Volume 4, Chapter 3: III. SAMUEL AND SAUL

III. SAMUEL Vol. IV, (pp. 57-77). 1 Megillah 13a. On Samuel as the descendant of Korah, whose sons were prophets, see Seder ‘Olam 20, and Ratner, ad loc.; vol. Ill, pp. 297 and 301-303. According to PR 43, 181b, Tohu, the great grandfather of Elkanah, is none other than the psalmist Asaph. On the many haggadic interpretations of Ramathaim-Zophim and Ephrathi (1 Sam. 1.1), see Shemuel 1, 44—45; WR 2.3; Ruth R. 1.2; PRE 45; Targum 1 Sam. 1.1 (d’SI^ = prophets, in accordance with Megillah loc. cit .); ps.- Jerome and Ephraem on 1 Sam. 1.1. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 12-13, and Kellermann, Der Midrasch zum 1 Buche Samuelis, 7-12. 1 Seder ‘Olam 20 and 21; Megillah 14a. Comp, also Shemuel 1, 45, and note 28. The name of Hannah’s father was Batuel (Bethuel) ; ps. -Philo, 51; 61.6. 3 Aggadat Bereshit 49, 100-101. See also Shemuel 1, 44; BaR 10.5, which reads: Elkanah was equal in importance to thirty-one pious men. On a lengthy legend concerning Elkanah in ps. -Philo, see note 17, « "A man of moderate means” is found only in Josephus, Antiqui., V, 16.2. This is perhaps a haggadic interpretation of OTlOin (1 Sam. 1.1), ‘‘between the heights”. Comp. Megillah 14a, and references given in note 1. 5 ER 7, 47-48; Koheleth 5.19; Yerushalmi Berakot 9, 14; PR 43, 179a (which reads: Hannah used to go up to the sanctuary for prayer); Shemuel 1, 45; Targum and ps. -Jerome on 1 Sam. 1.3. The last mentioned Midrash points out that prayer is vastly superior to sacrifices, and therefore maintains that Elkanah ’s purpose in visiting the sanctuary was to pray there. On the meaning of no’D1 D’D’D, see also note 9. 6 PR 43, 181a; ER 18, 99. According to the law (Mishnah Yebamot 6, end), ten years of married life without children is a ground for divorce or gives the husband the right to take a second wife. The Rabbis who looked with disfavor on polygamy attempt therefore to 215 7-9] The Legends of the Jews explain why the pious Elkanah had two wives; comp. PR 43, 181b; Shemuel 1, 45; Aggadat Bereshit 49, 101. 7 PR 43, 181b; Shemuel 1,45-46. On the conception that barren women may change their unfortunate state by self-denial, see vol I, p.364. Peninnah ’s taunting words read in ps.-Philo, 49-50,51.1-2, as follows: “What profiteth it thee that Elkanah thy husband loveth thee? But thou art a dry tree. I know moreover that he will love me, because he delighteth to see my sons standing around him like the planting of an olive-yard ... A woman is not indeed beloved, even if her husband love her for her beauty. Let not Anna therefore boast herself of her beauty; but he that boasteth let him boast when he sees his seed before his face; and when it is not so among women, even the fruit of their womb, then shall love become of no account. For what profit was it unto Rachel that Jacob loved her? Except that there have been given unto her the fruit of her womb, surely his love would have been to no purpose.” On the several interpretations of ni:D and D’SN (1 Sam 1.4-5) given by the Haggadah, see PR 43, 182a; Shemuel 1, 46; Targum and ps. Jerome, ad loc. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 14-15, and Kellermann, Midrasch zum 1 Buche Samuelis, 20-21. 8 Baba Batra 16a; PR 43, 182b. A less favorable opinion of Peninnah is expressed by the sources referred to in the preceding note and in note 22. 9 Berakot 31b; MHG I, 391-392. In ps.-Philo, 50; 50.4, the prayer of Hannah reads: Hast not Thou, O Lord, examined the heart of all generations before Thou formedst the world? But what is the womb that is born open, or what one that is shut up dieth, except Thou will it? And now let my prayer go up before Thee this day, lest I go down hence empty. For thou knowest my heart, how I have walked before Thee from the days of my youth. The last sentence is a combination of 2 Kings 20.3 and 1 Kings 18.12. Other versions of Hannah’s prayer are found PR 43, 179b-180a; Shemuel 1, 48 and 49; PRK (Griinhut’s edition, 42a; here “ruse”, amounts to IN1? D«i '121 mnDD ’2N nn of the parallel passages); Aggadat Bereshit 19, 60. The last-named Midrash takes the “memorable day” (1 Sam. 1.4) to refer to the day of Passover which is spoken of in the preceding verse as riD’D’ D’D’O, in accordance with the use of that phrase in Exod. 13.10. The same view is shared by ps.-Philo, 49-50; 50.2, which reads: Die bono paschae (a Hebraism =nDS bv niB Dl'); whereas Shemuel 1, 46, maintains that it was “the Feast of Weeks”, the only one of the “three festivals consisting of one day, and is therefore described as “the 116 Samuel [10-13 day”. On riD’D’ D’D’D as the term for Passover, see note 135 (end) on vol. IV, p. 53. Comp, also references cited in note 5. 10 PR 43, 179b; Shemuel 1, 48-49. Aggadat Bereshit 52, 106. On the statement in Shemuel that Hannah was the first to call God “the Lord of hosts”, see also Shemuel 9, 75, and Berakot 31b. 11 Shemuel 2, 51-52. According to ps.-Philo 52; 50.7-8, Eli assured her that her prayer was heard, as he was acquainted with the prophecy concerning the birth of Samuel; but he did not tell her that it had been foreordained that she should give birth to a prophet; comp, note 17. Hannah’s prayer is considered by the Rabbis to have been “correct and in accordance with the regulations concerning prayer” ( = ‘ Amidah). The reason why Eli thought her drunk was because she came to prayer straight from a festival banquet. Comp. Berakot 31a; Shemuel 2, 50-51. According to ps.-Philo 50; 50.5-6, Hannah did not pray aloud, as all men do, because she thought; “Perchance I am not worthy to be heard, and it shall be that Peninnah will taunt and reproach me yet more {"plus me zelans improperet mihi Phenenna ” is a faulty translation of •qtup1? m’3D *]Dim), as she daily saith: Where is thy God in whom thou trustest?” Her praying in a low voice and the way she deported herself at prayer caused Eli to say to her: “Go, put away thy wine from thee.” The Rabbis, on the other hand, maintain that one must follow the example of Hannah, and pray (the ‘Amidah) in a low voice. Comp. Talmud and Midrash as quoted above. See, however, Hilluf Minhagim, No. 43, 40, where it is said that the saying of the ‘Amidah in a low voice is a Babylonian custom, whereas in Palestine it is uttered aloud. Josephus, Antiqui., V, 10.2, is of the opinion that it was the length of Hannah’s prayer which made Eli suspect that she was drunk. Comp, the similar statement Yerushalmi Berakot 4, 7b, and Shemuel 3, 72. 11 Shemuel 2, 52; comp., however, ps.-Philo, 50; 50.2, where Hannaih ’s beauty is highly praised. 1 J Rosh ha-Shanah 11a (here it is assumed that Hannah’s prayer in the sanctuary took place on Passover; comp, note 9); Shemuel 3, 52. Like Samuel, Isaac, too, was a “seventh-month child” (Rosh haShanah, loc. cit.), and “for this reason every child brought forth in the seventh month shall live, because upon him (Isaac) did God call His glory, and showed forth the new age;” ps.-Philo 24; 23.8. Another seventh-month child was Ichabod, the gransdon of Eli; Josephus, Antiqui., V, 11.4. According to MHG II, 13, all prophets were seventh-month children. Comp, note 44 on vol. II, p. 264. 217 14-17] The Legends o f the Jews 14 PR 43, 181a; ER 18, 99. Comp, note 6. 1 s Shemuel 3, according to the reading of Yalkut II, 80 (1 Sam. 1, end). It is, however, possible that the reference Vniop ITUN (so ed. princeps) in Yalkut belongs to the preceding sentence. Rimzs Haf tarot, Rosh ha-Shanah 1, reads: A miracle was wrought for her, as for Abraham and Sarah, and she gave birth to a child when she was old. Each woman who enters into a holy union (not to statisfy the desires of the body) receives a pious son for her reward, as may be seen from the history of Hannah; Tan. B. IV, 31. 16 Hagigah 6a. * i Shemuel 3, 52. Comp, also Rimze Haftarot, Rosh ha-Shanah 1 , where the name Samuel is explained as | V1?^ 1DE>, which very likely means:" his name is given to him by the Most High God” and not ‘‘his name is the same as that of the Most High God”. Here it is likewise presupposed that not only the birth of the prophet, but also his name was made known by God. An amplified form of this legend is given by ps.Philo 49, 51, 53 ; 49.1, 51.1-2. At the end of the period of the judges the people began to inquire of the Lord, and said: ‘‘Let us cast lots, that we may see whether there is one who can rule over us like Kenaz.” But when they cast lots, no man was found worthy of the office. Grieved at this token of divine displeasure, they again cast lots by tribes, but the lot did not fall on any tribe. And Israel said: “Let us choose one of ourselves; for we perceive that God abhorreth His people, and that His soul is displeased with us.” At the advice of a man named Nethez (perhaps a corruption of Nebez, Aramaic ]’D3 “lots”. Comp., however, the Jewish name nrru, Sanhedrin 74a), they tried for the third time, and cast lots by cities, and the lot fell on Armathem. They then cast lots by the men of that city, and the lot “ leaped out ” ( cecidit sorst a Hebraism = I? nun ^Sl) on Elkanah. The people took him, and said: “Come and be ruler over us.” He, however, could not be induced to become either prince or judge. Greatly disconcerted, the people prayed again unto the Lord for guidance. God answered them as follows: “Know ye that Elkanah upon whom the lot hath fallen cannot rule over you; but it is rather his son that shall be born of him; he shall be prince over you, and shall prophesy; and from henceforth there shall not be wanting unto you a prince for many years.” The people inquired again of the Lord which of Elkanah ’s ten sons by Peninnah shall be the ruler and prophet, and the reply was: “ None of Peninnah ’s sons can be a prince over the people; but he that shall be born of the barren woman, whom I have given Elkanah to wife, shall be a prophet before 218 Samuel [18-22 Me for ever. And I will love him, even as I loved Isaac (comp, note 13), and his name shall be before Me for ever.” And when Hannah bore a son, she “called his name Samuel, which is interpreted Mighty, according as God called his name when He prophesied of him.” The original Hebrew of the last sentence very likely read: Vnid® im« mpm '131 UTIN N~lp -|t£>{0 1DE> (comp, the rabbinic interpretation of the name Samuel given above) , and is to be translated : She called his name Samuel, i. e. his name was given by God. On names given by God, see note 112 on vol. I, p. 239. See also the quotation from ps. -Philo in note 13, where it is stated that Eli knew of this prophecy about Samuel, but not Hannah. But if so, how did she know the name given by God to the prophet? 1 8 Shemuel 3, 53; Berakot 31b. As to the slaughtering of a sacrifice by a non-priest, see also Josephus, Antiqui., Ill, 9. 1, who agrees with the rabbinic Halakah, whereas Philo, De Special. Legi., De Sacrifican., 5, and Quaestiones in Exod. 10, is of the opinion that the slaughtering is a priestly function; comp. Schiirer, Geschichte (4th edition), II, 239, note 39. There seems, however, to have been a difference of opinion among the Rabbis on this point; comp., e. g., WR 22.7, where R. Ishmael (himself a priest) speaks of the slaughtering of the sacrifices by priests. Zohar III, 124a, maintains that the slaughtering must not be done by a priest. Comp. R. Ezekiel Feivel, Toledot Adam, I, 52a-52b. 19 Shemuel 3, 53. This passage contains also the remark that ITannah uttered an unconscious prophecy when she said: “I also have lent him to the Lord” (1 Sam. 1.28). Samuel remained among the living as long as Saul (=“lent to the Lord”) was alive, and departed this life shortly before Saul’s death. Comp. note. 70. 10 Targum 1 Sam. 2.1-11; Shemuel 4-6, 55-65; Batte Midrashot, IV, 6-9, as well as ps. -Philo, 51; 51.3, seq., contain lengthy homiletical paraphrases of Hannah’s prayer of thanks. It should be observed that Targum finds in verse 4 a prophecy concerning the victory of the Maccabees over the Greeks; comp, note 925 on vol. Ill, p. 458. The Haggadah considers Hannah ’s second prayer (on the first, see note 11) as an abridged form of the ‘Amidah. See Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 80. 21 Sanhedrin, Mishnah 10.3; Tosefta 13.9; Babli 109b; Yerushalmi 10, 28a and 29c; Shemuel 5, 61-62; BR 98.2; Targum 1 Sam. 2.6. Comp. vol. Ill, p.300. 21 Shemuel 5, 61; PR 43, 182a; Batte Midrashot, IV, 7. Hannah 219 23-25] The Legends of the Jews bore, besides Samuel, who was equal to two, two other sons, as well as two daughters (she prayed for sons as well as for daughters; Shemuel 2, 49); to these should be added her two grandsons (Samuel’s sons), who were born during her life-time; she thus had eight children, corresponding to the number of children lost by her rival Peninnah. Comp, also ps.-Jerome, 1 Sam. 2.5, and the remarks on this point by Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 15-16. That Peninnah had ten children (=sons) is also maintained by ps. -Philo; comp, note 17, and this view is based on I Sam. 1.8. 3 3 Shemuel 1, 46, which is very likely based on Seder ‘Olam 13 (see parallel passages cited by Ratner, ad loc.), stating that Eli ruled the people for forty years, and Samuel, who died at the age of fiftytwo, for twelve. Comp, notes 25, 26, 69. 3 * Tan. Shemini 2; Tan. B. Ill, 23; Aggadat Bereshit 41, 83; MHG I, 413. According to Tagin 1, it was Eli who copied from the Torah written on the stones of Gilgal (comp. vol. IV, p. 6) the “crowns” and embellishments of the Hebrew letters. He transmitted their exact form to Palti ( = Paltiel, Michal’s husband; see Index, s. v. “Paltiel”); the latter handed them over to Ahitophel, who transmitted them to Ahijah the prophet of Shiloh, who in turn transmitted them to the high priest Jehoiada, from whom the prophets received them. The prophets buried the copy of the Torah provided with the “crowns” under the threshhold of the Temple, where Ezekiel found it, when during the reign of Jehoiakim, the Temple was torn open. He took this copy to Babylon, whence it was subsequently brought to Jerusalem by Ezra. 15 Ps. -Philo 50; 52.2, and accordingly we ought to read 48D; Heli instead of eum. That Eli was the immediate successor of Phinehas (comp, note 40) is presupposed by ER 11,57; Origen in Joan, and Aphraates, 272. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 10-11. 6.7. All these sources very likely presuppose the identity of Phinehas and Elijah (comp. vol. IV, pp. 53-54); they accordingly see no difficulty in the fact that this “immortal” exercised the high-priestly functions for several centuries. Josephus, Antiqui., V, 11.5, has the high priests Abiezer, Bukki, and Ozi between Phinehas and Eli (comp. 1 Chron. 5.30-31), but he is also acquainted with the tradition that Eli was the first high priest of the priestly line of Ithamar. According to ps.Philo, 44D; 44.2, Eli’s mother was Dedila (read Delilah; comp, note 125 on vol. IV, p. 49), whose son Micah fashioned the graven image. This statement seems very strange in view of the favorable picture of Eli given by this author.

220 Samuel [26-27 ,s Yerushalmi Sotah 16a and Ketubot 13, 3Sc; BR 85.12; Yoma 9a-9b; Shabbat 55b; Tosefta-Targum 1 Sam. 2.22; Shemuel 7, 66; Zohar I, 176a; Aggadat Bereshit 41, 84. The last-named source maintains that the women, tired of waiting, used to return home without having brought the sacrifices, and hence were made to have conjugal relations in a state of impurity. The same view is expressed by Ephraem as well as ps. -Jerome, and is very likely presupposed by Peshitta 1 Sam 2.22. This interpretation is based on an old (Sadducean?) Halakah which forbids conjugal relations with women before they have brought their purification offerings. Comp. Geiger, Jiidische Zeitschrift, II, 28, and Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 17-19. Attention is to be called to the fact that neither the Septuagint nor ps. -Philo has the slightest reference to the improper conduct of Eli ’s sons with the women who came to the sanctuary. The latter, 51; 52.1, writes: The two sons of Eli . . . began to act wickedly toward the people, and multiplied their iniquities. And they dwelt hard by the house of Bethac, and when the people came together to sacrifice, Hophni and Phinehas came and provoked the people to anger, seizing the oblations before the holy things were offered unto the Lord. Although Bethac occurs in another passage of ps. -Philo (comp, note 134 on vol. IV, p. 53), one feels inclined to reconstruct the original text of this passage in the following manner: hr mar1? D’enNn ikq’ (□,n'?N = )p'« m21? anp rvaa ns am. The sanctuary is here, as In Scripture, described as “the house of God”, but the translator misread the abbreviation (p'N) = D’n^N, and hence mistranslated p’K n’a by “Bethac”. On this abbreviation, see note 60 on vol. I, p. 137 =vol. V, p. 160. In MHG 1, 414-415, the sons of Eli are exculpated of the charge of improper conduct with women, but their disgraceful treatment of the sacrifices is painted in black colors. Comp, also Shemuel 6, 64, and Tosefta Menahot (end). Pesahim 57a reads: A voice was heard from the Temple hall crying aloud: “ Be gone, ye sons of Eli, who defile the sanctuary.” It is very likely that in this passage the Sadducean priests are meant by the sons of Eli. 27 Aggadat Bereshit 41, 83; MHG I, 413—414; Shabbat 55b; Josephus, Antiqui., V, 11.12. The view that Eli had to relinquish his office of high priest does not seem to agree with the opinion concerning the duration of his office as given in note 23. It is, however, true that according to the law, he could hardly perform his priestly functions while blind; see Lev. 21.18, and Bekorot 43b-44a. As to his sons, see also vol. IV, p. 158, where they are described as two pious priests. This, however, may be explained by the fact that they died as martyrs 221 28-31] The Legends of the Jews (in the war for God and Israel), and hence all their sins were forgiven them. Ps.-Philo, 51-52; 52.2-4, has a lengthy paraphrase of Eli’s words of rebuke addressed to his sons, at the conclusion of which he remarks that “when Eli said to them: 1 Repent you of your evil way’, they said: ‘When we grow old, we will repent.' ” And for this reason the opportunity was not granted to them to repent. Comp. Yoma 85b, which reads: If one says: “I shall continue to sin, and later repent,” the opportunity to repent is not granted to him. Comp. Index, s. v. “Repentance”. 3 8 Shabbat 55b; Seder ‘01am 20, and parallel passages by Ratner on “Elkanah, the man of God” ( = prophet); Shemuel 8, 69; Midrash Tannaim 208; ps. -Jerome on 1 Sam. 2.27 which, reads: Hunc virum Dei Judaei Phines dicunt. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 19-20, where attention is called to the unanimous view of the old rabbinic sources that the man of God was Elkanah and not Phinehas; see also note 2, and note 965 on vol. Ill, p. 481. 39 Rosh ha-Shanah 18a; Yebamotl05a; BR 59.1; Shemuel 8, 71;ER II, 53; Tosefta Targum 1 Sam. 2.32. On the haggadic interpretation of 1 Sam. 2.27-36, see Kellermann, Midrasch zum 1 Buche Samuelis, 56-63 . 30 Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was identical with Ahijah the great grandson of Eli (1 Sam. 14.3), according to a Haggadah found in ps. -Jerome, 1 Sam. 21.1. On the appointment of Zadok as high priest to succeed Abiathar, see ER 12, 57, and EZ 10, 190. Zadok was the only priest who was anointed (this statement, of course, disregards Aaron and his sons who were consecrated as priests by anointment); PRK (Griinhut’s edition, 87-88). Here it is also stated that Saul, David, Solomon, Joash, and Jehoahaz were the only kings who were anointed. Comp. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 319-320 and note 371 on vol. Ill, p. 179. 3 1 Shekalim 6, 49c. On the view that the ark accompanied Israel to the camps, see fol. III, p. 409. When at war with the Philistines they took the ark with them; God said: “Ye did not think of the holy ark when the sons of Eli provoked Me by their iniquities; but now, going to battle, ye bethink yourselves thereof.” See ER 12, 57; comp, also ps.-Philo, 53; 54.2, which reads: And as the ark went up with them . , the Lord thundered (haggadic interpretation of JHNn onm, 1 Sam. 4.5), and said: “This time shall be like the time when they were in the wilderness; then they took the ark without My commandment (a strange interpretation of Num. 14.44), and destruction befell them; even so shall it be now: the peonle shall fall, and the ark 227 Samuel [32-34 shall be taken, that I may punish the adversaries of My people because of the ark, and rebuke My people for their sins.” 3 3 Josephus, Antiqui., V, 11.2. 33 Sifre N.,88; Sifre Z., 196; Tosefta Sotah 9.4; Shemuel 10, 77. The two sons of Eli were slain by Goliath who took the holy ark with his left hand, and slew Hophni and Phinehas with his right. When Eli heard from Saul (who was light on his feet and fled from the battle) that the ark had been taken, he said: ‘‘Behold, Samuel prophesied about me and my sons that we should die together, but he made no mention of the ark unto me.” In his great despair Eli fell off from his 6eat and died on the same day as his sons. On the very same day another member of Eli’s family died: his daughter-in-law, while giving birth to a son whom she called Ichabod, said: “Where is the glory? for the glory of the Lord is departed from Israel, since the ark of the Lord was taken.” See ps. -Philo, 52-53; 54.3-6. On the parts played by Goliath and Saul in this campaign , see vol. IV, p. 65. The first part of the name Ichabod (’N) is explained as ’tjf “where”? (the same explanation is also found in Kimhi on Sam. 4.21). The Septuagint renders this verse: And she called the child Ouaij Sapxoifiojd, both because of the ark of God, and because of her father-in-law, and because of her husband. The Septuagint very likely takes ’N in the sense of ’1 “woe” (Aramaic), whereas Josephus, Antiqui., V, 11.4, reads: Ichabod, which name signifies “disgrace”, and this because the army received a disgrace at this time. Comp, the etymology of the name Aaron in note 36 on vol. II, p. 261. 34 Sifre N., 88; Sifre Z., 96; Tehillim 93, 414; Shemuel 10, 77. According to Septuagint on 1 Sam. 5.6, seq., the punishment of the Philistines consisted in being smitten in “their secret parts”. Furthermore mice sprang up in the midst of their country, and there was a great “confusion of death” among them when God smote the men of their cities, great and small. It is interesting that ER 11, 58, likewise speaks of the visitation of the mice, as well as of the plague causing death among men, women, and children. Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 1.1, very likely following Septuagint, writes: God sent a very destructive disease upon the city and country of Ashdod, for they died of dysentery or flux, a sore distemper that brought death upon them very suddenly; for before the soul could, as usual in easy deaths, be well loosed from the body, they brought up their entrails, and vomited them up, entirely corrupted by the disease. And as to the fruits of their country, a great multitude of mice arose out of the earth and hurt them, and spared neither 223 34] The Legends of the Jews the plants nor the fruits. It is doubtful whether ps.-Philo’s (53-54; 55.2.9) elaborate account of the plague is based on a text different from that of the Masorah or not. According to this writer, the plague consisted of scorpions and all kinds of noisome creeping things, which particularly attacked the children and the mothers. The number of them that died with child was seventy-five thousand, and of the sucklings sixty-five thousand, and of those that gave suck fifty-five thousand, and of men twenty-four thousand. The wise men of the Philistines therefore of said: “Whereas all that are with child and give suck die, . . .and they that are suckled perish, we also will take kine that give suck and yoke them to a new cart, and place the ark upon it, and shut up the young of the kine. And it shall be, if the kine go forth. . . . we shall know that we have suffered for the ark’s sake.” At the advice of their sages the Philistines set the kine at the head of the three ways that are about Ekron; for the middle way leads to Ekron, and the way on the right hand to Judea, and the way on the left hand to Samaria. The kine, albeit they lowed and yearned for their young, went forth nevertheless by the right-hand way which leads to Judea. And they knew that it was for the ark ’s sake that they were laid waste. And all the Philistines assembled and brought the ark again into Shiloh with timbrels and pipes and dances. And because of the noisome creeping things that laid them waste, they made seats of gold, and sanctified the ark. The “seats of gold” ( sedilia aurea) correspond literally to at eSpat at XPV(7°d of the Septuagint, 1 Sam. 6.17=onrn nnt3 of the Hebrew text, whereas in 5.9 and 6.5 the Hebrew equivalent of e8pat is D’^sy. It is not unlikely that the substitute used in the time of the Septuagint and ps.-Philo for (this word was considered obscene) was 3P1D sedilium” and “ podex ” (for in the sense of “ podex" see Sanhedrin 82b). Accordingly there is no proof that ps.-Philo made use of the Septuagint. Very strange is the statement of ps.-Philo that the Philistines brought the ark to Shiloh. This contradicts not only the Bible (see 1 Sam. 6. 12), but also the story about the kine so minutely described by this author. It is very likely that Allophili (54D, line 6) is a copyist’s error for Israel or populi. After the kine brought the ark to Judea all the people assembled, and took it to the sanctuary. “Israel" and not “the Philistine” is required as subjects of “ sanctificaverunt arcum” . When the ark returned from the Philistines it was “re-sanctified ” by the people. With regard to the accident that befell the idol Dagon, ps.-Philo narrates that its priests were crucified by the people when they found it fallen on its face and its hands and feet 224 Samuel [35-40 lying before the ark. Kimhi quotes an opinion (of the Midrash?) that the upper part of the idol had a human form, the lower that of a fish. Comp. R. E. J. IV, 56 seq. and 269—271. 36 Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 1.2; ps. -Philo (as quoted in the preceding note). Comp, also sources cited in note 33 which likewise mention the difference of opinion among the Philistines. 36 BR 54.4 (this passage has many other “songs of the kine”); ‘Abodah Zarah 24b; ER 11, 58; Shemuel 12, 82; Tan. Wa-Yakhel 7. That the kine were set at the head of the three ways (a haggadic interpretation of 1 Sam. 6.12) is asserted not only by ps.-Philo (comp, note 34), but also by Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 1.2. 37 ER11,58 (the unseemly behavior of the J ews is contrasted with the great respect shown to the ark by the Philistines, who covered their faces that they should not behold the holy vessel); Sotah 35a; BaR 5.9; Tan. Wa-Yakhel 7 (the wind pushed back the cover from the ark, and the people did not refrain from looking at the uncovered ark); J osephus, A ntiqui. , VI , 1 .4, reads : And the wrath of God overtook them, and struck seventy persons dead . who, not being priests, and so not worthy to touch the ark, had approached it. Josephus did not forget for a moment that he was a priest. As to the sin committed by the inhabitants of Beth-Shemesh, see also Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2, 20b; Septuagint Targum and Tosefta-Targum on 1 Sam. 6.19. On the rejoicing of the people at the return of the ark, see the quotation from ps.Philo in note 34. 38 Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2, 20b (another opinion has it: the loss of the seventy members of the Synedrion was as grave a loss as the death of fifty thousand men); Targum on 1 Sam. 6.19; BaR 5.9; ER 11, 58; Sotah 35b. In the last-named source two views are given: 1) seventy men, each one of whom was as important to Israel as fifty thousand other men; 2) fifty thousand men, each one of whom was as important as the seventy members of the Synedrion. Comp. Mekilta RS 26 and Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv. 20-21, where reference is made to ps.- Jerome 1 Sam 4, 19 who remarks: Hos septuaginta viros judices septuaginta Hebraei intelligunl. See also the similar haggadic interpretation of Joshua 7.4-5, vol. IV, p. 8 and note 23 appertaining thereto. 33 Sotah 35a-35b. Comp, also sources referred to in preceding note. 40 Ps.-Jerome, 1 Sam. 7.6, seq., quoting this legend as “Hebraei tradunt". The extant rabbinic literature knows of such an ordeal in 225 40] The Legends of the Jews connection with the worshippers of the golden calf, but not with regard to the sinners in the days of Samuel; see Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 21-23; vol. Ill, p. 130. — A lengthy description of the “call of Samuel” is given by ps.- Philo, 52; 53.1, seq. When Samuel was only eight years old, God decided to reveal Himself to him; but, in order not to frighten the child, the voice that came to him was as that of a man and not as of God. Samuel at first thought that he heard the voice of Eli, and ran to him. The latter thought that an unclean spirit was attempting to deceive Samuel, and he warned him with the following words: “ In thee do I behold the sign that men shall have from this day forward for ever (it is very likely an inaccurate translation of the Hebrew OVilD DINn nr riN ntO nnyi “And now behold that sign for all men from this day forward and for ever”; the translator, however, read, iltO nnNl instead of HNT nnjn), that if one call unto another twice in the night or at noonday (very likely an inaccurate translation of nixn which here means “midnight”, and not “noonday”), they shall know that it is an evil spirit. But if he call a third time, they shall know that it is an angel." The second time the voice of heaven which called Samuel sounded to him like the voice of his father Elkanah, and awakening from his sleep, he ran again to Eli. The latter said to him: “In those two voices, wherewith God hath called upon thee, He likened Himself to thy father and to thy master ; but now on the third time (He will speak) as God.” Eli then instructed Samuel as follows: Attend with thy right ear, and refrain with thy left.

For Phinehas the priest commanded us, saying: The right ear heareth the Lord by night, the left ear an angel. Therefore if thou hear with thy right ear, say thus: “Speak what Thou wilt, for I hear Thee, for Thou hast formed me.” But if thou hear with thy left ear, come and tell me. A third time a voice resembling that of Elkanah’s awoke Samuel from his sleep, and “filled” his right ear. He now knew that God was revealing Himself to him. The content of this revelation was the announcement of the doom decreed upon the “flower that came forth of the rod of Aaron” (the punishment of the priests). Because they transgressed the law concerning the “nest with birds” (comp. Deut. 22.26) it shall happen to them that the mothers shall die with the children, and the fathers with the sons. Samuel at first would not reveal the prophecy to Eli, saying: “How shall I prophesy the destruction of him that fostered me?” But Eli insisted on knowing the truth. Samuel was afraid, and told him all the words he had heard. And Eli said : “ Can a thing formed answer him that formed it? Even Samuel [40 so cannot I answer Him when He takes away that which He hath given ; He who is the Faithful Giver, the Holy One who hath prophesied. I am subject to His power.'' That Samuel began to prophesy at a very early age is also the view of Josephus, Antiqui., V, 16.4, who gives the age of twelve as the beginning of his activity. The statement of the Rabbis (comp, notes 23, 25, and 27, as well as Midrash Tannaim 89) that Samuel 's leadership lasted only twelve years, from his fortieth years until his death, refers to his activity as judge and head of the nation, and does not preclude the possibility of his having exercised his prophetic calling many years more. On the view that God addressed Samuel in the voice of his father, in order not to frighten him, see vol. Ill, p. 305, where the same statement is given with regard to Moses. On the relation between Phinehas and Eli, see note 25. That the priests were punished for their transgression of the law concerning the “ bird 's nest ”, is a very strange statement, especially in view of the explicit words of Scripture (1 Sam. 2.12, seq., and 22). It seems therefore likely that the Hebrew original read: by nay DfflP DBOl *U1 imo’ *p TWob ’n’12£E> D’3p mXD. The reference was not to the commandment given in Deut. 22.26, but to that of Lev. 12.6, in accordance with the tannaitic use of D’lp to designate the purification offering of a woman after child-birth. Ps. -Philo, in agreement with the Rabbis (see note 26), is of the opinion that the sons of Eli were negligent in the sacrifices of the “birds” brought by the women. The translator, or perhaps a later glossator, not acquainted with the mishnaic use of the word D’lp (the treatise dealing with the law given in Lev., loc cit., bears the name of D’2p), took it in the sense of TID1S ]p of Deut., loc. cit. Eli 's words, at hearing the doom of his family, express his resignation to the will of God, or, as the Rabbis term it, his “acknowledgment of God’s justice” (1’in pm) ; this is an obligation incumbent upon any one who hears bad “tidings”; comp. Berakot Mishnah 9.2 and vol. V, p. 255, note 256. Samuel was chosen prophet by God as a reward for his humility. Three times he arose from his bed in response to what he thought was Eli ’s summons. Had he not been so humble, he would never have found out through Eli that it was God who called him; Batte Midrashot, IV, 34; a quotation from a Midrash in Reshit Hokmah iTHJ? 1JW 7. Samuel did not sleep in the sanctuary, as one might erroneously infer from the words of Scripture (1 Sam. 3.3), but in the “hall of the Levites”. The voice calling Samuel went forth from the sanctuary, and passed Eli, who did not hear it, though he was near the holy place; see Shemuel 9, 75; Targum 1 Sam. 3.20 Comp. Rashi and Kimhi, ad loc. 227 41-43] The Legends of the Jews 4* Yerushalmi Ta'anit 2, 65d; Shemuel 13, 83; Tehillim 119, 503; Baraita de-Yeshu‘a, 47a; Targum 1 Sam. 7.6; ER 17, 86-87. 4 3 Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 2.2. On three occasions God wages a "war of confusion” against the enemies of Israel: in the battle of Gibeon (Josh. 10.10); in the battle against Sisera (Jud. 4.15); in the battle which Samuel fought against the Philistines. In the time of the Messiah Israel 's enemies will be destroyed by God in the same way. The Egyptians were likewise annihilated at the Red Sea in the same manner. See Shemuel 13, 84; Tehillim 18, 147. Before going into action, Samuel brought a sacrifice, and though not a priest, he performed the sacrificial rites. A divine command suspended on this occasion the laws pertaining to sacrifices, bidding a non-priest to perform the functions of a priest, and making him transgress seven other sacrificial laws; see Yerushalmi Megillah 1, 72c; Shemuel 13, 83; BaR 14.1; WR 22.9; Tehillim 27, 227 ; Tan. B. IV, 41. On similar suspensions of the law, see note 8 on vol. IV, p. 4. — This was the first war in which Samuel participated, as he did not take part in that disastrous campaign which resulted in the capture of the ark and the death of Eli’s two sons. Three days before that battle God sent him away, saying: "Go and look upon the place of Arimatha ( = Ramathaim) ; there shall be thy dwelling”. When, at his return, he heard of the great calamity that befell Israel, he was deeply grieved. God consoled him, saying: "Before thou diest, thou shalt see the end which I will bring upon Mine enemies, whereby the Philistines shall perish and be destroyed by scorpions and by all manner of noisome creeping things. ” Ps-Philo, 53-54 ; 55. 1-2. As to the sending away of Samuel, see a similar legend about Jeremiah vol. IV, p. 303. 4J Nedarim 38a; Tan. B. IV, 91; BaR 18.10. When Samuel spoke the words: "Witness against me . Whose ass have I taken, etc.” (1 Sam. 12.3), a heavenly voice proclaimed: “I witness.” Makkot 23b; BR 85.1; Shemuel 14, 90-91; comp, also Yelammedenu in Likkutim, V, 90b-91a, and vol. IV, p. 69, with regard to Samuel's disinterestedness and incorruptibility, wherein he was equal to Moses. Philo, De Inebrietate 34, describes Samuel as the greatest of kings ( = rulers, i. e., judges) and prophets. As to Samuel’s Naziriteship, see Nazir Mishnah, Babli, and Yerushalmi (end), as well as Shemuel 1, 49-50; Targum 1 Sam. 1.11. According to some authorities quoted in these sources, he was no Nazirite, and the words of Scripture (Sam. loc. cit.) are to be translated "And he shall know of no fear (of man) all his life.” On Samuel as the “master of the prophets”, see Yeru228 Samuel [44-46 shalmi Hagigah 2, 77a; Tan. B. IV, 82; Shemuel 24, 120; Tehillim 90, 387. He is said to have been equal to Moses and Aaron put together PR 43, 182a; Batte Midrashot , IV, 7. On the view that Samuel was Moses’s equal, and in some respect his superior, see also Shemuel 9, 7475; Tehillim 25, 212 (see Buber, note 24) ; BaR 3.8; PK 4, 38b; ShR 16.4 note 561 on vol. Ill, p. 287. Comp, also Ecclus. 46.11, which reads: The Nazirite of God among the prophets, Samuel who judged and performed the service of priests. On the last point see the preceding note. The Karaite Hadassi, Eshkol, 45b, No. 119, quotes a statement of the Rabbis to the effect that Samuel acted proudly in proclaiming in the presence of all the people his incorruptibility as a judge and his disinterestedness. No such remark is found in the rabbinic literature still extant, and in view of the extraordinary glorification of Samuel by the Haggadah, it is very unlikely that it brought this accusation against him. Hadassi either misunderstood his source, or deliberately invented a statement unfavorable to Samuel, that he might be able to reprove the Rabbanites for their lack of reverence towards the heroes of Israel. A late Karaitic writer (see Neubauer, Beitrage, Hebrew part, 65), drawing upon Hadassi, maintains that the Rabbanites accuse Samuel of having been a corrupt judge. What the Rabbis do say is that Samuel acted proudly in saying: I am the seer; comp. vol. IV, p. 83 (bottom). Comp, note 60 on vol. IV, p. 34. 44 Shabbat 56a (it contains several attempts to tone down the biblical report concerning Samuel’s sons); Hullin 133a; Tosefta Sotah 14.5-6; BR 85.12; Shemuel 7, 67 ; Yerushalmi Sotah 1, 17a, and Ketubot 13, 35d (top). Comp, note 46, and Tosefta-Targum 1 Sam. 12.2. Makkot 11a. The Haggadah finds in 1 Sam. 3.7 the curse uttered by Eli. 4 6 Shemuel 1, 45 (the views differ; accrding to one opinion, both were wicked; while others maintain that when they repented, both were found worthy of receiving the gift of the holy spirit); BaR 10.5; Ruth R. 2.1; Tehillim 80, 361. See also ps. -Jerome., 1 Chron. 6.13; who (following Jewish tradition?) maintains that Ahijah was an unworthy judge, but not his brother Joel, though he too is censured by Scripture for not having attempted to restrain his brother from his evil deeds. See a similar view with regard to the two sons of Eli, vol. IV, p. 61. Comp. Rahmer, Ein lateinischer Commentar . . .zu den Biichern der Chronik, 29-30, and references given in note 44. It is very likely that, in agreement with ps. -Jerome, we are to read in Tehillim, loc.cit . : Kin ’*n Nin W. 229 47] The Legends of the Jews 47 Sanhedrin, Tosefta 4.5, and Babli 20b; Sifre D., 156; Midrash Tannaim 103-104; Mekilta D., 5-6; DR 5.8-11. All these sources cite a difference of opinion among the Rabbis with reference to Deut. 17. 14. According to some, the institution of a monarchy was commanded by God to Israel, and therefore the sin committed by Israel in Samuel’s time consisted in the manner the common people formulated their demand for a king, or in asking for a king before the time was ripe for one. Others maintain that God never commanded the appointment of a king, but knowing Israel’s inclination towards a monarchy, He permitted the establishment of such a rule, should the people desire it. This request made by Israel in Samuel’s days was granted by God, who, however, did not approve of it. But the prevalent opinion is that Israel, after entering the Holy Land, had three national duties to discharge: the establishment of a monarchy, the annihilation of Amalek, and the building of the Temple. According to Sanhedrin 20b, these duties were to be fulfilled in the order given herewith, whereas Mekilta D., loc. cit., is of the opinion that the first national duty was the building of the Temple, and then the appointment of a king (first the establishment of the kingdom of heaven on earth, and then the organization of the earthly kingdom). In Samuel’s days the people committed the sin of asking for a king before the Temple had been erected. The same view seems to be shared by ps.- Philo, 54; 56.1-3, who makes Samuel utter the words: “Behold, now I see that there is not yet for us the time of a perpetual kingdom, nor of building the house of the Lord our God, inasmuch as they desire a king before the time.” The last expression “ petentibus regem ante tempus” is practically identical with the one found in Sifre, loc. cit., ]T *71? lD’lpntP or ID’TpntP (comp. Tosefta, loc. cit.) in describing Israel’s sinful action in Samuel’s days. After Saul had been appointed king, the people attempted to excuse their demand for a king by saying to Samuel: “We, as well as our king with us, are thy servants; because we are unworthy to be judged by a prophet, therefore we said: Appoint a king over us to judge us.” See ps. -Philo, 55; 57.4; comp, also 55; 58.4. Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 3,3, reads: These words (the people’s demand for a king) greatly afflicted Samuel on account of his hatred of the kingly government; for he was very fond of aristocracy, which is divine and makes men who possess it of a happy disposition. In Sanhedrin, Tosefta and Babli, loc. cit., a difference of opinion is cited with regard to the picture drawn by Samuel of the king 's powers. According to one view, the law accedes to the king all this arbitrary power, but another maintains that Samuel 230 Samuel [48-53 tried to “frighten the people” by picturing to them what a lawless king might do. 48 Shemuel 11, 78-79; Tehillim 7, 63; Tosefta-Targum 1 Sam. 4.12 (an angel assisted Saul to cover the long distance in a short time); ps. -Philo, 53; 54.3-4. Comp, note 32 and note 34 on vol. IV, p. 86. 49 Sotah 10a; comp. vol. I, p. 59. 6 0 Berakot 48b; Shemuel 13, 86; Tehillim 7, 70. 61 Tosefta Berakot 4.18; Tan. B. Ill, 4; ARN 10 (second version 20), 43; a quotation from a Midrash in Reshit Hokmah, liny ~iytP 7. When Saul refused to accept the crown offered to him on account of his youth (comp. 1 Sam. 9.2; but here he dwells on the insignificance of his tribe and family), the prophet replied: “Who will grant that the word should come into accomplishment of itself, that thou mayest live many days? But consider this that thy words shall be likened unto the words of a prophet, whose name shall be Jeremiah.” See ps.Philo, 55; 56.6. The statement in ps. -Philo that Saul met Samuel walking hard by Baam (ille autem ambulabat juxta Baam ; 54, bottom; 56.4) goes back to 1 Sam. 9.14: HD3H DnN'ip1? K2V VkiD!2> mm where the Septuagint has eis B cqua, as if HD3 were the name of a place. On Saul’s modesty and other virtues, see also note 80, and note 86 on vol. IV, p. 309, as well as Josephus, Antiqui, VI, 4.5. 62 Tan. B. Ill, 4; Tosefta-Targum 1 Sam. 10.22. Saul, however, had a presentiment that he was destined to become king. For in a vision he saw himself on top of a palm-tree, which indicates accession to royal dignity; see ps. -Jerome, 1 Sam. 9.20, who gives it as a “Hebrew tradition.” Comp. Berakot 57a (towards the end) about dreaming of ascending a roof. In the incidents which happened to Saul on his way from Samuel to his father, the history of his life was shown to him. The three goats (comp. 1 Sam. 10.3, seq.) indicated to him that he would be the father of three sons, and the two loaves of bread which were given to him signified that two daughters would be born unto him; Tan. as quoted in Makiri, Is. 46.161. Comp. Tan. B. I, 22. On the haggadic interpretation of Zelzah (1 Sam. 10.2), comp. BR 82.9; Shemuel 14, 89; Tosefta Sotah 11.11. 88 Yoma 22b (1 Sam. 13.1 is explained to mean, innocent like a one-year-old child); PR 195a; Targum 1 Sam. 13.1; Yerushalmi Bikkurim 3, 65d; Shemuel 17, 95. The two last-named sources read: The bridegroom on the day of his wedding, the king on the day of his coronation, and the elder on the day of his ordination are forgiven all their sins up to that day. That Saul was free from sin is also men231 54-6i] The Legends of the Jevjs tioned by ps. -Jerome on 1 Sam. 13.1. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv. 23-24. See also Targum 1 Chron. 8.40, and note 80. 64 Ps.-Jerome, 1 Sam. 10.6, giving this view as a Jewish tradition. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv. 117. 4 5 Yerushalmi Shebi'it 3, 34d; WR 9.2; Tan. Tezawweh 8; Targum 1 Chron. 8. 33; comp.

vol. Ill, 218. Saul was one of the Benjamites who were told to get a wife by capturing one of the daughters of Shiloh (Jud. 21.21); but being very shy by nature, he had no courage to come near the dancing maidens. One of them, however,. attracted by Saul’s beauty (comp. vol. IV, p. 64), suggested to him that he should capture her; Rashi, 1 Sam. 20.30, and Rimze Haftarot, Rosh ha-Shanah, 1. 64 Shemuel 14, 89 (other opinions are: he wanted them to slay the Jewish archers, or the members of the Synedrion); Tosefta-Targum 1 Sam. 11.2; comp, also Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 5.1, who remarks that if Nahash had accomplished what he wanted, he would have rendered Israel powerless in war, as the left eye of the warrior is covered with the shield. 6 7 PRE 38 ; Shemuel 17, 96. On the dimness of the stone of Benjamin, indicating the sin of that tribe, see vol. IV, p. 8, 68 Zebahim 120a, as an explanation of 1 Sam. 14.34. On the explanation of this verse by ps.-Jerome, see Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 24-26. It is quite possible that ps.-Jerome has correctly transmitted the Haggadah to the effect that no meat except that of a sacrifice could be eaten in time of war, when all the people were near the holy ark that followed them to the battle-field; Saul prevented the use of other meat by the people. Comp, sources quoted in note 519 on vol. Ill, p. 270 with regard to the use of meat during the journey of Israel in the wilderness. 69 WR 25 (end); BaR 11 (towards the end); Shemuel 17, 95-96. 40 Yoma 22 b; Koheleth 7.16; Shemuel 18, 100; Alphabet of Ben Sira 4c; Jerome, Eccles. 7.16. Quite correct was Saul’s attitude towards the Kenites, whom he had warned of the danger threatening them in case they should not separate themselves from the Amalekites. He owed this to them for the hospitality offered by the Kenite Jethro to Moses. Although this hospitality was prompted by selfish motives (he wanted Moses to marry one of his daughters), one ought to be grateful for a good deed, even if the motive thereof is not a pure one; Berakot 63b; WR 34.8; PRE 44; Shir 2.5; Shemuel 18, 99; ps.-Jerome on 1 Sam. 15.6; Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 7.2-3. 81 Tehillim 52, 284; Shemuel 18, 99-100. On the contrast be232 Samuel [62-66 tween the kindness of the law concerning animals and the severity of war, see vol. I, p. 381, and the quotation from ps.-Philo, note 40. The Amalekites were great sorcerers (comp. vol. Ill, p. 60), and used to transform themselves into animals to escape the attacks of the enemies in war. God therefore commanded Israel to kill all the animals of the Amalekites; see Ketab Tamim, 61, and R. Bahya, Ki-Teze (end), both of whom had that legend in their text of PRE 39. 62 Yoma 22b; Shemuel 18, 99; Targum 1 Sam. 16.4. Comp, also vol. Ill, p. 146. Ps.-Philo, 55; 58.2-4, on the other hand, maintains that Saul had spared Agag and his wife because of the hidden treasures promised by the Amalekite king. But Saul never saw the hidden treasures which Agag had promised to show him, as the latter was shortly after killed by Samuel. 63 Yoma 22b; comp, the favorable opinion of Saul in vol. IV, pp. 65-66 and 72, as well as Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 4.1 and 12.7. 64 Tehillim 57, 297-298; Ephraem, 1 Sam. 15.27. Opinions differ as to the meaning of Scripture that Saul on his return from the campaign against Amalek set up a T on Carmel (1 Sam. 15.12). According to some, Saul erected on Carmel, an altar, the one which was later used by Elijah (1 Kings 18.30, seq.); but according to others, Saul deposited the spoils on Carmel. See Midrash quoted by Rashi and Kimhi, ad loc. These two interpretations of T are also known to Ephraem, ad loc., 362E. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 27. 65 PK 3, 25a-26b (comp. Buber, note 90); PR 12, 52b; Ekah 3, 139; Tan. B. V, 39-40; Tan. Ki-Teze 9; Shemuel 18, 101. In these sources opinions differ as to the way Samuel executed Agag. According to some, Samuel cut Agag’s body into pieces, which he threw to the ostriches (mnyo in 1 Sam. 15.32 is taken to mean the same asnrnyi, because the roots py and oyi are synonymous) ; but others maintain that he bound him on four poles, and killed him by pulling the poles apart. It is obvious, though none of the commentators noticed it, that this Haggadah attempts to solve the difficulty involved in the fact that Samuel who was a Nazirite would not have been permitted to slay Agag, since a Nazirite is forbidden to touch a dead body. The old view which denies the Naziriteship of Samuel was probably prompted by this difficulty; comp, note 43. Ps.-Philo, 55; 58 (end), maintains that Samuel slew Agag with a sword. Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 7 (end) writes: He (Samuel) gave orders to slay him. This is a simple way out of the difficulty. 66 ER 20, 115 and 21, 117; Alphabet of Ben Sira 11c; Targum 233 67-70] The Legends of the Jews Sheni 4.13; comp. vol. IV, p. 422. A similar legend is related in ps.~ Philo, 55, 58.3-4. When Saul in his greed (see note 62) had spared Agag, God decided to punish him, and made this very sin to become the cause of his death. God therefore said to the prophet Samuel: ‘‘Suffer Agag and his wife to come together this night, and slay him tomorrow; but preserve thou his wife until she has given birth to a male child, and then she, too, shall die. The child born of her shall be an offence unto Saul.” This posthumous child of Agag, called Edad, later became Saul ’s armor-bearer, and in the battle of Gilboa it was Agag ’s son who delivered the death blow to the Hebrew king. Comp, also ps. -Philo (end). Comp, note 107. 6 ? On the view that Samuel was the equal of these two, see note 43, and vol. Ill, p. 108. The evil spirit which afflicted Saul was “one born of an echo in chaos”, and David composed a psalm which when sung by him had the power to make the evil spirit depart; ps.-Philo 56; 60, where the text of the psalm is given. 68 i. e., his premature death will be declared to be due to his sins. 69 On Samuel’s age at the time of his death and the duration of his activity, see references cited in notes 23, 25, 27. In opposition to the prevalent opinion that Samuel ruled only twelve years, there is found in Tehillim 25, 212 (see Buber, ad loc.) the view that his activity lasted as long as that of Moses, forty years. This view is shared by Julius Africanus, 1, 93. This author very likely combined the statement of Josephus, Antiqui., V, 10.3 (to the effect that Samuel began to prophesy at the age of twelve), with that of the Rabbis that he died at the age of fifty-two. Comp, also BaR 3.8; ER 6, 37; Tehillim 92 411; Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 13.5; Tabari I, 414. 70 Ta'anit 5b; Yerushalmi Berakot 4, 7b; Shemuel 25, 122 (nyDD 17tP, i. e., Saul, “the planting of Samuel”; the planter would not have survived the destruction of his planting; accordingly, Samuel died about the time when Saul 's death was decreed ; the reading of Yalkut II,141,andMakiri, Ps. 51,282, is not acceptable); BaR3.8. “Hannah’s long prayer shortened the days of Samuel.” In her prayer she consecrated her son to the service of the sanctuary for his entire life (see 1 Sam. 1.11 and 22); but as a Levite Samuel could not perform any holy service after the age of fifty (Num. 8.24), and hence he died after having spent this number of years at the sanctuary, from the age of two (see 1 Sam. 1.24; she weaned him at that age; comp. Ketubot 60a) until the age of fifty-two. See Yerushalmi Berakot 4, 7b, and Ta'anit 4, 67c, as well as Bikkurim 2, 64c and Shemuel 2.50 and 3.52. 234 Samuel [71-73 71 Tosefta Sotah 11.5. On the text, see Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 35-36, where it is suggested that we ought to read pj?1? N1™ HO ^KIDPl ’Nil nn’D no’l. Tosefta, in agreement with the "Hebrew tradition” given by ps. -Jerome, 28.8, explains that 1 Sam. 25.1 contains the report concerning Samuel’s death and burial, whereas in 1 Sam. 28.3 Samuel’s death is merely referred to by the way, in connection with Saul’s visit to the witch of En-Dor, which would not have happened, had the great prophet still been alive. Comp, the following note. 72 Koheleth 7.1 and Shemuel 23, 111, 115, 117-118 (according to these sources, Samuel’s death is mentioned in 1 Sam. 25.1 by the way only, in connection with the story of Nabal; comp, the preceding note); Yerushalmi Bikkurim 2, 64a (the "ten days” mentioned in 1 Sam. 25. 38 refer to the "ten days of penitence”, from New Year to the Day of Atonement, granted to the sinners as days of grace before their final doom is decreed on the Day of Atonement); Tehillim 26, 219-220; ER 18, 109; 2 ARN 43, 118. Nabal’s untimely death was due to his failure to assist the poor; EZ 1, 170. Greedy as he was, he was ashamed to refuse flatly the requests and petitions of the needy, but employed great cunning in avoiding his duty. He lived in Maon, but his possessions were in Carmel (1 Sam. 25.2); the poor who came to Maon were told that if they applied in Carmel, their wishes would be granted; those who came to Carmel were told that Nabal’s residence was in Maon where he transacted his affairs; quotation from a Midrash by Shu'aib, ‘Ekeb, 104b. Comp, also Tehillim 14, 113. Pride was another vice of Nabal. He was so proud of his aristocratic descent that he despised David, the descendant of Ruth the Moabite, and claimed the honor and privileges due to the tribe of Judah for himself, the representative of the noble clan of Caleb; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2, 20b; Baraita de-Yeshu‘a, 45a. In his pride he not only denied David’s claim to royal dignity, but also God, in whose name Samuel anointed David; denying God, Nabal led a loose life; Tehillim 53, 287-288. — On Samuel as the ideal type of judge, see vol. IV, p. 64. 77 WR 26.7; Tan. B. Ill, 81; Tan. Emor 2; Shemuel 24, 118. As to "the rule of conduct” to take two companions on a journey, see vol. Ill, p. 363. The Midrashim mentioned above (see also PRE 33) dwell also upon Saul ’s strange action, in that he first destroyed the sorcerers, and then sought the advice of the witch of En-dor. Ps. -Philo, 59; 64.1, maintains that Saul "scattered all the sorcerers out of the land” not out of zeal for God and His law, but that "men should remember him 235 74-77] The Legends of the Jews after his death.” For this he was punished by God that he himself sought help from the sorcerers. 74 PRE 33; ps.-Jerome, 1 Sam. 28.7. On the view that Abner accompanied Saul on his visit to the witch, see the references given in the preceding note. Comp, also Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 36-37. Ps. -Philo, 59; 64.3-5, calls the witch Sedecla (“N1? p*T2£ “unrighteous”; comp, the explanation of the name Tobal by Rashi, Is. 7.6), the daughter of Adod (the reading Debin is hardly acceptable), the Midianite (see vol IV, p. 39), and maintains that she deceived the people of Israel with her sorceries for forty years. In PRE the name of the witch is Zephaniah = “the hidden one”. 75 WR 26.7; Tan. B. Ill, 82 (here it is supposed that necromancy can only be performed during the day, and accordingly n17,l7 in 1 Sam. 28.8 is to be taken in the sense of gloom; comp, a similar explanation of in Tan. B. 1.93 ;note 163 on vol. I, p. 253) ; Tan. Emor 2; Shemuel 24.119. Septuagint, 1 Sam. 28.14, very likely read *lpT instead of |pT, but the legend about the dead walking with their heads downwards and feet in the air is found in sources independent of this passage; see the references given in note 301 on vol. I, p. 297. Frankel’s remarks in Vorstudien, 188, and Wellhausen, Text der Bucher Samuelis, 13, are to be corrected accordingly. When Saul noticed that the witch did not recognize him, though she had seen him often, he wept and said: “Lo, now I know that my beauty is changed, and the glory of my kingdom is passed from me ps.-Philo, 59; 64.4. This author, however, does not explain how the witch, seeing Samuel rise from among the dead, knew that it was Saul who asked her services. Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 14.2, maintains that Samuel informed her of Saul ’s presence. 76 Comp. 1. Sam. 15.28 with 28.17. 77 WR 26.7; Tan. B. Ill, 82-83; Tan. Emor 7; Shemuel 24, 119120*; Yerushalmi Ta'anit 2, 77a; Hagigah 4b; PRE. 23. The story of the witch of En-dor as narrated by ps.-Philo, 59; 64.5,8, offers many parallels to the rabbinic legends, but in some respects this author's description differs from that of the Rabbis. When Saul asked the witch to describe to him the form of the apparition, she replied: “Thou inquirest of me concerning the gods; for behold, his form is not the form of a man. He is arrayed in a white robe. . .and two angels lead him. ” We have here two haggadic explanations of D’^iy (1 Sam. 28. 14); Samuel is like a God (so also Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 14.2), and with him two angels (see vol. V, p. 76, middle of page, and Index, s. v. “Guardian Angels”), whereas according to the Rabbis, "two men of 236 Samuel [77 God” (Moses and Samuel) ascended. Saul, continues ps. -Philo, recognized the mantle Samuel had rent; comp. 1 Sam. 15.27. On the views of the Rabbis as to whose garment was torn on this occasion, Samuel ’9 or Saul ’s, see Ruth R. 41.8 and Shemuel 18, 100. In agreement with the Rabbis, ps. -Philo makes Samuel utter the words: “I thought that the time was come for me to receive the reward of my deeds ( i . e., in the terminology of rabbinic theology, the day of judgment). Ps.Philo and the Rabbis (comp. Shemuel 10.76; PRE, loc. cit.), as well as Eccles. 46.20, dwell upon Samuel’s great distinction in having “prophesied after his death”. PRE and ps. -Philo maintain that the purpose of the “prophecy after death” was to call Saul to repentance, to atone by his heroic death for his sins. This throws light upon Ecclus., loc. cit., where “to remove the sins” (XaoO of the Greek is not represented in the Syriac, and is based on a misunderstanding) refers to those of Saul, who, on hearing Samuel’s words, went to his death, to atone thereby for his sins, as is explicitly stated by the Rabbis and ps. -Philo. The latter writes: And Saul heard the words of Samuel, .and said: “Behold, I depart to die with my sons, if perchance my destruction may be an atonement for my iniquities”. Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 14.2, likewise dwells upon Saul ’s heroic spirit, who, knowing what awaited him at the battle, did what duty demanded of him, and even took his sons with him to certain death. According to a Midrashic Genizah fragment, Saul in going into battle followed the advice of his son Abinadab (“father of the free-will offering”). The same statement is made by ps.-Jerome, 1 Sam. 31.6, with the additional remark that this son of Saul was also called Ishvi (1 Sam. 14.41), because of his being worthy (HIP) to be mentioned with his father. — The witch of En-dor succeeded in making Samuel appear, because he had only been dead a few months (comp, note 70), and the first year the bodies of the pious remain intact in the grave, while their souls “ascend and descend”; as soon as the bodies begin to decay, the souls remain above and descend no more; Shabbat 152b.

The rationalistic view that necromancy, like sorcery in general, is nothing but a fraud, is first met with among authors who flourished about 900 C. E. ; comp, the references given by Kimhi on 1 Sam. 18.25; R. Hananel on Sanhedrin 67b quoted by R. Bahya, Exod. 22.7. R. Bahya himself considers necromancy possible, and knows many things about it. See also Ziyyoni, Kedoshim (end). As to the view that the dead will rise in the garments in which they were buried, see Yerushalmi Shebi'it 9, 32b; BR 90 (beginning); Tan. B. I, 208-209; Koheleth 5.10. On the 237 78 -8o] The Legends of the Jews punishment of those who were worshipped as gods, see vol. II, p. 129. 78 Tan. B. Ill, 45, which reads: The thought of having caused the death of the priests of Nob drove him into the arms of death; he had executed eighty-five priests who were worthy to be high priests ; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 29a; Targum 1 Sam. 22.18. Kimhi, ad loc., seems to have misunderstood the meaning of this passage of Targum; comp., however, note 92 which cites the unfavorable opinions on these priests expressed by ps.-Philo. This author nevertheless remarks (58; 63.3) that the defeat of Israel and the death of Saul and his sons at the hands of the Philistines were the punishment for the crime committed against the priests of Nob. God said: “Behold, in the first year of Saul’s reign, when Jonathan sinned and was about to be put to death by his father, the people rose up and saved him. Now when the priests were slain, even three hundred and eighty-five (this number is found in Septuagint, whereas the Hebrew has only eightyfive; comp. Kimhi, loc. cit.), they kept silence and said nothing. Therefore. . .they shall fall down wounded, they and their king.” 79 Berakot 12b; ‘Erubin 53b (top); Yoma 22b (which reads: David committed more sins than Saul, and yet they did not cause his fall); Alphabet of Ben Sira 3b. In the last passage Saul’s severity toward his children is contrasted with David’s leniency towards the sins and evil deeds of his children. On the virtues of Saul, see vol. IV, pp. 65-66, 68, and the following note. 80 Tehillim 7, 62-63; Shemuel 24, 122; Yerushalmi Nedarim 10 (end; here a view is cited according to which, 2 Sam. 1.24-25 refers to Saul’s great devotion to the Torah and its exponents; comp. ‘Erubin 53a, bottom); PRK 5, 44a-44b; PR 15, 68a-68b; BaR 11.3; ToseftaTargum 1 Sam. 10.23. The distinction of being the first Jewish king Saul owed to the tribe of Benjamin, which was rewarded in this way for its great faith in God displayed at the Red Sea, when it was the first to jump into the water; Targum 1 Sam. 15.7, and comp. vol. Ill, p. 21. In contrast to these Haggadahs glorifying Saul, see ER 31, 159, where he is described as having been of a proud and distrustful nature, which led him to sin and finally to ruin. See also Yerushalmi Sotah 1, 17b; Shemuel 13, 85, and BaR 11.3, where the statement is made that Saul and Absalom possessed beauty of body but not of soul. Opinions differ as to whether Saul in taking away his daughter Michal from David and giving her to another man (comp. 1 Sam. 25.44) committed a crime or an error, the latter consisting in his thinking erroneously that his daughter’s marriage to David was void according to the law; 238 Samuel [81-89 comp. Sanhedrin 19b, and the list of Saul’s sins in WR 26.9; Tan. B. Ill, 83; Tan. Emor 2; Shemuel 24, 120-121. ER, loc. cit., censures Saul severely for his taking away Michal from David, and according to Tosefta Sotah 11 (end) he did the same with his daughter Merab, whom he first gave unto marriage to David, and then took her away from her lawful husband to make her marry another man. Comp, also vol. IV, pp. 76 and 116. Instructive is the remark of BR 32.1 and 38.1, that Saul considered David’s marriage to Michal void the moment he became an outlaw and legally dead. On the observance by Saul of the priestly laws of purity, see also Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 11.9. According to Seder ‘Olaqi 12, Saul ruled two years, but Eupolemus, 477b maintains that he reigned twenty -one years. Josephus, A ntiqui., VI (end) states that Saul reigned forty years. Comp, also Alphabet of Ben Sira 4a; Septuagint 1 Sam. 13.1; note 53, beginning. 81 Berakot 62b. David was all the more to be blamed for this act, as he cut off the fringes (“Zizit”) from Saul’s garment; Tehillim 7, 64, and somewhat differently in n',DN1 I, 163, No. 162. Comp, also Toledot Adam we-Hawwah I; 19.3 and vol. VI, p. 374. 82 Berakot 12b; ‘Erubin 53b. Comp. vol. IV, p. 110. 83 PRE 33. Comp, note 74. 84 Koheleth 9.11. 8 6 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 24b; Yalkut II, 285, on Jer. 9.22, which reads: The entire camp of Israel found place between Abner’s knees. Comp. vol. IV, p. 91. 8 6 Yalkut II, 285, on Jer. 9.22. The text is not quite certain. The first edition reads: 13DN p PSH, which, of course, must be emended to ID '5H, whereas the later editions have “ODN 'sn. According to the second reading, it is Joab who laid hold of Abner, and the words ’*U BN riDDP were spoken by the former, who thus describes the killing of his brother by Abner as “extinguishing my light”. Abner’s words, “ If I could, etc.”, remind one of the famous saying of Archimedes: “Give me a place to stand and I will move the earth (5 os fioi tov otco Kal klvco Tr)v yrjv).” 87 PRK (Griinhut’s edition, 72); PRE 53. Comp. vol. I, pp. 59-60, and the note appertaining thereto. The loss caused to David by the death of Ashael was equal to that caused by the death of the nineteen men who were killed by Abner at the same time with him; Sifre D., 52; Midrash Tannaim 55. 88 Koheleth R. 9.11; Yalkut II, 285, on Jer. 9.22. For a similar remark concerning the swift runner Naphtali, see vol. II, p. 109. 8 9 Sanhedrin 49a. Comp. vol. IV, p. 126. 239 90-96] The Legends of the Jews 90 BR 82.4; Yerushalmi Sotah 1, 17b. 9 1 Yerushalmi Peah 1, 16a; PK 4, 31b; Tehillim 7, 67 ; Tan. B. IV, 106; Tan. Hukkat4; BaR 19.2; WR 26.2. In all these sources Abner and Amasa are described as “the two lions in the Torah” during the reign of Saul. Comp. Vol. IV, p. 127. The name Abner signifies “father of light”, and Saul’s cousin bore this name on account of his having been the head (father) of the Synedrion, which illuminates the world by its wisdom; Rimze Haf tarot, Mahar Hodesh; comp. Baba Batra 4a. 9 * Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 29a, which reads: Abner and Amasa declared to Saul that they would rather resign the high position held by them than accede to the king’s demand. The fate that overtook the priests of Nob was, however, well merited by them. These priests were polluting the holy things of the Lord, and making the first-fruits a reproach. God was wroth, and said: “Behold, I will wipe out the priests who dwell in Nob, because they walk in the ways of the sons of Eli.” Ps. -Philo, 58; 63.1. Comp, note 78. 9 3 Sanhedrin 20a, which cites also the different view to the effect that Abner tried in vain to restrain Saul from his bloody act. See also Yerushalmi Sotah 1, 17b and the references cited in the following note. 94 Yerushalmi Peah 1, 16a, and Sotah 1, 17b; PK 4, 32b-33a; WR 26.2; Tan. B. IV, 107-108 and 168; Tan. Hukkat 4 and Mass’ e 12; BaR 19.2 and 23.13. These sources cite four different opinions on the nature of the sin for which Abner paid with his life: 1) He did not try to restrain Saul from slaying the priests of Nob; 2) he prevented a reconciliation between Saul and David; 3) he was guilty of lese-majeste in using the words “ from Abner to David ” in writing to the latter (2 Sam. 3.12), instead of “to David from Abner”; 4) he thought little of human life, and for his amusement he arranged a tournament resulting in the death of many men; see 1 Sam. 2.14, seq. Comp, also Sanhedrin 20a. 9 * BR 82.4; Tan. B. I, 177; comp. vol. I, p. 414. 96 Ps. -Jerome, 1 Chron. 8.38, quotes the Hebrew tradition that Doeg accompanied Saul when he went to seek the asses. Septuagint, 1 Sam. 21.8 reads ’DIND “Aramean”, instead of ’DINH “Edomite”. It is worth noticing that according to the view of the Rabbis (Tehillim 52, 284), Doeg was not at all of foreign extraction (indeed he belonged to the tribe of Judah like David), but he was blood-thirsty by nature, f.nd hence his epithet ’DIM “the bloody one”. According to others, 240 Samuel [97-101 he acted like an Edomite; the Edomites were revengeful, so was he. A third view is that he hailed from the country south of Nob, and that part of the Holy Land was called Idumea. Ps. -Philo, 58; 63.1, and Josephus, Antiqui. 6.12, 1, follow Septuagint, and speak of “Doeg the Syrian”. Comp, note 98. 97 Sanhedrin 69b and 106b. In the last passage Ahitophel is said to have died at the same age as Doeg. Comp, note 100. 98 Tehillim 52, 184-185 and 284 (in 284 many explanations of the epithet ’DINn are given, see note 96); Tan. B. V, 29; Tan. Shofetim 1; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 29a; Babli 106b. The ‘‘Hebrew tradition” in ps. -Jerome, 1 Chron. 8.38, to the effect that Azrikam the firstborn of Azael (this is in agreement with Septuagint and Peshitta which read 1“iS2 instead of 1T3i) is identical with Doeg, presupposes a haggadic explanation of Edomi, as this Azrikam is described as a descendant of the Benjamite Saul; Comp, note 96. On the names given in 1 Chron., loc. cit., see Pesahim 62b. 99 Sanhedrin 106b; Hagigah 15b; BaR 18.17. Ahitophel shared this moral weakness as well as Doeg. 1 0 0 Sanhedrin, Mishnah 10.1 ; Tan. B. Ill, 43 and 45; Tan. Mezora' 1 and 2; ARN 40, 133, and 36, 108. The rule laid down in these sources is that all Israelites have a share in the world to come, with the exception of the three kings Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh, as well as the four ‘‘private men” Balaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, and Gehazi. See also Tosefta Sanhedrin 12.11, where Ahaz is counted among the hopeless sinners; Babli 101a-107b; Yerushalmi 10, 28b-29b; ARN 36, 108, which reads: Absalom and all the wicked kings of Israel (but not those of Judah) have no share in the world to come; but 41, 133 has: Five kings have no share in the world to come (these are: Jeroboam, Ahab, Manasseh, Ahaz, and Ahaziah; comp. Sanhedrin 103b); ER 3, 16. The view of the allegorists (mDlEH ’EHT!) is quoted, according to which all the abominable sinners enumerated above have their share in the world to come; comp. Sanhedrin 104b-105a; Yerushalmi 10, 29b (end of section). Comp, also Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk, s. v. ny^l = MHG I, 479, and note 93 on vol. IV, p.172. As to the popular, but untenable, hypothesis that the ‘‘four private men” mentioned above stand for Jesus and some of his apostles, see note 722 on vol. Ill, p. 354. 101 Zebahim 54b. This learned discussion, in which Samuel, David, and Doeg partook (see Targum 1 Sam. 19.19, 23, and 20.1), was about the explanation of Deut. 12.14. David carried his point that 241 102-106] The Legends of the Jews “the place which the Lord will choose’’, spoken of in the Torah, refers to Jerusalem. 103 Sanhedrin 83b; Ruth R. 2.1; Shemuel 19, 104; BaR 13.10. These sources dwell upon the cunning of Doeg, who knew how to arouse Saul ’s jealousy by pointing out to him that neither the king himself nor his son Jonathan, though they are great masters of the Torah, succeeds as often as David in “rendering decisions according to the law”. The young man mentioned in 1 Sam. 16.18 is none other than Doeg, who praised David before Saul to arouse the latter’s jealousy. David surpassed Saul not only in knowledge, but also in his great success as a teacher, ‘ Erubin 53a (end). He was so marvellous, that when his pupils looked at his face their memory became unfailing; WR 20.1; Koheleth 9.2. Comp. ‘Erubin 13b; vol. VI, 170-171. 103 Yebamot 76b. Comp. vol. Ill, pp. 88-89; note 53 on vol. IV, p. 33, and Index, s. v. “Moabites.” 10 4 Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 131, on 1 Sam. 22; Tehillim 52, 284. Comp, also Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 29a (on the text of Yerushalmi, see Batte Midrashot I, 34-35). The death of the priests of Nob was the last act in the execution of the divine decree against the house of Eli; Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 12.6. Comp, note 78 and note 92. Abiathar, the only priest of Nob who escaped the massacre, is described in 1 Kings 2.26 as “a priest of Anathoth, which means “a priest of poverty”. He who, during David’s life-time, lived in affluence and wealth, was reduced by Solomon to poverty. Zohar I, 63b. 105 BR 32.1 and 38.1; Tehillim 52, 284. Comp, note 80. 106 Sanhedrin 106b; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 131, on 1 Sam. 22. Comp, also ps. -Philo, 58-59; 63.4, which reads: And as to Doeg the Syrian (comp, note 96), thus said the Lord: “Behold, the day shall come quickly when the worm shall come upon his tongue, and shall cause him to pine away, and his dwelling shall be with Jair (see vol. IV, pp. 42-43) forever in the fire that shall not be quenched. ,r According to the Rabbis, Doeg and Ahitophel will not be resurrected, nor will they (on the great judgment) be given over to punishment (BR 32.1 and 38.1; ER 18, 107; comp, references in note 100), and the burning of the soul amounts to the same thing. Ps.-Philo decrees eternal punishment for Doeg in fire, i. e., Gehenna. On being eaten alive by worms, see note 552 on vol. Ill, 283; and vol. VI, p. 213, note 136. It is the punishment for blasphemers and slanderers. The Haggadah links Doeg and Ahitophel together, because of the similarity of their sins: both were “men of evil tongues”. See BR, 242 Samuel [107 loc. cit.\ Tan. B. I, 51-52, and III, 43; Tan. Noah 17 and Mezora' 1. Tan. B. V, 44; Tan. Ki-Teze 11; PK 2, 28b-29a; PR 12, 51a; ps. -Jerome, 2 Sam. 1.2. Our texts of the Pesiktas read as though it were Doeg himself and not his son who was Saul 's armor-bearer slain by David. But see Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 39. R. Solomon b. ha-Yatom, in his commentary on Mo'ed Katan 9b, quotes a Midrash to the effect that Saul split Doeg like a fish (a haggadic play on the word m in 1 Sam. 22.18; see Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 29a, where HD nnpsnj is to be read in the text, with Batte Midrashot I, 35), which would support the view that Doeg was Saul’s armor-bearer slain by David. It seems certain that in Ben ha-Yatom is a scribal error for in. Ps. -Jerome, 1 Chron. 9.44, mentions the Hebrew tradition that Doeg was Saul’s armor-bearer; but in the last battle in which the king fell it was Doeg’s son who acted as his armor-bearer. On the death of the latter at the hands of David, see also vol. Ill, p. 63. According to Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 130, on 1 Sam. 21, David came to the high priest Ahimelech on a Sabbath, just when he found the priests occupied with the baking of the shew-bread. Astounded at their desecration of the Sabbath, he was told by them that they were acting in accordance with the instructions given them by Doeg, who taught them that the baking of the shew-bread, being a Temple ceremony, superseded the Sabbath. David, however, called their attention to the grave error of Doeg, who confused the arranging of the shew-bread, which must take place on the Sabbath, with the baking thereof, which ought to be done on the previous day. Comp., however, Menahot 95b-96a, where an opinion is quoted that the error of the priests of Nob consisted in baking the shew-bread on Friday; whereupon David pointed out to them that it must be done on the Sabbath. In this passage it is also said that David and his men were at the point of starvation, and therefore partook of the holy bread, as there is no ceremonial law which one is bound to observe at the risk of death. They received the holy bread which had been removed from the table of the sanctuary to be distributed among the priests; but David pointed out to the priests that whenever it is necessary to preserve life, it is permitted to take the shew-bread from the holy table. The statement of ps.-Jerome, 1 Sam. 21.6, that, according to Jewish tradition, David did not partake of the holy bread, is very strange, for the explicit words of the Talmud and Yelammedenu, loc. cit., are to the contrary. The view of Matth. 12.3-4 is shared by the Rabbis and not, as ps.Jerome maintains, opposed by them. 243 108-112] The Legends of the Jews 108 Mo'ed Katan 26a. On Jonathan’s scholarship, see also note 102. 109 Baba Mezi'a 85a; Yerushalmi Pesahim 6, 33a; comp, on the other hand, Baraita de-Yeshua‘ 46a which reads: He who regrets having performed a good deed delays the (Messianic) salvation. Such a man was Jonathan, who used to say: “If I had not been kind to David, he would never have had designs on the life of my father.” 110 Ps. -Jerome, 1 Sam. 31.6. On Abinadab, see also note 77. 111 Berakot 4a; ‘Erubin 53b; comp. vol. IV, pp. 101, 111, 118. 113 Yoma22b; ps. -Jerome, 2 Sam. 19.29. Comp, also Yerushalmi Yebamot 2, 4a, where allusion is very likely made to the wrong done by David to Mephibosheth in granting one half of the latter’s possessions to Ziba. This wrong was all the more grievous because David granted Ziba one half of Mephibosheth ’s personal property, besides his real estate. The Temple was destroyed because David gave ear to Ziba 's slander against Mephibosheth. See Alphabet of Ben Sira 1 lb244