Rabbinic Narrative: A Documentary Perspective - Volume Two: Forms, Types and Distribution of Narratives in Sifra, Sifre to Numbers, and Sifre to Deuteronomy ... (The Brill Reference Library of Judaism, 15)

RABBINIC NARRATIVE: A DOCUMENTARY PERSPECTIVE VOLUME II

THE BRILL REFERENCE LIBRARY OF JUDAISM Editors J. NEUSNER (Bard College) — H. BASSER (Queens University) A.J. AVERY-PECK (College of the Holy Cross) — Wm.S. GREEN (University of Rochester) — G. STEMBERGER (University of Vienna) — I. GRUENWALD (Tel Aviv University) — M. GRUBER (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev) G.G. PORTON (University of Illinois) — J. FAUR (Bar Ilan University)

VOLUME 15

RABBINIC NARRATIVE: A DOCUMENTARY PERSPECTIVE Volume Two: Forms, Types and Distribution of Narratives in Sifra, Sifré to Numbers, and Sifré to Deuteronomy BY

JACOB NEUSNER

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2003

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Neusner, Jacob, 1932Rabbinic narrative : a documentary perspective / by Jacob Neusner v. cm.—(The Brill reference library of Judaism, ISSN 1566-1237 ; v. 15) Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: v. 1 Forms, types, and distribution of narratives in the Mishnah, Tractate Abot, and the Tosefta—v. 2. Forms, types, and distribution of narratives in Sifra, Sifré to Numbers, and Sifré to Deuteronomy. v. 3. Forms, type, and distribution of narratives in Song of Songs Rabbah and Lamentations Rabbah and a reprise of Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan Text A v. 4. The precedent and the parable in diachronic view. ISBN 90-04-13023-3 (v. 1. alk. paper)— ISBN 90-04-13034-9 (v. 2. alk. paper)— ISBN 90-04-13035-7 (v. 3. alk. paper)— ISBN 90-04-13036-5 (v. 4. alk. paper) 1. Mishnah—Criticism, Narrative. 2. Narration in rabbinical literature. 3. Rabbinical literature— History and criticism. 4. Midrash—History and criticism. 5. Parables in rabbinical literature. I. Title II. Series. BM496.9 .N37 N48 2003 296.1/2066 dc21 2003050220 CIP

ISSN 1566-1237 ISBN 90 04 13034 9

© Copyright 2003 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

preface

v

CONTENTS Preface ...........................................................................................

ix

Introduction .................................................................................. I. What, exactly, Do I Mean by “Narrative”? .................. II. Pseudo-narrative ............................................................ III. What Questions Do I Address to the Narrative Compositions? ............................................................... IV. What Do I Mean by Distinguishing Non-Documentary from Documentary Writing? ................................. V. What Is at Stake? ........................................................... VI. A Special Problem in Sifré to Numbers and Sifré to Deuteronomy .................................................................

1 1 5 10 12 13 15

PART ONE

NARRATIVES IN SIFRA FORMS, TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Sifra 1-33: Parashat Vayyiqra Dibura Denedabah ................ Sifra 34-69: Parashat Vayyiqra Dibura Dehobah ................. Sifra 70-98: Parashat Sav ....................................................... Sifra 99-121: Parashat Shemini ............................................. Sifra 122-126: Parashat Tazria .............................................. Sifra 127-147: Parashat Negaim ............................................ Sifra 148-159: Parashat Mesora ............................................. Sifra 160-173: Parashat Zabim .............................................. Sifra 174-194: Parashat Aharé Mot ....................................... Sifra 195-210: Parashat Qedoshim ........................................ Sifra 211-244: Parashat Emor ................................................ Sifra 245-259: Parashat Behar ............................................... Sifra 260-277: Parashat Behuqotai ........................................ Narratives in Sifra .................................................................. i. The Authentic Narrative .................................................. ii. The Mashal ........................................................................ a. The Halakhic Parable .................................................

21 24 26 28 32 35 36 38 39 41 42 48 49 57 58 58 61

vi

contents b. The Exegetical Parable ............................................... iii. The Ma#aseh ..................................................................... iv. Not Classified .................................................................... v. Sifra’s Narratives in Canonical Context ..........................

63 67 71 73

PART TWO

NARRATIVES IN SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS FORMS, TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Sifré to Numbers 1-7. Numbers 5:1-14 ................................. Sifré to Numbers 8-21. Numbers 5:11-31 ............................. Sifré to Numbers 22-38. Numbers 6:1-9:14 .......................... Sifré to Numbers 39-58. Numbers 6:22-7:89 ........................ Sifré to Numbers 59-71. Numbers 8:1-9:14 .......................... Sifré to Numbers 72-84. Numbers 10:1-10 ........................... Sifré to Numbers 85-98. Numbers 11:1-23 ........................... Sifré to Numbers 99-106. Numbers 12:1-16 ......................... Sifré to Numbers 107-115. Numbers 15:1-41 ....................... Sifré to Numbers 116-122. Numbers 18:1-32 ....................... Sifré to Numbers 123-130. Numbers 19:1-22 ....................... Sifré to Numbers 131. Numbers 25:1-16 .............................. Sifré to Numbers 132-152. Numbers 26:52-29:40 ................ Sifré to Numbers 153-158. Numbers 30:1-16 ....................... Sifré to Numbers 159-161. Numbers 35:9-35:34 .................. Narratives in Sifré to Numbers .............................................. i. The Authentic Narrative .................................................. ii. The Mashal ........................................................................ a. The Halakhic Parable .................................................. b. The Exegetical Parable ................................................ iii. The Ma#aseh ..................................................................... iv. Not Classified .................................................................... v. Sifré Numbers’ Narratives in Canonical Context ...........

79 80 81 83 84 85 89 95 97 102 105 106 112 118 120 122 124 125 126 127 140 140 141

PART THREE

NARRATIVES IN SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY FORMS, TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION 31. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Debarim. 1-25 .................... 147 32. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Vaethanan. 26-36 ............... 154 33. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Eqeb. 37-52 ........................ 157

contents 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Re"eh. 53-143 ..................... Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Shofetim. 144-210 .............. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Ki Tese. 211-296 ................ Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Ki Tabo. 297-303 ............... Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Nesabim. 304-305 .............. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Ha"azinu. 306-341 .............. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Vezot Habberakhah. 342-357 ................................................................................... 41. Narratives in Sifré to Deuteronomy ....................................... i. The Authentic Narrative .................................................. ii. The Mashal ........................................................................ a. The Halakhic Parable .................................................. b. The Exegetical Parable ................................................ c. The Non-Exegetical Parable ........................................ iii. The Ma#aseh ..................................................................... iv. Not Classified .................................................................... v. Sifré to Deuteronomy’s Narratives in Canonical Context .............................................................................

vii

167 170 171 172 173 178 189 202 203 206 206 206 228 229 234 234

Appendix: Information without Knowledge. Clemens Thoma on the Parable ............................................................................... 237 Index of Subjects .......................................................................... 245 Index of Ancient Sources ............................................................. 248

This page intentionally left blank

contents

ix

PREFACE Narratives constitute a coherent sector of Rabbinic documentary writing, with their own definitive traits, inductively discerned. These indicative traits of narrative characterize one document, and not another, e.g. narratives in the Tosefta not the Mishnah, or more commonly, one group of documents, and not some other, e.g., the Mishnah and the Tosefta but not Sifra or the two Sifrés. That is the point of this study,1 which carries out my second exercise in the detailed, systematic classification, by documents, of Rabbinic narrative writing. For Sifra and the two Sifrés this research-report supplies these facts: (1) What are the preferred types and forms of Rabbinic narrative? (2) How are these distributed across the canonical documents of the formative age, the first six centuries C.E.? (3) Do the several canonical documents or groups of documents exhibit each its particular preferences for types and forms of narratives? An anomaly in the documentary program characteristic of the canonical writings explains why the answers matter. The rule is that the respective Rabbinic compilations from the Mishnah through the Bavli form coherent documents, each distinguished from all others by its congeries of indicative traits of rhetoric, logic, and topic.2 Consequently, if we were handed a coherent piece of unattributed canonical writing of an exegetical, analytical, or expository character—indeed of any type of writing but narrative—we should have solid grounds on which to assign that writing to a particular document, whether the Mishnah,3 whether Song of Songs Rabbah. 1 Continuing Rabbinic Narrative: A Documentary Perspective. Volume One. Forms, Types, and Distribution of Narratives in the Mishnah, Tractate Abot, and the Tosefta. Leiden, 2003: Brill. The Brill Reference Library of Judaism. 2 These traits are defined, document by document, in my Introduction to Rabbinic Literature. N.Y., 1994: Doubleday. The sole exception to the rule is Mekhilta attributed to R. Ishmael, where the sub-divisions of the document, the tractates, have to be differentiated from one another. 3 With the qualification that the Tosefta and the Mishnah overlap.

x

preface

But when it comes to narrative writing, matters are not so clear. In Writing without Boundaries4 I demonstrate for a sample of eight documents, that writing roughly classified as narrative ignores the otherwise-governing documentary indicators. The unique congeries of rhetoric, logic, and topic that otherwise dictate the character of the writing in that document and in no other simply do not govern narrative writing of that same document.5 Consequently, if we were handed a narrative without indication as to its source, we presently have only a limited6 basis on which to assign it to one document and not to some other, e.g., to the Mishnah and not to Song of Songs Rabbah. Now therefore I ask the documents to reveal their preferences, respectively, as to narrative types and their functions. This we may find out by describing and classifying the narratives contained in each document in sequence. Do the documents provide a clear account of the kinds of narrative (1) they require to accomplish their goals— 4 Texts without Boundaries. Protocols of Non-Documentary Writing in the Rabbinic Canon, Lanham MD, 2002: University Press of America. Studies in Judaism series. Volume One. The Mishnah, Tractate Abot, and the Tosefta, Volume Two. Sifra and Sifré to Numbers; Texts without Boundaries. Protocols of Non-Documentary Writing in the Rabbinic Canon, Volume Three. Sifré to Deuteronomy and Mekhilta Attributed to R. Ishmael. Volume Four. Leviticus Rabbah. 5 That is not to ignore the appearance in more than a single document of some compositions and even composites. First, the volume of peripatetic writing in the aggregate is trivial, as I show in Extra- and Non-Documentary Writing in the Canon of Formative Judaism. II. Paltry Parallels. The Negligible Proportion and Peripheral Role of FreeStanding Compositions in Rabbinic Documents. Binghamton 2001: Global Publications. Academic Studies in the History of Judaism Series. Second, and more important, in many, many instances in which a composition or composite or even entire chapter appears in two or more documents, we are able by appeal to the characteristic traits of each document to discern to which of the two documents the shared pericope is primary, and to which it is secondary. For example, a passage of the Mishnah cited in Leviticus Rabbah never conforms to the indicative traits of Leviticus Rabbah and always conforms to those of the rest of the Mishnah. More to the point (and more subtly), a protracted passage, an entire parashah, that occurs both in Leviticus Rabbah and Pesiqta deRab Kahana can be shown to be primary to Leviticus Rabbah (conforming to its paramount documentary traits) and secondary to Pesiqta deRab Kahana (not conforming to the otherwise-indicative traits of Pesiqta deRab Kahana). This I show in From Tradition to Imitation. The Plan and Program of Pesiqta deRab Kahana and Pesiqta Rabbati. Atlanta, 1987: Scholars Press for Brown Judaic Studies. 6 Because of the results set forth in Volume I and here, we can now, in fact, define the narrative protocols that govern in the Mishnah and the Tosefta, Sifra and the two Sifrés. These protocols signal probabilities: a ma#aseh/case with certain attributes is very likely to derive from the Mishnah, not Sifré to Deuteronomy, and so on; so too for the Mashal/parable.

preface

xi

and also (2) those not required? This we may discover by comparing and contrasting the repertoire of types of narratives of one document with that of another document, whether kindred (Mishnah/Tosefta) or distinct (Mishnah, Song of Songs Rabbah). Why do the answers matter for the study of Rabbinic Judaism? At this time we do not know how Rabbinic narratives correlate with the boundaries defined by a particular document—or whether in the Rabbinic canon narratives form a non-documentary corpus of writing altogether. And what is at stake in answering that question is how on the foundations of literary evidence and its traits we are to describe the Rabbinic structure and system. That is because a theory on the way in which the documentary evidence took shape and on how it accomplishes its compilers’ goals is required for that description. If we do not know whether or how narratives fit into the canonical constructions of Rabbinic Judaism in its formative age and normative statement, we cannot account for important data of that Judaism. Why then does the historical, literary, and religious study of that Judaism now require investigation of the order and regularity exhibited by narratives in the respective documents. Since narratives assuredly represent a distinct type of writing in the Rabbinic canon, we wonder whether they carry a distinctive message as well. Specifically, do they represent a separate component of the canonical documents in program as well as in form? Or do they cohere to the theological program of the document(s) in which they find their place? That is one way of dealing with the anomaly of narratives in the canonical compilations, a way demanded by the interior logic of the documentary hypothesis. That problem certainly leaves open a variety of illuminating matters, not dealt with here. Issues of “narrativity” and “poetics,” important in the literary-theoretical context, for example, do not pertain to the study of problems of religion, its history and theology.7 7 One current instance of the aesthetic reading of Rabbinic narrative is Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture. Baltimore, 1999: Johns Hopkins University Press. He “strives to recapture the meaning and literary impact that the stories would have had for their original authors and audiences,” so Eliezer Segal, review, Journal of American Academy of Religion 2001, 69:954. Other instances are Yonah Frenkel, Iyunim be#olamo haruhani shel sipur ha"agadah (Tel Aviv, 1981), and Ofra Meir, Hademuyot hapoalot besipure hatalmud vehamidrash (Jerusalem 1977), and her Sugyot bapoetikah shel sipure hazal (Tel Aviv, 1993). My reading of David Stern, Parables in Midrash. Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Litera-

xii

preface

To be sure, a definition of “narrative” in contrast to all other kinds of writing in the Rabbinic canon is required. But even there, the documentary hypothesis governs the kind of definition that is set forth. Specifically, in the Introduction to, and Chapter One of, Volume One, the latter devoted to what I call pseudo-narratives, I define what, for the present purpose, I mean by narrative. There I answer the two-sided question of inclusion and exclusion. In those two statements readers will find a full account of my analytical procedures: the questions I systematically raise, item by item, document by document, and how I find answers to them. For those who prefer a brief summary, I supply a precis in the Introduction to this volume, which follows. What, then, do I claim in this project to prove? I state with heavy emphasis: Narratives no less than expository, exegetical, and analytical writing, do form part of the documentary self-definition of the Rabbinic canonical writings, a fact established in Volume One for the Mishnah and the Tosefta and here for Sifra and the two Sifrés. The fulcrum of interpretation and analysis, for narrative as much as for all other kinds of canonical writing in formative Judaism, therefore is the document. What I show is that the repertoire of narrative forms and types in the documents treated in Volume One and here does serve the manifest documentary purposes of the respective compilers of those writings and does not ignore or disrupt them. The genre, the narrative, assumes a subordinated role within the programs of the several Rabbinic documents. And with what consequence for the study of the formative history of Judaism, which is the center of my enterprise? Again with emphasis: It is analytically meaningless to talk about “the Rabbinic narrative” or “the Rabbinic parable” or “the Aggadah” or “the Rabbinic folk-tale” or any comparable, generic category that ignores documentary boundaries. The principal, and primary, analytical initiative commences with the document—the traits of its narrative, parable (Mashal), Aggadah, folk-tale, and other generic cateture, Catherine Hezser, Form, Function, and Historical Significance of the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin, and Galit Hasan-Rokem, Web of Life. Folklore and Midrash in Rabbinic Literature is reproduced in the Appendix of Volume One, and of the special problem of the parable in documentary context by Clemens Thoma and his co-workers, in the present volume. These represent a vast literature of literarycritical analysis, both classical and contemporary. The answers to the documentary questions of a formal, form-analytical character that I raise in this exercise do not present themselves in that literature, with which I do not intersect.

preface

xiii

gories. We may then speak of the narrative or parable or case/precedent (ma#aseh) in the Mishnah or the Tosefta or Sifra or one or another of the Talmuds, and only then ask how the narrative or parable or ma#aseh as represented by the one document compares, or contrasts, with that of another. It follows that, just as in Volume One I identified the documentary preferences as to narrative that characterize the Mishnah, tractate Abot, and the Tosefta,8 so here I do the same for the three Tannaite Halakhic Midrash-compilations, which carry forward the work of the Mishnah and the Tosefta and cite both documents verbatim. We begin with the data of the Sifra, then Sifré to Numbers, and finally, Sifré to Deuteronomy. Volume Three then moves on to the characterization of some of the Rabbah-Midrash-compilations of the formative canon. Concrete results even now come into view. My preliminary impression is that just as Mishnah-Tosefta prefer the ma#aseh, the former in its stripped-down, economical version, the latter in that version and in developments thereof, so Sifra and the two Sifrés prefer the Mashal, ordinarily, as the context requires, for Halakhic clarification or, still more commonly by far, for exegetical exposition. In both instances the Mashal derives from the exegetical or Halakhic context, particular to the case at hand, and not from some corpus of free-floating stories adapted for the purpose at hand. Indeed, the Mashal and the Ma#aseh emerge as affines in Sifra and the two Sifrés, differentiated by formal qualities, not by function at all. The preference of the Rabbah-Midrash-compilations will likely prove to be the fully-articulated story, with a beginning, middle, and end, with tension and resolution thereof, as I showed for the Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan in Judaism and Story.9 8 Clearly, at this stage we can say nothing about the types of narrative viewed in abstraction from the documents, e.g., in a canonical framework: “the Rabbinic narrative,” or “Talmudic stories” viewed without differentiation in their own framework or in documentary context, let alone “the Aggadic narrative,” as though all “Aggadah” formed an undifferentiated composition. The conclusions of the Preface pertain. But once the types of narratives of each canonical document, viewed on its own, have been collected and classified rigorously—explaining not only inclusion but exclusion—then work on “the Rabbinic narrative” or “Talmudic stories” or “the Aggadic narrative” will become analytically possible. As matters now stand, the premise of inquiry—documentary lines mean nothing—is untested by Rabbinic narratologists. 9 Judaism and Story: The Evidence of The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan. Chicago, 1992: University of Chicago Press. Reprint: Binghamton, 2002: Global Publications, Classics in Judaic Studies series.

xiv

preface

The larger plan of this project now takes shape. First, I plan a volume III of collection, classification, and analysis of narrative and pseudo-narrative data, document by document, for Lamentations Rabbah, Leviticus Rabbah-Pesiqta deRab Kahana, and Song of Songs Rabbah. These documents—so I have the impression at this time—prefer the fully-articulated, authentic narrative to the ma#aseh and furthermore shape the Mashal to their larger documentary preference for authentic narrative, a preference not documented for Mishnah-Tosefta or for the Tannaite Midrash-compilations. To volume III I will add a unit on “The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan Text”, reprising the results from Judaism and Story. What then? A work of systematization, correlating the several principal types of narratives with the documentary venues they serve is required. For when the three volumes are completed, I will have shown the documentary correlation of narrative forms and types to particular compilations and explained the correlation by appeal to the larger program of the compilers of the respective documents. Results to sustain that work are already in hand. I contemplate a study tentatively called The Case, the Parable, and the Story in Rabbinic Judaism: A Canonical Perspective. This will yield the case/ma#aseh highlighted as a distinct problem, with its variations as these characterize the usage in the different documents, so too the parable/Mashal and the “authentic story” (anecdote, protracted narrative). As is always the case, I conduct my research in conversation with many colleagues and through diverse media, other peoples’ publications not the least of them. From some writings and counselors I learn what to do, from other writings, what not to do. I am especially thankful to those who, by telephone and e-mail, comment as the work unfolds in its successive drafts and changing results. In that context, as ever, Professor William Green has been especially helpful. I express a special word of thanks to Professor Steven D. Fraade, Yale University, for promptly supplying me with data that I required and did not have ready at hand; and to Professors Ben LaFarge, Bard College, and Galit Hasan-Rokem, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for guiding me, in questions of literary theory, to illuminating books and articles, which I should otherwise have missed. JACOB NEUSNER Bard College

introduction

1

INTRODUCTION In volume one, introduction and chapter one, I define the project in detail. These accounts explain the program of this volume as well. For those readers who wish to proceed directly to the evidence and analytical problems addressed in these pages, a very brief précis of the main points follows. I What, exactly, do I Mean by “Narrative”? A narrative piece of writing in the Rabbinic corpus of late antiquity is governed by a teleological logic of coherent discourse, a matter defined presently, and all other kinds of writing in that same corpus cohere through an other-than-teleological logic of coherent discourse. That consideration affords a completely objective criterion for defining narrative both inclusively and exclusively. Where that logic functions, the composition qualifies as narrative, where not, not. But I hasten to qualify: the canon encompasses pseudo-narratives, meaning, writing that resembles a story but that coheres other than through teleological logic. By “logic of coherent discourse” I mean, the logic by which the writer links two or more sentences into a statement deemed to cohere, to make sense, to form a whole that exceeds the sum of the parts as in syllogistic writing. The logic uniquely characteristic of narrative joins two or more facts to convey a proposition through the setting forth of happenings in a framework of inevitability, in a sequence such that the sequence itself makes the point. In Rabbinic narrative the order of the components of the completed construction (allegations, incidents, statements) establishes not merely the facts of what happens, but the teleology,—the purpose or goal of the facts in necessary order— that explains those facts. Then we speak not only of events but of their causal, consecutive relationships. This definition of matters takes on greater concreteness when we consider the alternative logics of coherent discourse that function in the Rabbinic canon.

2

introduction

Therein I discern four available logics of coherent discourse by which two or more sentences are deemed to constitute a statement of consequence and intelligibility.1 These are as follows: (1) the teleological logic that imparts coherence to data to yield a coherence based on the teleology, or end-purpose, of all data, which is different from (2) the propositional, syllogistic logic that imparts coherence to data to yield a proposition and generate a syllogism, which is different from (3) the arbitrary logic that joins two or more statements together on purely formal grounds, and which also is different from (4) the paradigmatic logic that through the juxtaposition shows the structural coherence of two or more rules or cases, yielding a pattern, more concretely: producing (in context) jurisprudence out of laws, laws out of cases, exemplary cases out of random coincidences. Of the four logics that in my survey I have found to define the media of establishing coherence within pericopes of the canonical documents, two require consideration here, teleological logic and by contrast syllogistic or propositional logic. In the teleological mode of thought that signals narrative and only narrative we link fact to fact and also prove (ordinarily implicit) propositions by appeal to the goal or end—hence, teleological—a logic of coherence that is implicit in the purposive sequence of facts. The logic of narrative establishes coherence by the principle of much historical writing of facts deemed continuous and causative, post hoc, ergo propter hoc: because one matter preceded another, the prior matter has caused the posterior one—hence, history or story. It follows that only at the end of the composite do all the pieces fall into place. When the goal is realized, the consequences of the combination of this with that become apparent. Then the reason, first this, then that, emerges. So by invoking the word “teleology,” I mean to stress that the pieces of data cohere not by reason of their own traits but by appeal to a goal beyond themselves. How come the goal is signaled by the very sequence of fact-bearing sentences? It is because the goal transcends, and imposes pro1 I have spelled these matters out in detail in The Making of the Mind of Judaism. Atlanta, 1987: Scholars Press for Brown Judaic Studies.

introduction

3

portion, coherence, and order on, all the distinct parts of data. No datum is fixed and final until the end. Here the reader does not know what the message really is until the end of the story. In teleological discourse, therefore, the point is at the end, and not learned along the way. Stopping at any point before the end will demolish the construction and leave incoherent and senseless bits and pieces littering the path to nowhere. By contrast, in a propositional composition of a syllogistic character, each component is fully cogent in its own traits and terms, e.g., it may be constituted by an opinion that on its own bears a meaningful statement. So what defines narrative and no other type of Rabbinic writing is a trait of mind that discerns purpose in the very order of facts, first this, then that, therefore this led to that and explains it. The “logic”2 that makes sequence, movement, dialectics register so that “this” coheres to “that” as I said may be roughly characterized: post hoc, ergo propter hoc: that happened in sequence after this, it therefore happened because of this. In more abstract language, the logic particular to narrative joins a sequence of statements of action or thought in such a way as to yield a cogent statement. By reason of their order the parts cohere into a whole that exceeds the sum of the parts. That order is taken to bear meaning and exhibit purpose or intention, and that logic I therefore call “teleological,” hence “the teleological logic characteristic of and, in Rabbinic context, unique to narrative.” Now contrast teleological with syllogistic or propositional logic. By far the most important logic of coherent discourse is the philosophical logic of proposition and syllogism. By it facts and reason cohere to yield syllogisms, e.g., two facts produce a third. A way of conducting philosophical argument is the demonstration we know in general as Listenwissenschaft, that is, a way to classify and so establish a set of probative facts. These compel us to reach a given conclusion, one that transcends any and all of the facts but is contained within each of them. These probative facts derive from the classification of data, all of which point in one direction and not in another. Then the traits of the individual bits of data register on their 2 I put “logic” in quotation-marks here because of the dubious standing of the matter, as everyone recognizes. But then Aristotle produced natural philosophy but not the ordered history or intent and purpose that sustains unfolding stories.

4

introduction

own, and, seen in any order but only all together, they yield a pattern, produce a generalization, demonstrate a principle. A catalogue of facts, for example, may be so composed that, through the regularities and indicative traits of the respective entries, that the catalogue yields a proposition affecting more facts than are catalogued, thus producing a syllogism. In the Halakhah this may or may not be articulated, but it never has to be, that is the power and art of the Mishnah, the foundation-document of the Halakhah. In the Aggadah, in the main Rabbah-compilations, Leviticus Rabbah, for example, the besought proposition is ordinarily articulated, outset and end, in complex composites of a syllogistic character. Accordingly, items are interchangeable. Each exemplifies a trait common to them all; that is why the list works. Therefore the order of the items rarely registers the besought proposition; the traits common to the items, in whatever sequence, make all the difference. A list of parallel or comparable items all together points to a simple conclusion; the conclusion may or may not be given at the end of the catalogue, but the catalogue—by definition—is focused. All of the catalogued facts are taken to bear self-evident connections to one another, established by those pertinent shared traits implicit in the composition of the list. These therefore bear meaning and point through the weight of evidence to an inescapable conclusion. The discrete facts then join together because of some trait common to them all. This is a mode of classification of facts to lead to an identification of what the facts have in common and—it goes without saying, an explanation of their meaning. These and other modes of philosophical argument are entirely familiar. How do the two logics of coherent discourse compare and contrast? Philosophical logic of coherence differs from the teleological logic characteristic of narrative for in philosophical logic, the sequencing of the facts in a philosophical construction bears no part of the burden; we can reproduce our cases in any order with the same result. By contrast, in teleological logic the manufactured sequence establishes a moral that by reason of the position of the data in some way, rather than in some other, is always blatant. Here too, it hardly matters whether or not the generalization is stated in so many words. That is because the power of well-crafted narrative is so to order the components of the construction as to make unnecessary explic-

introduction

5

itly announcing the moral. So narrative sees cogency in the necessary order of events understood as causative. Purpose, therefore cause, takes the form of a story of what happened—once upon a time, someone did something with such-and-such a consequence—because it had to happen. Whatever the form, whether invested with the aura of story-telling or not, the presence of teleological logic marks a composition as narrative, and the absence of that logic denies it that status. If, as we shall now see in pseudo-narratives, we are told in the form of a story about what happens in the Temple on various occasions, the tale of how rites are performed, we can invoke the formal issue: does the outcome become clear only at the end, or is the sequence merely formal, a matter of a correct ordering of action, but not teleological—message-bearing, detail by detail when in fixed array.3 II Pseudo-narrative Let us return to the matter of verisimilitude as against authenticity: what about compositions that by the criterion of teleological logic do not qualify as narratives but that do convey a narrative “tone” or impression, e.g., a sequence of actions and their outcomes, or a setting for a story that is not actually told, e.g., “they were walking along the way and he said to him…,” “he said to him…” “he said to him…”—with no action but only talk that is propositional, not ordered teleologically? I call “pseudo-narratives” those compositions that adopt what looks like a narrative tone but cohere on some foundation other than the logic of teleology. In that connection I identify three special problems, all involving a described action or event, none invoking teleological logic. These bear resemblance to stories, the rhetoric corresponding to what generally characterizes narratives in Rabbinic context. But their principal parts do not cohere through the required logic of coherent discourse. They are (1) “conversations”4 (“he said to him… he said to him…”); 3 I follow Ithamar Gruenwald’s definition of ritual in his Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel. He sees ritual as action, fixed and autonomous, without reference to the story that accompanies the action (myth). 4 Quotation-marks signify the distinction between verbatim reports of conversations and fabrications of “conversations” out of surmise or convention, such as characterize nearly the whole of the Rabbinic canonical record of things people

6

introduction

(2) presentations of ritual conduct in the Temple (and in the court) (“he did this… he did that…”); and (3) the precedent or case, usually but not invariably marked ma#aseh.5 The “conversations” construct a setting for what are, in fact, merely exchanges of principles or arguments: scripted, artificial dialogue, a pseudo-narrative setting for an analytical presentation. An example would be an account of how one day, such-and-such happened, the rabbis ruled so-and-so, and Rabbi X argued… Rabbi Y argued… through several matched exchanges, followed by “they voted and ruled….” Here is an event that yields a rule, not a narrative. The presentations of ritual conduct in the Temple represent a particular type of writing restricted to a particular topic. They imitate the preference of Scripture, e.g., Leviticus 16, for presenting rituals through described action, not “he should do thus and so” but “he did/does thus and so.” Much scripted dialogue may accompany the presentation of cultic activities. But the details all register on their own, omit any one and the account fails. To make matters concrete, let me give a single example of such a pseudo-narrative cultic composition, one that sets forth the rite of reaping the barley sheaves used in the grain offering of the #omer on the opening day of Passover. Here we have a scripted language, a fixed exchange of formulas, each autonomous and bearing sense unto itself, not only at the end: Mishnah-tractate Menahot 6:3 A. How did they do it? B. Agents of the court go forth on the eve of [the afternoon before] the festival [of Passover]. C. And they make it into sheaves while it is still attached to the ground, so that it will be easy to reap. D. And all the villagers nearby gather together there [on the night supposedly said to one another. In that record literary convention and artifice govern; there is nothing that remotely qualifies as a verbatim report of things really said, as a conversation that really took place on some one day in some determinate situation. 5 The distinction between a precedent and a unique case, lacking authority as a precedent, makes no difference in the contexts we survey, hence I avoid making a commitment as to how I classify the ma#aseh in the Mishnah. In the Tosefta the ma#aseh takes on further tasks in context, sometimes replicating the Mishnaic usage, some times going well beyond.

introduction

7

after the first day of Passover], so that it will be reaped with great pomp. E. Once it gets dark [on the night of the sixteenth of Nisan], he says to them, “Has the sun set?” F. They say, “Yes.” G. “Has the sun set?” H. They say, “Yes.” I. “[With] this sickle?” J. They say, “Yes.” K. “[With] this sickle?” L. They say, “Yes.” M. “[With] this basket?” N. They say, “Yes.” O. “[With] this basket?” P. They say, “Yes.” Q. On the Sabbath, he says to them, “[Shall l reap on] this Sabbath?” R. They say, “Yes.” S. “[Shall I reap on] this Sabbath?” T. They say, “Yes.” U. “Shall I reap?” V. They say, “Reap.” W. “Shall I reap?” X. They say, “Reap”Y. three times for each and every matter. Z. And they say to him, “Yes, yes, yes.” AA. All of this [pomp] for what purpose? BB. Because of the Boethusians, for they maintain, “The reaping of the [barley for] the offering of the first sheaf of barley is not [done] at the conclusion of the festival.”

This account of the rite contains no prescriptive language of a Halakhic character. The upshot could readily be translated into the rhetoric of law, e.g., The agents of the court do thus and so…, without the colloquy that translates the law into a tale of how things were done. The effect is the same. The narrative is sustained by scripted language, fixed formulas that encase and encapsulate the activity. The tacked-on conclusion, AA-BB, does not serve to impose sense and meaning on the details, only on the rite overall; each detail is necessary in its own right. Do the components hold together only by reason of the goal of the narrative, or is there a principle of cogency deriving from sequence, so that each item on its own lays claim to its legitimate position in the whole? Do we have something akin to the logic of proposition (if not syllogism) that generally characterizes the presentation of the Halakhah and of the theological constructions of the Aggadah? The answer presents itself when we realize that the order of action in succession is everything. At stake is the

8

introduction

sequencing of the rite, and this is made explicit in every cultic pseudonarrative. Stop before the end and the account is incomplete, but coherent to that point. The indicative fact is, the pseudo-narrative of sequenced actions that “he does… did… will do…” serves in the Halakhic documents, particularly the Mishnah, only for ritual, and mainly for the Temple’s rituals. This well-documented preference for the use of the language of description, in addition to the language of Halakhic prescription, for the particular purpose of embodying ritual behavior, is best explained by Ithamar Gruenwald, in his Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel. Gruenwald addresses matters in this language, with what is important for my argument in italics: The study of rituals mostly concerns the particulars of what is done, how it is done, and the reason and purpose of doing as embedded in the very act of doing… rituals are performative “signs”… Each ritual consists of several sub-acts that configure rituals as sequentially structured events. They are spread out in time and in space. In other words, the doing of any rituals creates dynamics that turns complex structure into a process. … what makes the difference between a ritual and a non-ritual act.…The answer focussed on three factors: (1) the logic that shapes the internal structuring; (2) the dynamics that emerges from the sequencing of ritual acts; (2) and the mental process that activates intentionality. There is an inner logic that constitutes the structure of every ritual. Without that logic, the ritual statement becomes redundant. The specific manner in which the various parts become a coherent whole shows the manner in which every ritual becomes a compositional event. Whatever its shape, ritual always is a unique statement that exists in its own right. In our understanding here, doing the ritual in the right manner means allocating to it, as well as its various components, processual coherence. In this respect, rituals are analogous to verbal arguments. Reverse or displace any part in a certain argument, or drop it altogether, and the whole argument changes, or loses its communicative capacity.6

What is important here is the stress on the sequencing of ritual acts, the notion of ritual as process (“processual coherence”). He states my point of emphasis in so many words: “rituals are analogous to verbal arguments…” That strikes at the heart of the matter and removes the tales of how things were or are done in the Temple from

6 Ithamar Gruenwald, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel. Leiden, 2002: Brill. Brill Library of Formative Judaism series.

introduction

9

consideration within the definition of narrative as defined by the quality of logic of coherent discourse. Indeed, Gruenwald captures the matter in the italicized portion of the cited passage. Within Gruenwald’s theory of matters, which I find compelling, we are able to explain the traits of the narrativeHalakhic protocol, right alongside the philosophical-Halakhic protocol, serves in particular in the context of Temple rites and activities. There is no myth that accompanies the verbal realization of the rite; it does not belong, and if present, is tacked on and scarcely intersects in detail (as with the Boethusians of Mishnah-tractate Menahot). The logic is established in the gesture that establishes a series, that is, three times repeated. More to the point, everything rests on the sequencing of ritual acts, which is the point of emphasis that can be conveyed only in the narrative medium selected in the cases at hand. If the sequence is the key, how else to convey it than say, first he did this, then he did that? But, I repeat, the sequencing, step by step, violates the logic of teleology that signifies narrative and only narrative: not the sequence step by step but the goal and end of the whole impose coherence. That is precisely the opposite of the logic of ritual pseudo-narrative, by which every acted out component of the process belongs only where it is, takes on meaning and significance only in its proper position—and not from the telos of the whole. Gruenwald’s emphasis on ritual as process then provides us with the key to understanding the scripted exchanges that are portrayed in the Halakhah of the cult—alongside, I emphasize, the philosophical-expositional portrayal of that same Halakhic category-formation. Within the definition given in the Introduction for the logic that always signals the presence of narrative, the absence of which invariably marks a piece of writing as something other than narrative, Gruenwald’s formulation of the traits of ritual discourse in the Halakhah validates treating the cited passages and their counterparts as other-than-narrative. Since in the Mishnah-Tosefta the use of descriptive language such as is cited above serves only Temple (and court) procedure, I am justified in omitting all such passages from my repertoire of candidates for analysis set forth in the Mishnah and the Tosefta. As I showed in volume one, the ma#aseh in the Mishnah follows a simple pattern: (1) in such and such a place, thus and so took place,

10

introduction

and (2) Rabbi Y ruled in this wise—the whole stripped down to the essential facts. Each component is required in its place, and in context is clear; the conclusion resolves tension, it does not impose meaning on the antecedent components. The Tosefta invokes the marker, ma#aseh, for both this and also other kinds of writing, some of which qualify as narrative. We shall pursue the ma#aseh in the Tannaite Midrash-compilations and compare the data with those deriving from the Mishnah and the Tosefta. And here, the Mashal emerges as the paramount pseudo-narrative form, dependent for its coherence on exegetical (sometimes: Halakhic) context, not on its own internal sequential logic. III What Questions Do I Address to the Narrative Compositions? What in documentary context do I wish to know about narratives (and pseudo-narratives)? Here is the set of questions, in the order that strikes me as logical and necessary, which, in the encounter with each authentic narrative in each document, I uniformly raise.7 Then, at each point, in italics I underscore the particular aspects of special interest. 1. We now realize that a piece of writing qualifies as a narrative because it attains coherence through the teleological logic of coherent discourse defined earlier. This commonly means that, at some point and in some articulated way, the narrative invokes a finite action, it records something that has happened, or it asks the reader to imagine a real-time, real-life event: On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action or event that precipitates the telling of the tale and how does the teleology assert itself? 7 Obviously, a considerable range of questions bears on each pericope, and I select only those that advance the particular inquiry at hand. When it comes to the Mashal/proverb, for example, C. Thoma and his co-workers collect much information that my program does not require. In the Appendix, I spell out why I think purposelessly collecting information yields facts but not knowledge. The same as to be said about collecting variant readings in the MSS evidence for a given document, let alone variant versions of a given composition spread over many documents. These represent interesting and occasionally useful collections of information, but on their own they lack self-evident pertinence to any given thesis or to the solution of a given problem.

introduction

11

The answer is required to justify my classifying the composition as a narrative. 2. The sequence of data, I have argued, is not random but determinative. The sequence conveys the purpose, in context, that each component is meant to serve. A narrative thus coheres by reason of a tension that is precipitated and resolved, a point that is proved by the narrative, thus: What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? 3. The narratives fall into diverse categories, each with its own traits. These categories, defined by formal criteria, do not represent the outcome of taste and judgment and critical acumen, which I do not claim to possess, but only of a simple, material assessment of concrete features of the writing: How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? But, I stress, these questions pertain to authentic narratives, not to inauthentic narratives, encompassing the ma#aseh and the mashal/ parable. There the question of narrative logic does not apply. With reference to the Mashal, I want to know whether the parable is particular to its exegetical context or adapted from a circulating, readymade corpus of similes in the form of narratives. That is a key question for the study at hand, as is already clear. In many instances the simile/parable tracks the exegetical problem and is explicitly so characterized; in some instances the parable serves but not in all details and gives clear indication of adaptation. In due course we shall see that the Ma#aseh and the Mashal intersect in function, differing in formal aspects alone. The larger question of documentary preferences as to narrative (or pseudo-narrative) is addressed at chapters fourteen, thirty, and forty-one. There I ask whether the document contains compositions or composites that qualify as narrative, and, if so, whether these compositions and composites exhibit common traits or preferences. Then, in due course, I compare and contrast the narratives characteristic of one document with those preferred by another: the forms of a narrative in Sifra as against those paramount in the two Sifrés, not to mention the Mishnah and Tosefta—and so throughout. What about the literary context? Through the use of diverse margins, broad for the narrative, indented for the context, I indi-

12

introduction

cate my views on the form-analytical data of a given composition. In that way I preserve the narrative in its larger context while signaling its formal limits. The visual signal permits us to see very clearly the way in which authentic narratives are distinguished from their documentary context—if they are to be so distinguished. IV What Do I Mean by Distinguishing Non-Documentary from Documentary Writing? Clearly, I have pressed the question of whether a piece of writing conforms to the documentary program of the compilation in which it occurs. Before I explain why I deem the issue urgent, I have to clarify the distinction between documentary, extra-documentary, and non-documentary writing. With that distinction in hand, we turn to the difference that distinction makes. Documentary writing conforms to the traits of a particular document so that, stripped bare of its reference-system (supplied in any case by modern scholarship) we should reliably assign the composition to the correct place within the canon. Extra-documentary writing exhibits the traits of documentary writing but belongs to no extant document. That is best illustrated by a composite devoted to the exposition of a passage of Proverbs or Chronicles, matching in rhetoric and logic of coherent discourse Rabbah-Midrash-compilations for Leviticus or Genesis or Song of Songs, but devoted to a topic, Proverbs or Chronicles, for which we have no document. That is extra- but not non-documentary writing. Compositions and composites called “non-documentary,” disregard the rules of documentary writing such as govern in any and all of the score of canonical compilations. They not only ignore the indicative traits of the documents in which they occur, but they in no way replicate for a fresh topic a known model of any extant document. So while we have Midrash-compilations, if not for one scriptural book, then for another, we have no canonical compilation of

8 I deal with an aspect of this larger problem in Why No Gospels in Talmudic Judaism? Atlanta, 1988: Scholars Press for Brown Judaic Studies. Now: Lanham MD, 2001: University Press of America. Studies in Judaism series.

introduction

13

stories, e.g., lives of sages, on the one side,8 histories of Israel, on the other.9 So too there are elaborate stories of the false Messiah and the true one, and the like. But in the entire formative canon there is nothing remotely recording the life of a Messiah, beginning to end. Entire chapters in the lives of principal sages and their master-disciple circles, sustained stories about paradigmatic events in Israel’s history—none of these types of writing coalesces into coherent documents in the way in which the compositions and composites located in the Mishnah or Genesis Rabbah or the Bavli (to name three disparate cases) do. By that criterion the non-documentary represent a kind of writing intended to stand on its own, not planned for a larger composite. That carries us to the perspective of the documentary hypothesis on narrative: what difference, for the history of Rabbinic Judaism, does the non-documentary status that completed research of mine10 has assigned to narrative make? V What Is at Stake? Why does the status as to the documentary venue of narratives matter in the formative history of Rabbinic Judaism? To specify the answers, I track the unresolved questions, reproduced in italics, of religion, literature, and history, that I spell out in The Three Questions of Formative Judaism: History, Literature, and Religion.11 1. Religion: At stake for understanding the religious system of formative Rabbinic Judaism: Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to thought that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules and symmetry of the canon? A corpus of extra-, including non-, documentary writing did find its way into the process of documentary composition and compilation. Of the three types of the identified extra-documentary writing—(1) exegesis of clumps of Scripture from books not accorded, 9 I explain that fact in The Presence of the Past, the Pastness of the Present. History, Time, and Paradigm in Rabbinic Judaism. Bethesda, 1996: CDL Press. 10 All other inquiry into Rabbinic narrative ignores documentary lines and so affirms the same premise as I did in the work that precipitated this project. Stern on the Parable, treated in Volume One, suffices to prove that point. 11 Leiden, 2002: Brill. The Brill Reference Library of Judaism.

introduction

14

by entire documents, systematic commentaries in the Rabbinic canon of late antiquity, (2) agglutination of topical miscellanies, and (3) narratives—the first two self-evidently cohere to the model of the canonical documents, though not to the particular program of any extant document. Hence they raise no questions of a documentary character, but rather confirm the definition of a conventional compilation. As large formal aggregates they cannot be differentiated from the documentary writing to which they correspond. I find no recurrent differences in the regnant conceptions of the anomalous writing that are asymmetrical or even jarring, let alone differences in contents. What issue precipitates the inquiry? It is a debate that has flourished for nearly three decades, since the publication of my Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah.12 In response, people posited a “Judaism beyond the texts.” By that they mean to allege we have access to Judaic thought beyond the limits of the extant documents, knowledge that is a priori, on the one side, or that is represented in bits and pieces of writing that survive, out of context, in the Rabbinic documents. Here is a clear opportunity to investigate the qualities of normative-Judaic writings that originate outside of the documentary boundaries. So what about the “Judaism beyond the texts”— at least, that alleged Judaic structure and system to which the texts willy-nilly afford only occasional and fragmentary access? 2. Literature: At stake for discerning the literary qualities of the Rabbinic canon: Does non-documentary writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of form and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these patterns and how are we to classify and to interpret them in documentary context? The question is readily unpacked. Extra-documentary writing is readily characterized within the limits of extant, documentary writing. For forms and patterns of the non-documentary writing, that is, the narrative compositions and composites, we do not know the answer. This part of the work supplies the beginnings of one. 3. History: What sort of historical data do narratives supply? What are the linkages between one narrative composition and another? Can we identify particular viewpoints or points of origin of one kind of story as against some other? The answers to these questions yield points of regularity and or12

Chicago, 1981: University of Chicago Press.

introduction

15

der a given narrative contains to justify linking it with other items of a formally-comparable character: the taxonomic phenomenology of the narratives viewed as a whole. In the matter of Mishnah-Tosefta, that inquiry, independent of this study, concerned a narrative tradition deriving from the patriarchate, from Hillel through Judah the Patriarch’s sons: a specific set of traits that differentiate that tradition from any and all other classifications of narratives. So I ask a uniform set of questions, thus imposing on the data a set of taxonomic considerations of a consistent order. In line with the important consideration just now introduced, I (1) establish my reason for regarding a pericope as “narrative” to begin with. I then (2) identify the source of the movement from one constitutive element of the tale to the next, indicating what imparts the dynamism and purpose (“teleology”) to the composition. Finally, in line with the purpose of this survey, I finally (3) ask each item to tell how it is to be classified. The nature of the work—a piece by piece examination of the evidence—requires that the phenomenological outcome take shape cumulatively. VI A Special Problem in Sifré to Numbers and Sifré to Deuteronomy The two Sifrés contain a fair number of exegetical amplifications of Scripture’s narratives. For the purpose of this study these are classified not as narratives or pseudo-narratives but as exegetical amplifications pure and simple. I do not include these in a study of Rabbinic narrative. A single example suffices. CXXXI:III 1.

A. And Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Every one of you slay his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.” [And behold, one of the people of Israel came and brought a Midianite woman to his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the people of Israel; while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting. When Phineas the son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest saw it, he rose and left the congregation, and took a spear in his hand and went after the man of Israel into the inner room, and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman, through her body. Thus the plague was stayed from the people of Israel. Nevertheless those that died by the plague were twenty-four thousand. And

16

introduction

the Lord said to Moses, “Phineas the son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealous among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy]:” B. The tribe of Simeon came to Zimri, saying to him, “Behold, you dwell securely, but we are condemned to death.” C. He went and collected twenty-four thousand out of his tribe and came to Cozbi. He said to her, “Submit to me.” D. She said to him, “I shall submit only to the greatest among you, who is of the stature of Moses your lord.” E. He said to her, “I too am the lord of the tribe, and not only so, but my tribe is greater than his tribe anyhow. And not only so, but he is second in order of birth, and I am third in order of birth.” F. He seized her by her hand and brought her into the midst of all Israel, as it is said, “And behold, one of the people of Israel came and brought a Midianite woman to his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the people of Israel; while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting.” G. Phineas responded at that moment and said, “Is there no man here who will kill and kill again? Where are ‘the crouching lions, the lion of Judah’ (Gen. 49:9), ‘Dan is a lion’s whelp’ (Dt. 33:22)?” H. He began to cry out. When he saw that everyone kept silent, he went out of his sanhedrin and he took off the spear-head and put it in his garment and was leaning on the stock. He went along as if leaning on his staff. They said to him, “Phineas, where are you going?” I. He said, “Levi is not greater than Simeon in any setting. We find that Simeon is greater than Levi.” J. They said, “Let him go and come in.” The separatists [Perushim (!)] permitted the matter. K. When he came in, the Omnipresent did six miracles for him: L. First, that Zimri should have taken out his penis from the woman and an angel held them together [so that he did not do so leaving Phineas free to act]; M. another, that he should have spoken out [for help] but he did not speak out; N. a third, that Phineas got his spear right through the penis of the man and the vagina of the woman, and everybody saw his penis in her vagina, on account of those who keep clean, so that they would not say, “There was no uncleanness there.” Indeed, he too went to do what he needed to do.

introduction

17

O.

fourth, that they did not fall off the spear but stayed where they were; P. fifth, that an angel came and raised up the lintel [so he could carry them out on his spear]; Q. and sixth, that an angel came and destroyed the people [so they paid no attention to what Phineas had done].” R. When he came forth and Phineas saw that the angel was striking the people too much, Phineas cast them down before the Omnipresent, and prayed, as it is said, “Then Phineas stood up and interposed and the plague was stayed, and that has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation for ever” (Ps. 106:30-31). S. Six more miracles were done for him: T. the seventh: the head of the spear was lengthened so that it pierced the two bodies and come out above; U. the eighth: Phineas’s arm was strengthened to the task; V. the ninth: the spear did not break; W. the tenth: their blood did not drip onto Phineas, so he was not contaminated; X. the eleventh: they did not die while they were in his hand, so he was not contaminated; Y. the twelfth: ordinarily the one on top ought to have been on the bottom on the spear, but a miracle was done and Zimri was turned over onto Cozbi when the deed was done. Z. Now all Israel saw them and declared them guilty unto death. 2. A. The tribe of Simeon came to the tribe of Levi. He said to him, “Now, does this son of the daughter of Puti want to uproot an entire tribe from Israel? And don’t we know whose son he is?” [Bavli: “For the father of his mother fattened calves for idolatry, and he has himself killed the head of a tribe of Israel.”] B. When the Omnipresent realized that everybody was denigrated him, he began to state his praiseworthy genealogy: ““Phineas the son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel” (Num. 25:11). C. “A priest, son of a priest, a zealot, son of a zealot, one who turns back wrath the son of one who turns back wrath ‘has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel.’”

The exegetical amplification, No. 1, commences with C-F, the matter of Cozbi, then comes Phineas’s response, G-J+K-Q, then R +S-Y and Z. It is difficult to see how the autonomous units, G-J, R, and Z form a coherent narrative, with a beginning, middle, and end, the

18

introduction

whole defined by a goal that imparts meaning to the antecedent details in sequence. No. 2 presents the same puzzle. What I see here is, rather, a paraphrase and gloss of Scripture, not an independent narrative. It is, rather, a pseudo-narrative constructed around Scripture’s own narrative.

introduction

PART ONE

NARRATIVES IN SIFRA FORMS, TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION

19

This page intentionally left blank

1.

parashat vayyiqra dibura denedabah

21

CHAPTER ONE

SIFRA 1-33: PARASHAT VAYYIQRA DIBURA DENEDABAH III:VI

1. A. “… an offering to the Lord, of cattle [he shall choose his offering from the herd or from the flock]” B. Might one suppose that the rule applies also to a wild beast, which also falls into the classification of cattle, in line with this verse: “This is the wild beast which you may eat among all the cattle which is upon the earth” (Lev. 11:2) [RSV: “These are the living things which you may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth”]. C. Scripture states [so as to exclude that reading,] “from the herd or from the flock” [that is, only of domesticated, but not of wild, beasts]. 2. A. Might one suppose that one should not bring an offering of a wild beast, but if one has brought a wild beast as an offering, it is valid? B. The matter may be compared to the case of someone whose master said to him, “Go and bring me wheat,” and he went and brought him both wheat and barley. C. Lo, such a one is in the position of merely having added to the instructions. D. Scripture makes it explicit: “he shall choose his offering from the herd or from the flock,” E. You have as eligible for an offering among beasts only those of the domesticated herd or flock alone. F. Lo, to what may the matter be compared? G. To the case of someone whose master said to him, “Go and bring me only wheat.” H. Lo, if he went and brought him both wheat and barley, lo, such a one is in the position of having violated his master’s instructions.

The parable, in two formulations, B, G, serves as a simile: the case is like such and such a transaction, thus a hypothetical situation clarifying the Halakhah in particular. The form of the initial statement is interesting: the parabolic action, B, [G], followed by an explicit

22

1.

parashat vayyiqra dibura denedabah

interpretation, C, [H], then a scriptural foundation for the besought proposition, D-E. The secondary formulation, then, at F-G, with its ruling at H, recapitulates the matter. So there is no missing the point. The Halakhic parable does not quality as an authentic narrative. There is no pretense at purposive narrative endowed with coherence only at the end. The passage gains coherence only within the flow of the exposition of the law produced by exegesis; it is part of a propositional exposition. So the form requires a statement of an action followed by a ruling, B followed by C, G by H, with a comparable wording at C, H. Then we have to notice that without the marker, “the matter may be compared to…,” the shank of the pseudo-narrative proves remarkably routine. Have we seen such a kind of writing before, with the statement of an action followed by a judgment or ruling thereon? Of course we have: in the ma#aseh in its simplest, Mishnaic form: (1) statement of a case, (2) definitive ruling. B, G then function as does the opening clause of a ma#aseh, and the only difference between G, G, and the counterpart in the ma#aseh is “the matter may be compared” (whether or not phrased as a question) in place of ma#aseh b. Had the marker been ma#aseh b, rather than the matter may be compared to, what should we have expected? A statement of the resolution of the case is necessary, without it the ma#aseh-form is senseless: Ma#aseh b: a master said to a slave, ““Go and bring me wheat,” and he went and brought him both wheat and barley.” The case came before Rabbi X, who ruled….

How does the parable then differ from the ma#aseh? In strict form, not at all: case/ruling for the latter, case/resolution for the former. In context the difference is clear: about what can a sage have made a ruling! The parable is required by its Halakhic context, meaning, no imaginable case can sustain the intervention of a sage. So C, H, function where and as required: as the counterpart to a sage’s ruling. There is yet another difference between the Halakhic parable and the ma#aseh. The ruling of the ma#aseh always reverts back to the issue at hand, comparable to the parable at D-E, and does not leave unarticulated the outcome of the transaction, as at H. The rulingclause is integral to the form of the ma#aseh, while the parable functions perfectly well without a reversion to a systematic exploitation of the simile, which is allowed to make its statement within its own framework. The audience is assumed to be perfectly able to see the

1.

parashat vayyiqra dibura denedabah

23

parallel to the parable in the concrete Halakhic issue in play. The language of simile has left no obscurity on that point. I need hardly observe that none of this has anything to do with the authentic narrative defined earlier. Readers are forewarned that through Sifra we shall find not a single authentic narrative, and the results for the two Sifrés prove sparse as well.

24

2.

parashat vayyiqra dibura dehobah

CHAPTER TWO

SIFRA 34-69: PARASHAT VAYYIQRA DIBURA DEHOBAH LXVI:I 1. A. “The priest shall make expiation on his behalf for the error that he committed unwittingly, [and he shall be forgiven. It is a guilt-offering, he has incurred guilt before the Lord]:” 2. A. “... unwittingly:” B. excluding a case in which others informed him. C. Or might it be the case that even though he denies [the obligation still pertains? [Third parties informed him that what he had done involved the possibility of his having committed a transgression, the penalty of which is extirpation, and he denies the claim and states that he was certain that the matter lay beyond all doubt]. D. Scripture states, “He shall bring [to the priest a ram without blemish from the flock or the equivalent as a guilt-offering]... for the error that he committed unwittingly, and he shall be forgiven,” E. lo, if he were to have acted knowingly, atonement shall not be achieved for him. [For that purpose he has to produce a sin-offering, not a guilt-offering.] F. To what may this matter be compared? G. To the case of the heifer the neck of which is broken [in expiation of the discovery of a neglected corpse]. H. Even though the neck of the heifer is broken, if then the murderer is found, lo, the murderer is put to death.

The parabolic case, F-G, is realized at H. Here is another Halakhic parable, which carries out the mission of the Ma#aseh where the Ma#aseh does not enter the picture. The formulation of a Ma#aseh out of G-H is readily envisaged: Ma#aseh : A village presented the heifer-offering and then the murderer was found. The case came to sages and they ruled he [the murderer] is liable to the death-penalty.

The difference in form is clear: sages’ ruling is replaced by the articulation of the point of the case/parable. The difference between

2.

parashat vayyiqra dibura dehobah

25

the Ma#aseh and the Halakhic parable then is to be located in the documentary task. The Mishnah-Tosefta expound the law and amplify the law by presenting a few cases/precedents in which sages’ rulings figure. Sifra proposes to explain the Halakhah in dialogue with Scripture. For that purpose, clarification of the law, not an account of how it applies, is required, and framing matters as a simile, rather than as a precedent, accomplishes the task of amplification. To state matters simply, when the issue is application, the Ma#aseh figures, when it is clarification and amplification of the Halakhah, the Halakhic parable comes into play. The entire simile, F-G+H, requires its setting, 2A-E, for sense and coherence. The point, H, is that even though the neglected corpse has atoned in behalf of the community for the murder, the murderer himself remains culpable and has to atone as well. The heifer atones for those who have not acted knowingly, not for the one who has. So the Halakhic transaction is precisely captured in the simile, F-G+H. This has nothing to do with the narrative indicated by the pertinent type of logic.

26

3.

parashat sav

CHAPTER THREE

SIFRA 70-98: PARASHAT SAV XCVIII:VI 1. A. “And Moses killed it and took the blood:” B. For all seven days of consecration, Moses served in the high priesthood. C. He would slaughter the beast, he would toss the blood, he would sprinkle the blood, he would perform the rite of purification, he would pour oil, who would atone. D. That is why it is written, “And Moses killed it and took the blood.” 2. A. There is then a parable: to what may the matter be compared? B. To a princess who was married when she was a minor, and they made an agreement with her mother that the mother would serve until her daughter would learn [what was required of her]. C. So with Aaron, at first he was a Levite, as it is said, “And is not Aaron, your brother, the Levite” (Ex. 4:14). D. But when he was chosen to serve as High Priest, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, “You will serve me until Aaron will learn.” E. Moses would then slaughter the beast and Aaron would watch him, toss the blood and Aaron would watch him, sprinkle and Aaron would watch him, perform the rite of purification and Aaron would watch him, pour on the oil and Aaron would watch him, atone and Aaron would watch him.

Here we have an exegetical parable, not a Halakhic one. I cannot imagine how a Ma#aseh would have accomplished the task here, or what a Ma#aseh could have looked like. It is a detail of the scriptural narrative that requires attention. What demands explanation is why, prior to Aaron’s assuming his task, Moses served in the high priesthood for seven days, performing all the rites, No. 1. The simile then

3.

parashat sav

27

creates a situation that is comparable: the Levitical standing of Aaron marked him as a minor, requiring instruction. The parable on its own, B, serves, C-E amplify what is clear. The parable-form does not require the ruling/resolution that realizes the task of the Ma#asehform. But the parable does require the statement, 1.A-D, to establish a context and meaning for itself. XCVIII:VII 3. A. “... and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the ram:” B. They placed their hands on it in rejoicing and celebrated a festival day. C. The matter may be compared to one who had paid off a debt that was owing and so celebrated a festival. D. So too, Aaron and his sons, once they had completed the rite involving the day and its acts of sanctification, the rite involving the utensils and their sanctification, and presented the second ram and laid hands on it with rejoicing, they made a festival day.

Once more, in an exegetical parable, not a Halakhic one, C sets forth a case, Ma#aseh b- someone paid off a debt that was owing and celebrated a festival-day for himself. But “the case came before the sages, who ruled” hardly fits, and the parable by itself has no context either, so D is required by C, which, without D, makes no sense.

4.

28

parashat shemini

CHAPTER FOUR

SIFRA 99-121: PARASHAT SHEMINI XCIX:I 1. A. [“And it came to pass on the eighth day Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel, and he said to Aaron, Take a bull calf for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering, both without blemish, and offer them before the Lord” (Lev. 9:1-7). 7. A. [Moses said to them,] “You should know that the Omnipresent has become reconciled with you, to accept atonement for your sins. B. “As to the sin concerning which you are frightened, it has already been sacrificed before the Omnipresent, as it is said, ‘to sacrifice before the Lord.’ C. Said the Israelites before Moses, “But how can a city celebrate the king without seeing his face?” D. He said to them, “It is on that very stipulation: ‘for today the Lord will appear to you.’”

No. 7 illustrates the kind of pseudo-narrative that is not addressed here: the use of dialogue to create a setting for the presentation of an argument, analysis, or proposition. I do not reproduce further examples of what does not pertain to our problem. XCIX:II 2.

A. “… and all the congregation stood near and stood before the Lord:” B. All of them came near with great jubilation and stood before him. C. It is like the case of a king who got mad at his wife and divorced her. After some days he was reconciled with her. D. She immediately girded her loins and tied her kerchiefs and she served him with an excess of enthusiasm. E. So Israel, when they saw that the Omnipresent was reconciled to accepting atonement for their sins, they all came near with jubilation and stood before him. F. That is the meaning of the statement: “… and all the congregation stood near and stood before the Lord.”

4.

parashat shemini

29

The exegetical parable/simile, C-D, on its own bears no meaning: a woman rejoices when reconciled to the husband who has divorced her. E supplies the required context. Thus we have a Mashal: a king divorced his wife and took her back. She girded her loins… enthusiasm. As a Ma#aseh, the pseudo-narrative would have required, “the case came before sages who ruled…,” but that is absolute gibberish. The upshot is, the exegetical parable cannot be confused with the Halakhic one. 5.

A. B.

“Draw near to the altar:” There is a parable [explaining why Moses had to instruct Aaron to come to the altar]. To what may the matter be compared? C. To a mortal king who married a woman who was shy in his presence. D. Her sister came to her. The sister said to [the shy bride], “Why did you get involved in this matter? But it is so that you will serve the king, so show a little spunk and come and serve the king!” E. So said Moses to Aaron, “Aaron, my brother, why were you chosen to be high priest? It is so that you will perform acts of service before the Holy One, blessed be He. F. “Now show a little spunk and come and carry out your acts of service.”

The exegetical parable is fully realized, B-D explained by E-F. The theoretical ma#aseh, “there was a case concerning…,” with “sages ruled” replaced by the sister’s instructions, is impossible. XCIX:IV 4. A. At that hour punishment overtook Nadab and Abihu. B. But some say that it was at Sinai that they got it, for they saw Moses and Aaron walking along ahead, while they were coming after them, and all Israel following. C. Nadab said to Abihu, “In yet a little while these two old men will die, and we shall lead the congregation.” D. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, “We shall see who will bury whom! They will bury you, and they will continue to lead the community.” 5. A. Another matter: When the sons of Aaron saw that all of the offerings had been presented and all the rites had been carried out, and yet the Presence of God had not come to rest upon Israel, said Nadab to Abihu, “Now can anyone cook without fire?” B. They forthwith took unholy fire and went in to the Holy of Holies, C. as it is said, “Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it.” D. Said to them the Holy One blessed be He, “I shall honor you still more than you have honored me.

4.

30 E.

parashat shemini

“You have brought in before me unclean fire. I shall burn you up with clean fire!”

I see at No. 5 no more than an amplification of Scripture through exegesis of details. They put unholy fire on the altar, God burned them up with pure fire. I do not see here a narrative that orders details through appeal to a teleological logic of coherence, rather simply an exegesis of Scripture given pseudo-narrative tone: they did so and so, he said to them… I do not log items like this in my catalogue in chapter fourteen. XCIX:VI 6. A. “… and offered unholy fire before the Lord, such as he had not commanded them:” B. R. Ishmael says, “Can one think that it was actually ‘unholy fire’? Scripture says, ‘such as he had not commanded them,’ meaning that the issue was that they brought it in without taking counsel.” C. R. Aqiba says, “They brought in only a kind of fire that is used in a double stove, as it is said, ‘and offered unholy fire before the Lord.’ D. “If so, why is it said, ‘such as he had not commanded them’? E. “It was because they had not consulted Moses, their master.” F. R. Eliezer says, “Nadab and Abihu became liable for punishment only because they taught law in the presence of Moses, their master, for whoever teaches law in the presence of his master is liable to death.” G. And it happened concerning [Ma#aseh b] a certain student who gave instruction in the presence of Eliezer [without permission]. H. He said to Imma Shalom, his wife, “He will not finish out this week.” I. And he died [that week]. J. After the Sabbath, sages came to him and said to him, “My lord, are you a prophet?” K. He said to them, “I am not a prophet nor the disciple of a prophet, but thus have I received as a tradition from my masters: ‘whoever teaches law in his master’s presence is liable to death.’”

The Ma#aseh of G is unconventional, not carrying in its wake a Halakhic ruling. Rather, like a parable, it is illustrative, specifically, it embodies in narrative Eliezer’s statement, F, which is repeated at K as a “tradition from my masters.” The components are G-I, the student passed an opinion in Eliezer’s presence, Eliezer’s comment,

4.

parashat shemini

31

and the outcome. Then J-K explain the incident and, as noted, K links it to its expository context. Generalizing on the case at hand, the ma#aseh-form here requires a case and the counterpart to a ruling, which is, an articulated generalization—the secondary development of the primary form, case/ ruling. The context in which the whole holds together and makes sense is then clear, the exegesis of the case of Nadab and Abihu. Absent that case, the Ma#aseh appears random and pointless.

32

4.

parashat shemini

CHAPTER FIVE

SIFRA 122-126: PARASHAT TAZRIA CXXV:III 1. A. “Then she shall be clean:” B. so as to eat meat of sacrifices. 2. A. “... from the flow:” B. this teaches that all of the blood that she sees at this point derives only from the source. 3. A. “... bloods:” B. This teaches that many sorts of blood are unclean in her connection: 4. A. “Such is the Torah concerning her who bears a child, male or female:” B. A woman who suffered multiple miscarriages, who aborted a female during the eighty days, and then went and aborted a female during the eighty days, and so too one who aborts twins, bring a single offering [for the entire sequence of abortions]. R. Judah says, “She brings an offering for the first and not for the second, for the third and not for the fourth” [M. Ker. 2:4A-C]. 5. A. “Such is the Torah concerning her who bears a child, male or female:” B. A woman who is subject to doubt concerning the appearance of five births or five fluxes presents a single offering and eats animal sacrifices thereby. And the remainder of the offerings are not obligatory for her. If she is subject to five confirmed miscarriages or five confirmed fluxes, she brings a single offering and eats animal sacrifices, but the rest of the offerings, the other four, do remain obligatory for her. C. There was a case [Ma#aseh] in which a pair of birds in Jerusalem went up in price to a golden denar. D. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, “By this sanctuary! I shall not rest tonight until they shall

5.

E.

parashat tazria

33

change hands at silver denars.” He entered the court and taught the following law: “The woman who is subject to five confirmed miscarriages or five confirmed fluxes brings a single offering and eats animal sacrifices, and the rest of the offerings do not remain obligatory for her.” And pairs of birds changed hands on that very day at a quarter-denar each [one one-hundredth of the former price] [M. Ker. 1:7A-Q].

The Ma#aseh, 5.C-E, is primary to the Mishnah, and violates the formal rules of Sifra. CXXIV:I 1. A. “If she shall bear a female:” B. I know only that the rule applies to a female. How do I know that it encompasses the one of doubtful sexual traits and the one who bears physical traits of both sexes? C. Scripture says, “And if she bears a female, then she shall be unclean.” D. The matter depends solely upon the act of giving birth. E. And she shall be unclean two weeks. Two weeks which are fourteen days. CXXIV:II 1.

A. His disciples asked R. Judah b. Roes, “Might we interpret the verse of Scripture, ‘she shall be unclean two weeks’ to mean that she shall be unclean for seventy days [since the words ‘two weeks’ and ‘seventy days’ are made up of the same consonants]? B. He said to them, “Uncleanness and cleanness pertain both to the male and to the female. Just as the days of purifying are twice in the case of the female what they are in the male, so the days of uncleanness will be twice in the case of the female what they are in the male.” C. After the disciples had gone their way, he went out and called them back and said to them, “I need not have taken your question seriously, because the matrix of meaning rests with the vowels that we attach to the consonants [and these clearly indicate the answer, as given in the translation of the verse at hand].” 2. A. But this is the correct reply in this matter: Uncleanness and cleanness pertain both to the male and to the female. Just as the days of purifying are twice in the case of the female

34

5.

parashat tazria

what they are in the male, so the days of uncleanness will be twice in the case of the female what they are in the male. B. But take this route: C. Since in the case of the male, the days of purifying are few, so the days of uncleanness will also be few. D. But in the case of the female, since the days of purifying are many, the days of uncleanness surely should be few. E. Scripture says, “she shall be unclean for two weeks, as during her menstruation. F. “And she shall be unclean two weeks:” G. Two weeks which are fourteen days.

This standard pseudo-narrative, No. 1, (“they asked… he said to them…”) could as well have taken the form of a dispute followed by a debate, as is proven by No. 2.

history, time and paradigm

CHAPTER SIX

SIFRA 127-147: PARASHAT NEGAIM: —

35

36

7.

parashat mesora

CHAPTER SEVEN

SIFRA 148-159: PARASHAT MESORA CXLVIII:I 12. A. “... living” [Lev 14:4: “Two living, clean birds”]:—and not slaughtered. B. “... clean”—and not unclean. C. “... clean”—and not terefot. D. “... and a wood” (Lev. 14:4) – E. Might one think that any sort of wood is acceptable? F. Scripture says, “of cedar” (Lev. 14:4). G. If it is cedar, might one think it may be smooth? H. Scripture says, “and wood” (Lev. 14:4). I. How so? J. A chip of cedar. K. R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel says, “And its head is to be smooth (TRP).” 13. A. Said R. Judah, “It was my week [to study and serve as disciple with my master], and I went after R. Tarfon, to his house. B. “He said to me, ‘Judah, my son, give me my sandal,’ and I gave it to him. C. “He put his hand to the window and gave me a staff from it. D. “He said to me, ‘Judah, with this staff have I declared three lepers clean.’ E. “And in that incident I learned seven laws: F. “1. That it is of cypress wood; G. “2. and that its head is smooth; H. “3. and its length is a cubit; I. “4. and its thickness is as thick as a quarter of the leg of the bed, divided exactly, one into two, and two into four; J. “5. and they sprinkle and repeat and do it even a third time with the same staff; K. “6. and that they declare clean while the Temple is standing and while the Temple is not standing;

7.

parashat mesora

37

L. “7. and that they declare clean in the provinces [T. 8:2D, M. Neg. 14:6].

The Halakhic report does not appeal for coherence to teleological logic and simply elaborates on the plan of a ma#aseh, now taking the case/precedent and setting forth not one rule but seven. Here is a fine example of loosening up the formal limits of the Ma#aseh among the circles writing for the Tosefta. Translating each entry into a standard Ma#aseh poses no challenge. Here is how one of the seven theoretically-possible Ma#asim will have emerged: With one and the same staff they sprinkle and repeat and do it even a third time with the same staff Ma#aseh b: R. Tarfon put his hand to the window and put out a staff from it. With this staff he declared three lepers clean.

Then we have an example of how Tosefta produces a precedent, but the Tosefta’s form is more complex than the usual one. The upshot is simple. The composition is primary to the Tosefta and taken over by Sifra, whose paramount formal program is completely ignored. I do not log this into my catalogue of Ma#asim, and the passage does not bear on the matter of narratives in Sifra.

38

chapter five

CHAPTER EIGHT

SIFRA 160-173: PARASHAT ZABIM:—

history, time and paradigm

39

CHAPTER NINE

SIFRA 174-194: PARASHAT AHARÉ MOT CLXXIV:II 1. A. [“The Lord spoke to Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord and died; and the Lord said to Moses, Tell Aaron your brother not to come at all times into the holy place within the veil, before the mercy seat which is upon the ark, lest he die; for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat” (Lev. 16:1-2).] “Tell Aaron your brother not to come at all times into the holy place within the veil:” B. [Since the passage begins, “The Lord spoke to Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron,” without indicating what it was that God said to Moses, and then proceeds to what he is told to tell Aaron, “and the Lord said to Moses, Tell Aaron your brother,”] we do not in fact know what was said to Moses in the original act of speech. C. R. Eleazar b. Azariah would say, “One may then propose a parable: to what may the matter be compared? D. “To the case of a sick person, whom a physician came to see. He said to him, ‘Do not drink cold things, and do not lie in the damp.’ E. “Another physician came and said to him, ‘Do not drink cold things, and do not lie in the damp, so you won’t die the way Mr. So-and-so died.’ F. “This made a deeper impression on him than the first of the two. G. “So it is said, ‘The Lord spoke to Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord and died; and the Lord said to Moses, Tell Aaron your brother not to come at all times into the holy place.’

The setting for the exegetical parable commences with God’s speaking to Moses without indicating the message, and proceeds, “Tell your brother not to come at all times…,” bearing the message that by coming at the wrong time, Aaron’s sons perished. The parable does not require the context to make its statement, that the fram-

40

9.

parashat aharé mot

ing of a message affects its effectiveness. But the exegetical intent is clear. Because the parable on its own makes its point, whether the same parable can have served in some other exegetical context is not to be dismissed out of hand.

9.

parashat aharé mot

41

CHAPTER TEN

SIFRA 195-210: PARASHAT QEDOSHIM CCX:II 9. A. “Lest the land vomit you out, when you defile it [as it vomited out the nation that was before you” (Lev. 18:28): B. The land of Israel is not like other lands. C. It does not support those who practice transgression. D. To what may the matter be compared? E. To the case of a prince whom they fed something that his stomach could not stand, and he vomited it up. F. So the land of Israel does not support those how practice transgression. G. Therefore it is said, “Lest the land vomit you out, when you defile it [as it vomited out the nation that was before you” (Lev. 18:28).

The exegetical parable, 9D-E, translated into an explanation for the cited verse at F+G, establishes a simile between the prince and the Land, so explaining the Scriptural reference to the Land’s vomiting up its inhabitants if they are sinful. Certainly the parable is particular to the case it serves as a simile; out of context, D-E stand for nothing.

42

11.

parashat emor

CHAPTER ELEVEN

SIFRA 211-244: PARASHAT EMOR CCXI:I 1. A. [“And the Lord said to Moses, Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them that none of them shall defile himself for the dead among his people, except for his nearest of kin, his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, his brother, or his virgin sister (who is near to him because she has had no husband, for her he may defile himself). He shall not defile himself as a husband among his people and so profane himself. They shall not make tonsures upon their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuttings in their flesh” (Lev. 21:15).] 15. A. “… for her he may defile himself:” B. it is a religious duty to do so. C. If he did not wish to contract corpse-uncleanness, he is forced against his will to do so. 16. A. There is the case of a priest, Joseph, whose wife died on the eve of Passover and who did not want to contract corpse-uncleanness on her account. B. Sages forced him and made him unclean against his will.

The Ma#aseh is standard for the Mishnah: an economical statement of the case plus the sages’ action or ruling. CCXI:I 19. A. “… for her he may defile himself:” B. He is not to contract corpse-uncleanness on account of her limbs. C. For a man may not contract corpse-uncleanness on account of a limb that has fallen from a living person who is a relation of his on his father’s side. D. But he does contract corpse-uncleanness so as to bury a bone as small as a barleycorn from a relative on his father’s side. E. R. Yosé says, “A man does not contract corpse-uncleanness so as to bury a bone as small as a barleycorn from a relative on his father’s side.” 20. A. There was the case of Joseph b. Paxes, on the

11.

parashat emor

43

foot of whom a wart came up. The physician wanted to chop it off. B. He said to him, “When you have cut it so as to leave only a thread like a hair’s breadth, tell me.” C. He chopped it off until he left only a thread like a hair’s breadth and told him. D. He called Nehunia, his son, and said to him, “Honia, my son, Up to this point you were obligated to take care of me. From this point, go out, for a priest does not contract corpse-uncleanness on account of a corpse from a living person in the case of his father.” E. And when the case came before sages, they said, “This is the sort of case concerning which Scripture says, ‘Sometimes a righteous man perishes in spite of his righteousness’ (Qoh. 7:15). F. “The righteous man perishes, and his righteousness with him.”

The statement of the case, A-D, serves its purpose, to make the point of D. Then the sages comment on the case. This represents a variation on the more elaborate versions of the Ma#aseh in the Tosefta. CCXIII:I 1. A. [“The priest who is chief among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil is poured and who has been consecrated to wear the garments, shall not let the hair of his head hang loose nor rend his clothes; he shall not go in to any dead body, nor defile himself, even for his father or for his mother; neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him; I am the Lord:” B. “The priest who is chief among his brethren:” C. He is to be chief among his brethren in standing, wealth, power, wisdom, and looks. D. If he does not have these traits, how do we know that they should raise him above his brothers? E. Scripture says, “who is chief among his brethren,” meaning, he should be chief at least relative to his brethren. 2. A. They report about Phineas of Habbatah that the lot fell on him to serve as high priest. B. The temple treasurers and administrators went to fetch him and found him quarrying stone, so they filled up the quarry with golden denars. C. Said R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel, “Now was he a stonecutter? And was he not my son-inlaw? And did they not find him ploughing, as

44

11.

parashat emor

it is said, ‘There were twelve yokes before him, and he was with the twelfth’ (1 Kgs. 19:19).”

The report, 2.A-B, shows that if the high priest at the time of his election is not distinguished, the priesthood makes up the difference for him. It is difficult to know how to classify this item. It is not a case/precedent, nor does it bear the marker of a parable or the traits thereof. CCXIV:I 1. A. “[And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow or one divorced, or a one who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he shall not marry; but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people, that he may not profane his children among his people; for I am the Lord who sanctify him” (Lev. 19:10-15).] 6. A. “… he shall take to wife:” B. What is the point of Scripture here? C. How do you know that if he had betrothed a widow and then was appointed high priest, he may consummate the marriage? D. Scripture says, “he shall take to wife.” E. There is the case of Joshua b. Gamala, who consecrated Marta daughter of Beisos, and the king appointed him high priest, and he then consummated the marriage. F. Might one suppose that if in the case of a levirate marriage, the priest had made a verbal agreement to enter into the levirate marriage, he may if in the interval appointed high priest nonetheless consummate the marriage? G. Scripture says, “he shall take to wife:” I. but not a levirate wife.

The Ma#aseh serves as a precedent for 6.C, the betrothal was not set aside by the election to the high priesthood. The absence of a sages’ ruling is noteworthy. CCXXVII:I 1. A. [“And when you sacrifice a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Lord, you shall sacrifice it so that you may be accepted. It shall be eaten on the same day, you shall leave none of it until morning: I am the Lord. So you shall keep my commandments and do them: I am the Lord. And you shall not profane my holy name, but I will be hallowed among the people of Israel. I am the Lord who sanctify you, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God: I am the Lord” (Lev. 22:26-33).] 4. A. “And you shall not profane [my holy name]:” B. I derive the implication from the statement, “you shall not profane,” that sanctification is covered.

11.

parashat emor

45

C. And when Scripture says, “but I will be hallowed,” the sense is, “Give yourself and sanctify my name.” D. Might one suppose that that is when one is all alone? E. Scripture says, “among the people of Israel.” 5. A. In this connection sages have said: B. Whoever gives his life on condition that a miracle is done for him—no miracle will be done for him. C. But if it is not on condition that a miracle be done for him, a miracle will be done for him. D. For so we find in the case of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, that they said to Nebuchadnezzar, “We have no need to answer you in this matter, for if so it must be, our God whom we serve is able to save us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will save us from your power, O king. But even if he does not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your god or worship the statue of gold that you have set up” (Dan. 3:16-18). E. And when Marianos seized Pappos and Lulianos, brothers in Laodicea, he said to them, “If you come from the people of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your God come and save you from my power.” F. They said to him, “Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were worthy men, and Nebuchadnezzar was a king worthy of having a miracle done on his account. G. “But you are a wicked king, and you are not worthy of having a miracle done on your account, and, for our part, we are liable to the death penalty inflicted by Heaven, so if you do not kill us, there are plenty of agents of punishment before the Omnipresent, plenty of bears, plenty of lions, plenty of panthers, plenty of fiery snakes, plenty of scorpions, to do injury to us. H. “But in the end the Omnipresent is going to demand the penalty of our blood from your hand.” I. They say that he did not leave there before orders came from Rome, and they chopped off his head with axes.

46

11.

parashat emor

5.E-H dramatize the exchange by the detail of E, and I is a dramatic conclusion that hardly intersects with the point of the foregoing, which is at G-H. I do not see the mark of an authentic narrative. CCXXXVIII:I 1. A. [“You shall take for yourself on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees and boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days. You shall keep it as a feast to the Lord seven days in the year; it is a statute for ever throughout your generations; you shall keep it in the seventh month. You shall dwell in booths for seven days; all that are native in Israel shall dwell in booths, that you generations may know that I made the people of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God. Thus Moses declared to the people of Israel the appointed feasts of the Lord” (Lev. 23:3944).] B. “You shall take for yourself:” C. R. Judah says, “We find reference to ‘taking’ both here and below [‘On the fifteenth day of the seventh month... you shall take on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook’ (Lev. 23:3940)]. D. “Just as ‘taking’ stated below involves making a bunch of the specified species, so here too what is required is making a bunch of the specified species.” E. And sages say, “Even if the species are not made into a bunch, the act is valid.” 2. A. “You shall take for yourself:” B. each individual [is responsible to do so]. 3. A. “[You shall take] for yourself:” B. one that belongs to you, not a stolen one. C. In this connection sages have said: D. A person does not fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival to wave the lulab [palm branch] by using the lulab of his fellow [M. Suk. 3:13C], E. unless he gives it to him as an unconditional gift, and he to his fellow, and he to his fellow, even if they are a hundred people. F. There was the case of [Ma#aseh b-] Rabban Gamaliel and elders, who were traveling in a boat [T.’s version: and had no lulab with them. Rabban Gamaliel bought a lulab for a golden denar. Once he had fulfilled his

11.

parashat emor

47

obligation with it, he gave it to his fellow, and his fellow to his fellow, so that all of them fulfilled their obligation. Afterward they returned it to him (T. Suk. 2:11B-D). [Sifra’s version:] And only Rabban Gamaliel alone had a lulab. Rabban Gamaliel gave it as a gift to R. Joshua, and R. Joshua to R. Eleazar b. Azariah, and R. Eleazar b. Azariah to R. Aqiba, and all of them thereby carried out their obligation.

While the version in Sifra differs in articulation from that in Tosefta, in fact the Ma#aseh is primary to Tosefta and secondary here. CCXLII:I 1. A. [“Now an Israelite woman’s son, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel; and the Israelite woman’s son and a man of Israel quarreled in the camp, and the Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the Name and cursed. And they brought him to Moses. His mother’s name was Shelomit, daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him in custody until the will of the Lord should be declared to them” (Lev. 24:10-23).] B. “Now an Israelite woman’s son, whose father as an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel:” C. Whence did he come? D. He came out of Moses’s court, for he had come to gain the right to plant his tent in the midst of the camp of Dan [“His mother’s name was Shelomit, daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan”]. E. They said to him, “What claim do you have to plant your tent in the midst of Dan?” F. He said to them, “I derive from the women of the tribe of Dan.” G. They said to him, “Does Scripture not say, ‘The Israelites shall camp each with his standard, under the banners of their fathers’ house; they shall camp around the tent of meeting at a distance’ (Num. 2:2). [The right of belonging to a tribe derives from the father, not the mother.]” H. He went into Moses’s court and came out vanquished, and so he went and cursed.

The dramatized exchange does not qualify as a narrative, since the climactic point, H, hardly affects the coherence of the foregoing. I include the item only for the sake of completeness.

12.

48

parashat behar

CHAPTER TWELVE

SIFRA 245-259: PARASHAT BEHAR CCLV:I 1.

A. “And if your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, [you shall maintain him; as a stranger and a sojourner he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or increase, but fear your God; that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest nor give him your food for profit. I am the Lord your God who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God” (Lev. 25:35-38).] B. Do not let him go down. C. Lo, to what is the matter to be compared? D. To a load on an ass. E. While the ass is yet standing in place, a single individual can take hold of him and lead him. F. If the ass falls to the ground, five people cannot raise him up again.

Why not let the destitute brother “go down”? Because it will be more difficult to raise him up from the ground than to support him while he is standing up—the exegetical parable leaves no doubt as to its pertinence. It is particular to the case it wishes to clarify.

12.

parashat behar

49

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

SIFRA 260-277: PARASHAT BEHUQOTAI CCLXI:I 1. A. “… then I will give you your rains in their season, [and the land shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. And your threshing shall last to the time of vintage, and the vintage shall last to the time for sowing; and you shall eat your bread to the full and dwell in your land securely. And I will give peace in the land, and you shall lie down and none shall make you afraid]:” 3. A. “… then I will give you your rains in their season:” B. on the night of the Sabbath [when no work can be done anyhow]. 4. A. There was the case, [Ma#aseh] in the time of Simeon b. Shatah, in the time of Queen Shelamsu, when it would rain from Friday night to Friday night [on a weekly basis], B. so that the grains of wheat grew as large as beans, and the grains of barley were like olive pits, and the lentils were like golden denars. C. Sages made a bundle of some of them and left them behind for coming generations, D. so as to demonstrate how much sin accomplishes [in less virtuous generations]. E. This serves to illustrate the following: F. “But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he does not hear” (Is. 59:2). G. They have held back goodness from you.

The Ma#aseh, 4.A-B, amplifies 3.B and links the “rain in season” to the larger issue of sin. Since people have sinned, rain does not fall, and the crops suffer. So far as I can see, the Ma#aseh therefore has no Halakhic program; it serves the Aggadic-theological proposition expressed at C-D, and then articulated at F-G. I know in MishnahTosefta of no comparable utilization of the Ma#aseh for other than

13.

50

parashat behuqotai

Halakhic purposes. What we have is an exegetical Ma#aseh comparable to the exegetical parable. The difference is only the specificity: the event took place in a particular reign, and sages made a remark in that context, rather than “the matter is to be compared to the case of a queen, in whose time…,” and such. CCLXII:I 8.

A. B.

“… and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword:” They will fall before you, not in the ordinary way. 9. A. “And I will have regard for you:” B. There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? C. It is to be compared to the case of a king who hired a large work force, and there was there a certain worker, who did work for him over a long period of time. D. The workers came to collect their wages, and that worker came with them. E. The king said to him, “My son, I shall turn to you [and pay you special attention]. These young workers who have worked for me have done a fair amount of work, so I shall give them a modest wage, but to you I am going to make a substantial settlement.” F. So the Israelites are in this world: G. They seek their reward before the Omnipresent, and the nations of the world seek their reward before the Omnipresent. H. The Omnipresent says to the Israelites, “My children, I shall pay attention to you. The nations of the world who have worked for me have done a fair amount of work, so I shall give them a modest wage, but to you I am going to make a substantial settlement.” I. That is in line with the statement, “And I will have regard for you.”

The force of the exegetical parable, B-E, is realized at F-H, which articulates the matter in so many words. The exegetical parable amplifies the cited verse, “They will fall before you, not in the ordinary way,” explaining the special reward that is coming to Israel. The parable is particular to the exegetical setting, since it wishes to explain why the enemies of Israel are rejected by God.

13.

parashat behuqotai

51

CCLXIII:I 1. A. “And you shall eat old store long kept, [and you shall clear out the old to make way for the new. And I will make my abode among you, and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you and I will be your God and you shall be my people:” 5. A. “And I will walk among you:” B. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who went out to stroll with his sharecropper in an orchard. C. But the sharecropper hid from him. D. Said the king to that sharecropper, “How come you’re hiding from me? Lo, I am just like you.” E. So the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the righteous, “Why are you trembling before me?” F. So the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to walk with the righteous in the Garden of Eden in the coming future, and the righteous will see him and tremble before him, G. [and he will say to them,] “[How come you’re trembling before me?] Lo, I am just like you.”

Linking Scripture’s context to that of Eden, the exegetical parable flows, B-D, and bears a primary articulation at E, then a secondary and explicit one at F-G. God’s walking among Israel is what requires explanation, and the parable invokes the story of Eden to supply it. Israel compares to Adam and Eve, sharecroppers in Eden, who hid from God and trembled when he walked among them. But Israel need not tremble, being composed of the righteous in the Garden of Eden in the coming future; now there is no reason to tremble, the sin of rebellion having been atoned for. Now God and Israel are consubstantial, G. This is a daring and grand parable, built out of the Eden-narrative and expressing its point in the context of the blessings and the curses of Leviticus 26-27. A parable of such power has no autonomous standing, outside of its exegetical context here. Telling the parable in the present instance as some sort of “narrative” out of any exegetical context yields gibberish. CCLXIII:I 8. A. [“And I will walk among you and I will be your God and you

52

13.

parashat behuqotai

shall be my people. I am the Lord your God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, that you should not be their slaves; and I have broken the bars of your yoke and made you walk erect”] “…and I have broken the bars of your yoke:” B. The matter may be compared to the case of a householder who had a cow for ploughing, and he lent it to someone else to plough with it. C. That man had ten sons. This one came and ploughed with it and went his way, and that one came and ploughed with it and went his way, so that the cow got tired and crouched down. D. All the other cows came back, but that cow did not enter the fold. [It had been worked to death, and no one concerned himself with its welfare.] E. The owner hardly agreed to accept consolation from that man, but he went and broke the yoke and cut off the carved ends of the yoke. F. So is Israel in this world. G. One ruler comes along and subjugates them and then goes his way, then another ruler comes along and subjugates them and goes his way, so that the furrow is very long. H. So it is said, “Plowmen plowed across my back; they made long furrows. [The Lord, the righteous one, has snapped the cords of the wicked]” (Ps. 129:3-4). I. Tomorrow, when the end comes, the Holy One, blessed be He, will not say to the nations, “Thus and so have you done to my children!” J. Rather, he will immediately come and break the yoke and cut off the ends of the yoke. K. For it is said, “and I have broken the bars of your yoke.” L. And further, “The Lord has snapped the cords of the wicked.”

The exegetical parable continues the work of amplifying the eschatological message. As usual in the present corpus, the parable, B-E, requires explicit articulation as to its meaning in Israel’s eschatological context, F-H, I-L. On its own, the parable yields no obvious lesson—what can E possibly mean out of its present exegetical context!—so, as before, it appears to me the parable is the consequence of the message, not the cause. That is to say, G is the starting point, and it is what requires explanation. But the householder, possessor of the ox, is left without explicit identification. Then I-L complete

13.

parashat behuqotai

53

the exposition. That the parable is integral to the composition and makes sense only in the present context seems to me self-evident. But then the parable functions in Aggadic settings as does the Ma#aseh in Halakhic ones. CCLXV:I 1. A. [“But if you will not hearken to me and will not do all these commandments, if you spurn my statutes and if your soul abhors my ordinances, so that you will not do all my commandments but break my covenant,] also I [will do this to you]:” 9. A. “I will set my face against you:” B. Just as, in connection with the good, it says, “I will set my face upon you,” C. so, in connection with the bad, it says, “I will set my face against you.” D. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who said to his servant, “I shall turn away from all my other tasks and I shall attend to you—on account of evil.”

The exegetical parable builds on the contrast between setting the face upon and against, and it clarifies the negative usage, “against..attend to.” The point of the parable is specific to the exegetical problem. CCLXVII:II 1. A. [“And if in spite of this you will not hearken to me but walk contrary to me, then I will walk contrary to you in fury and chastise you myself seven-fold for your sins. You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.” (Lev. 26:2733).] B. “You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters:” C. They say concerning Doeg b. Joseph that he died and left a young son to his mother, and she would take his measure from year to year by handbreadths and give his weight in gold to Heaven. D. Now when the siege-works encircled Jerusalem, she slaughtered him with her own hand and ate him. E. And concerning her Jeremiah mourns, saying, “Look, O Lord, and see! With whom have you dealt thus? Should women eat their offspring, the children of their tender care?” [Should priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?]” (Lam. 2:20). F. The Holy Spirit replied, saying “Should priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord?”

54

13.

parashat behuqotai G. The priest-prophet is Zechariah b. Jehoiada the priest.

I do not know how to classify C-D. If we substituted for “they say” Ma#aseh b…, the form would work perfectly well, but the result would be gibberish. The composition reports an episode, a fact of history—not a Halakhic case or example, not an exegetical exercise in the manner of the parable. C-D illustrate the base-verse, “You shall eat…,” but add nothing to the understanding of that verse or the theological context of its assertion, such as we found earlier. The invocation, E, of Jeremiah’s lament adds nothing, because it deals with the clause of the base-verse (Lam. 2:20) that is not pertinent here and is tacked on in the agglutinative process of forming exegeses of Lam. 2:20 into a coherent corpus (a process that yielded no compilation but could have). CCLXVII:II 4. A. “… and cut down your incense altars:” B. this refers to soothsayers and enchanters in Israel. 5. A. “… and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols:” B. What were dead bodies doing with idols? C. Elijah of blessed memory went around among all those who were bloated by famine. If he found someone bloated by famine and lying in hunger, he would say to him, “My son, what family do you come from?” D. He replied, “From such and such a family.” E. He said to him, “And how many were you?” F. He replied, “We were three thousand.” G. “And how many survive of you?” H. He said to him, “I.” I. He said to him, “Do you want to say a single thing and live?” J. He said to him, “Yes.” K. He said to him, “[Say,’] ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord alone.’” L. He forthwith cried out and said, “Silence! [This he did] so as not to make mention of the name of the Lord. Father did not teach me thus.” M. What did he do? He took his idol and put it on his heart and caressed it and kissed it, until his stomach burst and he and his idol fell to the earth. N. That is what is meant by the verse, “and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols.”

1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action or event that precipitates the telling of the tale?

13.

parashat behuqotai

55

The authentic narrative finds its focus at L-M, where all the details are made to cohere in an account of why the corpses of the Israelites were cast among the idols. All the prior details come together only at the end, which imparts its sense on the preceding data. And the conclusion to which all thing lead also forms a climax. Elijah offers the survivor a chance to live, but even the proclamation of the Shema# offends the man, who instead caressed his idol. The loyalty of the apostate Israelite to idolatry imparts coherence to all the details and explains why the dead bodies are joined to the remnants of the idols. 2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? This question reinforces the foregoing. The conflict is between Elijah and the idolater, who prefers death over life. The resolution comes with the rejection even of the Shema# and the consequent death of the idolater. 3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? The story, unfolding through dialogue, is short and simple, making its point without ambiguity. It is propositional, and the proposition is, idolaters prefer death over monotheism. So far as I can see, this is the sole authentic narrative in Sifra. CCLXVIII:II 1. A. “Then the land shall enjoy its Sabbaths [as long as it lies desolate, while you are in your enemies’ land; then the land shall rest and enjoy its Sabbaths. As long as it lies desolate it shall have rest, the rest which it had not in your Sabbaths when you dwelt upon it. And as for those of you that are left, I will send faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; the sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight” (Lev. 26:34-39).] 3. A. “… the sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight:” B. Said R. Yohanan b. Qorhah, “Once we were in session among trees, and the wind blew and brought down leaves one on the other, and we got up and ran, saying, ‘Woe is us! What if the charioteers catch up with us! C. “After a while we looked back and saw that there was no one there, and we sat down on the spot and wept, saying, woe is us! For in us is realized this verse of Scripture: ‘the sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight, and they shall flee as one flees from the sword,’—out of fear! D. “‘… and they shall fall when none pursues’—out of faintness.”

56

13.

parashat behuqotai

The report illustrates the cited verse. This strikes me as pseudo-narrative, a dramatic setting for the exegesis of the cited verse through a specific case/incident, along the lines of the exegetical parable.

13.

parashat behuqotai

57

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

NARRATIVES IN SIFRA Viewed whole, Sifra forms a systematic compilation of Midrash-exegeses on the book of Leviticus. Three forms dictate the entire rhetorical repertoire of the document. The first is the protracted argument or dialectical form, meant for the demonstration that if we wish to classify things and so find the governing rules, we must follow the taxa dictated by Scripture rather than relying solely upon the traits of the things we wish to classify as we do in the Mishnah. The second, the citation-form, adduces passages of the Mishnah or the Tosefta in the setting of Scripture and links the Halakhah of the Mishnah or Tosefta to Scripture. The third, covering more than half of the compilation, is commentary form, in which the citation of a phrase of Scripture is followed by an amplificatory clause of some sort. The forms of the document admirably express the polemical purpose of the authorship at hand. What they wished to prove was that a taxonomy resting on the traits of things without reference to Scripture’s own classifications cannot serve. They further wished to restate the oral Torah (set forth in the Mishnah and the Tosefta) in the setting of the written Torah. And, finally, they proposed to accomplish the whole by rewriting the written Torah. The dialectical form accomplishes the first purpose, the citation-form the second, and the commentary form the third. To Sifra’s program, narrative proves only episodically pertinent. Even then, it is pseudo-narrative of two kinds, the Ma#aseh and the parable or Mashal—not the authentic narrative that defines our problem. We shall have, therefore, to find out how the Ma#aseh and the parable pertain to the documentary program of Sifra or to its exegetical realization of that program.

58

14.

narratives in sifra

I. The Authentic Narrative First, we turn to the sole narrative that, by the announced criterion, we may classify as authentic, Elijah and the surviving idolater: CCLXVII:II.5. “… and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols:” What were dead bodies doing with idols? Elijah of blessed memory went around among all those who were bloated by famine. If he found someone bloated by famine and lying in hunger, he would say to him, “My son, what family do you come from?” He replied, “From such and such a family.” “And how many survive of you?” He said to him, “I.” He said to him, “Do you want to say a single thing and live? “[Say,’] ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord alone.’” He forthwith cried out and said, “Silence! [This he did] so as not to make mention of the name of the Lord. Father did not teach me thus.” What did he do? He took his idol and put it on his heart and caressed it and kissed it, until his stomach burst and he and his idol fell to the earth. That is what is meant by the verse, “and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols.”

The anecdote fits into the exegesis of the cited verse, “and cast your corpses on the corpses of your idols,” then explicitly explaining to what sort of case the reference pertains. But the story stands on its own and need not be addressed only in exegetical context. Still, it precisely accomplishes the compilers’ purpose in amplifying that context. Later on we shall ask whether this item finds an integral position in the program of Sifra. II. The Mashal The Mishnah and the Tosefta are extensively cited and glossed in Sifra, so a brief account of the Mashal in those two documents affords perspective on what we shall find in Sifra. As to the Mishnah, the compositions marked Mashal all fall into the category of Halakhic parables, for the three parables set forth by the Mishnah effect a Halakhic exegesis. That is to say, a Halakhic parable provides an inert simile to clarify a normative law, in all cases, a law of Scripture. The Halakhic parable of Sifra carries forward the Halakhic parables of the Mishnah, all of which consist of a simile lacking development or complexity: “this is like that.”

14.

narratives in sifra

59

1. Mishnah-tractate Sukkah 2:9: They made a parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a slave who came to mix a cup of wine for his master, and his master threw the flagon into his face. 2. Mishnah-tractate Niddah 2:5; The sages made a parable in connection with the woman: (1) the room, (2) the front hall, and (2) the room upstairs. 3. Mishnah-tractate Niddah 5:7: Sages have made a parable in regard to the woman: (1) an unripe fig, (2) a ripening fig, and (2) a fully ripe fig.

We shall identify numerous parables in Sifra that follow the same plan: an inert simile, lacking all narrative energy. In the Mishnah, then, “Mashal” signals a static, inert simile, lacking all narrative articulation. It refers to a comparison of a Halakhic category to an arrangement of rules or to a growth-process of nature. The transaction at No. 1 invokes a transaction without outcome: a tableau, not an illuminating drama. It scarcely hints at the development in the Tosefta of an anecdotal aspect of the Mashal, a more complex articulation of the simile. The Tosefta’s parables are more elaborate and diverse. There the Mashal occurs not only as a static simile, “this is like that…,”1 but also as a dynamic, protracted narrative, involving a series of paradigmatic transactions. The Tosefta’s other-than-static kind of Mashal is represented by the following: Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 1:11 1:11 J. Similarly, “Remember not the former things, nor consider the things of old” (Is. 43:18). Remember not the former things—these are [God’s mighty acts in saving Israel] from the [various] kingdoms; nor consider things of old—these are [God’s mighty acts in saving Israel] from Egypt. K. “Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth” (Is. 43:19)—this refers to the war of God and Magog [at the end of time]. L. They drew a parable, to what may the matter be compared? To one who was walking in the way and a wolf attacked him, but he was saved from it. He would continually relate the incident of the wolf. Later a lion attacked him, but he was saved from it. He forgot the incident of the wolf 1

Further examples of the same sort of free-standing parabolic material, particular to the exegetical problem and requiring explicit linkage to the exegetical or Halakhic task at hand, are at Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 6:18, Tosefta-tractate Sheqalim 1:6, Tosefta-tractate Sotah 15:7, Tosefta-tractate B.Q. 7:3, 4, Toseftatractate Sanhedrin 1:2, Tosefta-tractate Sanhedrin 8:9, Tosefta-tractate Zebahim 12:9, Tosefta-tractate Niddah 2:8, Tosefta-tractate Niddah 3:5 and Tosefta-tractate Zabim 1:11.

60

14.

narratives in sifra

and would relate the incident of the lion. Later still a serpent attacked him, but he was saved from it. He forgot the other two incidents and would continually relate the incident of the serpent. M. So, too are Israel: the recent travails make them forget about the earlier ones.

What is important is two facts. First, the Mashal now portrays a series of events. Second, the Mashal stands on its own, and produces a coherent composition out of relationship with the exegetical task defined by Is. 43:18. That that relationship is not self-evident is conveyed by the requirement implicit in M: to make the relationship of the parable to the case explicit. True to the documentary character of Tosefta, the static parables, in the model of the Mishnah’s simile lacking a narrative articulation, are more numerous.2 Now let us take up the parable as represented in Sifra. What defines the parable here as in the Mishnah and the Tosefta is the announcement that a case or proposition may be approached through a simile, an account of a transaction the components of which are comparable in character or relationship to the case or proposition at hand. That account, like the Ma#aseh, then may, but need not, report an anecdote, involving a transaction comparable to the one at hand but more readily accessible in its simplicity of detail than the one at hand. Sifra’s parable thus takes two forms. In the first, it simply sets up a situation comparable to the one under discussion, lacking all activity or movement. In the second, it narrates a transaction or event deemed comparable to the one under discussion. In neither case does the logic of teleology have to impart coherence to the composition. Rather, the context—the situation to be replicated in other, more accessible terms—does. In this document the parable serves two purposes, clarification of an exegesis of a verse of Sifra, or clarification of a Halakhic ruling set forth in Leviticus. The question that engages us in the present context is, does the Mashal of either type stand on its own, or does it require the exegetical context to bear specific meaning? To answer that question I catalogue the parables identified in chapters one through thirteen. To set off the parable

2 Further examples of the dynamic parable, are at Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 2:6, Tosefta-tractate Hagigah 2:4, Tosefta-tractate Sotah 11:4, Tosefta-tractate B.Q. 7:2, Tosefta-tractate Baba Qamma 7:13.

14.

narratives in sifra

61

from its context, I underline the parabolic component of the composition. a. The Halakhic Parable Ordinarily, like that of the Mishnah, the Halakhic parable of Sifra is so closely tied to, generated by, the case at hand that it is incomprehensible beyond that context. That is to say, removed from the case that is clarified, the Halakhic parable yields no sense whatsoever; it is incoherent and gibberish. The Halakhic parables before us involve descriptions of situations, rather than unfolding transactions or singular events. They are inert, not dynamic, and they scarcely qualify even as anecdotal. The economical, stripped-down description of what is said and done recalls the Halakhic Ma#aseh. The difference is, the Halakhic Ma#aseh frames a transaction or a circumstance on which sages make a ruling, while the Halakhic Mashal establishes a counterpart situation in which the outcome is implicit and requires no articulated ruling. The power of the simile therefore lies in its self-evident implication. 1. III:VI. 2. Might one suppose that one should not bring an offering of a wild beast, but if one has brought a wild beast as an offering, it is valid? The matter may be compared to the case of someone whose master said to him, “Go and bring me wheat,” and he went and brought him both wheat and barley. … Lo, to what may the matter be compared? To the case of someone whose master said to him, “Go and bring me only wheat.”

The paired parables match the case and have no autonomous standing, since out of context they bear no point I can discern. Here there is no unpacking of a transaction, only the description of the case, lacking an outcome. This is a situation, not a transaction with secondary amplification.

2. LXVI:I. 1. A.“The priest shall make expiation on his behalf for the error that he committed unwittingly, [and he shall be forgiven. It is a guiltoffering, he has incurred guilt before the Lord]:” “unwittingly:” excluding a case in which others informed him. lo, if he were to have acted knowingly, atonement shall not be achieved for him. To what may this matter be compared? To the case of the heifer the neck of which is broken [in expiation of the discovery of a neglected corpse]. Even though the neck of the heifer is broken, if then the murderer is found, lo, the murderer is put to death.

The parable, hardly a simile in the form of a narrative such as we come to expect, is particular to the Halakhic problem, as the secondary amplification, “Even though the neck is broken...”

62

14.

narratives in sifra

indicates clearly. The parabolic case exactly matches the Halakhic issue and does not yield to generalization beyond that issue. I see the construction of a situation, not the description of a protracted event. 3. CLXXIV:II. 1. “Tell Aaron your brother not to come at all times into the holy place within the veil:” R. Eleazar b. Azariah would say, “One may then propose a parable: to what may the matter be compared? To the case of a sick person, whom a physician came to see. He said to him, ‘Do not drink cold things, and do not lie in the damp.’ Another physician came and said to him, ‘Do not drink cold things, and do not lie in the damp, so you won’t die the way Mr. So-and-so died.’ This made a deeper impression on him than the first of the two. So it is said, ‘The Lord spoke to Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord and died; and the Lord said to Moses, Tell Aaron your brother not to come at all times into the holy place.’

We have stages of activity, one physician came, then another, with the following consequence; this comes close to narrative, in that the second and last component of the composition sheds light on the meaning of the first. This is an unfolding anecdote, not merely a replication of a circumstance. Because the parable as articulated (“this made a deeper impression than the first…”) on its own makes its point, whether the same parable can have served in some other exegetical context is not to be dismissed out of hand. But the articulation of the point, “So it is said…,” does link the parable tightly to the Halakhic case.

4. CCLV:I. Do not let him go down. Lo, to what is the matter to be compared? To a load on an ass. While the ass is yet standing in place, a single individual can take hold of him and lead him. If the ass falls to the ground, five people cannot raise him up again.

The parable is particular to its case and cannot be readily understood out of relationship to it. This too is not an anecdote but a circumstance.

We see two facts. First, it is a fixed trait of the Halakhic parables of Sifra that the case dictates the simile; only one of the Halakhic parables can stand outside of its Halakhic context. Second, the Halakhic parables tend not to entail the protracted description of an anecdotal transaction, e.g., actions and reactions. With the noted exception,—the same as the exception to the particularity of the parable to the details of the Halakhic case—they also cannot be called narratives and qualify as pseudo-narratives only with difficulty.

14.

narratives in sifra

63

Rather, as similes, they tend to serve to replicate the relationships of a Halakhic problem in another, neutral situation not particular to the details of the Halakhic rule at hand. b. The Exegetical Parable The task of the exegetical parable is to clarify not a law but a statement of Scripture. The link to Scripture is intimate, and ordinarily the parable bears no self-evident meaning or message out of exegetical context, as we shall now see. It is necessary to articulate this connection point by point, e.g., in the first entry, “So with Aaron….” None of these parabolic compositions has the capacity to stand on its own. Most of them, however, involve protracted transactions, e.g., action and reaction.

1. XCVIII:VI. 1. “And Moses killed it and took the blood:” For all seven days of consecration, Moses served in the high priesthood. He would slaughter the beast, he would toss the blood, he would sprinkle the blood, he would perform the rite of purification, he would pour oil, he would atone. There is then a parable: to what may the matter be compared? To a princess who was married when she was a minor, and they made an agreement with her mother that the mother would serve until her daughter would learn [what was required of her]. So with Aaron, at first he was a Levite, as it is said, “And is not Aaron, your brother, the Levite” (Ex. 4:14). But when he was chosen to serve as High Priest, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, “You will serve me until Aaron will learn.”

The parable, “A princess was married as a minor” matches the case point by point, as the articulation of matters makes explicit. I cannot think of what the parable as articulated here can mean outside of this particular context. What we see is how the exegetical parable constructs a situation, rather than tells a tale of what was said or done in sequences. I see no stages of activity, no initiative with its consequences, just the construction of a situation,—a woman married under such-and-such stipulation,—deemed to illuminate Aaron’s situation in the priesthood.

2. XCVIII:VII.3. “... and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the ram:” They placed their hands on it in rejoicing and celebrated a festival day. The matter may be compared to one who had paid off a debt that was owing and so celebrated a festival. So too, Aaron and his sons, once they had completed the rite involving the day and its acts of sanctification, the rite involving the utensils and their sanctification, and presented the second ram and laid hands on it with rejoicing, they made a festival day.

64

14.

narratives in sifra

The simile is to one who has paid a debt, and on its own that bears no self-evident message or connection to a particular problem or case. Only when “So too, Aaron and his sons…” comes into play does the simile register. The exegetical parable not only replicates the scriptural situation but then yields a detailed account of how that is so. So in its rich detail the parable is particular to the case at hand, which it matches. 3. XCIX:II.2. “… and all the congregation stood near and stood before the Lord:” All of them came near with great jubilation and stood before him It is like the case of a king who got mad at his wife and divorced her. After some days he was reconciled with her. She immediately girded her loins and tied her kerchiefs and she served him with an excess of enthusiasm So Israel, when they saw that the Omnipresent was reconciled to accepting atonement for their sins, they all came near with jubilation and stood before him.

What the parable supplies is access to the emotions that the exegete imputes to Israel. That the parable exactly replicates Scripture’s description of the situation is self-evident; that it can serve for some other situation certainly cannot be rejected out of hand. The parable involves a sequence of stages, first this, then in consequence, that. It must be deemed an unrealized story, where a situation has been described but not then led to its consequence or conclusion, e.g., the king then resolved….

4. CCX:II 9. “Lest the land vomit you out, when you defile it [as it vomited out the nation that was before you” (Lev. 18:28): The land of Israel is not like other lands. It does not support those who practice transgression. To what may the matter be compared? To the case of a prince whom they fed something that his stomach could not stand, and he vomited it up. So the land of Israel does not support those how practice transgression.

The parable is particular to the case invoked by Scripture, and its details exactly replicate that case, comparing the Land to a “prince.” The parable requires no stages, e.g., something was done and someone responded in such-and-such a way, and its pertinence is made explicit as usual.

5. CCLXII:I. 9. “And I will have regard for you:” There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? It is to be compared to the case of a king who hired a large work force, and there was there a certain worker, who did work for him over a long period of time. The workers came to collect their wages, and that worker came with them. The king said to him, “My son, I shall turn to you [and pay you special attention]. These young workers who have worked for me have done a fair amount of work, so I shall give them a modest wage, but to you I am going to make a substantial settle-

14.

narratives in sifra

65

ment.” So the Israelites are in this world: They seek their reward before the Omnipresent, and the nations of the world seek their reward before the Omnipresent. The Omnipresent says to the Israelites, “My children, I shall pay attention to you. The nations of the world who have worked for me have done a fair amount of work, so I shall give them a modest wage, but to you I am going to make a substantial settlement.”

Here we have a fully-realized narrative, people did such and such with the following result, a transaction that both captures the issue of Scripture and explains its point. The elaborate story does not strike me as limited to the context before us; its players— those who work only a little and are paid a modest wage, as against those who work hard and are paid a large salary—need not be Israel and the nations, and its problem is not particular to the eschatological issue that animates the version at hand.

6. CCLXIII:I.5. “And I will walk among you and I will be your God and you shall be my people:” The matter may be compared to the case of a king who went out to stroll with his sharecropper in an orchard. But the sharecropper hid from him. Said the king to that sharecropper, “How come you’re hiding from me? Lo, I am just like you.” So the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the righteous, “Why are you trembling before me?” So the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to walk with the righteous in the Garden of Eden in the coming future, and the righteous will see him and tremble before him,

As I said in the presentation of this remarkable parable, the entire composite is particular to the verse of Scripture that is clarified by reference to an intersecting verse of Scripture. The task of the parable is to build the bridge from the one to the other.

7. CCLXIII:I. 8. “… and I have broken the bars of your yoke:” The matter may be compared to the case of a householder who had a cow for ploughing, and he lent it to someone else to plough with it. That man had ten sons. This one came and ploughed with it and went his way, and that one came and ploughed with it and went his way, so that the cow got tired and crouched down. All the other cows came back, but that cow did not enter the fold. The owner hardly agreed to accept consolation from that man, but he went and broke the yoke and cut off the carved ends of the yoke. So is Israel in this world. One ruler comes along and subjugates them and then goes his way, then another ruler comes along and subjugates them and goes his way, so that the furrow is very long. Tomorrow, when the end comes, the Holy One, blessed be He, will not say to the nations, “Thus and so have you done to my children!” Rather, he will immediately come and break the yoke and cut off the ends of the yoke.

The parable, rich in activity, explains why God broke the bars of Israel’s yoke and its components are particular to the exe-

66

14.

narratives in sifra

getical requirements of Scripture’s case. The parable makes sense only in that context, as signaled by the anticipated “so is Israel in this world…,” which leaves no doubt as to the particularity of the parable to the exegetical context. 8. CCLXV:I.9 .[“But if you will not hearken to me and will not do all these commandments, if you spurn my statutes and if your soul abhors my ordinances, so that you will not do all my commandments but break my covenant,] also I [will do this to you]:” Just as, in connection with the good, it says, “I will set my face upon you,” so, in connection with the bad, it says, “I will set my face against you.” The matter may be compared to the case of a king who said to his servant, “I shall turn away from all my other tasks and I shall attend to you—on account of evil.”

The scarcely-realized parable, bearing no account of things done, simply paraphrases the verse that is amplified, translating the participants from God and Israel to the king and the servant.

Of the twelve parables that I have identified, nine are particular to the exegetical setting. Those that on the surface can serve for some purpose other than the specific one at hand involve a more elaborate transaction than those particular to the terms of the verse that is amplified or the Halakhic ruling that is clarified. Halakhic Parables of Sifra Parable particular to its Halakhic setting: III:VI. 2, LXVI:I. 1, CCLV:I Parable not particular to its Halakhic setting: CLXXIV:II. 1 Exegetical Parables of Sifra Parable particular to its exegetical setting: XCVIII:VI. 1, XCVIII:VII. 3, CCX:II 9, CCLXIII:I.5, CCLXIII:I. 8, CCLXV:I.9 Parable not particular to its exegetical setting: XCIX:II. 2, CCLXII: I. 9

Our sample is limited and sustains no global generalization. Not only so, but the proportion of the document as a whole that we have reviewed in this rubric is negligible. We do not deal with a principal part of the document. But it is equally clear that Sifra’s framers have found uses for the Mashal, both Halakhic and exegetical, that escaped the attention of the compilers of the Mishnah and the Tosefta. Though the number of entries is modest, it is also well-delineated and bears uniform traits. So we may offer a tentative theory of matters. Both types of parable tend to emerge from the particular setting

14.

narratives in sifra

67

and to respond to an exegetical assignment. That is to clarify a distinctive case or problem or ruling. The parables, whether Halakhic or exegetical, that predominate emerge from the details of particular cases, translated into readily accessible similes. Some, to be sure, bear an autonomous, internally cogent, narrative; the free-standing parables then require and receive an explicit statement showing how the simile applies to the particular case at hand. Do parables circulate autonomous of the documents, with their compositions of Halakhic amplification or exegetical clarification? Or are they integral to the process of documentary formulation and extenuation? On the basis of the Halakhic set we cannot posit a corpus of similes, whether inert or anecdotal, circulating hither and yon, available for an indeterminate purpose and then shaped for the case at hand. On the basis of the exegetical set, matters are less clear, but the larger part of our data proves integral to the exegetical task at hand. The upshot may be simply expressed. Overall, the parables appear more likely to commence within the exegetical process than outside its limits, to respond to a particular exegetical task, rather than to define one. That proposition proves coherent with the use of parables in the Mishnah, where the signal, Mashal, always promises an inert simile, meaning, this is like that, rather than an active narrative, “the matter may be compared to the case of a king who….” In the Tosefta, the same kind of parable predominates, but the dynamic Mashal, bearing its own meaning out of exegetical/Halakhic context, does occur. That represents a step beyond the Mishnah’s rather sparse and casual utilization of the genre. And Sifra follows suit. III. The Ma#aseh Sifra’s corpus of Ma#asim is to be seen in the context of the two documents to which Sifra is intimately connected, the Mishnah and the Tosefta. Of the narratives and pseudo-narratives of the Mishnah, 80% are Ma#asim, and of these, most are Halakhic Ma#asim: cases or precedents. The Tosefta follows suit, with Ma#asim forming just under 80% of its narrative or pseudo-narrative corpus. But as with the Mashal, so with the Ma#aseh, the Tosefta not only replicates the Mishnah’s forms but produces secondary developments thereof. The Tosefta’s Ma#asim divide into those in the model of the Mishnah’s

68

14.

narratives in sifra

Ma#asim (55%) and those not (45%). These represent a form-analytical distinction, not a functional difference. The latter tend to a more elaborate form. All of the Ma#asim of the Mishnah, but only part of those in the Tosefta are of a Halakhic character. Since the Tosefta both intersects with the Mishnah and makes a statement of its own, we should not be surprised at these results. Sifra yields seven Ma#asim, about half as many Ma#asim as parables. And not all of them are active similes, tied to the Halakhic process, like those of the Mishnah and most of those of the Tosefta. 1. XCIX:VI. 6. “… and offered unholy fire before the Lord, such as he had not commanded them:” R. Eliezer says, “Nadab and Abihu became liable for punishment only because they taught law in the presence of Moses, their master, for whoever teaches law in the presence of his master is liable to death.” And it happened concerning [Ma#aseh b] a certain student who gave instruction in the presence of Eliezer [without permission]. He said to Imma Shalom, his wife, “He will not finish out this week.” And he died [that week].

This is an unconventional usage, because the Ma#aseh does not exemplify a ruling, but rather provides a specific case in which the rule at hand is enforced by Heaven. The Mishnah-Tosefta contain nothing comparable.

2. CXXV:III. 3. “... bloods:” This teaches that many sorts of blood are unclean in her connection: “Such is the Torah concerning her who bears a child, male or female:” A woman who is subject to doubt concerning the appearance of five births or five fluxes presents a single offering and eats animal sacrifices thereby. And the remainder of the offerings are not obligatory for her. If she is subject to five confirmed miscarriages or five confirmed fluxes, she brings a single offering and eats animal sacrifices, but the rest of the offerings, the other four, do remain obligatory for her. There was a case [Ma#aseh b] in which a pair of birds in Jerusalem went up in price to a golden denar. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, “By this sanctuary! I shall not rest tonight until they shall change hands at silver denars.” He entered the court and taught the following law: “The woman who is subject to five confirmed miscarriages or five confirmed fluxes brings a single offering and eats animal sacrifices, and the rest of the offerings do not remain obligatory for her.” And pairs of birds changed hands on that very day at a quarter-denar each [one one-hundredth of the former price] [M. Ker. 1:7A-Q].

The Ma#aseh is particular, showing how the law is set aside in the situation at hand by extenuating circumstances. The Ma#aseh as case/ precedent of the Mishnah-Tosefta prefers to exemplify, not to set

14.

narratives in sifra

69

forth a one-time incident/anecdote. Here, again, we find ourselves in unfamiliar territory. 3. CCXI:I. 15.”… for her he may defile himself:” it is a religious duty to do so. If he did not wish to contract corpse-uncleanness, he is forced against his will to do so. There is the case of [Ma#aseh b] a priest, Joseph, whose wife died on the eve of Passover and who did not want to contract corpse-uncleanness on her account. Sages forced him and made him unclean against his will.

The Ma#aseh illustrates the working of the law, and the example is standard for the Mishnah.

4. CCXI:I. 19. “… for her he may defile himself:” He is not to contract corpse-uncleanness on account of her limbs For a man may not contract corpse-uncleanness on account of a limb that has fallen from a living person who is a relation of his on his father’s side But he does contract corpseuncleanness so as to bury a bone as small as a barleycorn from a relative on his father’s side. R. Yosé says, “A man does not contract corpse-uncleanness so as to bury a bone as small as a barleycorn from a relative on his father’s side.” There was the case of [Ma#aseh b] Joseph b. Paxes, on the foot of whom a wart came up. The physician wanted to chop it off. He said to him, “When you have cut it so as to leave only a thread like a hair’s breadth, tell me.” He chopped it off until he left only a thread like a hair’s breadth and told him. He called Nehunia, his son, and said to him, “Honia, my son, Up to this point you were obligated to take care of me. From this point, go out, for a priest does not contract corpse-uncleanness on account of a corpse from a living person in the case of his father.” And when the case came before sages, they said, “This is the sort of case concerning which Scripture says, ‘Sometimes a righteous man perishes in spite of his righteousness’ (Qoh. 7:15).

The Ma#aseh represents a protracted narrative, but a standard Halakhic one, since we have not only the case but sages’ implicit ruling, recast as a secondary explanation.

5. CCXIV:I.1. “[And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow or one divorced, or a one who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he shall not marry; but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people, that he may not profane his children among his people; for I am the Lord who sanctify him” (Lev. 19:10-15). “… he shall take to wife:” What is the point of Scripture here? How do you know that if he had betrothed a widow and then was appointed high priest, he may consummate the marriage? Scripture says, “he shall take to wife.” There is the case of [Ma#aseh b] Joshua b. Gamala, who consecrated Marta daughter of Beisos, and the king appointed him high priest, and he then consummated the marriage.

The Ma#aseh illustrates the law, a standard example. But there

70

14.

narratives in sifra

is no sages’ ruling to validate the outcome; that is taken for granted, it seems to me. 6. CCXXXVIII:I, 1. [“You shall take for yourself on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees and boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days. You shall keep it as a feast to the Lord seven days in the year; it is a statute for ever throughout your generations; you shall keep it in the seventh month. You shall dwell in booths for seven days; all that are native in Israel shall dwell in booths, that you generations may know that I made the people of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God. Thus Moses declared to the people of Israel the appointed feasts of the Lord” (Lev. 23:39-44).] “[You shall take] for yourself” one that belongs to you, not a stolen one. In this connection sages have said: A person does not fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival to wave the lulab [palm branch] by using the lulab of his fellow [M. Suk. 3:13C], unless he gives it to him as an unconditional gift, and he to his fellow, and he to his fellow, even if they are a hundred people. There was the case of [Ma#aseh b] Rabban Gamaliel and elders, who were traveling in a boat [T.’s version: and had no lulab with them. Rabban Gamaliel bought a lulab for a golden denar. Once he had fulfilled his obligation with it, he gave it to his fellow, and his fellow to his fellow, so that all of them fulfilled their obligation. Afterward they returned it to him (T. Suk. 2:11B-D). [Sifra’s version:] And only Rabban Gamaliel alone had a lulab. Rabban Gamaliel gave it as a gift to R. Joshua, and R. Joshua to R. Eleazar b. Azariah, and R. Eleazar b. Azariah to R. Aqiba, and all of them thereby carried out their obligation.

The case is primary to the Tosefta and secondary to Sifra.

7. CCLXI:I. 3. “… then I will give you your rains in their season:” on the night of the Sabbath [when no work can be done anyhow]. There was the case, [Ma#aseh ] in the time of Simeon b. Shatah, in the time of Queen Shelamsu, when it would rain from Friday night to Friday night [on a weekly basis], so that the grains of wheat grew as large as beans, and the grains of barley were like olive pits, and the lentils were like golden denars. Sages made a bundle of some of them and left them behind for coming generations, so as to demonstrate how much sin accomplishes [in less virtuous generations].

The case does not exemplify a Halakhic ruling, it is Aggadic in its data, and that represents a utilization of the Ma#aseh–marker without a counterpart in the Mishnah or the Tosefta. Four of the seven items in Sifra’s corpus of Ma#asim replicate the traits of the Ma#aseh in the Mishnah-Tosefta. No. 3, CCXI:I.15, matches the form and function of the Ma#aseh in the Mishnah, and No. 4, CCXI;i.19 has its counterparts in the Tosefta. No. 5, CCXIV;i.1,

14.

narratives in sifra

71

would do well to include a ruling, e.g., “and sages did not object.” No. 6, CCXXXVIII:I.1, originates in the Tosefta. But Sifra’s corpus of Ma#asim carries us beyond the limits of the Mishnah and the Tosefta at XCIX:VI.6, Eliezer’s prediction of the student’s imminent demise, and CCLXI:I.3, the crops in the time of Simeon b. Shatah, where the Ma#aseh exemplifies a theological proposition: how much of a loss sin exacts. In these two items, we find ourselves in unfamiliar territory. IV. Not Classified Thus far we have identified one authentic narrative and two classes of pseudo-narratives, the Mashal and the Ma#aseh . Now let us turn to the items I was unable to classify in the initial presentation of matters. 1. CCXIII:I.1: “The priest who is chief among his brethren:” He is to be chief among his brethren in standing, wealth, power, wisdom, and looks. If he does not have these traits, how do we know that they should raise him above his brothers? Scripture says, “who is chief among his brethren,” meaning, he should be chief at least relative to his brethren. They report about Phineas of Habbatah that the lot fell on him to serve as high priest. The temple treasurers and administrators went to fetch him and found him quarrying stone, so they filled up the quarry with golden denars.

If instead of the marker, “they report about,” ("amru #alav #al…) the composition began, Ma#aseh b, we should have no problem classifying the item as an unconventional use of the Ma#aseh-form, lacking a ruling.

2. CCXXVII:I.4. “And you shall not profane [my holy name]:” I derive the implication from the statement, “you shall not profane,” that sanctification is covered. And when Scripture says, “but I will be hallowed,” the sense is, “Give yourself and sanctify my name. Might one suppose that that is when one is all alone? Scripture says, “among the people of Israel.” In this connection sages have said: Whoever gives his life on condition that a miracle is done for him—no miracle will be done for him. But if it is not on condition that a miracle be done for him, a miracle will be done for him. For so we find in the case of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, that they said to Nebuchadnezzar, “We have no need to answer you in this matter, for if so it must be, our God whom we serve is able to save us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will save us from your power, O king. But even if he does not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your god or worship the statue of gold that you have set up” (Dan. 3:1618).

72

14.

narratives in sifra

And when Marianos seized Pappos and Lulianos, brothers in Laodicea, he said to them, “If you come from the people of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your God come and save you from my power. They said to him, “Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were worthy men, and Nebuchadnezzar was a king worthy of having a miracle done on his account. But you are a wicked king, and you are not worthy of having a miracle done on your account, and, for our part, we are liable to the death penalty inflicted by Heaven, so if you do not kill us, there are plenty of agents of punishment before the Omnipresent, plenty of bears, plenty of lions, plenty of panthers, plenty of fiery snakes, plenty of scorpions, to do injury to us. But in the end the Omnipresent is going to demand the penalty of our blood from your hand.” They say that he did not leave there before orders came from Rome, and they chopped off his head with axes.

“He said to them… they said to him…” represents a dramatized exchange of fixed positions. Only the concluding statement, “They say… chopped off his head…” suggests that we shade over into a pseudo-narrative. The context defines the sense, which is meant to illustrate the act of sanctification of God’s name that registers.

3. CCXLII:I.1. “Now an Israelite woman’s son, whose father as an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel:” He came out of Moses’s court, for he had come to gain the right to plant his tent in the midst of the camp of Dan [“His mother’s name was Shelomit, daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan”]. They said to him, “What claim do you have to plant your tent in the midst of Dan? He said to them, “I derive from the women of the tribe of Dan.” They said to him, “Does Scripture not say, ‘The Israelites shall camp each with his standard, under the banners of their fathers’ house; they shall camp around the tent of meeting at a distance’ (Num. 2:2). [The right of belonging to a tribe derives from the father, not the mother.]” He went into Moses’s court and came out vanquished, and so he went and cursed.

I see nothing more than dramatized dialogue: he said to them… they said to him….

4. CCLXVII:II 1. “You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters:” They say concerning Doeg b. Joseph that he died and left a young son to his mother, and she would take his measure from year to year by handbreadths and give his weight in gold to Heaven. Now when the siegeworks encircled Jerusalem, she slaughtered him with her own hand and ate him. And concerning her Jeremiah mourns, saying, “Look, O Lord, and see! With whom have you dealt thus? Should women eat their offspring, the children of their tender care?” (Lam. 2:20).

Once more, the marker Ma#aseh would have yielded an uncon-

14.

narratives in sifra

73

ventional case, illustrative of the cited verse—an exegetical Ma#aseh . 5.

CCLXVIII:II. 3. “…the sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight:” Said R. Yohanan b. Qorhah, “Once we were in session among trees, and the wind blew and brought down leaves one on the other, and we got up and ran, saying, ‘Woe is us! What if the charioteers catch up with us! After a while we looked back and saw that there was no one there, and we sat down on the spot and wept, saying, woe is us! For in us is realized this verse of Scripture: ‘the sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight, and they shall flee as one flees from the sword,’—out of fear!

This is an exegetical Ma#aseh, pure and simple, spelling out through the anecdote what it means to flee at the sound of a driven leaf.

The unclassified items prove less puzzling in perspective than they did when we first encountered them. The “they report about” items, CCXIII:I.1, CCLXVII:II.1, compare with the Ma#aseh, and slightly dramatized dialogues, CCXXVII:I.4, CCXLII:I.1 present no surprises. The final item, XXLCVIII:II.3, is nothing other than an exegetical Ma#aseh. V. Sifra’s Narratives in Canonical Context The first thing to notice is what we do not find: a corpus of narratives of formidable proportions. The single authentic narrative we do find, moreover, responds to its exegetical context in detail and stakes a formidable claim to a position well within Sifra’s documentary program. The pseudo-narratives, the Ma#aseh and the Mashal, serve the document’s program as well. Where Sifra intersects with the Mishnah-Tosefta in setting forth the Halakhah, the Ma#aseh serves in Sifra as it does in Mishnah-Tosefta, but in some ways adapts itself to the particularity of Sifra as well. Where Sifra takes as its task the systematic exposition of Leviticus, the Mashal accepts the two tasks, Halakhic clarification, exegetical amplification. So at no point does the corpus of narrative and pseudo-narrative compositions of Sifra carry us beyond the documentary limits. Now to the questions that animate this survey. 1. Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to thought that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules and symmetry of the canon? The narratives and pseudo-narratives realize the

14.

74

narratives in sifra

documentary program and are tightly linked to the exegetical or expository task, as seen in the details that follow: The Authentic Narrative: the exegetical context is blatant and explicit. The Mashal:

The Halakhic Mashal: Sifra’s Halakhic Meshalim remain wholly within Sifra’s documentary tasks at all four entries, and three of them are particular in detail to Sifra’s cases. The Exegetical Mashal: The exegetical Mashal is particular to its context at No. 1,4, 6, 7, 8. It is explicitly linked to its context at Nos. 2, 3, 5.

The Ma#aseh : Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 undertake an exegetical task, which is explicit; No. 2 forms an anecdote, illustrating the working of the law (and its priorities); No. 7 illustrates the theological proposition of Scripture. Not Classified: No. 1 illustrates the Halakhic ruling; No. 2 supplies an anecdote to the exegesis of the base-verse; Nos. 4, 5 illustrates the verse of Scripture that is cited. To answer the question: No, the narrative and pseudo-narrative writings find a place entirely within the frame of reference of the documentary compositions and composites of Sifra. They do not provide access to some other viewpoint or system than the Rabbinic one that defines Sifra’s program. Not only so, but Sifra’s compilers have adapted the narrative and pseudo-narrative writing to their larger purpose and task, which is that of exegesis of the book of Leviticus. 2. Does non-documentary, narrative writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of form and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these patterns and how are we to classify and to interpret them? The rules that govern the writing of Sifra’s narratives and pseudo-narratives are readily discerned. While the exegetical and Halakhic Meshalim and the Ma#asim form anomalies in the setting of Sifra’s paramount rhetorical forms, both kinds of writing prove integral to the document’s program. Sifra has imposed variations on the received models of the Mashal and the Ma#aseh, true to its larger documentary plan of exegesis of Leviticus and integration of the Mishnah and the Tosefta to Leviticus adapting those forms as well.

14.

narratives in sifra

75

3. At what point in the process that yielded the canonical writings as we know them did documentary considerations intervene, and what is the meaning of that intervention? When and under what circumstances did documentary considerations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary venue? The upshot is, the documentary program of Sifra governs the writing of the narrative and pseudo-narrative types that occasionally make their appearance in the compilation. Just as the Ma#aseh is not cobbled onto the Mishnah but proves integral to its work, so the Mashal is taken over, as essential to their task, by the authors of the compositions that comprise Sifra. In each context in which an exegetical Mashal makes its appearance, we are able to tell on our own, or are explicitly instructed to recognize, precisely why the Mashal at hand presents the only option available to the exegetes assigned to clarify and render cogent the book of Leviticus, point by point. In this survey no proposition emerged with greater clarity than the integral position of the Mashal in its exegetical, and in its Halakhic, contexts. That not only explains what we find, the Ma#aseh and the Mashal, but accounts also for what we do not find: the authentic narrative. Sifra contains some anecdotal writing but not a single fully-told story, possessed of its own autonomy, coherent within itself, governed by the teleological logic of narrative, and, in context, free-standing, not affected by its documentary context or limited to the documentary program. For authentically non-documentary writing, we shall have to look elsewhere than to Sifra, to a document the assignment of which is to be realized only with authentic narratives, autonomous of their exegetical or Halakhic contexts. Then who told stories, and with what result for documentary composition? To say now what I anticipate seeing in due course: when and where documents undertook theological, as distinct from Halakhic and exegetical, assignments, then and there they could accomplish their task only through the provision of the kind of authentic, fully-realized, protracted and complex narratives that as a document Sifra does not require and does not set forth. But what theology demanded that only ambitious narrative of a teleological logic of coherent discourse could accomplish remains to be seen in the actuality of the documents that are comprised in significant proportion by narrative. In the present part of the study we do not address such documents; in Sifra as in the two Sifrés, narrative, whether authentic or not, supplies a negligible proportion of the

76

14.

narratives in sifra

whole. We shall now see, however, that documents can and do dictate the kind of narratives they will generate in the realization of their larger assignment.

14.

narratives in sifra

PART TWO

NARRATIVES IN SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS FORMS, TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION

77

This page intentionally left blank

history, time and paradigm

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 1-7. NUMBERS 5:1-14: —

79

80

chapter five

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 8-21. NUMBERS 5:11-31: —

history, time and paradigm

81

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 22-38. NUMBERS 6:1-9:14 XXII:VI 1. A. “... to the Lord:” (Num. 6:1-4). B. The religious obligation in taking the vow of the Nazirite must be for the Name [and sake of God, and not for any lesser purpose]. 2. A. Said Simeon the Righteous, “In my entire life I accepted a share of the guilt offering brought in connection with the Nazirite vow only one time [for in all other cases I regarded the vow as having been taken for improper motives]. B. “Someone came from the south, a man of beautiful eyes and handsome visage, with flowing curls. I said to him, ‘Why in the world did you decide to take a vow to destroy that lovely head of hair [by shaving it all off in the completion of the Nazirite vow? You should not have taken the Nazirite vow that would require you to cut off your hair as an offering.]’ C. “He said to me, ‘I was a shepherd in my village, and I went to draw water from the well and I looked at my reflection in the water. My heart took hold of me and sought to drive me out of the world [by taking pride in my looks]. I said to [my hair], “Wicked one, you take pride in something which does not belong to you, but which belongs to the dirt and the worm and the maggot. Lo, I shall shave you off for the sake of Heaven.”’ D. “Forthwith I patted his head and kissed him on his head, saying to him, ‘May people like you become many in Israel, who carry out the will of the Omnipresent.’ E. “And in you is fulfilled the verse: ‘When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the Lord.’”

The story, familiar from Tosefta Nazir, is tacked on to illustrate the cited verse. It does not engage with that verse in a formal way, but it surely is positioned to amplify its meaning. I do not know why it should be deemed primary to one of the two documents, secondary to the other; it is free-standing in both contexts.

82

17.

sifré to numbers 22-38. numbers 6:1-9:14

1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The point of the narrative is that the vow is meant to be “for the sake of the Lord,” and here is what that requires. So the point of the story emerges only at the end, E. On that basis I classify the composition as an authentic narrative. 2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The conflict is between the sages’ stress on the purity of heart that the vow requires and the commonplace motivation that leads people to take the view. It is resolved by the story itself, the example of the Nazirite showing what is required. 3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The anticipated three stages are B, C-D, and E, the prologue, the main event, and the upshot. These do not strike me as indicative traits of any compelling quality.

17.

sifré to numbers 22-38. numbers 6:1-9:14

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 39-58. NUMBERS 6:22-7:89

83

84

chapter five

CHAPTER NINETEEN

SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 59-71. NUMBERS 8:1-9:14: —

history, time and paradigm

85

CHAPTER TWENTY

SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 72-84. NUMBERS 10:1-10 LXXXII:I A. “So they set out from the mount of the Lord three days’ journey; [and the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them three days’ journey to seek out a resting place for them]” (Num. 10:29-36): B. It is hardly necessary to say so, since in any event it is stated, “Twelve days from Horeb” (Deut. 1:2). C. So why does Scripture say, “So they set out from the mount of the Lord three days’ journey”? D. The purpose is to teach that on that very day the Presence of God made the trip of thirty-six mil, so that the Israelites might enter the land. There is a parable to be drawn: it is to men going off to war. When they go forth, they rejoice, but, as they grow weary, their hands grow faint. But for the Israelites that is not how it is. Rather, as they grow tired, they rejoice, saying, “So shall we go and inherit the land of Israel.” G. Another matter: They said, “Our fathers have sinned, so a decree was issued against them that ‘in this wilderness their corpses will fall’ (Num. 14:29). But as for us, we shall not sin and die in the wilderness, but we shall go and inherit the land of Israel!” 1.

E. F.

The exegetical parable, E, is particular to the case. It takes on meaning from its interpretation at F. People in general tire as the journey unfolds and so lose heart, but the Israelites rejoiced as they drew nearer to the Land. It is the combination of A and B that requires the parable’s clarification, and the point of the parable is to underscore the Israelites’ commitment to the project. Then G goes over the same point. E without F is unintelligible because pointless. But, I hasten to add, were E articulated, developed with an intervening clause, between E and F, in which some unit, inspired by some cause,

20.

86

sifré to numbers 72-84. numbers 10:1-10

rejoice even in the fatigue of battle, the parable could have stood autonomous of its setting. The upshot is, the person who invoked the parable has no conception of the parable as a free-standing composition, called upon from a supply of available narratives and adapted to clarify a given transaction or proposition. LXXXII:II 1.

A. “[So they set out from the mount of the Lord three days’ journey;] and the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them [three days’ journey to seek out a resting place for them]” (Num. 10:29-36): B. In the ark which went forth with them in the camp were the shards of the tablets, as it is said, “... although neither the ark of the covenant of the Lord nor Moses departed out of the camp” (Num. 14:44). 2. A. R. Simeon b. Yohai says, “What is said is not, ‘the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them,’ but rather, ‘and the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them.’ B. “[The and refers to the fact that] God, as well as the ark, went before them, thus: C. The matter may be compared to the case of a viceroy who went before his armies, preparing the way before them so that they would take up an encampment. D. So the Presence of God went before Israel and prepared the way before them so that they would take up an encampment.

The exegetical parable is particular to the case, and D explains the obvious connection. C without D makes no point I can discern, nor does it pretend to narrate a tale of any kind, but successfully translates the case at hand into accessible terms. It is an inert simile, a tableau, not a play. LXXXIV:I 1.

A. “And whenever the ark set out, Moses said, ‘Arise, O Lord, and let your enemies be scattered, and let them that hate you flee before you.’ And when it rested, he said, ‘Return O Lord to the ten thousand thousands of Israel’” (Num. 10:29-26): B. [In the written version] there are dots above and below the word to indicate that this was not its correct place. C. Rabbi says, “It is because the pericope at hand constitutes a scroll unto itself.”

20.

sifré to numbers 72-84. numbers 10:1-10

87

D. On the basis of this view they have said: E. In the case of a scroll which was blotted about, but in which eighty-five letters remained legible, as the number in the passage, “And whenever the ark set out,” imparts uncleanness to the hands [as does any holy scroll of the Torah] [M. Yad. 3:5]. F. R. Simeon says, “In the written version there are dots above and below the word to indicate that this was not its correct place. And what ought to have been written instead of this passage? ‘And the people complained in the hearing of the Lord’ (Num. 11:1ff.). G. “The matter may be compared to the case of people who said to the king, ‘We shall see whether you will come with us to the ruler of Acre.’ By the time they got to Acre, he had gone to Tyre. When they got to Tyre, he had gone to Sidon. When they got to Sidon, he had gone to Biri. When they got to Biri, he had gone to Antioch. When they got to Antioch, the people began to complain against the king, for they had wandered on the way, and the king had to complain against them, that on their account he too had wandered on the way. H. “So the Presence of God went on a single day a distance of thirty-six mils so that the Israelites should enter the land. The Israelites began to complain before the Omnipresent that they had wandered on the way. But the Omnipresent has to complain against them that on their account the Presence of God had gone on a single day thirty six mils so that Israel should enter the land.”

The pattern of the exegetical parable is clear: the narrated simile, then the explicit interpretation thereof. The point that the parable is required to clarify is how two parties can register complaints against one another, both with reason. Then the people with the case against the king keep missing him, and he keeps missing them. It is difficult to imagine any other point that the parable can have clarified, but the narrative of G certainly can stand on its own. LXXXIV:II 1. A. “[And whenever the ark set out,] Moses said, ‘Arise, O Lord, [and let your enemies be scattered, and let them that hate you flee before you.’ And when it rested, he said, ‘Return O Lord to

88

20.

sifré to numbers 72-84. numbers 10:1-10

the ten thousand thousands of Israel’]” (Num. 10:29-26): B. While this verse says, “... whenever the ark set out, Moses said, ‘Arise, O Lord,’” another verse of Scripture says, “At the command of the Lord they encamped, and at the command of the Lord they set out” (Num. 9:23). C. How are both verses of Scripture to stand side by side? D. The matter may be compared to the case of a mortal king who said to his servant, “See to it that you so arrange things for me that I may go and hand over an inheritance to my son.” E. Another matter: to what may the matter be compared? To the case of a mortal king who was going on the way and his ally went along with him. As he was setting out on the journey, he said, “I shall not set out until my ally comes.” And when he encamps, he says, “I shall not make camp until my ally comes.” F. In this way we may sustain both the statement that it was on the orders of Moses that they made camp as well as the statement that it was at the command of the Lord they made camp, on the command of Moses they journeyed, on the command of the Lord they journeyed.

The two exegetical parables, D, E, address the same problem, namely, the incongruity of the cited verses: how can Moses command the Lord to arise or return to repose, when the intersecting verses are explicit that God gives the orders? The parable resolves the problem by having God command his servant (Moses), who passes on the orders, D. In E, Moses is in the position of the ally, to God’s king; now it is a mark of divine favor that God responds to Moses’s initiatives. Lest we miss the point, it is articulated at F. The parables can accommodate other situations besides the one at hand, but they take on precise meaning only in the present context, as F confirms.

20.

sifré to numbers 72-84. numbers 10:1-10

89

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 85-98. NUMBERS 11:1-23 LXXXV:IV 1.

A. “[And the people complained] in the hearing of the Lord [about their misfortunes; and when the Lord heard it, his anger was kindled]:” B. This teaches that the Israelites had every intention of making the matter heard by the Omnipresent. C. R. Simeon would say, “To what is the matter to be compared? To someone who was cursing the king while the king was going by. They said to the man, ‘Silence, so the king will not hear.’ D. “He said to them, ‘Who is going to tell you that it was not my very intent to make him hear!’” E. “So the Israelites had every intention of making the matter heard by the Omnipresent.”

The exegetical parable once more rests on the details of the case, to which it appears particular. The tale without E is gibberish. That is because C-D are wholly out of context. LXXXVI:I 1.

A. “[And the people complained in the hearing of the Lord about their misfortunes; and when the Lord heard it, his anger was kindled, and the fire of the Lord burned among them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp.] Then the people cried to Moses, [and Moses prayed to the Lord, and the fire abated. So the name of that place was called Taberah, because the fire of the Lord burned among them” (Num. 11:1-3): B. Now what good could Moses do for them? Was it not suitable to say only, “And the people cried to the Lord”? And why then does it say, “Then the people cried to Moses”? C. Said R. Simeon, “The matter may be compared to a mortal king who got mad at his son, and the son went off to the king’s ally. He said to him, ‘Go and plead for me to father.’ D. So the Israelites went to Moses and said to him, ‘Plead for us before the Omnipresent.’” E. Is it possible to suppose that Moses held back?

90

21.

sifré to numbers 85-98. numbers 11:1-23

F. Scripture says, “... and Moses prayed to the Lord.” G. Is it possible that the Omnipresent held back? H. Scripture says, “... and the fire abated.” The meaning is that the fire stopped on the spot. I. Had it gone back up to heaven, it would eventually have done damage. If it had receded in any direction, it would have covered that entire area. So the meaning of, “... and the fire abated,” is that the fire stopped on the spot.

The exegetical parable once more matches the case set forth by the Scriptural passage, as D makes explicit. Without D, C is truncated and lacking in point and context. LXXXVII:II 1. A. “... [we remember the fish we ate in Egypt for nothing,] the cucumbers, [the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; but now our strength is dried up and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at]” (Num. 11:5-6): B. R. Simeon says, “On what account did the manna turn for them into everything they could want, except for the five things listed here? ‘ C. “The matter may be compared to the case of a mortal king, who handed his son over to a tutor. The king went into session and gave orders, saying to him, ‘See to it that he not eat any bad food and not drink anything polluted.’ Nonetheless, the son complained against his father, saying, ‘It was not because he loves me, but because it was not possible to eat these things.’” C. And sages say, “The manna would turn for the Israelites into anything they might desire, but with their eyes they saw only manna, as it is said, ‘... now our strength is dried up and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at.’ They said, ‘We have only manna from morning to night.’”

The exegetical parable, C, serves Simeon’s reading of the verse and does not intersect with that of sages. The son’s churlishness instantiates Israel’s, for neither party could impute to the king the benevolence that motivated him. But out of this context, what can have been the motivation for the son, and why should that detail have served? Here is another instance in which the context of the parable derives from the exegetical instance, not from the inner requirements of the parable itself, which here has no independent standing or meaning. LXXXIX:IV 2. A. “... and the taste of it was like the taste of cakes baked with oil:”

21.

sifré to numbers 85-98. numbers 11:1-23

91

B.

This word is an abbreviated word. C. Another explanation: there are three words here: cakes baked with oil and honey, that is, what is laid out in oil, then drenched in honey. So manna was prepared, and so did suitable Israelites eat it. D. Another explanation for the statement, “... and the taste of it was like the taste of cakes baked with oil:” just as for an infant the teat is the main thing and everything else is secondary, so the manna was the main thing for the Israelites and everything else was secondary to it. E. Another explanation: just as in the case of a teat even though an infant may suck on it all day long, he does not do any harm to it, so in the case of manna, even though the Israelites ate it all day long, it did not do them any harm. F. Another explanation: just as in the case of a teat, it is really only one thing but [for the infant] it turns into many things, so the manna turned for Israelites into everything they could imagine. It may be compared to saying to a woman, “Do not eat garlic or onions on account of the infant.” G. Another explanation: just as in the case of the teat, the infant is pained when he has to give it up, so the Israelites were pained when they had to give up the manna, as it is said, “And the manna ceased on the next day” (Joshua 5:12). H. It may be compared to saying to someone, “On what account are you eating barley-bread?” He replies, “Because I do not have wheat bread.” “On what account are you eating carobs?” He says, “Because I do not have honey.” I. So if the Israelites had had in hand some of that handful of manna that they took up on the day on which Moses died, from which they ate for the next forty days, they would never have wanted to eat the produce of the land of Canaan.

“Another explanation” at G links H-I to the foregoing, but in fact the exegetical parable, H+I, is particular to Josh. 5:12, not the passage of Numbers to which it is attached. What requires clarification is at G: why did the manna cease so abruptly. It was so the Israelites would be forced to make do with the produce of the Land, not comparing it with the manna. The exegetical parable, H, is particular to the case at hand.

21.

92

sifré to numbers 85-98. numbers 11:1-23

LXXXIX:V 1.

A. “When the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the manna fell with it” (Num. 11:7-9): B. This teaches that the manna fell on the thresholds of the houses and on the doorposts. 2. A. Then the people would recite the Shema, say the Prayer, then someone would go to the door of his house and collect his food and the food of his household, and afterward the sun got hot and the manna melted. B. Along these same lines, R. Simeon says, “On what account did the manna not come down for Israel on one day in a year? It was so that [lacking their regular rations] they should turn their hearts to their father in heaven. C. “One may draw a parable. To what may the matter be compared? To a king who made a decree for his son that he should provide a living for his son all together on only one day a year, and he would greet his father only at the time that he was there to collect his living. One time the king went and made a decree that he would provide his living every day. The son said, ‘Even if I greet father only at the time that he provides my living, it is enough for me.’ D. “So is the case with Israel: If someone had five sons or five daughters, he would sit and stare, saying ‘Woe is me, maybe the manna will not come down tomorrow! We’ll all die of starvation. May it be your pleasure that it will come down.’ So it turned out that they set their hearts heavenward.” E. Along these same lines R. Dosetai b. R. Yosé says, “On what account did the Omnipresent not create hot springs in Jerusalem like the hot springs in Tiberias? It is so that someone should not say to his fellow, ‘Let’s go up to Jerusalem. Now if we go up only to take a single bath, it would be enough for us!’ So as a result the pilgrimage would not be for a proper motive.”

The composition, LXXXIX:V.2B-D+E is tacked on and free-standing. It makes its point without reference to the base-verse. The terms of the exegetical parable are required by the case, D, and it shows why the king provided the living on only one day a year. It nurtured in the son the correct attitude of gratitude. So, in line with Simeon’s premise, the manna did not come down one day a year, so that the Israelites would not take it for granted, but would be reminded of the beneficence of their father in heaven. All of this is made explicit. Then E broadens the issue to encompass right attitudes of all kinds, not only gratitude for Heavenly grace.

21.

sifré to numbers 85-98. numbers 11:1-23

93

XCI:II

A. “... I am not able to carry all this people alone, the burden is too heavy for me. If you will deal thus with me, kill me at once, if I find favor in your sight, that I may not see my wretchedness” (Num. 11:11-15): B. [What was the basis for Moses’ complaint?] It is because the Holy One, blessed be he, showed to Moses the entire order of punishments that was destined to come upon them. C. R. Simeon would say, “To what may the matter be compared? It is to someone who was going forth to be put to death, with his sons. He said to the executioner, ‘Put me to death first, before you put my children to death.’ D. “Is this not in line with what is said with regard to Zedekiah: ‘And the king of Babylonia slaughtered the sons of Zedekiah before his very eyes,’ and afterward ‘... he blinded the eyes of Zedekiah’ (Jer. 52:11). E. “So did Moses say before the Omnipresent, ‘If you will deal thus with me, kill me at once. It would be better for me if you would kill me first, so that I shall not see the punishment that is destined to come upon them.’” 1.

Moses could not carry the burden, and the burden was knowledge of the punishments that were going to come upon the people, E, so the exegetical parable, C, is particular to the case at hand, E, and explicitly so. The inserted case, D, need not detain us. XCIII:I

A. “... and I will take some of the spirit which is upon you and put it upon them; [and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, that you may not bear it yourself]” (Num. 11:17): B. To what may Moses be compared at that moment? To a lamp which is set on a candelabrum, from which many lights are kindled, and which on that account does not lose a bit of its light. C. So Moses did not lose any of his wisdom [when he shared it with the others]. B. Why is this said? Because Moses said, “How shall I by myself bear your trouble, your burden, and your strife” (Deut. 1:12), therefore it is said, “... and they shall bear the burden of the people with you.” 3.

The exegetical parable establishes an inert simile, but it is one that can serve a variety of cases, not only the one before us. LXXXV:IV 1.

A. “[And the people complained] in the hearing of the Lord

94

21.

sifré to numbers 85-98. numbers 11:1-23

[about their misfortunes; and when the Lord heard it, his anger was kindled]:” B. This teaches that the Israelites had every intention of making the matter heard by the Omnipresent. C. R. Simeon would say, “To what is the matter to be compared? To someone who was cursing the king while the king was going by. They said to the man, ‘Silence, so the king will not hear.’ He said to them, ‘Who is going to tell you that it was not my very intent to make him hear!’ D. “So the Israelites had every intention of making the matter heard by the Omnipresent.”

We have already seen this item, which here is as particular to the case as before.

21.

sifré to numbers 85-98. numbers 11:1-23

95

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO

SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 99-106. NUMBERS 12:1-16 CIII:VI

A. “Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?’ [And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, and he departed]” (Num. 12:1-16): B. The sense of the statement of Scripture, “against my servant Moses” is only this: “Instead of speaking against me, you have spoken against my servant, Moses.” C. The matter may be compared to the case of a mortal king who had a trustee of state. The citizens were speaking against him. The king said to them, “You have not spoken against him but against me. And if you claim that I do not know what he does, then that statement is still more damaging than the first [criticizing the agent’s deeds].” 1.

The exegetical parable matches the situation set up by the cited verse of Scripture, A-B. It is particular to that task. The pertinence is so blatant that no one spells out “so is the case with Moses and Israel,” articulating the application of the parable. CV:I 1. A.

B.

“... and when the cloud removed from over the tent, [behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. [And Aaron turned towards Miriam, and behold, she was leprous…So Miriam was shut up outside the camp seven days, and the people did not set out on the march till Miriam was brought in again. And after that the people set out from Hazeroth and encamped in the wilderness of Paran]” (Num. 12:1-16): The matter may be compared to a mortal king who said to a tutor, “Punish my son, but only after I go along on my way should you punish him, for the father has mercy on the son.” C. Now it is an argument a fortiori : if the Omnipresent has mercy on the righteous even when he is angry with them, all the more so when he is pleased with them [will he show mercy to them], as it is said, “Thus says the Lord, ‘In a time of favor I have answered you’” (Is. 49:8).

96

22.

sifré to numbers 99-106. numbers 12:1-16

Miriam’s punishment held up the progress of the Israelites, God going on his way so as not to witness her disgrace. The exegetical parable is certainly limited to the case at hand. C builds on the case, not the parable.

22.

sifré to numbers 99-106. numbers 12:1-16

97

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE

SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 107-115. NUMBERS 15:1-41 CXII:III

A. [“But the person who does anything with a high hand, [whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his people, because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him]” (Num. 15:27-31).] “... reviles the Lord:” B. R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a man who says to his fellow, ‘You have cursed the dish and so diminished [its contents].’” C. Issi b. Arabia says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a man who says to his fellow, ‘You have cursed the entire dish and so left nothing at all of it.’” 2.

The exegetical similes explain why the person is cut off from among his people: he has cursed the dish and left nothing in it. It is difficult for me to see what the parables add to the clarification of Num. 15:27-31, being built so closely upon its pattern. The parables do not unfold into a story with a point or a lesson but form inert similes. CXV:V

A. “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Speak to the people of Israel and say to them to make tassels [fringes] [on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and put upon the tassel of each corner a cord of blue; and it shall be to you a tassel to look upon and remember all the commandments of the Lord to do them, not to follow after you own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to go after wantonly. So you shall remember and do all my commandments and be holy to your God. I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God. I am the Lord your God’” (Num. 15:37-41): Another matter: why make mention of the Exodus from Egypt 4.

B.

98

23.

sifré to numbers 107-115. numbers 15:1-41

in the setting of discourse on each and every one of the religious duties? C. The matter may be compared to the case of a king whose ally’s son was taken captive. When the king paid the ransom [and so redeemed him], he did not redeem him as a free man but as a slave, so that if the king made a decree and the other did not accept it, he might say to him, “You are my slave.” D. When he came into a city, he said to him, “Tie my shoe-latch, carry my clothing before me and bring them to the bath house.” [Doing these services marks a man as the slave of the one for whom he does them.] E. The son began to complain. The king produced the bond and said to him, “You are my slave.” F. So when the Holy One, blessed be he, redeemed the seed of Abraham, his ally, he redeemed them not as sons but as slaves. When he makes a decree and they do not accept it, he may say to them, “You are my slaves.” G. When the people had gone forth to the wilderness, he began to make decrees for them involving part of the lesser religious duties as well as part of the more stringent religious duties, for example, the Sabbath, the prohibition against consanguineous marriages, the fringes, and the requirement to don Tefillin. The Israelites began to complain. He said to them, “You are my slaves. It was on that stipulation that I redeemed you, on the condition that I may make a decree and you must carry it out.”

The parable exactly replicates the Israelite circumstance, F+G being mirrored at B-E. The question is whether or not B-E can stand on their own, and the answer is not entirely clear to me. The parable closely tracks the lesson drawn from it at F, so I am inclined to see the whole of C-E as particular to the case. CXV:V 5. A. “[So you shall remember and do [all my commandments and be holy to your God. I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God.] I am the Lord your God” (Num. 15:37-41): 6. A. R. Nathan says, “You have not got single religious duty that is listed in the Torah, the reward of the doing of which is not made explicit right alongside. B. “Go and learn the lesson from the religious duty of the fringes.” 7. A. There is the case [ma#aseh] of a man who was meticulous about carrying out the religious duty of the fringes. He heard that there was a certain whore in one of the coastal towns, who would collect a fee of four hundred gold coins.

23.

sifré to numbers 107-115. numbers 15:1-41

99

He sent her four hundred gold coins and made a date with her. B. When his time came, he came along and took a seat at the door of her house. Her maid came and told her, “That man with whom you made a date, lo, he is sitting at the door of the house.” C. She said to her, “Let him come in.” D. When he came in, she spread out for him seven silver mattresses and one gold one, and she was on the top, and between each one were silver stools, and on the top, gold ones. When he came to do the deed, the four fringes fell out [of his garment] and appeared to him like four witnesses. The man slapped himself in the face and immediately withdrew and took a seat on the ground. E. The whore too withdrew and took a seat on the ground. F. She said to him, “By the winged god of Rome! I shall not let you go until you tell me what blemish you have found in me.” G. He said to her, “By the Temple service! I did not find any blemish at all in you, for in the whole world there is none so beautiful as you. But the Lord, our God, has imposed upon me a rather small duty, but concerning [even that minor matter] he wrote, ‘I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God. I am the Lord your God,’—two times. H. “‘I am the Lord your God,’ I am destined to pay a good reward. I. “‘I am the Lord your God,’ I am destined to exact punishment.’” J. She said to him, “By the Temple service! I shall not let you go until you write me your name, the name of your town, and the name of your school in which you study Torah.” K. So he wrote for her his name, the name of his town, and the name of his master, and the name of the school in which he had studied Torah. L. She went and split up her entire wealth, a third to the government, a third to the poor, and a third she took with her and came and stood at the school house of R. Hiyya. M. She said to him, “My lord, accept me as a proselyte.” N. He said to her, “Is it possible that you have laid eyes on one of the disciples [and are converting in order to marry him]?” O. She took the slip out that was in her hand. P. He said to [the disciple who had paid the money but not gone through with the act], “Stand up and acquire

100

23.

sifré to numbers 107-115. numbers 15:1-41 possession of what you have purchased. Those spreads that she spread out for you in violation of a prohibition she will now spread out for you in full remission of the prohibition. Q. “As to this one, the recompense is paid out in this world, and as to the world to come, I do not know how much [more he will receive]!”

Now we have a free-standing narrative, bearing no close exegetical task, parachuted down but pertinent in thematic context. The rhetorical pattern of Sifré to Numbers makes no impact, even in the connecting language of 6.B. And Ma#aseh signals a completely different kind of writing from the standard case/example that ordinarily follows. 1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? This authentic narrative stands on its own, but illustrates the proposition of No. 6. It is in these parts: A-D, the john backs out because he sees his showfringes, which remind him of the religious duties, plus E-I, the explanation of why he has acted as he has, then J-Q, the reward to the honorable man by reason of his repentance. The whole story aims at the reward for abstinence brought about through observance of the commandment. A-D create the problem, E-I show how it is solved, and J-Q revert to A-D, now matching its narrative with the counterpart in a situation of sanctification. Without J-Q, A-D and E-I hang loose, but with that component, the first two parts cohere and form a statement transcending the incident portrayed in them, respectively, the match of the sin with the reward, the realization of the redemption of the prostitute through the Torah, the very same Torah that had motivated the man not to sin after all. So the ultimate cogency of the components is established only within the teleological logic of coherent discourse. What is striking, also, is the aspect of the sanctification of God’s name by the man, such that the woman responds to the commandment in her terms. That dimension is realized only in the third unit and imposes on the first two units a dimension not otherwise to be perceived. 2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? This question reinforces the foregoing. The conflict is between the natural impulse, subdued by the Torah, and the promise of redemption contained within the Torah. It is not only that the religious duties save the man from sin but in the end bring the specified reward that resolves the tension.

23.

sifré to numbers 107-115. numbers 15:1-41

101

3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? This is unique in context. The formal traits shared with other authentic narratives are routine: tripartite construction, anecdotal quality.1 1 See Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Rabbinic Stories (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2002), 186-189, for further discussion and references to other treatments of this story. He writes, “The story originated elsewhere [than in Sifré to Numbers]. That the story originally was formulated as an exegesis of the verse in Numbers seems clear.” Those two sentences strike me as contradictory, unless Rubenstein posits the existence of another Rabbinic exegetical compilation on the book of Numbers, which has survived only in this story; or the autonomous circulation of the story, outside of a documentary compilation. In any event, he treats the story as integral to the Rabbinic system, the important point for this project.

102

24.

sifré to numbers 116-122. numbers 18:1-32

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR

SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 116-122. NUMBERS 18:1-32 CXVII:I 3. A. [“Then the Lord said to Aaron, “And behold, I have given you whatever is kept of the offerings made to me, all the consecrated things of the people of Israel. I have given them to you as a portion, and to your sons as a perpetual due.”] “ … all the consecrated things of the people of Israel:” B. Scripture makes a covenant with Aaron concerning all the Most Holy Things for the purpose of establishing an analogy and so to make a covenant with them. For Korach came against Aaron and protested against the priesthood. C. To what is the matter comparable? It is comparable to the case of a mortal king who had a household companion, to whom he gave a field for a gift, but for whom he did not write a deed and seal it and place it into the archives. Someone then came along and challenged the man’s ownership to the field. Said the king to him, “Whoever wants to come and challenge your ownership—come, and I shall write and seal a deed and place the deed for you in the archives.” D. Thus it was that Korach came along and challenged the priesthood against [Aaron]. Said to him the Omnipresent, “Whoever wants, let him come and challenge you for the priesthood! Come, and I shall write and seal and place in the archives a deed of ownership.” E. That is why this passage is set forth alongside the passage of Korach. F. “... a memorial for the children of Israel,” (Num. 16:38)—lo, we learn that Korach was among those that were swallowed up and burned.

The issue of why the covenant with Aaron concerning the Most Holy Things is juxtaposed to the rebellion against Aaron by Korach, AB. That question is raised only inferentially, but C requires it. The parable, C, then tracks the case: God gave the priesthood to Aaron but did not confirm it in writing, just as the mortal king gave the field but did not provide a deed. A land-grabber intervened, so the king provided a deed in the archives. Then D goes over the details point by point. Once more the parable is particular to the case it is

24.

sifré to numbers 116-122. numbers 18:1-32

103

meant to clarify. There are in the parable no details that stand apart from that case. CXIX:II

A. And the Lord said to Aaron, “You shall have no inheritance in their land”—at the time of the division of the land; B. “neither shall you have any portion among them”—in the spoil. 2. A. “I am your portion and your inheritance among the people of Israel:” B. “At my table you eat, and at my table you drink.” C. There is a parable: to what is the matter to be compared? To the case of a mortal king who gave his sons gifts, but to one son he gave nothing at all. He said to him, “My son, even though I didn’t give you a gift, at my table will you eat, and at my table, you will drink.” D. And so Scripture says, “Their share have I given from my offerings made by fire” (Lev. 6:10); “Offerings made by fire for the Lord and his inheritance they will eat” (Dt. 18:1). 1.

The priesthood eats God’s meat and drinks God’s wine, and that is why it receives no share in the division of the Land. So the parable is once more particular to the case. It does not sustain generalizing to other cases in Scripture. CXIX:III 1. A. “I am your portion and your inheritance among the people of Israel. To the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service, which they serve, in the tent of meeting. And henceforth the people of Israel shall not come near the tent of meeting, lest they bear sin and die:” H. There was great rejoicing for Aaron on the day on which a covenant was made with him through the priestly gifts. 2. A. R. Ishmael says, “There is a common proverb that says, ‘It was to my advantage that my cow broke its leg—it was to Aaron’s advantage that Korach came along and challenged his priesthood.” B. There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? C. It is comparable to the case of a mortal king who had a household companion, to whom he gave a field for a gift, but did not write a deed or seal it or place it into the archives. Someone then came along and challenged the man’s ownership to the field. Said the king to him, “Whoever wants to come and challenge your ownership—come, and I shall write and seal a deed and place the deed for you in the archives.

104

24.

sifré to numbers 116-122. numbers 18:1-32 D. Thus Korach came along and challenged the priesthood against [Aaron]. Said to him the Omnipresent, “Whoever wants, let him come and challenge you for the priesthood! Come, and I shall write and seal and place in the archives a deed of ownership.” E. That is why this passage is set forth alongside the passage of Korach.

The passage is repeated from CXVII:I.3.

24.

sifré to numbers 116-122. numbers 18:1-32

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE

SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 123-130. NUMBERS 19:1-22: —

105

106

26.

sifré to numbers 131. numbers 25:1-16

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX

SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 131. NUMBERS 25:1-16 CXXXI:I.1 E. R. Aqiba says, “Every passage contiguous to another provides an appropriate occasion for a lesson to be derived therefrom.” I. Along these same lines, you say, “And the daughter of a priest, when she undertakes to fornicate” (Lev. 21:9), “and the priest who is greater than his fellows” (Lev. 21:10)— now what has one thing to do with the other! J. He too is put to death through burning [if he commits fornication with a priest’s daughter]. K. There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? It is comparable to a centurion who has served his term but failed to enter his primipilate, to which he should have been promoted, but fled and went his way. The king sent word and brought him and imposed on him the penalty of having his head cut off. Before he was taken out to be put to death, said the king, “Fill up for him a measure of golden denars,” and bring it to him and say to him, ‘If you had acted as your fellows acted, you would receive this measure of gold denars, and your life would have been your own. Now you have lost your life and lost your money.’” L. So too in the case of a priest’s daughter who committed an act of fornication—the high priest goes forth before her and says to her, “Had you acted in the manner in which your mothers did, you would have had the grace that from you a high priest should go forth like this one. But now you have lost your life and you have lost your honor.” Thus it is said, “And the daughter of a priest, when she undertakes to fornicate” (Lev. 21:9), “and the priest who is greater than his fellows” (Lev. 21:10).

The parable, K, matches the lesson derived from the juxtaposition of verses of Scripture, L. But here is a parable that is, at any rate, a

26.

sifré to numbers 131. numbers 25:1-16

107

complete story. Hence we cannot take for granted that L is needed to supply context and meaning to a piece of a narrative. CXXXI:I.1 M. N.

O.

And along these same lines, you say, “Because you are not my people, and I am not your God” (Hos. 1:9). And it says, “Yet the number of the people of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered, and in the place where it was said to them, [You are not my people,’ it shall be said to them, ‘sons of the living God” (Hos. 1:10). Now what has one thing to do with the other? P. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who got mad at his wife. He sent for a scribe to come and write a writ of divorce for her. Before the scribe got there, however, the king was reconciled with his wife. Said the king, “It is impossible that the scribe should go forth from here empty-handed. But say to him, ‘Come and inscribe [a codicil to her marriage-settlement] that I double for her the value of her marriage-settlement [should I die or divorce her].’” Q. That is the point of the statement, “Because you are not my people, and I am not your God” (Hos. 1:9), followed by “Yet the number of the people of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered, and in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ it shall be said to them, ‘sons of the living God’” (Hos. 1:10).

Here, by contrast, is a parable that is highly specific to the case it is meant to illuminate. It is a standard exegetical parallel, depending on the cited verses for meaning, but imparting no new meaning to those verses. CXXXI:I.1 R.

S. T.

Along these same lines, you say, “Samaria shall bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open” (Hos. 13:16). And it further says, “Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take with you words and return to the Lord” (Hos. 14:1). Now what has one thing to do with the other? U. The matter may be compared to the case of a city that rebelled against the king. The king sent a gen-

108

26.

sifré to numbers 131. numbers 25:1-16 eral to destroy it. The general was shrewd and capable. He said to them, “Take some time [about this rebellion of yours and stop it], for if not, I shall do to you what I did to such and such a city and its allies, to such and such a district and its allies.” V. So Scripture states, “Samaria shall bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open” (Hos. 13:16), but further, “Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take with you words and return to the Lord” (Hos. 14:1).

The third parable is identical in construction to the other two. But it is comparable to the foregoing in that the exegetical task supplies context and meaning to the parable, thus, once more, an exegetical parable. CXXXI:II 2. A. “Now they came and dwelt in Shittim”—in a place of foolishness. B. At that time the Ammonites and Moabites went and built for themselves enclosures from Beth Hajeshimoth to the Snowy Mountain, and they installed there women selling every kind of delicacy. The Israelites would eat and drink. C. He made tents for them from the snowy mountain to Beth Hajeshimoth [north to south] and put women in them, selling all manner of goodies] [B. San. 106b: whores in them, old women outside, young women inside. D. When an Israelite was eating and drinking and carousing and going out for walks in the market to buy something from the old lady, [the old lady would say to him, ‘Don’t you want some linen clothes?”] E. The old lady would offer them at true value, and the girl would call him and say to him from inside, “Come and buy it for yourself for less.” F. So he would buy it from her. This would happen two or three times, and then [the young one] would say to him, “Come on in, you are at home here. Sit down and make a choice for yourself.” He would come in. Gourds of Ammonite wine would be set near her. (At this point the wine of gentiles had not yet been forbidden to Israelites.) She would say to him, ‘Do you want to drink a cup of wine?’ G. “When he had drunk a cup of wine, he would become inflamed. He said to her, “Submit to me.” She would than take her the image of Peor from her bosom and said to him, “Worship this.” H. He would say to her, “Now am I going to bow down to an idol?” [Sanhedrin: “Am I not a Jew?’]

26.

sifré to numbers 131. numbers 25:1-16

109

I. She would say to him, “What difference does it make to you? Do they ask anything more from you than that you bare yourself?” [Sanhedrin:] But he did not know that that was how this idol was served.] So he would bare himself to it. J. On this basis, sages have said: He who bares himself to Baal Peor—lo, this is the proper manner of worshipping it. And he who tosses a stone to Hermes— that is the proper manner of worshipping it [M. San. 7:6]. K. “‘And not only so, but I shall not let you do so until you deny the Torah of Moses, your master!’ L. “As it is said, ‘They went in to Baal-peor and separated themselves unto that shame, and their abominations were according as they loved’ (Hos. 9:10).” M. So he would become inflamed. He said to her, “Submit to me.” She would say to him, “If you want me to submit to you, separate yourself from the Torah of Moses, and he did just that, as it is said, “But they came to Baal Peor and consecrated themselves to Baal and became detestable like the thing they loved” (Hos. 9:10). N. In they end they arrange idolatrous banquets for them, and they called them and they ate, as it is said, “These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their god.”

This authentic narrative builds to its climax and all the prior details lead the way to that point. 1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? I see three stages, first, attracting the Israelite, B-F, then the act of worship to Peor, G-J, then the sexual relations, involving repudiation of the Torah of Moses, K-N. The story flows smoothly from start to finish, but the point only emerges at the end: idolatry begins in easy stages, but ends with the act of apostasy, which imparts its perspective on the prior stages in the unfolding relationship. Each element of the story takes on its ultimate meaning only at the end. 2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? The tale explains how from simple commercial relationships stretches a path straight to the repudiation of the Torah, a path smoothed out by liquor and sex. 3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? The tripartite division of authentic narratives governs here. But by this point, it is clear, that is a trivial observation. Authentic narratives require examination as a

110

26.

sifré to numbers 131. numbers 25:1-16

group, for viewed all together, they may yield the points of comparison and contrast that, in their actual setting, elude me. CXXXI:II.2 O. R. Eleazar b. Shammua says, “Just as it is not possible for a nail to be removed from the door without splinters, so it was not possible for the Israelites to separate from Peor without the loss of life.” 3. A. There is the case [ma#aseh] of Menahem b. Gubeta of Ariah, who was treading figs in a vessel, and the prince[ly angel] of Peor came upon him. He drove him off with a metal spit and he fled and went his way. B. But he came upon him a night later. He said to him, “Menahem, do even you curse me?” C. He was afraid of him and said to him, “I’ll never curse you again.” 4. A. There is another case [ma#aseh] concerning Sebatayya of Ulam, who rented out his ass to a gentile woman. When she had left the city gate, she said to him to wait while she went into her temple of idolatry. B. When she came out, he said to her, “Wait till I go in and do what you did.” C. She said to him, “Is it possible that you’re not a Jew? He said to her, “So what difference does it make to you?” D. He went in and wiped himself on the nose of Peor, and all the gentiles cheered him and said to him, “No one ever did it that way before.” 5. A. There was yet another case [ma#aseh] of a ruler who came from a seaside city to bow down to Peor. He said to the servants of Peor, “Bring me a bullock, for us to offer it to him, or a ram, for us to offer to him.” B. They said to him, “That isn’t what we owe him, but all you have to do is bare yourself to him.” C. He set his orderlies on them and they crushed their heads with clubs. D. He said to them, “Woe is you and woe is your ‘error’!” E. At that moment: “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.”

The triplet carries forward the preceding authentic narrative. The Ma#asim have nothing in common with those of the Mishnah and the Tosefta. Ma#aseh here signals neither a precedent nor a case nor even an example of a Halakhic ruling. What we have in each of the three cases is a unique anecdote. No. 3 and No. 4 do not qualify as authentic narratives, but No. 5 lays claim to that status, because the details fall into place only with C-D. The three ma#asim form a top-

26.

sifré to numbers 131. numbers 25:1-16

111

ical appendix to the narrative to which they are attached. The incidents are singular but augment the point announced at the outset: it was not possible for the Israelites to separate from Peor without the loss of life.

112

27.

sifré to numbers 132-152. numbers 26:52-29:40

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN

SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 132-152. NUMBERS 26:52-29:40 CXXXII:I 1. A. The Lord said to Moses, “To these the land shall be divided for inheritance according to the number of names. To a large tribe you shall give a large inheritance, and to a small tribe you shall give a small inheritance; every man [tribe] shall be given its inheritance according to its numbers. But the land shall be divided by lot, according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit. Their inheritance shall be divided according to lot between the larger and the smaller:” H. R. Josiah says, “Among those who actually went forth from Egypt was the land divided, as it is said, ‘according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit.’ Then why does Scripture say, ‘To these the land shall be divided for inheritance according to the number of names’? That is on account of the women and children.” I. R. Jonathan says, “To those who actually come into the land is the land divided, as it is said, ‘This was the number of the people of Israel, six hundred and one thousand seven hundred and thirty’ (Num. 26:51), and it is written [immediately thereafter], ‘To these the land shall be divided for inheritance according to the number of names.’ J. “And why does Scripture proceed to say, ‘… according to the names of the tribes of their fathers’? Scripture has treated differently this particular inheritance from all other inheritances that are mentioned in the Torah. For in the case of all other acts of inheritance in the Torah, the living inherit from the dead, but here, the dead inherit from the living. [This is now explained.]” K. Rabbi says, “There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? To two brothers, who were priests, living in the same town. This one had a son, and that one had three sons. They went out to the threshing floor [to collect the priestly dues]. This one took one seah of grain, and these took three seahs. Then they brought them to their fathers. The fathers went and divided up the grain equally between them.

27.

sifré to numbers 132-152. numbers 26:52-29:40

113

L. “Along these same lines, you say concerning those who were coming into the land: this took a seah-area, and these took three seahareas, and they transferred them by inheritance to their fathers. Thus the dead inherited from the living, and then they went and divided it up equally.”

The Halakhic parable, K, responds to the rule of J, explaining how the dead can define the results, as to inheritance, of the living. The “father’s house” defines the unit of inheritance, not the heirs of that house, as L explains, and as K then illustrates in a closely matching simile. How the parable of K improves upon the application of L is not obvious to me. Had Rabbi begun, “Ma#aseh b: two brothers living in the same town…,” and ended, “And sages ruled that the fathers were to divide up the grain…,” the outcome would have been the same. All that separates the Halakhic parable from the conventional Ma#aseh is the sages’ ruling, essential to the latter, never encompassed by the former. CXXXIV:VII 1. A. The Lord said to Moses, “Go up into this mountain of Abarim and see the land which I have given to the people of Israel. And when you have seen it, you also shall be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron was gathered” (Numbers 27:12-23). 2. A. When Moses entered into [the territory that was to form] the inheritance of the children of Reuben and the children of Gad, he rejoiced, saying, “It appears to me that He has released me from my vow.” He began to pour out supplications before the Omnipresent. B. There is a parable: to what is the matter to be compared? C. To the case of a mortal king, who made a decree against his son that he might not enter the door of his palace. He entered the gateway, with him after him; the courtyard, with him after him; to the entry chamber with him after him. But when he came to enter the bed-chamber, he said to him, “My son, from here onward, you are forbidden [to enter].” D. So at the moment at which Moses entered the inheritance of the children of Reuben and the children of Gad, he rejoiced, saying, “It appears to me that He has released me from my vow.” He began to pour out supplications before the Omnipresent.”

2. A sets forth the exegetical task of the parable, 2.B-C, which is then clarified at D. The situation of A is replicated by the parable, only now in terms of the king, the prince, and the palace.

114

27.

sifré to numbers 132-152. numbers 26:52-29:40

CXXXIV:VII.2 E. [Continuing CXXXIV:VII.2D:] Now does the matter not yield an argument a fortiori: F. If Moses, sage of sages, eminence of eminences, father of the prophets, even though he knew that the decree was issued against him, did not restrain himself from seeking mercy, all the more so the rest of humanity, as it is said, “And I besought the Lord at that time, saying, O Lord God, thou hast only begun to show your servant your greatness and your mighty hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as thine? Let me go over, I pray, and see the good land beyond the Jordan, that goodly hill country and Lebanon” (Dt. 3:23)—this was in various modes of supplication. R. [Continuing the exegesis of Dt. 3:23:] “for what god is there in heaven or on earth:” S. For the trait of mortals is not the same as the trait of the Omnipresent. The trait of mortals is that one who is greater than his fellow nullifies the decree of his fellow, but as to you, who can stop you [from doing what you wish]? T. And so Scripture says, ““But he is unchangeable and who can turn him? What he desires, he does” (Job 23:13). U. R. Judah b. Baba says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a man who is inscribed in the government’s records. Even if he gives a lot of money, it is not possible to remove his name. V. “But you say, ‘Repent and I shall accept you,” as it is said, “I have swept away your transgressions like a cloud and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you’” (Is. 44:22).

The exegetical parable, U, clarifies Job 23:13, now with stress on God’s power to do precisely what he wills. The parable registers that an earthly government does not alter its decree, but through man’s repentance God will alter his decree. The parable, U, absent its application and explanation, V, is incomprehensible. CXXXV:I.1. A. “But the Lord was angry with me on your account and would not hearken to me, and the Lord said to me, ‘Let it suffice you; speak no more to me of this matter. Go up to the top of Pisgah and lift up your eyes westward and northward and southward and eastward, and behold it with your eyes, for you shall not go over this Jordan. But charge Joshua and encourage and strengthen him; for he shall go over at the head of

27.

sifré to numbers 132-152. numbers 26:52-29:40

115

this people, and he shall put them in possession of the land which you shall see” (Dt. 3:26-28): 7. A. “… speak no more to me of this matter:” B. He said to him, “Moses, in this matter you may not ask anything of me, but in another matter, make a decree for me, and I shall carry it out.” C. There is a parable: to what may the matter may be compared? To the case of a king who made a harsh decree against his son, and the son was begging his father. He said to him, “in this matter you may not ask anything of me, but in another matter, make a decree for me, and I shall carry it out.” D. So did the Holy One, blessed be he, say to Moses, “Moses, in this matter you may not ask anything of me, but in another matter, make a decree for me, and I shall carry it out. And you may make a decree and say what it is, and it will be carried out for you.” E. He said to him, “If not, then at least show it to me.” F. He said to him, “That matter I shall do for you: ‘Go up to the top of Pisgah and lift up your eyes westward and northward and southward and eastward.’”

The pattern of the exegetical parable generated by the focus of exegesis repeats itself at 7.C/D, required by 7.B. CXXXVII:I 1. A. “… because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin [during the strife of the congregation, to sanctify me at the waters before their eyes:]” B. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, “Also Moses and Aaron died by reason of extirpation, as it is said, ‘because you broke faith with me in the midst of the people of Israel at the waters of Meribathkadesh in the wilderness of Zin; because you did not sanctify me in the midst of the people of Israel’ (Dt. 32:51). C. “Lo, If you had sanctified me, even now your time to depart would not have come. D. “Two sustaining leaders arose for Israel. One said, ‘Let my offense not be written down,’ and the other says, ‘Let my offense be written down.’ E. “David said, ‘Let my offense not be written down,’ as it is said, ‘Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity’ (Ps. 32:1-2). Moses said, ‘Let my offense be written down,’ as it is said, ‘because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin [during the strife of the congregation, to sanctify me at the waters before their eyes].’ F. “There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? To the case of two women who were flogged in court. One was flogged because

116

G.

27.

sifré to numbers 132-152. numbers 26:52-29:40

she had gone astray, and the other was flogged because she had stolen unripe fruit of the Sabbatical Year. “Now the one who was flogged because she had stolen unripe fruit of the Sabbatical Year says, ‘By your grace! Announce my offense, so that the by-standers may not suppose, ‘Just as the other one went astray, so this one went astray.’ So they hung the unripe produce around her shoulder, and the court crier proclaimed, ‘It is on account of this unripe fruit that this one is flogged.’”

The exegetical parable, F, explains why Moses wanted his offense to be made explicit, so that people would not suppose he was punished for a worse sin than the specified one. The parable then captures the matter. G makes explicit the connection to the exegetical issue. The parable tracks the exegetical case, but there is no H to articulate that fact. CXLII:I 1. B. The Lord said to Moses, “Command the people of Israel and say to them, ‘My offering, my food for my offerings by fire, my pleasing odor, you shall take heed to offer to me in its due season:’” (Num. 28:1-29:40): C. Why is this stated? D. Since it is said, “And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord; at his word they shall go out and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel with him the whole congregation” (Num. 27:21). E. There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? To the case of a king, whose wife was departing this world. She was giving him instructions concerning her children. She said to him, “By your leave, admonish my children in my behalf.” F. He said to her, “Instead of giving me instructions concerning my children, give instructions to my children concerning me, that they not rebel against me or treat me disrespectfully.” G. So said the Holy One blessed be he to Moses, “Instead of giving me instructions concerning my children, give instructions to my children concerning me, that they not rebel against me or exchange my honor for alien gods.” H. What does Scripture say? “For when I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, which I swore to give to their fathers, and they have eaten and are full and grown fat, they will turn to other gods and serve them and despise me and break my covenant” (Dt. 31:20). I. Thus: Instead of giving me instructions concerning my children, give instructions to my children concerning me. J. That is why it is said, “Command the people of Israel .”

27.

sifré to numbers 132-152. numbers 26:52-29:40

117

The exegetical parable, E-F, clarified by G and amplified by H-J, explains why Num. 28:1ff. is required, to make sure that the Israelites provide food for the Lord’s table. The contrast is at Num. 27:21, where Moses explains how God will take care of the Israelites, not they of him. Then, in line with G, E-F explain the situation to which the present transaction corresponds, a perfectly particular simile as usual.

118

28.

sifré to numbers 153-158. numbers 30:1-16

CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT

SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 153-158. NUMBERS 30:1-16 CLIII:VI.2.

F.

A.

“and the Lord will forgive her:” B. Lo, if the woman took a vow and he nullified it in his heart but she went and deliberately violated her vow [which she did not know was null], how do we know that she needs forgiveness? C. Scripture states, “and the Lord will forgive her.” D. Now lo, this produces an argument a fortiori, namely: E. If violating vows that have been nullified requires forgiveness, all the more so those that are not nullified at all. There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? To someone who intended to eat the meat of a pig but ate the meat of a lamb. G. Lo, matters yield an argument a fortiori: if someone who intended to eat the meat of a pig but ate the meat of a lamb requires forgiveness, all the more so one who intended to eat and did eat the meat of a pig. H. And this yields an argument a fortiori: if vows that have been nullified requires forgiveness, all the more so those that are not nullified at all.

Something is slightly awry at F, G, since the parable is not fully realized. There should be a transaction in which a ruling emerges from the situation created by the simile. Instead, it is taken for granted that a consequence has been drawn from the action of F, which yields the fact upon which the argument a fortiori, G, is constructed, namely, the intention to eat invalid meat overrides the action of eating the valid meat, and that is what is repeated at H for the case at hand. The Halakhic parable therefore consists of an exact replica of the Halakhic situation, now in terms of eating rather than of vowing.

28.

sifré to numbers 153-158. numbers 30:1-16

119

The foregoing is repeated at CLIII:IX.3 and CLIV:V.1, which I have not reproduced. CLVII:I 2.

A. [The Lord said to Moses, “Avenge the people of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you shall be gathered to your people.” And Moses said to the people, “Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian]: “on the Midianites:” B. Now lo, are they not Moabites? They became so for a specific purpose, as it is said, “So the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the fees for divination in their hand and they came to Balaam” (Num. 22:7). C. This group [Midianites] had never before made peace with that group [Moabites], but when they came to make war against Israel, they made peace with one another and they made war with Israel. D. There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? E. To the case of two dogs who were in the corral, and they were jealous of one another. A wolf came to take a lamb from the corral, and one of them tried to stop him. Said his fellow, “If I don’t go and help him now, he will kill him and come after me and kill me.” So they made peace with one another and made war with the wolf. F. So Moab and Midian had never lived in peace with one another, as it is said, “He who smites Midian in the fields of Moab” (Gen. 36:35). But when they came to make war with Israel, they made peace with one another and war with Israel.

The exegetical parable, E, amplified and applied by F, responds to the question posed at B and answered at C. So the parable is particular to the case at hand, but in this matter, the details—Midian, Moab—are readily interchanged as the case requires.

120

29.

sifré to numbers 159-161. numbers 35:9-35:34

CHAPTER TWENTY-NINE

SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 159-161. NUMBERS 35:9-35:34 CLXI:III 1. A. “You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Israel:” B. Scripture indicates that blood-shed imparts uncleanness to the land and drives God’s Presence away, and because of blood-shed the house of the sanctuary was destroyed. C. There was the incident [ma#aseh] involving two priests of equal standing, who were running up the ramp, and one of them got there before the other to within four cubits. He took a knife and stabbed the other in his heart. D. Came R. Sadoq and stood on the steps of the porch and said, “Listen to me, our brothers of the house of Israel! Lo, Scripture says, ‘If in the land that the Lord your God gives you to possess, anyone is found slain, lying in the open country, and it is not known who killed him, then your elders and your judges shall come forth, and they shall measure the distance to the cities that are around him that is slain, and the elders of the city that is nearest to the slain man shall take a heifer that has never been worked and has not pulled in the yoke....’ (Dt. 21:1-3). So come on and let’s measure to find out in behalf of which area is it proper to undertake bringing the heifer—the inner sanctum or the courts!” E. All the Israelites broke out into tears. F. And afterward the son of the youngster came along and found that he was yet writhing [and still alive]. He said to them, “Our brothers—lo, I am atonement for your sins! Still my son is writhing, and the knife has not been made unclean [by reason of corpseuncleanness, so the Temple is safe from pollution].” G. This is to teach you that considerations of uncleanness of knives were more precious to them than blood shed. H. And so too Scripture says, “Moreover Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another, besides the sin that he made Judah to sin so that they did what was evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Kgs. 21:16).

29.

sifré to numbers 159-161. numbers 35:9-35:34

121

I. It is on that basis that sages have said, “Blood-shed drives God’s Presence away, and because of blood-shed the house of the sanctuary was destroyed.

This item is necessarily primary to Tosefta-tractate Kippurim [Yoma] 1:12, because T. Kip. 1:12 amplifies the corresponding passage of the Mishnah: “There were two who got there at the same time, running up the ramp. One shoved the other” [M. Yoma 2:2A-B]. The pertinence here is not haphazard, however, for the narrative is connected to the base verse, A, at B/I, here showing how Israel defiles the land in which God dwells, the Temple in particular. Ma#aseh here promises not a case or a precedent but a fully articulated narrative, and that usage in Mishnah-Tosefta, Sifra, and both Sifrés is uncommon indeed. 1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The Mishnah’s ma#aseh is augmented with Saddoq’s recrimination, C-D, and then the climactic response of the father of the deceased, who illustrates Saddoq’s comment, A-B, though cited from the Mishnah, are integral to the amplified narrative before us. Lest we miss the point, G-H articulates it. Viewed on its own, not as a complement to the Mishnah’s narrative, the story is fully realized and coherent, start to finish. 2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of the tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The narrative charge comes in the contrast between concern for uncleanness of the Temple and the acceptance of the murder. 3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? Here the Tosefta has filled out the Mishnah’s ma#aseh and made it work. That is not a common phenomenon. The narrative leaves no doubt as to the lesson it wishes to convey.

122

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

CHAPTER THIRTY

NARRATIVES IN SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS Like Sifra, Sifré to Numbers only episodically requires narratives to accomplish its documentary task, and then, more uncommonly still, comes the authentic narrative, whether successful or otherwise. Unlike Sifra, which found useful both the Ma#aseh and the Mashal, when Sifré to Numbers’ compilers include narratives, they select a single type, to the near exclusion of all other possibilities. That is the exegetical parable, closely bound to the verse of Scripture subject to illumination. Clarifying the meaning and context of verses of Numbers, cited and glossed, Sifré to Numbers derives its topical program, coherence and order from Scripture. As with Sifra, the sole point of coherence for the discrete compositions is located in the sequences of the base-verses of Scripture that are subject to commentary. Since the task of the compilation is the orderly exegesis of successive verses of Scripture, we should anticipate that the predominant kinds of narratives (and pseudo-narratives) will be those that serve to clarify the sense and meaning of cited verses. The exegetical mission of the document as a whole ought also to define the assignment for narratives. And so it does, but in a very particular way. What we shall now see in the aggregate is that the document’s compilers or framers have made a particular choice among the available types of narratives: this, not that, for reasons we may readily adduce. Specifically, just as the compilers or framers of Mishnah-Tosefta favored the Ma#aseh over all other types of narrative or pseudo-narrative composition, so the authorship of Sifré to Numbers has made its choice: the parable. Specifically, as between the Halakhic and the exegetical parable, a choice already documented in Sifra, the compilers of the document (like those of Sifré to Deuteronomy) choose the latter, and that matches their documentary program, the line by line exegesis of the biblical book at hand. What marks the exegetical parable is that its simile is shaped in response to the particularities of the verse of Scripture subject to explanation. The other

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

123

type of parable, the Halakhic kind, occurs seldom, the Ma#aseh irregularly, and the successful story (defined in Volume One) rarely indeed. But there is more: there is a precise match between the players and the transaction of the parable and the participants in the event of the verse subject to clarification. The parabolic narrative (such as it is) commonly tracks the base-verse subject to clarification. That means the exegetical parable does not draw upon, and adapt for the present purpose, a ready-made simile. It means the parable takes shape in response to the exegetical task, and that is what I mean when I repeatedly find the parable matching the exegetical assignment. Not only so, but in most instances, that match is made explicit, lest we miss the point, “so is the case with Israel” and its counterparts forming a routine component of the exegetical parable. That is no empty claim but a restatement of the obvious. So I cannot overstress: while they form similes of general intelligibility, the exegetical parables are always particular to the exegetical context. That is why I maintain the exegetical parables are commonly composed within, and respond to, the documentary program of exegesis of the book of Numbers. That documentary task explains the preference as to form and as to proposition or substance that is manifest in the parabolic similes. It accounts for the fact of the near-exclusion of all other narrative or pseudo-narrative writing. The results for Mishnah-Tosefta’s Ma#aseh and Sifré to Numbers’ (and, as we shall see in Chapter Forty, Sifré to Deuteronomy’s) exegetical parable lead to a working hypothesis that is now obvious. It is this: The respective documents impose their own preferences not only on logic, rhetoric, and topic of the shank of the writing, but also on the kind of narrative or pseudo-narrative they will regularly choose from time to time to highlight their meaning. If in the context of the Mishnah-Tosefta, Sifra, and the two Sifrés, we can account for the dominant narrative or pseudo-narrative types—the case-Ma#aseh, the Mashal-exegetical parable, respectively—what of the fully articulated anecdotal story and other types of stories, such as occur only rarely in Mishnah-Tosefta, Sifra, and the two Sifrés? Is there a documentary task that dictates selection of that type of narrative over other, available types, a documentary match as close and commensurate as the Ma#aseh to the Mishnah, the Mashal to Sifré to Numbers?

124

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

In Volume Three we shall see the counterpart phenomenon: a clear preference for the fully-articulated story over all other kinds of narrative and pseudo-narrative writing; then we shall ask why the documents treated in Volume Three select as the documentary medium the authentic, successful story: what task that classification of narrative writing undertakes more successfully than any other? I. The Authentic Narrative Among the four authentic narratives we have identified in Sifré to Numbers, two undertake a documentary task in the setting of the book of Numbers. In addition to XXII:VI.1, Simeon the Righteous and the Nazirite, which is shared with Tosefta Nazir, and CLXI:III.1, primary at Tosefta’s amplification of M. Yoma 2:2, I find two authentic narratives that occur for the first time, beyond Mishna-Tosefta and Sifra, in Sifré Numbers. They are as follows (in abbreviated versions): 1. CXV:V.6. R. Nathan says, “You have not got single religious duty that is listed in the Torah, the reward of the doing of which is not made explicit right alongside. Go and learn the lesson from the religious duty of the fringes.” There is the case [Ma#aseh] of a man who was meticulous about carrying out the religious duty of the fringes.…

The narrative amplifies the verse that concerns the wearing of show-fringes. But for purposes of making the point that the fringe invokes all the commandments, so elaborate and particular a narrative hardly is required. Not only so, but, as we saw above, the narrative bears its own focus and stands autonomously, outside of documentary context. It need not have been composed for the purpose of an exegetical collection on the book of Numbers.

3. CXXXI:II.2. “Now they came and dwelt in Shittim”—in a place of foolishness. At that time the Ammonites and Moabites went and built for themselves enclosures from Beth Hajeshimoth to the Snowy Mountain, and they installed there women selling every kind of delicacy. The Israelites would eat and drink. He made tents for them from the snowy mountain to Beth Hajeshimoth north to south and put women in them, selling all manner of goodies…

The elaborate story, in several parts, focuses on Baal Peor and how the Moabites inveigled the Israelites to worship that god. While to attain cogency the story does not require its

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

125

exegetical setting, it is surely natural to that setting, and the details of the authentic narrative all respond to the larger exegetical question: how exactly did they do it? On that basis I classify the narrative as integral to Sifré to Numbers. The upshot is simple. Three narratives (inclusive of Simeon and the true Nazirite), one anecdotal and two of them elaborately articulated, serve the exegetical program of the document. That shows what might have been: authentic narratives can have served. But with the stated exceptions, they did not. In fact, as we shall now see, the documentary program dictated to the compilers a preference for the exegetical parable. The difference between the well-articulated narratives and the exegetical parables—not authentic narratives at all—that predominate is, the latter closely respond to the details of the situation, participants, or transaction signified by the verse that is subject to exegesis. By contrast the elaborate narratives treat these details as a mere pretext for the telling of a story autonomous of the text subject to the comment—most graphically illustrated in Nathan’s story about the showfringes’ power to save a man from sin. For the compilers of Sifré to Numbers, therefore, the story is not the thing, the base-verse is, and the discipline imposed by the task of illuminating the base-verse, its participants, its transaction or event, strongly favors utilizing the exegetical parable over any other narrative or pseudo-narrative possibility. In the Rabbinic canon of the formative age, the authentic narrative would find its task to perform— but not here. II. The Mashal In Sifré to Numbers I find two Halakhic parables and twenty-nine exegetical parables. The issue concerning all of them is, are the parables of the document particular to the document at hand, limited to the terms of the exegetical task, or do they draw on a freestanding corpus of parables, adapted for the work at hand—and how should we know? Since all other accounts of “the Rabbinic parable” treat documentary lines as null, that fundamental question demands attention. What I shall show is simple. While some common conventions

126

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

guide the formation of a great many parables, nearly all of the exegetical parables take shape in close conversation with the verse subject to clarification, and the terms of the simile are particular to the context in which the simile serves. Rarely is a detail superfluous, a match other than exact between details of the parable and details of the verse clarified by the parable. Occasionally we find a component of a parable that is not commensurate, which marks the parable as notparticular to its exegetical task but adapted therefor. The available, ready-made heritage of parables then consists of a literary convention available for particularization to a distinctive context. Thus, while we commonly meet a king and a prince, a king and a queen, or a king and an ally, these take on meaning and significance only within the situation constructed by the base-verse, that is, God and Moses, or God and Israel. Allusion to “king/prince” or “king/ally” never leaves unclear the point of the parable in all its specificity—and lest we miss the obvious, as I said, most exegetical parables bear in their wake an explicit, wholly articulated message: so is it here, with God and Israel, or God and Moses, and so on throughout. Once more, to highlight the parabolic materials apart from the larger documentary context, I use underlining. a. The Halakhic parable 1. CXXXII:I.1. “And why does Scripture proceed to say, ‘… according to the names of the tribes of their fathers’? Scripture has treated differently this particular inheritance from all other inheritances that are mentioned in the Torah. For in the case of all other acts of inheritance in the Torah, the living inherit from the dead, but here, the dead inherit from the living. This is now explained.” Rabbi says, “There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? To two brothers, who were priests, living in the same town. This one had a son, and that one had three sons. They went out to the threshing floor to collect the priestly dues. This one took one seah of grain, and these took three seahs. Then they brought them to their fathers. The fathers went and divided up the grain equally between them. Along these same lines, you say concerning those who were coming into the land: this took a seah-area, and these took three seah-areas, and they transferred them by inheritance to their fathers. Thus the dead inherited from the living, and then they went and divided it up equally.”

The parable of the priests, three brothers, sons of one priest, and an only son of the other priest, producing two seahs for

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

127

each of the fathers, is tightly joined to the Halakhic case that is clarified through the pseudo-narrative simile. 2. CLIII:VI.2. “and the Lord will forgive her:” Lo, if the woman took a vow and he nullified it in his heart but she went and deliberately violated her vow which she did not know was null, how do we know that she needs forgiveness? Scripture states, “and the Lord will forgive her.” There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? To someone who intended to eat the meat of a pig but ate the meat of a lamb.

Here the Halakhic situation—intending this (improperly), doing that (not improperly)—is labeled a parable, but in fact not only replicates the Halakhic situation but in no important way revises its components.

The two Halakhic parables closely track the Halakhic transaction that is subject to analysis. The point that is clarified always dictates the terms of the simile. And not a single detail parts company from the main point. We shall now see that that is the case, even more so, with the exegetical parables. b. The Exegetical Parable The exegetical parables follow a simple form: citation of a verse and a comment on it, followed by a parable embodying the simile that embodies the relationships or terms, participants or transactions, of the base-verse. The simile sometimes involves action, other times requires only a replication of the situation outlined by the base-verse. But that is now in other terms than Scripture’s. The close correspondence comes to expression in many instances with an explicit exegesis of the parable, explaining how it is relevant to the base-verse and the situation portrayed therein. The exegetical parable has no autonomous standing, being comprehensible only in exegetical context. The relationships or terms, participants or transactions, of the parable originate in, and form obvious counterparts to, those of the base-verse; they are constructed to form similes of an abstract, but wholly conventional, character, meant to treat as general the particularities of the base-verse and its participants and transactions. In some instances the parable augments the proposition or adds to the message of the base-verse, in many it simply recapitulates that message. 1. LXXXII:I.1. The purpose is to teach that on that very day the Presence of God made the trip of thirty-six mil, so that the Israelites might enter the land. There is a parable to be drawn: it is to men going off

128

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

to war. When they go forth, they rejoice, but, as they grow weary, their hands grow faint. But for the Israelites that is not how it is. Rather, as they grow tired, they rejoice.”

The parable explains the detail by means of the articulated simile. Outside of the exegetical context, I detect no meaning in the underlined composition, only a truism bearing no message on its own. In the context of “but for the Israelites that is not how it is,” the simile takes on meaning.

2. LXXXII:II.2. R. Simeon b. Yohai says, “What is said is not, ‘the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them,’ but rather, ‘and the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them.’ The and refers to the fact that God, as well as the ark, went before them. The matter may be compared to the case of a viceroy who went before his armies, preparing the way before them so that they would take up an encampment. So the Presence of God went before Israel and prepared the way before them so that they would take up an encampment.

The articulation of the application of the parable makes obvious what was plain in the parable, closely replicating the situation to be clarified. The underlining identifies the parable on its own and signals no message other than that imputed by “so the presence….”

3. LXXXIV:I.1 R. Simeon says, “In the written version there are dots above and below the word to indicate that this was not its correct place. And what ought to have been written instead of this passage? ‘And the people complained in the hearing of the Lord’ (Num. 11:1ff.). The matter may be compared to the case of people who said to the king, ‘We shall see whether you will come with us to the ruler of Acre.’ By the time they got to Acre, he had gone to Tyre. When they got to Tyre, he had gone to Sidon. When they got to Sidon, he had gone to Biri. When they got to Biri, he had gone to Antioch. When they got to Antioch, the people began to complain against the king, for they had wandered on the way, and the king had to complain against them, that on their account he too had wandered on the way. So the Presence of God went on a single day a distance of thirty-six mils so that the Israelites should enter the land.

The parable yet again goes over the same transaction, three different ways of imagining the same situation, all three of them expressly linked to the situation described in Scripture. The parable, elaborate though it is, bears no self-evident standing out of the context defined by Num. 11:1.

4. LXXXIV:II. 1. While this verse says, “... whenever the ark set out, Moses said, ‘Arise, O Lord,’” another verse of Scripture says, “At the command of the Lord they encamped, and at the command of the Lord

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

129

they set out” (Num. 9:23). How are both verses of Scripture to stand side by side? The matter may be compared to the case of a mortal king who said to his servant, “See to it that you so arrange things for me that I may go and hand over an inheritance to my son.”

God is represented by the king, Moses by the servant, and the parable closely replicates the situation conveyed by Scripture. It simply translates the terms of the verse into the abstraction of the king and the prince, the servant and the inheritance, which on their own bear no message. On its own, “See to it that you…” is gibberish.

5. LXXXIV:II. 1. Another matter: to what may the matter be compared? To the case of a mortal king who was going on the way and his ally went along with him. As he was setting out on the journey, he said, “I shall not set out until my ally comes.” And when he encamps, he says, “I shall not make camp until my ally comes.”

The issue is the same as above.

6. LXXXV:IV.1 This teaches that the Israelites had every intention of making the matter heard by the Omnipresent. R. Simeon would say, “To what is the matter to be compared? To someone who was cursing the king while the king was going by. They said to the man, ‘Silence, so the king will not hear.’ He said to them, ‘Who is going to tell you that it was not my very intent to make him hear!’ So the Israelites had every intention of making the matter heard by the Omnipresent.”

As usual, Simeon articulates what is self-evident in the parable, and the exegetical force of the parable derives from its match to the details of the transaction subject to clarification. Here the simile does bear its own message, but the situation to which it can pertain, beyond the one dictated by “so the Israelites had every intention…” is unclear to me.

7. LXXXVI:I.1. Now what good could Moses do for them? Was it not suitable to say only, “And the people cried to the Lord”? And why then does it say, “Then the people cried to Moses”? Said R. Simeon, “The matter may be compared to a mortal king who got mad at his son, and the son went off to the king’s ally. He said to him, ‘Go and plead for me to father.’

The match between the simile and the case is perfect. Israel is the son, Moses is the king’s ally. Absent the exegetical task, the simile can stand on its own, but still requires a counterpart case for context.

8. LXXXVII:II.1. “... we remember the fish we ate in Egypt for nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic;

130

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

but now our strength is dried up and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at” (Num. 11:5-6): R. Simeon says, “On what account did the manna turn for them into everything they could want, except for the five things listed here? The matter may be compared to the case of a mortal king, who handed his son over to a tutor. The king went into session and gave orders, saying to him, ‘See to it that he not eat any bad food and not drink anything polluted.’ Nonetheless, the son complained against his father, saying, ‘It was not because he loves me, but because it was not possible to eat these things.’”

The churlish attitude of the Israelites toward the manna is captured by the exegetical parable, which underscores their lack of acknowledgement of God’s love, expressed through the manna. Here the parable deepens the message of Scripture.

9. LXXXIX:IV.2. “... and the taste of it was like the taste of cakes baked with oil:” Another explanation: just as in the case of the teat, the infant is pained when he has to give it up, so the Israelites were pained when they had to give up the manna, as it is said, “And the manna ceased on the next day” (Joshua 5:12). It may be compared to saying to someone, “On what account are you eating barley-bread?” He replies, “Because I do not have wheat bread.” “On what account are you eating carobs?” He says, “Because I do not have honey.” So if the Israelites had had in hand some of that handful of manna that they took up on the day on which Moses died, from which they ate for the next forty days, they would never have wanted to eat the produce of the land of Canaan.

The explanation of the detail of Scripture’s narrative by the exegetical parable is exact: they ate what they had to eat. Here again, other situations can readily impart concreteness to the abstract parable, but in the present context, the parable requires its exegetical setting to establish its presence.

10. LXXXIX:V.2. R. Simeon says, “On what account did the manna not come down for Israel on one day in a year? It was so that lacking their regular rations they should turn their hearts to their father in heaven. One may draw a parable. To what may the matter be compared? To a king who made a decree for his son that he should provide a living for his son all together on only one day a year, and he would greet his father only at the time that he was there to collect his living. One time the king went and made a decree that he would provide his living every day. The son said, ‘Even if I greet father only at the time that he provides my living, it is enough for me.’ So the case with Israel: If someone had five sons or five daughters, he would sit and stare, saying ‘Woe is me, maybe the manna will not come down tomorrow! We’ll all die of starvation. May it be your pleasure that it will come down.’ So it

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

131

turned out that they set their hearts heavenward.”

The same matter dealt with at LXXIX:IV.2 recurs, but the parable conveys the opposite of a churlish attitude on the part of Israel. Now the manna nurtures an attitude of gratitude and trust.

11. XCI:II.1. “... I am not able to carry all this people alone, the burden is too heavy for me. If you will deal thus with me, kill me at once, if I find favor in your sight, that I may not see my wretchedness” (Num. 11:11-15): What was the basis for Moses’ complaint? It is because the Holy One, blessed be he, showed to Moses the entire order of punishments that was destined to come upon them. R. Simeon would say, “To what may the matter be compared? It is to someone who was going forth to be put to death, with his sons. He said to the executioner, ‘Put me to death first, before you put my children to death.’ So did Moses say before the Omnipresent, ‘If you will deal thus with me, kill me at once. It would be better for me if you would kill me first, so that I shall not see the punishment that is destined to come upon them.’”

Simeon’s parable exactly captures Moses’s transaction with God. Here is a parable that can serve in a variety of particular contexts—and in the Rabbinic context, does.

12. XCIII:I.3 “... and I will take some of the spirit which is upon you and put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, that you may not bear it yourself” (Num. 11:17): To what may Moses be compared at that moment? To a lamp which is set on a candelabrum, from which many lights are kindled, and which on that account does not lose a bit of its light. So Moses did not lose any of his wisdom when he shared it with the others.

The parable of the candelabrum does not seem to me particular to the case at hand, since the notion that the one gains while the other does not lose is a commonplace; the parable here is an inert simile, not an active story.

13. LXXXV:IV.1. “And the people complained in the hearing of the Lord about their misfortunes; and when the Lord heard it, his anger was kindled:” This teaches that the Israelites had every intention of making the matter heard by the Omnipresent. R. Simeon would say, “To what is the matter to be compared? To someone who was cursing the king while the king was going by. They said to the man, ‘Silence, so the king will not hear.’ He said to them, ‘Who is going to tell you that it was not my very intent to make him hear!’ So the Israelites had every intention of making the matter heard by the Omnipresent.”

As before, Simeon’s parable replicates the relationship of the

132

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

verse of Numbers to which it is attached, adding only the detail that the Israelites wanted God to hear—which is what the verse says, “in the hearing of the Lord about….” The parable accurately replicates, in the abstract relationships it portrays, the details of Scripture’s situation. 14. CIII:VI.1. “Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?’ And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, and he departed” (Num. 12:1-16): The sense of the statement of Scripture, “against my servant Moses” is only this: “Instead of speaking against me, you have spoken against my servant, Moses.” The matter may be compared to the case of a mortal king who had a trustee of state. The citizens were speaking against him. The king said to them, “You have not spoken against him but against me. And if you claim that I do not know what he does, then that statement is still more damaging than the first. criticizing the agent’s deeds.”

The parable captures the exact relationship portrayed by the verse: the people spoke against Moses so God was angered, the people spoke against the king’s agent, so the king was angered. The parable adds, if you think that I don’t know what my agent does, that is a still more deplorable charge.

15. CV:I.1. “... and when the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow (Num. 12:1-16): The matter may be compared to a mortal king who said to a tutor, “Punish my son, but only after I go along on my way should you punish him, for the father has mercy on the son.”

The parable captures the situation portrayed by the verse and explains the reason that the cloud was removed, that is, why God departed. The parable then is particular to the exegetical task, answering the question raised by the verse. No. 11 goes over the same ground in its own way.

16. CXII:III.2. “But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his people, because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him” (Num. 15:27-31). “... reviles the Lord:” R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a man who says to his fellow, ‘You have cursed the dish and so diminished its contents.’” Issi b. Arabia says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a man who says to his fellow, ‘You have cursed the entire dish and so left nothing at all of it.’”

The simile of the dish involves no sequence of actions or

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

133

events but serves to capture the situation described in the baseverse. 17. CXV:V.4. Why make mention of the Exodus from Egypt in the setting of discourse on each and every one of the religious duties? The matter may be compared to the case of a king whose ally’s son was taken captive. When the king paid the ransom and so redeemed him, he did not redeem him as a free man but as a slave, so that if the king made a decree and the other did not accept it, he might say to him, “You are my slave.” When he came into a city, he said to him, “Tie my shoe-latch, carry my clothing before me and bring them to the bath house.” The son began to complain. The king produced the bond and said to him, “You are my slave.” So when the Holy One, blessed be he, redeemed the seed of Abraham, his ally, he redeemed them not as sons but as slaves. When he makes a decree and they do not accept it, he may say to them, “You are my slaves.”

“So when the Holy One…” tightly connects the exegetical parable to the problem raised by Scripture. The parable can clarify more than the situation set forth by Scripture, but the relationships will be uniform, whatever the details of the situation served by the parable as a simile.

18. CXVII:I.3 “ … all the consecrated things of the people of Israel:” Scripture makes a covenant with Aaron concerning all the Most Holy Things for the purpose of establishing an analogy and so to make a covenant with them. For Korach came against Aaron and protested against the priesthood. To what is the matter comparable? It is comparable to the case of a mortal king who had a household companion, to whom he gave a field for a gift, but for whom he did not write a deed and seal it and place it into the archives. Someone then came along and challenged the man’s ownership to the field. Said the king to him, “Whoever wants to come and challenge your ownership—come, and I shall write and seal a deed and place the deed for you in the archives.” Thus it was that Korach came along and challenged the priesthood against Aaron. Said to him the Omnipresent, “Whoever wants, let him come and challenge you for the priesthood! Come, and I shall write and seal and place in the archives a deed of ownership.”

“Thus it was that Korach came along…” articulates the exact match between the parable of the king, the companion, and the gift, and Aaron, Korach, and the priestly gifts. If the parable has been created for some other purpose, I cannot imagine what it can have been, other than to explain a transaction identical to the one at hand.

19. CXIX:II.2 “I am your portion and your inheritance among the people of Israel:” “At my table you eat, and at my table you drink.” There is

134

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

a parable: to what is the matter to be compared? To the case of a mortal king who gave his sons gifts, but to one son he gave nothing at all. He said to him, “My son, even though I didn’t give you a gift, at my table will you eat, and at my table, you will drink.” And so Scripture says, “Their share have I given from my offerings made by fire” (Lev. 6:10); “Offerings made by fire for the Lord and his inheritance they will eat” (Dt. 18:1).

As before, the exegetical parable simply replicates the situation described by Scripture, now in terms of the king and the sons.

20. CXIX:III.1. “I am your portion and your inheritance among the people of Israel. To the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service, which they serve, in the tent of meeting. And henceforth the people of Israel shall not come near the tent of meeting, lest they bear sin and die:” R. Ishmael says, “There is a common proverb that says, ‘It was to my advantage that my cow broke its leg—it was to Aaron’s advantage that Korach came along and challenged his priesthood.” There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? It is comparable to the case of a mortal king who had a household companion, to whom he gave a field for a gift, but did not write a deed or seal it or place it into the archives. Someone then came along and challenged the man’s ownership to the field. Said the king to him, “Whoever wants to come and challenge your ownership—come, and I shall write and seal a deed and place the deed for you in the archives. Thus Korach came along and challenged the priesthood against Aaron. Said to him the Omnipresent, “Whoever wants, let him come and challenge you for the priesthood! Come, and I shall write and seal and place in the archives a deed of ownership.”

The parable pertains to the verse of Scripture, not only to the proverb, which articulates the task of the parable: to show why it was to Aaron’s advantage that Korach challenged the priesthood of Aaron. Then the parable contains a story exactly matching the stated transaction in all details. It is difficult to identify any detail in the parable that is not required by the situation involving Aaron and Korach.

21. CXXXI:I.1 “And the daughter of a priest, when she undertakes to fornicate” (Lev. 21:9), “and the priest who is greater than his fellows” (Lev. 21:10)—now what has one thing to do with the other! He too is put to death through burning if he commits fornication with a priest’s daughter. There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? It is comparable to a centurion who has served his term but failed to enter his primipilate, to which he should have been promoted, but fled and went his way. The king sent word and brought him and imposed on him the penalty of having his head cut off. Before he was taken out to

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

135

be put to death, said the king, “Fill up for him a measure of golden denars,” and bring it to him and say to him, ‘If you had acted as our fellows acted, you would receive this measure of gold denars, and your life would have been your own. Now you have lost your life and lost your money.’” So too in the case of a priest’s daughter who committed an act of fornication—the high priest goes forth before her and says to her, “Had you acted in the manner in which your mothers did, you would have had the grace that from you a high priest should go forth like this one. But now you have lost your life and you have lost your honor.” Thus it is said, “And the daughter of a priest, when she undertakes to fornicate” (Lev. 21:9), “and the priest who is greater than his fellows” (Lev. 21:10).

The match between the details of the law involving the priest’s daughter who has fornicated and the faithless centurion is precise, and the latter captures the situation of the former. There is no autonomous transaction in play here.

22. CXXXI:I.1 “Because you are not my people, and I am not your God” (Hos. 1:9). And it says, “Yet the number of the people of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered, and in the place where it was said to them, You are not my people,’ it shall be said to them, ‘sons of the living God” (Hos. 1:10). Now what has one thing to do with the other? The matter may be compared to the case of a king who got mad at his wife. He sent for a scribe to come and write a writ of divorce for her. Before the scribe got there, however, the king was reconciled with his wife. Said the king, “It is impossible that the scribe should go forth from here emptyhanded. But say to him, ‘Come and inscribe a codicil to her marriagesettlement that I double for her the value of her marriage-settlement should I die or divorce her.’” That is the point of the statement, “Because you are not my people, and I am not your God” (Hos. 1:9), followed by “Yet the number of the people of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered, and in the place where it was said to them, You are not my people,’ it shall be said to them, ‘sons of the living God’” (Hos. 1:10).

The contrast between Hos. 1:9 and Hos. 1:10 is captured in the parabolic transaction, which does not stray far from the one that is set forth in the message of Hosea. “That is the point of the statement” then articulates what is self-evident. So here is another parable particular to, invented in dialogue with, its exegetical task.

23. CXXXI:I.1 “Samaria shall bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open” (Hos. 13:16). And it further says, “Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you

136

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take with you words and return to the Lord” (Hos. 14:1). Now what has one thing to do with the other? The matter may be compared to the case of a city that rebelled against the king. The king sent a general to destroy it. The general was shrewd and capable. He said to them, “Take some time about this rebellion of yours and stop it, for if not, I shall do to you what I did to such and such a city and its allies, to such and such a district and its allies.” So Scripture states, “Samaria shall bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open” (Hos. 13:16), but further, “Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take with you words and return to the Lord” (Hos. 14:1).

The contrast between Hos. 13:15 and 14:1 is embodied in the parable, as above.

24. CXXXIV:VII.2. The Lord said to Moses, “Go up into this mountain of Abarim and see the land which I have given to the people of Israel. And when you have seen it, you also shall be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron was gathered” (Numbers 27:12-23). When Moses entered into the territory that was to form the inheritance of the children of Reuben and the children of Gad, he rejoiced, saying, “It appears to me that He has released me from my vow.” He began to pour out supplications before the Omnipresent. There is a parable: to what is the matter to be compared? To the case of a mortal king, who made a decree against his son that he might not enter the door of his palace. He entered the gateway, with him after him; the courtyard, with him after him; to the entry chamber with him after him. But when he came to enter the bed-chamber, he said to him, “My son, from here onward, you are forbidden to enter.” So at the moment at which Moses entered the inheritance of the children of Reuben and the children of Gad, he rejoiced, saying, “It appears to me that He has released me from my vow.” He began to pour out supplications before the Omnipresent.”

The narrative of the parable replicates the situation of Moses, and the match is exact. Once the relationship has been translated from Moses and God to the prince and the king, the work of the parable is accomplished, each detail in its context matching its counterpart in Scripture.

25. CXXXIV:VII.2 And so Scripture says, ““But he is unchangeable and who can turn him? What he desires, he does” (Job 23:13). R. Judah b. Baba says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a man who is inscribed in the government’s records. Even if he gives a lot of money, it is not possible to remove his name. But you say, ‘Repent and I shall accept you,” as it is said, “I have swept away your transgressions like

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

137

a cloud and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you’” (Is. 44:22).

The parable, which is not fully realized, captures the situation of the person who cannot buy his freedom. It is an inert simile, since the “but you say…,” is not part of the parable but distinguishes God’s policy from that of a mortal king. The immutability of God is then qualified by the power of repentance to change God’s mind.

26. CXXXV:I.7 “But the Lord was angry with me on your account and would not hearken to me, and the Lord said to me, ‘Let it suffice you; speak no more to me of this matter. Go up to the top of Pisgah and lift up your eyes westward and northward and southward and eastward, and behold it with your eyes, for you shall not go over this Jordan. But charge Joshua and encourage and strengthen him; for he shall go over at the head of this people, and he shall put them in possession of the land which you shall see” (Dt. 3:26-28): He said to him, “Moses, in this matter you may not ask anything of me, but in another matter, make a decree for me, and I shall carry it out.” There is a parable: to what may the matter may be compared? To the case of a king who made a harsh decree against his son, and the son was begging his father. He said to him, “in this matter you may not ask anything of me, but in another matter, make a decree for me, and I shall carry it out.” So did the Holy One, blessed be he, say to Moses, “Moses, in this matter you may not ask anything of me, but in another matter, make a decree for me, and I shall carry it out. And you may make a decree and say what it is, and it will be carried out for you.”

“So did the Holy one say to Moses” is matched by the exegetical parable’s case of the king and the prince. All that shifts is the actors, from the particular of Moses to the general of the prince. All the parable does here is translation God and Moses to king and prince.

27. CXXXVII:I.1. “David said, ‘Let my offense not be written down,’ as it is said, ‘Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity’ (Ps. 32:1-2). Moses said, ‘Let my offense be written down,’ as it is said, ‘because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin during the strife of the congregation, to sanctify me at the waters before their eyes.’ There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? To the case of two women who were flogged in court. One was flogged because she had gone astray, and the other was flogged because she had stolen unripe fruit of the Sabbatical Year. Now the one who was flogged because she had stolen unripe fruit of the Sabbatical Year says, ‘By your grace! Announce my offense, so that the by-standers may not suppose, ‘Just as the other one went astray, so this one went astray.’

138

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

So they hung the unripe produce around her shoulder, and the court crier proclaimed, ‘It is on account of this unripe fruit that this one is flogged.’”

The parable exactly captures the situation of Moses, who wishes his sin to be made explicit, lest people think it worse than it was.

28. CXLII:I.1. The Lord said to Moses, “Command the people of Israel and say to them, ‘My offering, my food for my offerings by fire, my pleasing odor, you shall take heed to offer to me in its due season:’” (Num. 28:1-29:40): Why is this stated? Since it is said, “And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord; at his word they shall go out and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel with him the whole congregation” (Num. 27:21). There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? To the case of a king, whose wife was departing this world. She was giving him instructions concerning her children. She said to him, “By your leave, admonish my children in my behalf.” He said to her, “Instead of giving me instructions concerning my children, give instructions to my children concerning me, that they not rebel against me or treat me disrespectfully.” So said the Holy One blessed be he to Moses, “Instead of giving me instructions concerning my children, give instructions to my children concerning me, that they not rebel against me or exchange my honor for alien gods.”

Once more, the “so said…” component is replicated in the parabolic component, shifting the actors/characters accomplishing the task.

29. CLVII:I.2. The Lord said to Moses, “Avenge the people of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you shall be gathered to your people.” And Moses said to the people, “Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian: “on the Midianites:” This group Midianites had never before made peace with that group Moabites, but when they came to make war against Israel, they made peace with one another and they made war with Israel. There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? To the case of two dogs who were in the corral, and they were jealous of one another. A wolf came to take a lamb from the corral, and one of them tried to stop him. Said his fellow, “If I don’t go and help him now, he will kill him and come after me and kill me.” So they made peace with one another and made war with the wolf. So Moab and Midian had never lived in peace with one another, as it is said, “He who smites Midian in the fields of Moab” (Gen. 36:35). But when they came to make war with Israel, they made peace with one another and war with Israel.

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

139

The case replicated by the parable dictates the construction of the parable, which adds nothing. Any comparable situation of an alliance among erstwhile enemies can generate the same parable of the two dogs. What we see in the aggregate is that most, though not all, of the parables respond to the details of the verses subject to exegesis, and for the greater part, it is difficult to imagine how the consequent parable can serve any but a corresponding transaction or relationship (as the case may be). In the following parables an explicit articulation of how the relationships portrayed by the parable embodies the case at hand completes the project: 1, 2 (Simeon), 3 (Simeon), 6 (Simeon), 7 (Simeon), 8 (Simeon), 9, 10 (Simeon), 11 (Simeon), 12, 13 (Simeon), 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29: twentythree in all. In the following parables, there is no effort at spelling out the application of the parable to the case: 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, 27— six in all. The pronounced preference of the Meshalim of Sifré to Numbers is to articulate the application of the Mashal. Why the clear choice in favor of the exegetical parable over any and all alternative media of amplification of the stories of the book of Numbers? What I find most striking about the Meshalim we have examined is the precise correspondence of the Mashal and the transaction or relationship set forth by the base-verse served by the parable. Halakhic Parables of Sifré to Numbers Parable particular to its Halakhic setting: I do not see how CXXXII:I.1 can be separated from its Halakhic context or serve any other Halakhic setting. Parable not necessarily particular to its Halakhic setting: — Exegetical Parables of Sifré to Numbers Parable particular to its exegetical setting: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 Parable not necessarily particular to its exegetical setting: 4, 5

These data permit us to raise the question: Do the Meshalim circulate independent of their documentary context? In most, though not all, instances, the Mashal is constructed out of counterpart-players or comparable transactions to the components of the verse under discussion. That is made explicit in the vast majority of instances. Now to revert and make a judgment on the fundamental question. It is, has the exegetical task provoked the parable, or did the para-

140

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

ble take shape independent of the exegetical circumstance? The governing criterion is the question: is the parable in every last detail particular to the exegetical context, or is it necessary to adjust the parable to that context? We know that such a necessity comes into play when a detail of a parable proves superfluous, playing no role in the exposition of the base-verse or context. Overall, then, the answer to the question is, in Sifré to Numbers, the exegetical task is primary, the construction of a pertinent, illuminating simile only secondary and derivative. What, then, can have circulated beyond the limits of Sifré to Numbers? As to the conception that similes involving the king and the prince, the king and the queen, the king and the ally, could be constructed: the generative force derives not from the fixed conventions of the abstract players, the king, the prince (not King Herod or King Ardavan, not Queen Shelomsiyyon/Salome). Like chess pieces, these nameless kings and princes and queens are available to be moved hither and yon, to reconstitute a relationship or a transaction in terms analogous to mathematical symbols: purely abstract, very precise. III. The Ma#aseh I found not a single Halakhic Ma#aseh, e.g., one serving as a case or an example or a precedent. For a set of Ma#asim of another sort, see the following unit. The contrast between Sifra and Sifré to Numbers is staggering. The Halakhic focus of the former underscores the Aggadic interest of the latter, but the same may be said of the comparison of Leviticus and Numbers. IV. Not Classified I am unable to classify these matched Ma#asim. They bear no Halakhic message, and they also are not authentic narratives. The set follows on the authentic story about Baal Peor, cited earlier. CXXXI:II.3. There is the case ma#aseh of Menahem b. Gubeta of Ariah, who was treading figs in a vessel, and the princely angel of Peor came upon him. He drove him off with a metal spit and he fled and went his way. But he came upon him a night later. He said to him, “Menahem, do even you curse me?” He was afraid of him and said to him, “I’ll never curse you again.” CXXXI:II.4. There is another case ma#aseh concerning Sebatayya of Ulam, who rented out his ass to a gentile woman. When she had left the

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

141

city gate, she said to him to wait while she went into her temple of idolatry. When she came out, he said to her, “Wait till I go in and do what you did.” She said to him, “Is it possible that you’re not a Jew? He said to her, “So what difference does it make to you?” He went in and wiped himself on the nose of Peor, and all the gentiles cheered him and said to him, “No one ever did it that way before. CXXXI:II.5. There was yet another case ma#aseh of a ruler who came from a seaside city to bow down to Peor. He said to the servants of Peor, “Bring me a bullock, for us to offer it to him, or a ram, for us to offer to him.” They said to him, “That isn’t what we owe him, but all you have to do is bare yourself to him.” He set his orderlies on them and they crushed their heads with clubs He said to them, “Woe is you and woe is your ‘error’!”

The triplet more or less matches: a situation, a transaction, an outcome. In the context of CXXXI:II’s stories about how Israel sinned with Baal Peor, the triplet forms a topical appendix. But I have no idea why the matching stories were composed. I do not see any exegetical task that is carried out, let alone a point of intersection with Halakhic analysis. What is more interesting, in Sifré to Numbers, the marker, Ma#aseh, does not signal what it uniformly does in Mishnah and Tosefta. But the case is too rare and casual to permit generalization. V. Sifré Numbers’ Narratives in Canonical Context Apart from the exegetical parables, we find a negligible component of narratives in our document. The two authentic narratives that are primary to Sifré to Numbers are beautifully realized. But I see no distinctive qualities shared by them that could signify marks of a mode of narrative particular to our document. True, both are anecdotal and both contain dialogue as well as action—but so what? What is more striking is the absence of a clear model of how stories are to be told, extending from the Mishnah’s two authentic narratives, M. R.H. 2:8-9 and M. Ta. 3:9-10, through the Tosefta’s and Sifra’s counterparts, and on to the present document. We have yet to encounter a document in which authentic, successful narratives find a capacious place in the documentary program. Neither the Halakhic compositions, the Mishnah and Tosefta, nor the exegetical compilations treated to this point, Sifra and Sifré to Numbers, yield more than random, episodic samples of narratives. In none of the documents we have treated to this point (and we shall see the same in Sifré to Deuteronomy) is a role assigned to protracted, de-

142

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

veloped narratives comparable to the magnificent stories of sages in The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan Text A or in Lamentations Rabbati. The compilers of the Halakhic and the Halakhic-exegetical compilations accomplish their goals through other media of writing than the sort of narratives that qualify in studies of “the Rabbinic story.” That fact strongly suggests that the compilers of the documents chose the kind of narratives or pseudo-narratives they deemed best to serve their documentary program and assignment. Now let us turn to the questions concerning the documentary hypothesis that animate this study and focus its analysis. 1. Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to thought that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules and symmetry of the canon? The narratives and pseudo-narratives realize the documentary program and are tightly linked to the exegetical or expository task, as seen in the details that follow: The Authentic Narratives: the two authentic narratives particular to Sifré to Numbers and the one shared with Tosefta all fit within the narrowest, strictest definition of the documentary program realized here, in all three instances amplifying and extending the meaning of verses of Scripture.

The Mashal:

The Halakhic Mashal: the narratives replicate in similes the transactions and relationships of Scripture’s Halakhic norms. The Exegetical Mashal: The exegetical parable is tightly linked to the exposition of the base-verse, explicitly so, in these entries: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28. The Exegetical Mashal bears no unique connection to its context at Nos. 12, 25, 29. The Ma#aseh: — Not Classified: the three items complement an authentic narrative that is integral to the exposition of Scripture.

I cannot find a single narrative or pseudo-narrative that leads us beyond the limits of the Rabbinic system, narrowly construed. 2. Does non-documentary, narrative writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of form and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these patterns and how are we to classify and to interpret them? The rules that in the aggregate govern the writing of Sifré Numbers’ Meshalim are not difficult to discern: the exegetical problem, a simile that translates the terms of Scripture’s statement into more abstract figures

30.

narratives in sifré to numbers

143

(king/prince, king/queen, king/ally) to articulate essentially the same transaction or situation, and, finally, an exposition of the application of the simile to the case at hand. As I have argued, I see the exegetical parable as integral to, characteristic of, the documentary program of Sifré to Numbers. And in proportion and importance, it is the only narrative mode of writing in play in our document. 3. At what point in the process that yielded the canonical writings as we know them did documentary considerations intervene, and what is the meaning of that intervention? When and under what circumstances did documentary considerations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary venue? It follows that the documentary program of Sifré to Numbers has dictated the indicative traits of nearly all the Meshalim in the document, most of which then are joined by a superfluous announcement of what is self-evident—the working of the simile in illuminating the transaction set forth in Scripture’s narrative. By way of exception: I cannot account for the three authentic narratives: why not more, why not none? Certainly the two unique to Sifré to Numbers differ; Nathan’s exquisite story about the power of show-fringes to save the man from sin hardly is demanded by the verse of Scripture to which it is attached, while the story of the Israelites and the Midianite women fills out the sketch that Scripture itself sets forth. So I cannot explain the composition of the authentic narratives of the document either by appeal to the character of Scripture’s own narratives—lacking in the one case—or by Scripture’s failure to fill out a picture—hardly characteristic of the other case. These matters can clarify themselves only when we take up a document in which authentic, successful narratives form a principal medium of documentary discourse.

This page intentionally left blank

history, time and paradigm

145

PART THREE

NARRATIVES IN SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY FORMS, TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION

This page intentionally left blank

history, time and paradigm

147

CHAPTER THIRTY-ONE

SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY. PARASHAT DEBARIM. 1-25 I:IX

A. “And Dizahab” (Dt. 1:1): B. [Since the place name means, “of gold,” what he was] saying to them [was this:] “Lo, everything you did is forgiven. But the deed concerning the [golden] calf is worst of them all.” R. Judah would say, “There is a parable. To what may the case be compared? To one who made a lot of trouble for his fellow. In the end he [the trouble-maker] added yet another. He [the victim] said to him, ‘Lo, everything you did is forgiven. But this is the worst of them all.’ “So said the Omnipresent to Israel, ‘Lo, everything you did is forgiven. But the deed concerning the [golden] calf is worst of them all.’” 1.

2.

A.

B.

The parable, 2.A, exactly replicates the terms of the initial exegesis, 1.B. Then, 2.B, the parable is unpacked, as though it were not obvious in its application. The upshot is, the parable is generated by the exegetical problem and commences with the requirements defined by that problem. I:X 1.

A. [“And Dizahab” (Dt. 1:1):] R. Simeon says, “There is a parable. To what may the case [of Israel’s making the calf of gold] be compared? To one who extended hospitality to sages and their disciples, and everyone praised him. B. “Gentiles came, and he extended hospitality to them. Muggers came and he extended hospitality to them. C. “People said, ‘That is so-and-so’s nature—to extend hospitality [indiscriminately] to anyone at all.’ D. “So did Moses say to Israel, ‘[Di zahab, meaning, enough gold, yields the sense,] There is enough gold for the tabernacle, enough gold also for the calf!’

The meaning of “sufficiency of gold,” 1.D, is spelled out at 1.A-C, a sufficiency for both commendable and deplorable activity. The

31.

148

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat debarim. 1-25

parable then is particular to the verse it is meant to clarify and the sense of the verse imputed by the exegete. III:I

A. “[On the first day of the eleventh month of the fortieth year,] after the defeat of Sihon, [king of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon, and the defeat at Edrei of Og, king of Bashan, who ruled in Ashtaroth, Moses repeated to the Israelites all the commands that the Lord had given him for them]” (Dt. 1:3-4): The matter may be compared to the case of a king who, with his troops, went out into the field. His troops said to him, “Give us hot white bread.” He said to them, “I’ll provide it.” Again his troops said to him, “Give us hot white bread.” His second in command said to them, “It is because the king is able [that he can do it]. Where do you think he got grindstones [to grind the flour], where do you think he got an oven out here in the field! [But he did provide! So you need not make demands any more.]” So did Moses say, “If I admonish Israel first, they will then accuse me, ‘It is because he has not got the strength to bring us into the land and to overthrow Sihon and Og before us that he is admonishing us [as an excuse for his own incapacities].’” But he did not do it that way. Rather, after he had brought them into the Land and overthrown Sihon and Og before them, then and only then he admonished them. On that account it is said, “... after the defeat of Sihon.” 1.

B. C. D. E.

F.

G. H.

What requires explanation is why Moses’s admonition commenced after the defeat of Sihon. He showed his power, then had the right to admonish, F-H. The king could provide bread in field-conditions, and showed that he could do so twice. Then the second in command told the soldiers to rely on the king. The match between the parable and the exegetical message, F-H, is somewhat awry, since the king does not admonish the troops but (through his second in command) tells them not to make demands any more. But if Moses (second in command) were to correspond, he would not admonish the Israelites but would tell them not to make demands of God. So here is a case in which the parable does not match in acute detail the components of the case it is meant to clarify. VIII:I 1.

A. “[Go, enter the land] that the Lord swore to your fathers, [to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to assign to them and

31.

2.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat debarim. 1-25

149

to their offspring after them]” (Dt. 1:6-8): B. Why does Scripture then add, “to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”? C. As to the matter of an oath taken to the patriarchs, lo, Scripture in any event states, “The oaths proclaimed to the tribes” (Hab. 3:9). D. Why then add here, “to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”? E. It is so as to indicate that Abraham on his own would have been worthy [of gaining the land for Israel through his merit], so too Isaac, so too Jacob. A. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who gave his servant a field as a gift. He gave it to him just as is. The slave went and improved the field, and he said, “What I have was handed over to me only as is.” B. The servant then went and planted a vineyard and said, “What I have was handed over to me only as is.” C. [Each of the patriarchs is mentioned individually, because, in like manner, each improved the land on his own.] So when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the land to our father Abraham, he gave it to him just as is, as it is said, “Go, walk through the land, its length and breadth, for I give it to you” (Gen. 13:17). D. Abraham went and improved it, as it is said, “He planted a tamarisk in Beer Sheva” (Gen. 21:33). E. Isaac went and improved it, as it is said, “Isaac sewed in that land and produced in that year a hundredfold” (Gen. 26:12). F. Jacob went and improved it, as it is said, “And he bought the parcel of ground” (Gen. 33:19).

The exegetical question is why the patriarchs are mentioned individually, C, and the reason is, each improved the Land on his own. Then the parable replicates the conditions set forth at C-F, and these conditions govern A-B. It is not a very strong parable, bearing no point of its own, for by itself, A-B are scarcely intelligible. XI:I 1. A.

B.

“... May the Lord, the God of your fathers, increase your numbers a thousandfold and bless you as he promised you.—[How can I bear unaided the trouble of you, and the burden, and the bickering! Pick from each of your tribes men who are wise, discerning, and experienced, and I will appoint them as your heads]” (Dt. 1:9-13): They said to him, “Our lord, Moses, You cannot bestow such a [paltry] blessing on us. The Omnipresent promised Abrahamour father, ‘I shall certainly bless you, and I shall certainly multiply your seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand on the seashore’ (Gen. 22:17). [That is many times greater than a mere thousandfold.] Accordingly, you set a limit to the blessing that

31.

150

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat debarim. 1-25

is coming to us.” 2. A. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who had great wealth. He had a young son and had to go overseas. He said, “If I leave my wealth in the hands of my son, he will go and squander it. Lo, I shall appoint a guardian for him until he comes of age.” B. When the son came of age, he said to the guardian, “Give me the silver and gold that my father left in your guardianship.” C. The guardian gave him a share of what was coming, sufficient to provide for his needs. D. The son began to complain, saying to him, “Lo, all the silver and gold that father left in your trust!” E. He said to him, “Whatever I gave you I provided out of my own property alone. But as to what your father left you, it is in safe-keeping.” F. So Moses said to Israel, “‘May the Lord, the God of your fathers, increase your numbers a thousandfold.’ That is what is coming on my account. ‘... and bless you as he promised you...’ in such multitudes as the sand on the seashore, the grass in the field, the fish in the sea, and the stars in the heaven.”

The parable exactly matches the exegetical case: why has Moses bestowed a paltry blessing? He is like the guardian, who provides what the prince needs, but not what he wants. The application, F, then shows how the parable works: Moses provides what he has on his own account, and God will ultimately bestow the blessing as lavish as the one given to Abraham. Here is another parable particular to the case it illuminates. XVI:II 1. A.

B.

[“I charged your magistrates at that time as follows: ‘Hear out your fellow men and decide justly [between any man and a fellow Israelite or a stranger. You shall not be partial in judgment. Hear out low and high alike Fear no man, for judgment is God’s, And any matter that is too difficult for you, you shall bring to me and I will hear it.’ Thus I instructed you, at that time, about the various things that you should do]” (Dt. 1:14-18):] “... at that time, saying...:” [Moses says to the judges,] “In the past you were subject to your own cognizance, but now, lo, you are servants, subjugated to the public interest.” 2. A. There was the case [ma#aseh] involving R. Yohanan b. Nuri and R. Eleazar Hisma. Rabban Gamaliel put them in charge of the session, but the disciples were not aware of them. B. Now it was Rabban Gamaliel’s custom, when he would enter the session and say, “Ask,” it was an indication that there

31.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat debarim. 1-25

151

was no supervisor present. But when he would enter and not say, “Ask,” it was an indication that there was a supervisor there [who could deal with the disciples’ questions]. C. He came in and found R. Yohanan b. Nuri and R. Eleazar Hisma in session by the disciples. D. He said to him, “Yohanan b. Nuri and Eleazar Hisma, you have treated the community shabbily, for you have not sought to exercise authority over the community. E. “In the past you were subject to your own cognizance, but now, lo, you are servants, subjugated to the public interest.”

1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? Here is a new utilization of the marker, Ma#aseh, one for which we are hardly well prepared. We are used to Ma#aseh as a case or precedent or example, in a Halakhic setting in particular. Now, of all things, the Ma#aseh here forms an authentic narrative, because D-E imposes sense and meaning on all that has come before. Without that concluding statement, the prior details do not cohere or yield a cogent narrative. The point is, those in authority become subjugated to the public interest and can no longer enjoy privacy or obscurity. 2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? This question reinforces the foregoing. The conflict is between the modesty of the masters, Yohanan and Eleazar, and their public duties. 3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? The story so closely matches the exegetical case, repeating as it does 1.B, that it is readily transformed into a parable. That would take the form of the story about a king who appointed his son, the prince, to preside over his council. The son came in and took a seat at the side, not exercising the authority the father bestowed upon him. The king came in and found the son failing at the task, and said what Gamaliel said to the named authorities. So all that distinguishes a routine exegetical Mashal, such as can readily be imagined, from a routine narrative anecdote (bearing the marker, Ma#aseh, to be sure) such as we have, is the substitution of the king and the prince for the named sages.

31.

152 XIX:II

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat debarim. 1-25

A. “I said to you, [‘You have come to the hill country of the Amorites which the Lord our God is giving to us. See, the Lord your God has placed the land at your disposal. Go up, take possession, as the Lord, the God of your fathers promised you. Fear not and be not dismayed’]” (Dt. 1:19-21):] “You have come to the hill country of the Amorites which the Lord our God is giving to us:” B. The matter may be compared to the case of a king, who handed his son over to a teacher. The teacher would take the boy about and show him, saying to him, “All of these vineyards are yours, all of these olive groves are yours.” C. When he got tired of showing him around, he said to him, “Everything you see is yours.” D. So for all those forty years that the Israelites were in the wilderness, Moses would say to him, “Lo, the Lord your God is bringing you to a good land, a land of streams of water, of fountains and depths, that spring forth in valleys and hills” (Dt. 8:7). E. When the came to the land, he said to them, “You have come to the hill country of the Amorites which the Lord our God is giving to us.” 1.

The exegetical Mashal exactly replicates the program of the baseverse, translating the case of Moses and Israel into that of the pedagogue and the prince. The rest is exact. ‘XXI:I 1. A.

2.

“I approved of the plan and so I selected twelve of your men, one from each tribe. They made for the hill country, came to the wadi Eshcol, and spied it out. They took some of the fruit of the land with them and bright it down to us. And they gave us this report, ‘It is a good land that the Lord our God is giving to us’” (Dt. 1:22-25): B. “I approved of the plan,” but the Omnipresent did not. A. But if they approved the plan, then why was it written along with the words of admonition? B. The matter may be compared to the case of someone who said to his fellow, “Sell me your ass.” C. The other said, “All right.” D. “Will you let me try it out?” E. “All right. Come along, and I’ll show you how much it can carry in the hills, how much it can carry in the valley.” F. When the purchaser saw that there was nothing standing in the way, he said, “Woe is me! It appears that the reason he is so obliging is to take away my money.” G. That is why it is written, “I approved of the plan.”

31.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat debarim. 1-25

153

The exegetical parable makes the point that the ready agreement of the seller to sell casts suspicion over the transaction, just as Moses’s ready agreement signaled a dubious plan: God did not approve. The parable begins with the exegetical task and bears no autonomous standing that I can discern.

154

32.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat vaethanan. 26-36

CHAPTER THIRTY-TWO

SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY. PARASHAT VAETHANAN. 26-36 XXVI:III 1. A.

“I pleaded with the Lord at that time, saying, [‘O Lord, God, you who let your servant see the first works of your greatness and your mighty hand, you whose powerful deeds no god in heaven or on earth can equal! Let me, I pray, cross over and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan, that good hill country, and the Lebanon.’ But the Lord was wrathful with me on your account and would not listen to me. The Lord said to me, ‘Enough, never speak to me of this matter again! Go up to the summit of Pisgah and gaze about, to the west, the north, the south, and the east. Look at it well, for you shall not go across yonder Jordan. Give Joshua his instructions and imbue him with strength and courage, for he shall go across at the head of this people, and he shall allot to them the land that you may only see.’ Meanwhile we stayed on in the valley near Beth-peor’]” (Dt. 4:23-29): “... at that time, saying:” B. The matter may be compared to citizens of a city who wanted the king to make their city a colony. Once he had two enemies, who fell at his hand. C. The citizens thought, “Now is the time to ask the king to make our city a colony.” D. So Moses wanted the Holy One, blessed be He, to let him enter the land. When he saw that Sihon and Og had fallen before him, he said, “Lo, the time is ripe for me to ask the Holy One, blessed be He, to let me enter the land.” E. That is the sense of the statement, “... at that time.”

The exegetical parable explains why that was the right time for entering the plea. The details are exact, down to the two enemies = Sihon and Og. Once the king had overcome his enemies, the citizens, standing for Moses, entered their plea. XXVIII:I 1. A. “Let me, I pray, cross over and see [the good land on the other

32.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat vaethanan. 26-36 155

side of the Jordan, that good hill country, and the Lebanon]” (Dt. 4:23-29): B. Is it really possible that Moses should have beseeched from the Omnipresent to enter the land? C. Has it not been stated, “For you shall not cross this Jordan river” (2):27)? D. The matter may be compared to a king who had two servants, and he made a decree that one of them not drink wine for thirty days. E. [The servant said,] “Now that he has made a decree in my regard not to drink wine for thirty days, I shall not even taste it for an entire year, even for two years.” F. Why did he do this? So as to treat as a bagatelle his master’s decree [saying how little it meant to him]. G. The king went and he made a decree that the other of the two not drink wine for thirty days. H. He said, “It is not possible go without drinking wine even for a single hour.” I. Why did he do this? So as to express his love for his master’s rulings. J. So too in the case of Moses, he wanted to express his love for the rulings of the Omnipresent and so pleaded with him to enter the land. K. That is why it is said, ““Let me, I pray, cross over.”

This powerful exegetical parable answers the question, Why did Moses enter his plea? To show his love for God’s rulings. In the exegetical parable, at E, the first servant shows his contempt for the ruling by extending it. The second servant shows his respect for the ruling by pleading against it. Moses, then, is the second servant. The parable would be more exact if there were a counterpart in the Scriptural narrative to the first servant, but the first servant is required to draw the contrast and show Moses in the true light. XXIX:IV 1. A.

“‘Look at it well, [for you shall not go across yonder Jordan. Give Joshua his instructions and imbue him with strength and courage, for he shall go across at the head of this people, and he shall allot to them the land that you may only see.’ Meanwhile we stayed on in the valley near Beth-peor]” (Dt. 4:23-29): B. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who made a decree that his son not enter his bedroom. C. [The son] went into the gate of the palace, [and the king] received him and spoke with him. D. He came into the entry of the reception room, and the king

156

32.

E.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat vaethanan. 26-36 welcomed him and spoke with him. But when he came to enter the bed-chamber, he said to him, “From this point onward, you are forbidden to enter.” F. So Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He, “All I want out of the land of Israel is only the width of the Jordan River over there, an area of fifty cubits.” G. He said to him, “Look at it well, for you shall not go across yonder Jordan.”

The correspondence of the exegetical parable, B-E, to the scriptural story, F-G, is exact, and the Mashal has been constructed to respond to the narrative, King/prince = God/Moses, pure and simple. XXXVI:IV 1. A. 3. A.

5.

A.

“... and on your gates” (Dt. 6:4-9): The mark that Israelites are precious [to God] is that Scripture has encompassed them with religious duties [that sanctify them]: B. phylacteries on head and arm, mezuzot on their doors, showfringes on their garments. 4. A. And concerning them David has said, “Seven times a day I praise you because of your righteous ordinances” (Ps. 119:164): B. When he entered the bathhouse and saw himself naked, he said, “Woe is me, that I am naked of all religious duties.” C. But then he noticed the mark of circumcision, and, on that account, gave praise: “For the leader, on the eighth, a psalm of David” (Ps. 12:1). The matter may be compared to the case of a mortal king who said to his wife, “Now go and put on all your ornaments, so that you’ll be desirable to me.” B. So said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel, “My children, make yourselves distinguished through religious duties, so that you’ll be desirable to me.” C. And so Scripture says, “You are beautiful O my love as Tirsah” (Song. 6:4). D. “You are beautiful when you are desirable [using the same letters as Tirsah] to me.”

The exegetical parable, 5.A, compares the king and his wife to God and Israel. It is not particular to the context at hand, since it serves any and all religious duties, but it does require a scriptural context, articulated at 5.B-C, to make the move from the queen’s adornments to the practice of religious duties.

33.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat eqeb. 37-52

157

CHAPTER THIRTY-THREE

SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY. PARASHAT EQEB. 37-52 XXXVII:I 5.

A. And so you find in the case of Sennacherib, when he came to entice Israel, what did he say to them? B. “... until I came to take you away to a land like your own land” (2 Kgs. 18:32). C. What is written is not. “a land more beautiful than your land,” but merely, “a land like your land.” D. And that yields an argument a fortiori: E. Now if someone who came with the intent of expressing praise for his own country did not disparage the Land of Israel, all the more so for the glory of the Land of Israel.” 6. A. R. Simeon b. Yohai says, “That one was a fool, and he did not know how to entice people. B. “The matter may be compared to the case of someone who went to propose to a woman. He said to her, ‘Your father is a king and I am a king. Your father is rich and I am rich. Your father gives you meat and fish to eat and vintage wine to drink, and I shall give you meat and fish to eat and vintage wine to drink.’ That is not really much of a come-on. C. “What should he have said? ‘Your father is a commoner, but I am a king. Your father is poor, but I am rich. Your father gives you vegetables and pulse to eat, but I shall feed you meat and fish. Your father gives you new wine to drink, but I shall give you vintage wine. Your father takes you to the bathhouse by foot, but I shall take you in a palanquin.’“

33.

158

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat eqeb. 37-52 D. And that yields an argument a fortiori E. Now if someone who came with the intent of expressing praise for his own country did not disparage the Land of Israel, all the more so for the glory of the Land of Israel.

The exegetical parable replicates the terms of the verse that it clarifies. Simeon’s parable at 6.B is extended at 6.C, lest we miss the perfectly obvious point. And 6.D-E go back over 5.D-E, where they belong. 6.B on its own serves as a fully-realized exegetical parable, stating its point (“That is not really…”), rather than recording the outcome, which is implicit. XXXVIII:I 1.

2.

A.

A. “[For the land that you are about to enter and possess] is not like the land of Egypt [from which you have come. There the grain you sowed had to be watered by your own labors, like a vegetable garden; but the land you are about to cross into and possess, a land of hills and valleys, soaks up its water from the rains of heaven. It is a land which the Lord your God looks after, on which the Lord your God always keeps his eye, from year’s beginning to year’s end]” (Dt. 11:10-12): B. The land of Egypt drinks its water from the depths, while the land of Israel drinks its water from the heights. C. The land of Egypt drinks its water from the depths, but not from the heights. The land of Israel drinks from the depths and the heights. D. The land of Egypt drinks from the depths and then the heights, the land of Israel drinks from the depths and the heights at one and the same time. E. As to the land of Egypt what is in the open drinks, what is not in the open does not drink. In the land of Israel what is in the open and what is not in the open alike drink. F. The land of Egypt drinks water and then is sown. The land of Israel drinks water and is sown, is sown and drinks water, drinks water every day, is sown every day. G. As to the land of Egypt, if you work it hard with mattock and spade and give up the sleep of yours on its account, [it will yield a crop], and if not, it will not. As to the land of Israel, it is not that way. But people sleep in bed, and the Omnipresent brings rain down for them. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who was

33.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat eqeb. 37-52

159

on the way and saw a son of distinguished parents and handed a slave over to him to serve him. B. Again he saw another son of distinguished parents, nicely garbed and scented, but hard at physical labor, whom the king knew, whose parents he knew. C. He said, “I decree that I will personally take care of him and provide his food.” D. So all lands were given servants to tend them: E. Egypt drinks from the Nile, Babylonia from the two rivers. F. But the land of Israel is not that way. But people sleep in bed, and the Omnipresent brings rain down for them.

The point of the exegetical parable, 2.A-C, is articulated at D-F, the whole repeated from 1.G. So the parable responds to the relevant verse, inclusive of its exegesis, translating the whole into a pseudo-narrative. The shift is simply the comparison, A to B-C, of Egypt to Israel, the land of Egypt to the Land of Israel. “All lands” had their servants, but the Land of Israel is served by God personally. XXXVIII:I 4. A. R. Eliezer, R. Joshua, R. Sadoq were reclining at the banquet of the son of Rabban Gamaliel. Rabban Gamaliel mixed the cup of wine for R. Eliezer, but the latter did not want to take it from him. B. R. Joshua took it. Said to him R. Eliezer, “What’s this, Joshua! Is it right that we should recline, while Gamaliel, the noble, should stand over us and serve us?” C. R. Joshua said to him, “Let him do his service. Abraham was the greatest man of the age but served the ministering angels, even though he thought that they were idol-worshipping Arabs.” D. “For it is said, ‘And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood over against him’ (Gen. 18:2). E. “Now that yields an argument a fortiori: F. “If Abraham, who was the greatest man of the age, served ministering angels thinking that they were idolworshipping Arabs, Gamaliel, the noble, should surely serve me!” G. Said to them R. Sadoq, “You have neglected the honor owing to the Omnipresent and occupied yourselves with the honor owing to mortals. H. “If he who spoke and brought the world into being, restores the winds and brings clouds and brings down rain, raises the crops and sets a table for each and every person, should not Gamaliel, the honored man, serve us?”

160

33.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat eqeb. 37-52

The pseudo-narrative provides a setting or the lesson, G-H. If we stop with D, we have an action that is accounted for, A, by B-C+D. XLIII:III 1. A. “… and thus you shall eat your fill. Take care not to be lured away to serve other gods and bow to them. [For the Lord’s anger will flare up against you, and he will shut up the skies so that there be no rain and the ground will not yield its produce; and you will soon perish from the good land that the Lord is assigning to you]” (Dt. 11:13-17): 7. A. Rabban Gamaliel, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar b. Azariah, and R. Aqiba were going toward Rome. They heard the sound of the city’s traffic from as far away as Puteoli, a hundred and twenty mil away. They began to cry, while R. Aqiba laughed. B. They said to him, “Aqiba, why are we crying while you are laughing?” C. He said to them, “Why are you crying?” D. They said to him, “Should we not cry, since gentiles, idolators, sacrifice to their idols and bow down to icons, but dwell securely in prosperity, serenely, while the house of the footstool of our God has been put to the torch and left a lair for beasts of the field?” E. He said to them, “That is precisely why I was laughing. If this is how he has rewarded those who anger him, all the more so [will he reward] those who do his will.” 8. A. Another time they went up to Jerusalem and go to Mount Scopus. They tore their garments. B. They came to the mountain of the house [of the temple] and saw a fox go forth from the house of the holy of holies. They began to cry, while R. Aqiba laughed. C. They said to him, “You are always giving surprises. We are crying when you laugh!” D. He said to them, “But why are you crying?” E. They said to him, “Should we not cry over the place concerning which it is written, ‘And the common person who draws near shall be put to death’ (Num. 1:51)? Now lo, a fox comes out of it. F. “In our connection the following verse of Scripture has been carried out: ‘For this our heart is faint, for these things our eyes are dim, for the mountain of Zion which is desolate, the foxes walk upon it’ (Lam. 5:17-18).”

33.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat eqeb. 37-52

161

G. He said to them, “That is the very reason I have laughed. For lo, it is written, ‘And I will take for me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah’ (Is. 8:2). H. “And what has Uriah got to do with Zechariah? What is it that Uriah said? ‘Zion shall be plowed as a field and Jerusalem shall become heaps and the mountain of the Lord’s house as the high places of a forest’ (Jer. 26:18). I. “What is it that Zechariah said? ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Old men and women shall yet sit in the broad places of Jerusalem”’ (Zech. 8:4). J. “Said the Omnipresent, ‘Lo, I have these two witnesses. If the words of Uriah have been carried out, then the words of Zechariah will be carried out. If the words of Uriah are nullified, then the words of Zechariah will be nullified. K. “‘Therefore I was happy that the words of Uriah have been carried out, so that in the end the words of Zechariah will come about.’” L. In this language they replied to him: “Aqiba, you have given us comfort.”

1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The matched stories, 7, 8A-G, extended at H-K, form a tight match and make sense only when joined. But each works on its own, since 7.E imparts coherence to No. 7, and the composite of 8.G-K does the same for No. 8. There, 8.E-F makes a more elaborate statement than 7.D. Remove 7.E and its counterpart and the two stories become gibberish, which shows how the whole aims at that climax and conclusion. The repetition of the program of No. 7 at No. 8 intensifies the effect of the whole but changes nothing. What we have are two authentic stories, coherent within the teleological logic that, in this study, signifies the authentic narrative. 2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? This question reinforces the foregoing. The contrast between expectation and reality, between Israel’s standing and Israel’s condition, creates a tension, precisely the tension that Aqiba resolves in his climactic statement. 3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? These exegetical narratives do more than form a dramatic setting for an exchange of set-piece

33.

162

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat eqeb. 37-52

speeches, since the setting and the interaction of the players and the setting form the basis for the story. Matching the two incidents is integral. XLIII:VIII 1. A. If you do this, then “the Lord’s anger will flare up against you:” B. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who was sending his son to a banquet. He sat down and instructed him, saying to him, “My son, do not eat more than you need to. Do not drink more than you need to. In that way you will come home clean.” C. The son paid no attention to him. He ate more than he needed to, drank more than he needed to, and he threw up and dirtied all of the other guests. D. They took him by his hands and legs and threw him out the back door of the palace. E. So said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel, “I brought you into a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to eat its produce and be sated with its goodness, and to bless my name on that account. F. “Since you did not endure in goodness, endure in punishment: ‘the Lord’s angerwill flare up against you.’”

The exegetical parable invokes the king and the prince to make the point that Israel misbehaved in the Land and so got itself thrown out. Without E-F, the story lacks a focus, though it makes the obvious point that misbehaving gets one thrown out of the house. XLIII:XV 1. A.

2.

A.

Another matter concerning, “… and you will soon perish from the good land that the Lord is assigning to you” (Dt. 11:13-17): B. It will involve exile after exile. C. And so you find in the case of the ten tribes that they suffered exile after exile. D. And so you find in the case of Judah and Benjamin that they suffered exile after exile. E. They went into exile in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, and in the eighteenth, and in the twenty-third. R. Joshua b. Qorhah says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a robber who invaded the field of a householder. He cut down his heap [of grain], but the householder did not pay attention. He cut down standing corn, and the householder did not pay attention. And so matters proceeded [until the robber] had heaped up his basket and gone his way. B. “And so Scripture says, ‘For there is no gloom to her that was steadfast? Now the former has lightly afflicted the land

33.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat eqeb. 37-52

163

of Zebulun and the land of Naftali, but the latter has dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in the district of the nations’ (Is. 8:23).”

Israel is compared to a householder who pays no attention to the activities of a robber. The comparison is not precise, since the householder, A, does not lose the property, while Israel went into exile and so lost the property, possession of which it had taken for granted. The exegetical parable, 2.A. works better for Dt. 11:13-17 than it does for Is. 8:23. In sum, with the details awry, the parable seems contrived, not natural to the exegetical task. XLIII:XVI 1. A.

Another teaching concerning the verse, “… and you will soon perish from the good land that the Lord is assigning to you” (Dt. 11:13-17): B. [God says,] “Even though I shall exile you from the land to overseas, keep yourself distinguished [from other nations] through performing the religious duties, so that when you return, performing the religious duties will not prove new to you.” C. The matter may be compared to the case of a mortal king who grew angry with his wife and drove her back to the house of her father. He said to her, “Keep yourself adorned with your jewelry, so that when you come back, they will not prove new to you.” D. So said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel, “My children, keep yourself distinguished [from other nations] through performing the religious duties, so that when you return, performing the religious duties will not prove new to you.”

Here the exegetical parable, C-D, precisely serves the exegesis of Dt. 11:13-17 at 1.B. Indeed, the parable, C, exactly matches the case articulated at B. XLV:I 1.

A. “Therefore impress these my words upon your very heart; [bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead; and teach them to your children, reciting them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up, and inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates, to the end that you and your children may endure in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers to assign to them, as long as there is a heaven over the earth]” (Dt. 11:18-21): B. This use of the word [“impress,” which can be read to

33.

164

2.

A.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat eqeb. 37-52

sound like “medicine, ointment”] indicates that words of Torah are compared to a life-giving medicine. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who grew angry with his son and gave him a severe blow, but then put a salve on the wound and said to him, “My son, so long as this bandage is on the wound, eat whatever you like, drink whatever you like, and wash in either warm or old water, and nothing will do you injury. But if you remove the bandage, the sore will immediately begin to produce ulcers.” B. So the Holy One, blessed be he, said to Israel, “My children, I have created in you an impulse to do evil, than which nothing is more evil. C. “‘Sin couches at the door and to you is its desire’ (Gen. 4:7).” D. “Keep yourselves occupied with teachings of the Torah, and [sin] will not control you. E. “But if you leave off studying words of the Torah, lo, it will control you, as it is said, ‘ and to you is its desire’ (Gen. 4:7). F. “All of its undertakings concern you. But if you want, you will control it, as it is said, ‘But you may rule over it’ (Gen. 4:7).” G. And Scripture says, “And if your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, for you will heap coals of fire upon his head” (Prov. 25:2122).

The parable, 2.A, exactly matches the requirements of 1.B: the Torah is that ointment that protects the wound. The severe blow of 2.A is the impulse to do evil, which God created in mind in consequence of according him free will, as 2.B-C make explicit. Here, without the detailed, secondary exposition, 2.B-F+G (the enemy being the impulse to do evil) the parable, 2.A, lacks focus and intent. XLVIII:I 1. A.

“If then you faithfully keep all this instruction [that I command you, loving the Lord your God, walking in all his ways, and holding fast to him, the Lord will dislodge before you all these nations; you will dispossess nations greater and more numerous than you. Every spot on which your foot treads shall be yours; your territory shall extend from the wilderness to the Lebanon, and from the River, the Euphrates, to the Western Sea. No man shall stand up to you: the Lord your God will put the dread and the fear of you over the whole land in which you set foot, as he promised you]” (Dt. 11:22-25):

33.

3.

4.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat eqeb. 37-52

165

B. Why is this said? C. Since it is said, “And it shall come to pass, if you will certainly listen to my commandments” (Dt. 11:13), might I draw the inference that if someone has heard teachings of the Torah and rested on his laurels and not repeated [and so reviewed] them, [that suffices]? D. Scripture says, “If then you faithfully keep...,” E. which indicates that just as one has to take care of his coin, that it not get lost, so he has to take care of his learning, that it not get lost. A. R. Ishmael says, “‘Only watch out and keep your soul diligently’ (Dt. 4:9) – B. “The matter may be compared to a mortal king who caught a bird and handed it over to his servant, saying to him, ‘Keep this bird for my son. If you lose it, do not think that you have lost a bird worth a penny, but it is tantamount to your life that you will have lost.’ C. “So Scripture says, “For it is no vain thing for you, because of it is your very life’ (Dt. 32:47). D. “Something that you say is vain in fact is your very life.” A. R. Simeon b. Yohai says, “The matter may be compared to the case of two brothers who inherited money from their father. B. “One of them converted it into ready cash and consumed it, and the other converted it into ready cash and put it aside. C. “As to the one of them who converted it into ready cash and consumed it, he turned out to have nothing in hand. D. “But the one who converted it into ready cash and put it aside got rich after a while. E. “So disciples of sages learn two or three things in a day, two or three chapters in a week, two or three lections in a month. Such a one turns out to get rich after a while. F. “That is in line with the following verse of Scripture: ‘He who gathers little by little shall increase’ (Prov. 13:11). G. “But the one who says, ‘Today I shall learn [what I need], tomorrow I shall learn [what I need], today I shall review [what I need], tomorrow I shall review [what I need], turns out to have nothing in hand.’ And concerning him Scripture says, ‘A wise son gathers in summer, but a son who does shamefully sleeps in harvest’ (Prov. 10:5). H. “And further: ‘The sluggard will not plow when winter comes, therefore he shall beg in harvest and have nothing’ (Prov. 20:4). I. “And further: ‘He who observes the wind shall not sow’ (Qoh. 11:4). J. “‘I went by the field of the slothful man and by the vineyard of the man void of understand-

166

33.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat eqeb. 37-52 ing, and lo, it was all grown over with thistles; the face of it was covered with nettles, and the stone wall was broken down’ (Prov. 24:30-31.”

The first exegetical parable, XLVIII:I.3, addresses the task of clarifying Dt. 32:47, and the issue concerns keeping the soul, and the base-verse is Dt. 4:9, not Dt. 11:22-25. Then the king has caught a bird and given it to the servant, as God has taken the soul and given it to man. Man is to keep it and not lose it, because it is beyond price. Here again the parable proves particular to its exegetical task. The second exegetical parable, XLVIII:I.4, concerns Dt. 11:2225, the matter of protecting learning so that it not get lost. Now the brothers have the same task, to protect their liquid capital, A-D. They are compared to disciples of sages who gradually learn and protect what they have learned. That is the point of the contrast between G and E. This parable is not quite precise in its rendition of the exegetical proposition, for the point of E is that the disciples acquire knowledge slowly, and the parable contrasts immediate consumption with husbanding the cash, C/D. The parable serves Prov. 13:11/ 10:5, and is out of phase with Dt. 11:22-25.

33.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat eqeb. 37-52

167

CHAPTER THIRTY-FOUR

SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY. PARASHAT RE’EH. 53-143 LIII:I 1.

2.

A.

B.

A.

“See, this day I set before you blessing and curse: [blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I enjoin upon you this day; and curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn away from the path that I enjoin upon you this day and follow other gods]” (Dt. 11:26-30): B. Why is this passage stated? The reason is that, since it is said, “Life and death I have placed before you, a blessing and a curse” (Dt. 30:19), perhaps the Israelites might say, “Since the Omnipresent has placed before us two ways, the way of life and the way of death, let us go in whichever way we choose.” C. Accordingly, Scripture says, “Choose life” (Dt. 30:19). The matter may be compared to someone sitting at a crossroads. Before him were two paths. One of them began in clear ground but ended in thorns. The other began in thorns but ended in clear ground. He would inform the passersby, saying to them, “You see this path, which begins in clear ground? For two or three steps you will be going in clear ground, and in the end you will be walking in thorns. And you see this path, which begins in thorns? For two or three steps you will be going in thorns, but in the end you will be walking on clear ground.” C. So did Moses say to Israel, “You see how the wicked flourish in this world for two or three days succeeding. But in the end they will have occasion for regret.” D. So it is said, “For there shall be no reward for the evil man” (Prov. 24:20). E. “The tears of such as were oppressed and had no one to comfort them” (Qoh. 4:1) F. “The fool folds his hands together and eats his own flesh” (Qoh. 4:5) G. “The way of the wicked is as darkness, they do not know at what they stumble” (Prov. 4:19).

168

3.

34.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat re"eh. 53-143

H. [Moses continues,] “You see the righteous, who are distressed in this world? For two or three days they are distressed, but in the end they will have occasion for rejoicing.” I. And so it is said, “That he may prove you, to do you good at the end” (Dt. 8:16). J. “Better is the end of the thing than its beginning” (Qoh. 7:8). K. “For I know the thoughts that I think concerning you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope” (Jer. 29:11). L. “But the path of the righteous is as the light of dawn” (Prov. 4:18). A. R. Joshua b. Qorhah says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a king who invited guests. His friend was seated among them. The king indicated to him to take a fine helping, but the other did not grasp it.” B. So it is said, “I will instruct you and teach you in the way which you shall go, I will give counsel, my eye will be upon you” (Ps. 32:8). C. Now when he saw that the friend did not grasp, he took his hand and put it on the fine portion. D. So it is said, “O Lord, the portion of my inheritance and of my cup, you maintain my lot” (Ps. 16:5).

The first exegetical parable, 2.A-B, C, does not precisely respond to the issue of 1.B-C, the Israelites not only are confronted by a choice but are advised by Moses on their choice. Moses is then compared to the one sitting at a crossroads, 2.A-B, and this is made explicit at C. But then the point of the parable does not intersect, since it concerns the wicked and the righteous, the wicked flourishing for a time but later on paying the price for their choices, the righteous suffering briefly in this world, but preparing for a great reward later on. The elaborate florilegium of verses does not affect the pristine quality of the parable, which concerns its own problem and not that of the base-verse. The second exegetical parable, 3A, C, clarifies the intruded verse, B, and D, a somewhat odd arrangement, which does not obscure the intent. The king had to instruct the guest, who did not grasp what was offered to him, just as God had to tell Israel which portion to select. CXVI:V 1. A. “… lend him sufficient for whatever he needs:”

34.

2.

B. A. B.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat re"eh. 53-143

169

You are not commanded to make him rich. “Whatever he needs:” even a horse, even a slave. 3. A. There is the precedent [ma#aseh] involving Hillel the Elder, who gave a poor man, son of a good family, a horse with which to work, and a slave to serve him. B. There is the further precedent [ma#aseh] in Upper Galilee, in which they served a guest a litra of meat every day.

The two Halakhic ma#asim sustain the exegesis of the base verse, 2.AB, and carry the matter beyond its exemplary limits.

170

chapter five

CHAPTER THIRTY-FIVE

SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY. PARASHAT SHOFETIM. 144-210: —

history, time and paradigm

CHAPTER THIRTY-SIX

SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY. PARASHAT KI TESE. 211-296: —

171

172

chapter five

CHAPTER THIRTY-SEVEN

SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY. PARASHAT KI TABO. 297-303: —

history, time and paradigm

173

CHAPTER THIRTY-EIGHT

SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY. PARASHAT NESABIM. 304-305 CCCV:I 1. A. “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Take for yourself Joshua, son of Nun’“ (Num. 27:18): 3. A. R. Nathan says, “Moses was distressed in his heart that one of his sons did not stand forth [as leader]. Said to him the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Why are you distressed in your heart? Is it that one of your sons has not stood forth? B. “‘Now are not the sons of your brother, Aaron, tantamount to your own sons. C. “‘And so too the man whom I am setting up over Israel will go and stand at the door of Eleazar [the priest, Aaron’s son].’ D. “To what may this be compared? To a mortal king who had a son who was not worthy of the throne. He took the throne from him and gave it to the son of his ally. E. “He said to him, ‘Even though I have assigned greatness to you, go and stand at my son’s door.’ F. “So said the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Even though I have assigned greatness to you, go and stand at the door of Eleazar.’ G. “That is in line with this verse of Scripture: ‘And he will stand before Eleazar the priest’ (Num. 27:21). H. “At that moment Moses’s strength returned, and he encouraged Joshua before the presence of all Israel, as it is said, ‘And then Moses called Joshua and said to him in the sight of all Israel, ‘Be strong and resolute, [for it is you who shall go with this people in the land that the Lord swore to their fathers to give them, and it is you who shall apportion it to them. And the Lord himself will go before you. He will be with you. He will not fail you or forsake you. Fear not and be not dismayed]’ (Dt. 31:7-8). I. “He said to him, ‘I hand this people over to you. They are still lambs. They are still children. Do not go nitpicking for every little thing that they do. For

174

38.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat nesabim. 304-305 even their Lord did not go nitpicking for every little thing that they do.’ J. “And so Scripture says, ‘When Israel was a child, then I loved him’ (Hos. 11:1).”

The exegetical parable, D-G, interrupts the flow from C to H. The parable begins in the situation set forth by Nathan, A-C, in which Moses is instructed to subordinate himself, thus once more the king and the prince form the simile, their relationships replicating the ones between Moses and Eleazar the priest. CCCV:II 1.

A. M#SH B: Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai was riding on an ass, and his disciples were following after him. B. He saw a young girl gathering barley from underneath the hooves of the oxen of Arabs. When she saw Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, she covered herself with her hair and stood before him and said to him, “My lord, feed me.” C. He said to her, “Whose daughter are you?” D. She said to him, “The daughter of Naqdimon b. Gurion am I.” E. She said to him, “My lord, do you remember when you witnessed through your signature the document of my marriage settlement?” F. Said Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai to his disciples, “I signed as witness the document of this girl’s marriage settlement, and I read in it: ‘a thousand thousands of golden denars deriving from the household of her father in law.’ G. “Members of this girl’s household would not go up to the Temple Mount to prostrate themselves before people spread before them felt carpets under their feet, and then they would go in and prostrate themselves and go home in rejoicing. H. “My entire life I have sought the meaning of this verse of Scripture, and now I have found it: I. “‘If you do not know, O most beautiful among women, go out in the footsteps of the flock and feed your kids beside the shepherds’ tents’ (Song 1:8). J. “Now I know the meaning. Do not read ‘your kids’ but ‘your bodies’ [a shift in a consonant of the same word yields both senses]. K. “So long as the Israelites carry out the will of the Omnipresent, no nation or kingdom can rule them. But when the Israelites do not carry out the will of the Omnipresent, he will hand them over into the power of a despicable nation, not only into the power of a despicable nation, but even beneath the hooves of the beasts of a despicable nation.”

38.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat nesabim. 304-305

175

I see these components of the pseudo-narrative: A-F+G, Yohanan’s encounter with the formerly-rich beggar, then H, I-K, the exegesis of the verse, Song 1:8, yielding the lesson of K. The exposition, IK, is fully grounded at K, and that component surely stands on its own. Then the encounter with the woman, A-G, attached to I-K by H, forms an illustration of the cited verse as interpreted at K. Clearly, K does not govern the unfolding of the prior components of the construction, because without H-K, A-F+G are entirely coherent, forming on their own a comprehensible anecdote. CCCV:III 1. 2.

3.

A. In a single year three righteous persons, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam died. A. At that time the Israelites were scattered and bereft of the merit of all religious duties. All the Israelites gathered to Moses and said to him, “Where is your brother, Aaron?” B. He said to them, “God has put him away in a secret place, for the life of the world to come.” C. But they did not believe him. They said to him, “We know of you that you are merciless. Perhaps he said something to you that was not appropriate, and you imposed upon him the penalty of death!” D. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do at that time? He brought the bier of Aaron and held it up in the heavens of heavens, and the Holy One, blessed be He, stood in lamentation over him, and the ministering angels responded to him. E. What did they say [in response to God’s lamentation]? “The Torah of truth was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found in his lips; he walked with me in peace and uprightness and did turn many away from iniquity” (Ma. 2:6). A. At that moment the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the angel of death, “Go, bring me the soul of Moses.” B. He went and stood before him and said to him, “Moses, give me your soul.” C. He said to him, “In a place in which I am in session, you have no right to stand, and yet you say to me, ‘Give me your soul’? He growled at him and the other went forth in a huff. D. The angel of death went and brought the tale back to the Omnipotent. Once again the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the angel of death, “Go, bring me the soul of Moses.”

176

38.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat nesabim. 304-305 E. He went to where he was and looked for him but did not find him. F. He went to the sea and said to it, “As to Moses, have you seen him?” G. The sea said to him, “From the day on which he brought Israel through my midst, I have not seen him.” H. He went to the mountains and said to them, “As to Moses, have you seen him?” I. They said to him, “From the day on which the Israelites received the Torah on Mount Sinai, we have not seen him.” J. He went to Gehenna and said to it, “As to Moses, have you seen him?” K. It said to him, “I have heard his name, but him I have never seen.” L. He went to the ministering angels and said to them, “As to Moses, have you seen him?” M. They said to him, “Go to mortals.” N. He went to Israel and said to them, “As to Moses, have you seen him?” O. They said to him, “God knows his way. God has hidden him away for the life of the world to come, and no creature knows where he is.” P. For it is said, “And he was buried in the valley” (Dt. 34:6). 4. A. When Moses died, Joshua wept, crying out and mourning for him bitterly. B. He said, “My father, my father, my lord, my lord. C. “My father, for he raised me, my lord, for he taught me Torah.” D. And he mourned for him for many days, until the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Joshua, “Joshua, how long are you going to continue this mourning of yours? And has Moses died only unto you alone? And has he not died, also, unto me? E. “For from the moment that he died, there has been deep mourning before me, as it is said, ‘And in that day did the Lord, God of hosts, call to wee ping and to lamentation’ (Is. 22:12). F. “But it is certain for him that he gains the world to come, as it is said, ‘And the Lord said to Moses, Behold, you are going to sleep with your fathers and... will arise’ (Dt. 31:16).”

38.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat nesabim. 304-305

177

1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? No. 1 announces the theme: the death of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, but only Aaron, then Moses are dealt with. No. 2, on Aaron, qualifies as authentic, because the details that unfold hold together only at the end. That is, the point of the suspicion of Moses, A-C, is to permit God to make a public lamentation for Aaron. Also entirely authentic, a triumph of narrative skill, No. 3 needs all of the intermediate details to reach hits climax and point at 3,O, God knows where Moses is, but no one else does. 3.A-C introduces the problem: the angel of death has to locate Moses. Moses himself dismisses him. Then comes the main event, D-E, giving way to the dramatic sequence, F-G, the sea, HI, the mountains, J-K, Gehenna, L-M, the angels, N-O, Israel. Neither nature nor Israel can find Moses, which is explained only at the end: God has hidden him away for life in the world to come. No. 4 simply dramatizes the sayings that are cited. 2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? The conflict between the angel of death and Moses forms the dynamic of the narrative, resolved at the end in a decisive manner. 3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? The conglomerate, Nos. 2, 3, and 4, does not cohere, but No. 3 deftly elaborates its message, going through five interlocutors, the fifth being the climactic one.

178

39.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat ha"azinu. 306-341

CHAPTER THIRTY-NINE

SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY. PARASHAT HA"AZINU. 306-341 CCCVI:IV 1. A. Another interpretation of the verse, “Give ear, O heavens, let me speak:” B. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who handed his son over to a teacher to sit and take care of him. C. Said that son, “My father was thinking that he has accomplished something by handing me over to a pedagogue. But I’ll keep watch as he eats and drinks and sleeps, and I’ll go my way and do what I need to.” D. Said his father to him, “For my part I have handed you over to a teacher only so that he will be one from whom you cannot escape.” E. So did Moses say to the Israelites, “Perhaps you’re thinking of fleeing from under the wings of God’s presence or leaving the earth.” F. Not only so, but the heavens make a record, as it is said, “The heavens shall reveal his iniquity” (Job 20:27). G How on the basis of Scripture do we know that also the earth gives out information? H. “And the earth shall rise up against him” (Job 20:27).

The king/prince exegetical parable closely tracks the sentiment expressed at E. But E should cite “Give ear…,” and only then refer to Job 20:27. Nonetheless, with the heavens as the counterpart of the pedagogue, the parable is an exact match for its task: why should the heaven give ear to God’s instructions? CCCVI:VI 1. A. Another teaching concerning the verse, “Give ear, O heavens, let me speak:” B. R. Judah says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a king who had two administrators in a town. He gave over to them his property and handed his son to them and said to them, ‘So long as my son does what I want, pamper him and give him luxu-

39.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat ha"azinu. 306-341

179

ries and feed him and give him drink. C. “‘But when he does not do what I want, let him not taste a thing of what belongs to me.’ D. “Along these same lines, so long as the Israelites do what the Omnipresent wants, what is written concerning them? ‘The Lord will open to you his good treasure, the heaven’ (Dt. 28:12). E. “When they do not do what the Omnipresent wants, what is written concerning them? ‘And the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and he shut up heaven, so that there shall be no rain, and the ground shall not yield her fruit’ (Dt. 11:17).”

The king/prince story is more precise, because of the match of heaven and earth to the two administrators, and that is the major improvement of this exegetical parable over the earlier one. CCCVI:VII 1. A. Another teaching concerning the verse, “Give ear, O heavens, let me speak:” B. R. Nehemiah says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a king who had a son. The son went bad. The king began to complain against him to his brothers, began to complain against him to his friends, began to complain against him to his neighbors, began to complain against him to his relatives. C. The king did not stop complaining against him until he said, “O heaven, O earth, to whom shall I complain against you, besides these?” D. That is in line with this verse: “Give ear, O heavens, let me speak; let the earth hear the words I utter!”

The third and last king/prince parable on “Give ear…” tracks the matter of the complaint to high heaven. None of the three parables pretends to stand on its own; all three articulate the point of comparison and closely follow the point of Scripture. The absence of an articulated application of the parable in all cases finds a ready explanation: it was superfluous. CCCVI:XXIV 1. A. Another teaching concerning the phrase, “May my discourse come down as the rain, [my speech distill as the dew, like showers on young growths, like droplets on the grass]:” B. R. Meir would say, “One should also collect teachings of the Torah in the form of encompassing principles, for if you collect them solely as details, they will exhaust you and in the end you will not know what to do anyhow. C. “The matter may be compared to the case of someone who went to Caesarea and needed a hundred or two hundred zuz for the trip. If he took the money as change, the coins would tire him

180

39.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat ha"azinu. 306-341

out and he would not know what to do. But if he put them together and brought sela-coins with him, and then paid them out one by one wherever he wanted, [then he could manage]. D. “So too, someone who goes to Bet Ilias to the market and needed a hundred manehs or even two myriads for the expense of the trip. If he took the money as selas, the coins would tire him out and he would not know what to do. But if he turned them into denars of gold and then paid them out in change as he needed, [he would be all right].”

I see no connection between Meir’s statement and the base-verse to which it is attached. The parable translates the abstraction of Meir’s principle that one should organize knowledge philosophically, from encompassing principles, not from illustrative cases. The parable, C, is explicit and closely follows Meir’s statement. Then the “so too,” clause of D repeats the same point with slightly varied details. We have, then, a duplication of the parabolic statement, but no application of the parable to the matters discussed at B. CCCVII:IV 1. A. Another comment concerning the verse, “The Rock—his deeds are perfect. [Yes, all his ways are just; a faithful God, never false, true and upright is he]:” B. When they arrested R. Haninah b. Teradion, a decree against him was issued, that he be executed by burning, along with his scroll. C. They told him, “A decree against you has been issued, that you be executed by burning, along with your scroll.” D. He recited this verse: “The Rock—his deeds are perfect.” E. They informed his wife, “A decree against your husband has been issued, that he be executed by burning, along with his scroll, and against you that you be put to death, and she recited this verse: ‘a faithful God, never false, true and upright is he.’” F. They told his daughter, “A decree against your father has been issued, that he be executed by burning, along with his scroll, and against your mother, that she be executed, and against you, that you ‘do work,’ and she recited this verse: ‘Great in counsel and mighty in work, whose eyes are open’ (Jer. 32:19).” G. Said Rabbi, “What great righteous people are these, for in their hour of trouble they called forth three verses which justify God’s decree in a way that none of the rest of the verses of Scripture do it. H. “All three of them formed the exact intention in such

39.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat ha"azinu. 306-341

2.

181

a way as to justify the judgment of God concerning them.” A. A philosopher went to the ruler and said to him, “My lord, do not boast that you have burned the Torah, for to the place [heaven] from which it has come forth, it now returns, namely, to the house of its father.” B. He said to him, “Tomorrow you will be judged in the same way as these [and be put to death].” C. He said to him, “You give me very good news, that tomorrow my share will be with theirs in the world to come.”

1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The three martyrs, No. 1, all affirm the sentiment of the base-verse, that all God’s ways are just, a point that Rabbi makes, G-H in underscoring the coherence of the three components of the narrative. No. 2 is tacked on as a complement. 2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? The tension is between the Torah-learning of Haninah and his fate, which is to be burned with a Torah, and this is stated three times. Then it is resolved by Rabbi, as noted. 3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? The personalization of the theology of divine justice is given extreme form in contrasting the faith of the sage and his fate. CCCVIII:II 1.

C. D.

E.

A. [“Is corruption his? No, his children’s is the blemish.— that crooked perverse generation—their baseness has played him false. Do you thus requite the Lord, O dull and witless people? Is not he the father who created you, fashioned you and made you endure!” (Dt. 32:4-6).] In the name of Abba Hedores they have said, “The Israelites violated every negative commandment in the Torah, and all this why? B. “It was so as not to give an occasion to wicked people to say, ‘So long as we sin against him, we are pained before him.’ “To what is the matter to be compared? “To the case of someone who was going forth to be crucified, with his father weeping for him and his mother throwing herself before him, this one saying, ‘Woe is me,’ and that one saying, ‘Woe is me.’ “So this pertains only to the one who is going forth to be crucified [and not to the parents, who cry ‘woe is me’].

182

39.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat ha"azinu. 306-341 F. “And so Scripture says, ‘Woe to their soul, for they have done evil to themselves’ (Is. 3:9).”

The base verse states that the children of God suffer a blemish, and God is not blemished by them. When they sin, they are the ones to suffer and to be blemished, not God. The exegetical parable makes the point then that while the father and the mother suffer, the real victim of the sin that has brought about the crucifixion is the sinner himself. So in the parable the parents stand for God. CCCVIII:III 1. A. “… that crooked perverse generation—their baseness has played him false:” B. Said Moses to the Israelites, “You are a bunch of crooks, you are a bunch of perverts. You are going only into the fire.” C. To what may the matter be compared? To someone who had in hand a crooked staff and he gave it to a craftsman to straighten it out: “Straighten it out with fire, and if not, then flatten it with a plane, and, if not, chisel it down with a chisel and throw it into the fire.” D. And so Scripture says, “And I will deliver you into the hand of brutish men, skilful at destroying. You will be fuel for the fire” (Ez. 21:36-37).

The exegetical parable makes the point of Scripture, which is, the sinful Israelites are like a crooked staff and will be straightened out with fire. The simile is generated by the point that the base-verse wishes to register. CCCIX:I

A. [“Do you thus requite the Lord, O dull and witless people? Is not he the father who created you, fashioned you and made you endure!” (Dt. 32:4-6).] B. “Do you thus requite the Lord:” C. To what may the matter be compared? D. To someone who went into the forum and insulted a councilor. E. Those who heard said to him, “Idiot! Are you going and insulting a councilor? What if he wants to beat you up or to tear your garment or imprison you? Can you beat him?” F. And if it were a centurion, a still more powerful figure, how much the more so, and if he were a consul, greater than both, how much the more so! 1.

The point of the exegetical parable is, the Israelites have taken on someone infinitely more powerful than they, and the parable then

39.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat ha"azinu. 306-341

183

goes over that ground in terms of the government’s ranking officials. CCCIX:II 1. A. Another interpretation of the phrase, “Do you thus requite the Lord:” B. To what may the matter be compared? C. To someone who went into the forum and insulted his father. D. Those who heard it said to him, “Idiot! Whom are you standing and insulting? It is your father. Listen: how much work has he done for you, how much effort has he invested in you! If you have not honored him in the past, you have to honor him now, so that he will not write over his entire estate to others.” E. So did Moses say to the Israelites, “If you do not remember the miracles and acts of might which the Holy One, blessed be He, did for you in Egypt, then at least remember how many good things he is going to give you in the world to come.”

This exegetical parable follows a more familiar pattern, by articulating the point of the simile, thus E explains C-D. The parable stresses that the insult not only is churlish and ungrateful for past favors, but also unwise and wasteful of future ones, which introduces into the reading of the base-verse a consideration not explicitly present there. CCCIX:V 1.

A. “Is not he the father who has acquired [another meaning for the letters of the word created] you:” B. Said Moses to the Israelites, “You are precious to him, you are things he has acquired on his own, not merely what he has inherited.” C. The matter may be compared to the case of someone whose father left him as an inheritance ten fields. The man went and bought a field with his own means, and that field he loved more than all of the fields that his father had left him as an inheritance. D. And so too, there is the case of someone whose father left him as an inheritance ten palaces. The man went and bought a palace with his own means, and that palace he loved more than all of the palaces that his father had left him as an inheritance. E. So did Moses say to the Israelites, “You are precious to him, you are things he has acquired on his own, not merely what he has inherited.”

The two parables, C, D, are explained by E. Israel is valuable to God because he himself has brought Israel into being, a point that registers at C in the heir’s showing favor to the field he has acquired

184

39.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat ha"azinu. 306-341

on his own more than those who inherited, and at D the same point pertains to a palace. I do not see what is added by D. Then, in the convention that prevails, E articulates how the simile applies. CCCXII:I 1. A. “For the Lord’s portion is his people, [Jacob his own allotment]:” B. The matter may be compared to a king who had a field, which he handed over to tenant-farmers. C. The tenant-farmers began to steal [the produce of the field that was owing to the king, so] he took it from them and handed it over to the[ir] children. D. The [tenant farmers’ children] began to conduct themselves worse than the earlier ones. E. He took it from their children and handed it over to the children of the children. F. They began to conduct themselves even worse than the earlier ones. G. He had a son. He said to them, “Get out of what is mine. I don’t want you in it. Give me my portion, which I may get back.” H. So when our father, Abraham, came into the world, chaff came forth from him, Ishmael and all the children of Keturah. I. When Isaac came into the world, chaff came forth from him, Esau and all the nobles of Edom. J. They began to conduct themselves worse than the earlier ones. K. When Jacob came along, no chaff came forth from him. All the sons that were born to him were proper people, as it is said, “And Jacob was a perfect man, dwelling in tents” (Gen. 25:27). L. Whence will the Omnipresent regain his share? It will be from Jacob: “For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment.” M. And further: “For the Lord has chosen Jacob to himself” (Ps. 135:4).

This conventional exegetical parable, B-G, explains why Israel is God’s portion. Now it is the king/God and the prince/Jacob. Ishmael and Esau produced children worse than themselves, so God took back the heritage and regains his share through Jacob alone. The narrative of H-K is fairly closely matched by the details of BG, but the correspondence is not identical, and the clash between the conduct of the third generation of the parable and Jacob’s progeny is startling.

39.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat ha"azinu. 306-341

185

CCCXIII:I 1.

A. [“He found him in a desert region, in an empty howling waste. He engirded him, watched over him, guarded him as the pupil of his eye. Like an eagle who rouses his nestlings, gliding down to his young, so did he spread his wings and take him, bear him along on his pinions; the Lord alone did guide him, no alien god at his side” (Dt. 32:1012).] B. “He found him in a desert region:” C. This refers to Abraham. D. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who went with his legions into the wilderness. His legions deserted him in a difficult situation, a place in which were marauding bands and thugs, and went their way. E. He appointed for himself a single hero, who said to him, “My lord, king, do not be disheartened, and do not take fright for any reason. By your life! I am not going to leave you before you walk into your own palace and sleep in your own bed.” F. That is in line with the statement of Scripture, “He said to him, ‘I am the Lord, who took you out of Ur Casdim’” (Gen. 15:7).

Now Abraham is the king, God is the hero, and then the exegetical parable closely tracks the Scriptural narrative, God finding Abraham in a desert region and guiding him homeward. I assume the absence of an articulated application of the parable is because it was implicit in the parable, start to finish. CCCXVI:I 1. A. [“He set him atop the highlands, to feast on the yield of the earth; he fed him honey from the crag, and oil from the flinty rock, curd of kine and milk of flocks; with the best of lambs and rams and he-goats, with the very finest wheat—and foaming grapeblood was your drink” (Dt. 32:13-14).] 3. A. “… he fed him honey from the crag:” B. Like the area around Sikhni. C. There was the case [Ma#aseh], when R. Judah said to his son, “Go and bring me figs from the jar.” D. He said to him, “Father, it is honey [for the figs have turned into honey].” E. He said to him, “Put your hand in it and you’ll bring up figs.” 4. A. “… and oil from the flinty rock:” B. This refers to the olives from Gischala. 5. A. There was the case, [Ma#aseh], when R. Yosé said to his son in Sepphoris, “Go up and bring us olives from the upper room.”

186

39.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat ha"azinu. 306-341 B. He went and found the upper room flooded with olive-oil.

The two Ma#asim serve not for a Halakhic purpose, let alone as narrative. They illustrate the allegations of Scripture concerning the productivity, as to honey and olive oil, of the Land. CCCXVII:VI 1. A. Another comment concerning, “… with the very finest wheat [– and foaming grape-blood was your drink]” (Dt. 32:13-14): B. In time to come every grain of wheat is going to be the size of the two kidneys of a big ox, the weight of four Sepphorean liters. C. And if you find that surprising, look at turnip-heads. 2. A. There was the case [Ma#aseh] in which they weighed a turnip head at the weight of thirty Sepphorean liters. 3. A. There was the case [Ma#aseh] in which a fox made a nest in the head of a turnip. 4. A. There was a case [Ma#aseh] in Shehin in the matter of a mustard stalk, which has three twigs. B. One of them split off and it was used as the roofing for the hut of a pottery. C. They opened it and found in it nine qabs of mustard seeds. 5. A. Said R. Simeon b. Halapta, “There was a cabbage stalk in my house, and I would go up and down on it, as one goes up and down on a ladder.”

Three more ma#asim follow suit. These bear no Halakhic burden, but carry out no exegetical task. They just illustrate a proposition, and the use of the marker, Ma#aseh, bears no more significance than its omission, as the contrast between Nos. 2, 3, and 4, on the one side, and No. 5 indicates. There are no conceptual or formal differences between the one group, bearing the marker, and the other item, lacking it. CCCXXII:V 1. A. “For they are a folk void of sense, [lacking in all discernment]:” E. “‘… lacking in all discernment’: There is not a single one of them who will take a good look at things and observe, ‘Aforetime, one of us could pursue among the gentiles a thousand, and two could take a myriad captive, but now one of the nations can pursue of us a thousand, and two make ten thousand flee.’ F. “‘How could one have routed a thousand or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their rock had sold them, the Lord had given them up? For their rock is not like our rock, in our enemies’ own estimation.’“

39.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat ha"azinu. 306-341

187

G. R. Nehemiah interprets it to speak of the nations of the world: “The nations of the world have lost the seven religious duties that I assigned to them.” H. “‘… lacking in all discernment’: There is not a single one of them who will take a good look at things and observe, ‘Aforetime, one of us could pursue among the Israelites a thousand, and two could make a myriad flee, but in the time of the Messiah one of the Israelites can pursue of us a thousand, and two make ten thousand flee.’ I. “‘How could one have routed a thousand or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their rock had sold them, the Lord had given them up? For their rock is not like our rock.’“ 2. A. There was the case [Ma#aseh] of the war in Judea, in which a decurion ran after an Israelite on a horse to kill him, but he could not catch up with him. B. Before he caught up with him, however, a snake came out and bit him on his heal. C. He said, “Do not think that it is because we are strong that they have been handed over to us. D. “‘How could one have routed a thousand or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their rock had sold them, the Lord had given them up.’“

The Ma#aseh illustrates the exegeses of 1.E, and, verbatim, 1.I at 2.D. But the Ma#aseh here coheres as an authentic story, since the point of the unfolding details of the narrative, A-B, becomes clear only at the end, C-D. CCCXXIII:III 1. A. “… unless their rock had sold them, the Lord had given them up:” B. “I am not the one who is going to give you up. Others will give you up.” 2. A. There was a case [Ma#aseh] in which the flies were the ones to give them up in Judah.

The Ma#aseh illustrates the point that even lowly creatures of nature handed the Israelites over to their enemies. Once more we find no resemblance between the use of Ma#aseh in this document and in Mishnah-Tosefta, or in Sifra for that matter. CCCXXIII:III 3. A. R. Hanina of Tibeon says, “There is the comparison to one who said to his fellow, ‘I am going to sell you as a slave, to be delivered at some time in the future.’ B. “[God speaks:] ‘But I for my part am not like that. But I sell you and I forthwith hand you over.’”

188

39.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat ha"azinu. 306-341

This is an odd item, claiming to serve as an inert Mashal, A, which takes on meaning only at B. It is uncommon for the interpretation to be delivered within the pseudo-narrative framework of the parable itself, as happens at B. CCCXXXV:II 1. A. “… Enjoin them upon your children, that they may observe [faithfully all the terms of this Torah]:” B. He said to them, “I have to be thankful to you for keeping the Torah after me, so you too must be thankful to your children for keeping the Torah after you.” 2. A. There was the case [Ma#aseh] when Our Rabbi came from Laodicea, and R. Yosé b. R. Judah and R. Eleazar b. Judah came and went into session in his presence. B. He said to them, “Draw near. As I have to be thankful to you for keeping the Torah after me, so you too must be thankful to your children for keeping the Torah after you. C. “Now were Moses not a great person, and had others not accepted the Torah from him, it would have been vain. D. “We—all the more so [do we depend upon your accepting and carrying out the Torah, thus keeping it alive]! E. “Therefore it is said, ‘Enjoin them upon your children, that they may observe [faithfully all the terms of this Torah].’”

The Ma#aseh, 2.A-B, serves as does a Mashal in illustrating the exegetical proposition, here 1.B to 1.A. The difference is the shift from abstract figures, here a king/prince, to the named sages, Our Rabbi and his sons.

39.

sifré to deuteronomy. parashat ha"azinu. 306-341

189

CHAPTER FORTY

SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY. PARASHAT VEZOT HABBERAKHAH. 342-357 CCCXLIII:I 1. A. [“He said, ‘The Lord came from Sinai; he shone upon them from Seir. He appeared from Mount Paran and approached from Ribeboth-kodesh, lightning flashing at them from his right, lover, indeed, of the people, their hallowed are all in your hand. They followed in your steps, accepting your pronouncements, when Moses charged us with the Torah as the heritage of the congregation of Jacob. Then he became King in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people assembled, the tribes of Israel together’” (Dt. 33:2-6).] B. “He said, ‘The Lord came from Sinai:’” C. This indicates that, when Moses commenced, he did not commence by dealing with what Israel needed first, before commencing with words of praise for the Omnipresent. 2. A. The matter may be compared to the case of a hired orator, who was standing on the platform in court, to speak in behalf of a client. He did not commence by dealing with the needs of that man first, before he commenced by praising the king: B. “Happy is the world because of his rule, happy is the world because of his judgment, on us shines the sun, on us shines the moon.” C. And others gave praise along with him. D. And then he opened up the matter of the needs of the person who had hired him, and then at the end, he concluded by praising the king once more. E. So too our lord, Moses did not commence by dealing with the needs of Israel, before he commenced by praising the Omnipresent: F. “The Lord came from Sinai.” G. Then he dealt with what Israel needed: H. “Then he became King in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people assembled, the tribes of Israel together.” I. And at the end he closed by praising the Omnipresent: “There is none like God, O Jeshurun” (Dt. 33:26).

The remarkable exegetical parable, No. 2, illustrates 1.B-C. But it

190

40.

parashat vezot habberakhah. 342-357

does so in quite exceptional detail, with its matching of the clauses of the professional orator, B, C, D, with Moses’s statements, F, G, H. The parable is absolutely particular to its case, which has generated its details. CCCXLIII:IV 1. A. Another teaching concerning the phrase, “He said, ‘The Lord came from Sinai’:” B. When the Omnipresent appeared to give the Torah to Israel, it was not to Israel alone that he revealed himself but to every nation. C. First of all he came to the children of Esau. He said to them, “Will you accept the Torah?” D. They said to him, “What is written in it?” E. He said to them, “‘You shall not murder’ (Ex. 20:13).” F. They said to him, “The very being of ‘those men’ [namely, us] and of their father is to murder, for it is said, ‘But the hands are the hands of Esau”’(Gen. 27:22). ‘By your sword you shall live’ (Gen. 27:40).” G. So he went to the children of Ammon and Moab and said to them, “Will you accept the Torah?” H. They said to him, “What is written in it?” I. He said to them, “‘You shall not commit adultery’ (Ex. 20:13).” J. They said to him, “The very essence of fornication belongs to them [us], for it is said, ‘Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their fathers’ (Gen. 19:36).” K. So he went to the children of Ishmael and said to them, “Will you accept the Torah?” L. They said to him, “What is written in it?” M. He said to them, “‘You shall not steal’ (Ex. 20:13).” N. They said to him, “The very essence of their [our] father is thievery, as it is said, ‘And he shall be a wild ass of a man’ (Gen. 16:12).” O. And so it went. He went to every nation, asking them, “Will you accept the Torah?” P. For so it is said, “All the kings of the earth shall give you thanks, O Lord, for they have heard the words of your mouth” (Ps. 138:4). Q. Might one suppose that they listened and accepted the Torah? R. Scripture says, “And I will execute vengeance in anger and fury upon the nations, because they did not listen” (Mic. 5:14). S. And it is not enough for them that they did not listen, but even the seven religious duties that the chil-

40.

parashat vezot habberakhah. 342-357

191

dren of Noah indeed accepted upon themselves they could not uphold before breaking them. T. When the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that that is how things were, he gave them to Israel.

1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? This absolutely authentic, perfectly realized narrative coheres by reason of its conclusion and goal, which is at T. The triplet of units, C-F, G-J, K-N, are matched item by item, giving way at the end to O+P, T (treating Q-S as an intrusion into the perfection established fore and aft. The climax, imparting consequence to all that has gone before, is T: when God saw that the nations by their nature could not obey the Torah, he gave it to Israel, which could try. 2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? The conflict is between Israel and the nations over God’s favor, and it is resolved by the essential failure of the nations to accommodate God’s revealed will in the Torah. 3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? The matched triplet adheres to the general preference for a repetition of an action or for the division of a story into three subsets. CCCXLIII:IV 1. A. Another teaching concerning the phrase, “He said, ‘The Lord came from Sinai:’” 2. A. The matter may be compared to the case of a person who sent his ass and dog to the threshing floor and loaded up a letekh of grain on his ass and three seahs of grain on his dog. The ass went along, while the dog panted. B. He took a seah of grain off the dog and put it on the ass, so with the second, so with the third. C. Thus was Israel: they accepted the Torah, complete with all its secondary amplifications and minor details, even the seven religious duties that the children of Noah could not uphold without breaking them did the Israelites come along and accept. D. That is why it is said, “The Lord came from Sinai; he shone upon them from Seir.”

The secondary parable carries forward the preceding authentic narrative, augmenting the reference to the seven commandments as-

192

40.

parashat vezot habberakhah. 342-357

signed to the children of Noah. They could not do even these, but the Israelites took them and many more upon themselves. The parable depends upon its exegetical context for coherence and meaning. CCCXLIII:V 1. A. Another teaching concerning the phrase, “He said, ‘The Lord came from Sinai; he shone upon them from Seir’:” B. When the Holy One, blessed be He, proceeds to exact punishment from Seir, he is destined to shake the entire world with its inhabitants, just as he shook it when he gave the Torah, C. as it is said, “Lord, when you went out of Seir, when you marched out of the field of Edom, the earth trembled, the heavens dropped water, yes, the clouds dropped water” (Judges 5:4). D. And then: “And afterward his brother came forth, and his hand held onto Esau’s heel, and he was called Jacob” (Gen. 25:26). E. Said to them the Holy One, blessed be He, “No nation or language can come among you.” 2. A. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who wanted to give a gift to one of his sons, and the king was afraid on account of [the consequent envy] of his brothers and allies, and on account of his relatives. B. What did the son do? C. He went and dressed up and fixed his hair. The king said to him, “To you I am giving a gift [having made yourself worthy of it].” D. So when our father, Abraham, came into the world, chaff came forth from him, Ishmael and the sons of Keturah. E. They turned out worse than the first, and when Isaac came along chaff came forth from him, Esau and all the dukes of Edom, who turned out to be still worse than the earlier ones. F. But when Jacob came along, no chaff come forth from him, but all his sons were born flawless, in line with this verse: G. “And Jacob was a flawless man, dwelling in tents” (Gen. 25:27). H. Said to him the Holy One, blessed be He, “To you I am going to give the Torah.” I. That is in line with this verse, “The Lord came from Sinai; he shone upon them from Seir.”

Once more, why Israel in particular? Now the meaning is, Israel, not Isaac not Abraham (thus the rejection of the princes corresponds

40.

parashat vezot habberakhah. 342-357

193

to the rejection of the children of Abraham and of Isaac). But that shifts the context, which is, why Israel, not the gentiles? The exegetical parable, 2.A-C, is particular to the context defined by D-I, serving the base-verse and even the intersecting verses of 1.A-E. CCCXLIII:III 1. A. [“… when Moses charged us with the Torah as the heritage of the congregation of Jacob:”] B. Another matter: Do not read the letters as though they spelled the word “betrothed,” but rather as though they sounded the word “heritage.” C. This teaches that the Torah is the heritage of Israel. 2. A. There is a parable. To what may the matter be compared? To the case of a prince who was taken overseas as a captive when he was a child. B. If he wanted to return, even after a hundred years, he would not be ashamed to come back, for he says, “It is to my heritage that I am coming home.” C. So a disciple of a sage who separated from words of Torah and went off to other matters, if he wanted to come back, even after a hundred years, he would not be ashamed to come back, for he says, “It is to my heritage that I am coming home.” D. So it is said, “as the heritage of the congregation of Jacob.”

Now the exegetical parable’s prince is not Israel, with God as the king, but it is the lapsed disciple of sages, who wishes to return home to Torah-study. This represents a somewhat odd utilization of the exegetical parable, ordinarily pertaining as it does to Israel as a whole, Israel as the prince, not the disciple of the sage. In any event there is nothing universal about the parable. CCCXLIV:III 1. A. Another interpretation of the phrase, “… lover, indeed, of the people, their hallowed are all in your hand]:” B. This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not apportion love to the nations of the world as he did to Israel. C. You may know that that is so. D. For lo, sages have ruled, “That which is stolen from a gentile is permitted, but from an Israelite is forbidden.” 2. A. Now the government sent two detectives, saying to them, “Go and pretend to be Jews and examine their Torah and find out what it is all about.” B. They went to Rabban Gamaliel, to Usha, and studied Scripture and repeated the Mishnah, exegesis of laws and lore. When they were leaving, they said, “This entire Torah is certainly valuable

194

40.

parashat vezot habberakhah. 342-357

and praiseworthy, except for this one ruling, which you state, ‘That which is stolen from a gentile is permitted, but from an Israelite is forbidden.’ C. “But we shall not inform the government about this matter.”

The episode, 2.A-C, cannot be called a narrative. It is attached for obvious reasons. In the absence of the conventional marker, I cannot classify it as a Ma#aseh. But that classification has already lost all particular significance and is now, in this document, a mere formality. CCCXLVII:I 1. A. [“Then he became King in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people assembled, the tribes of Israel together” (Dt. 33:2-6). “May Reuben live and not die, though few be his numbers” (Dt. 33:6). And this he said of Judah: Hear, O Lord, the voice of Judah and restore him to his people. Though his own hands strive for him, help him against his foes” (Dt. 33:7).] B. “… the tribes of Israel together. May Reuben live and not die:” C. What has one thing to do with the other? D. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who came to his children from time to time. When he would leave his children, his children and relatives would accompany him. E. He said to them, “My children, perhaps you have need to say something, perhaps you have something in mind? Tell me.” F. They said to him, “Father, we need nothing, and we have nothing that we want, except for you to become reconciled with our eldest brother.” G. So were it not for the other tribal founders, the Omnipresent would not have become reconciled with Reuben. H. That is why it is said: “… the tribes of Israel together. May Reuben live and not die.”

The exegetical parable, D-F, answers the question of C, and the answer is articulated at G-H. Without the application specified there, we should scarcely have understood how the parable responds to its assignment, but the parable on its own bears no self-evident lesson or application. The effect of the whole is to invoke in the reading of the blessing of Moses for the tribes the entire narrative of Genesis. CCCXLIX:I 1. A. [“And of Levi he said, ‘Let your Thummim and Urim be with your faithful one, whom you tested at Massah, challenged at the waters of Meribah; who said of his father and

40.

E.

parashat vezot habberakhah. 342-357

195

mother, “I consider them not.” His brothers he disregarded, ignored his own children. Your precepts alone they observed and kept your covenant. They shall teach your laws to Jacob and your instructions to Israel. They shall offer you incense to savor and whole-offerings on your altar. Bless, O Lord, his substance and favor his undertakings. Smite the loins of his foes; let his enemies rise no more’” (Dt. 33:8-11).] B. “And of Levi he said:” C. Why is this stated [concerning Levi in particular]? D. Since Simeon and Levi both drank from a single cup, as it is said, “Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath, for it was cruel; I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel” (Gen. 49:7). The matter may be compared to the case of two who borrowed money from the king. One of them paid the king back and then went and lent the king money. But as to the other, it was not enough that he did not pay the king back, but he went and borrowed more. F. So Simeon and Levi both borrowed at Shechem [by committing murder taking and squandering some of the merit that their ancestors and they had stored up], as the following verse says: “Two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword and came upon the city unaware and slew all the males” (Gen. 34:25). G. In the wilderness Levi paid back what he had borrowed [of the prior merit[: “Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, ‘Whoever is on the Lord’s side, let him come to me.’ And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him. And he said to them, ‘Thus says the Lord, God of Israel: Put on everyone his sword upon his thigh....’ And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses” (Ex. 32:26-28). H. Then at Shittim he went and lent to the Omnipresent: “Phineas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, for he was very jealous for my sake among them, so I did not consume the children of Israel in my jealousy” (Num. 25:11). I. As to Simeon, it was not enough that he did not pay back [what he had borrowed at Shechem], but he went and borrowed more: “Now the name of the man of Israel that was slain, who was killed with the Midianite woman, was Zimri son of Salu, a prince of a father’s house among the Simeonites” (Num. 25:14). J. That is why it is said, “And of Levi he said.”

Here, once more, the exegetical parable, E, is systematically inter-

196

40.

parashat vezot habberakhah. 342-357

preted in context, G-I, and the parable is particular to its exegetical case and task, as seems to be the pattern here. CCCLII:VI 4.

A. Another teaching concerning the question, on what account did Benjamin enjoy the merit of having the Presence of God come to rest in his territory? B. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who had many children. When they grew up, each one of them went and found a place for himself. C. But the youngest of them was especially beloved of his father. [The king] would eat and drink with him, leaning on him when he went out and when he came in. D. So Benjamin, who was righteous, was the youngest of the tribal ancestors, and his father, Jacob, would eat and drink with him, leaning on him when he went out and when he came in. E. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, “In the place in which this righteous man laid his hands, I shall bring my Presence to rest: ‘as he rests between his shoulders.’”

As earlier, the exegetical parable, B-C, is spelled out in context, DE, and responds to the precipitating question, A—all in rich detail. Here once more the parable bears cogency only in its exegetical context. CCCLII:VII 1. A. And on what account did Benjamin enjoy the merit of having the Presence of God come to rest in his territory? B. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who from time to time came to visit his children, and each one would say, “Let him abide with me.” C. The youngest of them all said, “Is it possible that father will ever neglect my elder brothers and abide with me?” D. His face fell, and he was disheartened. E. [The king] said, “Have you seen my youngest son, looking downcast and disheartened? Now the food and drink will come from you others, but my lodging will be with him.” F. So the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “The chosen house will be in the property of Benjamin, but the offerings will derive from all of the tribes equally.”

A familiar parabolic narrative, the king (God) and the princes (tribal progenitors), involving periodic visits of the king to the princes, now answers a cognate question. The details of the parable, B-E,

40.

parashat vezot habberakhah. 342-357

197

are somewhat elaborate for the exegetical issue resolved at F, but are by no means disproportionate. CCCLV:XV 1. A. Another statement concerning the phrase, “… may he be the favorite of his brothers, [may he dip his foot in oil]:” B. Among all Israelite territories there is none that so completely observes the laws of the year of release as does the territory of Asher. 2. A. “… may he dip his foot in oil:” B. This teaches that the territory of Asher gushes oil like a spring. 3. A. There is the story that the people of Laodicea were short of oil. They appointed a deputy and said to him, “Go and buy oil for us for ten thousand talents.” B. He went to Tyre and said to them, “I need oil worth ten thousand talents.” C. They said to him, “Go to So-and-so.” D. He went to the house of So-and-so but did not find him. They said to him, “Lo, he is out in the field.” E. He went and found him harrowing under the olive trees. F. He said to him, “I need oil worth ten thousand talents.” G. He said to him, “Wait ‘till I finish this tree.” H. When he had finished the work on that tree, taking his utensils and going along, the deputy said, “This man can’t have enough oil to fill my order of ten thousand talents’ worth. I guess the Jews are just kidding around with me.” I. When he came to his house, the farmer called his slavegirl and said to her, “Come and wash our feet.” J. She filled a bowl with olive oil and washed off their feet, this showing the sense of the verse, “… may he dip his foot in oil.” K. He set bread before him and he ate, then drank. After he had eaten and drunk, he went and measured out for him oil to fill an order for ten thousand talents’ worth. L. He said to him, “Do you want any more?” M. He said to him, “I don’t have money.” N. He said to him, “Take more, and I’ll come along with you and collect the money owing to me.” O. He went and measured out for him another eighteen thousand talents’ worth. P. They say that that man did not leave behind a camel or an ass in the land of Israel, that he did not lead away with him [carrying so much oil]. Q. The people of Laodicea spied him coming and came out to receive him three mils from the city and saluted him with great dignity. R. He said to them, “I don’t have this salute coming to

198

40.

parashat vezot habberakhah. 342-357

me. It belongs to this man [the Jew who was coming along]. For everything I have with me belongs to him, and not only so, but I owe him, in addition to what I brought along, an additional eighteen thousand talents.” S. This serves to illustrate the verse: “There is one who pretends to be rich but has nothing, there is one who pretends to be poor and has much wealth” (Prov. 13:7).

1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The authentic narrative breaks down into these parts: (1) the deputy reaches Tyre and finds the oil, A-H, he uses oil profligately, showing the abundance, I-O, and the presentation of the oil to the purchasers, P-R. Then the point of the story, stating what makes the whole cohere, is at S, an illustration of Prov. 13:7. The flow of narrative is deliberate and the whole merges as a coherent anecdote. 2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? The story illustrates the blessing of Asher; this is what an abundance of oil looks like. 3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal qualities, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? The story follows the tripletmodel; it is average in length for our document, and simple in structure. CCCLV:XVII 1. A. [“O Jeshurun, there is none like God, riding through the heavens to help you, through the skies in his majesty. The ancient God is a refuge, a support are the arms everlasting. He drove out the enemy before you. By his command: Destroy. Thus Israel dwells in safety, untroubled is Jacob’s abode, in a land of grain and wine, under heavens dripping dew. O happy Israel! who is like you, a people delivered by the Lord, your protecting shield, your sword triumphant. Your enemies shall come cringing before you and you shall tread on their backs” (Dt. 33:24-29).] 8. A. “… through the skies in his majesty:” B. All the Israelites gathered before Moses and said to him, “Our lord, Moses, tell us: what is the measure of honor [paid to God] on high?” C. He said to them, “On the basis of the lower heavens you may know the measure of honor [paid to God] on high.” 9. A. There is a parable [Mashal]. To what may the matter be likened?

40.

parashat vezot habberakhah. 342-357

199

B.

It may be compared to someone who said, “I want to witness the honor paid to the king.” C. They said to him, “Go to a town and you will see it.” D. He went and saw a veil spread over the gate of the town, with precious stones and pearls set in it, and he could not take his eyes off it, until he stumbled.” E. They said to him, “If you could not take your eyes off the veil spread over the gate of the town, with precious stones and pearls set in it without stumbling, had you actually entered the town, how much the more so!” F. On that account it is said, “… through the skies in his majesty.”

The exegetical parable, 9.A-E, exactly captures the terms of the baseverse. The base-verse requires an adumbration in the lower of the honor paid to God in highest heaven, and the veil of the parable, D, stands for the honor paid to God in the lower heavens. The detail of E corresponds to nothing in the exegetical exposition of No. 8 but it makes a comment on No. 8: If you cannot take your eyes off the lower heavens, how much the more will you be dazzled by the honor paid to God on high. So the entire parable is formed in correspondence with the exegetical task, which it realizes. CCCLVI:IV 2. A. [“O happy Israel! Who is like you, [a people delivered by the Lord, your protecting shield, your sword triumphant? Your enemies shall come cringing before you and you shall tread on their backs]:” “O happy Israel:” B. All the Israelites gathered before Moses, saying to him, “Our lord, Moses, tell us what good the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to give us in the age to come.” C. He said to them, “I do not know what to say to you? Happy are you for what is ready for you.” 3. A. The matter may be compared to the case of a man who handed his son over to a teacher, who would take him about and show things to him and say to him, “All these trees are yours, all these vines are yours, all these olive trees are yours.” B. When he got tired of showing him things, he said to him, “I do not know what to say to you? Happy are you for what is ready for you.” C. Thus said Moses to Israel, “I do not know what to say to you? Happy are you for what is ready for you: D. “‘O how abundant is your goodness, which you have laid up for those who fear you’ (Ps. 31:20).”

Once more, the exegetical parable, 3.A-B, translates the exegesis of

200

40.

parashat vezot habberakhah. 342-357

the base-verse, 2.B-C, into terms of a father/son/teacher. Moses is the teacher, the trees, vines, olive trees are the signs of the inheritance, and the rest flows. Here again, without the exegetical task, we have no comprehensible parable. CCCLVII:XI 1. A. “[So Moses,] the servant of the Lord, [died there, in the land of Moab, at the command of the Lord. He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, near Beth-peor, and no one knows his burial place to his day:” 2. A. “… at the command of the Lord:” B. When the Omnipresent takes the souls of the righteous, it is in a spirit of serenity that he takes them. C. There is an analogy: to what may the matter be compared? D. To a reliable person who was in a town, with whom everyone deposited their bailments for safe-keeping. E. When one of them would come to retrieve his property, [the reliable man] would produce and hand over the object, since he knew precisely where it was. F. And if [the owner] had occasion to send for a bailment with his son or slave or agent, he would have to turn things topsy-turvy, for he did not know where things were. [trans. Robert Hammer: “But when the bailer had to send his son… to the bailee for his deposit, he had to turn everything upside down, since he did not know where it was.”] G. Thus when the Omnipresent takes the souls of the righteous, it is in a spirit of serenity that he takes them. H. But when he takes the souls of the wicked, he hands them over to evil messengers, merciless messengers, who are to drag away those souls. I. And so Scripture says, “Therefore a cruel angel shall be sent against him” (Prov. 17:11). J. “Their soul perishes in youth” (Job 36:14).

The exegetical parable is somewhat out of line with the exegetical task. That is announced at 2.A-B, when God takes the souls, it is in a transaction of serenity. There is no other participant in the transaction, that is, no other messenger for the bailment but God. The parable focuses, D, on the bailee, with whom the bailment is left, so too, E. Then the point should pertain to the bailee and his reliability. But F shifts the ground to the character of the bailer, who has left and now wishes to fetch the bailment—and not only to the character of the bailer, but to the identity of the messenger. Now the point is, the character of the messenger makes all the difference. And that is how the parable is resolved: when God takes the souls,

40.

parashat vezot habberakhah. 342-357

201

it is in the spirit of serenity, but to take the souls of the wicked, he hands the task over to cruel agents. The upshot is simple: the parable is spun out of the requirements of the exegesis, I-J, and so far as it has independent standing, it is to establish some lesson having to do with the contrast between E and some unrealized counterpart, e.g., an unreliable person, who did not know where things were. CCCLVII:XVIII 1. A. [“There has never yet risen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face; remember all the signs and portents which the Lord sent him to show in Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and the whole land; remember the strong hand of Moses and the terrible deeds which he did in the sight of all Israel” (Dt. 34:10-13).] B. “There has never yet risen in Israel a prophet like Moses:” C. In Israel none arose, but among the nations, one did arise. D. Who is that? It is Balaam son of Beor. 2. A. But there is quite a difference between the prophecy of Moses and the prophecy of Balaam. B. Moses did not know with whom he was talking, but Balaam knew with whom he was talking. C. For it is said, “… the oracle of one who hears the statements of God” (Num. 24:16). D. Moses did not know when [God] would speak with him, until he actually was spoken with, while Balaam knew full well exactly when he would be spoken with. E. For it is said, “And knows the knowledge of the Most High” (Num. 24:16). F. Moses would speak with [God] only standing up, as it is said, “And you, stand here with me” (Dt. 5:28). G. But Balaam was spoken with when he had fallen, as it is said, “Who sees the vision of the Almighty, having fallen down with open eyes” (Num. 24:4). H. To what is the matter comparable? To the case of the king’s butcher, who knows precisely how much the king is spending on his table.

The parable, H, supplies a simile to illustrate the contrast drawn at F- G: Balaam is the compared to the king’s butcher. It does not strike me as a powerfully illuminating parable.

202

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

CHAPTER FORTY-ONE

NARRATIVES IN SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY In the program of Sifré to Deuteronomy, as in that of Sifré to Numbers, the only narrative form of any consequence is the exegetical parable. That is because, like Sifré to Numbers, Sifré to Deuteronomy systematically works from verse to verse, beginning to end, commenting on aspects of interest to the exegetes. And since, to the main purpose of the document, exegesis of verses is a means to an end, the exegetical parable in Sifré to Deuteronomy mostly proves particular to the exegetical problem at hand. Rarely does the simile appear to have been adapted to serve the case; ordinarily it simply translates, into king/prince/queen/ally-transactions, terms or relationships, the exact requirements of the exegesis itself. That fact emerges in our detailed review of the data. A second fact deserves attention. The Halakhic parable, which performed valiantly in Sifra, occurs only rarely here and in the companion Sifré to Numbers. Indeed, the entire exposition of the Halakhic chapters, Deuteronomy 12-26, omits all narrative and pseudonarrative writing. The parable in both Sifrés serves solely in Aggadic contexts and, as is clear, only to clarify the meanings of statements of Scripture. The Ma#aseh too plays a strikingly limited role, and it furthermore loses the specificity of form and purpose that made a mark in the Mishnah-Tosefta’s counterparts. So what we do find should not obscure what we miss. So much for the narrative and pseudo-narrative repertoire, what of the document viewed whole? The exegetical enterprise of Sifré to Deuteronomy proves purposive and focused, in a way in which, in my reading of Sifré to Numbers, it does not. Specifically, out of the episodic cases and examples set forth in the book of Deuteronomy, sages in Sifré to Deuteronomy seek generalizations and governing principles. What is truly particular to that document is its systematic mode of methodical analysis, in which it does two things. First, the document’s compilers take the details of cases and care-

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

203

fully re-frame them into rules pertaining to all cases. The authorship therefore asks those questions of susceptibility-to-generalization (“generalizability”) that first-class philosophical minds raise. And second, they answer those questions by showing what details restrict the prevailing law to the conditions of the case, and what details exemplify the encompassing traits of the law overall. These are, after all, the two possibilities. The law is either limited to the case and to all cases that replicate this one. Or the law derives from the principles exemplified, in detail, in the case at hand. Essentially, as a matter of both logic and topical program, our authorship has reread the legal portions of the book of Deuteronomy and turned Scripture into what we now know is the orderly and encompassing code supplied by the Mishnah. To state matters simply, this authorship “mishna-izes” Scripture in Scripture’s Halakhic contexts. To this Halakhic project, with its thought-problems transcending simple exposition, the authentic, successful narratives are absolutely irrelevant, and we find only the same negligible proportion relative to the whole that we found in Mishnah-Tosefta, Sifré to Numbers and Sifra. What purpose is served, what task best performed, by the authentic, successful narrative remains to be discovered in documents that find that type of narrative useful. I. The Authentic Narrative That point is reinforced by a simple fact. All five authentic narratives stand independent of their exegetical context, and, it goes without saying, none intervenes in a Halakhic one. 1. XLIII:III.7-8 Rabban Gamaliel, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar b. Azariah, and R. Aqiba were going toward Rome. They heard the sound of the city’s traffic from as far away as Puteoli, a hundred and twenty mil away. They began to cry, while R. Aqiba laughed. They said to him, “Aqiba, why are we crying while you are laughing?” He said to them, “Why are you crying?” They said to him, “Should we not cry, since gentiles, idolators, sacrifice to their idols and bow down to icons, but dwell securely in prosperity, serenely, while the house of the footstool of our God has been put to the torch and left a lair for beasts of the field?” He said to them, “That is precisely why I was laughing. If this is how he has rewarded those who anger him, all the more so will he reward those who do his will.” Another time they went up to Jerusalem and go to Mount Scopus. They tore their garments. They came to the mountain of the house of the temple and saw a fox go forth from the house of the holy of holies. They began to cry, while R. Aqiba laughed.

204

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

Just as the punishment for idolatry has taken place, so surely will God forgive Israel when it repents. That theological conviction is not particular to the setting in which the story finds its place, Dt. 11:13ff. The story is beautifully executed for its balanced counterparts. 2. CCCV:III. 3. At that moment the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the angel of death, “Go, bring me the soul of Moses.” He went and stood before him and said to him, “Moses, give me your soul.” He said to him, “In a place in which I am in session, you have no right to stand, and yet you say to me, ‘Give me your soul’? He growled at him and the other went forth in a huff. The angel of death went and brought the tale back to the Omnipotent. Once again the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the angel of death, “Go, bring me the soul of Moses.” He went to where he was and looked for him but did not find him. He went to the sea and said to it, “As to Moses, have you seen him?” He went to the mountains and said to them, “As to Moses, have you seen him?” He went to Gehenna and said to it, “As to Moses, have you seen him?” They said to him, “Go to mortals.” He went to Israel and said to them, “As to Moses, have you seen him?” They said to him, “God knows his way. God has hidden him away for the life of the world to come, and no creature knows where he is.”

There is no pretense at including in an exegetical setting the authentic narrative supplied by the story of the death of Moses. No verse of Deuteronomy figures. The compilation involves Aaron, then Moses.

3. CCCVII:IV.1. Another comment concerning the verse, “The Rock— his deeds are perfect. Yes, all his ways are just; a faithful God, never false, true and upright is he:” When they arrested R. Haninah b. Teradion, a decree against him was issued, that he be executed by burning, along with his scroll. They told him, “A decree against you has been issued, that you be executed by burning, along with your scroll. He recited this verse: “The Rock—his deeds are perfect.” They informed his wife, “A decree against your husband has been issued, that he be executed by burning, along with his scroll, and against you that you be put to death, and she recited this verse: ‘a faithful God, never false, true and upright is he.’ They told his daughter, “A decree against your father has been issued, that he be executed by burning, along with his scroll, and against your mother, that she be executed, and against you, that you ‘do work,’ and she recited this verse: ‘Great in counsel and mighty in work, whose eyes are open’ (Jer. 32:19).” Said Rabbi, “What great righteous people are these, for in their hour of trouble they called forth three verses which justify God’s decree in a way that none of the rest of the verses of Scripture do it.

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

205

Here is another free-standing story. It is attached to the cited verse because that verse appears in the narrative, but the climax stated by Rabbi does not focus on the base-verse at all. Here, by contrast to No. 1, the affirmation of the divine decree and its justice concerns the individual, not corporate Israel, but the proposition is the same. 4. CCCXLIII:IV.1. Another teaching concerning the phrase, “He said, ‘The Lord came from Sinai’:” When the Omnipresent appeared to give the Torah to Israel, it was not to Israel alone that he revealed himself but to every nation. First of all he came to the children of Esau. He said to them, “Will you accept the Torah?” They said to him, “What is written in it?” He said to them, “‘You shall not murder’ (Ex. 20:13).” They said to him, “The very being of ‘those men’ namely, us and of their father is to murder, for it is said, ‘But the hands are the hands of Esau”’(Gen. 27:22). ‘By your sword you shall live’ (Gen. 27:40).” So he went to the children of Ammon and Moab and said to them, “Will you accept the Torah?” … So he went to the children of Ishmael and said to them, “Will you accept the Torah?” And so it went. He went to every nation, asking them, “Will you accept the Torah?” When the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that that is how things were, he gave them to Israel.

The same fact recurs: the story is independent of its exegetical setting.

5. CCCLV:XV 2 “… may he dip his foot in oil:” This teaches that the territory of Asher gushes oil like a spring. There is the story that the people of Laodicea were short of oil. They appointed a deputy and said to him, “Go and buy oil for us for ten thousand talents.” He went to Tyre and said to them, “I need oil worth ten thousand talents.” When he had finished the work on that tree, taking his utensils and going along, the deputy said, “This man can’t have enough oil to fill my order of ten thousand talents’ worth. I guess the Jews are just kidding around with me.” When he came to his house, the farmer called his slave-girl and said to her, “Come and wash our feet.” She filled a bowl with olive oil and washed off their feet, this showing the sense of the verse, “… may he dip his foot in oil.” He set bread before him and he ate, then drank. After he had eaten and drunk, he went and measured out for him oil to fill an order for ten thousand talents’ worth. … This serves to illustrate the verse: “There is one who pretends to be rich but has nothing, there is one who pretends to be poor and has much wealth” (Prov. 13:7).

The story aims at Prov. 13:7 but is attached to the cited verse of Scripture because it illustrates the abundance of oil to which Scripture makes reference.

206

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

As in Sifra and Sifré to Numbers, so here, these rare, authentic narratives have no bearing on the exegetical program of the compilers. When document’s own framers found a need for narrative, they preferred the exegetical parable to clarify their point, as we shall now see. II. The Mashal In Sifré to Deuteronomy I find no Halakhic parables and forty-five exegetical ones. Given the Halakhic heart of Deuteronomy, formed by Chapters 12 through 26, and the systematic reading of those formidable chapters by Sifré to Deuteronomy’s exegetes, that complete disinterest in the Halakhic parable is surprising, especially in contrast with the massive use of parables for exegetical purposes. A. The Halakhic Parable: — B. The Exegetical Parable In this document the exegetical parable by its sheer predominance enjoys a unique standing among narratives and pseudo-narratives. What the documentary hypothesis needs to know about the exegetical parable is, is it generated by the exegetical task, particular to the documentary setting? Or do the exegetical parables, independent of their setting but adapted to its requirements, give evidence of deriving from a corpus of similes available for a variety of purposes and suitable for adaptation in diverse contexts but particular to none of those contexts? To explain: in the context of the documentary hypothesis, the answers to these question pertain to a considerable problem, fully spelled out and requiring only the briefest of recapitulations. It is, in the form of a question, do the exegetical parables respond to the documentary program, even though they ignore the documentary conventions of logic, topic, and rhetoric that otherwise prevail, or are those parables adventitious, adapted from a free-standing corpus of writing unaffected by documentary predilections? As before, we shall see that many, though not all, of the parables respond to the distinctive exegetical task at hand, and our friends, the king/ queen/prince/ally on their own stand for nothing. Their persons, relationships, and transactions derive from the exegetical setting at

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

207

hand. Only in the intersection with a particular verse of Deuteronomy do they take on specificity and become cogent as parables. It is a reciprocal process: the persons, relationships, and transactions depicted in the realized parables track those of the verse subject to clarification, and the parables reverse course and impart sense and meaning to their context as well. All of these allegations animate the summary-discussion that follows. As before, I underscore the parabolic material, the simile itself, which affords perspective on the classification of the parable: particular to the exegetical task—or adapted thereto, as the case may be. It remains to note that there is, in addition, one parable that falls into neither classification, treated in rubric C at the end. 1.

I:IX.1. “And Dizahab” (Dt. 1:1): Since the place name means, “of gold,” what he was saying to them was this: “Lo, everything you did is forgiven. But the deed concerning the golden calf is worst of them all.” R. Judah would say, “There is a parable. To what may the case be compared? To one who made a lot of trouble for his fellow. In the end he added yet another. He said to him, ‘Lo, everything you did is forgiven. But this is the worst of them all.’ So said the Omnipresent to Israel, ‘Lo, everything you did is forgiven. But the deed concerning the golden calf is worst of them all.’”

The parable, underlined, replicates the lesson that follows, and is shaped for that purpose. It is difficult to see any other, and there are no marks of adaptation of a preexisting story to the purpose at hand.

2.

I:X.1. R. Simeon says, “There is a parable. To what may the case of Israel’s making the calf of gold be compared? To one who extended hospitality to sages and their disciples, and everyone praised him. Gentiles came, and he extended hospitality to them. Muggers came and he extended hospitality to them. People said, ‘That is so-and-so’s nature—to extend hospitality indiscriminately to anyone at all.’ So did Moses say to Israel, ‘Di zahab, meaning, enough gold, yields the sense, There is enough gold for the tabernacle, enough gold also for the calf!’

The parable compares promiscuous hospitality, for the deserving and the undeserving, to the promiscuous use of gold. It effectively serves the exegetical task articulated at the end. Whether it is particular to that task is not self-evident, but that it is shaped for it is clear.

3. III:I,1. “On the first day of the eleventh month of the fortieth year, after the defeat of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon,

208

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

and the defeat at Edrei of Og, king of Bashan, who ruled in Ashtaroth, Moses repeated to the Israelites all the commands that the Lord had given him for them” (Dt. 1:3-4): The matter may be compared to the case of a king who, with his troops, went out into the field. His troops said to him, “Give us hot white bread.” He said to them, “I’ll provide it.” Again his troops said to him, “Give us hot white bread.” His second in command said to them, “It is because the king is able that he can do it. Where do you think he got grindstones to grind the flour, where do you think he got an oven out here in the field! But he did provide! So you need not make demands any more.” So did Moses say, “If I admonish Israel first, they will then accuse me, ‘It is because he has not got the strength to bring us into the land and to overthrow Sihon and Og before us that he is admonishing us as an excuse for his own incapacities.’” But he did not do it that way. Rather, after he had brought them into the Land and overthrown Sihon and Og before them, then and only then he admonished them. On that account it is said, “... after the defeat of Sihon.”

Moses admonishes Israel only after God has established his credentials. The parable is adapted to that purpose, but the “where do you think he got grindstones” introduces an issue that is resolved only by the language in square brackets. So here is a parable that does not precisely match its case.

4. VIII:I. 1. “Go, enter the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to assign to them and to their offspring after them” (Dt. 1:6-8): Why does Scripture then add, “to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”? As to the matter of an oath taken to the patriarchs, lo, Scripture in any event states, “The oaths proclaimed to the tribes” (Hab. 3:9). Why then add here, “to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”? It is so as to indicate that Abraham on his own would have been worthy of gaining the land for Israel through his merit, so too Isaac, so too Jacob. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who gave his servant a field as a gift. He gave it to him just as is. The slave went and improved the field, and he said, “What I have was handed over to me only as is.” The servant then went and planted a vineyard and said, “What I have was handed over to me only as is.” Each of the patriarchs is mentioned individually, because, in like manner, each improved the land on his own. So when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the land to our father Abraham, he gave it to him just as is, as it is said, “Go, walk through the land, its length and breadth, for I give it to you” (Gen. 13:17). Abraham went and improved it, as it is said, “He planted a tamarisk in Beer Sheva” (Gen. 21:33). Isaac went and improved it, as it is said, “Isaac sewed in that land and produced in that year a hundredfold” (Gen. 26:12). Jacob went and improved it, as it is said, “And he bought the parcel of ground” (Gen. 33:19).

The parable clearly responds to its exegetical task, which is

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

209

articulated at the end only after the parable has prepared the way. No detail is superfluous to the exegetical work, so the match is exact. We shall see cases in which details of the parable are asymmetrical to the exegetical task and its resolution, so the judgment is by no means impressionistic. Where the match leaves nothing out, there the parable tracks the exegetical assignment point by point. 5. XI:I. 1. “...May the Lord, the God of your fathers, increase your numbers a thousandfold and bless you as he promised you.—How can I bear unaided the trouble of you, and the burden, and the bickering! Pick from each of your tribes men who are wise, discerning, and experienced, and I will appoint them as your heads” (Dt. 1:9-13): They said to him, “Our lord, Moses, You cannot bestow such a paltry blessing on us. The Omnipresent promised Abraham, our father, ‘I shall certainly bless you, and I shall certainly multiply your seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand on the seashore’ (Gen. 22:17). That is many times greater than a mere thousandfold. Accordingly, you set a limit to the blessing that is coming to us.” The matter may be compared to the case of a king who had great wealth. He had a young son and had to go overseas. He said, “If I leave my wealth in the hands of my son, he will go and squander it. Lo, I shall appoint a guardian for him until he comes of age.” When the son came of age, he said to the guardian, “Give me the silver and gold that my father left in your guardianship.” The guardian gave him a share of what was coming, sufficient to provide for his needs. The son began to complain, saying to him, “Lo, all the silver and gold that father left in your trust!” He said to him, “Whatever I gave you I provided out of my own property alone. But as to what your father left you, it is in safe-keeping.” So Moses said to Israel, “‘May the Lord, the God of your fathers, increase your numbers a thousandfold.’ That is what is coming on my account. ‘... and bless you as he promised you...’ in such multitudes as the sand on the seashore, the grass in the field, the fish in the sea, and the stars in the heaven.”

The stages in the parable do not exactly match the exegetical context. The parable has the king entrust the funds to the trustee lest the son squander the inheritance. That is the first component. Then the son demands the whole, and the guardian gave a share. That is the second component. When the son complained, the guardian answered, what I gave you is of my own funds, what your father left is in safe-keeping. That is not prepared for by the opening component of the parable, but it is made necessary by its exegetical context. So a freestanding parable appears here to have been adapted for the

210

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

exegetical task. The king/trustee/spend-thrift, churlish son represent a free-standing narrative, inviting exegetical tasks beyond the present case. 6. XIX:II.1. “I said to you, ‘You have come to the hill country of the Amorites which the Lord our God is giving to us. See, the Lord your God has placed the land at your disposal. Go up, take possession, as the Lord, the God of your fathers promised you. Fear not and be not dismayed’” (Dt. 1:19-21): “You have come to the hill country of the Amorites which the Lord our God is giving to us:” The matter may be compared to the case of a king, who handed his son over to a teacher. The teacher would take the boy about and show him, saying to him, “All of these vineyards are yours, all of these olive groves are yours.” When he got tired of showing him around, he said to him, “Everything you see is yours.” So for all those forty years that the Israelites were in the wilderness, Moses would say to him, “Lo, the Lord your God is bringing you to a good land, a land of streams of water, of fountains and depths, that spring forth in valleys and hills” (Dt. 8:7). When the came to the land, he said to them, “You have come to the hill country of the Amorites which the Lord our God is giving to us.”

The only point that the parable accommodates is the point of the exegetical task: Moses generalizes on the whole.

7. ‘XXI:I.1. “I approved of the plan and so I selected twelve of your men, one from each tribe. They made for the hill country, came to the wadi Eshcol, and spied it out. They took some of the fruit of the land with them and bright it down to us. And they gave us this report, ‘It is a good land that the Lord our God is giving to us’” (Dt. 1:22-25): “I approved of the plan,” but the Omnipresent did not. But if he approved the plan, then why was it written along with the words of admonition? The matter may be compared to the case of someone who said to his fellow, “Sell me your ass.” The other said, “All right.” “Will you let me try it out?” “All right. Come along, and I’ll show you how much it can carry in the hills, how much it can carry in the valley.” When the purchaser saw that there was nothing standing in the way, he said, “Woe is me! It appears that the reason he is so obliging is to take away my money.” That is why it is written, “I approved of the plan.”

I do not see how the parable resolves the tension: Moses approved, God did not. Then who is the obliging vendor of the ass, and who the purchaser? Moses surely is the vendor, obliging as he was, and then God is the suspicious buyer, who sees into the plot. What is needed here is some further detail, some clarification of the outcome. A free-standing parable on the interplay of obliging vendor and suspicious buyer can serve a variety of purposes, not only the one at hand.

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

211

But that is only a guess, in the face of a somewhat puzzling parabolic case. 8. XXVI:III,1. “... at that time, saying:” The matter may be compared to citizens of a city who wanted the king to make their city a colony. Once he had two enemies, who fell at his hand. The citizens thought, “Now is the time to ask the king to make our city a colony.” So Moses wanted the Holy One, blessed be He, to let him enter the land. When he saw that Sihon and Og had fallen before him, he said, “Lo, the time is ripe for me to ask the Holy One, blessed be He, to let me enter the land.” That is the sense of the statement, “...at that time.”

Here is a parable that exactly matches the exegetical task at hand: the king who was in a victorious, generous mood is the king from whom to ask a favor.

9. XXVIII:I,1. “Let me, I pray, cross over and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan, that good hill country, and the Lebanon” (Dt. 4:23-29): Is it really possible that Moses should have beseeched from the Omnipresent to enter the land? Has it not been stated, “For you shall not cross this Jordan river” (2):27)? The matter may be compared to a king who had two servants, and he made a decree that one of them not drink wine for thirty days. The servant said, “Now that he has made a decree in my regard not to drink wine for thirty days, I shall not even taste it for an entire year, even for two years.” Why did he do this? So as to treat as a bagatelle his master’s decree saying how little it meant to him. The king went and he made a decree that the other of them not drink wine for thirty days. He said, “It is not possible go without drinking wine even for a single hour.” Why did he do this? So as to express his love for his master’s rulings. So too in the case of Moses, he wanted to express his love for the rulings of the Omnipresent and so pleaded with him to enter the land. That is why it is said, ““Let me, I pray, cross over.”

It would be difficult to find a more precise amplification of Moses’s message in the exegetical situation at hand than is captured by the story of the two servants of the king. Here is a fine example of a well-articulated, fully realized parable that responds to the particulars of an exegetical challenge.

10. XXIX:IV,1. “‘Look at it well, for you shall not go across yonder Jordan. Give Joshua his instructions and imbue him with strength and courage, for he shall go across at the head of this people, and he shall allot to them the land that you may only see.’ Meanwhile we stayed on in the valley near Beth-peor” (Dt. 4:23-29): The matter may be compared to the case of a king who made a decree that his son not enter his bedroom. The son went into the gate of the palace, and the king received him and spoke with him. He came into the entry of the re-

212

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

ception room, and the king welcomed him and spoke with him. But when he came to enter the bed-chamber, he said to him, “From this point onward, you are forbidden to enter.” So Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He, “All I want out of the land of Israel is only the width of the Jordan River over there, an area of fifty cubits.” He said to him, “Look at it well, for you shall not go across yonder Jordan.”

Outside of the exegetical context articulated at “So Moses said...” in response to Dt. 4:23f., the parable yields no obvious message and corresponds to no situation beyond the one defined by Scripture. And that is so even though the parable unfolds in a series of actions, went… received... spoke with him...; these actions do not change the picture of a story constructed to realize the very terms of the proposition attached to the base-verse: “All I want...,” “You shall not cross....”

11. XXXVI:IV.1. “... and on your gates” (Dt. 6:4-9): The mark that Israelites are precious to God is that Scripture has encompassed them with religious duties that sanctify them: phylacteries on head and arm, mezuzot on their doors, show-fringes on their garments. The matter may be compared to the case of a mortal king who said to his wife, “Now go and put on all your ornaments, so that you’ll be desirable to me.” So said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel, “My children, make yourselves distinguished through religious duties, so that you’ll be desirable to me.” And so Scripture says, “You are beautiful O my love as Tirsah” (Song. 6:4).

The parable is truncated and goes no where on its own. But in the context of the exegetical framework, where God tells the Israelites that in donning their prayer apparel, they become desirable to him, the parable takes on precise meaning. It emerges then as a product of the exegetical process, not deriving from a corpus of similes awaiting adaptation in that process.

12. XXXVII:I.6. And so you find in the case of Sennacherib, when he came to entice Israel, what did he say to them? R. Simeon b. Yohai says, “That one was a fool, and he did not know how to entice people. The matter may be compared to the case of someone who went to propose to a woman. He said to her, ‘Your father is a king and I am a king. Your father is rich and I am rich. Your father gives you meat and fish to eat and vintage wine to drink, and I shall give you meat and fish to eat and vintage wine to drink.’ That is not really much of a come-on. What should he have said? ‘Your father is a commoner, but I am a king. Your father is poor, but I am rich. Your father gives

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

213

you vegetables and pulse to eat, but I shall feed you meat and fish. Your father gives you new wine to drink, but I shall give you vintage wine. Your father takes you to the bathhouse by foot, but I shall take you in a palanquin.’”

The parable makes its point with great clarity, in line with Simeon b. Yohai’s observation, one has to know how to produce an effective enticement. But then the simile is particular to the issue and involves no very complex construction.

13. XXXVIII:I. 1. “For the land that you are about to enter and possess is not like the land of Egypt from which you have come. There the grain you sowed had to be watered by your own labors, like a vegetable garden; but the land you are about to cross into and possess, a land of hills and valleys, soaks up its water from the rains of heaven. It is a land which the Lord your God looks after, on which the Lord your God always keeps his eye, from year’s beginning to year’s end” (Dt. 11:10-12): The matter may be compared to the case of a king who was on the way and saw a son of distinguished parents and handed a slave over to him to serve him. Again he saw another son of distinguished parents, nicely garbed and scented, but hard at physical labor, whom the king knew, whose parents he knew. He said, “I decree that I will personally take care of him and provide his food. So all lands were given servants to tend them: Egypt drinks from the Nile, Babylonia from the two rivers. But the land of Israel is not that way. But people sleep in bed, and the Omnipresent brings rain down for them.

God responds to Israel’s ancestry—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—by personally tending to their needs. What is interesting is, the same narrative, providing a son of distinguished parents with a servant appropriate to his status, unfolds with reference to the following: CXVI:V.1. “… lend him sufficient for whatever he needs:” “Whatever he needs:” even a horse, even a slave. There is the precedent [Ma#aseh] involving Hillel the Elder, who gave a poor man, son of a good family, a horse with which to work, and a slave to serve him.

All that shifts is the move from the king to Hillel the Elder; otherwise the stories duplicate the main point. The parable then strikes me as particular to its exegetical case. 14. XLIII:VIII.1. If you do this, then “the Lord’s anger will flare up against you:” The matter may be compared to the case of a king who was sending his son to a banquet. He sat down and instructed him, saying to him, “My son, do not eat more than you need to. Do not drink more than you need to. In that way you will come home clean.” The son

214

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

paid no attention to him. He ate more than he needed to, drank more than he needed to, and he threw up and dirtied all of the other guests They took him by his hands and legs and threw him out the back door of the palace. So said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel, “I brought you into a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to eat its produce and be sated with its goodness, and to bless my name on that account. “Since you did not endure in goodness, endure in punishment: ‘the Lord’s angerwill flare up against you.’”

The articulation of the meaning of the parable leaves no doubt of the singularity of the parable for its task, especially the detail that the disobedient son was expelled from the banquet by the other guests, comparable to Israel’s being expelled from the Land by the nations. But the guests, not the king, are the actors, and that represents a shift from the exegetical setting.

15. XLIII:XV.1 Another matter concerning, “… and you will soon perish from the good land that the Lord is assigning to you” (Dt. 11:1317): R. Joshua b. Qorhah says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a robber who invaded the field of a householder. He cut down his heap of grain, but the householder did not pay attention. He cut down standing corn, and the householder did not pay attention. And so matters proceeded until the robber had heaped up his basket and gone his way. 16. XLIII:XVI.1. Another teaching concerning the verse, “… and you will soon perish from the good land that the Lord is assigning to you” (Dt. 11:13-17): God says, “Even though I shall exile you from the land to overseas, keep yourself distinguished from other nations through performing the religious duties, so that when you return, performing the religious duties will not prove new to you.” The matter may be compared to the case of a mortal king who grew angry with his wife and drove her back to the house of her father. He said to her, “Keep yourself adorned with your jewelry, so that when you come back, they will not prove new to you.” So said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel, “My children, keep yourself distinguished from other nations through performing the religious duties, so that when you return, performing the religious duties will not prove new to you.”

The two parables address the base-verse each in its own framework. The first, XLIII:XV.1, concerns not paying heed to ominous events. The Israelites then paid no attention as they were progressively penalized. But how the conclusion matches (“until the robber... had gone his way”) is unclear to me. The second, XLIII:XVI.1, by contrast, matches the parable to the exegetical setting, and does so with precision. It takes account of the Scriptural narrative, providing for the

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

215

return of the wife to the king, the people to the Land. So the simile exactly matches and invokes the base-narrative, not only the immediate situation and transaction. My sense is, the first of the two parables is not particular to the setting, the second is. 17. XLV:I.1. “Therefore impress these my words upon your very heart; bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead; and teach them to your children, reciting them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up, and inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates, to the end that you and your children may endure in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers to assign to them, as long as there is a heaven over the earth” (Dt. 11:18-21): This use of the word “impress,” which can be read to sound like “medicine, ointment” indicates that words of Torah are compared to a life-giving medicine. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who grew angry with his son and gave him a severe blow, but then put a salve on the wound and said to him, “My son, so long as this bandage is on the wound, eat whatever you like, drink whatever you like, and wash in either warm or old water, and nothing will do you injury. But if you remove the bandage, the sore will immediately begin to produce ulcers.” So the Holy One, blessed be he, said to Israel, “My children, I have created in you an impulse to do evil, than which nothing is more evil. “‘Sin couches at the door and to you is its desire’ (Gen. 4:7).” “Keep yourselves occupied with teachings of the Torah, and sin will not control you “But if you leave off studying words of the Torah, lo, it will control you, as it is said, ‘ and to you is its desire’ (Gen. 4:7). “All of its undertakings concern you. But if you want, you will control it, as it is said, ‘But you may rule over it’ (Gen. 4:7).”

It would be difficult to find a parable more responsive to its exegetical task than this one, each component of which matches the base-verse that is amplified, Gen. 4:7.

18. XLVIII:I.3. R. Ishmael says, “‘Only watch out and keep your soul diligently’ (Dt. 4:9)—“The matter may be compared to a mortal king who caught a bird and handed it over to his servant, saying to him, ‘Keep this bird for my son. If you lose it, do not think that you have lost a bird worth a penny, but it is tantamount to your life that you will have lost.’ So Scripture says, “For it is no vain thing for you, because of it is your very life’ (Dt. 32:47). Something that you say is vain in fact is your very life.”

The soul is like the bird, the Israelite is like the king’s servant, and the rest follows. The base-verse, “it is no vain thing” triggers that detail of the parable, “Do not think…,” a mark of the particularity of the parable to its exegetical task.

216

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

19. XLVIII:I.4. R. Simeon b. Yohai says, “The matter may be compared to the case of two brothers who inherited money from their father. “One of them converted it into ready cash and consumed it, and the other converted it into ready cash and put it aside. As to the one of them who converted it into ready cash and consumed it, he turned out to have nothing in hand. But the one who converted it into ready cash and put it aside got rich after a while. So disciples of sages learn two or three things in a day, two or three chapters in a week, two or three lections in a month. Such a one turns out to get rich after a while. But the one who says, ‘Today I shall learn what I need, tomorrow I shall learn what I need, today I shall review what I need, tomorrow I shall review what I need, turns out to have nothing in hand.’ And concerning him Scripture says, ‘A wise son gathers in summer, but a son who does shamefully sleeps in harvest’ (Prov. 10:5)

The parable serves Prov. 10:5, not Dt. 4:9, but it serves that verse very exactly, stressing the slow acquisition of learning/ wealth. So while redactionally out of phase with its context, it is an exegetical parable in origin.

20. LIII:I.1. “See, this day I set before you blessing and curse: blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I enjoin upon you this day; and curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn away from the path that I enjoin upon you this day and follow other gods” (Dt. 11:26-30): Why is this passage stated? The reason is that, since it is said, “Life and death I have placed before you, a blessing and a curse” (Dt. 30:19), perhaps the Israelites might say, “Since the Omnipresent has placed before us two ways, the way of life and the way of death, let us go in whichever way we choose.” Accordingly, Scripture says, “Choose life” (Dt. 30:19). The matter may be compared to someone sitting at a crossroads. Before him were two paths. One of them began in clear ground but ended in thorns. The other began in thorns but ended in clear ground He would inform the passersby, saying to them, “You see this path, which begins in clear ground? For two or three steps you will be going in clear ground, and in the end you will be walking in thorns. And you see this path, which begins in thorns? For two or three steps you will be going in thorns, but in the end you will be walking on clear ground. So did Moses say to Israel, “You see how the wicked flourish in this world for two or three days succeeding. But in the end they will have occasion for regret.”

The base-verse stresses that Israel should choose the way of life and avoid the way of death, and has no choice. But the parable makes the point that while the wicked flourish in this world, they perish later on. So the parable is not only not particular to the exegetical task, but it ignores it.

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

217

21. LIII:I..3. R. Joshua b. Qorhah says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a king who invited guests. His friend was seated among them. The king indicated to him to take a fine helping, but the other did not grasp it. Now when he saw that the friend did not grasp, he took his hand and put it on the fine portion. So it is said, “O Lord, the portion of my inheritance and of my cup, you maintain my lot” (Ps. 16:5).

Here is a parable constructed out of the relationships and transactions of the base-verse, Ps. 16:5.

22. CCCV:Il.3 The Lord said to Moses, ‘Take for yourself Joshua, son of Nun’” (Num. 27:18): R. Nathan says, “Moses was distressed in his heart that one of his sons did not stand forth as leader. Said to him the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Why are you distressed in your heart? Is it that one of your sons has not stood forth? Now are not the sons of your brother, Aaron, tantamount to your own sons. And so too the man whom I am setting up over Israel will go and stand at the door of Eleazar the priest, Aaron’s son. To what may this be compared? To a mortal king who had a son who was not worthy of the throne. He took the throne from him and gave it to the son of his ally. He said to him, ‘Even though I have assigned greatness to you, go and stand at my son’s door. So said the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Even though I have assigned greatness to you, go and stand at the door of Eleazar.’ That is in line with this verse of Scripture: ‘And he will stand before Eleazar the priest’ (Num. 27:21).”

Joshua had to show respect to Moses’s son, just as the king’s successor had to pay respect to the hapless prince. The parable then corresponds exactly to the base-verse and translates that verse into the transaction conveyed therein.

23. CCCVI:IV.1. Another interpretation of the verse, “Give ear, O heavens, let me speak: “The matter may be compared to the case of a king who handed his son over to a teacher to sit and take care of him. Said that son, “My father was thinking that he has accomplished something by handing me over to a pedagogue. But I’ll keep watch as he eats and drinks and sleeps, and I’ll go my way and do what I need to.” Said his father to him, “For my part I have handed you over to a teacher only so that he will be one from whom you cannot escape.” So did Moses say to the Israelites, “Perhaps you’re thinking of fleeing from under the wings of God’s presence or leaving the earth.”

The prince is Israel, God is the king, but who is the pedagogue? It clearly is the heavens, always vigilant in watching Israel. So the match is exact, as Moses makes it explicit, and the exegetical parable does a fine job of articulating a message implicit in the base-verse.

218

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

24. CCCVI:VI.1. Another teaching concerning the verse, “Give ear, O heavens, let me speak:” R. Judah says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a king who had two administrators in a town. He gave over to them his property and handed his son to them and said to them, ‘So long as my son does what I want, pamper him and give him luxuries and feed him and give him drink. ‘But when he does not do what I want, let him not taste a thing of what belongs to me.’

The two administrators correspond to heaven and earth, improving on the exegetical parable by bringing it still closer to the details of the base-verse. That the parable depends on its exegetical context is clear: without the cited verse, the requirement of two administrators is unexplained. But with it, the disobedience of the son is punished by both heaven and earth.

25. CCCVI:VII.1. Another teaching concerning the verse, “Give ear, O heavens, let me speak:” R. Nehemiah says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a king who had a son. The son went bad. The king began to complain against him to his brothers, began to complain against him to his friends, began to complain against him to his neighbors, began to complain against him to his relatives. The king did not stop complaining against him until he said, “O heaven, O earth, to whom shall I complain against you, besides these?” That is in line with this verse: “Give ear, O heavens, let me speak; let the earth hear the words I utter!”

The Mashal depends on the base-verse for intelligibility. Without it, it has no narrative charge whatsoever. We have no more than an inert simile, not a dynamic parable.

26. CCCVIII:II. 1. “Is corruption his? No, his children’s is the blemish.— that crooked perverse generation—their baseness has played him false. Do you thus requite the Lord, O dull and witless people? Is not he the father who created you, fashioned you and made you endure!” (Dt. 32:4-6). In the name of Abba Hedores they have said, “The Israelites violated every negative commandment in the Torah, and all this why It was so as not to give an occasion to wicked people to say, ‘So long as we sin against him, we are pained before him.’ To what is the matter to be compared? To the case of someone who was going forth to be crucified, with his father weeping for him and his mother throwing herself before him, this one saying, ‘Woe is me,’ and that one saying, ‘Woe is me.’ So this pertains only to the one who is going forth to be crucified and not to the parents, who cry ‘woe is me’.

The focus of the parable is to stress that the sinner alone is punished, however much the parents may lament his fate. They are unblemished. The blemish belongs to the sinner,

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

219

not to God. The sinner in the end does not blemish God (“so long as we sin against him, we are pained before” = “we cause pain to…”). If that reading serves, then we have an exegetical parable. 27. CCCVIII:III.1. “… that crooked perverse generation—their baseness has played him false:” Said Moses to the Israelites, “You are a bunch of crooks, you are a bunch of perverts. You are going only into the fire.” To what may the matter be compared? To someone who had in hand a crooked staff and he gave it to a craftsman to straighten it out: “Straighten it out with fire, and if not, then flatten it with a plane, and, if not, chisel it down with a chisel and throw it into the fire.”

Moses’s message to the Israelites is, they will be punished by fire, and the parable spells out how the craftsman straightens out the crooked staff by fire—an exegetical parable that portrays a situation through an inert simile, not an unfolding and dynamic narrative.

28. CCCIX:I.1. “Do you thus requite the Lord, O dull and witless people? Is not he the father who created you, fashioned you and made you endure!” (Dt. 32:4-6). Do you thus requite the Lord:” To what may the matter be compared? To someone who went into the forum and insulted a councilor. Those who heard said to him, “Idiot! Are you going and insulting a councilor? What if he wants to beat you up or to tear your garment or imprison you? Can you beat him?” And if it were a centurion, a still more powerful figure, how much the more so, and if he were a consul, greater than both, how much the more so!

Israel had best not insult god, because he can pay them back. The exegetical parable then recapitulates the relationship, with the councilor, able to punish the insult, empowered to respond appropriately.

29. CCCIX:II.1. Another interpretation of the phrase, “Do you thus requite the Lord:” To what may the matter be compared? To someone who went into the forum and insulted his father. Those who heard it said to him, “Idiot! Whom are you standing and insulting? It is your father. Listen: how much work has he done for you, how much effort has he invested in you! If you have not honored him in the past, you have to honor him now, so that he will not write over his entire estate to others.” So did Moses say to the Israelites, “If you do not remember the miracles and acts of might which the Holy One, blessed be He, did for you in Egypt, then at least remember how many good things he is going to give you in the world to come.”

The exegetical parable tracks the two components of the

220

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

transaction, Israel insults the father, but the father has done wonders for Israel, so it is a churlish act. A signal that the parable responds to the exegesis of the base verse is the correspondence between “if you have not honored him in the past, honor him now so you will inherit…,” matched by “If you do not remember the miracles… at least remember… the world to come….” 30. CCCIX:V.1. “Is not he the father who has acquired another meaning for the letters of the word created you:” Said Moses to the Israelites, “You are precious to him, you are things he has acquired on his own, not merely what he has inherited.” The matter may be compared to the case of someone whose father left him as an inheritance ten fields. The man went and bought a field with his own means, and that field he loved more than all of the fields that his father had left him as an inheritance. And so too, there is the case of someone whose father left him as an inheritance ten palaces. The man went and bought a palace with his own means, and that palace he loved more than all of the palaces that his father had left him as an inheritance. So did Moses say to the Israelites, “You are precious to him, you are things he has acquired on his own, not merely what he has inherited.”

The man valued what he got on his own more than what his father gave him, a point made twice, corresponding to how precious Israel is to God, who brought Israel into existence and did not receive Israel by inheritance. The theology is odd, but the parable is precise and matches the task assigned to it in Moses’s saying. 31. CCCXII:I.1. “For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment:” The matter may be compared to a king who had a field, which he handed over to tenant-farmers. The tenant-farmers began to steal the produce of the field that was owing to the king, so he took it from them and handed it over to their children. The tenant farmers’ children began to conduct themselves worse than the earlier ones. He took it from their children and handed it over to the children of the children. They began to conduct themselves even worse than the earlier ones. He had a son. He said to them, “Get out of what is mine. I don’t want you in it. Give me my portion, which I may get back.” So when our father, Abraham, came into the world, chaff came forth from him, Ishmael and all the children of Keturah. When Isaac came into the world, chaff came forth from him, Esau and all the nobles of Edom They began to conduct themselves worse than the earlier ones. When Jacob came along, no chaff came forth from him. All the sons that were born to him were proper people, as it is said, “And Jacob was a perfect man, dwelling in tents” (Gen. 25:27).

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

221

The close match—the three generations, each worse than the prior—and the “So when our father…” statement of the point is violated with the third generation of Israel, namely, Jacob. That should be worst of all, but is without chaff altogether. So the parable is out of phase with its exegetical task. That is underscored by the base-verse, “Jacob his own allotment,” which the parable should realize, instead of reject. So the parable cannot be called exegetical, though on the surface, that is the intent. 32. CCCXIII:I.1. “He found him in a desert region, in an empty howling waste. He engirded him, watched over him, guarded him as the pupil of his eye. Like an eagle who rouses his nestlings, gliding down to his young, so did he spread his wings and take him, bear him along on his pinions; the Lord alone did guide him, no alien god at his side” (Dt. 32:10-12). “He found him in a desert region:” This refers to Abraham. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who went with his legions into the wilderness. His legions deserted him in a difficult situation, a place in which were marauding bands and thugs, and went their way. He appointed for himself a single hero, who said to him, “My lord, king, do not be disheartened, and do not take fright for any reason. By your life! I am not going to leave you before you walk into your own palace and sleep in your own bed.”

Abraham is the counterpart to the hero, chosen by the king to lead him home. Abraham then brings God to the palace. “He found him in the desert region” comes to exegetical fulfillment in the parable’s counterpart to Abraham, and the parable is classified as exegetical.

33. CCCXXIII:III.3. R. Hanina of Tibeon says, “There is the comparison to one who said to his fellow, ‘I am going to sell you as a slave, to be delivered at some time in the future.’ ‘God speaks: ‘But I for my part am not like that. But I sell you and I forthwith hand you over.’”

Here we have a negative parable: to what the matter is not comparable! God is not like the one who sells the fellow into slavery at some indeterminate time; he does it right away. The base verse is “… unless their rock had sold them, the Lord had given them up,” and how that is served is unclear to me; but the entire point of the parable is lost to me. All I can say is, the parable is not exegetical in the conventional sense.

34. CCCXLIII:I.1. “He said, ‘The Lord came from Sinai; he shone upon them from Seir. He appeared from Mount Paran and approached from Ribeboth-kodesh, lightning flashing at them from his right, lover, in-

222

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

deed, of the people, their hallowed are all in your hand. They followed in your steps, accepting your pronouncements, when Moses charged us with the Torah as the heritage of the congregation of Jacob. Then he became King in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people assembled, the tribes of Israel together’” (Dt. 33:2-6). “He said, ‘The Lord came from Sinai:” This indicates that, when Moses commenced, he did not commence by dealing with what Israel needed first, before commencing with words of praise for the Omnipresent. The matter may be compared to the case of a hired orator, who was standing on the platform in court, to speak in behalf of a client. He did not commence by dealing with the needs of that man first, before he commenced by praising the king: “Happy is the world because of his rule, happy is the world because of his judgment, on us shines the sun, on us shines the moon.” And others gave praise along with him. And then he opened up the matter of the needs of the person who had hired him, and then at the end, he concluded by praising the king once more. So too our lord, Moses did not commence by dealing with the needs of Israel, before he commenced by praising the Omnipresent …

The parable is constructed to correspond to the stages in Moses’s address, item by item, and is the quintessential exegetical parable.

35. CCCXLIII:IV.2 Another teaching concerning the phrase, “He said, ‘The Lord came from Sinai:’” The matter may be compared to the case of a person who sent his ass and dog to the threshing floor and loaded up a letekh of grain on his ass and three seahs of grain on his dog. The ass went along, while the dog panted. He took a seah of grain off the dog and put it on the ass, so with the second, so with the third. Thus was Israel: they accepted the Torah, complete with all its secondary amplifications and minor details, even the seven religious duties that the children of Noah could not uphold without breaking them did the Israelites come along and accept.

The parable serves the authentic narrative of CCCXLIII:IV.1, which explains why the nations rejected the Torah. They could not bear its burdens. But Israel could and did. That is the explicit meaning of the parable, which is then subordinate in context to the narrative, and which has no meaning outside of that narrative’s issue.

36. CCCXLIII:V.1. Another teaching concerning the phrase, “He said, ‘The Lord came from Sinai; he shone upon them from Seir’:” When the Holy One, blessed be He, proceeds to exact punishment from Seir, he is destined to shake the entire world with its inhabitants, just as he shook it when he gave the Torah. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who wanted to give a gift to one of his sons, and the king was afraid on account of the consequent envy of his brothers and

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

223

allies, and on account of his relatives. What did the son do? He went and dressed up and fixed his hair. The king said to him, “To you I am giving a gift having made yourself worthy of it.” So when our father, Abraham, came into the world, chaff came forth from him, Ishmael and the sons of Keturah. They turned out worse than the first, and when Isaac came along chaff came forth from him, Esau and all the dukes of Edom, who turned out to be still worse than the earlier ones But when Jacob came along, no chaff come forth from him, but all his sons were born flawless, in line with this verse: “And Jacob was a flawless man, dwelling in tents” (Gen. 25:27). Said to him the Holy One, blessed be He, “To you I am going to give the Torah.”

Once more, the task of the parable is to explain why Israel. The parable explains why Israel got the Torah, not why it is punished first, and that is because it made itself worthy of receiving the gift. Then the application of the parable reverts to the progeny of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with Jacob the perfect one. That is not an ideal setting for the realization of the parable, since it answers the question, why Israel/Jacob, not Isaac, not Abraham, and that is not the issue of “Why did God reject the nations and give the Torah only to Israel?” What we have then is an imperfect realization of the exegetical parable.

37. CCCXLIII:III. 1 “… when Moses charged us with the Torah as the heritage of the congregation of Jacob:” There is a parable. To what may the matter be compared? To the case of a prince who was taken overseas as a captive when he was a child. If he wanted to return, even after a hundred years, he would not be ashamed to come back, for he says, “It is to my heritage that I am coming home.” So a disciple of a sage who separated from words of Torah and went off to other matters, if he wanted to come back, even after a hundred years, he would not be ashamed to come back, for he says, “It is to my heritage that I am coming home.”

The Torah is Israel’s heritage, so the cited verse. But here what is at issue is a disciple of a sage who has left Torahstudy. He wishes to come back. That is his heritage. The kidnapped prince then is modeled after the disciple, and the parable responds to the exegetical task as devised by the exegete who has imputed to the base-verse the stated meaning.

38. CCCXLVII:I.1 “Then he became King in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people assembled, the tribes of Israel together” (Dt. 33:2-6). “May Reuben live and not die, though few be his numbers” (Dt. 33:6). And this he said of Judah: Hear, O Lord, the voice of Judah and restore

224

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

him to his people. Though his own hands strive for him, help him against his foes” (Dt. 33:7). “… the tribes of Israel together. May Reuben live and not die:” What has one thing to do with the other The matter may be compared to the case of a king who came to his children from time to time. When he would leave his children, his children and relatives would accompany him. He said to them, “My children, perhaps you have need to say something, perhaps you have something in mind? Tell me.” They said to him, “Father, we need nothing, and we have nothing that we want, except for you to become reconciled with our eldest brother.” So were it not for the other tribal founders, the Omnipresent would not have become reconciled with Reuben. That is why it is said: “… the tribes of Israel together. May Reuben live and not die.”

The parable captures the point that the exegete (“So were it not for the other…”) wishes to attach to the base verse. It is particular to its exegetical task.

39. CCCXLIX:I.1. “And of Levi he said:” Why is this stated concerning Levi in particular? Since Simeon and Levi both drank from a single cup, as it is said, “Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath, for it was cruel; I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel” (Gen. 49:7). The matter may be compared to the case of two who borrowed money from the king. One of them paid the king back and then went and lent the king money. But as to the other, it was not enough that he did not pay the king back, but he went and borrowed more. So Simeon and Levi both borrowed at Shechem [by committing murder taking and squandering some of the merit that their ancestors and they had stored up], as the following verse says: “Two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword and came upon the city unaware and slew all the males” (Gen. 34:25). In the wilderness Levi paid back what he had borrowed [of the prior merit]: “Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, ‘Whoever is on the Lord’s side, let him come to me.’ And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him. And he said to them, ‘Thus says the Lord, God of Israel: Put on everyone his sword upon his thigh....’ And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses” (Ex. 32:26-28). Then at Shittim he went and lent to the Omnipresent: “Phineas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, for he was very jealous for my sake among them, so I did not consume the children of Israel in my jealousy” (Num. 25:11). As to Simeon, it was not enough that he did not pay back [what he had borrowed at Shechem], but he went and borrowed more: “Now the name of the man of Israel that was slain, who was killed with the Midianite woman, was Zimri son of Salu, a prince of a father’s house among the Simeonites” (Num. 25:14).

I cite the entire apodosis of the parable, “So Simeon and Levi

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

225

both borrowed…,” to show how carefully the parable tracks the relationship and transaction that is subject to exegesis. It would be difficult to find a parable that derives more decisively from its exegetical task than the one before us here. 40. CCCLII:VI.4. Another teaching concerning the question, on what account did Benjamin enjoy the merit of having the Presence of God come to rest in his territory? The matter may be compared to the case of a king who had many children. When they grew up, each one of them went and found a place for himself. But the youngest of them was especially beloved of his father. The king would eat and drink with him, leaning on him when he went out and when he came in. So Benjamin, who was righteous, was the youngest of the tribal ancestors, and his father, Jacob, would eat and drink with him, leaning on him when he went out and when he came in. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, “In the place in which this righteous man laid his hands, I shall bring my Presence to rest: ‘as he rests between his shoulders.’”

The case required by the cited verse is stated in abstract language, king/prince, by the exegetical parable, which can clarify only the case at hand or a comparable one with other names but with no different relationship or transaction.

41. CCCLII:VII.1. And on what account did Benjamin enjoy the merit of having the Presence of God come to rest in his territory? The matter may be compared to the case of a king who from time to time came to visit his children, and each one would say, “Let him abide with me.” The youngest of them all said, “Is it possible that father will ever neglect my elder brothers and abide with me? His face fell, and he was disheartened The king said, “Have you seen my youngest son, looking downcast and disheartened? Now the food and drink will come from you others, but my lodging will be with him.” So the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “The chosen house will be in the property of Benjamin, but the offerings will derive from all of the tribes equally.”

What was stated of the foregoing applies here: the parable responds to the case. The fact that two or more parables can be invented for the same case does not change the fact that the several parables track the case with great precision. Where that is not so, we readily perceive it.

42. CCCLV:XVII.1. “O Jeshurun, there is none like God, riding through the heavens to help you, through the skies in his majesty.”… through the skies in his majesty:” All the Israelites gathered before Moses and said to him, “Our lord, Moses, tell us: what is the measure of honor paid to God on high?” He said to them, “On the basis of the lower heavens you may know the measure of honor paid to God on high.” There is a parable. To what may the matter be likened? It may be

226

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

compared to someone who said, “I want to witness the honor paid to the king. They said to him, “Go to a town and you will see it.” He went and saw a veil spread over the gate of the town, with precious stones and pearls set in it, and he could not take his eyes off it, until he stumbled.” They said to him, “If you could not take your eyes off the veil spread over the gate of the town, with precious stones and pearls set in it without stumbling, had you actually entered the town, how much the more so!” On that account it is said, “… through the skies in his majesty.”

The base-verse, “Through the skies in his majesty,” is what is explained by the colloquy between Moses and the Israelites. The point of the exegete is, what you can see merely adumbrates the true glory, and that is the climax of the parable. In many ways this item embodies the traits of the exegetical parable, fully realized.

43. CCCLVI:IV.2 “O happy Israel! Who is like you, a people delivered by the Lord, your protecting shield, your sword triumphant? Your enemies shall come cringing before you and you shall tread on their backs:” “O happy Israel:” All the Israelites gathered before Moses, saying to him, “Our lord, Moses, tell us what good the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to give us in the age to come.” He said to them, “I do not know what to say to you? Happy are you for what is ready for you.” The matter may be compared to the case of a man who handed his son over to a teacher, who would take him about and show things to him and say to him, “All these trees are yours, all these vines are yours, all these olive trees are yours.” When he got tired of showing him things, he said to him, “I do not know what [more] to say to you? Happy are you for what is ready for you.” Thus said Moses to Israel, “I do not know what to say to you? Happy are you for what is ready for you: O how abundant is your goodness, which you have laid up for those who fear you’ (Ps. 31:20).”

Here is a parable that intersects with, but does not track, the exegetical problem. Moses does not show the people what is coming to them, in the way in which the pedagogue does, so the opening sequence of the parable has no counterpart in the situation it is meant to illuminate. Absent a counterpart to the parable’s “when he got tired of showing him things…,” we have only an approximation of the exegetical task. It may seem like a minor variation between the object of the parabolic simile and the parable, but we have seen so many instances of a precise match that it is a striking difference nonetheless.

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

227

44. CCCLVII:XI. 2. “… at the command of the Lord:” When the Omnipresent takes the souls of the righteous, it is in a spirit of serenity that he takes them. There is an analogy: to what may the matter be compared? To a reliable person who was in a town, with whom everyone deposited their bailments for safe-keeping. When one of them would come to retrieve his property, the reliable man would produce and hand over the object, since he knew precisely where it was. And if the owner had occasion to send for a bailment with his son or slave or agent, he would have to turn things topsy-turvy, for he did not know where things were. Thus when the Omnipresent takes the souls of the righteous, it is in a spirit of serenity that he takes them. But when he takes the souls of the wicked, he hands them over to evil messengers, merciless messengers, who are to drag away those souls. And so Scripture says, “Therefore a cruel angel shall be sent against him” (Prov. 17:11).

I have already explained why the parable does not track the exegetical task defined by “When he takes the souls of the righteous, it is in a spirit of serenity….” Here is a classic case of an off-the-rack parable serving a specific exegetical task only through adaptation, which is not successful.

45. CCCLVII:XVIII.1. “There has never yet risen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face; remember all the signs and portents which the Lord sent him to show in Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and the whole land; remember the strong hand of Moses and the terrible deeds which he did in the sight of all Israel” (Dt. 34:1013). “There has never yet risen in Israel a prophet like Moses:” In Israel none arose, but among the nations, one did arise. Who is that? It is Balaam son of Beor. But there is quite a difference between the prophecy of Moses and the prophecy of Balaam. “of God” (Num. 24:16). Moses did not know when God would speak with him, until he actually was spoken with, while Balaam knew full well exactly when he would be spoken with. For it is said, “And knows the knowledge of the Most High” (Num. 24:16). Moses would speak with God only standing up, as it is said, “And you, stand here with me” (Dt. 5:28). But Balaam was spoken with when he had fallen, as it is said, “Who sees the vision of the Almighty, having fallen down with open eyes” (Num. 24:4). To what is the matter comparable? To the case of the king’s butcher, who knows precisely how much the king is spending on his table.

The parable performs the generalized task of comparing Moses to Balaam as prophets; the former knows the most intimate details, the latter not. I do not see which of the particular exercises of comparison is served by the simile, which strikes me as bearing general utility.

228

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

We may now summarize the results of the foregoing exercise, following the pattern established in the prior summary-chapters: Halakhic Parables of Sifré to Deuteronomy Parable particular to its Halakhic setting: — Parable not particular to its Halakhic setting: — Exegetical Parables of Sifré to Deuteronomy () = ambiguous case Parable particular to its exegetical setting: 1, (2), 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, (14), (15), 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, (2)6), 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, Parable not particular to its exegetical setting: 3, 5, 7, 20, 31, 33, 43, 44, 45

We find, then, nine parables not generated by the particular exegetical task at hand, not systematically replicating the situation or transaction predicated upon the base-verse and demanded by the exegesis thereof. And there are thirty-six instances (counting three ambiguous items) in which the parable is particular to its exegetical task, tracking the case that is generalized by the simile, commonly but not invariably narrative in execution. C. The Non-Exegetical Parable We find one parable that does not fit the categories employed to this point, Halakhic or exegetical: CCCVI:XXIV 1. Another teaching concerning the phrase, “May my discourse come down as the rain, my speech distill as the dew, like showers on young growths, like droplets on the grass:” R. Meir would say, “One should also collect teachings of the Torah in the form of encompassing principles, for if you collect them solely as details, they will exhaust you and in the end you will not know what to do anyhow. “The matter may be compared to the case of someone who went to Caesarea and needed a hundred or two hundred zuz for the trip. If he took the money as change, the coins would tire him out and he would not know what to do. But if he put them together and brought sela-coins with him, and then paid them out one by one wherever he wanted, then he could manage. So too, someone who goes to Bet Ilias to the market and needed a hundred manehs or even two myriads for the expense of the trip. If he took the money as selas, the coins would tire him out and he would not know what to do. But if he turned them into denars of gold and then paid them out in change as he needed, he would be all right.”

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

229

The parable’s purpose is neither to clarify the cited verse nor to illuminate a Halakhic norm. It is, rather, to set forth counsel to disciples of sages: emphasize the governing principle, let the details take care of themselves. The anomaly is marked, also, by the failure to include instruction on how the parable pertains, there being no reversion to the principle that is exemplified in the pseudo-narrative. I do not know what to make of this singleton, which is formally odd as well. The “so too” clause duplicates and does not bring to resolution the initial parable. I also do not know how to assess the relationship of the parable to the case to which it supplies a generalizing simile. The need to turn small change into coinage of higher value and less weight surely serves a variety of situations, not only the requirements of collecting and arranging Torah-teachings. So, in all, I cannot classify the item. The upshot is self-evident: to the compilers of Sifré to Deuteronomy, the exegetical parable presented a fine medium to advance the work of clarifying the messages of the book of Deuteronomy, and three-fourths of all the parables identified as such (“to what is the matter likened?”) are devoted to that one task. If a sizable corpus of parabolic narratives independent of a particular transaction or situation circulated, we cannot identify much of its contents. The parabolic conventions that transcend the particular exegetical cases before us generally involve the king/prince/ally/queen, in various commonplace relationships, but rarely can we reconstruct a considerable narrative account of those relationships. Once we have our king/prince/ally or queen, what happens to them or what they say or do generally proves fragmentary and not very illuminating. The lesson they embody turns out, even in the parables not particular to the exegetical setting, to emerge primarily within the exegetical setting for the purposes of which they have been adapted. III. The Ma#aseh The Ma#aseh in Sifré to Deuteronomy takes on traits unfamiliar in its counterparts in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Sifra (not to mention Sifré to Numbers!). In the Mishnah and the Tosefta, the marker, Ma#aseh, signals a Halakhic precedent or case. Of the narratives and pseudo-narratives of the Mishnah, 80% are Ma#asim, and of these, most are Halakhic Ma#asim: cases or precedents. Given the charac-

230

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

ter of the Mishnah that is a predictable outcome. The Tosefta follows suit, with Ma#asim forming just under 80% of its narrative or pseudo-narrative corpus. The majority of Sifra’s counterparts follow suit, but the tiny corpus of Ma#asim encompasses incidents or situations bearing no particular, Halakhic charge, e.g., Eliezer’s prediction of the student’s imminent demise, and the crops in the time of Simeon b. Shatah. In Sifré to Numbers I found not a single Halakhic Ma#aseh, and the matched triplet of Ma#asim that I did find produced a pattern—situation/transaction/outcome—that I could not link to any exegetical problem or plan, other than that defined by the narrative context. Here again, the marker, Ma#aseh, bears no fixed signals as to the task or plan of the narrative that follows. We shall now see the emergence of a type of Ma#aseh we have not found in a prior document, the exegetical Ma#aseh, comparable to the exegetical Mashal. By that characterization I mean, the focus of the Ma#aseh is on the interpretation of a verse of Scripture, not on the realization of a Halakhic norm, or on the provision of a case for analysis. Most of the Ma#asim of Sifré to Deuteronomy are exegetical in the simple sense that they illustrate or clarify the meaning of a verse of Scripture; they bear no autonomous standing outside of that exegetical task. That is what I mean in comparing the exegetical Ma#aseh to the exegetical parable: the function is the same. Since the document reached closure later than Mishnah-Tosefta, it is reasonable to suppose that the Ma#aseh form as received has been revised for the documentary purposes of the writers compositors of Sifré to Deuteronomy. But that surmise raises more questions than it settles. For if the documentary program guided the development of a received form for a new purpose, then why has the documentary program not dictated the points at which the adapted form would make its appearance. Specifically, the Ma#aseh had served Halakhic exposition and analysis in the Mishnah and Tosefta and even in Sifra. Here the Halakhic form serves new, non-Halakhic purposes—but no longer serves in the Halakhic exposition of Deuteronomy Chapters Twelve through Twenty-Six. So the utilization of the Ma#aseh in Sifré to Deuteronomy does not augment or expand the received usage, it rather rejects that familiar function and invents a new one altogether. As the parable takes on specificity and particularity as exegetical, so the marker, Ma#aseh, follows suit as a medium of exegetical discourse.

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

231

1. XVI:II.1. “I charged your magistrates at that time as follows: ‘Hear out your fellow men and decide justly between any man and a fellow Israelite or a stranger. You shall not be partial in judgment. Hear out low and high alike Fear no man, for judgment is God’s, And any matter that is too difficult for you, you shall bring to me and I will hear it.’ Thus I instructed you, at that time, about the various things that you should do” (Dt. 1:14-18): “... at that time, saying...:” Moses says to the judges, “In the past you were subject to your own cognizance, but now, lo, you are servants, subjugated to the public interest.” There was the case involving [Ma#aseh] R. Yohanan b. Nuri and R. Eleazar Hisma. Rabban Gamaliel put them in charge of the session, but the disciples were not aware of them. At evening they went and took their places by the disciples. Now it was Rabban Gamaliel’s custom, when he would enter the session and say, “Ask,” it was an indication that there was no supervisor present. But when he would enter and not say, “Ask,” it was an indication that there was a supervisor there He came in and found R. Yohanan b. Nuri and R. Eleazar Hisma in session by the disciples. He said to him, “Yohanan b. Nuri and Eleazar Hisma, you have treated the community shabbily, for you have not sought to exercise authority over the community In the past you were subject to your own cognizance, but now, lo, you are servants, subjugated to the public interest.”

Here is a Torah-Ma#aseh, defined by its contents: the conventions of the master-disciple circle. Like Meir’s Torah-parable, cited earlier, it is distinguished not by its form but by its context. This bears no counterpart among parables.

2. CXVI:V.1. “… lend him sufficient for whatever he needs:” “Whatever he needs:” even a horse, even a slave. ‘ There is the precedent [Ma#aseh] involving Hillel the Elder, who gave a poor man, son of a good family, a horse with which to work, and a slave to serve him. There is the further precedent [Ma#aseh] in Upper Galilee, in which they served a guest a litra of meat every day.

Here is a standard exegesis, embodied in two concrete rulings: an exegetical Ma#aseh. A simple exegetical parable going over the same ground is readily fabricated: there was a king who saw a poor man… and gave him…. I do not know how the exegetical parable differs from the exegetical Ma#aseh, within the current model.

3. CCCV:II.1. M#SH B: Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai was riding on an ass, and his disciples were following after him. He saw a young girl gathering barley from underneath the hooves of the oxen of Arabs. When she saw Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, she covered herself with her hair and stood before him and said to him, “My lord, feed me.”

232

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

He said to her, “Whose daughter are you? She said to him, “The daughter of Naqdimon b. Gurion am I.” She said to him, “My lord, do you remember when you witnessed through your signature the document of my marriage settlement?” Said Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai to his disciples, “I signed as witness the document of this girl’s marriage settlement… My entire life I have sought the meaning of this verse of Scripture, and now I have found it: ‘If you do not know, O most beautiful among women, go out in the footsteps of the flock and feed your kids beside the shepherds’ tents’ (Song 1:8). So long as the Israelites carry out the will of the Omnipresent, no nation or kingdom can rule them. But when the Israelites do not carry out the will of the Omnipresent, he will hand them over into the power of a despicable nation, not only into the power of a despicable nation, but even beneath the hooves of the beasts of a despicable nation.”

Here is an exegesis of Song 1:8, given narrative setting. But this cannot be compared to an exegetical parable.

3. CCCXVI:I.3 “…he fed him honey from the crag:” Like the area around Sikhni. There was the case [Ma#aseh] , when R. Judah said to his son, “Go and bring me figs from the jar.” He said to him, “Father, it is honey for the figs have turned into honey.” He said to him, “Put your hand in it and you’ll bring up figs. “… and oil from the flinty rock:” This refers to the olives from Gischala. There was the case, [Ma#aseh] , when R. Yosé said to his son in Sepphoris, “Go up and bring us olives from the upper room.” He went and found the upper room flooded with olive-oil.

The Ma#aseh serves the exegetical purpose of illustrating the abundance of honey to which the cited verse refers. Like the counterpart-cases showing the productivity of the Land when not encumbered by Israel’s sinfulness, the cases form pseudonarratives of no particular weight.

5. CCCXVII:VI.1. Another comment concerning, “… with the very finest wheat—and foaming grape-blood was your drink” (Dt. 32:13-14) In time to come every grain of wheat is going to be the size of the two kidneys of a big ox, the weight of four Sepphorean liters. And if you find that surprising, look at turnip-heads. There was the case [Ma#aseh] in which they weighed a turnip head at the weight of thirty Sepphorean liters. There was the case [Ma#aseh] in which a fox made a nest in the head of a turnip There was a case [Ma#aseh] in Shehin in the matter of a mustard stalk, which has three twigs. One of them split off and it was used as the roofing for the hut of a pottery. They opened it and found in it nine qabs of mustard seeds

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

233

Said R. Simeon b. Halapta, “There was a cabbage stalk in my house, and I would go up and down on it, as one goes up and down on a ladder.”

This is comparable to the foregoing. I cannot conceive how these can have been reframed into parables, however context-particular.

6. CCCXXII:V.1. “For they are a folk void of sense, lacking in all discernment:” “‘How could one have routed a thousand or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their rock had sold them, the Lord had given them up? For their rock is not like our rock.’” There was the case [Ma#aseh] of the war in Judea, in which a decurion ran after an Israelite on a horse to kill him, but he could not catch up with him. Before he caught up with him, however, a snake came out and bit him on his heal. He said, “Do not think that it is because we are strong that they have been handed over to us. How could one have routed a thousand or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their rock had sold them, the Lord had given them up.’”

The Ma#aseh here functions like an exegetical parable; I see no differences, except that here we are given a concrete incident, and in a parable we should ask for an abstract tale that captures the same transaction or relationship.

7. CCCXXIII:III.1. “… unless their rock had sold them, the Lord had given them up:” “I am not the one who is going to give you up. Others will give you up.” There was a case [Ma#aseh] in which the flies were the ones to give them up in Judah.

Here is an unrealized item similar to the foregoing.

8. CCCXXXV:II.1. “… Enjoin them upon your children, that they may observe faithfully all the terms of this Torah:” He said to them, “I have to be thankful to you for keeping the Torah after me, so you too must be thankful to your children for keeping the Torah after you.” ‘ There was the case [Ma#aseh] when Our Rabbi came from Laodicea, and R. Yosé b. R. Judah and R. Eleazar b. Judah came and went into session in his presence. He said to them, “Draw near. As I have to be thankful to you for keeping the Torah after me, so you too must be thankful to your children for keeping the Torah after you. Now were Moses not a great person, and had others not accepted the Torah from him, it would have been vain. We—all the more so do we depend upon your accepting and carrying out the Torah, thus keeping it alive!

Here we have a narrative that Ma#aseh that goes over the ground of the exegesis.

What we find here, which I have not observed in the earlier docu-

234

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

ments, is the Ma#aseh devoted to a clearly-delineated exegetical purpose. Functioning as does a parable but framed in one-time, concrete terms, the exegetical Ma#aseh illustrates a proposition generated by a verse of Scripture in the following entries: Exegetical Ma#aseh : No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Halakhic Ma#aseh : — Torah-Ma#aseh : No. 1

The upshot may be simply stated. In Sifré to Deuteronomy, the Ma#aseh as defined by the Mishnah and the Tosefta, a marker bearing Halakhic weight as authoritative precedent, gives way to a new function, illustrative and exegetical, comparable to that of the Mashal. The only important difference is, the Ma#aseh refers to a particular person or a specific incident, while the Mashal is framed in abstract terms. But in the document before us, that is the only difference I discern, vastly outweighed by the shared task of exegesis in the simplest sense: articulating in concrete and particular terms the message that Scripture itself conveys. IV. Not Classified: — V. Sifré to Deuteronomy’s Narratives in Canonical Context In proportion to the whole of Sifré to Deuteronomy, the narrative and pseudo-narrative corpus proves negligible, just as in Sifra and Sifré to Numbers. 1. Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to thought that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules and symmetry of the canon? The answer, which is completely, definitively negative, emerges from the following reprise:

The Authentic Narrative: The five authentic narratives are parachuted down, not constructed in dialogue with their exegetical context. But that formal, literary fact should not obscure the theological congruity of the five items. No. 1, Aqiba and the masters contrasting the situation of Rome with that of Jerusalem, reconfirms the hope for redemption, No. 2, the death of Moses, recapitulates the Scriptural narrative. No. 3, the martyrdom of Haninah b. Teradion, his wife and their daughter, justify God’s decree, a variation on No. 1, now for the individual Israelite, not for corporate Israel. No. 4 justifies the divine decision to give the Torah to Israel, not the nations. Only No. 5, with its illustration of Prov. 13:7, stands apart from the theological program of the Aggadic documents viewed whole. Their theological system and structure are cogent and focus on revealing God’s justice, as I showed in Theology of the Oral Torah (Montreal and Kingston,

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

235

1999: McGill-Queens University Press). That is an odd singleton. The Mashal: The Halakhic Mashal: — The Exegetical Mashal: Of the forty-five exegetical Meshalim, thirtysix are particular to their context. The other nine in no way conflict with the recurrent messages of the document. The Ma#aseh: Apart from a singleton, the Ma#asim undertake exegetical tasks, comparable to those of the exegetical parable. Not Classified:—

The answer is definitive: the narrative and pseudo-narrative corpus in Sifré to Deuteronomy violates the established forms of the document but adheres to its redactional program, the exegesis of narrative or theological components of a scriptural book. That exegesis is carried on within the established hermeneutics and in no way points to doctrines or modes of thought at odds with those of main body of compositions and composites in our document, defined at the outset: verse by verse clarification of law or narrative or exhortation within a single coherent system of thought and theological construction through Halakhic norms. 2. Does non-documentary writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of form and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these patterns and how are we to classify and to interpret them? The rules of composing an autonomous, authentic, successful narrative cannot be reconstructed out of the bits and pieces before us; the corpus of such narratives is simply too sparse to permit generalizing of traits of rhetoric, logic, and topic. The one development of interest is the formation of the exegetical parable and the adaptation of the Ma#aseh to function precisely as does the Mashal, the differences being not structural or functional but merely adventitious. 3. At what point in the process that yielded the canonical writings as we know them did documentary considerations intervene, and what is the meaning of that intervention? When and under what circumstances did documentary considerations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary venue? The upshot is simply stated: the principal narrative and pseudo-narrative component of Sifré to Deuteronomy is the exegetical Mashal, matched by the exegetical Ma#aseh, and both clearly serve documentary program, if not in a formidable way. With negligible exceptions, the narrative writing in the document constitutes writing of, within the framework of compiling, the document.

236

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

The compilers of Sifré to Deuteronomy set out to write up a systematic exegesis of the book of Deuteronomy, Aggadic (narrative, exhortatory) and Halakhic portions alike, and at some few passages, they found the exegetical Mashal and the exegetical Ma#aseh suitable to serve that purpose. What Sifré to Deuteronomy shows is when that was likely to happen, which, systematically and not haphazardly, was in response to the prophetic poetry of Moses’s final visions, disproportionately in Parashat Ha’azinu and Parashat Vezot Habberakhah. That is to say, in this document in particular, the parable formed a medium of theological recapitulation, in the full clarity of human transactions, of the narratives, prophecies, and poetry of the meeting with God in the here and now of Israel’s worldly condition. But for that purpose, the brief, constrained, stripped-down parabolic narrative served only casually. What next in the unfolding of documents in the sequence of closure? A major development in narrative writing, transcending the limits of the Mashal altogether, specifically, the development of the protracted story, and composites of such stories, awaited. The Mishnah, Tosefta, tractate Abot, Sifra, and the two Sifrés contain not a single Rabbinic story, fully realized and successful, such as later documents would set forth in abundance. That is because for the tasks for which writing for the Mishnah, Tosefta, and the other Tannaite compilations was undertaken, such protracted and successful stories served no documentary purpose subject to realization through such stories and no other medium.

41.

narratives in sifré to deuteronomy

237

APPENDIX

INFORMATION WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE. CLEMENS THOMA ON THE PARABLE Clemens Thoma and Simon Lauer, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen. I. Pesiqta deRav Kahana. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Parallelen, Kommentar, Texte (Bern, Frankfurt am Main, New York, 1986: Peter Lang). Clemens Thoma and Simon Lauer, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen. II. Von der Erschaffung der Welt bis zum Tod Abrahams: Bereschit Rabba 163. (Bern, Frankfurt am Main, New York, 1991: Peter Lang). Clemens Thoma and Hanspeter Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen. III. Von Isaak bis Zum Schilfmeer. Ber R 63-100, ShemR 1-22. (Bern, Frankfurt am Main, New York, 1996: Peter Lang). Clemens Thoma and Hanspeter Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen. IV. Vom Lied des Mose bis zum Bundesbuch: ShemR 23-30 . (Bern, Frankfurt am Main, New York, 2000: Peter Lang). The authors aim at a presentation of the Rabbinic parables in an academic translation, together with parallels, text-critical, form-critical, historical, and theological commentary (I, p. 12): “Unser Fernziel ist es, sämtliche rabbinischen Gleichnisse in einer wissenschaftlich fundierten Übersetzung samt ihren Parallelen, mit text- und formkritischem, philologischem, historischem und theologischem Kommentar herauszugeben.” Without question, they have accomplished their goals and kept their promises; this is the definitive edition of the parables in the three documents they examine. What use is to be made of the collection of data, other than ad hoc reference, is less self-evident, and apart from useful facts, I do not see much to be learned here: an exercise in empty erudition. They promise the study of the Rabbinic parable, its meaning and its expression from a literary and formal perspective. For each doc-

238

appendix

ument in order, the authors deal with the literary critical foundations of Rabbinic parables, the classification of parables by theme and topic, the foundations in the Hebrew Scriptures and Greek and Oriental influences, the language of the document and the edition that they have used, the antiquity of the parables in a given document, the history of scholarship on the subject; then there is a translation, each item as it occurs and recurs, with the versions compared and contrasted, parallels and textual comparisons laid out, then what they call “Inhalt,” on the theme and meaning of the parable that is under study. Then they set forth the Hebrew texts and a full range of indices: text editions, translations, secondary literature; an index of references to foreign words, biblical passages, ancient and Hellenistic literature, Rabbinic literature, authors, and Sachregister. I simply cannot imagine a more thorough presentation of the parables in the documents that are treated; it is exemplary as an exercise of industry. But only for that. As to the interest for learning, apart from serving as a reference work in examining any given pericope, the collection bears little value. First, the bibliographies of the four volumes are amazing for what they do not know, and one wonders about the state of the library at Lucerne University. I doubt that informed scholarship can be conducted there. For Thoma and his co-workers simply have not kept up with scholarship over the span of time in which they did their work. But they assiduously cite in their bibliographies work with little or no bearing upon their topic—a very political bibliography indeed! Failure to engage with the state of learning is no insuperable flaw, if the work presents its own theses. No one is required to take in everyone else’s laundry. But Thoma and his co-workers do not present a thesis about the Rabbinic parable, and I do not believe they conceive one. To make this point concrete: what I do not discern is the proposition(s) that Thoma and his co-workers actually propose to examine, the theory they investigate through the cases at hand, the problem(s) they wish to solve. Nonetheless, merely because the purpose and context of learning are left unarticulated, however, it does not mean there is none. Thoma seems to have a notion that The Rabbinic Parable is a freestanding literary entity, which surfaces hither and yon. They differentiate one document from another only in the most formal sense, but to no substantive purpose. From what Thoma and his co-work-

clemens thoma on the parable

239

ers do it is possible to intuit what they imagined they were doing: the parable is to be studied in an effort to recover the original form and its definitive meaning. Then collecting the diverse versions and comparing one to another should yield knowledge that leads somewhere. What Thoma and his colleagues achieve in this regard I really cannot say. Is there some primary, original collection of parables, upon which various documents draw? Do parables exist in the abstract? Do they suppose that a common fund of parabolic narratives circulated, to be drawn on here by Jesus, there by Rabbi X—knowledge of which would clarify some profound question of Rabbinic Judaism, or of earliest Christianity, or of the imaginative life of Judaic antiquity—or what? I do not know. Thoma has constructed an enterprise as though he imagined parables to derive from some Platonic Idea, so that collecting and comparing and contrasting all the concrete versions will point us toward that perfect Idea and allow us access to it. But all of this is surmise. In fact, Thoma and his colleagues excel only at hunting and gathering information, which, in their hands, yields no insight and leads no where beyond itself. But the question arises: have Thoma and his co-workers not conducted their enterprise precisely as I should have advocated they do it: document by document? For do they not present parables of Pesiqta deRab Kahana and parables of Genesis Rabbah, each collection on its own? Does this not yield precisely the data from which, in my documentary hypothesis, I maintain yield decisive results, incisive insights? Let me state bluntly: Thoma is utterly ignorant of the documentary hypothesis, even while he has been guided by its basic approach, which is, to describe each document in its own terms and out of its own data, with full attention to the particularities that register in the use of data common to two or more documents in addition. Matters are not even so simple. Blundering forward in a project he does not fully grasp, when it comes to the work of the documentary description of data, Thoma neither does nor fails to do the labor. In collecting the data document by document, for Pesiqta deRab Kahana and Genesis Rabbah and Exodus Rabbah, he has made possible part of the documentary description of the three collections. But he produces no systematic description of his findings. He simply does not write a conclusion, because he has drawn no conclusions, e.g., for Pesiqta deRab Kahana, either on its own or in rela-

240

appendix

tionship to Genesis Rabbah let alone Exodus Rabbah. We do not know more about Pesiqta deRab Kahana after reading his protracted presentation of its parables than we did before. This is typical of the level of European doctoral dissertations, but one should expect a greater exercise of intelligence on the part of chaired university-professors! The data remain inert. That is because all documentary description requires an exercise of comparison and contrast, allowing for perspective upon the document subject to description. But despite his systematic, documentary reading of the parable in Pesiqta deRab Kahana and then in Genesis Rabbah, I am unable to find in the first three volumes, where that project is carried out, a single sentence that says, the parable in the one compares or contrasts with the parable in the other in the following way(s). He devotes two pages to the topic, “Von der Pesiqta deRav Kahana zum Genesis-Midraschwerk,” (pp. 12-13, listed on the table of contents as p. 14). And here we have random remarks, not a systematic comparison of the one and the other. Why divide parables between and among the documents in which they occur, if there is nothing at stake in doing so? I find no characterization of the documents, no reading of the results for Pesiqta deRab Kahana in comparison with those for Genesis Rabbah. So Thoma has given us a berakhah levatalah: a gift lacking all substance. For he deals with three documents using the parable as the focus, but he fails to ask documentary questions that he himself has made it possible to answer! As I said, these possibilities begin with comparison and contrast between two kindred documents. His interest on the mashal itself, its forms, types, and versions, as these are spread across many documents, does not extend to the variety and diversity of parables as documentary indicators. One may allege in his defense that he cannot do everything, and he has done part of the work and left the rest for others. That defense would bear plausibility had the comparison of documents never been undertaken by anybody. But here Thoma’s political bibliography exacts a heavy toll. He has not done his homework, and that is why he has butchered the entire analytical enterprise. To state the matter simply: he does not know the territory. Thoma’s bibliography ignores the fact that in print long before Thoma finished his work in 2000, or the work on Genesis Rabbah in sequence following Pesiqta deRab Kahana, is such a comparison of Midrash-

clemens thoma on the parable

241

compilations, focused on specific texts, involving Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah, then Leviticus Rabbah, Pesiqta deRab Kahana, and Pesiqta Rabbati.1 But there is more: the very selection of a starting point and a point of continuation. He begins with Pesiqta deRab Kahana and takes as his next document Genesis Rabbah. Two gross errors are involved. Pesiqta deRab Kahana is secondary to Leviticus Rabbah. So he should have started with Leviticus Rabbah and proceeded to the document that intersects with it—the grounds for documentary comparison being particular and precise, therefore. Starting with the secondary document, he might at least have proceeded backward, to Leviticus Rabbah. And, moving onward, if he insisted on a medieval compilation, he should have chosen Pesiqta Rabbati, which intersects with Pesiqta deRab Kahana. So he began in medias res, and then chose as his continuation-document a compilation with no connection to the initial choice, neither fore nor aft. All informed scholarship recognizes the connections between Leviticus Rabbah and Pesiqta deRab Kahana, and between Pesiqta deRab Kahana and Pesiqta Rabbati. A comparably gross error is readily at hand. What Thoma has done in his four volumes is like starting form-analysis with the Tosefta, and proceeding to Sifré to Deuteronomy. But the Tosefta, like Pesiqta deRab Kahana in relationship to Leviticus Rabbah, is secondary: the Tosefta is number two, the Mishnah number one, in any and every study of the documents conducted in the past half-century. No scholar of any standing doubts that fact. Accordingly, Thoma’s choice of Pesiqta deRab Kahana is equivalent to starting with the Tosefta instead of with the Mishnah, and his choice of Genesis Rabbah for a continuation-document is comparable to ignoring the Mishnah altogether in Tosefta-form-analysis. Within the documentary hypothesis it is, in a single word, little short of moronic! To state the matter simply: every informed scholar knows that Pesiqta deRab Kahana carries forward the work of Leviticus Rabbah—and not Genesis Rabbah. Pesiqta deRab Kahana contains no fewer than five complete pisqaot/parashiyyot that are shared with Leviticus Rab1

Comparative Midrash: The Plan and Program of Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah. Atlanta, 1986: Scholars Press for Brown Judaic Studies; From Tradition to Imitation. The Plan and Program of Pesiqta deRab Kahana and Pesiqta Rabbati. Atlanta, 1987: Scholars Press for Brown Judaic Studies. [With a fresh translation of Pesiqta Rabbati Pisqaot 1-5, 15.]

242

appendix

bah, but not a single pisqa/parashah shared in its entirety with Genesis Rabbah. It has already been shown that the shared pisqaot/ parashiyyot of Leviticus Rabbah and Pesiqta deRab Kahana are primary to Leviticus Rabbah and secondary to Pesiqta deRab Kahana—but Thoma does not know the book that proves that fact. Then why omit Leviticus Rabbah and jump to Genesis Rabbah Thoma does not say. I doubt the question occurred to him. But surely there is a reason that compelled him to do this, not that. Nor does he specify why he then leaps continents and centuries to a medieval compilation, produced in a completely different literary and intellectual framework. Working within the formative canon allows us to set aside a variety of contextual problems that arise otherwise. But Thoma does not address issues of context, whether literary, whether documentary, whether cultural. So while Thoma’s problem is The Parable, he has gone about his inquiry by dealing with three documents, Pesiqta deRab Kahana, Genesis Rabbah and Exodus Rabbah, and, as I say, I cannot find where the results for one document are compared and contrasted with those for another. Is that to maintain all is contrast, nothing comparison? I do not know, and neither does Thoma. Perhaps the comparison would yield an account of a shared universe of forms and common, original versions or sources, an essentially uniform corpus of writing and thought then scattered hither and yon. But the problem of documentary description and differentiation has not been addressed. At stake are not untested theories, for I do not ask Thoma to pursue lines of research others have ignored. My insistence on the comparison of documents, not only bits and pieces of compositions and composites contained therein as he does, derives from work already completed and in print even before his work was well underway. In 1986 I published the comparison of Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah, and in 1987, that of Pesiqta deRab Kahana and Pesiqta Rabbati. His volume Two, on Genesis Rabbah, was published in 1991; neither item surfaces in his bibliography in the later volumes, down to 2000! What kind of scholarship is this? What has Thoma missed? A concrete outcome of documentary comparison and contrast, with special reference to literary data, suggests from one case what was, and remains, possible in another. The established case addresses the documentary comparison of the Mishnah and the Tosefta with special reference to narratives. I cite

clemens thoma on the parable

243

it only to indicate what Thoma might have accomplished had he taken to heart results in print long before he completed his presentation in the four volumes at hand. Comparing the narratives of the Mishnah with those of the Tosefta, in volume one of this study, I have established a simple fact. For the narratives in the Mishnah and the Tosefta I have now proved that with two exceptions in the Mishnah and not many more in the Tosefta, all narratives and pseudo-narratives in the Mishnah and the Tosefta adhere to the documentary requirements of the Mishnah and/or of the Tosefta respectively. Given the highly formalized character of the Mishnah, we must find plausible that the document defines its preferences and uses for narratives as much as for all other media of discourse. Given what we know about the Tosefta, we cannot find astonishing that the document contains both Mishnahlike materials and compositions that do not conform to Mishnaic preferences on narrative form. That simple result of a systematic survey makes possible further exercises of documentary comparison and contrast in the use of narratives. In the present volume, I have shown that “the” parable divides into two main types in the three documents at hand, and of those types, the exegetical parable predominates in exegetical documents—a result that the documentary hypothesis would have led us to anticipate, but that has now been definitively established in the pages of this book. Had Thoma compared his documents as to the use of parables in them, their functions, types and forms, I do not know what he might have found out. Neither does he. But it is now a fact, and I state with heavy emphasis what I said in the prefaces of volume one and the present volume and will repeat in volume three: Narratives form part of the documentary self-definition of the Mishnah and of the Tosefta. The fulcrum of interpretation and analysis, for narrative as much as for other kinds of canonical writing in formative Judaism, is the document. The narrative in the Mishnah and Tosefta does serve documentary purposes and does not ignore or disrupt them. The genre, the narrative, assumes a subordinated role within the programs of the several Rabbinic documents. And with what consequence? Again with emphasis: It is therefore analytically meaningless to talk about “the Rabbinic narrative” or “the Rabbinic parable” or “the Aggadah” or “the Rabbinic folktale” or any comparable, generic category that ignores documentary boundaries. The principal, and primary, analytical initiative commences with the document—

244

appendix

the traits of its narrative, parable, Aggadah, folktale, and other generic categories. We may then speak of the narrative or parable or ma#aseh in the Mishnah or the Tosefta or Sifra or one or another of the Talmuds, and only then ask how the narrative or parable or ma#aseh as represented by the one document compares, or contrasts, with that of another. In that proposition I part company from all those who as a matter of premise and presupposition have treated the Rabbinic corpus as uniform and consequently have asked about The Rabbinic Story, or, as with Thoma, The Rabbinic Parable. They come up with answers that claim to speak of everything but in fact represent only some few things, indeed, the document where they originate but not other documents (e.g., Lamentations Rabbah but not the Mishnah, to take a self-evident case for the parable!). That process of comparison and contrast sheds light on the character of the several documents, their construction and larger context. And that is the heart of the matter. What of the unfortunate work before us? Future scholarship will gladly acknowledge that Thoma and his co-workers have provided preliminary studies by collecting a lot of data, even while they have badly botched the job. That is by doing the right thing for the wrong reason—or, more accurately, for no reason at all. It really does pay to keep up with scholarship in one’s field.

index of subjects

245

INDEX OF SUBJECTS Authentic narratives in Sifra, 58, 75 in Sifré to Deuteronomy, 203–206 in Sifré to Numbers, 124–125, 143 Comparative Midrash: The Plan and Program of Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah (Neusner), 241n1 Composites, non-documentary, 12–13 Compositions, non-documentary, 12–13 Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen. I-IV (Thoma, Lauer, and Ernst), 237–244 Documentary form history, of parables and precedents, 11 Exegetical amplifications, 15–18 Exegetical parables (Mashal) in Sifra, 63–67 in Sifré to Deuteronomy, 202, 206– 227 in Sifré to Numbers, 122–123, 127– 139, 142–143 Exodus Rabbah, 240 Extra- and Non-Documentary Writing in the Canon of Formative Judaism. III. Peripatetic Parallels (Neusner), x(n)5 Extra-documentary writing, 13–15 Form, Function, and Historical Significance of the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin (Heszer), xii(n)7 Frenkel, Yonah, xi(n)7 From Tradition to Imitation. The Plan and Program of Pesiqta deRab Kahana and Pesiqta Rabbati (Neusner), 241n1 Genesis Rabbah, 240, 242 Gruenwald, Ithamar, 5n3, 8 Hademuyot hapoalot besipure hatalmud vehamidrash (Meir), xi(n)7 Halakhic parables (Mashal) in Sifra, 61–63 in Sifré to Deuteronomy, 202

in Sifré to Numbers, 126–127 Heszer, Catherine, xii(n)7 Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (Neusner), ix(n)2 Iyunim be"olamo haruhani shel sipur ha"agadah (Segal), xi(n)7 Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Neusner), 14 Judaism and Story: The Evidence of The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Neusner), xiii(n)9 “Judaism beyond the texts,” 14 Leviticus Rabbah, 241, 242 Listenwissenschaft, 3 Literary criticism, xi–xii Logic of coherent discourse, as documentary trait, 1–3 Ma#aseh. see precedent (Ma#aseh) The Making of the Mind of Judaism (Neusner), 2n1 Mashal. see parable (Mashal) Meir, Ofra, xi(n)7 Mekhilta Attributed to R. Ishmael, ix(n)2 Mishnah ma#aseh’s pattern in, 9–10, 67 Mashal in, 58–59 Narrative, recent studies of Form, Function, and Historical Significance of the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin (Heszer), xii(n)7 Parables in Midrash. Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature (Stern), xi(n)7 Web of Life. Folklore and Midrash in Rabbinic Literature (Hasan-Rokem), xii(n)7 Narratives objective definition and identification of, 10–12 subordinated to documentary purposes, xii–xiii

246

index of subjects

teleological logic as defining trait, 1– 3 topical program of, xi see also pseudo-narratives Neusner, Jacob, ix(n)1, ix(n)2, x(n)4, x(n)5, 2n1, 12n8, 13, 13n9, 14, 234, 241n1 Non-documentary writing, defined, 12– 15 Parable (Mashal) Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen. I-IV (Thoma, Lauer, and Ernst), 237–244 documentary history of, 11 in Mishnah, 58–59 in Sifra, 60 exegetical parables, 63–67 Halakhic parables, 61–63 in Sifré to Deuteronomy, 206, 228 exegetical parables, 202, 206–227 non-exegetical parable, 228–229 in Sifré to Numbers, 125–126, 139– 140 exegetical parables, 122–123, 127– 139, 142–143 Halakhic parables, 126–127 Thoma on, 237–244 in Tosefta, 59–60 Parables in Midrash. Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature (Stern), xi(n)7 Pesiqta deRab Kahana, 239–242 Pesiqta Rabbati, 241 Precedent (Ma#aseh) exegetical, 230, 234 in Mishnah, 9–10, 67 as pseudo-narrative, 6n5 in Sifra, 68–71 in Sifré to Numbers, 140–141 in Tosefta, 67–68 The Presence of the Past, the Pastness of the Present. History, time, and Paradigm in Rabbinic Judaism (Neusner), 13n9 Pseudo-narratives “conversations,” in Rabbinic canonical record, 6 defined, 5 documentary history of, 11 ritual conduct, presentations of, 6– 9 types of, 5–6 see also narratives

Rabbinic Narrative: A Documentary Perspective. Volume One. Forms, Types, and Distributions of Narratives in the Mishnah, Tractate Abot, and the Tosefta (Neusner), ix(n)1 Rabbinic Writings documentary programs dictate narrative choice, 123, 239 narratives and documentary boundaries, xi non-documentary writings in, 12–13 peripatetic passages in, x(n)5 Ritual and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (Gruenwald), 5n3, 8 Ritual conduct, presentations of, 6–9 Scripture, and exegetical parables (Mashal) in Sifré to Numbers, 127, 139 Sifra authentic narrative in, 58, 75 documentary history of, 57 exigetical parable (Mashal) in, 63–67 Halakhic parable (Mashal) in, 61–63 narratives subordinate to documentary program of, 73–76 precedent (Ma#aseh) in, 67–71 Sifré to Deuteronomy authentic narratives, 203–206 narratives adhere to redactional program of, 235–236 parable (Mashal) in, 206, 228 exegetical parables, 202, 206–227 Halakhic parables, 202 non-exegetical parable, 228–229 precedent (Ma#aseh) in, 202, 229– 234 topical program of, 202–203 Sifré to Numbers authentic narrative in, 124–125, 143 narrative types in, 122–124 narratives realize documentary program of, 141–143 parable (Mashal) in, 125–126, 139– 140 exegetical parables in, 122–123, 127–139, 142–143 Halakhic parables in, 126–127 precedent (Ma#aseh) in, 140–141 topical program of, 122, 140 Stern, David, xii(n)7

index of subjects Sugyot bapoetikah shel sipure hazal (Meir), xi(n)7 Syllogistic (or propositional) logic of coherence, in Rabbinic canon, defined, 3–4 Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture (Rubenstein), xi(n)7 Teleological logic of coherence, in Rabbinic canon defined, 2–3 as defining trait of narratives, 1 Texts without Boundaries (Neusner), x(n)4 The Theology of the Oral Torah. Revealing the Justice of God (Neusner), 234

247

Thoma, Clemens, xii(n)7, 10n7, 237– 244 The Three Questions of Formative Judaism: History, Literature, and Religion (Neusner), 13 Tosefta parable (Mashal) in, 59–60 precedents (Ma#aseh) in, 67–68 Web of Life. Folklore and Midrash in Rabbinic Literature (Hasan-Rokem), xii(n)7 Why No Gospels in Talmudic Judaism? (Neusner), 12n8 Writing without Boundaries (Neusner), x(n)4

248

index of ancient sources

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES Bible Daniel 3:16-18 Deuteronomy 1:1 1:2 1:3-4 1:9-13 1:14-18 1:19-21 1:22-25 3:23 3:26-28 4:9 4:23-29 5:28 6:4-9 8:7 8:16 11:10-12 11:13 11:13-17 11:13ff. 11:17 11:18-21 11:22-25 11:26-30 16:8 18:1 21:1-3 28:12 30:19 31:7-8 31:20 32:4-6 32:10-12 32:13-14 32:47 32:51 33:2-6 33:6 33:7 33:8-11

45, 71 147, 85 148, 149, 150, 152, 152, 114 115, 165, 154, 212 201, 156, 152, 168 213 165 160, 214 204 179 163, 164 167, 208 103, 120 179 167, 173 116 181, 185 185, 165, 115 189, 194, 194, 195

207 208 209 231 210 210 137 215 155, 211, 227 212 210

162, 163,

215 216 134 216 182, 219 186, 232 215 194, 223 223 224

33:24-29 33:26 34:6 34:10-13 Exodus 4:14 20:13 32:26-28 Ezekiel 21:36-37 Genesis 1:6-8 4:7 13:17 15:7 16:12 18:2 19:36 21:33 22:17 25:26 25:27

198 189 176 201, 227

26:12 27:22 27:40 32:10-12 33:2-6 33:19 34:25 36:35 49:7 49:9 Habbakuk 3:9 Hosea 1:9 1:10 9:10 11:1 13:16

208 205 205

14:1 Isaiah 3:9

26 190, 205 195 182 149 164, 149, 185 190 159 190 149, 149, 192 184, 223 149, 190, 190, 220 222 149, 195, 138 195, 16

215 208

208 209 192, 220,

208 224 224

149, 208 107 107, 135 109 174 107, 108, 135, 136 107, 108, 136 182

index of ancient sources 8:2 8:23 43:18 43:19 44:22 49:8 59:2 Jeremiah 26:18 29:11 32:19 52:11 Job 20:27 23:13 36:14 Joshua 5:12 Judges 5:4 1 Kings 19:19 2 Kings 18:32 21:16 Lamentations 2:20 5:17-18 Leviticus 6:10 11:2 14:4 16:1-2 18:28 19:10-15 21:1-5 21:9 21:10 22:26-33 23:39-44 24:10-23 25:35-38 26:27-33 26:34-39 Malachi 2:6 Micah 5:14 Numbers 1:51 2:2

161 163 59 59 114 95 49 161 168 180, 204 93 178 114, 136 200 91, 130 192 44 157 120 53, 72 160 134 21 36 39 41, 64 44, 69 42 106, 134, 135 106, 134, 135 44 46, 70 47 49 53 55 175 190 160 47, 72

6:1-4 9:23 10:29-36 11:1-3 11:1ff. 11:5-6 11:7-9 11:11-15 11:17 12:1-16 14:29 14:44 15:27-31 15:37-41 16:38 22:7 24:4 24:16 25:11 25:14 26:51 27:12-23 27:18 27:21

249 81 88, 129 85, 86, 88 89 87, 128 90, 130 92 93, 131 93, 131 95, 132 85 86 97, 132 97, 98 102 119 201, 227 201, 227 195, 224 195, 224 112 113, 136 173, 217 116, 138, 173, 217 116, 138

28:1-29:40 Proverbs 4:18 168 4:19 167 10:5 165, 13:7 198, 13:11 165 17:11 200, 20:4 165 24:20 167 24:30-31 166 25:21-22 164 Psalms 12:1 156 16:5 168, 31:20 199, 32:1-2 115, 32:8 168 106:30-31 17 119:164 156 129:3-4 52 135:4 184 138:4 190 Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) 4:1 167 4:5 167

216 205 227

217 226 137

250 7:15 11:4 Song of Songs 1:8 6:4 Zechariah 8:4 Rabbinic Literature Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin

index of ancient sources 43, 69 165 174, 232 156, 212 161

106B 108

Midrash Sifra to Leviticus III:VI 21, 61, 66 LXVI:I 24, 61, 66 XCVIII:VI 26, 63, 66 XCVIII:VII 27, 63, 66 XCIX:I 28 XCIX:II 28, 64, 66 XCIX:IV 29 XCIX:VI 30, 68, 71 CXXV:III 32, 68 CXXIV:I 33 CXXIV:II 33 CXLVIII:I 36 CLXXIV:II 39, 62, 66 CCX:II 41, 64, 66 CCXI:I 42, 69, 70 CCXIII:I 43, 71, 73 CCXIV:I 44, 69, 71 CCXXVII:I 44, 71 CCXXXVIII:I 46, 70, 71 CCXLII:I 47, 72 CCLV:I 48, 62, 66 CCLXI:I 49, 70, 71 CCLXII:I 50, 64, 66 CCLXIII:I 51, 65, 66 CCLXV:I 53, 66 CCLXVII:II 53, 54, 72, 73 CCLXVIII:II 55, 73 Sifré to Deuteronomy III:I 148, 207 VIII:I 148, 208 XI:I 149, 209 XVI:II 150, 231 XIX:II 152, 210 XXI:I 152, 210 XXVI:III 154, 211 XXVIII:I 154 I:IX 147, 207

XXIX:IV XXXVI:IV XXXVII:I XXXVIII:I

155, 211 156 157, 212 158, 159, 213 XLIII:III 160, 205 XLIII:VIII 162, 213 XLIII:XV 162, 214 XLIII:XVI 163, 214 XLV:I 163, 215 XLVIII:I 164, 215, LIII:I 167, 216, CXVI:V 168, 213, CCCV:I 173, 217, CCCV:II 174 CCCV:III 175, 204 CCCVI:IV 178, 217 CCCVI:VI 178, 218 CCCVI:VII 179, 218 CCCVI:XXIV 179, 228 CCCVII:IV 180, 204 CCCVIII:II 181, 218 CCCIX:I 182, 219 CCCVIII:III 182, 219 CCCIX:II 183, 219 CCCIX:V 183, 220 CCCXII:I 184, 220 CCCXIII:I 185, 221 CCCXVI:I 185, 232 CCCXVII:VI 186, 232 CCCXXII:V 186, 233 CCCXXIII:III 187, 221, CCCXXV:II 188, 233 CCCXLIII:I 189, 221 CCCXLIII:IV 190, 205, CCCXLIII:V 192, 222 CCCXLIII:III 193, 223 CCCXLIV:III 193 CCCXLIX:I 194, 224 CCCXLVII:I 194, 223 CCCLII:VI 196, 225 CCCLII:VII 196, 225 CCCLV:XV 197, 205 CCCLV:XVII 198, 225 CCCLVI:IV 199, 226 CCCLVII:XI 200, 227 CCCLVII:XVIII 201, 227 Sifré to Numbers LXXXII:I 85, 127 LXXXII:II 86, 128 LXXXIV:I 86, 128

211,

216 217 231 231

233 222

index of ancient sources LXXXIV:II LXXXVI:I LXXXV:IV LXXXIX:IV LXXXVII:II LXXXIX:V XCI:II XCIII:I CIII:VI CV:I CXII:III CXV:V CXVII:I CXIX:II CXIX:III CXXXI:I CXXXI:II CXXXII:I CXXXIV:VII CXXXV:I CXXXVII:I XXII:VI CXLII:I CLIII:VI CLVII:I CLXI:III Mishnah Keritot 1:7 2:4 Menahot 6:3 Niddah 2:5 5:7 Sanhedrin 7:6

87, 128, 129 89, 129 89, 93, 129, 131 90, 130 90, 129 92, 130 93, 131 93, 131 95, 132 95, 132 97, 132 97, 98, 124, 133 102, 133 103, 133 103, 134 106, 134, 135 108, 110, 124, 140, 141 112, 126, 139 113, 114, 136 114, 137 115, 137 81 116, 138 118, 127 119, 138 120 32 32 6 59 59 109

Sukkah 2:9 59 3:13 46, 70 Yadayim 3:5 87 Yoma 2:2 121 Tosefta Baba Qamma 7:2 60 7:3 59 7:13 60 Berakhot 1:11 59 6:18 59 Hagigah 2:4 60 Kippurim (Yoma) 1:12 121 Niddah 2:8 59 3:5 59 Sanhedrin 1:2 59 8:9 59 Sheqalim 1:6 59 Sotah 11:4 60 15:7 59 Sukkah 2:6 60 2:11 47, 70 Zabim 1:11 59 Zebahim 12:9 59

251