 764; Likkutim IV, 54a. “Difficult in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints” (comp. Ps. 116.15; ip’ is taken to mean “heavy”, “difficult”), and if Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David had not spoken, in a heedless moment, of their death, they would never have died; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 874 (end); Tehillim 116, 477-478; Tan.Wayehi 4, which reads: The righteous never die, except when they have expressed their desire to do so. DR 9.1; Hallel 104. 633 Petirat Aharon 92-93 (line 22 of 92 read lDW^yiB; the following line seems also to be corrupt); Tan. B. IV 131. On Aaron’s love 110 Moses in the Wilderness [634-637 of peace, and the people’s affection for him, see vol. Ill, pp. 309, 328-329. Concerning the ceremonies connected with the reception of the leaders of the people by Moses, see vol. Ill, p. 144. ER 13, 63; 20, 112, and 25,128. 635 ER 13,68. See also EZ 1, 169-170, where the three patriarchs, Moses, Aaron, and David, are praised for their kindness as their highest virtue. 636 Petirat Aharon 93-94 (read DD’lS*? instead of 'n ’IB^); Tan. B. IV, 131-132. Concerning the conception that the soul is a pledge entrusted to man by God, see Vol. V, p. 255, note 259 and Index, s. v. “ Soul ”. The story about Aaron ’s preparations for his death is related differently in Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 764. One early morning Moses called upon his brother, and informed him that he had spent a sleepless night pondering over a difficult passage in the Bible and asked him whether he would not assist him in solving the difficulty. Moses added that in his excitement he had forgotten the exact place, and that he only remembered that the passage occurred in the Book of Genesis. They read the first chapter of the Bible, and at the perusal of the creation of each day, Moses exclaimed, “ How beautiful and good is the creation of this day!” When they reached the narrative concerning the creation of Adam, Moses remarked: “ I do not know what to say of the creation of man. How can I call it beautiful and good, knowing that the end of man is death?” Aaron, however, replied: “Far be it from us not to resign ourselves to the will of God.” These words of Aaron gave Moses the desired opportunity to inform his brother of his imminent death. At the very moment Aaron became aware of his approaching death, his stature shrank, and all the people knew that he had reached the end of his life. In Likkutim, IV, 54a-54b, the text of Yelammedenu was taken from the later editions of the Yalkut, in which entire sentences are missing. Comp, also Zohar III, 183a. 63 ’ Sifra Milluim 8.7, and comp, the notes of R. Jacob David, ad loc., in the Warsaw edition. Vol. Ill, p. 445, contains a different legend concerning the undressing of Aaron and the dressing of Eleazar. Yelammedenu I, 787, describes Aaron’s last hour in the following manner: The brothers had nearly reached Mount Hor, and Moses did not yet find courage to inform Aaron of his approaching death. Finally Moses took heart, and said to Aaron : “If a hundred years from now God would decree thy death, what wouldst thou say?” Aaron replied: “I would only say: The Judge is just” (comp, note 256 on vol. I, pp. 286-287). Without any hesitation Moses then said: "Now that ill 638-641] The Legends of the Jews thou didst resign thyself to God 's will, let us ascend the mount, since God has decreed that thou shouldst die in that place”. Reconciled to his fate, Aaron followed his younger brother “as a lamb that is led to the slaughter.” God spoke to the angels, saying : “ Ye were astonished at Isaac when he put himself on the altar to be slaughtered in obedience to his father’s will. Marvel ye now all the more at Aaron who submits himself to death at the words of his younger brother.” Three different views are given in Yelammedenu concerning the undressing of Aaron. Moses began to undress him from below; as soon as one part of the body was laid bare, it was immediately covered by a “cloud of glory” (i. e., acelestial garment; comp. Index, s. v. “Celestial Garments”) so that by the time Aaron was completely undressed his body was covered with the cloud of glory, and he was no longer among the living. According to the second view, every part of Aaron ’s body, as soon as Moses removed the garment from it, was “swallowed up” by the mouth of the mount, and thus his naked body was not exposed to anyone’s eye. The third view maintains that the undressing of Aaron and the dressing of Eleazar took place simultaneously: while Moses undressed his brother, the angels dressed his nephew Eleazar. At the very moment of his death, Aaron was asked by his brother: How is the death of the righteous?” The answer given was: “1 cannot tell thee that; all I can say is: I wish I had come sooner to the place where I am now.” 638 Petirat Aharon 94. Comp. vol. II, p. 328 (bottom); vol. IV, p. 201. 639 Baba Batra 17a. This passage contains also the statement that the three patriarchs, as well as Moses and Miriam, died by a kiss from God. Comp. vol. II, p. 330. 640 Petirat Aharon 94-95 (read jnV-pW 13*7, instead of y*3^); Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 764 and 787. 641 Petirat Aharon 95; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 674 and 787 (the phrase nD DW "pi, 764, means “he died a natural death”; but the text is hardly correct, and in view of the explicit statement of Petirat Aharon that Moses feared lest the people should deify Aaron, it may best be assumed that the words '131 "|T! refer to Aaron’s translation); Tan. B. IV, 124; PRE 17; BaR 20.20; Tan. Hukkat 17; Zohar III, 183a (which reads: All the people in the camp saw what was happening on Mount Hor) ; Sifre D., 304. Moses did not inform the people of Aaron ’s approaching death, because he feared lest, out of their love for Aaron, they might attempt to prevent God ’s decree from being carried out 112 Moses in the Wilderness [642-646 by praying for his life. In this way they would act contrary to God ’s wise plan. See Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 764. On Aaron’s overpowering the Angel of Death, see vol. II, p. 305; on his popularity, see vol. Ill, p. 328, seq.; concerning his suspicion of Moses, see vol. Ill, p. 33 0. 6 ■< 2 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 787; Petirat Aharon 95; Lekah, Deut. 31.14. 6 43 ARN 12, 48-51, and second version 24, 48-51, as well as supplement, 161 and 163; Kallah 2.6 (read ranxSP “thou quarrellest”, instead of n’XUW); WR 3.6; Sanhedrin 6b; Tan. B. IV, 130 1—131; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 787. The description of Aaron as the ideal of kindness and love of peace is found in sentences attributed to Hillel and his masters Shemaiah and Abtalion; see Abot 1.12; Yoma 71b; comp. Ginzberg’s remarks in Geiger, Kebuzzat Maamarim, 160. See also vol. Ill, pp. 323 and 327. The statement found in Targum Yerushalmi Num. 20.29 (whence it was borrowed by Rashi and Lekah) that men as well as women mourned for Aaron, whereas for Moses only the men mourned, is taken from PRE 17. The other statement of Targum that the weeping and mourning of Moses and Eleazar for Aaron made all the rest of the people do the same is found also in ARN 12, 49. ««« Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 787, and (in abridged form) 764. According to another view, the people mourned very deeply for Miriam, see note 625 . Concerning the statement that Moses desired a death similar to that of his brother, see vol. Ill, PP- 445-446. On the disappearance of Aaron’s grave, see vol. Ill, p. 326 (bottom), and note 792. On “death by a kiss”, see note 639. 6 <5 Petirat Aharon 95; Midrash Aggada on Deut. 4.26. On convincing the people of Aaron’s death, see vol. Ill, p. 327. Concerning the clouds that were sent down for Aaron’s sake, see vol. Ill, pp. 48-49, and the following note. 6 < 6 Seder ' Olam 9 ; Tosefta Sotah 1 1 . 1 ; Sifre N. , 82 ; Rosh ha-Shanah 3a; Ta’anit 9a; Yerushalmi Yoma 1, 38b; PK 19, 138a; PR 13, 55a; Tan. B. IV, 124-125 (only in this passage and in the sources dependent upon it is Arad identified with Amalek; comp, to the contrary vol. Ill, p. 340); Tan. Hukkat 18; BaR 19.20; Shir 4.5; Ekah 1.93; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 20.1 and 33.40. It is noteworthy that the Septuagint and Philo, Moses, 1.45, take ’tyU in Num. 21.1 as the name of a person, and not as a gentilicum; they perhaps presuppose the rabbinic legend which considers that the King of Arad was an Amalekite 313 647-651] The Legends of the Jews and not a Canaanite. Comp, also note 669. The Haggadah concerning the death of Aaron which gave courage to the enemy to attack Israel is also known to Aphraates, 452, who undoubtedly had it orally communicated to him by Jews. 6 4 7 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 763, and II, 549, on Obadiah; Likkutim, IV, 55a-55b, as well as in ‘ Aruk, s.v. nnB; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 21.1, and somewhat differently on 33.4, where it is stated that Amalek joined Canaan in his attack on Israel (comp, the preceding note); BaR 19.20; Tan. B. IV, 125; Tan. Hukkat 18. On the idea that Amalek carried out the counsel given him by Esau, see also Rokeah 234; Lekah, Gen. 27.45; vol. Ill, p. 31; vol. IV, p. 315. According to an unknown Midrash quoted by Rashi and Kimhi on 2 Chron. 20.11, the enemies who waged war against Jehoshaphat were really Amalekites disguised as Ammonites. 6 4 s BaR 19.20; Tan. B. IV, 125; Tan. Hukkat. The complete destruction of this enemy by the Jews is explained by Philo, Moses, 1.45, in the following manner: As every pious man offers the first fruits unto God...., so did the Hebrews dedicate the whole of this mighty country (i. e. Arad) unto the Lord. The very same reason is given by Rokeah, 221 (on the authority of an old source?) for devoting Jericho to God; comp, note 22 on vol. IV, p. 8. 649 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 764 (in the later editions of the Yalkut the reference to Yelammedenu as a source is missing); Lekah, Num. 21.1. Comp. 2 Kings 5.2. 650 Yerushalmi Yoma 1, 38b, and Sotah 1, 17b; BaR 19.20; Tan.

B. IV, 125; Tan. Hukkat 18; Seder ‘Olam 9; Mekilta Wayyassa' 1, 22b; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 21.1, and Deut, 10.6; Yelammedenu (?) in Batte Midrashot, III, 14; Midrash Aggada, Num. 26.12. It is noteworthy that the tannaitic sources, Seder ‘ Olam and Mekilta, know nothing of the quarrel between the Levites and the other tribes; they only state that the Israelites, after having continued to march for eight stations, returned to the place where Aaron died to arrange for a great mourning in his honor. Concerning the Benjamite and Simeonite clans who were entirely annihilated, see vol. II, p. 189; vol. Ill, p. 390. 651 Rashi on Num. 21.4, which is very likely based upon an old midrashic source. As long as Aaron lived the Hebrews were protected by “ the cloud "against the burning sun of the wilderness; but immediately after his death the cloud disappeared (see vol. Ill, p. 330, and note 645), and they suffered greatly from the sun; they therefore became peevish and impatient; Yelammedenu (?) in Batte Midrashot, III, 17. They 114 Moses in the Wilderness [652-658 did not give expression to their vexation at the long journey through the wilderness; they were nevertheless punished for having harbored evil thoughts concerning God and Moses; Sanhedrin 110a; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 21.5. 6 s’ Tan. B. IV, 125-126; Tan. Hukkat 19; BaR 19.21. These sources further remark that life in the wilderness was vexatious and difficult only to those against whom God decreed that they should die in the wilderness. 653 Targum Yerushalmi Num. 21.6; Tan. B. IV, 126; Tan. Hukkat 19; BaR 19.22; Ephraem I, 263. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 245-246. 654 BaR 19.22; Tan. B. IV, 126; Tan. Hukkat 19; PRE according to the text of Batte Midrashot, III, 34. Concerning the kind of death caused by the serpent, see Zohar III, 183b. On the slanderous serpent, see vol. II, p. 321; vol. V, p. 95, note 62. Concerning the clouds that marched before Israel burning the serpents, see vol. Ill, p. 374. Comp. Likkutim, IV, 56a. 4 3 3 Lekah, Num. 21. 656 Tan. B. IV, 126; Tan. Hukkat 19; BaR 19.22, which reads: Just as Israel sinned against two, God and Moses (comp, also Sanhedrin 110a), so also two kinds of serpents were sent to execute God’s punishment on them, in order that they might thereby learn how grievous was their offence against their leader Moses; Hadar, Num. 21.8. BaR and Tan., loc. tit., on the contrary, maintain that all the havoc was caused by one serpent. Concerning the speedy forgiveness granted to the sinners by God and Moses, see vol. I, p. 260. 66 1 Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shanah 3, 59a; BR 31.8. Several other explanations for making the serpent of brass are given by Philo, 2 Leg. Alleg, 20. Comp, also Midrash Aggada Num. 21.9. 6 s * Rosh ha-Shanah 3.8 ; Mekilta Amalek 1 , 54a; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 21.8-9; PRE in Batte Midrashot, III, 34; Wisdom 16.10-13. In the patristic literature the serpent of brass “put upon a pole” is symbolic of the crucified Jesus; comp. e. g., Justin Dialogue, 91, 94, 112, and 1 Apologia, 60; Tertullian, De Idol. 5; Adversus Marcion. 3.8, and Adversus Judaeos 10. The rabbinic explanation of the setting up of the serpent upon a pole must not be taken as an anti-Christian Haggadah, as may be seen from the fact that it was known to the author of Wisdom. It is at the same time true that in the polemic literature of the Jews in the Middle Ages the correct explanation of the serpent of brass plays an important part. Comp., e. g., Peletat Soferim 32, which records the reply given by R. Nathan Official to a Christian with regard to the 115 659-665] The Legends of the Jews setting up of the serpent (the text is corrupt; read "ITIK^WP instead of "inK^DlD; at the end read nut1?** instead of nittVl); the statement of R. Nathan that this serpent was nothing else but Moses’ rod which was turned into a serpent (comp. Exod. 4.3) is found in no other source. See vol. Ill, pp. 60-61 and note 145. 6s9 Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shanah 3, 59a; Tan. B. IV, 126; Tan. Hukkat 19; BaR 19.23. 660 Targum Yerushalmi Num. 33.4-42. Comp. Lekah and Hadar on Num. 21.10. 661 Tan. B. IV, 126-127; Tan. Hukkat 19; BaR 19.24. 663 Tan. B. IV, 127; Tan. Hukkat 20; BaR 19.25; DZ 23-24. According to Berakot 59a-59b, the miracle was caused by the pillar which preceded the Israelites on their marching, and prepared the way for them, elevating the valleys and levelling the mountains and hills; comp. vol. II, pp. 374-375 and vol. Ill, p. 156. These sources further state that the Israelites would never have known of this miracle had it not been for two lepers who, marching outside the cover of the clouds (see vol. Ill, p. 57), had the opportunity to observe the levelling of the mountains and the annihilation of the Amorites. The proverb “if you give, etc.” occurs also in Shabbat 10b. As to the mountain? meeting persons, see vol. II, p. 303 (top). 663 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 763-764; Tan. B. IV, 127; Tan. Hukkat 21 ;BaR 19.26. That the song at the Red Sea was composed by Moses and sung by Israel is also the view of Ephraem I, 216B. For a different opinion, see vol. Ill, pp. 31 and 33. 664 Targum Onkelos and Yerushalmi on Num. 21.17-20 (the places named in the verses are haggadically explained to refer to the Torah and to those who study it; see also ‘Erubin 59a). Midrasb Aggada and Hadar on Num., loc. cit., as well as Sabba', Hukkat (end), have other explanations of this song. Comp, also Tan. B. IV, 127-128, Tan. Hukkat 21; BaR 19.26; vol. Ill, p. 53. In all these sources, the well praised by Israel is identified with “Miriam’s well” (comp. vol. Ill, p. 50), which disappeared after the death of the prophetess (comp. vol. Ill, p. 308). This well subsequently reappeared, and its reappearance was greeted with a song by the people; see Seder ‘Olam 9.10, and the parallel passages cited by Ratner, ad loc. Philo, Moses, 1.46, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the well greeted with a song was the first well the Israelites found on entering a cultivated land after their long journey in the wilderness. 66s Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 763. The great miracles performed 116 Moses in the Wilderness [666-672 for Israel in Egypt and in the wilderness were, in one way or another, connected with water. The first plague inflicted upon the Egyptians was the turning of the water into blood. Then there was the dividing of the Red Sea. At Marah the bitter waters were made sweet. Later on many other miracles were performed in connection with water. Israel therefore was moved to sing the praise of water at the end of their wandering through the desert. Moses at the same time informed the Israelites that when they enter the Holy Land another miracle connected with water would take place, namely, the dividing of the Jordan; see DR 2.8. 6 6 6 Seder ‘Olam 9; Tan. B. IV, 130; Tan. Hukkat 34; BaR 19.32, which reads: Aaron died in the month of Ab, and the war against Sihon took place in the following month, that is in Elul. Comp, note 669. 667 Niddah 61a. According to an unknown Midrash, quoted by R. Bahya, Hukkat (end), they were the sons of Shemhazael. Comp, vol. I, pp. 150 and 160, as well as vol. Ill, p. 343. 468 Tan. B. V, 3 and 6; DR 1.24; DZ 24-25; Makiri Amos 10-11; Niddah 24b. The above sources do not agree as to the selection of their hero, some expressing their predilection for Sihon and others for Og. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 343. Sihon ’s mother was Ham's wife, who committed adultery with Ahiah before and after the deluge, and bore him two sons, Og, who was born before the deluge (see vol. I, p. 160), and Sihon, born after it; Hadar and Da' at Hukkat (end). Concerning the enormous stature of the giants, see vol. I, pp. 125 and 151, as well as vol. Ill, p. 268. 669 Rosh ha-Shanah 3a, where it is stated that Sihon, Arad, and Kenaani are three names of the same person; comp, also Baba Batra 78b and Midrash Aggada Num. 21.23. In the last-mentioned source ’jyu is said to be the name of a person. This is in agreement with the Septuagint, Num. 21.1 and Philo, Moses, 1.45. Comp, note 646. The victory over Arad took place in the month of Ab, shortly after the death of Aaron; Aggadat Esther 29; comp, also vol. Ill, p. 331, as well as notes 666 and 682, dealing with the victory over Sihon. «7» DR 1.22-23; DZ 26; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 764. Comp, vol. Ill, pp. 25 and 277. 671 Ta'anit 20a; ‘Abodah Zarah 25a; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 2.25. Comp, note 245. 673 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 764; Tan. B. Ill, 16, and V, 6-7; Tan. Zaw 3; DR 5.13 (which states that Moses sent messengers 117 673-684] The Legends of the Jews without consulting God; comp, notes 191, 239); BaR 19.33. Comp, vol. Ill pp. 80 and 405. 6 7 3 Targum Yerushalmi Num. 21.22. Concerning the explanation that “field and vineyard” are metaphores for woman, see PRE 21; BR 63.12 and Theodor’s note 4 on BR 22.7; Sanhedrin 74 b (yp*lp = mP); Zohar I, 36b. Comp, also Ps. 128.3. See note 622. 874 Tan. B. IV, 129; Tan. Hukkat 23; BaR 19.29; DZ 26. The negotiations took place between the people of Israel and Sihon, as it was beneath Moses’ dignity to deal directly with this small potentate, but to the king of Edom the Hebrew ambassadors were sent as the representatives of Moses, Lekah, Num. 20.21, which offers this as an explanation of the difference in the wording between this verse and Num. 20.14. The three Midrashim quoted at the beginning of this note do not share this view, and maintain that the “leader of a generation is equal to the entire generation.” Comp. Tosefta ‘Abodah Zarah I, 4, and hence Scripture considers the undertakings of Moses as those of the people, and speaks of them promiscuously. 675 ‘Abodah Zarah 38 a; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 2.28. In view of the fact that Jews are forbidden to eat food prepared by Gentiles, all that they wanted was food stuffs. 676 Tan. B. IV, 129; Tan. Hukkat 230; BaR 19.29; DZ 26. 677 Tan. B. IV, 130 (comp. Buber, ad loc .); Tan. Hukkat 25; BaR 19.32; DZ 27; Yelammedenu (?) in Likkutim, V, 96b. 678 Tan. B. IV, 129; Tan. Hukkat 230; BaR 19.29; DZ 26-27; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 810; Sifre D., 3; Midrash Tannaim 4; comp. vol. Ill, p. 376. 678 DZ 27. 680 Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk, s. ▼. NDIS 3; comp. Likkutim, V, 96b. See also vol. IV, p. 26. 681 DZ 27; Tan. B. IV, 130; Tan. Hukkat 24; BaR 19.31. Philo, Moses, 1.47, likewise dwells upon the complete annihilation of Sihon ’s army in the first encounter with Israel. That Caleb and Phinehas were the spies is found only in Targum Yerushalmi Num. 21.22. Comp, vol. IV, p. 5. 683 Tan. B. IV, 130; Tan. Hukkat 24; BaR 19.32; Seder ‘Olam 9; Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 5.2. Comp, note 666, and vol. IV, p. 400. 683 Shir 4.8; Midrash Tannaim 4; for the contrary view, see Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 5.3. 6 8 4 DR 1.25; BR 42.8; Niddah 61a; Tan. B. IV, 130; Tan. Hukkat 25; BaR 19.32; comp. vol. I, pp. 160 and 341 as well as vol. 118 Moses in the Wilderness [685-693 III, p. 340. The Haggadah assumes that Og was a contemporary of Abraham (comp. vol. I, p. 160), and this accounts for the statement that he was five hundred years old at the time of his death, which took place in the last year of Israel’s wandering through the wilderness, or two years prior to this; comp. Seder ‘Olam 9, and Ratner note 13. Abraham was born 1948 A. M., and the forty years of the wandering through the wilderness ended in the year 2488, hence Og was by fifty years the junior of Abraham. According to another view, however, Og was born before the deluge (comp, note 667), so that he lived more than eight hundred years. 68s DR 1.24; DZ 25; Makiri on Ps. 136, 260 (the text is corrupt, and should be emended in accordance with DZ). Comp, note 668. Concerning Edrei, see Kaftor wa-Ferah, ed. Lunz, Indexes, v. 68 6 Niddah 24b; Tan. B. V, 6; DZ 27. Comp, note 668. 6 8 7 DZ 27 (the giant Goliath was very big and tall but his breadth was proportionate to his height); Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 3.11; comp, note 704. Maimonides, Guide, II, 47, strongly repudiates this view of Og ’s monstrosity, but does not mention the fact that Targum and Midrash are the authorities for this opinion. Comp, also Onkelos Deut., loc. cit. 6 8 8 Soferim 21, where it is also stated that Abraham received him as a present from Nimrod. Comp. vol. I, pp. 125, 203; Index, s. v. “Eliezer, the Slave of Abraham”, and the following note. 6 8 9 PRE 16, where it is also stated that he was the slave (according to another reading, the son) of Nimrod, from whom Abraham received him as a present; comp, the preceding note. The version of this legend, as given in Soferim 21, presupposes that Abraham manumitted his slave when he knocked his tooth out, in accordance with the law as recorded in Exod. 21.26. 6 » 0 Soferim 21. 69 1 Tan. B. IV, 130; Tan. Hukkat 25; BaR 19.32; Zohar III, 181a. Moses was afraid of Og who had been circumcised by Abraham, whose slave he was. Comp, notes 688, 689. 692 Tan. B. IV, 130; Tan. Hukkat 25; BaR 19.32; DZ 27; comp. Niddah 61a and the remark of Tosafot, ad loc. 693 BaR 19.32; Tan. B. IV, 130; Tan. Hukkat 25. Comp. vol. I, 380 (bottom). The battle against Og took place on a Sabbath, and Moses feared lest the desecration of t'he Sabbath (though forced by necessity) should result in misfortune for Israel; see David Luria on BR 70.16. 119 694-701] The Legends of the Jews 6,4 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 810. 695 Berakot 54b (Moses was ten cubits high, and by jumping ten cubits he reached Og’s ankles); Targum Yerushalmi Num. 21.35, where is to be read instead of KIT IP . Another version of this legend is to be found in DR 1.24 and Midrash Aggada, Num., loc. cit. This version reads: Og tore up a mountain, and lifted it up to cast it upon the camp of Israel, but Moses wrote the Name upon a potsherd, and threw it at the mountain which was about to fall upon Israel. The result was that the mountain remained suspended in the air. Parhon, s. v. ns’DH, quotes a Midrash to the effect that it was the hoopoe which perforated the mountain, whereas the Midrash Aggada ascribes this feat to the raven. The statement in Sekel 178 that Og's teeth were sixty cubits long is taken from Megillah 15b. Comp, also ER 26, 133. The legend given in vol. Ill, p. 469, maintains that Moses slew Sihon and Og with his rod. 6 9 ’ Niddah 61a; Tan. B. IV, 130; Tan. Hukkat 25; BaR 19.32; PRE 23; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 3.11. Comp. vol. I, p. 160, and vol. Ill, p. 343. The description of Og as the “last of the giants” in Deut. 3.12 is found by the Haggadah also in Gen. 14.13 (that is how the Haggadah explains and it refers either to the escape from the deluge, in which all the giants perished, or to his escape from Amraphel’s sword. 698 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 810. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 342. Yelammedenu, loc. cit., adds that whereas after the victory over Sihon the Israelites had been very anxious to get as much spoil as possible, they were quite indifferent to the spoil after the victory over Og. The riches the Israelites had acquired by the first victory had satisfied their desire for spoil. Comp. Likkutim, V. 97a. 699 Tan. B. I, 6. Concerning the giant’s measuring eighteen cubits, see vol. Ill, p. 340. On the Amorites as giants, see Recognitiones I, 29. Comp, also Jub. 29.9. 700 Tan. in Makiri on Ps. 136, 257; Likkutim, V, 96a; Tan. B.V., 3 and 6 (the victories over Sihon and Og were greater — i.e., more miraculous than those over Pharaoh); DZ 25; Midrash Tannaim 4. 701 Tan. B. V, 6; DZ 27; BaR 18.22; Sotah 36a; Midrash Aggada Deut. 7.20 (the hornets used to track the Amorites to their hiding-places and kill them there; in this manner they frustrated the sudden attack upon Israel planned by their enemies); Philo, Quaestiones, Exod. 2.24. See also Wisdom 12.8-10 which reads: And sentest wasps as forerunners of their host, to destroy them.... executing judgment upon them little 120 Moses in the Wilderness [702-712 by little, Thou gavest them a place of repentance. The use of roiros literally “place”, in the sense of “ opportunity is of frequent occurrence in Jewish-hellenistic literature, and is a Hebraism, being a translation of DlpD which has both meanings in mishnaic Hebrew; comp., e. g., Berakot 4.2. 7° 2 Sotah 36a, which also gives the dissenting view that there were two kinds of hornets, one which killed the trans-Jordanic enemies of Israel, and another which destroyed the inhabitants of the Holy Land proper; Tosefta Sota 11.10; Shir 4.5. 7° J Tan. B. V, 6; Aggadat Bereshit 8.19. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 131 (bottom), and vol. IV, p. 7. 7m Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 3.11. Comp, note 687. Josephus Antiqui., IV, 5.3, dwells upon Og's beauty and high descent. 7»J Midrash Aggada Deut. 3.11. 7 06 Tan. B. V, 4-6; DR 1.15-20; Yelammedenu in Likkutim, V, 91a-94b; DZ 20-24; Makiri on Ps. 36, 227; 60, 309 (where David is censured for having engaged in war against Edom); 137, 264; on Is. 41, 125, and on Obadiah 18-19. Concerning Esau’s filial piety, see Zohar I, 146, and Index, s. v. 7° 7 Midrash Tannaim 1 and 4(which reads: Before the victory over Sihon, the mind of the people was too distracted to pay proper attention to the words of Moses); Sifre D., 3. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 118 (bottom). 7 0 8 Midrsh Tannaim 1—3; Sifre D., 1-2; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 1.1. The ten temptations (mentioned in as early a source as Abot 5.4) are enumerated in different ways; comp. ARN 9, 39, and 34, 98_99 (second version 38, 98-99; a view is quoted here according to which there were eleven temptations; comp. Num. 14.22); Tehillim 95, 420-421; ‘Arakin 15a; DZ 13-14. On God’s intentions to bring them quickly to Palestine, comp. vol. Ill, p. 243 and note 459. 709 DR 1.13. As a reward for their having listened to his reprimand with reverence, they were blessed by Moses; DR 1.9; DZ 18. 7 1 0 Sifre D., 4; Midrash Tannaim 4. 7 1 1 Lekah, Deut. 1.5. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 97; vol. IV, p. 6. 7 1 * Baba Kamma 38a-38b (here it is stated that the prohibition “not to vex Moab” remained valid even after the latter had attempted to destroy Israel by means of Balaam s curses); Nazir 23b, Horayyot 10b; BR 51.11; BaR 20.3; Tan. B. IV, 133; Zohar III, 188. Comp, also’ Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 418, on Is. 40 (the reference to the source is only given in the first edition), which reads: As a reward 121 713-719] The Legends of the Jews for Lot ’s hospitality by giving the angels one night ’s lodging in his house, the Israelites were forbidden to wage war against his descendants. 713 BaR 20.3. Comp, note 717. 714 Tan. B. IV, 129; Tan. Hukkat 24; BR 20.7. Concerning the view that Balaam caused the defeat of Moab, see vol. Ill, p. 354. Ps. -Philo, 18.2 maintains, on the other hand, that Balak sent to Balaam, saying: “Behold, I know how that in the reign of my father Zippor, when the Amorites fought against him, thou didst curse them and they were delivered into his hands.” On Balaam’s father, see note 722. 715 Lekah, Num. 21.29, whence this statement found its way in Sekel and Ziyyoni on N um. loc. cit. These authorities regard Chemosh as the Moabite Ka'bah. 7 1 6 BaR 20.3; Tan. B. IV 133; Tan. Balak 2. These Midrashim also remark that the defeat of Sihon and Og, “the sentinels of Palestine”, (see vol. Ill, p. 341, bottom) was the cause of the great fear of the Moabites. 717 Hullin 69b; Gittin 38a; Tan. B. IV, 129; Tan. Hukkat 24; BaR 19.30. Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 6.2, likewise calls attention to the fact that Balak was ignorant of God’s command to Israel not to wage war against the Moabites. 718 BaR 20.4; Tan. B IV, 134; Tan. Balak 4. On Balaam’s father, see vol. Ill, p. 383 and note 722. According to Targum Yerushalmi Num. 22.4, Moab and Midian formed a confederate state, and the king was alternately a Moabite and a Midianite; hence the predecessor of Balak the Moabite was a Midianite, and not his father. Comp, also Koheleth 2.9. Zohar III, 196b-197a, reads: Balak was the grandson of Jethro, and the only one of the latter’s family who was not converted to the true religion of Israel (comp. vol. II, p. 289, and vol. Ill, pp. 75-76). The Moabites and Midianites therefore elected him king as a reward for his steadfastness to the faith of his people, comp, note 721. The text of Lekah 23.18 is corrupt, and is to be emended in accordance with Koheleth, loc. cit. 7,7 Lekah, Midrash Aggada, and Ba‘al ha-Turim on Num. 22.1. In Lekah “i’sxd is the same as □’DC’D, from the Aramaic NIBS “early morning”, and Balak ia said to have started the day with hostile plans against Israel. Comp, also vol. II, p. 328, which deals with the etymology of the name Zipporah. Philo, De Confusione Ling. 15, explains the name Balak as one who is “void of sense”, in accord122 Moses in the Wilderness [720-722 ance with Is. 24.1, where the Septuagint has epij/idicra for np'rn of Hebrew text. ?3» Zohar III, 184b. The use of the bird Yaddua' for magical purposes is referred to in very early sources; comp, the explanation of ’31JTP (Lev. 19.31) in Sanhedrin 66b. A comparison of Zohar with Maimonides, commentary on Mishnah Sanhedrin 7.4, will prove the dependence of the former on the latter. The Franco-German school of talmudic commentators identify Yaddua' in Sanhedrin, loc. cit., with the “vegetable man”, see Rashi, ad loc., R. Samson of Sens, Kil 'ayim 8.5 ; comp. Ginzberg ’s full discussion on this point in Schwars Festschrift 329-333. Comp, also vol. I, pp. 31-32, and the notes appertaining to them. Philo, Moses, 1.48, describes Balaam as a great master in the art of augury. Did he confuse Balaam with Balak “the son of the bird”? Concerning Balak ’s magical art, see also Zohar III, 198b, which reads: He sank a magical mixture consisting of herbs and heads of scorpions fifteen hundred cubits deep into the ground. This mixture was subsequently found by David; see vol. IV, p. 96. For further details concerning Balak ’s magic, see vol. Ill, pp. 370, 376, 378. 731 Tan. B. IV, 134; Tan. Balak 3; BaR 20.4; Sifre N., 157; Sanhedrin 105a; MHG I, 546; Zohar III, 189b-190a. In the lastnamed source the Midianites are chiefly blamed, and are said to have incited the Moabites against Israel. Comp, vol. II, p. 164 (bottom), and vol. Ill, p. 405. Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 6.2, writes: Balak the king of the Moabites, who had from his ancestors a friendship and a league with the Midianites; comp, notes 718 and 842. 7 2 3 Sanhedrin 105a (Beor is taken here as an epithet of Balaam; this explanation is against that of Rashi); Targum Yerushalmi Num. 22.25; BR 57.3 (Balaam is identifided here with Kemuel; see Theodor ad loc., Hadar, Exod. 1.10, and Num 22.5; Da'at, Gen. 22.23, and Exod., loc. cit., Mahzor Vitry 549); Yeammedenu in Yalkut I, 766. Comp, also vol. I, pp. 376, 424; vol. II, pp. 159, 163,165, 254, 272, 277, 287, 296, 332, 334, 335; vol. Ill, pp. 364, 373, 411; vol. IV, p. 30.. In the sources quoted above three different views can be easily recognized. Balaam is identified with Laban; Balaam is Laban’s grandson; Balaam is Laban ’s nephew. But there is still a fourth view which maintains that Balaam died at the age of thirty-three, and accordingly could not have been a close relative of Laban, and certainly not identical with him, see Sanhedrin 106b. The view held by many modern authors, Jewish as well as Christian, that in Sanhedrin, loc. cit., as well as in 123 723-726] The Legends of the Jews many other passages of the legendary literature of the Jews, Balaam is used as an alias for Jesus (comp, the literature on this point given by Laible, Jesus in Talmud, IV, 50, seq., Schorr, He-Haluz X, 32-46; Herford, Christianity in Talmud, 65 seq.) is decidedly wrong; comp. Ginzberg, Journal Biblical Literature, 41.121, note 18. On the descent of Balaam, see also Lekah, Num. 22.6, where he is described as belonging to the family of Kemuel. 733 Sotah 11a; Abba Gorion 30, which reads: Balaam incited Amalek to attack the Israelites as soon as they left Egypt, telling him that as a descendant of Abraham he might count upon God’s assistance. Comp. vol. II, pp. 254, seq. and the references to vol. II given in the preceding note. It was due to Balaam ’s magic that the Israelites could not flee from Egypt (comp. Zohar III, 212a, which was excerpted in Yalkut Reubeni on Num. 23.22; see also note 3). Although they finally succeeded, by the help of God, in gaining their liberty, Balaam did not give up hope to bring them back to the house of bondage. The seven weeks between the exodus and the revelation on Mount Sinai Balaam spent with the fallen angels Azza and Azzazel, endeavoring, with the help of these angels, to force Israel back to Egypt; Emek ha-Melek 107b-107d. This passage also gives a detailed description of Balaam ’s magic. 734 Sanhedrin 105b (on the text comp. Aruk, s. v. DyVa); Midrash Aggada and Targum Yerushalmi on Num. 22.5. 7 3 5 Tan. B. IV, 134; Tan. Balak 4; Sanhedrin 105a; Koheleth 2.9; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 22.5 and 24.3. Comp, also Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 6.2, who writes: These Midianites, knowing that there was one Balaam .... the greatest of the prophets at that time .... sent some of their honorable princes to entreat the prophet to come to them, etc. As to Balaam 's relation to the Moabites and the Amorites, see notes 714, 7 18. As long as the Israelites were in Egypt, Balaam was considered the wisest of men, and all nations came to him for advice; but after the exodus (*. e., after the revelation of the Torah; see vol. Ill, p. 106) a Jewish bondwoman possessed more wisdom than Balaam. He therefore hated the Israelites out of envy, 2 ARN 45, 124-125. As to the question whether Balaam was a prophet, or merely an interpreter of dreams, or a magician, see note 784. 736 BaR 20.1; Tan. B. IV, 132 (read lpnan instead of lp3-i:i); Tan. Balak 1; Koheleth 3.18. On the “rulers over all the world”, see note 82 on vol. I, p. 178. Concerning Balaam as the one who counselled the allurement of Israel to lewdness, see vol. Ill, pp. 380, seq. 124 Moses in the Wilderness [727-730 7*7 ER 18, 141-147, and 6, 35; EZ 10-11, 191-192; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 766.

This passage maintains that Balaam, Job and his four companions, were descendants of Abraham’s brother Nahor. See above, note 722; note 3 on vol. II, p. 225; vol. II, p. 236. Concerning Job as a prophet, see Ecclesiasticus 39.9. Comp., however, vol. IV, p. 411, where Balaam is said to have been the only prophet the Gentiles had ever produced. Moses, the greatest prophet of the Jews, and Balaam, the greatest prophet of the Gentiles, are often contrasted with one another in the haggadic literature; see Sifre D., and Midrash Tannaim at the end; Sifre Z., 58-59; comp, also WR 1.13; BaR 14.20; Zohar II, 22a; vol. II, p. 366 and 371-372. As to the refusal of the Torah by the Gentiles, see vol. Ill, p. 80. On the non-Jewish prophets, see also Abodah Zarah 3a; vol. Ill, p. 205. 7 Tan. B. IV, 134-135; Tan. Balak 4-5; BaR 20.7-8; Zohar III, 198a and 209b; comp, note 720. 7*9 Sanhedrin 105a, which was followed by Lekah and Midrash Aggada on Num. 22.8. 7 3° BaR 20.6 and 9-12; Tan. B. IV, 136-137; Tan. Balak 5-8; 2 ARN 45, 125 (here Adam is counted as the fourth who failed to pass the test to which he was put by God; comp. Gen. 3.9); BR 19.11; Zohar III, 200a; Batte Midrashot, IV, 5: (Balaam hated Israel, because he had hoped that God would select him to accomplish the exodus from Egypt and to deliver the Torah; comp. vol. VI, pp. 421-422). In connection with the question put by God to Balaam, the following remark is made by ps.-Philo, 18, 173. Balaam said: “Wherefore, O Lord, dost Thou tempt the race of men? They cannot sustain it; for Thou knowest more than they, all that was in the world before Thou didst found it. And now enlighten Thy servant if it be right that I go with them." Balaam’s answer, according to ps.-Philo, is identical with the one he ought to have given according to the Rabbis. Concerning the idea that God never appears to Gentiles save at night, see BR 52.11; Mekilta Bo 1.1 (God made the moon appear during the day to instruct Moses in the regulations of the calendar, as He never spoke to him except by day); WR 1.13; note 221 on vol. I, p. 373. All the Midrashim quoted above, as well as Philo, Moses, 1.48, maintain that Balaam was from the very beginning anxious to carry out Balak 's invitation and was ready to curse Israel. Opposed to this view is the statement in Aggadat Bereshit 65, 130, according to which Balaam said to Balak ’s messengers: " I cannot undertake to do any evil against Israel, with whom the Lord is.” Comp, note 766. In ps.-Philo, loc. cit., it is God who reminded 12s 732-739] The Legends of the Jews Balaam of His love for Abraham and Jacob, whose descendants He chose as His people; “and now, behold, thou thinkest to go with these, and curse them whom I have chosen comp, note 744. On Balaam ’s blindness, comp. Niddah 31a, where it is said that he became afflicted with blindness as punishment for an impure thought. See also Zohar III, 147b. 7 3 1 Sotah 10a; Sanhedrin 105a. 73 2 Tan. B. IV, 136-137; Tan. Balak 6; BaR 20.10; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 22.12. 7 3 3 Lekah and Midrash Aggada on Num. 22.12. 73 BaR 20.19-20; Tan. B. IV, 136-137; Tan. Balak 6-8; Midrash Aggada, Num. 22.19-20; Likkutim IV, 61b-62a. Balaam’s three bad traits are contrasted with Abraham’s three good traits. These are: a good eye, a loving soul, and a humble spirit; Abot 5.19. See also 2 Peter 2.15, and Jude 11. Concerning unconscious prophecy, see vol. V, 250, note 239, and Index, s. v. 7 3 3 Sanhedrin 105b; BaR 20.12; Tan. B. IV 137; Tan. Balak 8. God exalted Balaam in order to make his humiliation all the more noticeable, He therefore did not permit him to go with Balak ’s first messengers, who were not men of high rank, so that he should be disgraced in the presence of the second messengers, who were men of great prominence; Lekah, Num. 22.20. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 362, which gives another reason why God did not permit Balaam to go with the first messengers, but allowed him to go with the second. 7 3 6 BaR 20.9 and 12; Tan. B. IV, 136-137; Tan. Balak 5 and 15. Comp, also ps. -Philo, 18.8; 17B, which reads: and God said unto him: “Go with them, and thy journey shall be an offence, and Balak himself shall go to destruction.” 7 3 7 Midrash Aggada, Num. 22.7. Concerning the magicians sent by Balak; see vol. Ill, 357, and note 735. 7 3 8 Sanhedrin 105a; Mekilta Beshallah 1, 27a; Mekilta RS, 44;BR45.8;BaR20.12; Tan. B. IV, 137; Tan.Balak8; Ozar Midrashim 42. Sabba‘, Wa-Yera, 22b, quotes an unknown Midrash to the effect that before Abraham there had been none who saddled his ass by himself, i. e., who was anxious to fulfil the divine command given to him. 7 3 9 Midrash Aggada Num. 22.21. This passage presupposes the identity of Balaam with Laban; see note 722. Concerning Balaam as the counsellor of Pharaoh, see note 723. The old sources quoted in note 99 on vol. I, p. 83, speak of the “mouth of Balaam’s ass” as having been created in the twilight between the sixth day and the first Sabbath of creation. 126 Moses in the Wilderness [740-744 740 Targum Yerushalmi, Num. 22.22. The later legends likewise consider these two magicians to have been Balaam’s sons; comp, vol. II, pp. 177 and 282. According to vol. Ill, p. 28, they were drowned in the Red Sea; comp., however, vol. Ill, p. 120, where they are made responsible for the fashioning of the golden calf. 741 BaR 20.13; Tan. B. Ill, 81-82, and IV, 137; Tan. Emor 2 and Balak 8; BR 55.8; WR 26.7; Shemuel 24, 118. Abraham and Saul (comp. Gen. 22.3 and 1 Samuel 28.8) are quoted as proof that this is the proper conduct. Comp, also Sotah 7a. 743 ER 28, 142 (which dwells also upon Balaam’s eagerness to curse Israel; he spent a sleepless night, excited over the opportunity offered to him. That God did not appear to Balaam in his dream, but while he was awake, may be inferred from the fact that Num. 22.20 does not have the word DlVm, as in Gen. 20.3 and 21.24) ; Lekah and Targum Yerushalmi on Num. 22.22. 743 BaR 20.13; Tan. B. IV, 137; Tan. Balak, 8; Rashi on Num. 22.23 (partly based on Berakot 6a, which reads: If the eye of man were permitted to see ail that surrounds him, he could not exist for a moment, as he would be instantly killed by the fear of the myriads of evil spirits around him); Zohar III, 207b. In the last-named source the purpose of the legend is entirely misunderstood, and the statement is made that the “Angel of Mercy” attempted to prevent Balaam from proceeding on his journey. The angel thereby wished to save Balaam from destruction. “Woe unto the wicked who turn the attribute of mercy into the attribute of justice” is a favorite expression of the Haggadah (comp. e. g., BR 30.3), and in this sense one is to understand the statement that Balaam made the “Angel of Mercy” (Num. 22.23 reads and not □,nl7N1Nl?n; comp, note 6 on vol. I, p. 4, which deals with the use of the tetragrammaton to describe God as merciful) turn against him. According to Tan. B. I, 187; ShR 2.3: Aphraates 57; Theodoretus, Num., loc. cit., this angel was Michael. But according to Imre No‘ am, Num., loc. cit., it was Gabriel. On the rivalry of these two angels, see note 8 on vol. I, p. 5, and Index, s. v. Michael, Gabriel. 744 BaR 20.14; Tan. B. IV, 138; Tan. Balak 8; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 22.24 and 30; Al-Barceloni, 57 (a somewhat different interpretation of the two “sides of the road”). Comp. vol. Ill, p. 373. The iegend that Balaam’s wall is identical with that erected by Jacob and Laban is found only in Targum Yerushalmi, loc. cit. But many medieval authors quote this statement from the Midrash; comp. Hadar, WaY°ze, end, (they stuck a sword into the wall, and with this sword Balaam 127 745-749] The Legends of the Jews was killed); Num. 22.24 and 21.8; Da' at and Pa'aneah Wa-Yeze (end); Imre No' am, Num. 22.24; Ziyyoni, Gen. 38.8 (towards the end); Midrash Aggada, Num. 22.24-25; Gan, quoted by Poznanski, Mebo, 102-103, who strangely enough did not notice that Gan reproduces a widespread legend. Whether this legend presupposes the identity of Balaam with Laban (comp, note 722) is doubtful. On Levi as one of the very pious men in the pre-Mosaic times, see Index, s. v. Concerning God ’s wrath at Balaam ’s attempt to curse the descendants of Jacob, see note 730, end, where the same remark by ps.-Philo is quoted. 745 Midrash Aggada and Targum Yerushalmi, Num. 22.27-28. Comp. vol. I, p. 83, and note 739. Tan. B. IV, 138, and BaR 20.14, dwell upon the ridiculous position into which Balaam was brought by his ass, and which enraged him against the animal. It is worth while noticing that Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 6.3, twice emphasizes the fact that Balaam’s ass “spoke with the voice of a man”. It may well be assumed that as early as the time of Josephus the allegorists and rationalists attempted to explain the speaking of the ass in an allegorical or symbolical manner, and it is against such views that Josephus ’ words are directed. On a similar attempt made by the Jewish philosophers of the Arabic period, see Ibn Ezra, Num. 22.28, and Maimonides, Guide, II, 42, who maintain that the episode with the ass is nothing but a vision. 7 4 6 Tan. B. IV, 138; Tan. Balak 9; BaR 20.4. Balaam’s imperfect knowledge of Hebrew is evidenced by his use of the word n^ynn Num. 22.29, whicn had an obscene meaning; comp. Lekah, Num. 22.6. 7 « 7 Sanhedrin 105a-105b; Tan. B. IV, 138-139; Tan. Balak 9; Yerushalmi Targumim Num. 22.30. In the Talmud and 1 Targum Yerushalmi Balaam is said to have committed buggery with his ass; comp, also Zohar III, 209b-210a. 7 « 8 Tan. B. IV, 139; Tan. Balak 9-10; BaR 20.14-15; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 765 (Yelammedenu is given as the source in the first edition only). Concerning the conception that God does not wish to have sinners publicly disgraced, see Sanhedrin 7.3; PK 9, 75b, and parallel passages cited by Buber. 7,,, Targum Yerushalmi Num. 24.3; PRE 29 (this passage also states that even Abraham before he was circumcised could not listen to the words of God and remain standing); Zohar I, 96b; BaR 20.15; Tan. B. IV, 39; Tan. Balak 10. Comp, also the references in note 727 to the sources dealing with the differences between Moses and Balaam; 128 Moses in the Wilderness [750-759 see also vol. IV, p. 146; note 131 on vol. I, p. 241; note 318 on vol. I, p. 306. BaR 20.13; Tan. B. IV, 137-138; Tan. Balak 8; Midrash Aggada, Num. 22.23 (elaborated). Comp. vol. Ill, p. 316, and note 855. 7 s 1 BaR 20.5; Tan. B. IV, 139 (Balaam who boasted of knowing the plans of the Most High — vol. Ill, p. 356 — had now to admit that he knew nothing thereof); Tan. Balak 10; Yelammedenu (?) in Yalkut I 766. 753 Midrash Aggada, Num. 22.35; Tan. B. IV, 140; Tan. Balak 10; BaR 20.15 \Likkutim, IV, 62b-63a. Josephus, Antiqui., II, 63, in agreement with the rabbinic Haggada (see vol. Ill, pp. 361-362) maintains that Balaam after having heard the words of the angel, intended to return home, but was advised by God to proceed on his journey. Philo, Vita Mosis 1.39, agrees with the view of the Rabbis as given in the text that the words spoken by Balaam, “if it displease Thee, I will get me back” (Num. 22.34), prove his insincerity (if he were sincere, he would have returned without asking), and God therefore became angry with him, and allowed him to go to his destruction. ’si MHG, Num. 22.35 (in manuscript); comp, note 735. 7 s 4 Tan. B. IV, 140; Tan. Balak 10; BaR 20.16. Concerning the boundary lines fixed by Noah, see vol. I, p. 172. ’ss BaR 20.16; Tan. B. IV, 140; Tan. Balak 10. r s 6 ER 28.142. Concerning the seven altars and seven sacrifices, see vol. Ill, p. 371. ’s’ BaR 20.16-18; Tan. B. IV, 140; Tan. Balak 11; 2 ARN 23,48. For an illustration of the truth of the proverb concerning the liberality of the pious, see vol. I, p. 243 (top). Concerning Balak ’s magic art, see vol. Ill, pp. 353, 357, 376, 378; Zohar III, 112b; 304a. 7 5 s Berakot 7a; ‘Abodah Zarah 4a-4b; Zohar I, 95b; III, 113a; Batte Midrashot, IV, 16. Comp, also Yerushalmi Berakot 1.2d (in connection with the smallest fraction of an hour). See Bornstein in Hatekufah VI, 271-272, according to whom this fraction (one 56848 of the hour) is to be read in Babli too. In vol. Ill, p. 371, top, eighty-five is a misprint for fifty-eight. 7 5 9 BaR 20.18; Tan. B III, 12; IV, 140-141; Tan. Zaw 1 and Balak 11-12; Tehillim 17, 125, and 90, 385. Comp, also Tan. B. Ill, 16, and Tan. Zaw 4, which reads: The nations of the world asked Balaam, “Why did God command Israel, and not us, to bring sacrifices?” He answered: 11 The purpose of sacrifices is to establish peace, but peace 129 760-764] The Legends of the Jews without the Torah is impossible. The Israelites accepted the Torah; they were therefore commanded to bring sacrifices, but ye who rejected it are not to bring any sacrifices.” The verse “the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination” (Prov. 21.27; comp, also 15.8) is said to refer to the sacrifices brought by Balaam and the wicked nations, which were not acceptable to God. Comp. Tehillim, loc. cit. See also Midrash Aggada and Rashi on Num. 23.1; vol. Ill, p. 369. 760 BaR 20.18; Tan. B. IV, 141; Tan. Balak 11; Midrash Aggada and Lekah on Num. 23.4; WR 1.3; Likkutim, IV, 63b-64a; Zohar III, 200b (top). Concerning the contrast between Moses and Balaam, see vol. Ill, p. 356. 761 Tan. B. Ill, 12, and IV, 141; Tan. Zaw 1, and Balak 12; BaR 20.18; Yelammedenu (?) in Likkutim, IV, 64a; Midrash Tannaim 146-147. Comp. Aggadat Shir (end), and note 759. 762 Sanhedrin 105b,- Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 765 (the source is given in the first edition only); Tan. B. IV, 141; Tan. Balak 12; BaR 20.18; Likkutim, IV, 64a-64b; Batte Midrashot IV, 15a. 7 3 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 765. Comp, also references in the preceding note. 764 BaR 20.19; Tan. B. IV, 141-143; Tan. Balak 12 ; Batte Midrashot IV, 15a-15b; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 765-766. Concerning the blessing which came to Laban through Jacob, see vol. I, pp. 370 and 376. On Balaam ’s descent from Laban, see note 722 (end). Concerning the view that Balaam was deprived of the gift of prophecy, see note 784. In the Midrashim quoted above there are many other haggadic interpretations of Balaam 's orations. Other kinds of explanations are given by Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 6.5, and ps-Philo, 18.10-12; 18C-D. It is noteworthy that Josephus’ interpretations are based upon the Hebrew text of Scripture, and not upon the Septuagint. If, e. g., Josephus makes Balaam say: “There is not any nation among mankind, but ye will be esteemed superior to them in virtue,” it is obvious that it is a haggadic rendering of Num. 23.9, where is taken in the sense of “being esteemed”, in accordance with the mishnic use of this verb (comp., e. g., Shebi'it 8.11). Num. 23.7 is paraphrased by ps.Philo as follows: “Lo, Balak hath brought me . saying: ‘Come, run into the fire of these men.’ ” This of course, is a haggadic interpretation of rm connecting it with UN “fire”. The following sentence in ps.-Philo runs: It is easier to take away the foundation and all the topmost parts of the earth (read “terra” instead of “erorum”) and darken the light of the sun....than to uproot the planting of the Most 130 Moses in the Wilderness [765-770 High. This Haggadah on Num. 23.9 is similar to that given by Yelam medenu in Yalkut I, 766. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 374. Josephus, as well as ps. -Philo, combined Balaam’s four orations into one. 765 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 766. Comp. Likkutim, IV, 65a— 65b. Concerning the statement found in these Midrashim that Israel’s strength lies in words (*. e., the Torah), see vol. Ill, pp. 366-367. 766 BaR 20.19; Tan. B. IV, 142; Tan. Balak 12; Wa-Yekullu 18; Batte Midrashot IV, 16; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 766; Likkutim, IV, 66a-66b. The conception that God does not associate Himself with the evil brought upon Israel has, properly considered, no bearing upon any special privilege of Israel. The idea that God, as the source of the good, cannot be the direct source of evil is Philonic as well as rabbinic; see Tan. B. Ill, 39-41 and the discussion on this point in note 9 on vol. I, p. 5, and note 176 on vol. II, p. 70.— In the quotation from Aggadat Bereshit given in note 730 the words rbww ny!2>3 are perhaps not to be taken literally. Concerning the idea that the manna was given to Israel even after they had worshipped the golden calf, see vol. Ill, p. 123, and note 270. 767 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 766; Likkutim, I, 67a. Comp, vol. I, pp. 3 and 132, as well as note 764. 768 Tan. B. IV, 143; Tan. Balak 12; BaR 20.17; Yerushalmi Targumim Num. 23.9; Batte Midrashot IV, 16; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 765; Mekilta Amalek 1, 54a; Mekilta RS 82; PR 12, 49a; Lekah, Num. loc. cit. (quoting a tannaitic source?). Comp. vol. Ill, p. 134. 769 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 768; Batte Midrashot IV, 16-17; Tan. B. IV, 143; Tan. Balak 12; BaR 20.19; Yerushalmi Targumim and Lekah on Num. 23.9. On the judging of the nations in the darkness of the night, see Tehillim 9, 87; Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shanah 1, 57a; BR 50.3; PR 40, 167b. The last-named source reads: God does not desire the destruction of the sinner, He therefore judges the nations at night, the time of rest, when they cease from doing evil. The Israelites, on the other hand, are judged by day, the time when they perform good deeds, in remembrance of which God is merciful unto them. This view is entirely different from that of the old Haggadah, according to which the judging of the nations at night is a form of severity; see note 170 on vol. I, p. 253, and note 216 on vol. II, p. 366. 770 Tan. B. IV, 143; Tan. Balak 12; BaR 20.19. These Midrashim take the words “the dust of Jacob’’ to refer to the fulfilling of the commandments connected with the soil (i. e., agricultural laws), 131 771-777] The Legends of the Jews whereas Targum Yerushalmi, ad loc., and Wayekullu 18 consider this phrase as an allusion to the performance of circumcision, when dust is strewn over the wound (on this custom see Hilluf Minhagim 18-19). Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 765, and ER 21,116 refer this phrase to the purity of the young men in Israel, who are thus described as lay “young gazelles." 771 Yerushalmi Targumim and Midrash Aggada Num. 23.10; ER 21,116. The translation of Num., loc. cit., by Septuagint seems to presuppose a similar haggadic interpretation; comp, also Philo, Moses, 1.50. That Balaam lost his share in the world to come is stated in Sanhedrin 10.2. Comp, also the quotation from a Midrash (on Job?) in Makiri, Is. 57,217. 77» Tan. B. IV, 144; Tan. Balak 12-14; BaR 20.20; Yerushalmi Targumim 23.19, seq. On Balak as a great sorcerer, see note 757. Philo, Moses, 1,51, explains the change of place by Balaam as an attempt to influence God thereby. Comp. Rosh ha-Shanah 16a, which reads: Change of place brings change of luck. See also note 122 on vol I, p. 239. Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 6.5, gives a lengthy address by Balaam, in which he excuses himself and explains his failure to curse Israel. in Gittin 68b; Lekah, Num. 23.22. Concerning the invisiblity of the demons, see vol. I, p. 83, and note 743. m Tan. B. IV, 144-145; Tan. Balak 14; Likkutim, IV, 70a-70b. Concerning Israel 's superiority over the angels, see Nedarim 32a; Yerushalmi Shabbat 6 (end); DR 1.12. On the warding off of the evil spirit by the recitation of the Shema1, see Berakot 5a. m Rashi and Midrash Aggada, Num. 23.29. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 376, which has a similar statement concerning the choice of Pisgah. According to Targum Yerushalmi, Num. 22.41, Balak led Balaam at the very beginning to the top of Peor, which is also called Bamot-baal. 776 Targum Yerushalmi, Rashi, and Lekah on Num. 24.1. See also Targum Yerushalmi Num. 22.41-23.1, which reads: Balaam, from the top of Peor, observed the Danites, who, on account of their sins, were not covered by the clouds of glory (comp. Index, s. v. “Danites”), and he rejoiced, hoping that he would be able to induce God to curse Israel on account of these sinners. That Balaam, despite the clear indication of God ’s unwillingness to curse the Israelites, continued to hate them, is emphasized also by Philo, Vita Mosis, 1.52. in Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 771; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 24.2; Baba Batra 60a; BaR 2.4. The strict separation of the tents was proof of the purity of their family life. 132 Moses in the Wilderness [778-782 778 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 765, and II, 782, on Ps.62. In another passage of Yelammedenu (I, 771) it is shown in detail that Balaam worded the blessings which he was forced to pronounce upon Israel in such a way that they might be turned into curses. The same view is also found in Ta’anit 20a. Comp, also note 780. 779 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 766; Makiri, Prov. 27, 86b. On Balaam’s voice, see note 781. 780 Sanhedrin 105b. This passage contains also the following remark: The blessings which Balaam was forced to pronounce upon Israel indicate the nature of the curses which he attempted to call down on them; for God made him speak exactly the opposite of what he had intended. Balaam wished to say: “May the Shekinah never dwell among them”, but he was forced to say: “How beautiful. ...are the dwellingsf =the sanctuaries) of Israel, etc.” Comp, also Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 771. Talmud, Yelammedenu, ER 21, 116-117, as well Yerushalmi Targumim Num. 24.5, take the “tents of Jacob” (Num. 24.5) to refer to the houses of study. All the worldly bliss that Israel enjoyed was the fulfilment of Balaam’s blessings, while the “benedictions of the patriarchs” will be fulfilled in the world to come; DR 3.4. 781 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 765; Tan. B. IV, 146; Tan. Balak 15; BaR 20.21. The anti-Christian passages occur only in Yelammedenu and, partly, also in Makiri, Prov. 68b-69a. Another legend concerning Balaam’s powerful voice is found in Yelammedenu I, 771, whence it has been incorporated in Koheleth 7.5, which reads: Balaam ’s voice carried as far as sixty miles (VtOP’ H3nD2 is a variant which is not found in Yalkut I, 765), and when the Israelites heard it, they became very proud. Jacob’s blessing contained reproaches against some of the tribes; Moses’ blessings administered admonitions and reprimands; but Balaam uttered nothing but praises and blessings. Their pride over it became a stumbling-block to the Israelites, who were enticed to lewdness immediately after Balaam had pronounced his benedictions. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 380-381. 783 Targumim Num. 24.7-9 and 17-24; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I. 771; PR 13, 54a, and 41, 173b; ER 21, 117; Sanhedrin 106a; the Messianic Midrash in Lekah on verse 17; Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 6.5. It is noteworthy that Ephraem I, 153E, explains verse 17 to refer to Zerubbabel, though as early an authority as R. Akiba finds in it a Messianic prophecy; comp. Yerushalmi Ta’anit 4, 68d. This view was later shared by Jewish as well as Christian authorities; comp. e. g., Targum Yerushalmi and Theodoretus, ad loc. It is quite likely that 133 783-785] The Legends of the Jews Ephraem reproduces the view of a Jewish rationalist, as it is rather strange for a Christian to ignore this messianic passage. Ephraem ’s explanation of D’rD (Num. 24.24) as Rome is found in Targum Yerushalmi, ad loc. 7*3 Unknown Midrash quoted in Makiri on Is. 52, 145. On the descendants of Jonadab, see vol. Ill, pp. 76-77, and note 57 on vol. IV, p. 318. Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 771 likewise identifies the Kenite spoken of in 24.21 with the descendants of Jonadab the Rechabite; it reads: When Balaam saw the sons of Jonadab occupying seats in the Chamber of Gazit ( = the great Synhedrion) , he exclaimed in astonishment: “The law prescribes that only priests, Levites,and (pure-blooded) Israelites are qualified to become members of the Synhedrion (Sanhedrin 4.2), and yet these descendants of Jonadab were found worthy of this high position as a reward for the hospitality of their sire Jethro, who offered bread to Moses.” Comp, also Sanhedrin 106a. Concerning the superiority of Jethro’s descendants to all other proselytes, see Bikkurim, Tosefta 1.2 and Yerushalmi 1, 64a. ?8« Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 771; Sanhedrin 106a; see also ps.Philo 18.11 ; 17D, where the following words are put into Balaam’s mouth: “For but a little is left to me of the holy spirit which abideth in me since I know that through having been persuaded by Balak, I lost the days of my fife.” In 18. 2 ps. -Philo describes Balaam as “the interpreter of dreams, who dwelt in Mesopotamia.” This is in agreement with Targum Yerushalmi Num. 22.5 and Tan. B. IV, 134, according to which mins means “the interpreter of dreams”, from the HebrewAramaic root "ins “to interpret dreams”. Balaam was thus, as Tan., loc. tit., points out, first an interpreter of dreams, and then a prophet; but when he proved unworthy of his high calling, he sank to the low level of sorcerer; he remained a sorcerer for the rest of his life, see Josh. 13.22 and note 852. — “Moses committed Balaam’s prophecy to writing, and while it was in his power to claim this glory for himself and make people believe that the predictions were his own, there being no one who could contradict him and accuse him of doing so, still he gave attention to Balaam, aud did him the honor to make mention of him on this account,” Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 6.13. The statement of the Baraita, Baba Batra 14b, that Moses wrote his own book (=the Pentateuch) and the section of Balaam is to be understood in the same sense as the words quoted from Josephus. Comp, note 38 on vol. IV, 253. 785 Sanhedrin 106a. Balaam’s wicked counsel to entice Israel to idolatry by means of unchastity (see Num. 24.14 and 31.16) is de134 Moses in the Wilderness [786-790 scribed at full length by Philo, Moses, 1.54-55, and De Fortit., 7; Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 6.6-9, and ps.-Philo 18.18-19. Comp, also Revelation 2.14, where this legend is very likely presupposed. The rabbinic sources offer several versions of this legend; see Sifre, N., 131 and 157; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 28d (top); Tan.

B. IV, 147; Tan. Balak 15 and Mattot 3 ; BaR 20.23 and 22.4; ARN 1.3 ; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 785; PRE 47; Yerushalmi Targumim Num. 24.4. On the severe punishment which God inflicts for unchastity, see vol. I, p. 153; vol. IV, p. 369 (bottom). 786 BaR 20.23; Tan. B. IV, 146, and Tan. Balak 17, which, in the main, follow earlier sources; see Sifre N., 131; Sanhedrin, Babli 106b; Yerushalmi 10, 28d; see also references in preceding note. New is the statement in BaR and in the Tanhumas that Balaam instructed them not to allow the Jewish young men to commit idolatry while drunk, because they would not be held responsible for acts committed while in a state of drunkenness. This sounds like a learned reflection on the popular legend as given by the old sources, to make it agree with the Halakah concerning the irresponsibility of the inebriate; see ‘Erubin 65a. The proverb “Throw the stick, etc.” is also found in vol. II, p. 44. Concerning the description of the worship of Peor, found in rabbinic sources, see Chajes, Marcus Studien, 24. Israel became subjected to the “four kingdoms” through the worship of Peor; Tehillim 106, 456. 787 Tan B. I, 146-147; Tan. Balak 16-17; BaR 20.22. Concerning the effect of the water on the body and soul of those who partake of it, see Zohar I, 125a. Herodotus III, 23; Tertullian De Anima 50 . On the identity of the well of Shittim (the etymological explanations of this name are found in Sanhedrin 106a; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 771; Tan. Terumah 10) with the “well of lewdness”, out of which the inhabitants of Sodom drew water, see note 184 on vol. I, p. 256, and Zohar Ruth 1.4. 788 Tan. B. IV, 148; Tan. Balak 19; BaR 20.23; Likkutim, IV, 73b. The midrashic basis of this Haggadah is to be found in the words of Scripture (Num. 24.4): “And hang them up. ..in the face of the sun.” On the view that the cloud of glory did not protect the sinners, see vol. Ill, pp. 57, 413; vol. IV, p. 11, and note 776. 789 Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 28d. On the number of the officers and judges, see vol. Ill, p. 70. 790 Targum Yerushalmi and Rashi, Num. 25.4 (iPDtPn 133 is taken to mean as long “as the sun shone”); Sanhedrin 34b (bottom), and 135 791-792] The Legends of the Jews Yerushalmi 10, 28b; Sifre N., 131. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 241. According to the standard Halakah (Sanhedrin 6.4), only the bodies of the blasphemers and idolaters were hung upon gallows, but not those of other criminals who were executed. Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 6.9, likewise is of the opinion that the crime for which these sinners suffered death was apostasy from the Jewish religion, from which they were led stray by the Midianite women (comp. Num. 31.16; the Rabbis speak of the Moabite women in accordance with 31.1), who would not consent to marry Jews unless they abandoned their faith. It is to be noted that Josephus speaks of intermarriage between Jewish men and MoabiteMidianite women, whereas the Rabbis (comp, the references in note 785), in agreement with Philo, Moses, 1.5, and ps.-Philo, 18.18-19, maintain that the great sin committed at Shittim consisted in Israel's complete surrender to illicit passion; see, however, Philo, De Monarchia 7, where he seems to share Josephus’ view. Comp, note 40 on vol. IV, p. 31. 1 Sanhedrin 82a, and Yerushalmi 10, 28a; Tan. B. IV, 148; Tan. Balak 20; BaR 20.24; ShR 33.5; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 25.6. According to Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 6.10-11, Zimri, at the instigation of his wife (notice the description of Cozbi as Zimri 's wife, and comp, end of preceding note), sacrificed publicly to an idol; but Moses, fearing that by severe measures he might make a critical situation still worse, preferred not to proceed against this criminal nor against others who acted in a similar manner. All that Moses did was to exhort the people to remain faithful to God. Zimri, encouraged by the apparent weakness of Moses, called upon the people to throw down the fetters of the law, which Moses imposed upon them, and he publicly confessed that he had married a non-Jewish woman. As a free man he did not care for the law promulgated by Moses against intermarriage, nor for any other of his laws. — On the identification of Balak with Zur, see vol. Ill, p. 353, top. On Jethro as the former idolatrous priest, see vol. 1 1 , p. 289. Zimri 's sarcastic remarks on Moses ’ marriage with a Midianite woman were without foundation. Moses married Zipporah before the revelation of the Torah; when the law forbidding intermarriage was promulgated, Zipporah had already for a long time been a pious proselyte; comp, quotation from a Midrash in Imre No‘am, Balak (end). On Moses’ lack of energy, on certain occasions, see vol. Ill, p. 404. 791 Tan. B. IV, 148; Tan. Balak 20; BaR 20.24. For the opposing view comp. vol. Ill, p. 330, where it is stated that a great distinction 136 Moses in the Wilderness [793-799 was conferred upon Moses by God, who did not reveal his burial-place to any man. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 330 and note 644. 793 Sanhedrin 82a. 794 ShR 33.5; see also Sanhedrin 82a, where it is said that Phineas attempted to ward off the plague by performing a very pious act, the slaying of the sinners at the great risk to his own life. See also note 799. 7 9 5 Unknown Midrash quoted by Sabba1, DTOD 128a; comp. PRE 47. A somewhat different version of this Haggadah is given in Lekah, Num. 25.7 (at the end), which is partly based on Sifre N., 131, and Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 29a. 796 Sanhedrin 82a-82b, and Yerushalmi 10, 29a; BaR 20.25; Tan. B. IV, 148-149; Tan. Balak 21; Sifre N., 131; PRE 47 (here it is said: Phineas seized the spear from Moses’ hands); Targum Yerushalmi Num. 25.7. 797 Sanhedrin 82b, and Yerushalmi 10, 29a; Sifre N., 131;Ephraem, 1, 166b. 7 9 8 BaR 20.25; Tan. B. IV, 149; Tan. Balak 21; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 25.8; Sifre N., 131 (in this passage two versions have been combined into one); Sanhedrin 82b, and Yerushalmi 10, 29a; PRE 47. According to the legend given in vol. Ill, p. 385, the plague broke out before Zimri was slain by Phineas. See also Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 6.12, and Philo, Moses, 1.55. The latter, combining Num. 25.5 with 25.9, speaks of the twenty-four thousand sinners slain by the pious who followed the example of Phinehas. In De Fortit., 7, Philo maintains, on the other hand, that the sinners were slain by God. PRE, loc. cit., seems to assume that Phineas himself killed many (or all?) of the sinners. Comp, the following note. 799 Sanhedrin 82b, where it is said: The mixed multitude took to themselves wives from among the daughters of the tribe of Simeon, and the offspring of these intermarriages were the sinners who fell a prey to the allurements of the Moabite women. The plague that broke out in consequence of the sins committed by them purged Israel of this element. Etymological explanations of the names of Zimri and Cozbi, as well as of the names of their fathers, are given in Sanhedrin 82b; Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk, s. v. IDT; TargumYerushalmi Num. 25.14. Although these etymologies differ from one another, they are all based on the assumption that the names of these sinners indicate the unchaste and lewd life led by their bearers. According to Sanhedrin, loc. cit., Zimri bore different names, as he is identical 137 8oo-8o6] The Legends of the Jews with Saul, the son of a Canaanite woman (Gen. 46. 10) , and with Shelumiel (Num. 1.6) the prince of the tribe of Simeon. 8 0 0 Sanhedrin 82b, and Yerushalmi 9, 27b (in this passage it is stated that they intended to excommunicate Phineas on account of his rashness); Sifre N., 13; WR 33.4; Sotah 43a; BaR 21.3; Tan. B. IV, 151; PR 13, 115 (Sabba* Balak, 127c, reads Pl’in in the Pesikta) ; comp, vol. I, p. 289. According to Julius Africanus, Epistola ad Aristidem, Putiel, the maternal grandfather of Phineas (comp. Exod. 6.25), belonged to the tribe of Judah; but the Rabbis are of the opinion that Putiel is another name for Jethro or Joseph. See references at the beginning of the note; MHG II, 55 = Yelammedenu in ‘ Aruk, s. v. DS 2. 801 Yelammedenu in 1 Aruk, s. v. ynr; Midrash Aggada Num. 25.13 (from ‘Arukl); Sifre D., 165; Midrash Tannaim 107-108; Hullin 134b; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 25.13; Ephraem I, 166D. For another symbolical explanation of the priestly gifts, see Philo, Special. Leg., De Praem. Sacerd. 3. 802 Sifre N., 131; Zebahim 101a. For the opposite view, see vol. Ill, p. 187, according 'to which Phineas became priest at the same time as his father and grandfather. 8 o 3 Batte Midrashot IV, 32 (this is the only passage which contains the legend concerning the daily sacrifice offered by Phineas-Elijah; comp. vol. IV, p. 202); Sifre N., 131; BaR 31.3; Tan. Phineas 1. Comp, the following note. 8o< Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk, s.v. ynr and in Yalkut I, 771 = Midrash Aggada, Num. 25.13, where no source is indicated; Targum Yerushalmi Num., loc. cit. (on the text, see Imre No' am, ad loc.). On Phinehas= Elijah, comp, note 3 on vol. IV, p. 195. As a reward for his zeal Phinehas received the greatest gift granted to man, and this only by God, namely, “peace”; Philo, Vita Mosis, 1.55; an almost identical statement is found in BaR 21.1. On the decree issued by Phinehas against “the wine of Gentiles”, see vol. Ill, p. 414. 805 Esfah in Yalkut I, 773. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 238-239. On the census, see Tan. B. IV, 152; Tan. Pinehas 4; BaR 21.7. 806 Midrash Aggada, Num. 26.12, 38, and 40; BaR 21.8; Tan. Pinehas 5. Concerning those who perished in Egypt during the three days of darkness, see vol. II, p. 345, and vol. Ill, p. 42. According to ps. -Philo, 14.15-16, only one-fiftieth part of Israel left Egypt, because they believed not in God. This is a midrashic explanation of D’E’Dm (Exod. 13.1-8). See Mekilta Beshallah (Nnrrns) 1, 24a, and 138 Moses in the Wilderness [807-818 Mekilta RS, 38, where it is said that forty-nine fiftieths died during the the three days of darkness. Comp, also Jerome, Epistola ad Damasum, 36 (ed. Migne, I, 458). On the losses sustained by the tribes of Benjamin and Simeon, see vol. Ill, p. 333, and note 799. 807 BaR 21.7; Tan. B. IV, 152; Tan. Pinehas 4. Concerning the census after the exodus, see vol. Ill, p. 146; BaR 1.10; Lekah, Num. 1.1. 808 Baba Batra 117a-118a and 121b (the opposite view is given here to the effect that the land was divided according to the numbers of those who left Egypt); Sifre N., 132; BaR 21.8. Comp. Friedmann on Sifre, loc. cit. 809 Tan. Pinehas 6; BaR 21.9; Sifre N., 132. 810 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 773; Tan. Pinehas 6; BaR 21.9. Comp. vol. IV, p. 15. 811 Sifre N., 133; Sifre Z., 155-157; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 27.1; BaR 21.11; Tan. B. IV, 153; Tan. Pinehas 7. 813 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 773 (end); BaR 21.11; Tan. B. IV, 153; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 27.4; Pinehas 7; Baba Batra, Mishnah 8.16, and Talmud 119b. The sisters were all of equal learning, wisdom, and piety; hence in approaching Moses and the elders, each one of them addressed one sentence to the leaders, and accordingly Num. 27.3-4 consists of five sentences. See Yelammedenu, loc. cit.; Sifre N. 133; Sifre Z., 157; Baba Batra 120a. 813 Sifre N., 133; Sifre Z., 157; Baba Batra 118b; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 27.3. Comp, the following note. 814 Sifre N., 113 and 133; Sifre Z., 103-104 and 157. Comp, vol. Ill, pp- 240 and 284. According to Zohar III, 157a and 205b, Zelophehad, though of noble descent, was an ignorant man, and therefore was not appointed prince of his tribe. Disappointed in his hopes, he joined those who complained against God and Moses (see Num. 21.5-6), and was killed by the serpents, thus atoning with his death for his sin. 8 '5 Sifre N„ 133; Sifre Z., 155; BaR 21.10; Tan. B. IV, 153; Tan. Pinehas 7. Comp. Baba Batra 119b, and note 546. 816 BaR 16.10; Tan. B. IV, 153; Tan. Pinehas 7. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 121 and note 546. 817 Seder ‘Olam 9. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 200, 300, and 436. On Otah, see note 33 on vol. II p. 261. 818 Sifre Z., 157; BaR 21.12; Tan. B. IV, 153; Tan. Pinehas 9; Targum Yerushalmi 27.2. In Sifre N., 133 and 68, as well as in Baba 139 819-822] The Legends of the Jews Batra 119b, is given a dissenting view, according to which Zelophehad ’s daughters placed their case before Moses and the elders, while they were sitting in the “house of study.” An entirely different view is found in Zohar III, 205. Zelophehad’s daughters did not place their case before Moses, because they feared lest he should be prejudiced against them on account of the enmity their father showed toward Moses (comp, note 814). They therefore preferred to have their case decided by the lower authorities. But when none of the judges was able to render a decision, and the case was brought before Moses, he, in his great modesty, did not wish to display his superior knowledge, and said that he would put the case before God. Comp, also the remarks of R. Bahya on the long 1 of ItODPD (Num. 27.5). According to another version, God took it ill of Moses for having withdrawn himself from the case of Zelophehad 's daughters, and therefore, immediately after this episode, He informed him of his impending death, saying unto him: “Thou couldst withdraw thyself from acting as a judge in the case of Zelophehad’s daughters; but thou wilt have to submit thyself to My judicial decree against thee.” See Shir 1.10; Midrash Aggada, Num. 27.5 (as an explanation of the long 1 in IDStTD). Comp, note 822. 819 Sifre N. 134; Sifre Z., 157-158; Baba Batra, Mishnah 8.3; Babli 118b-119a; Yerushalmi 8, 16a. The tannaitic sources just quoted as well as Philo, Moses, 2 (3). 31, find in Num. 27.7 words of high praise for Zelophehad’s daughters. Comp, note 821. 820 Baba Batra 119b. For the contrary view see Sifre Z., 157, where strong objections are raised against the opinion which considers them to have been old spinsters. 821 Baba Batra 119b (top); Shabbat 32a. The proverb “God works good, etc.” is of frequent occurrence; see Tosefta Yoma 5(4). 12; BaR 3.18. Comp, also vol. Ill, p. 7 (with regard to Jethro’s counsel concerning the appointment of Judges). 822 BaR 21.11-13 (this passage has also the dissenting view that Moses had hoped to lead Israel into the Holy Land); Tan. Pinehas 7-11; Tan. B. IV, 153, and I, 192; Sifre D., 17; Midrash Tannaim 10; Mekilta RS, 91; Koheleth 8.17; Shemuel 14, 88. Comp. vol. IV, pp. 83 and 96, as well as vol. Ill, p. 194. According to Otiyyot Gedolot in Leket Midrashim, 23a, and Eshkol, 45a, 118, the long ] at the end of the word jDSPD indicates Moses’ punishment for his boastful words; comp, note 818. On Moses’ continence, see vol. Ill, p. 256. As to the four legal questions which he was unable to decide, see vol. Ill, 140 Moses in the Wilderness [823-836 p. 242; Ozar Midrashim, 47 (this passage counts six cases). Comp, note 862. 8:13 2 ARN 30 (first version 17), 65; BaR 21.14; Tan. Pinehas 11; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 776; Sifre Z., 161. As to Moses’ wish to have Joshua as his successor, see vol. Ill, p. 400. 838 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 776. More amplifications of the prayers of Moses for a right leader of the people are given in Sifre N., 139; Shir 1.7; Midrash Shir lOb-lla; Targum Song of Songs 1.7-8. 813 Sifre N., 138; Midrash Shir l.lOb-lla. 836 BaR 21.15; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 776. On Moses’ hesitation to undertake the leadership of Israel, see vol. II, pp. 316-326. 8,3 Sifre N., 138-139; Sifre Z., 160-162 (mi ’12 means here “those in misery”); Sifre D., 26; Midrash Tannaim, 15. On the Jewish Kings participating in the combat themselves, see vol. IV, p. 72. 8,8 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 776, on Num. 27.16 and 22; BaR 12.9 and 21.15; Tan. Pinehas 11. Comp. vol. IV, p. 3. Concerning the future prophets and judges shown to Moses, see vol. Ill, pp. 154, 443-447. 839 Sifre N., 140, and Sifre D., 305; Sifre Z.; 162, BaR 21.15; Tan. Pinehas 11; Midrash Tannaim 185. 830 Sifre D., 305; BaR 21.15. See also Enoch 89.39, where the two leaders who were at the head of Israel at the entry into the Holy Land refer to Joshua and Eliezer. Comp, also vol. Ill, p. 414. 831 Sifre N., 141; Sifre Z., 62. 833 Sifre N., 140; Sifre D., 305; Midrash Tannaim 180; Assumption of Moses 12.2. According to Megillah 21a, from the time of Moses until Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, it was customary, both for the master and the disciple, to study the Torah, standing. Comp., however, Mo'ed Katan 16b (bottom); Baba Mezi'a 84b; Sanhedrin 17a; ARN 6, 27-28. See note 893, and Ginzberg’s discussion of this point in Hazofeh III, 121. 833 Sifre N., 140. 83 < Midrash Aggada, Num. 27.20. On the herald, see vol. Ill, p. 437. It is a wise rule “to tell a man part of his praise in his presence, but not all of it accordingly Moses assembled all the people while Joshua was absent, and spoke to them of their new leader’s great virtues; Lekah, Deut. 31.6. 8 3 8 Sifre N., 141 ; Sifre Z., 163 (only the first edition of the Yalkut indicates the source); Philo, De Caritate, 3. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 251. 836 Tehillim 21, 179. This passage also states that the rays 837-845] The Legends of the Jews which will emanate from the countenance of the Messiah will spread a stronger lustre than those of Moses and Joshua. Does this mean that the Messiah will be greater than Moses? See Tan. B. I, 139, where it is said: The Messiah is greater than the (three) patriarchs, more exalted than Moses, and superior to the angels. Maimonides, Yad ha-Hazakah, Teshubah 9.2, on the other hand, explicitly states that the Messiah will be “a great prophet, akin to Moses.” Concerning Joshua's rays, see vol. Ill, p. 441; note 6 on vol. IV, p. 4; note 14 on vol. IV, p. 5. 83 7 Sifre Z., 162; Sifre N., 139, where it is said: It was Moses’ sincerest desire to have Joshua as his successor, and yet he did not give expression to it in his prayer, in order not to arouse animosity between the new leader and Aaron 's sons, who might feel offended at not having been selected to succeed their uncle. Comp, also Philo, De Caritate, 1-3. As to Moses’ punishment for his reluctance to accept the office offered to him, see vol. II, p. 326. 838 Assumption of Moses 1, seq. The uniqueness of Moses’ leadership is emphasized also Sotah 14a and Tan. B. V, 13. 839 Tan. B. IV, 145;Tan. Balak 14; BaR 20.20; Likkutim, IV, 70b. 830 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 783, on Num 31.2 (the first edition contains the unintelligible words pan pi after ®«); Likkutim IV, 81a. 841 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 785, on Num. 31.1-2; Likkutim, IV, 79b. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 384. 8 3 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 785. Comp, also Sifre N., 157, where B’lHD is likewise used to describe the Moabites. This identification of the Midianites with the Moabites is very likely presupposed by Phillo, Moses, 1.56, who speaks of this campaign as being directed against Balak, the king of Moab; but comp., on the other hand, his remarks in De Fortitud. 7. See reference to Josephus in note 721. 843 BaR 31.4-6; Tan. B. IV, 151-152; Tan. Pinehas 3; Sifre D„ 252; Midrash Tannaim 147 ; Likkutim, V. 147a. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 341. 844 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 785. On the fear of the Moabites, see vol. Ill, p. 351. According to the sources in note 842, the last campaign of Moses was against Moab. But against this view comp. Baba Kamma 38a-38b, and the following note. 845 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 875, where it is assumed that the prohibition to wage war against the Moabite extended only till David’s birth; comp. Tosafot Baba Kamma 38a and note 59 on vol. IV p. 94. According to Yelammedenu, the reason why the prohibition against intermarriage with Moab (Deut. 23.4) applied to Moabite males 142 Moses in the Wilderness [846-852 only is to be found in the fact that the Moabite Ruth had been destined to become the mother of David. Abraham succeeded in bringing many “under the wings of the Shekinah” (on Abraham’s proselytizing activity, see vol. I, pp. 203 and 217), and yet he failed to influence Lot; the descendants of the latter were therefore precluded from entering into the congregation of the Lord; Yelammedenu, loc. cit. 846 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 785. 847 Sifre N., 157; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 785; Tan. B. IV, 158; Tan. Mattot 4; BaR 22.6; Likkutim IV, 82a. According to another view, Joshua lost ten years of his life on account of his forwardness to give advice to Moses without having been asked for it; see Tan. Tezawweh 9; vol. Ill, p. 253; note 526; comp, also note 19 on vol. IV, p. 7. 848 Sifre N., 157; BaR 22.2; Tan. B. IV, 158-159; Tan. Mattot 3; Philo, Moses, 1.56. Concerning the idea that the hatred of the nations for Israel is due to their hatred for God and the Torah, see vol. IV, p. 406. 849 BaR 22.4 (this passage has the dissenting view that Midian against which Moses waged war was located near Moab, and is to be distinguished from the country of the same name whither he took refuge when fleeing from Egypt); Tan. B. IV, 159; Tan. Mattot 3; Sifre N., 157;Sotah43a. Concerning the view that Phineas was (on his maternal) side) a descendant of Joseph, see vol. Ill, p. 388. According to Sotah, loc. cit., Phineas acted in the campaign as field-chaplain (non^O mPD literally, “anointed for war”), whereas Philo, Moses, 1.56, and Josephus Antiqui., IV. 7, are of the opinion that he was commander of the army, and this view is shared by many of the Rabbis; see note 860. The sacrifices preparatory to the undertaking of war, of which Philo, loc. cit., speaks, are unknown in rabbinic sources. See, however, note 145. 850 BaR 22.3 (this passage has also the dissenting view that each tribe sent two thousand warriors); Tan. B. IV, 158-159; Tan. Mattot 3; Sifre N., 157; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 31.6; Sotah, Tosefta 7.17, and Babli 43a. On the taking of the ark to the battle, see note 331; vol. IV, pp. 62 and 276. 851 BaR 20.20 and 22.5; Tan. Mattot 4; Sifre N., 157; Sanhedrin 106b and Yerushalmi 10, 29a. For a full description of Balaam's gruesome end, see vol. Ill, pp. 410-411. 8s2 Sifre N., 157; comp, references given in the preceding note. On the sword with which Balaam was killed, see note 744. Israel regretted having slain Balaam, and exclaimed in despair; “Woe unto 143 853-855] The Legends of the Jews us! We have slain a prophet.” But a heavenly voice was immediately heard proclaiming: “Ye slew not a prophet but a sorcerer”; PRK, 33a. Comp, note 784. 8S3 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 785. In this source Balaam is said to have performed his feat by means of the Name. Phinehas, who also knew the Name, flew after him and caught up with him at God’s throne, where he was begging for mercy. Phinehas held up to him the high priest’s plate of pure gold, upon which the Name was engraved, and thus caused him to descend (comp. vol. Ill, p. 409), and brought him before the Synhedrion, who sentenced him to death. Targum Yerushalmi Num. 31.8 and Aguddat Aggadot 78-79 follow Yelammedenu in the main. What is meant by the statement of Yelammedenu that Balaam, while flying through the air, stretched out his arms like the two tables of stone? In Jewish and Christian legends, flying through the air is one of the accomplishments of the sorcerers; comp., e. g., vol. Ill, p. 28 (the same expression Wtn rma Wsn is used in Aguddat Aggadot, toe. cit., with regard to Balaam, as in Abkir in connection with Jannes and Jambres; comp, note 53), and the Christian legend concerning Simon Magus. Comp, the following two notes. 4 Zohar III, 194a-194b, where two different versions of the legend are combined into one. According to one version, Jannes and Jambres were killed shortly after they had fashioned the golden calf; see vol. Ill, p. 120. Zohar remarks that the tribe of Dan produced four heroes: Samson, Zaliah, Ira, David’s friend (see 2 Sam. 20.26), and Seraiah who, as assistant of the Ephraimite Messiah, will cause great havoc among the Gentiles. The connection between this Seraiah and the Christian legend concerning the Danite descent of the anti-Christ is obvious, although it is difficult to trace the exact nature of this connection. Comp. Index, s. v. “Danites.” 855 Targum Yerushalmi Num. 31.8, where, in accordance with Sanhedrin 106b, it is said that Phineas killed Balaam; comp, note 853. On the identity of Balaam with Laban, and on the long list of his crimes, see vol. Ill, p. 354. On the sword, see notes 44 and 852, as well as vol. Ill, p. 367 (top) and note 59 on vol. IV, p. 94. See Index, s. v. “Methusalem, Sword of”, and “ David, Sword of ”. The different legends concerning the death of Balaam show many points of resemblance to those about the death of Jesus (comp, the rich collections of such legends by Krauss, Leben Jesu ). But this does not furnish any basis for the hypothesis that Balaam is used as a cryptic name for Jesus; see note 722. According to the legend given in the Masorah, 144 Moses in the Wilderness [856-862 (3' 3 1*7) it was Joshua who killed Balaam. Is this based upon the reading yenrp instead of Dru’B in Sanhedrin 106b? Comp, note 34 on vol. IV, p. 10. 8s 6 Zohar III, 194. Onkelos, the son of Titus’s sister, succeeded by means of necromancy to have a talk with Balaam, who told him that his punishment consisted in being boiled in scalding semen virile corresponding to his sin, for he was responsible for the unchaste acts committed by the Israelites with the daughters of Moab; Gittin 57a. The same passage stated that Balaam advised Onkelos not to adopt the Jewish religion. His words were: “Seek thou not their (Israel’s) peace and prosperity all thy days for ever.’’ And he gave this advice to Onkelos, though he had to admit that Israel is the foremost nation on earth. 857 Sifre N., 157; Tan. B. IV, 159; Tan. Mattot 3; BaR 22.4; Philo, Vita Mosis, 57. 858 Shir 4.4 and 6.6. On the piety of those warriors, see Aggadat Shir 4, 35 (here (P|I?N ="TntO and quotation from an unknown Midrash in Kimha Dabishuna on m^nn 3E’1,I7 (morning prayer for the Day of Atonement). 859 Shir 1.6 and 4.4; Targum Yerushalmi Num. 31.50. According to Philo, Moses, 1.57, they were in need of atonement, because he who kills a man, even though justly and in self-defence, appears to be guilty of bloodshed by reason of the relationship of all mankind to a common father.

860 Midrash Aggada, Num. 31.9 (which is introduced with the formula ll’DBn HDN, but in the rabbinic literature now extant nothing is found about this Jewish apostate); Sifre N., 157. In these sources Phineas is supposed to have been the commander-in-chief of the army. Comp. PRE 47, and note 849. 861 Yebamot 60b; Targum Yerushalmi and Midrash Aggada, Num. 31.9 (here the holyarktakes the place of the high priest’s plate). Comp. vol. IV, pp. Ill and 146. In the Christian legendary work Protevangelium of James, 5.1, it is related how Joachim the father of Mariah observed the high priest’s mitre to ascertain whether he (Joachim) was free from sin or not. — As to the captives who escaped death, see Philo, Moses, 1.57, who is of the opinion that the very young boys were also spared. See, however, his remarks on this subject in De Fortitud. 8. Comp, also Sifre N., 157. 8 6 3 Sifre N., 157, (end) ; here attention is called to two other cases of fits of anger which caused Moses to forget the words revealed to 145 863-872] The Legends of the Jews him by God: In his anger at the sons of Aaron he forgot the law concerning sacrifices, see vol. Ill, pp. 191-192; when he grew wrathful against the people at Meribah, he smote the rock instead of talking to it, as he was commanded, see vol. Ill, p. 312; ARN (both versions) 1,3; WR 13.1; Pesahim 66b; ‘Erubin 63a; PRE 47; Mishle 25, 97. Comp, also notes 110, 387 and 830. 863 PRE 47. Comp, note 786. 8 6 4 Tan. B. IV, 160; Tan. Mattot 5; BaR 22.7. Comp, also Aggadat Esther 56, as well as Koheleth 4.6 and 5.12. On the riches of Korah and Haman, see vol. Ill, p. 286; vol. IV, 393. On the view that Balaam and Ahitophel forfeited their share in the world to come, see vol. Ill, p. 375, and note 72 on vol. IV, p. 97. 8 6 5 BaR 22.9; Tan. Mattot 7. 8 6 6 Midrash Aggada, Num. 32.38. Comp, also the paraphrase of the names of the conquered places in Yerushalmi Targumim (on the text of 2 Targum Yerushalmi, see Hadar and R. Bahya, ad loc.). See the following note. 867 Rashi on Num. 32.28; comp, also Targum Yerushalmi and Lekah, ad loc. 8 6 8 Rashi, Lekah, and Midrash Aggada on Num. 32.41-42. Comp, also Ruth 2.13. 869 DR 2.26—27; Koheleth 5.8. On the relation of Deut. 4.41-49 to Joshua 20, see Makkot 9b and 11a. According to a quotation from \ erushalmi Makkot in Makiri on Is. 9, 74, Joshua, at the command of God, introduced many new regulations concerning the cities of refuge. In our texts of Yerushalmi Makkot II, 31a (bottom) the omission of this passage is indicated by HP" in, which is an abbreviation of rTO’P the continuation of this passage ” (see Ginzberg, Yerushalmi Fragments, I, 128) ; but this discussion is not resumed in any part of the Yerushalmi, 8 70 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 743, on Num. 14.11 (read with RSBM on Deut. 3.23, rw instead of rni^'D, as the episode of the water at Meribah took place one year before the death of Moses; see vol. Ill, p. 311), which is followed by Midrash Tannaim 18; Mahzor Vitry 531; ' Aruk, s. v. Nehemias, Perush Pirke Abot 44b, who cites Tanhuma as his source. Comp. Ginzberg, Hazofeh III, 127, and Taylor, An Appendix to Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, 161-162. o?1 DR 1.5. *73 DR 11.10; Petirat Mosheh 120; 2 Petirat Mosheh 376. On the sealing of the heavenly decree, see Elleh Ezkerah 6; vol. Ill, p. 418; vol. IV, p. 416. 146 Moses in the Wilderness [873-880 873 Midrash Tannaim 15; Mekilta Beshallah 2, 55a. Comp, also Sifre D., 26. 874 BaR 13: Tan. B. IV, 154; Tan. Pinehas 9. 875 DR 11.19; Petirat Mosheh 120-121; 2Petirat Mosheh 376-377, where the name Akraziel “Herald of God” is corrupted to Azkariel. Concerning the circle drawn by Moses, see vol. 1 1 1 , p. 260. On Zagzagel see vol. V, p. 417 (top) and note 898. On God’s justice as revealed in his dealings with Moses, see vol. Ill, p. 436. 876 DR 11.10; Petirat Mosheh 121; 2Petirat Mosheh 377; Midrash Tannaim 15 and 179; Nispahim 44=Yalkut II, 284, on Jer. 9 (in the first edition ms's is given as source; this, however, must be emended to “I'D; comp. op. cit. 285). The sources cited at the beginning of the note state that Moses prayed five hundred and fifteen prayers, until God heard him and granted him the privilege to look at the promised land from the top of the mountain. 877 Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 815 (on the proverb “no mercy in justice”, see Ketubot 9.3, and Mishle 22, 93, where it refers to justice administered by a terrestrial court); Likkutim, V, 79b. Comp, also Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 813. 878 DR 2.1; Tan. B. V, 9; Tan. Wa-Ethanan 3 (mSD =“alms”). Comp, also vol. Ill, pp. 135, 280, and 426. 879 Tan. B. V, 14; Sifre D., 27; Midrash Tannaim 16; DR 2.8; Petirat Mosheh 117; 2 Petirat Mosheh 375. That the death of Moses in the wilderness was a punishment for his calling Israel “rebels” is inferred from Num. 20.10-12. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 311, seq., and 320. According to ps. -Philo, 19.6-7, God spoke to Moses, saying: “Behold, thou goest to sleep with thy fathers, and this people. ..will forget My Law.. .but thou shalt not enter therein (into the Holy Land) in this age, lest thou see the graven images whereby this people will be deceived and led out of the way.” This novel view concerning God’s refusal to allow Moses to enter the Holy Land is inferred from Deut. 31.16. 880 Tan. B. V, 10; Likkutim, V, 79b-80a. The tannaitic Midrashim Sifre D., 27, and Midrash Tannaim 16 remark: Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and Isaiah described themselves as “servants of the Lord”, and so they were called by Him, whereas Samson and Solomon were never recognized by God as such, though they called themselves “servants of the Lord”; Joshua, Job, Caleb, Eliakim, Zerubbabel, Daniel and his three companions, as well as the early prophets, were described by God as His servants, but they never applied this designation to themselves. The Midrashim quoted above cite the biblical 147 881-889] The Legends of the Jews passages where the title “servant of God” is applied to the abovementioned persons by God and by themselves. 881 Sifre D., 27; Midrash Tannaim 17; Petirat Mosheh 118; Yelammedenu in ‘ Aruk, s. v. NnDDJN; Mekilta Amalek 2, 55a. 8 8 2 Midrash Tannaim 16; Sifre D., 28; Tan. B. V, 9; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. '3.25. 883 Sifre D., 27; Midrash Tannaim 16. For other explanations of mVnn in Deut. 3.24 (according to the Haggadah, it is to be translated: “thou didst absolve”), see the sources quoted above, as well as Sifre N., 134. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 128; Pa'aneah, Deut. 3.24. 884 Midrash Tannaim 17, 19, and 178; Sifre N., 135; Mekilta Amalek 2, 55b; comp. vol. Ill, pp. 424 and 442. 885 Midrash Tannaim 178; DR 2.8. Comp. vol. II, p. 293. 8 8 6 DR 9.6; Tan. B. V, 10-11 and 56; Tan. Wa-Ethanan 6, WaYelek 3, and Berakah 7; Midrash Tannaim 179-180; 2 Petirat Mosheh 374; Likkutim, V, 161a; Ziyyoni, Wa-Yelek; Manzur 52. In the lastquoted Midrash, as well as in many others (see Griinhut on Likkutim, loc. cit.), the word jn is interpreted as having the meaning of the Greek ev“one”, God thus describes Himself as the “One” and Moses as the “One (t. e., greatest) prophet”. 8 8 7 Midrash Tannaim 178; Sotah 13b; BaR 18.18; Tehillim 18, 150-151. On the reluctance of Moses to accept the leadership of the people, see note 837. The Haggadah offers many explanations of the words 1*? in Deut. 3.26; comp. Midrash Tannaim 17-18; Sifre D., 29; Sotah 13b; Sifre N., 135; Mekilta Amalek 2, 55b; Tan. B. V, 10 and 14; Likkutim, V, 101b-102a. 8 8 8 DR 9.8; Koheleth 7.13; Tan. B. V, 11 (read in line 3 naa |n ’noip) ; Tan. Wa-Ethanan 6; 2 Petirat Mosheh 374 (two different sources are made use of); Petirat Mosheh 116. On the view that Adam's sin was the cause of the death of Moses and of those who like him were free from sin, see Sifre D., 339; Shabbat 55b; note 142 on vol. I, p. 102; Index, s. v. “ Death ”, “Sin 889 Tan. B. V, 11; Tan. Wa-Ethanan 6; 2 Petirat Mosheh 374-375 (on the two leaders of Israel one of whom, Moses, wished his sin to be recorded, while the other, David, desired to keep his sin secret, see the sourcesquotedinnote616onvol. Ill, p.313, bottom). Concerning Moses’ superiority to all other mortals, see vol. Ill, pp. 427-428 and 479480. On the sins of Moses, see vol. II, pp. 316, seq., and 339; vol. Ill, pp. 311, seq., 317, seq., and note 571. As a punishment for having used the hasty words “Ye are risen, etc”, Moses’ grandson (comp. vol. IV, p. 50) 148 Moses in the Wilderness [890-895 became a priest to an idol; Hasidim 71. Moses was commanded by God to ask the fathers of Israel for pardon for having offended them by describing his contemporaries as having “risen up in their fathers' stead an increase of sinful men”, which words stamped the past generations of Israel as sinful men. In accordance with this command given to Moses, it is customary that one who has slandered those who are “in the grave” should beg their pardon; Imre No' am and Pa' aneah on Mattot (end); Aguddah 17b. 890 Tan. B. V, 11, Tan. Wa-Ethanan 6; 2 Petirat Mosheh 375. For the description of Moses’ praying for mercy, see vol. Ill, p. 420. On the angel of death, see vol. Ill, p. 436. 891 Petirat Mosheh 118-119; Makiri, Ps. 71, 345. On the parable of the king and his servant, see Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 86, on 1 Sam. 2, seq., and on Is. 2. Concerning Moses’ claim that he was free from sin, whereas all other men died on account of their sins, see vol. Ill, p. 425, and note 889. According to Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 873, on Ps. 115, God spoke to Moses as follows: “All creatures descend to Sheol, but thou shalt ascend (to heaven) after thy death.” On Noah, see vol. I, p. 165. On the slaying of the Egyptians, see vol. II, p. 280. 892 Petirat Mosheh 119-120; 2 Petirat Mosheh 377-378. On the great distinction conferred by God upon Moses, see vol. Ill, pp. 118, 141, 235, and 243. s 93 Midrash Tannaim 18; DR 9.5. Comp, also Midrash Tannaim 19, which reads: God said to Moses: “I exalted thee above the angels, which remain standing in My presence and are not permitted to sit, whereas thou wast permitted to remain sitting.” On Moses’ sitting in the presence of God, see Megillah 21a and note 832. 8 9 < Petirat Mosheh 121 («u~l is to be omitted; see ‘Okazin (end), and Sanhedrin 100a, which reads: Every righteous man will receive three hundred and ten words from God); 2 Petirat Mosheh 376. In the last-mentioned source, DR 11.9 is made use of, hence the statement that in the days to come Moses will appear at the head of fifty-five myriads of pious men. This is also found in Manzur 14. On the rod of Moses, see vol. II, p. 291, and Index, s. v. On the creation of the world by means of the Name, see Yerushalmi Hagigah 2, 17, and Index, s. v. "God, Name of”. os Tan. B. IV, 11-12; Tan. Wa-Ethanan 6; Petirat Mosheh 125-126 (y'y=lPD^y ^y); 2 Petirat Mosheh 379-380; Manzur 15; quotation from Midrash in Eshkol 137a— 137b, 364. The three last149 896-899] The Legends of the Jews named sources are independent of Tan., and the appeals addressed by Moses to the different parts of the universe are given in these sources in a more elaborate form than in Tan. Comp, note 908. 896 2 Petirat Mosheh 380; Manzur 15-16 (the text is not in an entirely satisfactory state); quotation from Midrash in Eshkol 137b, 364. Some elements of this legend are found in very early sources; comp. Mekilta Amalek 2, 55b; Midrash Tannaim 179; DR 3.11 and 7.10. On the “sixty blows of fire”, see ‘ Aruk, s. v. D^S 4, and accordingly the reading of Eshkol NTIJT is the correct one, whereas in Manzur the text is somewhat abridged. KD^is is nothing but the Syriac “sparks”. Comp, note 84 on vol. IV, p. 220. 897 Tan. B. V, 12 (the text is not in a satisfactory state; read mo instead of BHpn nn and Uin instead of l*?an); Tan. WaEthanan 6; Petirat Mosheh 120 (this source is the only one which contains the passage about the two vows); 2 Petirat Mosheh 375; Mishle 14, 77. That Moses finally became convinced that his request could only be granted at the cost of Israel 's destruction, is clearly brought out in the version of this legend as given in Hadar, Deut., 3.25. On the effect of the reciting of God’s thirteen attributes, see vol. Ill, p. 138. On the view that Moses was not delivered into the hands of the Angel of Death, see vol. Ill, pp. 426, 448, 471, seq. That Jochebed survived her illustrious son is also stated in vol. Ill, p. 393. On the view that Moses’ death was the highest expression of God’s justice, see vol. Ill, p. 419 898 Petirat Mosheh 123-124. As to the different elements of which this legend is composed, see DR 9.9; Tan. B. V, 12-13; Tan. Wa-Ethanan 6; Mishle 14, 77. On Moses’ willingness to become Joshua’s servant, if he were only permitted to continue to live, see vol. Ill, pp. 421, 440, 442, 465. Concerning the herald, see vol. Ill, pp. 390, 440. On God’s love for the innocent youth, see vol. IV, p. 295; on the words exclaimed by the earth, see Yebamot 16b, where these words are said to have been uttered by “the prince of the world”, comp, note 75 on Vol. I, p. 19; on the rays of Moses and Joshua, see vol. Ill, p. 400, and Index, s. v. According to Sefer Hanok 116, Zagzagel (comp, also vol. II, p. 309, and vol. Ill, p. 469) is no other than Metatron, and consequently one is inclined to explain this strange name (the variant VtoniD occurs several times) as po “the prince of the heavenly princes.” 899 Petirat Mosheh 122: 2 Petirat Mosheh, 378; DR 9.9. Comp„ also Josephus Antiqui ., IV, 8; vol. Ill, pp. 350-351. 150 Moses in the Wilderness [900-904 900 dr 9 9. Petirat Mosheh 122; 2 Petirat Mosheh 378; comp, vol. IV, p. 114 ,0‘ Petirat Mosheh 122-123 (line 14 of p. 123, beginning with nn^’ is the continuation of line 5); 2 Petirat Mosheh 378-379; quotation from Midrash in Eshkol 137a-137b, 379. On the praying of the departed souls, see vol. I, p. 23, and vol. IV, p. 219. The part of the Meturgeman is ascribed to Caleb on account of his strong voice; see vol. Ill, p. 273. On the shining of the countenances of Moses and Joshua, see vol. Ill, p. 400, and note 898; see also note 6 on vol. IV, p. 3. 502 Sifre D., 357; Sifre N., 135-136; Mekilta Amalek 2, 55b-56a (according to this passage, the past history of the human race was shown to him); Midrash Tannaim 19, 206, 207, 293-294; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 34.1^. A very lengthy description of the mysteries revealed to Moses shortly before his death isfoundin ps.-Philo 19.10-13, whereas “The Assumption of Moses” containing the future history of Israel from the time of Moses’ death until the days of the Messiah is given as the last words of Moses to Joshua. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 401-403. The haggadic literature contains many references to the cosmic as well as historic revelations made to Moses. But the occasion on which they took place is not stated. The election of Moses at the burning bush, the revelation on Sinai , and the vision on the top of Pisgah are the three outstanding moments in the life of the great prophet, and accordingly the legend connects the revelations of the cosmic and historic mysteries, granted to Moses, with one of these three events. See Tan. B. Ill, 83, and IV, 162; WR 26.7; EZ 6, 183; BaR 23.5; vol. Ill, pp. 154 and 398; vol. V, p. 417. Among the Church Fathers it is Aphraates, 420 who, in agreement with the Rabbis and ps.-Philo, finds in Deut. 34.1^1 an allusion to the revelation of the future history of Israel. — Concerning the line of prophets from the house of Rahab, see vol. IV, p. 5. Sifre N., 37; Sifre D., 338; Midrash Tannaim 206. Comp. Vol. IV, p. 9 (bottom); Hullin 60b. 9°4 Sifre D., 337-339; Midrash Tannaim 206-207; Sotah 13a; Ozar Midrashim 41-42; BR 47.9. The last two sources add that Abraham performed the ceremony of circumcision on himself and the members of his family in broad daylight (comp. Gen. 17.26), to show his fearlessness and his trust in God. With regard to Moses’ burial, ps.-Philo, 19; 20D, remarks: And He buried him. ..in the light of the whole world. A similar statement is found in the Assumption of Moses 1.15: And 151 905-908] The Legends of the Jews I am now going in the presence of all the people to rest with my fathers. The emphasis laid by all these authorities on the fact that Moses’ death took place “in public” has very likely the aim to combat the view that he did not die at all, but was translated to heaven; comp, note 951. That this hypothesis is not without sound ground may be seen from Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 8.48, who describes the last moments of Moses as follows: Now as he went thence to the place where he was to vanish out of their sight, they all followed him weeping; but Moses beckoned with his hand.. .and bid them stay behind. ..All those who accompanied him were, the senate and Eleazar the high priest and Joshua the commander. Now as soon as they were come to the mountain called Abarim... he dismissed the senate, and as he was going to embrace Eleazar and Joshua, and was still discoursing with them, a cloud stood over him on the sudden, and he disappeared in a certain valley, although he wrote in the holy books that he died (comp, note 951), which was done out of fear lest they should venture to say that because of his extraordinary virtue he went to God. The later legend concerning the translation of Enoch is similar to that given by Josephus with regard to “the disappearance” of Moses. Comp. vol. I pp. 129-130. 9 os BHM VI, Introduction 22; a superior text (but even this one is not entirely correct; read ’DIP *|niN 10l?N,l; at the end read instead of in) is given by Epstein, Eldad, 67-70. The legend that God showed Jacob (and also Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and David) the terrestrial as well as the celestial temple is very old; see Midrash Tannaim 216; Sifre D., 352; BR 56.10. On the view that Moses surrendered his soul only to God, see vol. Ill, pp. 436, 471 seq. » 06 Midrash Tannaim 179; Petirat Mosheh 125; 2 Petirat Mosheh 379. DR 11.9; Petirat Mosheh 125 (read msNl "irUN) ; 2 Petirat Mosheh 379. On the struggle between Sammael and Moses, see vol. Ill, pp. 466, seq. 908 Petirat Mosheh 125-126 and 2 Petirat Mosheh 380, both of which are based on old sources; see Sifre D., 305; quotation from Tan. in Makiri, Prov. 23.13; Likkutim, V, 161a-161b; ARN 17, 65, and the parallel sources cited by Schechter. Concerning the appeal made by Moses to the “works of creation”, see vol. Ill, pp. 431-432, and ‘Abodah Zarah 17a. The Midrashim very likely made use of this talmudic passage. Concerning “the acknowledging of God’s justice” (pin pm) by Moses, see vol. I, p. 286, vol. II, p. 27. Comp. Sotah 40a and Sanhedrin 8a. 152 Moses in the Wilderness [909-914 909 Petirat Mosheh 126. Comp. vol. IV, p. 4. Moses further said to Joshua: “Thou shalt have to carry a burden which proved too heavy for three (Moses, Aaron, and Miriam). May God be with thee! 1 implore thee to take care of my mother, who has the terrible misfortune of losing all her children in her life-time. Now thou art to be her son. Be kind to the poor proselyte (Zipporah), and see that no evil is done to her. In memory of our friendship treat my orphans, to whom it was not granted to be my successors, as members of thy household.’’ See 2 Petirat Mosheh 380 (bottom). On Jochebed, see vol. Ill, p. 393. 910 Tan. B. V, 13; Tan. Wa-Ethanan 6; Petirat Mosheh 126; 2 Petirat Mosheh 380-381; PK 32, 197a. 911 PK 32, 198b; DR 11.5; DZ 9. As to the victory of Moses over the angel of Death (=Sammael), see vol. Ill, pp. 456, seq. 9 1 3 PK 32, 198b-199b; Tan. B. V, 52-54; Tan. Berakah 1. Comp, also DR 11.1. As to Abraham's refraining from blessing Isaac, see vol. I, p. 299. On the relation of the blessings of Moses to those of Jacob, see vol. II, p. 147. Jacob bestowed upon his sons the blessings he had received from God, from the angel with whom he had wrestled, and from his grandfather; the two blessings he had received from his father (comp. Gen. 27.28-29 and 28.1); he also added one blessing of his own. He thus gave six blessings to his son. Comp, also BR 94.5. The blessings given by Moses to each tribe corresponded to the pious deeds of the progenitor of the tribe, and accordingly they supplemented the blessings which Jacob bestowed on his sons, the sires of the tribes; see quotation from Midrash in Sabba', Berakah, 165b. Comp, further Sifre D., 357 (on npy’ J’y); Hasidim 18. Jacob’s sons took turns in attending on their father on week-days, while on the Sabbath they all together attended on him. As long as their grandfather Isaac was aiive, they, together with their father, spent the Sabbath with Isaac. The blessings bestowed by Jacob on his sons corresponded with the services rendered on the days when they attended on him; Hasidim 171. On other blessings of Moses, see vol. Ill, pp. 69 and 178. 91 3 Sifre D., 343; Midrash Tannaim 208-209. Following Moses’ example, David, Solomon, and the wise men who instituted the prayer (comp. vol. IV, pp. 359—361) began with the glorification of God s name, and then proceeded with their requests. 9 1 < Midrash Tannaim 209. On the west as the place of the Shekinah, see Baba Batra 25a and Index, s. v. “West”. 153 915-920] The Legends of the Jews 915 Sifre D., 343; Midrash Tannaim 209; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 32.2. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 80. 916 Midrash Tannaim 212. For other haggadic interpretations of Deut. 33.3, see Targumim, ad loc.-, Sifre D., 344; Midrash Tannaim 212-213. 919 Sifre D., 345; Midrash Tannaim 212-213. On the Torah as the bride, or rather “betrothed” of Israel, see Friedmann on Sifre, loc. cit.; vol. Ill, p. 92 and note 200. 918 Midrash Tannaim 313; Targumim Deut. 33.5. According to another view, this verse of Deut. speaks of God as the King of Israel; comp. Sifre D., 346, and Midrash Tannaim, loc. cit. On Moses as king see note 170. On the Seven Shepherds, see note 142, on vol. I, p. 102. 919 Midrash Tannaim 210. According to Sifre D., 343, the appearance of God against Gog will be the third and the fourth at the advent of the Messiah. An old tannaitic tradition speaks of “God’s ten descents on earth”. He descended to punish Adam (Gen. 3.8); to look at the tower {ibid. 11.5); to convince Himself of the wickedness of the sinful cities {ibid. 18.21); to deliver Israel from Egypt (Exod. 3.8); to drown the Egyptians in the Red Sea (2 Sam. 22.10); to reveal the Torah (Exod. 19.20); to make His spirit rest upon the seventy elders (Num. 11.5); to make the Shekinah dwell in the Temple (Ezek. 44.2). He will also descend in the time to come when He will appear to execute judgment upon Gog. See Mekilta Bahodesh 3, 64a; Sifre N., 33; ARN 24, 102 (in this passage the ascents are also described), and second version 37, 96-97, which contains some variants; BR 38.9. According to PRE 14 and 24, God descended to reveal Himself unto Moses in the bush, to perform the miracle of making the water flow from the rock (twice) ; He also descended twice on the tabernacle. Comp, note 206. 930 Sifre D., 347; Midrash Tannaim 213-214. Comp, also Philo, De Caritate, 4, which reads: And the things which were entreated for in the petitions were real blessings, not only that such things might fall to their share in this mortal life, but still more so when the soul should be released from the bondage of flesh. Philo was very likely acquainted with the interpretations given by the Rabbis of the blessings bestowed upon Reuben and Judah. The genuineness of this sentence is however very doubtful; it is very likely an addition by a Christian reader. The further remarks of Philo, ibid, and Moses, 2 (3). 39, that some of the blessings have already been fulfilled, and that “the rest will certainly be accomplished”, are in full agreement with the 154 Moses in the Wilderness [921-924 Haggadah of the Rabbis, who find in these blessings the history of Israel from its very beginning until the days of the Messiah. The statement of Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 8.44, that “the song ( i . e., Deut. 32.1-43) contains a prediction of what was to come afterwards, agreeably whereto all things have happened all along, and so still happen to us”, is in perfect agreement with the view of the Rabbis; see Sifre D., 307-333; Midrash Tannaim 192-204; Yerushalmi Targumim, ad loc. — That Moses prayed for Reuben’s life in the future world is also stated by Aphraates, 420, and Epiphanius, Ancoratus, 97. 9,1 DZ 10. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 172-173; vol. IV, p. 8; vol. II, p. 41. When in accordance with the command of God, the tribe of Reuben was charged to pronounce the curse upon mount Ebal against him who committed incest with his father’s wife (comp. Deut. 27.13 and 20), all Israel knew then that Reuben’s sin was forgiven; Shitah 2; the very lengthy quotation from an unknown Midrash in Sabba‘, Wa-Yeze 36b, Ki-Tabo, 152a. This unknown Midrash adds that Reuben never asked his father’s pardon, and therefore his sin, notwithstanding his life-long repentance, was not forgiven until Moses prayed for him. Comp, note 60 on vol. II, p. 24. 9 2 2 Baba Kamma91b; MHG 1, 689; Sifre D., 348; Midrash Tannaim 214. Comp. vol. II, p. 36. 923 Sifre D., 348; Midrash Tannaim 214; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 33.7; Tehillim 86, 372, and 102, 430; PK 32, 197b. As to the sins committed by the tribe of Simeon, see vol. Ill, p. 390, and note 794. PK, loc. cit., adds that because the tribe of Simeon had not received any blessing from Moses, it did not furnish Israel with a king, whereas each of the other tribes produced one king or more. It is true that Zimri was of the tribe of Simeon; but having only reigned for seven days (comp. I Kings 16.15), he may be disregarded. The fact that this tribe did not furnish any kings is mentioned also in the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, Simeon, 5.6. and Tadshe 8; but comp., to the contrary, Sukkah 27b, where it is stated that “there was not one tribe which did not furnish kings and judges”; comp, also vol. II, p. 142. Philo, De Conf. Ling., 35, is of the opinion that Moses included Simeon in Levi’s blessing.

Comp, the following note. 924 Sifre D., 349-352; Midrash Tannaim 214-215; comp. vol. II, p. 188; vol. Ill, pp. 211, 281, 314. Ephraem I, 191 A-C, in agreement with the Rabbis, remarks that Moses failed to bless the tribe of Simeon on account of its sin committed at Shittim. His observations on the difference between the tribes of Simeon and Levi, as contrasted with iss 925-927] The Legends of the Jews the similarity of the character of their sires, the sons of Jacob, are found, almost verbatim, in the tannaitic sources quoted. 925 Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 33.11. According to a later tradition , the father of Mattathias the Hasmonean was the high priest J ohanan (Soferim 20.8; comp. Muller, ad loc.), and it is very likely that Targum Yerushalmi refers to this alleged high priest and not to John (Johanan) Hyrkanus. The older haggadah never alludes to the Hasmoneans (it was too near the time of the strife between the Pharisees and the Hasmoneans to be impartial to the latter). The later Haggadah of the Amoraim (comp., e. g., Megillah 11a; Tehillim 93, 413; vol. Ill, p. 218) hardly knew of the Hasmoneans more than that at a certain period they played a glorious part in the history of Israel, for which they deserve praise and honor. The reference to “John the high priest” in Targum Yerushalmi, far from being “remarkable proof” of the high antiquity of this Aramaic paraphrase of the Pentateuch, as Geiger ( Urschrift , 479) maintains, is clear evidence of its comparatively recent date. 926 Sifre D., 352; Midrash Tannaim 216-217. According to one view, even the temporary central sanctuaries, as those at Gibeon and Nob, were in the territory of Benjamin; Yerushalmi Megillah I, 72d and Zebahim 118b. The description of Benjamin as the “host of the Shekinah” (comp., e. g., Yoma 12a) very likely refers to the fact that the Shekinah during her wanderings found temporary rest in the territory of this tribe. Three reasons are assigned for this great distinction conferred upon the tribe of Benjamin. The sire of this tribe, Benjamin the son of Jacob, was the only son of the patriarch born in the Holy Land (comp. Gen. 35.16, seq.). Furthermore he was the only one of Joseph 's brethren who took no part in selling the latter. If the central sanctuary had been located in the territory of any other tribe, God would not have heard the prayers addressed to Him in such a place, even as Joseph’s brethren turned a deaf ear to their brother’s supplications when they sold him. Finally, just as Jacob found solace by leaning on “the shoulders” of his youngest son Benjamin, even so did the Shekinah “dwell between his shoulders”; see Sifre and Midrash Tannaim, loc. cit.\ Mekilta Bahodesh 4, 65b; BR 99.1. Comp, note 262 on vol. I, p. 390. According to some authorities, the site of the Jerusalem Temple was partly in the territory of Benjamin and partly in the territory of Judah; see Yoma and BR, loc. cit. 937 Sifre D., 353; Midrash Tannaim 217-218; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 33.16-17. The statement that Joseph will be the first to appear in the Holy Land very likely refers to the Ephraimitic Messiah who 156 Moses in the Wilderness [928-938 will inaugurate the future redemption; see Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte 337. The statement in Sifre with regard to “the mountains of Joseph” is to be emended in accordance with Midrash Tannaim in the following manner: The mountain of the Temple antedates the mountains of Joseph; the mountains of Joseph antedate the mountains of the land of Israel. The Temple mount was created first (see vol. I, p. 12), then the mountains of Joseph (the hill-country of Ephraim D'HDN "in, or the mountains Ebal and Gerizim), and finally the other mountains of the Holy Land. 9 2 8 Sifre D., 345; Midrash Tannaim 218-219; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 33.18-19; Megillah 8a. »*» Sifre D., 354; Midrash Tannaim 218; BaR 13.17; Targum Yerushalmi 33.18. On the relation of “the tribe of merchants” (Zebulun) to “the tribe of scholars” (Issachar) , comp. vol. II, p. 154. 930 Sifre D. 355; Midrash Tannaim 219-220; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 33.20; comp. Sifre N., 106, and the parallel passages given by Friedmann. The activity of the tribe of Gad in “the time to come” very likely alludes to the activity of the Gadite Elijah (see vol. I, p. 365), who will appear in “the time to come” as the forerunner of the Messiah. However as may be seen from Targum Yerushalmi, loc. cit., and Aggadat Bereshit 67, 133, Kin in Sifre was taken by some authorities to refer, not to the tribe of Gad, but to Moses, who will lead Israel back to the Holy Land; see vol. Ill (end). « 3 1 Sifre D., 355; Midrash Tannaim 220. 939 Sifre D., 355; Midrash Tannaim 220. Comp. vol. I, p. 365; vol. II, p. 145. 933 Sifre D., 355; Midrash Tannaim 220; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 33.24. 934 ER 9, 52. Comp. vol. II, p. 145. 935 PK 32, 198a; Tehillim 90, 387. 9 3 « Tehillim 1, 7; Baba Batra 14b-15a (in this passage ten psalmists, besides David, are enumerated, adding Heman and Jeduthun, but excluding Solomon); Shir 4.4 (here Ezra is counted instead of Melchizedek) , 8.9. Comp, note 590 (end). 937 PK 32, 198a; Tehillim 90, 387. On Reuben, see vol. II, p. 24; on Gad, vol. I, p. 365; on Issachar, vol. II, p. 144. Comp. Shebu‘ot 1, 33b, 1.38. 938 Tan. B. V, 13; Tan. Wa-Ethanan 6; Petirat Mosheh 126; 2 Petirat Mosheh 381. 157 939-945] The Legends of the Jews 939 Sifre D., 356; Midrash Tannaim 222-223. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 92-93 and 132. 9 40 Tan. B. V, 13; Tan. Wa-Ethanan 6; Petirat Mosheh 126; 2 Petirat Mosheh 381. Comp, the following note. 941 Midrash Tannaim 14-15, where I’jnjWlD is to be read instead of I’myno. As to the view that it is “ the people ”, and not the individual (not even the genius), who decides the current of history, see vol. Ill, p. 283, and Assumption of Moses 12. 94a Petirat Mosheh 125-126; 2 Petirat Mosheh 381. As to the great mysteries revealed to Moses immediately before his death, see note 902. Comp, also DR 11.8 which reads: Moses requested God that before his death the gates of heaven and the abyss should be opened, that all men might see that there is only one God. See vol. Ill, p. 96. The supplication of Moses to be allowed to enter the Holy Land was not prompted by his longing for earthly pleasures, but by his great desire to be in a position to fulfil those commandments which cannot be observed outside the Holy Land; see Sotah 14a; Midrash Tannaim 17; 2 Petirat Mosheh, 381-382, where this point is elaborated at full length. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 436. 9 4 3 DR 11.10; Petirat Mosheh 127; 2 Petirat Mosheh 381. “The book of song” is identical with the poetic piece in Deut. 32.1-43, on which see notes 920 and 946. In Petirat Mosheh “the book of song” became “the book of Yashar”, through the error of a copyist who confused TIP “song” with ntP’ “Yashar”. The author of 2 Petirat Mosheh seems to have had before him the corrupt reading "ItP’n'D, and not being able to explain it, wisely omitted the entire sentence. 9 4 4 Tan. B. V, 12-13; Tan. Wa-Ethanan 6; Mishle 14, 77; Makiri, Prov. 14; Likkutim VI, 17a-17b; Petirat Mosheh 127. Another version of this legend is found in DR 9.9 which reads: When Moses, with Joshua at his right, reached the tabernacle, God revealed Himself unto Joshua in a cloud of glory. Moses thereupon asked Joshua of what nature the revelation was. Joshua answered: “Were the revelations granted to thine ear made known to me?” Thereupon Moses exclaimed: “A thousand deaths are preferable to one jealousy.” Strong as death was Moses’ love for Joshua; but cruel as the grave was his jealousy. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 436, 442; Sotah 13b. On the explanation of the midrashic passages referred to at the beginning of the note, see Ginzberg, Rivista Israelitica VII, 93-94. 9 4 3 Petirat Mosheh 127 (read ’woi1? n*3pn ~ID«) ; 2 Petirat Mosheh 381; Manzur 16; DR 11.1. On Sagsagel, see note 898. 158 Moses in the Wilderness [946 9462 Petirat Mosheh 381-382. On the superiority of Moses to all other pious men, see vol. Ill, pp. 423^424, 427, 479, 480. The Christian booklet, the Revelations of Esdras, is a poor adaptation of this part of Petirat Mosheh. Notice, e. g., the following words of Ezra addressed to the angels who wanted to take out his soul through his mouth: “Mouth to mouth have I spoken with God”. But where has it ever been stated that Ezra, oranybody else but Moses, spoke mouth to mouth with God? In changing the name of the hero, the Christian compiler was not aware of the fact that he makes Ezra use words which can only be attributed to Moses. DR 11.10, Petirat Moshe, loc. cit., and Manzur 16 have retained some traces of the old legend concerning the struggle between Michael and Satan ( =Sammael) about the body of Moses, to which the pseudepigraphic and early Christian literatures allude quite frequently; see Jude 9, and the references to the Church Fathers given by Fabricius, Codex Pseudepig. Vet. Test. 842, seq., and Charles, Assumption of Moses, 105, seq. According to this old legend, Michael asked God for permission to bury Moses (comp. vol. Ill, pp. 471-472). But Satan objected to this request, first on the ground that Moses did not deserve this last honor because he killed the Egyptian (comp. vol. Ill, p. 428), and then on the general ground that everything corporeal may be claimed by him (Satan) as his due. Satan’s claim was refuted by Michael with the following words: “The Lord rebuke thee! For it was God’s spirit which created the universe and all mankind." Not satisfied with refuting Satan’s claims, the archangel accused his adversary of having caused the serpent to seduce Adam and Eve (comp. vol. I, p. 95). He finally succeeded in achieving a complete victory over Satan, with the result that the body of Moses was not delivered up into the hands of Satan. The controversy between Michael and Sammael reads in DR, loc. cit., as follows: Sammael, head of the Satans ( = evil spirits; comp. Tosefta Shabbat 17.3: “the angels of Satan”), waited impatiently for the moment of Moses’ death \ exclaiming: “O for the moment when Michael shall weep and I will open my mouth with laughter!” Hearing these words, Michael replied: “I weep, and thou laughest; but ‘rejoice not against me, O mine enemy, though I am fallen, I shall arise; though f sit in darkness, the Lord is light unto me. ’ ” Though I am fallen through the death of Moses, I shall arise with the leadership of Joshua; though I sit in darkness through the destruction of the first and second Temples, the Lord shall be a light unto me in the days of the Messiah. The last sentence does not continue Michael’s reply to Satan, but is a haggadie 159 9471 The Legends of the Jews interpretation of Micah 7.8, the first half of which verse is alleged to have been uttered by Michael on the occasion of Moses’ death. Comp, vol. Ill, p. 449. It is noteworthy that the rabbinic sources speak of the attempt of Sammael or Satan to come into possession of Moses’ soul, whereas in the old legend Satan claims his body. See, however, Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 873, on Ps. 115, which reads: God said to Moses: “All creatures descend into Sheol,but thou shalt ascend unto Me.” Comp, notes 892, 951. — The statement that Gabriel was the first angel called upon to fetch the soul of Moses is perhaps connected with the view that this angel is one of ‘‘the six angels of death”; see Ma'aseh Torah 98; PRK, 14b; Huppat Eliyyahu 46. According to these sources, it is Gabriel’s task to take the life of kings. Comp, note 187 on vol. I, p. 41. See also Zohar I, 99a (min nro), where Gabriel appears as the assistant of the angel of Death. As to the latter ’s ( = Satan ’s) claim on all living, see vol. I, p. 40. 941 DR 11.10; Petirat Mosheh 127-128 (read intODI instead of nDKDl); 2 Petirat Mosheh 382; Manzur 16-18 (the text is very corrupt); quotation from Midrash by Hadassi, Eshkol, 137c, 364. Concerning the various elements of this legend, see note 318 on vol. I, p. 306; vol. II, pp. 264, 270, 272, 332; vol. Ill, pp. 25, 109, seq., and 340. Short versions of a legend about Sammael ’s futile attempts are found in early sources; see Sifre D., 305; ARN 12, 50 (second version 25.51; comp, also p. 150, which agrees with 2 Petirat Mosheh); DR 11.5 (on the text see Hadar, Deut. 32.1); Tan. Berakah 3. In the two lastnamed Midrashim it is stated that Moses rebuked the Angel of death with the following words: ‘‘Begone from here, as I intend to praise the Lord.” The latter replied: “Heaven and earth declare God’s glory incessantly, and He does not need thee for this purpose.” Whereupon Moses said: “Give ear, ye heavens, and I will speak, and let the earth hear the words of my mouth. Ye two be silent, that I may praise the Lord.” When the Angel of Death came a second time, Moses forced him again to retire and made him do his bidding by means of the Name. But when the Angel of Death appeared for the third time, Moses became convinced that his last hour was come, and he resigned himself to his fate, saying: “Now I shall acknowledge the justice of the Lord, and submit myself to it.” Comp, note 908 and 911. Concerning the view that the Song of Moses (see note 920) caused heaven and earth to keep silent, see Sifre D., 306, 131 (middle of page); Midrash Tannaim 182; DR 10.2; Likkutim, V, 163a; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 729; Philo, De Carit. 3; note 245; note 102 on vol. I, p. 25 and note 43 on vol. IV, p. 11. 160 Moses in the Wilderness [948-951 *«8 DR 11.10 (on the text, see Hadar and Da' at, Deut. 34.5, and Ziyyoni, 10); Petirat Mosheh 128-129 (read njnx 13 IHTH it1?, and comp. Yalkut I, 540); 2 Petirat Mosheh 382; ARN 156 (read line 10, bottom, n*7’D ’p"inD3) ; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 34.6 which reads: Michael and Gabriel arranged Moses' couch, while Metatron, Yofiel, and Yefifiyyah placed him upon it; quotation from Midrash in Hadassi’s Eshkol, 137a, 364. On the various elements of this legend, see vol. I, pp. 149150; vol. II, p. 316; note 132 on vol. II, pp. 321-322; vol. III. pp. 436 and 445, as well as note 12 on vol. IV, pp. 242-243. It is noteworthy that Targum Yerushalmi follows on the whole the midrashic description of the last act in the life of Moses, whereas on Deut. 32.49-52 it gives an independent Haggadah concerning Moses’ reluctance to submit to death. In this passage we read: When Moses was commanded by God to ascend unto mount Abarim, he greatly rejoiced, thinking that he was going to receive there revelations as on mount Sinai, and he made himself ready to prepare the people for the new revelations. God, however, did not permit him to retain his illusions very long, and explained to him that the purpose of his ascending unto mount Abarim was to die there. Moses thereupon began his supplications that he might be permitted to enter the Holy land. A similar Haggadah is also found in 2 Petirat Mosheh 378, which is probably dependent on Targum Yerushalmi, since it fits rather badly in the description of Moses’ last days as given in this Midrash. 9 49 DR 11.5; 2 Petirat Mosheh 383; Likkutim, V, 169b; Midrash Tannaim 225; comp, note 946 (towards the end). 9 5° Baba Batra 17a; DR 11 (end); Petirat Mosheh 129; 2 Petirat Mosheh 383. As to “the death by a kiss", see vol. Ill, pp. 326 and 330. According to Baba Batra, loc. cit., this kind of death differs from all others because it is not caused by the Angel of Death, and hence it is a privilege granted only to a very few people. A rationalistic view is given in Sifre D., 357, and Midrash Tannaim 225-226, according to which it means no more than a painless death. »SI Sifre D., 357; Midrash Tannaim 224; Sotah 13b. In all these three sources it is given as the opinion of “some who maintain that Moses did not die, but continues to administer above”. This view was known to Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 8.48, who emphasizes the fact that Moses wrote in the holy book that he died (as to the question whether the narrative concerning the death and burial of Moses was written by himself or by Joshua, see Baba Batra 15a, where different opinions of the Tannaim are recorded; see also Philo, Vita Mosis, 2.39) out of fear 161 952] The Legends of the Jews lest they should venture to say (comp. vol. Ill, p. 327, with regard to Aaron) that because of his extraordinary virtue he went to God. Comp, note 904 and note 58, towards the end, on vol. I, p. 127. Philo though insisting on the literal meaning of the biblical narrative concerning Moses’ death and burial (see Moses 2[3J, end), also seems to have been acquainted with the view that Moses ascended to heaven; see De Sacrif. Abeli, 3. Comp, also the following note and note 25, towards the end, on vol. I, p. 317. 953 Sifre D., 357; Midrash Tannaim 224; Sotah 14a; Tan. B. V. 132 (where it is stated that the graves of the three patriarchs are on Mount Nebo; on the identification of Mount Nebo with Mount Abarim, see vol. Ill, p. 444); Berakot 18b, which reads: God said to Moses before his death: “Go to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and inform them that I have fulfilled my promise made unto them to give the Holy Land to their descendants.” — God himself buried Moses; Sanhedrin 39a; ps. -Philo, 19; 20D. According to other authorities, Moses buried himself ; see Sifre N., 32; BaR 10.17; Septuagint Deut. 34.6. A third view is that of Philo, Moses, 2(3), end, according to which he was buried by celestial beings. The following legend of the Falashas, partly found also in Mohammedan literature, is an attempt to explain, at full length, the manner in which Moses buried himself. Moses, so the legend runs, adjured God by His Name to indicate to him the day of his death. God informed him that he would die on a Friday (this is in accordance with Seder ‘Olam 10; comp. Ratner’s note 11). Accordingly, Moses put on his shrouds every Friday and waited for the Angel of Death. But many years elapsed, and the Angel of Death did not appear to Moses, who thus entirely forgot the information imparted to him concerning his last day. One Friday while praying on mount Sinai, Moses was startled by the words of greeting addressed to him by a youth. The youth 's voice sounded very strange, and in great fear he asked him who he was. The youth introduced himself as Suriel, the Angel of Death, and told him that he had come to take his life. Moses asked him for a few hours' grace to enable him to take leave of those who were near and dear to him. This request was granted by Suriel. Descending from the mountain, Moses hesitated in his walk, as he did not know whether to go first to his mother (comp, vol. Ill, p.474), or to his wife. A heavenly voice was heard, saying: ‘‘To thy mother.” Having bidden farewell to his mother, he betook himself to his wife and sons. The latter wept so bitterly that heaven and earth, as well as Moses himself, could not refrain from weeping 162 Moses in the Wilderness [952 with them. God asked Moses: “Weepest thou because thou art reluctant to depart from the earth or because thou fearest death?” Moses replied: “My father-in-law Jethro is dead, and so is my brother Aaron; who then will take care of my widow and children?” But God reminded him of the care He had taken of him when thrown into the water by his mother. Just as He provided for him, even so will He not fail to provide for those left behind. God then commanded Moses to divide the Red Sea with his rod. Moses did as he was bidden, and a stone rolled out of the depth of the sea. He then cleft the stone, wherein two worms, a big one and a small one were found. The latter spoke, saying: “Praised be God who forgot me not in the depth of the sea.” Turning to Moses God said: “I did not forget the small worm in the depth of the sea; how then couldst thou think that I would forget thy children?” Whereupon Moses left his house, not knowing whither to turn. On the way he met three angels (comp. vol. Ill, pp. 471472), who assumed the appearance of three young men, busying themselves with the digging of a grave, “For whom is the grave?”, asked Moses. “ For the beloved of God”, was the reply. “ If so”, said Moses, “I will assist you in your work.” The angels rejoined: “We know not whether the grave is big enough. Wouldst thou go down into it? The person to be buried therein is of thy size.” As soon as Moses descended into the grave, he was met there by the Angel of Death, who greeted him with the words: “Peace unto thee, O Moses the son of Amram!” Moses replied: “Peace be with thee” — and he died. The angels then buried him in the grave in which he met death. See Faitlovitch, Mota Musa, 9-20; Arabic text, ibid., 29-21 ; 36-37. Comp, also Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge, 183. The legend concerning the death of David, as given in vol. IV, pp. 113-114, shows many points of similarity to this legend. The legend concerning the death and burial of Solomon in Rev. d. Trad. Pop. II, 513 is almost identical with this Moses legend. See also Weil, Bible Leg. 142. On Suriel, see Index, s. v. Moses’ grave was created in the twilight between the sixth day of creation and the first Sabbath (see Abot 5.6, and the references given in note 99 on vol. I, p. 38), and although its location is accurately described in the Bible (Deut. 34.6), no one was ever able to find it. The Roman government attempted once to establish the exact spot, but failed. To the officers looking at the grave from the mountain it appeared to be in the valley; to those in the valley it appeared to be on the mountain. See Sifre D., 359; Midrash Tannaim 226; Sotah 14a. Comp, also Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 8.48, which reads: And as he was going to embrace Ele163 953-955] The Legends of the Jews azar and Joshua... a cloud stood over him on the sudden, and he disappeared in a certain valley. The quotations from a lost version of the Assumption of Moses (comp. Origen, In Josuam, homily 2.1, Lommatzsch’s edition 11.22, and references in note 946) speak of Joshua and Caleb as having been present at “the disappearance of Moses”; Caleb believed that he saw Moses’ grave in the valley, whereas Joshua saw him ascend into heaven; the former saw Moses’ body, the latter beheld his spirit. Concerning the visions seen by Joshua and Caleb at the moment of Moses’ death, comp, the description of the vision of Seth at Adam’s death as given in the Apocalypse of Moses. See vol. I, pp. 99-101. That a cloud came down and separated Moses from Joshua is also stated in Midrash Tannaim 225. The grave of Moses was concealed from the eye of man, so that the Hebrews should not turn it into a sanctuary and the Gentiles into an idolatrous place of worship; see Lekah Deut. 34.6. A similar view is expressed by the Christian authors Aphraates, 162; Origen, Selecta in Num. Migne’s edition. 12, 578B; Theodoretus, Interr. 43, Deut. For further details con•erning the grave of Moses, see vol. Ill, p. 125, as well as note 274. 9 5 3 Sifre D., 357; Midrash Tannaim 227. Comp. Geiger, Kebuzzat Maamarim44, and Ginzberg in Geiger, op.cit. 383; Lekah Deut 34.7 reads: Moses received six distinctions which were not granted to any one else: His voice could be heard through the entire camp (comp, note 210); he looked at the entire extent of the Holy Land with one glance (comp, vol. Ill, p. 433); God spoke to him face to face (on this point see DZ 10, which reads: God fulfilled all the wishes of Moses, including the request to “see the glory of God”, which was granted to him at the time of his death; comp. vol. Ill, 137); there never arose a prophet in Israel equal to him (on Moses’ superiority to the Messiah, see note 836) ; his eye became not dim when he died, his countenance forever retained the brightness it received on mount Sinai (comp. vol. 1 1 1 , pp. 93 and 119), so that he appeared as though he had been administering before the living God. On the last point, see also ps. -Philo, 19.20D, who remarks: And his likeness was changed gloriously, and he died in glory. 9 5 4 Sifre D., 357; Midrash Tannaim 227; Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 8.3 and 48-49; Philo Moses, 2(3), end. For a different view concerning the mourning for Moses, see BR 100.4; vol. Ill, p. 328. 955 Tan. B. IV, 13; Tan. Wa-Ethanan 6; quotation from Tan. in Makiri, Ps. 12.71; ARN 156; DR (end); Sotah 13b and 14a, as well as Yerushalmi 1 (end); Sifre D., 355, 357; Midrash Tannaim 219, 224; Tosefta Sotah 4.8-9; Petirat Mosheh 129; 2 Petirat Mosheh 383. 164 Moses in the Wilderness [956-959 Ps. -Philo, 19.20D, strongly emphasizes the fact that the angels mourned for Moses. He writes as follows: And the angels lamented at his death... and on that day the hymn of the hosts was not chanted (comp. vol. I, pp. 17-18) because of the departure of Moses. Neither was there a day like unto it . . neither shall there be any such for ever, that He should make the hymn of the angels to cease because of a man. The last words perhaps indicate that on another occasion God made the hymn of the angels to cease, but not on account of the mourning for “a man”, but on account of the Temple. See vol. VI, p. 397, note 32. On the mourning of the angels for Moses, see also vol. Ill, pp. 460-461; ARN 25.51. On the view that by the death of Moses the Israelites lost the intermediary between them and God, see also ps- Philo, 19.3; 19A. Comp, note 248. See Krauss in Ha-Goren VII, 29 with regard to the statement, found in Sifre, loc. cit., and parallel passages that the angel Semalion announced the death of Moses with the words: “The great scribe is dead.” Comp, also note 66 on vol. II, p. 275. 956 Piyyut "D3V in the Italian Mahzor for the Rejoicing of the Law, which is undoubtedly based upon an unknown version of Petirat Mosheh. See the quotation given by Epstein, Mikkadmoniyyot, 128, from a work by R. Eleazar Ashkenazi. Jochebed's futile search for Moses is a doublet to Sammael’s futile search; see vol. Ill, pp. 475, seq. ’s? Midrash Tannaim 225; ARN 12.51 and 57; Sifre D., 305. Comp, also ps.- Philo 20.2 ; 20D, who remarks: Then said God unto Joshua : “Wherefore mournest thou, and wherefore hopest thou in vain, thinking that Moses shall yet live? Now therefore thou waitest to no purpose, for Moses is dead.” » s 8 ARN 156-157 (in line 8 of p. 157 read: □”!VT py instead of D”n ; Manzur 19. The old sources (Sifre D., 305; Midrash Tannaim 224-225; ARN 12, 50-51, and second version 26, 52) give this legend in a very abridged form. On the Holy Land as “the land of the living”, see Ketubot 111a. On the dividing of the sea, see vol. Ill, p. 22. Concerning the idea that Pharaoh is keeping guard at the gate of Hell, see vol. Ill, p. 30. On the sons of Korah who dwell within the abyss, see vol. Ill, pp. 300 and 302. Concerning Moses’ visit to paradise, see vol. II, p. 210; on his staff (=rod), see vol. II, p. 291, where a different story is told, according to which a branch from a tree in paradise became the rod of Moses. On the reed used by Moses in writing the Torah, see note 99 on vol. I, p. 83. Comp. Nispahim 28—29. ».«» Tan. B. Ill, 29; IV, 46-47. Concerning the animate and in165 960-965] The Legends of the Jews animate things pointed out by God to Moses , see Buber’s note to Tan., as well as note 202 on vol. II, p. 362. 9 6 9 ARN 157 (in this passage it is very likely supposed that Moses did not die, but was translated to heaven; see note 951); Manzur 19; Midrash Tannaim 225; ARN 20, 50, and second version 25.52. 9 61 3 Petirat Mosheh 71, seq. Comp, the references given In the following note. Josephus, Antiqui., IV, 8.49. writes: He (Moses) excelled all men that ever were in understanding, and made the best use of what that understanding suggested to him. Philo likewise (Moses, 1, beginning) describes Moses as the greatest and most perfect of all men. The rabbinic sources, however, place the three patriarchs higher than Moses; see notes 490 and 836. 963 Quotation from Tan. (Yelammedenu?) in Makiri, Prov. 31,29, and Ps. 49, 270; 68, 330; DR 11.3 (on the text see Hadar, Deut., end); DZ 9; Likkutim V, 166b-167a. On Adam, see vol. I, p. 86; on the view that Isaac ’s loss of eyesight was caused by his having looked at the Shekinah, see vol. I, pp. 328-329; on Moses’ victory over the angels, see vol. Ill, p. 109. Concerning Moses’ superiority to all other pious and righteous men, see vol. Ill, pp. 423-424, and note 961. ,6j 3 Petirat Mosheh 72. Comp. vol. II, p. 416. 964 3 Petirat Mosheh 72-73. On the view that Abraham was the cause of Israel’s bondage in Egypt, see note 110 on vol. I, p. 235. On the flight of the angels at beholding Moses in heaven, see vol. Ill, p. 110. Concerning the celestial light that shone for the Israelites during their wandering through the wilderness, see vol. II, p. 37; vol. Ill, p. 331. 965 DR 11.4; PK 32, 198b; Tehillim 90, 388. In the text the literal translation of the Hebrew is given. The purport of the passage in a less literal but more accurate form is: Moses was half terrestrial, half celestial. The sources just quoted contain several other explanations of the designation of Moses as D’n1?^ tP’N ordinarily translated “a man of God”. According to the Haggadah, it means ‘‘master of the angels” (comp, note 962); “master of God” (God was willing to do the bidding of Moses); “master of justice”, since the principle of Moses was that justice be done, even “if mountains have to be bored through.” Comp, note 877. Philo, like the Rabbis, gives many explanations of the expression “man of God”; comp. De Mut. Nom. 3. 22 (this agrees literally with the explanation given in Tehillim, loc. cit.) ; 2 De Somniis 35-36 (which reads: “The perfect man is neither God nor man, but something between the uncreated — God — and the perishable 166 Moses in the Wilderness [966 nature) ; Quod Omnis Probus Liber, 7 (which reads : The man who is wholly possessed of the love of God. .is no longer a man, but actually — God). Comp, also Aristeas 140. According to Imre No' am, Naso (end), Moses’ importance was as great as that of the Cherubim. As to those whom Scripture calls “man of God”, see Sifre D., 342; Midrash Tannaim 208; ARN 37.95, where the following are enumerated: Moses, Elkanah, Samuel, David, Iddo, Shemaiah, Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah, and Amos. With the exception of Elkanah, all these personages are described as “ men of God ” in the Bible. On Elkanah, see note 28 on vol. IV, p. 61. 966 DR, end, and 3, end, with the addition that God promised Moses to send him, together with Elijah, at the end of the days. Messianic activity in co-operation with Elijah or the Messiah, is ascribed to Moses in Sifre D 355 ; Targum Yerushalmi Deut. 33.21 ; Aggadat Bereshit 67, 133 (see note 930); Midrash Tannaim 219. Comp, also vol. II, pp. 302, 315, 373; vol. Ill, pp. 35, 312; Sanhedrin 92a. In Mahzor Vitry 164 it is said that Moses will be the cupbearer at the messianic banquet. Moses, who was one hundred and twenty years old at the time of his demise, lived less years than any of the patriarchs, from Adam until his own times, with the exception of Joseph, who died at the age of one hundred and ten years. The reason for the premature death of these two righteous men (on Joseph comp. vol. II, p. 221) is as follows: "Long life” is promised in the Torah as a reward for studying the Torah and for honoring parents (see Deut. 5.16 and 30.20). Men would be inclined to believe that a long “terrestrial life” is meant by this promise. This is, of course, not the case, as the reward promised is eternal life in the world to come. Therefore Moses, who more than any other man devoted himself to the study of the Torah, and Joseph, who distinguished himself greatly by honoring his father, died at an early age. It thus becomes clear that the reward for good deeds does not consist in temporal things. See Hasidim, 225, which is partly based on Kiddushin 39b. On the day of Moses ’ death see Wistinetzki ’s note on Hasidim, loc. cit., and Ratner’s note 11 on Seder 'Olam 10. All opinions agree that he died in the month of Adar (Seder ‘Olam, loc. cit., Kiddushin 38a, and many parallel passages cited by Ratner). With the exception of Josephus, all authorities are also unanimous that it was on the seventh of that month. Josephus is of the opinion that it was on the first of that month. The authorities, however, differ greatly as to the day of the week on which Moses died. Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday compete for the distinction of being the day on which Moses died. The prevalent opinion among the postlo, 966] The Legends of the Jews talmudic authorities is that Moses (like Joseph and David) died on Sabbath afternoon. On the day of Moses’ birth, see note 44 on vol. Ill, p. 264 . Moses ’ reward for interceding for the Israelites and saving them from destruction (see note 284 and vol. Ill, p. 435 toward end) consists in the fact that Scripture speaks of him as though he had created Israel; ER 4.19. Comp, note 70 on vol. II, p. 278 and note 259,