Volume 4, Chapter 4: IV. DAVID

IV. DAVID Vol. IV, (pp. 81-121). 1 2 ARN 43, 121. Comp, note 35 on Vol. I, p. 317=vol. V, p. 275, towards beginning. Besides David, the following are described in Scripture as “the elect of God’’: Abraham, Jacob, Israel (the people of), Saul, Levi (the tribe of), Moses, the Messiah, Joshua, Judah, Solomon, and Jerusalem. Just as Moses was “the elect” among the prophets, so was David the elect” among the kings; Tehillim 1, 3, and parallel passages cited by Buber. These sources point out the great similarity between the life of the great king and that of the great prophet. Comp. vol. V, p. 404. 3 Sifre N., 78. On the view that the kings of Judah (including the Messiah) were descendants of Judah, the royal tribe, and Levi, the priestly tribe, see vol. II, p. 253. 3 Baba Batra 91a; Targum Ruth 1.6, 3.7, and 4.21. Comp, note 31 on vol IV, p. 30. 4 Sifre N., 78; Sotah lib; PRE 45. Comp. vol. II, p. 253. 5 Targum Ruth 4.21. Comp, vol IV, p. 34. 6 Berakot 58a and Yebamot 76b, which read: Jesse went to the front at the head of an army of sixty myriads, returned from the front with such an army, and delivered his lectures before a similar multitude. See also Makiri on Ps. 118, 214. 7 Shabbat 55b (hence the name Nahash, “serpent”, by which Jesse is known; he died merely because death was decreed for all men in consequence of the serpent’s seduction of Eve); Baba Batra 17a; Targum Is. 14.29; Targum Ruth 4.22; ps.-Jerome 2 Sam. 17.25. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 58-59. The four men untainted by sin are, according to Baba Batra, loc. cit.: Benjamin, Amram, Jesse, and Kilab the son of David. Zohar I, 57b, has Levi instead of Kilab. Allusion to the great piety of Jesse is made by ps.-Philo, 57-58; 62.5, who makes David say to Jonathan: “Yet the righteousness of my father shall help me that I fall not into thy father’s hands.” The Hebrew original perhaps, read: '13N npin-rVQN npIXl “and the righteousness of my fathers” (in rabbinic Hebrew the phrase used is nUNrrDr), which the translator misread as ’3N np"in “and the righteousness of my father.” Comp, note 30 on vol. II, p. 260 and vol. V, p. 129. 245 8-12] The Legends of the Jews 8 BR 96.4. Comp. Lekah, Gen. 46.29. 9 BaR 14.1. Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 12.3, on the other hand, maintains that the king of Moab was very kind to David’s parents. Comp, also Zohar III, 190a. The Haggadah attempts to excuse David’s cruelty towards the Moabites (comp. 2 Sam. 2.2) by accusing them of having killed his parents. 10 Sukkah 52b. On “the Messianic princes”, see note 142 on vol. I, 102. 1 1 An unknown Midrash quoted by Makiri, Ps. 118, 214. On the references to this legend by the medieval authors, see Zunz, Synagogale Poesie, 129. Comp, also Kele Yakar, 1 Sam. 17; Azulai, Midbar Kedemot, s. v. ’P’, No. 20; R. Elijah Wilna in his commentary on Yoreh De'ah, 157.24. Comp, note 23. Josephus, Antiqui., XII, 4.6, narrates a similar story about Hyrcanus the son of Joseph the tax collector. As to the names of Nazbat and Adiel (which occur only in Baba Batra 91a), see Giidemann, Religionsgeschichtliche Studien, 49, seq. The reading and my, instead of ^N’ny are incorrect; see 1 Chron. 27.25, where a son of Adiel is mentioned as King David’s treasurer . “ PRE 19; BaR 14.12; Tehillim 92, 409; Midrash in Yalkut 1,411 Aggadat Bereshit (introduction), XXXVIII; Zohar I, 55a-55b, 140a, 248b; II, 235a. In Zohar I, 168a-168b, the legend reads that Abraham presented David with five years, Jacob with twenty-eight, and Joseph with forty-eight; all of which amount to seventy-one, *. e., David died in his seventy-first year. Comp, also Epstein, Eldad, 67, and Zohar Hadash, Ruth, 98b, beginning n:t3p "I’y TIK “OT On the Mohammedan version of this legend, see Griinbaum, Neue Beitrage, 64; vol. I, 69 and note 28 appertaining thereto. The Mohammedan writers misunderstood the point made by the legend, and state that Adam donated forty of his years. Of course, the point is that David lived seventy years, corresponding to the number missing in Adam’s life to make up a thousand years = a “day of the Lord ”. As to the deeds signed by God and the angels, see also the quotation from Tosafot in manuscript given by Poznanski, Kommentar . . . von Eliezer aus Beaugency, Einleitung, CX. Here a deed is drawn up on the sixth day of creation between the Most High, called the Almighty God, and the earth, in which the latter takes upon itself the obligation of furnishing every day “one hundred dead men like Adam”. The witnesses are Michael, the prince of wisdom, and Gabriel, the prince of strength. On the daily 246 David [13 deaths, see note 123. The legend in Seymour, Tales of Solomon 15-16, applies to Solomon what really belongs to his father David. 13 Makiri, Ps. 118, 214. Verses 22—24 of this psalm are put by this Midrash into the mouth of David 's mother and brothers. This is a very old Haggadah; comp. Pesahim 119a and Shemuel 19, 104, where it is said that verses 21—27 were uttered on the occasion when David was anointed by Samuel. David said: “I will give thanks. . .for Thou hast afflicted me (’irny from HJy “afflicted”), but now Thou art become my salvation." Jesse said: “The stone which the build ers, etc.” David’s brothers said: “This is the Lord’s doing, etc.” Samuel said: “This is the day, etc.” David’s brothers said once more: “O Lord, save now.” David joined in their singing: “O Lord, make us prosper”, and Jesse continued their prayer with the verse: “Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” Whereupon Samuel responded: “We bless you out of the house of the Lord.” Then they all exclaimed: “The Lord is good, and hath given us light.” Ps.-Philo 56.59.4 also gives a psalm by David composed on the occasion of his anointment, in which the new king contrasts his good fortune with the sad fate of Abel who was slain by his brother out of envy. “ But it is not so with me”, David is alleged to have said, “for God hath kept me, and hath delivered me unto His angels and His guardians to watch over me. For my brothers envied me, and my father and my mother made me of no account.” David’s ruddy complexion (comp. 1 Sam. 16.12; according to Septuagint, this verse speaks of the reddish color of David’s hair. See also Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 8.1) was due to Jesse’s great passion at the time of begetting his youngest son. And this unusual color nearly caused the death of David and his mother, as his brothers suspected her of adultery. Jesse, however, restrained them from carrying out their evil designs, and they yielded to his wish on the condition that David should be considered as a slave, and thus for twenty-eight years he was shepherd of his father’s flock. See Makiri, loc. cit. where D’23 '1 is to be read for D’H ' D ; David ’s age at the time of his anointment is said to have been twenty-eight years; comp. Seder ‘Olam 13 ; note 18. The older sources maintain that David ’s ruddy complexion indicated that he was destined to shed blood, and accordingly Samuel was terrified when he beheld the “red David”, whom he thought a second Esau. God, however, informed him that David would shed much blood, but only of those who by their iniquity have forfeited their lives. One could see at David 's birth that he was destined for great 247 14-19] The Legends of the Jews things, as he was born with the sign of the Abrahamic covenant on him; Sotah 10b; Tehillim 9, 58; note 318 on vol. I, p. 306. 14 Tehillim 78, 357; ShR 2.2. Comp. Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdge 193-194, and vol. II, p. 300. 15 Shemuel 20, 107; Baraita of 32 Middot 3. Of the fleece of the sheep saved from the claws of the wild beasts David made himself a garment, that he should always remember the miracle wrought for him; see quotation from an unknown Midrash by R.

Elijah Wilna in Toledot Adam I, 59. According to ps. -Philo, 56; 59.5, a lion came out of the wood and a she-bear (the female of this species is considered more ferocious than the male, comp. BR 87, beginning) came from the mountain, and took the bulls of David (did this author read "1® instead of n® in 1 Sam. 17.34 ?). Whereupon David said: “Lo, this shall be a sign unto me for a mighty beginning of my victory in the battle”; and he went after the wild beasts with stones, and slew them. God then said unto him: “Lo, by stones have I delivered unto thee these beasts. . .and this shall be a sign unto thee that hereafter thou shalt slay with stones the adversary of My people.” Comp, also Mekilta Amalek 2, 56a, where, with reference to David’s slaying of the wild beasts, it is said “that a sign was given unto him of which he took notice.” David was of such unusual strength that he could bend a “bow of brass”; Tehillim 18, 155. The first battle in which David engaged took place shortly after the encounter with the wild beasts, while he was still feeding his sheep, when the Midianites came and would have taken his sheep; but he fought against them, and slew of them fifteen thousand men; ps. -Philo 56; 61.1. 1 6 This designation of the lion is very frequent in Jewish literature; comp., e. g. Hagigah 13b. 17 Tehillim 22, 195; 91, 395; 92, 408. Comp. vol. IV, p. 333. 18 Seder ‘Olam 12 (on the variant "twenty-nine”, see Ratner, adloc.); Makiri, Ps. 118, 24. Comp, note 13. 19 Sifre D., 17; Midrash Tannaim 10; Tan. Wa-Yera 6; Shemuel 14, 88. Comp, note 322 on vol III, 396. See also ps. -Philo 56; 59.2, which reads: And the Lord said unto him: “ Where is thy vision which thy heart hath seen? Art not thou he that saidst: I am that seeth? And how knowest thou not him whom thou must anoint? And now let this rebuke suffice thee, and seek out the shepherd, the least of them all, and anoint him.” Samuel, though sure of God’s help, kept his journey to Beth-lehem a secret (1 Sam. 16.2, seq.), and did not betray to any outsider the purpose of his visit. This teaches 248 David [20-24 us that one must not expose himself to danger (as far as it can be avoided) even while carrying out God ’s command. See Pesahim 8b; Yoma 11a; Yebamot 65b (here it is said: For the sake of peace Samuel told an untruth); Zohar I, 209a; Maimonides, Shemonah Perakim, 8. Comp, also MHG I, 519, and Yalkut II, 123. In the last source the statement about the importance of peace, the same almost verbatim as MHG, is quoted from Yerushalmi Yoma, but our texts do not have it. On Samuel’s self-consciousness, see note 43 on vol. IV, p. 64. 2 0 Pesahim 66b; Shemuel 14, 88. The Haggadah finds that Eliab’s violent character is indicated in 1 Sam. 17.28. 31 Yalkut II, 124, wheren Tan. is erroneously given as source instead of Yelammedenu; see Yalkut II, 750. on Ps. 45.8. 23 On the “holy oil” (Josephus, Antiqui., VI, 8.1), see Shemuel 19, 102, and vol. Ill, p. 179. In anointing David Samuel used a “horn” filled with oil, but in anointing Saul he took a cruse: the horn was the symbol of David’s everlasting kingdom, whereas the cruse represented Saul’s temporary rule. Comp. vol. IV, p. 257. See Megillah 14a, and also Hippolytus, 5.4 (end). 23 Makiri on Ps. 118,214; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 124 (comp, note 21), and 750, on Ps. 45.8; Ephraem, 1 Sam. 16.13. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 28. As to the secret of David’s mother, see vol. IV, p. 82 and note 11. While still a youth, David began to prophesy that he would slay Goliath the Philistine and erect the house of God. His father thought him weak-minded, and therefore made him keep the sheep, the only occupation for which he considered him fit. When Samuel arrived at Jesse’s house, he, too, was struck by David ’s insignificant looks, and hardly took notice of him. But God said to Samuel: “Arise; My anointed one stands, and thou sittest.” It is with reference to the low esteem in which he had been held that David praised God with the words: “The stone which the builders rejected is become the chief corner-stone” (Ps. 118.22); see Midrash Tannaim 10, and comp, references cited in note 13. David was not the youngest son of Jesse, as one might be inclined to infer from Scripture (1 Sam. 16.11), but “the least esteemed of his sons”. Comp, note 88, end. Jesse’s youngest son was Elihu; see Midrash Tannaim /. c. and comp. 1 Chron. 27.18. 2 4 Josephus, Anliqui., VI, 8.2, and comp, the quotations from ps.Philo in note 13. Although the Psalms, the book of David, does not form part of the prophetic section of the Bible, he was nevertheless a prophet, see Seder ‘Olam 20; Mekilta Bo (ttnrrns) 2a. According to Sotah 48, Yerushalmi 9, 24b, the term “the first prophets” refers to Samuel and 249 25-33] The Legends of the Jews. David. Some, however, maintain that by this term Gad and Nathan are meant, while others think that it stands for Jeremiah and Baruch. Comp, note 358 on vol. Ill, p. 173. 25 Sanhedrin 93b. Comp, note 102 on vol. IV, 75. 26 BHM IV, 150-151; Ma‘aseh-buch, No. 199, 67d. In many sources the hero of this legend is Solomon. Comp. Gaster, Exempla, No. 403; Seymour Tales of Sol. 17 and 33; note 27 on vol. IV, p. 131. 2 7 Sotah 42b (here several etymologies of the names nsny Orpah, Naomi’s daughter-in-law, and ns”in 2 Sam. 21.16, are given, to show their identity) ; Tan. B. I, 208; Ruth R. 1.14; Ruth Z. 49; Shemuel 20,106-108; ps. -Philo, 57; 61.6. In the last source mater tua (“thy mother”) very likely means “ thy ancestress”, since David describes Ruth as "my mother”, which, of course, cannot be taken literally. On the meaning of the name Goliath, and his designation as D’3’3n IP’N, see Sotah, loc. cit., and Targum Ps. 9.1. In the latter source l?^ = D’ran P’N Goliath. On Orpah, Goliath’s mother, see vol. IV, pp. 31 and 108 28 Ruth R. 1.4; ps. -Philo, 57; 61.6. Comp. vol. IV, p. 31. 29 Sotah 42b; Ruth R. 1.14; Ruth Z., 49; Vulgate 1 Sam. 17.4. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 30-31. According to Tosefta-Targum Sam., loc. cit., Goliath ’s father (ancestor?) was Samson, and his mother was Orpah. 80 See, on the other hand, vol. IV, p. 31, according to which Orpah accompanied her mother-in-law a long distance. 31 Sotah 42b; Ruth R. 1.14; Shemuel 20, 106-107; Tan. B. I, 208. The forty days are explained by ps-Philo, 57; 61.2, as corresponding to “the number of days wherein Israel feasted when they received the law in the wilderness.” Goliath said: “For forty days I will reproach them, and after that I will fight with them.” Similar is the meaning of the statement in Sotah, loc. cit. ]rQ mrw DP ‘D 1213 min. For other explanations of the forty days, see Shemuel 20, 106. 3 2 Sotah 42b (Scripture hints at Goliath ’s extraordinary strength and powers, that we might properly appreciate David 's achievement) ; Shemuel 20, 106; Tosefta-Targum 1 Sam. 17.9-10 and 16. Targum has the morning and evening sacrifice instead of the morning and evening prayer. See also ps.-Philo, 57; 61.2, where Goliath challenged Saul to fight him, and “if not, he will come unto him and cause him to be taken captive, and his people will be forced to serve the gods of the Philistines. ” 33 Tan. V. I. 207 and 208; Haserot 44. This Haggadah is given 250 David [34-42 as an explanation of Jesse’s words, who told David to “take the pledge" of his brothers; comp. 1 Sam. 17.18. According to another view, David was bidden by his father to see to it that his brothers send their wives bills of divorce, so that in case they do not return from the battle, their wives would have no difficulty in remarrying. See Ketubot 9a ; Shabbat 56a; ps. -Jerome, 1 Sam., loc. cit. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 31-32, and vol.

IV, p. 103. 34 Shemuel 11, 78-79; ps.-Philo, 53; 54.3-4, and 56-57; 61.2. Comp. vol. IV, p. 65. 35 Tan. B. Ill, 84; Tan. Emor 4; Shemuel 21, 108. Saul suspected that David must have been anointed with “holy oil” (see vol. IV, p. 84), which had the effect of changing the body of the anointed one; if he was short he bacame tall; if he was black, he became white, etc; Tanhumas., loc. cit., and Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 750, on Ps. 45.2. It is very likely that Philo was acquainted with the legendary qualities of the holy oil, and in his way attempted to rationalize this legend. Comp. De Nobilitate, 5. 36 Shemuel 21, 108. 37 Zohar III, 272a; comp. vol. I, p. 350. 38 Shemuel 21, 108, and somewhat differently in the unknown Midrash quoted by Kimhi on 1 Sam. 17.40. According to ps.-Philo, 57; 61.5, David wrote upon seven stones “the names of his fathers Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Aaron, and his own name, and the name of the Almighty.” See also 2 Maccabees 10.29, where the five men are very likely the three patriarchs, and Moses and Aaron. Comp, further Aggadat Bereshit 50.102-103 (only in manuscript not in printed text). 38 WR 21.2; PK 27, 175a; Shemuel 21, 109; Zohar II, 206a206b. The last-named source gives many details about the power of David’s eye. Comp. vol. Ill, p. 214. 40 WR 21.2; PK 27, 175a; Shemuel 21, 108. The sources dwell upon the fact that the beauty of David aroused an impure passion in Goliath. 41 Shemuel 21, 109, according to the reading of Kimhi, 1 Sam. 17.44. 42 A Midrash quoted by Kimhi, 1 Sam. 17, 49. According to others, a miracle was performed, and the small pebble pierced the hard metal of which Goliath’s visor was fashioned; see Shemuel 21, 109 and Tehillim 78, 350, which read: On five occasions God made the “soft” conquer the “hard”: the frogs crawled through the marble buildings 2S1 43-44] The Legends of the Jews of the Egyptians (comp. vol. II, p. 349) ; the hornets penetrated through the rocks to the hiding-places of the Ainorites, and killed them (vol. III, p. 347) ; the mice sent upon the Philistines gnawed through the metal vessels (vol. IV, p. 63); the pebble which David threw at Goliath and the missile which struck Ahab (see vol. IV, p. 188) penetrated through the hard metal to the bodies of Goliath and Ahab, respectively. Comp, also Tehillim 105, 452. 48 Tehillim 18, 160, and 144, 533; WR 10.7; Shir 4.4; Shemuel 21, 109. According to ps. -Philo, 57; 61.4-8, it was the angel Ceruihel, the angel appointed over strength (t. e., ^NyVlf; comp, note 17 on vol. IV, p. 25), who gave David strength to slay Goliath. While there was still life in him, Goliath said unto David: “Hasten and slay me, and rejoice.” But David said: “Before thou diest, open thine eyes and behold the slayer who hath killed thee.” And the Philistine looked and saw the angel, and said: “Thou hast not killed me by thyself, but he that was with thee, whose form is not like the form of a man.” Ps.Philo, loc. cit., makes David harangue Goliath as follows: “Were not the two women, of whom thou and I were born, sisters (comp, notes 27, 28)? Thy mother was Orpah, and mine was Ruth. Orpah chose for herself the gods of the Philistines, and went after them, but Ruth chose for herself the ways of the Almighty, and walked in them. And now. . . I that am born of thy kindred am come to avenge my people. For thy three brothers also shall fall into my hands after thy death.” 44 The Uriah story is quoted, from an unknown Midrash, by R. Moses Al-Sheikh, on 2 Sam. 13, and by R. Samuel Laniado on 1 Sam. 17.50. Comp. vol. IV, p. 103. The controversy between the scholars of that time concerning David’s admission to “the congregation of the Lord” is found in Ruth R. 2.5; Shemuel 22, 109-110, and, in a somewhat different form, in Yebamot 76b and Ephraem, 1 Sam. 17.55. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 32-33. This Haggadah is an attempt to harmonize 1 Sam. 16.18, seq., with 1 Sam. 17.55, seq. Another solution of this difficulty is given by ps. -Philo, 57; 61.89, who remarks: And the angel of the Lord “lifted up the face” of David and no man knew him, and when Saul saw David, he asked him who he was, and there was no man who knew who he was. There can be no doubt that erexit faciem (“lifted up his face”) is a mistranslation, and I would suggest that the original Hebrew read V3S[n=«]«3t? “changed his face”, which was misread as V3S tWJ “lifted up his face.” On the “changing of the face” in ps. -Philo, see the quotation in note 75 on vol. IV, p. 70. 252 David [45-50 45 Yebamot 77a; Yerushalmi 8, 9c; Tehillin 9, 87; Ruth R. 1.21; Targum and ps. -Jerome on 1 Chron. 2.17. Comp. Ginzberg , Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 124, and Index, s. v. “ Moabites.” With regard to Ithra, another view is given in Tehillim, loc cit., according to which, he was an Ishmaelite, but became converted to Judaism when he heard Jesse recite the verse: ‘‘Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth” (Is. 45.22). 46*Tehillim 34, 294; 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 24a-24b: Kimha Dabishuna n’PN-Q nne>. 47 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 24b; Targum Ps. 57.3. Comp. Griinbaum, Neue Beitrage, 195. 4 8 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 24b; comp. vol. IV, p. 73. Abner, however, never believed David that he had been near him while he was asleep, and therefore tried to convince Saul that David found the cruse of water lost by the servant; Yerushalmi Peah 1, as quoted in ‘ Aruk, s. v. 13 7, but not in our texts; comp, note 94 on vol. IV, p. 74. 49 Tehillim 18, 138; 9, 85; comp, also 142, 532, which reads: David was within the cave, and Saul was watching outside at the entrance. 5° WR 21.3; PK 27 175b; Ekah, introduction, XXX; Tehillim 18, 162. — The legend tells of many things (not mentioned in Scripture) which happened to David during the time he was pursued by Saul. Although his position on the day of his flight was precarious (1 Sam. 21.35, seq.), he nevertheless insisted on saying his morning prayers with the quorum required for the service, and he requested his friend Jonathan to bring eight men (the quorum 1’3D, consists of ten) to the hiding-place; Rimze Haftarot, Mahar Hodesh. The prolix description of the last meeting between David and Jonathan in ps. -Philo, 57-58; 62.3, seq., hardly contains any other legendary material except the statement that Jonathan knew already then that David was destined to possess ‘‘the kingdom in this world.” If Jonathan had thought of giving his departing friend a few loaves of bread on his journey, Nob, the city of the priests, would not have been destroyed, Doeg would not have been excluded from the community of the pious, and Saul and his three sons would not have been slain. This teaches us that the refraining from giving a departing guest the necessary provisions for his journey is accounted to one as a deliberate sin, even though it might be due to forgetfulness, as in the case of Jonathan; Sanhedrin 104a. David, who started on his journey without provisions, arrived in Nob almost in a state of collapse, and was forced to partake of the holy bread to save his life. On 233 5i] The Legends of the Jews that occasion he ate bread baked of seven seah of flour; Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 130. Comp, note 107 on vol. IV, p. 76. From Nob he fled to Adullam, where fourteen hundred scholars joined him; EZ 5, 181. Later he was forced to leave the Holy Land, and this caused him extreme pain, as “he who leaves the Holy Land to settle in another country is considered as though he worshipped idols". It is in this sense that we have to understand David’s words: “Cursed be they before the Lord, for they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave unto the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go, serve other gods” (1 Sam.

26.19). See ARN 26, 85; Ketubot 110b; Tosefta ‘Abodah Zarah 4(5). 5; Sifra 25.38. David was so much attached to the Holy Land, that he used to say: “I prefer to stand at the threshhold of the house of my God and live in the Holy Land, though lacking all necessities of life, even the carob, rather than dwell in any other land in affluence and prosperity.” Yelammedenu in ‘ Aruk, s. v. ilD’DDD and *)DD. He showed his devotion to his country when immediately after he married Michal he went to war against the Philistines, who had hoped that he would stay home, availing himself of the privilege granted by the law (Deut. 20.7) to newly-married men. David went still further, and promulgated the law that nobody is exempt from military duty in a defensive war, as the exemptions mentioned in the Torah refer to an offensive war only; Shemuel 22, 110; Sotah, Mishnah 8(end); Babli 44b; Yerushalmi 8, 23a; Tosefta 7 (end). In his zeal to expand the confines of the Holy Land he engaged in offensive wars against Syria before he conquered all that belonged to the Holy Land. This mistaken zeal resulted in the fact that the Syrian provinces conquered by him never received the holy character of Palestine proper; Sifre D., 52; Midrash Tannaim 44; Yerushalmi Hallah 2, 58b; Tosefta Kelim, Baba Kamma, 1.5.; Gittin 8a; Baba Batra 90b. s 1 PRE 36. According to another view, the Jebusites were the descendants of Abimelech, king of Gerar, who later settled in Jerusalem, where he built a strong fortress (Zion), which for many centuries had withstood all attacks until David captured it; Yalkut Reubeni 44c, giving nVapn "IDD as his authority; but neither n^3pn HSD of R. Abraham ibn Daud, nor n*?3pn of Ibn Yahya, has this legend. The Jebusites had, on the top of a high tower, two monuments, one representing a blind man (Isaac), the other a lame man (Jacob). Attached to these monuments was the text of the covenant between Abraham and the Philistine king Abimelech, some of whose descendants inhabited Jerusalem. The Jews respected the covenant as long as some of Abi254 David [52-56 melech ’s descendants were still in existence, but in David ’s time Abimelech 's family became extinct, and there was no longer any reason for refraining from driving out the Jebusites from Jerusalem. See Midrash quoted by Rashi and Kimhi, 2 Sam. 5.6, as well as Yalkut Reubeni, loc. cit. According to Targum, ad loc., “the blind and the lame” mentioned in this verse refer to the sinners (i. e., the Jebusites). s* Tehillim 18, 152; PRE 36; MHG I, 351; comp, note 268 on vol. I, p. 290. 53 Tehillim 18, 152; PRE 36; Shemuel 32, 139; Sifre N., 521 Sifre D., 62; Zebahim 116b; BaR 11.7; Baraita of 32 Middot, 15; ps. -Jerome, 2 Sam. 24.24; Midrash 13 Middot, 70-71. Only the last source has the statement that David himself contributed as much as all the twelve tribes together. The money given to the Jebusites, according to the sources just cited, was for the site of the Temple (comp. 2 Sam., loc. cit., and 1 Chron. 21.25); but PRE, loc. cit., maintains that it was for the city of Jerusalem. As to the miracle of the wall lowering itself, see also Baba Mezi'a 95b; Yerushalmi Mo'ed Katan 3, 81d; ps.-Matthew 20. According to a Christian legend, the Jebusites, after having been driven out from Palestine by David, settled in Cyprus. Comp. Acts of Barnabas (towards the end); see also note 57 on vol. IV, p. 154. 5“ Ps. -Jerome, 2 Sam. 5.24, which very likely follows a Jewish tradition. On the judgment inflicted upon the guardian angels of the nations, see vol. Ill, p. 25 and note pertaining thereto. According to Rashi, 2 Sam., loc. cit., the motion of the tops of the trees indicated the approach of the angels who came to David ’s assistance. With regard to the meaning of D’t03 in 2 Sam., loc. cit., and 1 Chron. 14.14, ps.Jerome, on the latter passage, quotes a Jewish tradition, according to which the Philistines used to bring human sacrifices to their idol (Moloch) , and hence O’fOn is the same as D’tOil “the weeping ones”, because they wept when they offered up their human sacrifices. Another explanation of is given by ps.-Jerome on 2 Sam., loc. cit.'. All idols deserve this name, “the weeping”, for they are the cause of the tears of their worshippers. Quite similar is the remark of the Rabbis 2 ARN 28, 101, and Tdhillim, 96, according to the reading of Makirion Ps. 96, 112. 66 Tehillim 27, 222-223; PR 8, 30b. On the view that Saul lacked trust in God, see 1 Sam. 14.19. 6e Sotah 42b; Tehillim 3, 38. 255 57-62] The Legends of the Jews 67 PRE 36. On the covenant between Jacob and Laban, see Yalkut Reubeni on Deut. 12.2, and vol. I, pp. 374-375. 68 PRE 36; MHG I, 410. 69 Tehillim 60, 304; Tan. B. V, 2; Yelammedenu in ‘Aruk,s. v. ]0E>; Targum Ps. 60. 1; BR 74.15. The last source dwells upon the fact that the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Edomites, the moment they attacked the I sraelites, forfeited the claim they might have had to be treated kindly. See also Jub. 24.28-33; note 77 and vol. I, p.257. David engaged in eighteen campaigns (WR 1.4), and was forced to defend himself against the attacks of ten adversaries: Saul, Doeg, Ahitophel, Sheba, Shimei, Shobach and Goliath and the latter’s three brothers (Tehillim 18, 139); yet there was nothing for which he was so grateful to God as for the help granted him against Saul. During his flight from Saul he prayed to God for two things: that he should not be delivered into the hands of his enemy, and that the latter should not be delivered into his hands, so that he should not be led into temptation to slay the anointed of the Lord; Tehillim 6, 69. David used a sword upon which the name of God was engraved. He was therefore accustomed to swear by his sword. He did not, however, use this sword to slay Uriah, but employed for this purpose the sword of the children of Ammon (2 Sam. 12.9), upon which was engraved a serpent, the idol of the Ammonites. David had some excuse for slaying Uriah (see vol. IV, p. 103), but not for using this “ unclean ’’sword ; Zohar II, 107a-108a. As to the sword used in slaying Uriah, see also vol. I, p. 321; vol. Ill, p. 411. These passages record similar legends concerning the swords of Esau and Phinehas. In Gaster, Exempla No. 351 reference is made to the sword of David upon which the Name was engraved; see note 32 on vol. IV, p. 136. 60 Berakot 3b, which reads: David did not engage in any war before he took counsel with Ahitophel. Targum Ps. 141.10 describes Ahitophel as the head of the Synedrion. 61 Sanhedrin 101b; ps.-Jerome 2 Sam. 11.3. Ahitophel was at first David’s best friend; Tehillim 55, 290. 62 Nedarim 37b; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 29a; Tehillim 3, 38, which reads: His wisdom was superhuman, like that of an angel. Comp, also Tehillim 55, 391, which reads: David feared nobody except Ahitophel, who was his master and teacher in the knowledge of the Torah. According to some, David learned two things only from Ahitophel, to acquire colleagues with whom to study the Torah, and to walk quickly to the house of God for prayer and service; see Abot 6.2; 256 David [63-68 Nispahim 18; Kallah 6, 16; Mahzor Vitry 556; Nehemias, Commentary on Abot, 77; BaR 18.17. 65 Sanhedrin 69b; comp, note 97 on vol. IV, p. 74. 84 Sanhedrin 106b; Hagigah 15b; Tehillim 55, 292-293, and 119, 495 and 500. Comp. vol. IV, p. 75, where a similar characteristic is attributed to Doeg. Ahitophel used to compose three prayers for each day; Yerushalmi Berakot 4, 8a (bottom), which is a play on the name Ahitophel ^Dn’riN^n^sn ’IlN “brother of prayer", i. e. “man of prayers”; comp., however, Ratner, Ahabat Ziyyon, ad. loc. It was his pride which brought destruction upon him, as may be seen from his haughty behavior towards David at the removal of the ark (comp.

vol. IV, p. 75); ER 31, 157. 86 Sanhedrin Mishnah 10.1. Comp, note 100 on vol. IV, p. 75. 88 Sanhedrin 101b; an unknown Midrash in Yalkut II, 151 on 2 Sam. 16. Comp, note 52 on vol. IV, p. 63, and note 2 on vol. IV, p. 180. 87 Yalkut II, 151 on 2 Sam. 16. Ahitophel thought that David was fallen from the grace of God for ever since he had committed the sin with Bath-sheba. But he did not know that “no sin can efface the merit acquired by the study of the Torah”, and these merits stood David in good stead in the time of his disgrace; see Sotah 21a; comp, also Baba Mezi‘a 59a; PK 2, 10b; Tan. B. II, 106; Tan. Ki-Tissa 4; Tehillim 2, 38, which reads: Doeg and Ahitophel used to remark mockingly: “Is it conceivable that he who took the sheep and slew the shepherd should be able to make good?” On the reading “Doeg” in this passage, see Tosafot yx> on Sotah, loc. cit. 88 Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 29a; BaR 4.20; ER 31,157, which reads: The ark was suspended in the air, and Uzzah “put forth his hand” to take hold of it. The sinners in Israel then said: “Were it not for Uzzah, the ark would have dropped down to the ground”. No sooner did they utter these blasphemous words than Uzzah dropped dead. All then became convinced that the ark was able to support itself without human help. According to Sotah 35a, Uzzah eased himself near the ark, and as a punishment was smitten dead, whereas according to Rimze Haj tarot, Shemini, he brought his death upon himself by uncovering the ark. Comp, notes 37 and 39 on vol. IV, p. 63. As to the grave error committed by David in putting the ark on a wagon, see Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 4.2; Aphraates, 363; Ephraem, 2 Sam. 6.7; vol. Ill, pp. 194 and 395-396; Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 47-T8, On the number of functionaries appointed by David, see vol. 257 69-77] The Legends of the Jews III, p. 70. The king chose pious men, and therefore passed over Ahitophel, who was wise but not pious; Hasidim 416. 89 Ahitophel ended his life by strangling himself; see 2 Sam. 17.18. A somewhat different reason for Ahitophel’s death by strangling is given in ER 31, 157. 70 Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 29a; Sukkah 53a-53b; Makkot 11a; Shemuel 26, 125; Ma'asiyyot (Gaster’s edition, 113-114); Raziel |Brioe? TD ]m ; Sode Raza as quoted in Yalkut Reubeni, Gen. 1.1; Hakam ha-Razim in Yalkut Reubeni, Num. 26.56; Al-Barceloni, 72-73; Zohar III, 198b. In the last source it is stated that David found a pot filled with magic herbs at the abyss where it was placed by Balak; comp. vol. Ill, p. 99, and note 47 on vol. IV, p. 15. As to the waters below the holy of holies, see Middot 2.6, and Yoma 77b-78a. All these Haggadahs belong to the cycle of legends concerning the Eben Shetiyyah; see Index, s. v. 71 2 Sam. 17.23 is quoted as proof for the law that the last wish of the dying has legal validity; comp. Baba Batra 147a. 72 Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10, 29a-29b; Baba Batra 147a (here the first rule of conduct reads: Do not engage in dissension, which is very likely a doublet to rule 2; comp. ER 31, 157); PRK 23a (as in Baba Batra, with the addition: When you begin to suffer the “travail of the Messiah”, start to prepare gifts for him). Comp, also Tosefta ‘Arakin 1.9. 7 3 R. Moses Isserles, Torat ha-‘ Olah 1.11, quoting an “old source”. 74 On the fortune-book, see Steinschneider, Hebrtiische Uebersetzungen, 870. 76 Sanhedrin 49a; Yerushalmi Makkot 2,3 Id ; ps.-Jerome, 1 Kings 2.34. 78 Yerushalmi Makkot 2, 31d; Tan. B. IV, 166; Tan. Mass'e 12; BaR 23.13; PR 11, 43b. In these sources the Tahchemonite (2 Sam. 23.8) is said to refer to Joab who bore this name, “the wise”, because of his having been the head of the academy. Allusion to this Haggadah is made in Chronicle of Ahimaaz, 112, line 12 where 3NV IT30 =of the house of the head of the academy. According to Mo'ed Katan 16b and Targum, 2 Sam., loc. cit., as well as 1 Chron. 11.11, Tahchemonite is an attribute of David, who was as famous a scholar as a warrior. 7 7 The first Joab legend is found in BHM V, 52-53 (on the text see Low, MonatsschriftXXVl, 240), and comp. VI, introduction, XVI-XVII; the second legend of which Joab is the hero is found in several sources independent of one another; see Gaster, Exempla No. 304; BHM V, 146258 David [77 148; Makiri, Ps. 18, 115 (here correctly ’"IDap-pcp Caesarea and not ’7Drp as in BHM; comp. Megillah 6a DHN m ’ID p); Mahzor Vitry 332, giving Tehillim as source; Ma‘aseh-book 42d-43c, No. 145. The last two call the city, captured by Joab, Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and this is very likely the correct reading, as the story ends with the incident that the crown of the captured king was given to David. This obviously refers to the biblical narrative (Sam. 12.30) concerning the crown of the king of Rabbah. On the effect of the blood upon the sword, see vol. IV, p. 26. The old sources contain many details concerning the war against Edom waged by David and Joab, some of which have been made use of in this Joab legend. It is said in Baba Batra 2 la-2 lb that Joab had first slain the men of Edom only, sparing the women. This action was based on a faulty reading of Deut. 25.19, where the Bible speaks of “blotting out the remembrance of Amalek”; but instead of “Of remembrance”, Joab’s teacher had made him read "13f “male”. When Joab found out the grave consequences of the faulty reading, he was so enraged that he was about to slay his teacher. ER 11, 54, on the other hand, maintains that Joab exterminated all the Edomites, with the exception of one pregnant woman; as proof for this assumption 1 Kings 11.16 is quoted, and this is only intelligible if we suppose that the Midrash read in 1 Kings, loc. cit., "DJ (— Deut., loc. cit.), and not ”l?J as the Masorah has it. In his campaign against Edom Joab almost despaired of victory, and in a moment of despondency he addressed the following words to God: “O God, Thou hast cast us off, Thou hast broken us down, Thou hast been angry”. No sooner did he utter these words than the earth began to tremble and quake because of Joab’s lack of trust in God. David became so enraged by Joab’s lack of faith that he intended to slay him. The shaking and trembling of the earth ceased at Joab’s prayer; “Heal the breaches thereof, for it tottereth.” See Tehillim 60, 305; the text is slightly corrupt, but by reading 3NV we get the proper meaning of the passage, which has baffled the commentators. Notwithstanding the great victory over Edom it was not as great as David had wished; Rome did not, like the rest of Edom (on Rome = Edom, see note 19 on vol. I, p. 314), fall into his hands. The entire annihilation of Edom, including Rome, will not take place before the advent of the Messiah. Until then the descendants of Esau enjoy power and prosperity as a reward for the filial piety of their ancestor. See BR 1.16; DZ 21-23 259 78] The Legends of the Jews and 24; Makiri, Ps. 60, 309; comp. Index, s. v. "Edom”, “Rome”, and " Esau David though fierce in battle, treated the bodies of the fallen warriors with piety, and cared for their burial. These human acts spread his fame throughout the world. See the quotation, from an unknown Midrash, in Rashi and Kimhi on 2 Sam. 8.13. 7 s Mo'ed Katan 16b; Targum 2 Sam. 20.26. As to the supposition that in Sam., toe. tit., as well as in many other places, ]rD means "master”, “teacher”, and not "priest”, see also Mekilta Amalek 1, 57b; Comp, note 141 and note 82 on vol. II, p. 289. David is the bearer of many names in Scripture, some of which characterize him as a great warrior and others as a prominent scholar. See Mo'ed Katan, loc. tit.: Targum 2 Sam. 21.19 and 23.8; ps.-Jerome on Sam., loc. tit., and 1 Chron. 11.11; Ruth R.

1.1; Targum Chron., loc. tit. Comp, also note 76. By assigning a multitude of names to David, the Haggadah harmonizes the contradictions between 2 Sam. 21.19, where the slayer of Goliath is called Elhanan, and 1 Sam. 17.1-54, where the slaying of this Philistine is ascribed to David. These two names belong to one person: David was called Elhanan, “he to whom God was gracious”. In 2 Sam. 23.8 it is David himself who is the greatest warrior of his time, “who slew at one time eight hundred,” and were it not for the sin he committed with Bath-sheba, he would have slain a thousand of his enemies at one time, as promised in the Torah to the pious; see Lev. 26.8; comp. Moed Katan l. c.; Targum and ps.-Jerome ad loc. Just as Amram received the priesthood as a reward for his zeal in the study of the Torah, even so did David receive the kingdom as a reward for his zeal in the study of the Torah, 2 ARN 48, 131; comp, also ER 2, 8;3, 13, 15-16; Tehillim 25, 211. His devotion to the fulfilment of the Torah (see note 102 on vol. IV, p. 75) was equal to his zeal in the study thereof, so that he felt disappointed at the thought that there were moments in the life of a man when the body requires his entire attention, disturbing him from his religious activity. He, however, consoled himself with the thought that the Jew has the sign of the covenant of Abraham on his body, and may therefore be said to be constantly fulfilling God’s command; see Sifre D., 36; Midrash Tannaim 29; Tosefta Berakot (end); Yerushalmi 9,14d; Menahot 43b; Tehillim 6, 38; Makiri, Ps. 119, 230. Lovingkindness was one of David’s chief virtues; he would not permit a day to pass without giving alms to the poor. He would usually distribute charity before entering the house of prayer (Alphabet of Ben Sira 8a). But above all virtues he prized justice. In his capacity as judge he never decided a 260 David [79 case in favor of a poor man, if he was guilty, but insisted on justice being done (comp. vol. Ill, p. 71), though after the poor man had satisfied the law, he could count without fail on the liberality and generosity of the king. See ARN 33, 94; DR 5.3; Tosefta Sanhedrin 1.2 and Babli 6b. The last two sources maintain that it was David ’s rule to arbitrate between the litigants; but when he failed in his effort, he let justice take its course. His respect for justice was so great that he never availed himself of his constitutional rights as king (on these rights see note 47, end, on vol. IV, p. 65), which permitted him, under certain circumstances, to disregard the right of private property. If interests of the state compelled him to make use of his royal prerogative, he would first apply to the court for a permit, and even then he would indemnify those whose property he seized. A case of this kind is hinted at in 2 Sam. 23.13—17. David was in need of such a permit, but the Synedrion which could grant him one was not near him; so three of his valiant warriors volunteered to break through the battle-lines of the enemy and put the case before the Synedrion. According to another view, however, the passage in 2 Sam., loc. cit., refers to something entirely different. The three valiant warriors risked their lives to fetch water for libation, as it was the feast of Tabernacles, when the ceremony of the water-libation is performed. See Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2, 20b-20c; Baba Kamma 60b; Shemuel 20, 105; Ruth R. 2.9; ps.-Jerome, 1 Chron. 11.18. Notwithstanding the great care David took in meting out justice, he nevertheless once committed a judicial murder, and had a very pious man executed on the false testimony of two witnesses, who accused him of buggery; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 6, 23b-23c. This legend with many elaborations is also found in Arabic literature; comp. Salzberger, Salomo-Sage, I, 55, who is not acquainted with the Jewish prototype of the legend given by him. That David described himself as “godly” (Ps. 86.2, TDn) was not due to conceit, which would have been pardonable in his case, but he wished to say that he was “like God”, inasmuch as he bore the insults heaped upon him, like the Lord who patiently bears the blasphemies of the heathen. See Tehillim 16, 123, and 96, 372. This Haggadah derives TDn “godly” from non “insult”; as to the etymology of this word, see vol. V, p. 59 towards the middle. David was called “the servant of the Lord” (comp, note 880 on vol. Ill, p. 421) after he repented of his sin because the Lord exalts the honor of the repentant sinner. See Tehillim 18, 136. 7 9 Berakot 4a ; comp. vol. I V, p. 7 6. According to a J ewish legend in ps.-Jerome, 2 Sam. 4.2, it was Mephibosheth who instigated the 261 80-84] The Legends of the Jews slaying of his uncle Ishbosheth in the hope of succeeding him as king. » 0 Sukkah 26b; Zohar I, 206b-207b, which reads: The deep sleep after “sixty breaths of the horse" is a foretaste of death, and therefore David would never indulge in a deep sleep. Comp. Berakot 57b. It is said that “sixty breaths” are a little more than half an hour. Comp. Lewysohn, Zoologie d. Tal. 137, note 2. 8 1 Opinions differ as to the number of these strings. Some maintain that David’s harp had only seven strings, whereas the harp to be used in Messianic times will have eight; but according to others, the strings of David's harp numbered ten. See Tosefta ‘Arakin 2.7 ; Babli 13b; PR 21 (beginning); Tan. B. IV, 50; BaR 15.11; Tehillim 81, 366, and 92, 406; PRE 19. David would never have composed the Psalms without the aid of music, as the Holy Spirit came over him only when he was put in a state of ecstasy by music, see Tehillim 24, 204, and comp, also Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 12.3, as well as vol. II, pp. 115-116. The Psalms, to a great extent, consist of revelations made to David by the Holy Spirit concerning the future history of Israel; see Tehillim 4, 40, and 24, 204; Pesahim 117a-118a; Gittin 57b; Ekah 2, 111. Comp, note 24. The passages in Psalms dealing with Israel’s salvation refer to the Messianic salvation; see quotation from Midrash in Mahzor Vitry 8; Pardes 57d; Siddur Rashi 9. 83 PRE 21 (on the text see R. Bahya, Exod. 19.13); comp. vol. I, p. 283. 8s Berakot 3b; Yerushalmi 1, 2d; PK 7, 62b— 63a; PR 196a;Tehillim 22, 185; 57, 298; 108, 464; Ekah 2, 121; ER 18, 96; Zohar III, 175b. Comp. Low, Lebensalter, 315-316, who fully discusses this legend and its relation to the Aeol ’s harp of the Greeks. See also R. Schmidt, Pancantantram, 21, on the Indian form of the legend. A rationalistic explanation of the legend concerning David 's harp is given by R. Hai Gaon; see Low op. tit., 317, and Shu'aib, Bo, 28c. The Talmudim and Midrashim often speak of the night as the proper time for prayer and study (comp., e. g., ‘ Abodah Zarah 3b, and note 254 on vol. Ill, p. 117), but the praying at midnight ( Hazot ) is first found in the mystic literature of the Middle Ages. Comp, note 194 on vol. I, p. 44. Great praise is bestowed upon David for the devotion with which he prayed; see Berakot 30b; PR 9, 32a. 8* Perek Shirah; Yalkut on Ps. (end); Zohar III, 222b and 232b (as to the remark made here concerning the frogs, see Vol. II, p. 350); Zohar Hadash, Ahare Mot ’in Nn (end); comp. Steinschneider, He brdische Bibliographie, XIII, 104. On the parables, see vol. I, p. 141f 262 David [85-87 and IV, 130. David prayed to God that the reading of his Psalms might be accounted to men as meritorious as the reading of the Torah, so that “his lips should move gently in the grave” while the people occupy themselves with his work, and in this manner he would have eternal life as his share; Tehillim 1, 9; 30, 334; 61, 306; Yerushalmi Berakot 2, 4b, and parallel passages. On the composition of the Psalms, see vol.

Ill, p. 462, and further Tehillim 1, 8 (parallel passages are cited by Buber); Zohar II, 101a; Berakot 9b-10a. In the last passage it is stated that the favorite psalms of David are those beginning with Ashre, “Happy is he”, whereas according to others the alphabetic ones have this distinction. Comp, the quotation from an unknown Midrash in Shu’aib, Shelah (beginning); Kimha Dabishuna 1DWP "JH3 for Sabbath morning. According to Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 12.3, David being freed from wars and dangers, and enjoying for the remainder of his life a profound peace, composed songs and hymns to God in several sorts of meters: some of those which he made were trimeters, and others pentameters. He also made instruments of music, and taught the Levites to sing hymns to God, both on the Sabbath day and on festivals. It is rather strange that Josephus limits the songs in the Temple to the Sabbaths and festivals, though there can be no doubt that in his time the song was a daily feature; comp. Tamid (end). See, however, Sifre N., 77 and Sifre Z., 72. 85 BR 39.11; Baba Kamma 97b. The money coined by Solomon bore his own and his father’s names (figures?) on the obverse, and Jerusalem (figure or name?) on the reverse side. Comp, note 46 on vol. I, p. 206. 86 Sotah 10b; Megillah 11a; Mo'ed Katan 16b. On the reverence shown by David to the scholars, and particularly to his master Ira, see also Shir 1.2, and ps. -Jerome, 2 Sam. 20.26. When, however, the interests of the state demanded resolute and decisive action, David knew how to play the master and lord; Sotah 40b; comp. vol. Ill, p. 451. After he had slain Goliath, the women hailed him with the words: “Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.” But David with true humility, spoke: “O Lord of the universe, Thou wagest war, and unto Thee belongs the victory.” See Tehillim 36,249. As a truly modest man, he even doubted whether the promises of honor and glory made to him by God would ever be fulfilled. Not that he doubted the power of God, but being aware of his sinfulness, he feared that he forfeited them. Comp. Berakot 4a, and see vol. I, p. 380. 87 fdagigah 12b; comp. vol. I, p. 9. David’s prayer for "exiled 263 88-92] The Legends of the Jews Israel” had the effect that even when subjected to foreign powers, Israel never occupies a despised state. Were it not for David ’s prayer, the Israelites in exile would have been ‘ ‘ sellers of wax” ( = poor peddlers) ; Sotah 49a. Juvenal, Saturnalia, 6, 542, alludes to the Jews selling waxcandles in Rome. Comp. Sanhedrin 95a; note 110, end; vol. VI, p. 466. 8 3 Shemuel 26, 125. It is a prerogative of the Davidic kings that they (according to some sources, they and the high priests) are permitted to sit in the Temple court (miy), whereas all others must remain standing. Hence Scripture (2 Sam. 7.18) mentions the fact that David, on receiving the divine revelation concerning the building of the Temple by his son, “went and sat before the Lord.” Comp. Tehillim 1, 1-3; Yerushalmi Pesahim 5, 32d and parallel passages on the margin; Yoma 25b, and parallel passages on the margin, as well as note 9 on vol. IV, p. 181. David desired so ardently to erect the house of God, that he was full of joy when he heard the people say: “O that the time would soon come when the old man (David) will die, and Solomon will proceed with the building of the Temple.” See Makkot 10a; Yerushalmi Berakot 21, 4b; DR 5.3. Nathan the prophet before receiving the revelation concerning the building of the Temple by Solomon strongly encouraged David in his plan to erect a permanent house of God; Tehillim 62, 308-309. This prophet, by the way, was the son of one of David’s brothers, but was brought up by his grandfather Jesse, and is therefore counted sometimes as a son of the latter. Accordingly there is no contradiction between 1 Sam. 16.10 and 1 Chron. 3.13. Comp, ps. -Jerome on Sam., loc. cit. See also note 23, and note 11 on vol. IV, p. 128. 89 PR 2, 7a-7b; Tehillim 62, 309. Comp, also Mekilta Shirah 1, 34b; which reads: The Temple, though built by Solomon, is nevertheless called the “house of David” (see Ps. 30.1), because the latter had set his heart upon the building of the Temple; had not God prevented him, he would have carried out his plan. Comp, note 59 on vol. Ill, p. 32. — David was engaged in war all his life. He never had a pleasant dream, being always troubled by bad dreams, whereas Ahitophel always had pleasant dreams; Berakot 55b; Zohar I, 200a. 90 Baba Batra 17a. Comp. vol. I, p. 292. 91 ‘AbodahZarah4b-5a. Comp, also quotation from an unknown Midrash in Shu’aib, Kippurim, 121a. 91 Shabbat 56a; Ketubot 9b; Kiddushin 43a. In contrast to this exoneration of David, comp. Shemuel 25, 122-123, where he is severely censured not only for his sins attributed to him in Scripture, 264 David [93-94 but for many others. The Midrash maintains that Uriah was not the only one whose death was caused by David. Even Nathan the prophet would have been killed by him, if he had dared to talk about the king s crime. The prophet was continually watched by the king’s spies that he should not “divulge” anything. See also quotation from an unknown Midrash in Shu'aib, Kippurim, 121a; vol. IV, p. 72, and note 33. 83 Quotation from an unknown Midrash in Al-Sheikh, 2 Sam. 12. Comp. vol. IV, p. 88. Sanhedrin 107a reads: Bath-sheba was destined to become David’s wife from the creation of the world; but he took her while she was not mature. This is a play on the name Bathsheba, which in later Hebrew denotes “a fine quality of figs” (comp., e. g., Ma'aserot 2.8), with HIS “an unripe fig”. A brilliant defence of David by God against the accusations of the angel Duma( = prince of hell; comp. Index, s. v.) is given inZohar I, 8b (on the “three months” in this passage, see Ginzberg, Haggada bet den Kirchenv., 31, note 2), 94a; II, 107a; III, 78b. The question about the shepherd and the lambkin in Yoma 66b refers, according to a geonic tradition, to David (comp. R. Hananel and Tosafot, ad loc., as well as Ginzberg, Geonica II, 19), and was very likely addressed to R. Eliezer by Jewish Gnostics who condemned David. Comp. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 28-30. Comp, also note 67. 94 Sanhedrin 107a; Tehillim 18, 157; 26, 216; midrashic Genizah fragment in the University Library at Cambridge. As to David’s wish to be considered like the three patriarchs, see also Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 141; Pesahim 117b; Shemuel 26, 126; Tehillim 18, 139; Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shanah 4, 59c; Zohar I, 82a; ps.-Jerome, 1 Chron. 17.8. Comp. Ginzberg, Unbekannte Sekte, 295-297, with regard to the relation of God to the three patriarchs as shown in the expression “the God of Abraham, etc.” and see further note 304 on vol. I, p. 414, as well as note 4 on vol. II, p. 226. The liturgy has the expression “God, the shield of David ”, but it is used only in the benediction after reading the Haftarah. Did the Haftarah, in olden times, close with a passage from the Psalms? According to Mo'ed Katan 16a, God spoke to David: “I shall reward thee for thy humility, and shall make thee like unto Me, inasmuch as thou shalt be able to annul my decrees (David ’s prayer will avert the decreed punishment). I shall further make thee ‘the head of the three’ (patriarchs)”. Comp, also vol. I, p. 414; vol. II, p. 225. 265 95-ioo] The Legends of the Jews *6 ER 2, 7. Comp, also Apocalypse of Sedrach 14, which reads: David was saved by tears. »« Yoma 22b; Yerushalmi Rosh ha-Shanah 1, 56b; Sanhedrin 107b; Shemuel 26, 127. On the basis of this Haggadah, 2 Sam. 5.5 is brought in harmony with 1 Kings 2.11. According to the last source, the six months during which David was isolated physically and spiritually are disregarded in giving the number of the years of his reign.

Other authorities (Yerushalmi, Shemuel, loc. cit .; Ruth R. 2.14) maintain that the six months during which David was in flight from Absalom are disregarded in 1 Kings, loc. cit. Both these views are also given in ps.-Jerome, 2 Sam. 5.4-5. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 43^46. The word nxiai (1 Kings 2.8) is to be taken as the initials of the five insulting names hurled at David by Shimei; he called him “adulterer” (‘:=*1«13), Moabite ('D = ’DN1D), “murderer” ('-1-rrcn; according to others, yt£H “wicked”), “leper” (’X-yiTi), and “abomination” (’n_ rDyin). See Shabbat 105a; Tehillim 3, 36; BaR 9.7; ps.-Jerome, 1 Kings, loc. cit. Comp. Ginzberg, ibid., 72. On the view that David was punished with leprosy for committing adultery, comp, also vol. II, p. 190, where it is said that Reuben was punished in the same manner for a similar sin, and see further vol. VI, p. 305, top; Index, s. v. ‘Leprosy’. Comp, also Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 9, 4. 97 Niddah 24b; BaR 9.24. 98 Tosefta Sotah 3.16; Nazir 4a; BaR 9.24; Shemuel 27 (here two conflicting views are also given, according to one Absalom clipped his hair monthly; according to the other, once a year only); Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 8.5; Vulgate and ps.-Jerome on 2 Sam. 14.26. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 54. 99 Tan. B. I, 155-156; BaR 9, 24 (the elders who joined Absalom soon found out his true character); Yerushalmi Sotah 1, 17b. Comp, also Tehillim 55, 292, which reads: The prayers of the members of the Synedrion for David had the effect that the counsel given by Ahitophel was not followed by Absalom. Comp. vol. IV, p. 181. 100 Berakot 7b; Tehillin 3, 34. Owing to an incorrect reading in Tehillim, loc. cit. (□5? instead of ^2£N), Zohar, I, 151b, maintains that David felt some consolation in the fact that the leaders of the people remained faithful to him, and did not join Absalom; comp, the preceding note. In the Book of Psalms the psalm which David composed “when he fled from Absalom ” follows the one concerning Gog and Magog (the “nations in uproar against God and the Messiah;” comp. Ps. 2 and 3). The reason is that if one should say: “ How is it possible that the 266 David [101-107 slave should rebel against his master?”, he will receive the answer: “Behold, it even happened that the son rebelled against his father.” See Berakot 10a. 101 Sanhedrin 107a; DR 4.4; Zohar III, 24a; EZ 3, 177; ps.Jerome, 2 Sam. 15.25. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 53-54. David served an idol because he wished to make his fate appear just in the eyes of men, who would say: “Behold, he merited his punishment.” That David on this occasion had his head covered and went barefoot (2 Sam. 16.30) was due to the fact that the Synedrion excommunicated him (on account of his sin with Bath-sheba?), and one who is excommunicated is forbidden to put on shoes or to have his head uncovered. The ban was removed from him by his master Ira. Comp. Shemuel 8, 70; BaR 3.2; Zohar II, 107b. See also Mo‘ed Katan 15a. 103 Tehillim 2, 34-36, where also the different kinds of food sent by David’s friends (2 Sam. 17.28-29) are described in detail. 103 Shabbat 152a, which reads: Barzillai had led a lascivious life, and having spent his strength, he could not enjoy life any more when he became old; comp. 2 Sam. 19.36. In Tehillim 2, 35-36 it is stated that David had feared these very men who came to his assistance. Barzillai was a proselyte; see Jerushalmi Kiddushin 4.65b. 104 Sotah 10b; BaR 9.24; PRE 53. Absalom’s miserable end is often referred to in the Haggadah to illustrate the rule that God “ punishes measure for measure,” and it is shown in detail how Absalom’s fate corresponded to his sins. Comp. Sotah, Mishnah 1.8; Tosefta 3.16-17; Yerushalmi 1, 17b; Babli, and BaR, loc. cit.; Mekilta Shirah 6, 40a. 105 Sanhedrin 103b. Comp. Yoma 66b, and note 100 on vol. IV, p. 75. 106 Ma’aseh de Rabbi Joshua b. Levi in BHM II, 50-51. 107 Sotah 10b. This passage records also the different view that David’s prayer brought Absalom into paradise. David, however, tvas punished for his great love for his wicked son, and eight of his sons (Bath-Sheba’s first child, Amnon, Absalom, Adonijah, and four others; comp. vol. IV, p. 113) died a premature death, corresponding to the eight times he cried out in agony: “My son”, about the wicked Absalom (2 Sam. 19.1 and 5). Eight rulers of the Davidic dynasty likewise died a violent death. These are: Joram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoash, Amaziah, Amon, Josiah, and Jehoiakim. See the quotation, from an unknown Midrash, in Hasidim 107; comp, also vol. IV, p. 72. As to Jehoiakim ’s violent death, see vol. IV, p. 285. The death of 267 io8-iii] The Legends of the Jews David 's sons and descendants was also a punishment for his having kept himself in a place of safety, while his army fought against Absalom. Comp. 2 Sam. 18.3, seq. See further vol. IV, p. 72. David’s great love for Absalom may be judged from the way he acted towards the Ethiopian and Ahimaaz. The former who informed him of Absalom’s death he had executed, and the latter, who attempted to keep it a secret for a time, was appointed to a high office. Comp. PK 32, 196a196b; see also PRE 53. 108 Sotah 11a. This passage records also the different opinion that Absalom left sons, but that they were so insignificant that Scripture (2 Sam. 18.18) speaks of them as though he died childless. Ps.Jerome, 2 Sam., loc. tit., mentions both views in a somewhat confused manner. Comp. Ginzberg, Haggadah bei den Kirchenv., 60-61, where attention is drawn to Targum 2 Sam., loc. tit., which paraphrases p of the text by KD’p"D: Absalom had children, but they died at an early age. In view of 2 Chron. 11.21 there can be no doubt that Absalom had a daughter, and accordingly D’23 in the sources quoted is to be taken literally “sons”. 109 By his lack of precaution he caused Saul’s suspicion against the priests of Nob; comp, also vol. IV, pp. 257-258. Against this view, see Sanhedrin 104a; ER 12, 60. Comp, also note 92 on vol. IV, p. 72. 110 Sanhedrin 95a; BR 59.11; Tan. B. I, 150-151; Tan. Wa-Yeze (according to the Tanhumas, Joab and Abishai hastened to David’s assistance from the land of the Ammonites; comp., however, Tehillim, 60, 305); Hullin 91b; Tehillim 18, 157-159; BHM IV, 140-141; Hibbur Ma’as. No. 5; Likkutim, I, 21b-22b; Neweh Shalom 55-56; Zohar Ruth 1.14. Comp, also Gaster Exempla, 111-113 which offers some interesting variants to our texts of Sanhedrin. On the withering of the wreath as a sign of death, see note 20 on vol. II, p. 236. On the Persian elements in this legend see R. E. J. II, 300, and XVII, 202, seq. On the dove as Israel’s symbol, see Berakot 53b; Shir 2.14 and 4. 1; 4 Ezra 5.26; ps. -Philo, 40; 39.5. On David’s saddle-beast, see vol. IV, p. 125. On the miracle of the contraction of the earth, see note 287 on vol. I, p. 294. On Orpha the mother of the giants, see vol. IV, pp. 31 and 85. As to the saying, “ Let thy children sell wax”, see note 87. 1,1 BR 25.3. Comp. vol. I, pp. 220-221, and vol IV, p. 30. David caused the famine by bestowing all the priestly gifts on one person, his master Ira, instead of distributing them among severa lpriests; ‘ Erubin 63a. On Ira, see also note 78 beginning, according to which he 268 David [112-115 was not a priest. This famine was so grievous that the people were forced to eat bitter vetches (nJ’BHD ervilia; comp. Low, Erve und Wicke, in Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie XXX) which is ordinarily used only as fodder. David then ordained that the priestly gifts should be set aside from vetches, since in case of necessity it can be used as food for men; Yerushalmi Hallah 4, 60b; ER 13,67. 112 Yerushalmi Ta'anit 3, 66c, and Kiddushin 4, 65b-65c; Yebamot 78b; PRE 17 ; BaR 8.4.

The last-named source contains a glowing praise of the proselytes; see the similar remarks of the Rabbis concerning proselytes in Tan. B. I, 63, and ShR 19.4. As to the sins which keep back the rain, see Ta'anit 7b; Mishle 25, 97-98; Yelammedenu in Yalkut I, 771; quotation from Yerushalmi (?) in Sabba', Bereshit, 5a (not in our texts); ps. -Philo, 45; 44 (end), which reads: Therefore if they shall speak lies before Me, I will command the heaven and it shall defraud them of rain. This is based on a midrashic interpretation of Prov. 25.14. Comp. Ta'anit and Midrash Mishle, loc. cit. See also Ta'anit 10b, which reads: Just as the Babylonians are deceptive, even so are the clouds of their country. 113 PRE 17; BaR 8.4. See also Shemuel 28, 132-133, and the references cited in the preceding note. On the piety of Saul, “Samuel 's companion in paradise”, see vol. IV, pp. 71 and 72. According to ps.-Philo, 57; 62.2, the spirit rested on Saul, and he prophesied, saying: “Why art thou deceived, O Saul? Whom dost thou persecute in vain? The time of thy kingdom is at an end. Go to thy place, for thou shalt die, and David shall reign. Shalt not thou and thy sons (read filios tuos, instead of filius tuus ) die together? And then shall the kingdom of David appear.” And the spirit departed from Saul, and he knew not what he had prophesied. 1 1 * Yerushalmi Kiddushin 4, 65c, and Ta'anit 3, 66c; Shemuel 28.134; Tehillim 1, 100; ShR 39.16; Yebamot 78b-79a; BaR 8.4; WR 22.6; Tan. B. IV, 23. In the last four sources the view is expressed that Saul did not kill any of the Gibeonites; but the destruction of Nob, the city of the priests, caused great misery to their servants, the Gibeonites, and this was accounted to Saul as though he had brought about their death. On the Gibeonites, see also vol. IV, p. 10. On the three qualities God gave to Israel, see also PRK 33b; Abot 4.19; John 8. 39-44; note 240 on vol. Ill, p. 107. 115 Yerushalmi Kiddushin 65c; Yebamot 79a; Shemuel 28, 133; BaR 8.4. Comp, note 28 on vol. IV, 8; vol. Ill, p. 413; vol. IV, p. 146. 269 116-123] The Legends of the Jews 1 1 6 Berakot 4a. Comp, further references in the preceding note, and vol. IV, p. 76. 117 Yebamot 79a; Yerushalmi Kiddushin 65c; BaR 8.4; Shemuel 28, 134; comp. vol. IV, p. 444. According to Yebamot 76a, no proselytes were admitted into the Jewish fold during the time of David and Solomon, because there was good reason to suspect the sincerity and religious convictions of those who wished to become Jews. 118 Ruth Z., 51; PR 6, 26a. Comp. vo). IV, pp. 156-157. 119 PR 11, 43b-44a; Shemuel 30, 136. David’s sin consisted not so much in taking the census, but in taking it without making “every man give a ransom for his soul unto the Lord”, half a shekel for an offering, as God had commanded Moses. See Exod. 30.11, seq. God made David forget this law as a punishment for using unbecoming words in speaking of God as the one who had “stirred up” Sau Jagainst him (1 Sam. 26.18); see Berakot 62b. On the view that David forgot a commandment of the Torah, see vol. Ill, pp. 194, 395; vol. IV, p. 96. Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 13.1, is likewise of the opinion that David’s sin consisted in not paying half a shekel for each man that was numbered, whereas according to PK 2, 18b, and BaR 2.17, he sinned in taking the census without having any valid reason for doing so. On the idolatrous Danites, see vol. Ill, p. 57 and Index, s. v. “ Danites”. 120 PK 2, 18b; PR 11, 43b; Shemuel 30, 137; ps. -Jerome, 2 Sam. 24.9. The contradiction between Sam., loc. cit., and 1 Chron. 21.5 disappears if we assume that the number given in the first passage is not the complete one. 121 PR 11, 44b; Targum 1 Chron. 21.13; ER 7, 39; Tehillim 17, 126; Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 13.2. 122 Opinions are unanimous that the plague lasted only a few hours, but they differ as to the exact number; comp. Berakot 62b; PR 11, 44b; Tehillim 17, 126-127; Shemuel 30, 137-138; Targum, Peshitta, and ps. -Jerome on 2 Sam. 24.15. Comp, also Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 13.3, and the following note. 123 Tehillim 18, 126; Shemuel 30, 38; Berakot 62b; Targum 1 Chron. 21.15. A detailed description of the plague is given by Josephus Antiqui., VII, 13.3. A widespread legend states that one hundred youths died daily during the plague (but comp, the preceding note; on the one hundred deaths, see note 12) , whereupon David instituted that one hunderd benedictions should be recited in the daily prayers (for the oldest enumeration of the one hundred benedictions, see Ginzberg, P70 David [124-126 Geonica II, 116-117), The plague ceased as soon as this change in the liturgy was introduced. See BaR 18.21; Eshkol of R. Abraham b. Isaac 1.56 (geonic source); Orehot Hayyitn 1,4c; Kad ha-Kemah nma 36b; Mahzor Vitry 3, and the parallel passages given by Hurwitz, ad loc. The plague was a punishment for Israel ’s lack of enthusiasm for the building of the Temple; Tehillim and Shemuel, loc. cit. Abishai, though distinguished for his piety and learning, was not free from the sin of having been an accomplice of his brother Joab in the killing of Abner. To indicate his sin, Scripture (2 Sam. 10.10) spells his name defectively. See the Jewish tradition in ps. -Jerome, ad loc., and Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 50-51. Comp, also note 267 on vol. I, p. 290. 124 ER 7, 39; Aggadat Bereshit 38.77 (comp. Buber, note 9). Against this, see ShR 15.20, which reads: The “board of intercalaion ” at the time of Solomon consisted of ten members, three of whom were Solomon, Nathan the prophet, and Gad the seer. The angel who caused the death of so many men in Israel was nevertheless an “angel of mercy’’; he hoped that the dreadful calamity brought upon Israel would pacify God’s anger kindled against them. This angel pleaded with God for Israel, and entreated Him that He should remember His covenant with the patriarchs and be merciful to Israel. God looked at the terrestrial sanctuary, the place where Isaac was tied to be sacrificed (see vol. I, p. 284), and at the celestial sanctuary, where the souls of the pious are (vol. I, p. 9) and where Jacob’s image is engraved (see vol. Ill, p. 351), and He caused the plague to cease. See Aggadat Bereshit, loc. cit., and 30, 61; Berakot 62b; Targum 1 Chron. 21.15. 126 Shabbat 30a-30b; Ruth R. 1.17; Koheleth 5.10. As to the conception that God never reveals to man the time of his death, see also Pesahim 54b (top), PRK 35b, and 4 Ezra 5.25. God said to David: “ I delight more in thy acts of justice than in the multitude of sacrifices brought by Solomon; Yerushalmi Berakot 2, 4b, and Rosh ha-Shanah 1, 56b; Makkot 10a. As to the cnception that the angel of death has no power over those who are occupied with the study of the Torah, see also Mo'ed Katan 28a; Baba Mezi'a 86a; vol. Ill, p. 439; vol. IV, p. 239. 126 Ruth R. 1.17; Yerushalmi Bezah 2, 61b. In the last source it is presuposed that David died on a week-day. David, it is stated there, died on the feast of Pentecost, and as all Israel was in a state of mourning, the festive offerings were brought on the following day. Comp, also Koheleth 5.10. 271 127-129] The Legends of the Jews 127 Ruth R. 1.17. For the contrary view, see Shabbat 30b; Kohelet 5.10, where it is said that the removal of the corpse was accomplished without any miracle. Comp, also Mirkhond, 72 on the birds sheltering the crowds from the sun at the funeral of David. 188 BHM V, 167-168, and VI, 25-26; Or Zarua I, 39a, and II, 18b. As early an authority as R. Akiba (Sanhedrin 38b, and parallel passages) speaks of the throne upon which David will sit on the Day of J udgment. Comp. vol. V, 418-419. See also ER 18, 89-90, where it is said that David will sit at God 's right hand on the Day of Judgment.

There can be no doubt that these legends about David are connected with the view that he is the promised Messiah; see Sanhedrin 98a; Rosh ha-Shanah 25a which reads: David, the king of Israel, lives for ever; Tehillim 5, 52; 57, 298; 75, 340; 2 ARN 45, 125; Shiloh Hadashah 2 (which reads: David is the first and the last of the Jewish rulers) ; Zohar I 82b; III, 84a. The last passage is a kabbalistic rendering of the statement (Sanhedrin 98b) that in the days to come God will raise “another David ” to be the Messiah, whose viceroy will be the first David. See also Mishle 19, 87, where David is given as one of the names of the Messiah. One of David ’s distinctions which he shares with the three patriarchs, and Moses, Aaron, Miriam, and Benjamin is that his corpse was not touched by worms; Baba Batra 17a; Tehillim 119, 492; Derek Erez Z., I (end). Comp, also Acts 13.36. Baba Batra, loc. cit., states that David is one of the few over whom the evil inclination had no power; comp, note 276 on vol. I, p. 292. Somewhat different is the statement of Yerushalmi Sotah 5, 20c: Abraham turned the evil inclination into the good inclination, but David was unable to do that, and he therefore slew the evil inclination. This wishes to convey that David (as repentance for his sin with Bath-sheba) denied himself the pleasures which are permitted by the law, and lived like an ascetic, whereas Abraham served God in enjoying life. On David’s ascetic life, comp, the remark in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2, 20a, with regard to 2 Sam. 20.30. The world was created for the sake of David; Sanhedrin 98b, where Moses and the Messiah are regarded by some authorities as those for whose sake the world was created. See the similar statement in Berakot 61b, which reads: The world was created only for the very pious or for the extremely wicked; for the former the world to come, and this world for the latter. See note 8, end, on vol. I, p. 50. 129 BHM V, 45-46, and VI, 47 (in this passage David is said to be on a horse of fire), which is based on older sources; see Pesahim 119b; Yoma 76a; Tehillim 23, 202; Nispahim 32-33. In ShR 25.8 Michael 272 David [130-133 is first requested to say the blessing; but with "angelic” modesty passes on this honor to Gabriel, who likewise refuses the honor, and asks the patriarchs to say the blessing. They in turn ask Moses and Aaron, who pass on the honor to the elders, and the latter find David to be the one deserving of this great distinction. Comp, however, vol. VI, p. 167. In the world to come there will be no company of righteous of which David will not be a member; Shemuel 19, 104. On the throne of David see the preceeding note, and Index, s. v. “Thrones of the Righteous.” 130 BHM V, 46; Nispahim 33. Comp, also Visio Pauli 29. 131 Sanhedrin 21a ; BR 82.7 ; BaR 4.8; Shemuel 11, 79, and 22.111 ; Tehillim 59, 303; Tosefta-Targum and ps. -Jerome on 2 Sam. 3.5. All these sources agree on the identity of Eglah and Michal, but they differ as to the reason why the designation "little calf” was given to Michal; comp. Ginzberg, Haggadah bet den Kirchenv., 41-42. According to an unknown Midrash quoted by Kimhi, 2 Sam. 21.10, David also married (took as concubine ?) Rizpah, whom he greatly admired for the reverence and devotion she displayed for Saul ’s unlucky descendants; see Sam., loc. cit. Comp, also Yerushalmi Yebamot 3, 3d, which reads: David married Rizpah. On Rizpah 's noble deeds, see also Yerushalmi Kiddushin 4, 65c, and BaR 8.4. 132 Megillah 15a. This passage contains different views as to who were the most beautiful women. The unanimous opinion seems to be that there were only four women of perfect beauty, but there is no agreement on their identification. Sarah, Rachel, and Abigail are three of the undisputed beauties. As to the fourth, Esther, Vashti, Jael, and Michal are the competitors. Comp, also note 24 on vol. I, p. 60. 1 3 3 Sanhedrin 19b-20a. As to the legality of David’s marriage with Michal, or rather Michal ’s second marriage to Palti, see note 80 on vol. IV, p. 72, and note 105 on vol. IV, p. 76. Palti, Michal ’s second husband, is highly praised for his control of his passions; see Sanhedrin, loc. cit., and many other places; note 85 on vol. IV, p. 37. Obeying Saul’s command, he went through the ceremony of marriage with Michal, and as far as the outside world was concerned, they lived as a married couple; but he never came near her, knowing that she was David's lawful wife. He placed a sword between her and himself, saying: “The one who will dare to do it (i. e., have conjugal relations) will be slain with this sword.” On the expression 31113 IpT .... 31H pyi, comp, also Shabbat 17a; Yebamot 77a. Accordingly there is not the slightest reason to assume, with Heller, R.E.J. XLIX, 190, that this legend 273 134-135] The Legends of the Jews is dependent on Indian sources. Comp, also Gaster, Exempla 242, col. 2. On the view that God was the witness to Palti’s continence (hence he is called Paltiel), see PRE 39; WR 23.10; ps. -Jerome 1 Sam. 25.44; note 85, on vol. IV, p. 37; Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv., 33-35 and 64. On the children of Merab, see Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 4.3, and ps. -Jerome, 2 Sam. 21.8. The latter shares the views of the Rabbis that Michal brought up her sister’s orphaned children, and this is why Scripture speaks of Michal as being their mother. As to the means employed by Michal to save David (1 Sam. 19, seq.) , see Shemuel 22, 1 10-11 1 ; Tehillim 59, 303 ; Josephus , Antiqui., VI, 11.4. According to MHG I, 337, Michal boldly declared to her father that she enabled David to escape because she was convinced of his innocence. 1 3 4 Mekilta Bo 17, 21; ‘Erubin 96a; Yerushalmi Berakot 2, 4c; PR 22, 112b. With the exception of ‘Erubin, loc. tit., Michal is described in these sources as “the daughter of Cush”, which is another name for Saul, who was called Cush, “Ethiopian” (comp. Ps. 7.1), antiphrastically. Saul was distinguished for his beauty as the Ethiopian for his (dark) color; see Sifre N., 99; Sifre Z., 204 (here it is said: Distinguished for his looks and pious deeds); Mo‘ed Katan 16b; Tehillim 7, 69, 70, 71-72 (this passage gives a different explanation of this designation of Cush); 2 ARN 43, 12; Targum and Ibn Ezra on Ps. 7.1. The legend about Michal using phylacteries is of midrashic origin. The last section of Prov. is said by the Haggadah to refer to the twentytwo pious women mentioned in the Bible (comp. MHG I, 344, seq.; Mishle 31; note 271 on vol. I, p. 291), each of the twenty two verses of this section containing the praise of each of these pious women. It was therefore quite natural for the Haggadah to find in verse 25 an allusion to Michal, of whom one might have rightly said : “And she rejoices at the last day” (this is the literal translation of the Hebrew), as it was in her very last day that she had the joy of motherhood (comp. vol. IV, p. 117). The first half of this verse reads: “Strength and dignity are her clothing”. Now since in the Haggadah “strength” iy is equivalent to “phylacteries” (comp. Berakot 6a), it follows that the woman whose praise is sung in this verse ( i . e., Michal) is lauded for having clothed herself with phylacteries. It should also be mentioned that t£Ql^ 1’^BD, which literally means “clothing oneself with phylacteries”, is the technical expression in Palestinian sources for putting on phylacteries; comp. Yerush. Berakot 2, 4c. ,JS Sanhedrin 21a. The narrative given in 2 Sam. 4.20, seq., 274 David 136-141] was adorned with many legends by the Haggadah; comp. Yerushalmi Sukkah 5, 55c, and Sanhedrin 2, 20b; Shemuel 25, 124; BaR 4.20. The legend about Obed Edom in the last-named source is very old, see Berakot 63b-64a; Yerushalmi Yebamot 4.6b; 2 ARN 11, 27; Shir 2.5; ps.-Jerome, 2 Sam. 6.11. The reward of this pious Levite, who lit the lamp twice a day before the ark which had been placed in his house, consisted in his having been blessed with many children. The women in his house gave birth after a pregnancy of two months only, and bore six children at one time. Israel became now convinced that the ark, far from bringing misfortune, as they thought, upon those who are near it, was a source of blessing and good fortune. It is true the people at Beth-Shemesh (see vol. IV, p. 63) and Uzza (see vol. IV, pp. 95-96) were punished when they came near to the ark, but this was on account of not having shown due reverence to the holy ark. See Mekilta Wa-Yassa‘ 6, 52a— 52b. On Obed-Edom see also Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 4.20. 136 Megillah 15a; Seder ‘Olam 21. See also Mishnah Sanhedrin 2, 4, where Abigail is described as the highest ideal of the pious woman i3 7 Megillah 14b; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2, 20b, and 4, 22b; Shemuel 23, 116-117; Tehillim 53, 287-288. The expression mis1? in the three first-named sources is to be taken literally. On the conception of the “bright light” emanating from the body of persons (men as well as women) distinguished for their beauty, comp. Berakot 5b and Ketubot 65a. For further details concerning Nabal, see Tehillim, loc. cit., and 14, 113; vol. IV, p. 70. On Abigail’s beauty, see note 132, and comp, further Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 13.6 and 8, who has many embellishments of this biblical story about her and Nabal her husband. 138 BHM III, 136. 139 Sanhedrin 21b; comp. vol. IV, p. 258. On the similarity of Adonijah ’s and Absalom ’s characters which made both act in like manner, see Baba Batra 109b; Tehillim 2, 28; ps.-Jerome, 1 Kings 1.6. 14° Yelammedenu in Yalkut II, 141, and in ‘ Aruk, s. v. Wa-Yekullu in Likkutim, II, 16a-17a; comp, also VI, 82b-83a; Tan. Toledot 6; Targum I Chron. 3.1. On the similar legend concerning the striking likeness of Isaac to Abraham, see vol. I, p. 262. 1 Berakot 4a (the real name of this son of David’s was Daniel); ps.-Jerome, 1 Chron. 3.1. This author remarks (2 Sam. 20.26) with reference to □’iro in 2 Sam. 8.19 that some of David’s sons were the masters of their brothers; but comp. Targum, ad loc.; Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 5.4 and note 78, beginning. 275 142-146] The Legends of the Jews ms Derek Erez Zuta 1 (end), and parallel passages cited by Taw rogi. Comp. Index, s. v. “Paradise, Entering Alive into.” 1 4 3 Sanhedrin 21b; Kiddushin 76b; ps. -Jerome 2 Sam. 13, 37; comp. vol. IV, p. 106. To prevent such misdeeds as the one committed by Ammon, David and his Synedrion ordained that even an unmarried woman must not be alone with a man; though the biblical law prohibits only a married woman to be alone with a man. See Sanhedrin 21a21b and Excursus II, Reuben. The description of David’s vanguard in rabbinic sources reminds one of that given by Josephus, Antiqui., VIII, 7.3, of Solomon’s guard. mi Josephus, Antiqui., VII, 15.3. This statement of Josephus is quoted by Yahya in Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah, 16a (bottom; headed ’nb’tyn iTTIN), with the following additions. Herod after having abstracted large sums from the cave where David’s tomb was located, wished to enter the tomb itself, but fearing that some misfortune might befall him, ordered two young men to try it first. They were, however, destroyed by a fire that went forth from the tomb, and Herod who stood outside, watching them, fled for his life. To make atonement for the attempted sacrilege, Herod erected a beautiful monument over the tomb; nevertheless from that time on none of Herod’s undertakings succeeded. Comp, also R. Benjamin of Tudela, 35 and Nallino, Tomba di Davide. 1 5 Sha'are Yerushalayim 47a-47b. The beadle of the synagogue (usually one of the poorest men of the congregation) as the most worthy member of the community, is also found in the legend given in vol. I, p. 307. 1 4 6 Sha‘ are Yerushalayim 47b. Until David ’s time man ’s average span of life was much longer than in later generations. He died at the age of seventy years, and this came to be considered a good age; Yebamot 64b. — To David ’s heroic deeds we must add his victory over Lahmi, the brother of Goliath, both of whom he slew in one day; see Targum, Kimhi, and ps.-Rashi on 1 Chron. 20.5, as well as Targum 2 Sam. 21.19, and note, 78, toward the beginning. J7<5