"Kima" and the Flood in "Seder 'Olam" and B.T. Rosh Ha-Shana Stellar

"Kima" and the Flood in "Seder 'Olam" and B.T. Rosh Ha-Shana Stellar Time-Reckoning and Uranography in Rabbinic Literature Author(s): Chaim Milikowsky Source: Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 50 (1983), pp. 105-132 Published by: American Academy for Jewish Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3622692 Accessed: 17-07-2015 22:23 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Academy for Jewish Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research. http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KIMA AND THE FLOOD IN SEDER 'OLAM AND B.T. ROSH HA-SHANA STELLAR TIME-RECKONING AND URANOGRAPHY IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

BY CHAIMMILIKOWSKY

Three passages in rabbinic literaturediscuss the relationship between an astral body called kima and the beginningof the Flood: Seder 'Olam (hereafter SO), chapter 4, B.T. Rosh ha-Shana (hereafterR.H.) llb-12a, and P.T. Ta'anit 1:3 (64a). The P.T. passage is relativelystraightforward and presentsno special problem.' With regard to the other two passages, however, several critical questions are immediatelyapparent. The text-criticalsituation is perplexing:contradictory readings are found in the manuscripttraditions of both SO and R.H. Furthermore,though the passages are closely related, the discrepanciesare great and not easily explained. In thisstudy I shall attempt to determinethe original form of the passage, delineate the interrelationshipbetween the two texts,and trace the development of the manuscript tradition within each individual text. In addition, the use of the stars in time- reckoningas well as the identificationof kima and otherastral bodies will be discussed. The fourthchapter of SO consistsof a detailed chronology of the Flood.2 It begins withan argumentbetween two Sages:

I See note 10. 2 This chronologyof the Flood is not part of the earlieststratum in SO. SO, a midrashicchronography from Adam to the end of the biblical period (with several chronologicalstatements concerning the Second Temple period added on), arrivesat the postdiluvianperiod already in the beginningof chapterone -altogether six lines are devoted to the antediluvianperiod-and thereforea chronologyof the Flood properlybelongs in that chapter.Chapter fouris part of a larger inter-relatedunit, beginningfrom the middle of chapter three, which is an editorial addition insertedbefore SO's final redaction.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 106 MILIKOWSKY [2] when the Bible tells us that the flood began in the "second month" (Gen. 7:11), does it mean the second monthbeginning fromNisan, that is Iyyar(so R. 'Eli'ezer), or the second month beginningfrom Tishrei, that is Marheshvan(so R. Yehoshu'a).3 The passage is as follows:4 ' Intn vn"1'iK "X1 nT "WynnYn ,wn ttinm '"1Kytwl'r '-i 3pn;10n'MY ft 'WM D;1l'tMYbnK I3'»W '*Tl ;7I1Y 7rn3'VWo ,nTor' "iwyiy nwn':1 inn 'K ITY'x Dv/"' I'It ll'ro nrtnQ nmnn' nb ;l TnlnYln lp nvi;x lntn 'in?!Klit n n '11 yI173' R. Yehoshu'a says: "In the second month, on the seventeenth [day of the month, on that day all the fountainsof the deep burst forth]" (Gen. 7:11)-this is Iyyar. When? At the time when kima rises; because [the 5 generationof the Flood] altered theiractions, the Omni- present altered the [natural] order of the world against them. R. 'Eli'ezer says: "In the second month,on the seventeenthday"-this is Marheshvan.When? At the time when kima sets-the time of the rainfall;"on that day all 10 the fountainsof the deep burst forth." The passage is quoted from the recentlyprepared critical edition of SO,5 and presentsthe text found in MS Leningrad,

3 In R.H. this argumentis correlated to similar argumentsregarding the creationof the world and the futureredemption: R. Yehoshu'a connectsthem all to Nisan and R. 'Eli'ezer to Tishrei. 4 See next note. 5 C. J. Milikowsky,"Seder Olam: A Rabbinic Chronography,"(Ph. D. diss., Yale University,1981), pp. 233-34. All other editionsof SO, whethervulgate or "critical" (cited in nextnote), presentthe varianttext discussed immediately below. 6 This reading will be called the Ant. 891 text of SO. D.B. Ratner, in his editionof SO (Seder Olam Rabba: Die GrosseWelt chronik [Vilna, 1897; reprint:New York, 1966], p. 19, note 9), notes thattwo manuscriptshave kima "rising" in Iyyar.Since he does not identifythe manuscriptswhich contain this reading,this means that he did not see the readingin any of the manuscripts available to him,but is citingfrom Neubauer's editionof SO (Adolf Neubauer, MedievalJewish Chronicles, 2 vols. [Oxford, 1887-1895], 2:31). One ofthe two manuscriptsNeubauer cites (his siglum:C) is the Oxfordmanuscript just

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions [3] KIMA AND THE FLOOD IN SEDER 'OLAM 107

Saltykov-ShchedrinAntonin 891. Though many variant readings are found in the manuscriptsand editions,only two are of any importance to us here, and with regard to both MS Leningrad contains the minorityreading. In addition to MS Leningrad,only MS Oxford,Bodley heb. c. 18.1, containsthe reading "rises" in line 4 and the reading"sets" in line 9,6 while the opposite reading-"sets" in line 4 and "rises" in line 9- is attested by nine witnesses.7However, since six of the latter witnessesderive fromone hyperarchetypeand two othersfrom another, there are only three independentwitnesses.8 On the other hand, MSS Leningrad and Oxford are not related stemmatically,so there are two independentwitnesses in favor of the readingpresented. In a situationof thissort, where both variantsare attestedby two or more independentwitnesses, we must presuppose independentscribal emendation (or unique contamination)and consequentlyit is impossibleto determine the correctreading by means of stemmaticanalysis. Withoutwishing to claim that early manuscriptsare neces- sarily more trustworthythan late ones, it is worthnoting that both manuscriptswhich contain the readingpresented are very early, i.e. before the eleventh century,while of the witnesses mentioned,but with regard to the other, MS Oxford,Bodley heb. f. 27 (his siglum:f), he is mistaken:it has "sets." Marx, in his editionof SO (Alexander Marx, Seder 'Olam (Cap. 1-10) [Berlin, 1903], p. 9), also cites the reading "rises" fromMS Oxford; MS Ant. was eitherunknown or unavailable to him. 7 This reading will be called the ed. pr. text of SO. The nine witnessesare editio princeps (Mantua, 1513), ed. Constantinople, 1516 (an independent edition,see Milikowsky,"Seder Olam," pp. 34, 82), MS Oxford,Bodley Opp. 317, MS Oxford,Bodley heb. f. 27, 28-33, MS Oxford,Bodley Hunt. 487, MS Parma, Palatina 2787, MS Munich,Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Cod. Hebr. 95, MS Cincinatti,Hebrew Union College 852, and MS Cambridge, University LibraryT-S 12:801-812. However, in the lattertwo manuscriptsonly "sets" in line 4 is attested. (MS Cincinnatilacks the entirephrase containing"rises" in line 9 and MS Cambridge has a lacuna there.) MS Milan, Ambrosiana T66 Sup., has kima risingin both Iyyar and Marheshvan. 8 See Milikowsky,"Seder Olam," pp. 141-162, for the stemmaticanalysis of SO's manuscripttradition.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 108 MILIKOWSKY [4]

containingthe other reading only one is early and all others are fromthe fourteenthcentury or later.9Thus thereis a slight disposition towards the Ant. 891 text, wherein kima sets in Marheshvan and rises in Iyyar. This readingis also supportedby P.T. Ta'anit 1:3 (64a). The argumentcited in SO is not foundthere, but withinthe context of a discussionof the prayerfor rain R. 'Abba Mari, a fourth- century Palestinian Amora, states that the seventeenth of Marheshvan is the "time for kima to set, for then the flood came down upon the world."10Here, like in the Ant. 891 text of SO, kima sets in Marheshvan. All printededitions of B.T. R.H. lb state that kima sets in Iyyarand rises in Marheshvan,just like the ed. pr. textof SO. However, since manymanuscripts of R.H. have kima settingin Marheshvan and rising in Iyyar,1 the passage cannot be adduced in support of either reading in SO.

9 MSS Leningrad and Oxford are both Geniza fragmentson parchment; according to Malachi Beit-Arie (Hebrew Codicology [Paris, 1976], p. 20) parchmentwas not used in the Orientafter the beginningof the eleventh centuryexcept for biblical codices. MS Oxford,Bodley heb. f. 27, 28-33,is also a Geniza fragmenton parchment;all othermanuscripts listed in note7 are muchlater (Milikowsky, "Seder Olam," pp. 36-37,42-43, 44, 47, 52, 67). 10Though R. 'Abba Mari does not makeexplicit mention of Marheshvan (he says only "the seventeenth"),from the contextit is clear thathe is referringto thismonth. He baseshimself upon an earliertradition, like that of R. 'Eli'ezerin SO, whichconnects the coming of theFlood to thesetting of kimaand to the 17thof Marheshvan.His purposeis to provethat according to all opinionsrain beginsto fall by the 17thof Marheshvan;if he were establishingthe connectionshimself and not usingan earliersource, then 1) whyintroduce kima into the discussion,and 2) he is usingcircular reasoning: he connectsthe 17thof Marheshvanto therainfall because he connectsit to the Flood, but thisconnection is itselfbased upon the factthat the 17thof Marheshvanis the timeof the rainfall.Note thatthe citation of Gen. 7:11 in the P.T. passagecorresponds to thatpart of theverse cited in R. 'Eli'ezer's statementin SO. In SO the citationof thissection of the verse follows naturallyafter the citation of thefirst few words of theverse in thebeginning of the passage;in P.T. its purposeis unclear. 1 See note44 below.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions [5] KIMA AND THE FLOOD IN SEDER 'OLAM 109 Obviously, the identityof kima is very relevant to this discussion,but before turningto thisquestion it is necessaryto ascertain what "rising" and "setting" mean in this context. Though some discordantnotes have been sounded, there is an almost general agreement,among both medieval and modern scholars, that we are dealing with the heliacal rising and cosmical settingof kima.'2 A word of explanation may be necessary.Any star, given that it is seen for an extended period of timefrom any specific latitude,will rise and set everyday, since the risingand setting of the stars is dependent,just as is that of the sun, upon the rotationof the earth on its axis. The essentialpoint, however, is that the relative positions of any star and the sun change every day. As the earthproceeds anticlockwisearound the sun, the sun advances among the stars on its annual eastward course along the eliptic,the centerline of the zodiac, and this directionis opposite to thatof the sun's and stars' daily motion from east to west. Consequently,when the earth has com- pleted a complete rotation on its axis and faces the sun as before,13it has already,several minutesearlier, faced the stars

12 Most prominentamong the other interpretationsis that of Rashi, R.H. llb, s.v. ve'azdu (towards the end), where he states that "setting"during the day means havingpassed the easternhorizon and heading towardsthe western horizon, and R.H. 12a, yom, where he defines "rising" as rising sometime duringthe day. Of course, these two statementswould apply to manystars on any specificdate, so the choice of kima is inexplicable,see furtherbelow, note 62. Ratner (Seder Olam, p. 18) emends "sets" to "shines", but I do not understandhis explanation(which is anywayfactually incorrect). M. Simon, in the notes to his translation of R.H. (London, 1938), pp. 178-180, is astronomicallycorrect, but misses the exact denotationof "rises" and "sets." (His referenceto SO on p. 43, note 1, is strange: to which text of SO is he referring?). 13 This is the actual solar day. Our day of twenty-fourhours is based upon the mean solar day since actual solar days varyslightly in length.The solar day is actuallya slightbit more than a complete rotationof the earth since, in the meantime,the sun has also moved. A complete rotationof the earth, based upon fixed stars, is called a stellaror sidereal day.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 110 MILIKOWSKY [6] as before. Since the orbit of the earth around the sun lasts approximatelythree hundred and sixty-fivedays, the sun lags about four minutesbehind the stars in its daily course.14Thus any specificstar will be seen at any given point in the heaven at any given minuteduring the day only once a year. Though a moderately sophisticated stellar observer using elementary mathematicalproceedures can calculate the positionof any star at any given time, obviously for the agriculturistthere are specificpoints duringthe day when the positionof the star in the sky will have more meaning and can be put to a very practical use. One of these is the visibilityof the star on the eastern horizon just about at the same time that the sun becomes visible on that horizon; in other words, the sun and the star are risingat the same time.15This is called the heliacal risingof the star and will occur only once a year. Every day the star will rise several minutesearlier in relationto the sun until, approximatelya half year later, the star will have risen so much earlier that it will be settingwhen the sun is rising.In other words,it will be visible on the westernhorizon when the sun is visible on the eastern horizon: this is the cosmical setting.16

14 Afterone day,the sun has moved1/365 of its yearly journey. Dividing the 1440 minutesin a day by 365, thereremain approximately four minutes of rotationfor the earthto overtakethe sun. 15 Actually,the star must rise a littlein advanceof thesun. When the rising of the sun is simultaneouswith that of thestar, the latterwill not be visible. Onlya fewmornings later, when it risesjust before the sun, will it be visible on the easternhorizon until the skygrows too light. 16 This explanationis based upon M. P. Nilsson,Primitive Time-Reckoning (Lund, 1920), pp. 3-7; E.J. Bickerman, Chronologyof the Ancient World, revisededition (London, 1980), pp. 52-56; and M.L. West,"Excursus II: Time-Reckoning,"in his edition of Worksand Days byHesiod (Oxford, 1978), pp. 376-381.It is worthnoting that there was a considerablebody of literature in theHellenistic and Romanworld concerning the rising and settingof astral bodies, see, e.g., the OxfordClassical Dictionary, second edition (Oxford, 1970),s.v. Eudoxus(1) and Hipparchus(3), and F.K. Ginzel,Handbuch der Mathematischenund TechnischenChronologie, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1906-1914),

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions [7] KIMA AND THE FLOOD IN SEDER 'OLAM 1ll Though all this may seem quite complicated,this is only so because most people today are entirelywithout knowledge of the stars. But for a person withouta yearlycalendar whichcan help him determinethe seasons,17it is the most natural thing to notice that the stars whichrise and set as the sun rises (and he begins his day of work) vary duringthe year, and that this variation is yearly.By experience,which passes into common lore, he learns that the rising and setting of certain stars coincide with natural phenomena such as the changingof the seasons. Since the risingand settingof any star occurs only once a year, we could determinewhich was the correctreading in SO -"rising" in Iyyar and "setting" in Marheshvanor "setting" in Iyyarand "rising" in Marheshvan-if we knew whichstellar body kima was, and converselyif we knew which was the correctreading we could roughlydetermine kima's positionin the stellar map. Since it is not possible to conclusively determine which reading is correct by means of internal criteria,let us turn to the question of the identityof kima. This word is foundthree times in the Bible,18and thereis no doubt that it refersto a star or configurationof stars. It is generallytaken to be the Pleiades, but various scholars have also suggested Sirius, Scorpio, and Draco.19 Unfortunately,in

2:423. There is actually another "rising" and "setting" in addition to those discussed in the text: when the star rises and sets as the sun is settingon the westernhorizon. This risingis called acronychalrising and this settingheliacal setting.However, as West (Works and Days, p. 380) notes withregard to the Greeks and other peoples, "rising" and "setting" without qualification normallymeans at sunrise and not at sunset. 17 This is true of any calendar not exclusivelysolar. Even with a luni-solar calendar, the yearlyvariation of the monthsin relation to the seasons is too great for them to be sufficientindicators of crucial agriculturaldecisions. 18 Amos 5:8, Job 9:9 and 38:31. 19Sirius was firstsuggested by M.A. Stern("Die Sternbilderin Hiob Kp. 38, v. 31 und 32," JiidischeZeitschrift 3 [1864-65]: 269) and was accepted by Georg Hoffman ("Versuche zu Amos," Zeitschriftfur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft3 [1883]: 107, 279). Stern justifiedhis identificationby comparing

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 112 MILIKOWSKY [8] none of its occurrencescan kima be identifiedon the basis of its context,nor does it appear in any contemporaneouscognate language. The identificationof kima as Pleiades is based upon two considerations,neither conclusive. The Septuagintto Job 38:31 translateskima as Pleiades, as does also Symmachusand the Vulgate.20However, at Amos 5:8, while Symmachusand Theodotion have Pleiades, Aquila and the Vulgate have the orderof the stellarbodies in Job 38:31-32-kima,kesil, mazzarot, and 'ayish-withthe fourcontiguous groups of starsmost important in Greek mythologyand stellartime-reckoning-Sirius, Orion, Hyades, and Pleiades. His basic datumwas thatkesil is easilyidentifiable as Orionand therefore kima mustbe Sirius.Scorpio as the translationof the biblicalkima was suggested by P. Jensen ("Der kakkab m£irider Antares," Zeitschriftfur Assyriologie1 [1886]: 264-265), who cites earlier identification of the talmudic kima as Scorpio.These earlieridentifications stem fromS.Y. Rapoport's discussionof astronomicalterms in theTalmud ('Erekh milin, second edition [Warsaw,1914], pp. 288-301;these comments were excerpted from a letterto C.Z. Slonimsky,which was originallyprinted in the unpaginatedintroduction to the latter'sToldot ha-shamayim [Warsaw, 1838], and, translatedinto German,in Literaturblattdes Orients1 [1840]: 133-136,152-153, 169-172, 182-184,193-195, 230-231, 259-263.) On the basis of the parallelto SO in R.H. llb and a passagein B.T. Berakhot58b, Rapoportargues that kima mustbe Scorpio.Since Rapoportknew only of the vulgateeditions of the BabylonianTalmud, he could not realize that the manuscriptevidence invalidateshis conclusionfrom the R.H. passage.With regard to thispassage and also theBerakhot passage, see below.Draco as theidentification of kima was suggestedby Marcus Jastrow(A Dictionaryof the Targumim,the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi,and the MidrashicLiterature [New York, 1886-1903],p. 633): "a constellation,prob. Draco (not Pleiades)." 20 For Symmachus,see FrederickField, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, 2 vols. (Oxford,1875-76), 2:71. Accordingto Field, FlaminioNobilio, a sixteenth-centuryscholar who dealtextensively with fragmentary remnants of ancientbiblical translations, attests that Aquila translated kima in thisverse as Pleiades.Field himselfdid not acceptthis attribution: he citesit onlyin his notesand makesno mentionof it in his text.The Symmacheanattribution, acceptedby Field, is foundin threewitnesses, all threevery much earlier than Nobilio,but is notfound in Nobilio;there is goodreason, therefore, to suspect Nobilio'sattribution on internalgrounds, even before noting that Aquila has a differenttranslation for kima at Amos 5:8.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions [9] KIMA AND THE FLOOD IN SEDER 'OLAM 113 Arcturus.21And, at Job 9:9, in additionto Arcturusin the Septuagintand Pleiades in the Origenic revisionof the Septuagint,the Vulgatehas Hyades and Ambrosehas Ursa Major.22It is difficult,therefore, to drawany firm conclusions fromthis morass; in any event the evidence in favorof Pleiadesis onlyslightly stronger than the evidence in favorof Arcturus.23 The word kima is attestedin Syriacand Ethiopic,and in bothlanguages definitely refers to thePleiades.24 However, this does not necessarilyprove a common Hebrew-Aramaic- Ethiopicname forthe Pleiades;it mayonly indicate that the biblicalword kima was identifiedas the Pleiades in certain Aramaic-speakingJewish or Christiancommunities.25 The questionof the originalmeaning of the wordin the Bible, as well as the possibilitythat alternativeidentifications existed, remainopen.26 Kima does not appearin anyother tannaitic text, so thereis 21 Symmachus,Theodotion, and Aquila apud JosephZiegler, Duodecin Prophetae.Septuaginta Vol. 12 (Gottingen,1943), p. 192. The Septuagintto thisverse translates kima as panta. 22 For the Origenicrevision, see Field, Hexapla, 2:18. Ambrose,De InterpellationeJob et David I, 4 (SanctiAmbrosii Opera, Part 2, ed. Carolus Schenkl[Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum 32; Vienna,1897], p. 217). 23 The Targumand Peshittatranslate kima with the Aramaic form of kima. This can mean 1) the translatorsare unawareof its meaning,or 2) kimais called kima in Aramaicalso. The evidencefrom Syriac (see immediately below)indicates that the second possibility is correct.Nonetheless, it maybe truethat different translators understood the Aramaicword kima differently. 24 For Syriac,see R. PayneSmith, Theasaurus Syriacus, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1879), 1:1723,and for Ethiopic,Erno Littman,"Sternensagen und Astro- logischesaus Nordabessinien,"Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft 11 (1908): 299, and J.J.Hess, "Die Sternbilderin Hiob 99 und383,f.," Festschrift Georg Jacob, ed. TheodorMenzel (Leipzig, 1932), p. 96. 25With regard to Syriac,this possibility is obvious;with regard to Ethiopic, see Theodor Noldecke (Neue Beitrdgezur SemitischenSprachwissenschaft [Strassburg,1910], p. 45), who statesthat Ethiopic kima is a loanwordfrom Hebrewor Aramaic. 26 This possibilitywill be exploredbelow.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 114 MILIKOWSKY [10]

no materialcontemporaneous to the SO passage,27but it does occasionally appear in the Babylonian Talmud and in the midrashim.A numberof these passages supportthe identification of kima as the Pleiades.28 From the statementof R. Papa (fourth-centuryBabylonian Amora) in B.T. Baba Mesi'a' 106b it followsthat the position of kima at nightfallaround Februaryor March is the middleof the sky: this is roughly true of all astral bodies from the Pleiades to Sirius. In B.T. Berakhot 58b-59a, a number of passages concerningthe stars are cited, several of which are relevant to our problem. Samuel (third-centuryBabylonian Amora) gives an etymologyof the name kima: like a hundred (keme'ah) stars. Though only six or seven stars are easily visible to the naked eye, the Pleiades consist of several hundred stars bunched closely together. Consequently, Samuel's descriptionis very applicable though it remains a question how he can have known this.29More importantis the subsequent passage which states that kima is pursued30by 'ayish(or 'ash),31 whichis identifiedby the Aramaic yuta.Ever

27 The tannaiticdating of SO is upheld by Milikowsky("Seder Olam," pp. 12-24); see also idem, "Seder 'olam ve-ha-tosefta',"Tarbiz 49 (1979-80): 246-263. 28Only one of the followingpassages (the last) actuallyindicates that kima is the Pleiades; the other two are suggestivebut not exclusionary. 29 A.E. Fanning(Planets, Stars and Galaxies, revised by D.H. Menzel [New York, 1966], pp. 151-152) writesthat "a good eye may pick out as manyas a dozen stars in the Pleiades." The Pleiades of Greek mythologywere seven in number,so obviouslythat was the numberof stars easily visible in antiquity. Samuel's impressionthat the Pleiades contain about a hundredstars may have come about because this group of stars encompasses "a good deal of interstellardust which is illuminatedby the star-lightit reflects"(Fanning, Planets, p. 152). 30 The notion of pursuingand fleeingstars is verycommon, see West (Works and Days by Hesiod, p. 314, note to line 620) for parallels fromGreek and other cultures. 31 Biblical 'ayish(Job 38:32) is presumablyidentical to biblical 'ash (Job 9:9). At any rate, the talmudicdiscussion begins with 'ash and switchesin middleto 'ayish.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions [11] KIMA AND THE FLOOD IN SEDER 'OLAM 115 since Schiaparelli's discussion,32there can be no doubt that 'iyuthain Syriac is the Hyades; consequentlykima mustbe the Pleiades which immediatelyprecede the Hyades.33 One could still posit that alternativeidentifications of kima existed,and consequentlywe cannot determinethe meaningof kima in SO from the above evidence. There is, though, additional evidence which, to my mind, conclusivelyproves that kima in SO is the Pleiades.34 .The passage in SO deals with the beginningof the Flood. According to R. 'Eli'ezer, the Flood began in Marheshvan when kima sets (or rises) and rain falls, and accordingto R. Yehoshu'a the flood began in Iyyarwhen kima rises (or sets) and rain does not fall, but God changed the "order of the world."35 It is evident from the passage that the astral body kima was coupled with the coming of the rain and this gave rise to its association with the beginningof the Flood. 32 G. Schiaparelli,Astronomy in the Old Testament(Oxford, 1905), pp. 161-163;see G.R. Driver,"Two AstronomicalPassages in the Old Testa- ment," Journalof TheologicalStudies N.S. 7 (1956): 1-2, but cf. Hess, "Sternbilder,"pp. 98-99. 33 Thereare also a numberof relevantpassages in laterrabbinic literature. Accordingto BamidbarRabba 10:8, kimais antipodalto Scorpio,so it must be nearTaurus or Aries;Pleiades is betweenthe two of them.Seder Eliyahu Rabba,2 (ed. Friedmann,p. 9), statesthat kima contains seven stars, all seven lyingclose to each other;this is an apt descriptionof what the human eye sees in Pleiades. MidrashTadshe 6 (in AbrahamEpstein, Mi-qadmoniyot ha- yehudim[Jerusalem, 1965], p. 148) also says thatkima has sevenstars, and continues,"when it setsplow the land forseeding, and whenit risesit is the timefor the harvest."This is an almostexact parallel to whatHesiod (Works and Days, 383-385)says about the Pleiades. 34Since thereare indicationsthat an alternativeinterpretation of kima existed(see below),this additional evidence is essentialin orderto determine the originalreading of the SO passage. 35 There are two possibleexplanations of this phrase.According to the elaborationof this passage in R.H. thechange introduced in orderto makethe rain fall was the reversalof kima'sposition so that it conformedto the positionnecessary for rain to fall.From the SO passage,however, it is possible to understandthe change as thebringing of rain when kima is in a positionnot naturallyassociated with the comingof rain.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 116 MILIKOWSKY [12] If one examinesthe available evidence regardingastral bodieswhose risings and settingswere noted, one receivesthe overwhelmingimpression that it was thesetting of thePleiades whichwas mostoften coupled with the coming of therain. In the Near East the role of harbingerof the rainsis almost exclusivelyattached to the Pleiades;comparative material can also be adduced fromthe generalMediterranean area and fromtraditional cultures the worldover. G. Dalman,in his Arbeitund Sittein Palastina,cites several examplesof Bedouin sayingsassociating the settingof the Pleiadesand thecoming of therain.36 Indeed, in certainplaces the firstimportant rainfall is called afterthe Arabicname for the Pleiades.37Josephus, in his accountof AntiochusVII's siege of JohnHyrcanus, tells of the "greatdownpour of rain whichcame withthe settingof the Pleiades."38Similarly in Greece: Hesiod tells us of the stormswhich rage whenthe Pleiades set, and the Geoponicadiscusses the exact relationship betweenthe settingof the Pleiadesand the beginningof the rain.39There was even a popularnotion that the setting of the Pleiadesin the autumnwas the cause of the rainswhich followed.40 Since the rise of ethnographyand comparativefolklore a greatdeal of ethnographicdata concerningstar-lore has been collected.From this material it is clearthat: 1) thePleiades are far and above the most importantastral body used for indicationsof seasonal change; and 2) of the numerous statementsconcerning the Pleiades noted in theliterature, very manyexpressly connect them to the comingof the rain.4

3 7 vols. in 8 (1928-42),1:38-39. 37 Ibid., 1:123. 38 Antiquities13. 237. 39Hesiod, Worksand Days, 620-621;Geoponica 1. 5. 40J.G. Frazer,The GoldenBough, 12 vols.,third edition (London, 1935), Part 5, Spiritsof theCorn and of the Wild,Vol. 1, pp. 318-319. 41 See Frazer,Golden Bough, Part 5, Vol. 1, pp. 307-319,and Nilsson, PrimitiveTime-Reckoning, pp. 129-146.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions [13] KIMA AND THE FLOOD IN SEDER 'OLAM 117 In the lightof theseparallels, there can be littledoubt that in the SO passagekima is thePleiades. Therefore, the reading presented-kimasetting in Marheshvanand risingin Iyyar- mustbe correct,for the cosmical setting of thePleiades occurs in the middleof the autumnand its heliacalrising in thelate spring.42And, as alreadynoted, this reading is foundin the more ancient SO manuscriptsand also agrees with the PalestinianTalmud passage. How, though,did the alternativereading-kima rising in Marheshvanand settingin Iyyar-develop? If only one independenttestimony to this readingexisted, one would blame some careless scribe who inadvertentlyswitched the words;but threeindependent textual traditions testify to this reading,and so it cannotbe attributedto chance.There is only one possible way of explainingthis variant:the scribesor scholarswho "corrected"the Ant. 891 textof SO, whichhas kima settingin Marheshvan,to read that kima rises in Marheshvan,did not identifykima as the Pleiades. This emendationmust be based uponan alternativeidentification of kima, accordingto which kima is an astral body roughly antipodalto the Pleiades. Evidencein favorof such an identification,though weak, is extant.Earlier, when discussing the meaningof kima,it was emphasizedthat there is no conclusiveproof that the biblical wordkima means the Pleiades; only with regard to kimain the SO passage is the evidence completelyconvincing. The

42 A convenienttable of dates forthe risingand settingof several prominent stars is given by Bickerman,Chronology, pp. 112-114,and Dalman, Arbeitund Sitte, 1:492-495. (Bickerman's explanation is, at several points, incorrect. Heliacal risingand settingmeans risingand settingwith the sun; thus,heliacal rising is rising at sunrise and heliacal settingis settingat sunset. Cosmical settingis settingat sunrise and acronical (or achronychal)rising is risingat sunset, see also West, Works and Days, by Hesiod, p. 380.) Since our discussion hinges on a luni-solaryear where there is no close coordination between the phases of the solar year and the days of the month,the degree of accuracy in these tables is of no importance.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 118 MILIKOWSKY [14] evidence drawn from the ancient translatorsin favor of the Pleiades is only slightlystronger than the evidence in favorof Arcturus.Especially worth notingis Aquila's use of Arcturus to translate kima, Amos 5:8, which was accepted by Jerome both in the Vulgate and in his commentaryto Amos.43These alternativeinterpretations should not, perhaps, be understood as indicating a wide-spread uncertaintywith regard to the meaning of kima, but ratherthe existence of two alternative interpretationsof the word. And-let me immediatelynote -the heliacal rising of Arcturusfalls in the autumn and its cosmical settingin the spring.44 There is one other piece of evidence which suggests that kima was located by some on the stellar sphere at a position roughlyantipodal to the Pleiades. In B.T. Berakhot 58b kima is contrastedto kesil: "were it not for the heat of kesil the world could not endure the cold of kima; and were it not for the cold of kima the world could not endure the heat of kesil." Though some doubt exists, kesil is generally taken to be Orion,45whose heliacal rising occurs in the summer. This

43 Above, note 21, Jerome, Commentariorumin Amos Prophetam5.260 (S. Hieronymi PresbytereiOpera, Part I, 6, Corpus christianorumscriptorum latinorum 76 [Turnhout,Belgium, 1969], p. 280), cf. Pierre Lardot, "Culte Astral et Culture Profane chez S. Jer6me," Vigiliae Christianae35 (1981): 336-340. 44See Bickerman, Chronology,p. 114. Though Arcturus'setting occurs at about the same time as the Pleiades' rising,Arcturus' rising occurs over a month before the settingof the Pleiades. 45 See Schiaparelli, Astronomy,pp. 60-61, Hess, "Sternbilder,"pp. 97-98, and Driver, "Two Astronomical Passages," pp. 1-2. According to Saadiah Gaon, Job 9:9 ('Iyov 'im tirgumu-pirush ha-ga'on rabenu Sa'adyah ben Yosef Fayumi, ed. Yosef Kafah [Jerusalem,1973], p. 71), kesil is Canopus. (The Arabic word is suhail, on which see P. Kunitzsch,Arabische Sternnamenin Europa [Wiesbaden, 1959], pp. 208-210; Dalman's [Arbeit und Sitte, 1:14] identificationof suhel in Saadiah as Sirius cannot be accepted.) However, neitherthe risingnor the settingof Canopus can be connectedin any way to the summer(see the table in Dalman, Arbeitund Sitte,1:495), so Canopus is definitelynot the kesil of this talmudicpassage. For Orion's heliacal rising,see Bickerman, Chronology,p. 113.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions [15] KIMA AND THE FLOOD IN SEDER 'OLAM 119 implies, thereforethat kima is an astral body whose heliacal risingoccurs in the winteror autumn,which of course excludes the Pleiades whose heliacal risingoccurs in May.46This kima thereforeis roughlyantipodal to the Pleiades and may be the same as the kima in the ed. pr. text of SO.47 Unfortunately,the rabbinic material supportingan alternative identificationof kima does not corroboratethe translation of kima as Arcturus,found in some of the ancient versions. Nonetheless, taken together,they indicate the plausibilityof the existence of alternative identificationsof kima in late antiquity,which led to the developmentof the ed. pr. text of SO with kima risingin Marheshvan.

The other passage dealing with kima and the Flood, R.H. 11b-12a, though similar to SO, has several importantvaria- tions. Here also two versions of the passage exist, one with kima settingin Marheshvan,and the other with kima risingin

46 Dalman (Arbeit und Sitte,1:497-501) offersa differentinterpretation of this passage, according to which kima is the Pleiades. Aside from other problemswith his explanation,he is forcedto maintainthat the passage refers to kima's settingbut kesil's rising.(Dalman's identificationof kesil as Sirius, though irrelevantto the point under discussion [Sirius lags behind Orion by only two to three weeks], should be rejected. The talmudicpassage does not call kesilthe heat-starpar excellence;rather, as part of its exegesis of Amos 5:8 and Job 9:9 the heat of kesil is contrastedto the cold of kima.) 47 Also worthy of note is the subsequent passage in Berakhot 58b: it discusses Scorpio ('aqrav) but cites as proof-textJob 38:31 whichcontains only kima and kesil. If kesil is Orion, then kima must be Scorpio or some star (e.g. Antares) withinthe constellationof Scorpio. It is however possible that the proof-textrefers not to the Scorpio passage but to the precedingpassage which deals with kima and kesil. This suggestion, proposed by Samuel Edels (MaHaRSHa') in his Hiddushei 'Aggadot, ad. loc., has the added benefitof elucidating the functionof the biblical citation within the context of the passage. In the text as it stands now, with the improperpositioning of the Scorpio passage, the proof-textseems to offerno proof.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 120 MILIKOWSKY [16] Marheshvan.But, as we shall see, the relationshipbetween the two versions in R.H. is not the same as the relationship between the two versions in SO. Because of the differences between SO and R.H., it is essentialto quote the R.H. passage in full:48 "nwYn,"w31 *nmtr1n nt n3ix3 wn nn n,r3 K1 : R3n'' Tsit has n taught"j n snixhhe hundreh year:nn or

tion ofkima sets at daybreakandthe nfountainsdry up, a ndbecaue [e generationTYo1f theFlood] alteredthir ways,nnthe Hol 1One,y blessedbe He a lteredupon t" ofnvrwam themonth"Gn nwv1 D r ( lorn- lln1. 7 nrrpw R.n3 Yehoshu'a nworwyasays: 1"vaw That Tlnal day .1L3y1P X--IDII t3 n3I 1V "01 49(1rn31 : l Ta norl) As it has been taught: "In ndthesixth ndet year of Noah's life,in the second month,on the seventeenthday of the month" (Gen. 7:11). R. Yehoshu'a says: That day was the seventeenthof Myyar,a day when the constellation of kima sets at daybreak and the fountainsdry up, and because [the generation of the Flood] altered their ways, the Holy One, blessed be He, altered upon them the work of creation and made the constellationof kima rise at daybreak and took two stars from kima and brought a flood on the world. R. Eliezer says: That day was the seenteenthesseventeent o ar v a dy n the constellationof kimarises at daybreak and the fountains fill up, and because they altered their ways, the Holy One, blessed be He, altered upon them the work of creation, (and made the constellation of kima rise at daybreak)49and took two stars from kimaand broughta flood on the world. Before turningto a discussionof the differencesbetween this passage and the SO passage, it is necessary to survey the relevant manuscriptevidence. Most importantis the question of the rising and setting of kima. The reading presented-

48 The passageis quotedfrom the Venice1520-21 edition, and is virtually identicalto the vulgatetext available today. 49 The phraseinserted within the parentheses should be deleted,see below.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions [17] KIMA AND THE FLOOD IN SEDER 'OLAM 121 kima settingin Iyyar and risingin Marheshvan-is found in seven witnesses,that is, six in addition to the Venice 1520-21 edition presentedhere.50 The alternativereading-kima setting in Marheshvan and rising in Iyyar-is upheld by only four witnesses, one of which however is a Geniza fragmentand another a manuscriptoriginating in Yemen.51With regard to

50The reading presented,which will be called the Rashi text of R.H. (see immediatelybelow), is found in the Venice 1520-21 edition, MS Munich, Bayerische StaatsbibliothekCod. Hebr. 95, MS Munich, Bayer. Staats. Cod. Hebr. 140 (margin),MS London, BritishLibrary Harl. 5508 (aftercorrection), MS Oxford, Bodley Qpp. Add. fol. 23, MS New York, JewishTheological SeminaryRab. 1608 (ENA 850), and an early printededition (Fez, ca. 1516), published in facsimileby H.Z. Dimitrovsky,S'ridei Bavli (New York, 1979), pp. 218-219, see his introduction,pp. 45-47. 51This reading,which will be called the Tos. textof R.H., is attestedby MS Munich,Bayer. Staats. Cod. Hebr. 140, MS London, BritishLibrary Harl. 5508 (before correction),MS Cambridge,University Library T-S F2(1). 165, and MS New York, JewishTheological SeminaryRab. 218 (EMC 270). The nextto last manuscriptis fromthe Geniza, and the provenanceof the last is Yemen. (On the importanceof Yemenite Talmud manuscripts,see Shelomo Morag, "'Al riq'ah shel mesoretha-'aramit ha-bavlit shel 'adat teiman u-birurshetei sugyot be-masoretzo't," in Mehkerei 'edot u-genizah muqdashim le-profesorShelomo Dov Goitein,ed. S. Morag and Y. Ben-Ami [Jerusalem,1981], p. 149, and the referencesin note 41. Eliezer Segal ["Mesorot ha-nosah shel bavli megillah," (Ph. D, diss., Hebrew University,1981), pp. 1-107] recentlyproved that the text of a late Yemenite manuscriptof Megillah oftencorresponds [against all other manuscripts]to Geonic and other early citationsof the Talmud.) As opposed to the situationwith SO, where the two texts differonly with regard to the position of "rising" and "setting," in R.H. the differences between the two textsare considerable.Consequently, I thinkit worthwhileto quote in full the Tos. text of R.H. Unfortunately,the Genizah MS is fragmentaryand the Yemenite MS is lackingan entiresection, so the following is taken fromMS Munich, Bayer. Staats. Cod. Hebr. 140 (with one addition, insertedbetween brackets,taken from the other manuscripts): tlrnlmin 'naX ItPw utxtWn n vnrn3nna nmn3 n 7l3 n ttDtnw w 3 x,nm llnml w na nl3:psw01" s plp?"D"o tnW[r1'] 'nl 1lmna3=CRY w Y7ty \031o13 nwD "t f"Yu1 nvtwx "mnOT rb "1rrn n n rVya 13Vrr 'X"3 tIY Y=a 1'3nlNX 'nlaXDX swim" "n D1lny E13nD'a K1 3 i n 31= 3 "D1 ;13at1nT'P3t 13W llnnl nl-13na n13]"YMl D1". -51Y -,. btD D1';'3 .n41rrO7T sg X13tw 1 =nDn D313D 5mQ31t n"03W nws`3 1iflrPn

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 122 MILIKOWSKY [18] medieval scholars, Rashi, who was probably aware of both readings,has kima settingin Iyyarand risingin Marheshvan.52

52 Rashi,R.H. 11b,s.v. ve'azdu.Since Rashi begins his discussionwith the phrase "hakhigarsinan be-seder 'olam" (such is the readingin SO), he is clearlyexcluding some otherreading. I do not thinkthat the textual options availableto Rashidiffer only with regard to theorder of thestatements by R. Yehoshu'aand R. Eli'ezer,that is, Rashimaintains that R. Yehoshu'ashould precedeR. 'Eli'ezer in R.H. just as he does in SO. Much moreprobably, Rashiknows of and meansto excludea textwhich commences with R.'Eli'ezer statingthat kima sets in Marheshvan(as is truefor all manuscriptsextant containingthe Tos. textof R.H.). Rashiargues, therefore, that R. Yehoshu'a's statementshould come first, the passagestill begins with kima setting, but in this other text R. Yehoshu'a and Iyyarhave replacedR. 'Eli'ezer and Marheshvan,so now kimais settingin Iyyar. Rashi justifieshis readingby recourseto a parallelrabbinic source, SO, Presumably,this means that, faced with two alternative readings, he supports his decisionby pointingto the parallelwhich agrees withhim. (For an explanationof Rashi's decision,see below, note 63.) Anotherpossibility, though,is thatRashi is emendingagainst his R.H. manuscriptson thebasis of this parallel.In other words,Rashi had in frontof him no manuscript containingthe Rashi text of R.H.; it developedonly as a resultof his emendation.If suchwere indeed the case we wouldexpect Rashi to be more explicit,as he is, e.g., in-R.H.34b, s.v. mi-tish'ah,where he statesthat such and suchis thereading of all manuscriptsand he is emendingaccording to the Tosephta. Nonetheless,this possibility-that the Rashi textdeveloped out of Rashi's emendation-mustbe given serious consideration,if only because later medievalexegetes considered it to be true.Thus, an anonymousnote to the Rashi underdiscussion (printed in thevulgate Talmud text, R.H. 35a) states, "Such was the reading... untilour teacher(rabeinu) emended it," and then continueswith the citation and defenseof the Tos. reading.This anonymous note considersthe Tos. text,which has kima settingin Marheshvan,the originaltext and the Rashi text a secondarydevelopment. Similarly, R. Zerahiahb. Isaac ha-Levi(12th century) writes in Ha-Ma'or ha-qatan(ad. loc.), "... and R. Shelomo (=Rashi), blessed be his memory,changed the readingand I do not knowwhy." Obviously,the manuscriptsattesting the Rashi textof R.H. are thecrucial factorhere. Since it is wellknown that the textual tradition of theBabylonian Talmud was oftenemended to conformwith Rashi's textualglosses, the existenceof sevenwitnesses attesting the Rashitext of R.H. does notprove thatthis text did not originatewith Rashi. It is necessaryto ascertainwith

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions [19] KIMA AND THE FLOOD IN SEDER 'OLAM 123 But, to my knowledge,he was the only medieval exegete to decide in favorof this reading,while Tosafot,R. Hananel, and regard to each witness whether or not it was influenced by Rashi's commentary.Though it is difficultto determineif any specificreading stems froman "early" Talmud text or fromRashi's glosses, nonethelessthe problem can be resolved in several ways. The extent of agreement with Rashi throughoutthe manuscriptis the most importantindicator. Also, at times manuscriptsincorporate sections of Rashi's commentaryin theirtext, and this definitelyproves that they were influenced by Rashi. (David Rosenthal ["Mishnah 'avodah zarah: mahadurah biqqortitu-mavo"' (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University,1980), pp. 228-229] recentlypointed out an instanceof a comment of Rashi included in MS Munich, Bayer. Staats. Cod. Hebr. 95.) In order to ascertain the extent of Rashi's influence upon the seven witnessesattesting the Rashi text,it was necessaryto compare commentsof a textualnature made by Rashi in R.H. withthe readingsof these witnesses.In a hastysurvey I located twelvetextual comments; of these,seven are of no use for our discussion since just about all manuscriptsagree with Rashi or just about all disagree. (General agreement occurs when Rashi is eliminatinga rogue text-or else we must assume all manuscriptsextant were influenced by Rashi; manuscriptswhich normally follow Rashi disagreewith him when his emendation is very radical or when he himselftestifies to the existence of another reading.) Analysis of the remainingfive passages (admittedlya small sample) indicates that MS Munich, Bayer. Staats. Cod. Hebr. 95, MS Oxford, Bodley Opp. Add. fol. 23, and the printededitions generally follow Rashi, and consequently their reading with regard to kima may be a "correction" introduced into the text on the basis of Rashi's commentary.However, the evidence indicates that MS New York, JTS Rab. 1608, was not influencedby Rashi's commentary.There are thereforesufficient grounds to conclude that the Rashi text of R.H. did not originatewith Rashi. (With regard to three witnesses,MS Munich, Bayer. Staats. Cod. Hebr. 140 (margin),MS London, BritishLibrary Harl. 5508 (aftercorrection) and ed. Fez, ca. 1516, the evidence is insufficientto draw any firmconclusions, though my presupposition is thatat least the firsttwo were extensivelyinfluenced by Rashi's comments.) Segal ("Bavli megillah," pp. 127-212) devotes a long chapter to this very problem.Since all of the above noted manuscripts,aside fromMS New York, contain both R.H. and Megillah, the resultsof his investigation-MS Munich 95, MS Oxford, Bodley Opp. Add. fol. 23, the printededitions, MS Munich 140 (margin),and MS London, Harl. 5508 (aftercorrection) were all influenced by Rashi-also suggests that the Rashi text of the kima passage in these manuscriptsmay derive fromRashi's commentary.And, on the otherhand, E. S. Rosenthal ("La-'arikhat masekhetpesah ri'shonbavli," [Ph.D. diss., Hebrew

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 124 MILIKOWSKY [20] a long list of scholars and commentatorsfollow the alternative reading.53 There is one other fairly importantvariant: only in the printed editions and two manuscripts54does the phrase "and made the constellationof kima rise at daybreak" occur twice, after both Marheshvan and Iyyar.All other witnesseshave it only once, aftereither Iyyaror Marheshvan,depending upon within which month kima normallysets. This latter reading conformsto our expectations:only when kima normallysets can it be considereda "change" to make it rise. Consequently, in the quotation fromed. Venice above, one occurrenceof this phrase, when referringto Marheshvanwherein kima naturally rises,was insertedbetween parentheses and should be deleted. Though the major differencebetween the Rashi and Tos. texts of R.H. is their contradictorydates for the rising and

University,1959], preface [separate pagination],pp. 1-3) classifiesMS New York, JTS Rab. 1608, among those manuscriptsunencumbered with glosses and emendationswhich developed as a resultof the commentsof Rashi and the Tosafot; this substantiatesthe conclusion that the Rashi text of the kima passage is not dependent upon Rashi. In truth,though, even if MS New York, JTS Rab. 1608, did not exist and all witnesses attestingthe Rashi text were known to have been influencedby Rashi, I would still be convinced that the Rashi text of R.H. is the original one; only by positingsuch a text can I explain the relationshipbetween SO and R.H., see below for discussion. 53 Tosafot, ad. loc., s.v. yom; R. Hananel, Commentaryto R.H., ad. loc.; R. Yosef Tov Elem (Bonfils), Responsum apud R. Bezalel Ashkenazi, Shitah mequbbeset,Baba Mesi'a' 106b, s.v. ve-nish'al;R. Zerahiah b. Isaac ha-Levi, Ha-Ma'or ha-qatan, ad. loc.; Maimonides, Hiddushim to R.H. attributedto, ad. loc., ed. M.Y.L. Sachs (Jerusalem, 1963), pp. 67-69; R. Solomon b. Abraham ibn Adret (RaSHBa'), Hiddushim to R.H., ad. loc., ed. H.Z. Dimitrovsky(New York, 1961), p. 55; R. Nathan b. Jehiel of Rome, 'Arukh, s.v. kmh ('Arukh ha-shalem, ed. by Alexander Kohut, 8 vols. [Vienna and New York, 1878-92], 4:244); and others. 54 Actually only one manuscript,MS New York, JTS Rab. 1608; but the Vorlageof MS Munich 95 also had this reading.MS Munich95 itselfhas "and the constellationof kima rose at daybreak," a scribal "correction" which involved changing ve-he'elah to ve-'alah.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions [21] KIMA AND THE FLOOD IN SEDER 'OLAM 125 settingof kima,a comparisonof the two textsbrings to light additionalvariations, all relatedto thisbasic difference.In the Rashi text,the Flood is naturallyexpected when kima rises in Marheshvan-thisis when"the fountainsfill up"; whenkima sets in Iyyar the Flood is not naturallyexpected-"the fountainsdry up"-so kima'sposition must be changed- "He ... made the constellationof kima rise at daybreak." Accord- ingto theTos. textthe months are reversed55:when kima rises in Iyyarthe Flood is naturallyexpected-"the fountains fill up," while at kima's settingin Marheshvanwhen "the fountainsdry up" it is necessaryto make"the constellationof kima rise at daybreak." A comparisonof the differencesbetween the two variant textsof SO, on theone hand,and thedifferences between the two varianttexts of R.H., on the other,proves to be very interesting(see chart on next page). In SO, all witnesses agree that the Flood would naturallycome in Marheshvan; theydisagree with regard to theposition of kimaat thattime. But in R.H., onlythe Rashi textstates that the Flood would naturallycome in Marheshvan;according to the Tos. textthe Flood was naturallyexpected in Iyyar.56All witnessesto R.H. agree that the Flood would come when kima rises; they disagreewith regard to the monthwithin which kima rises. The implicationsof thesedistinctions will be analyzedin the ensuing discussion. Even a cursoryexamination of SO and R.H. leads one to the conclusionthat SO has retaineda moreoriginal form of thepassage.57 The simplicityof theSO passagehas been lostin R.H.: no longeris Marheshvanthe natural month of theFlood because it is thetime of therainfall and onlyIyyar the month

55 See note 51, wherethe Tos. textof R.H. is quotedin full. 56 Thoughfrom a climaticperspective this seems questionable, see discussion below. 57 This is not to say thatthe R.H. passageis dependentupon the book we call SO; indeed,I doubtif thisis the case.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 126 MILIKOWSKY [22] Ant. 891 ed. pr. Marheshvan:kima sets Marheshvan:kima rises Iyyar:kima rises Iyyar:kima sets Flood naturallyexpected Flood naturallyexpected SO in Marheshvan in Marheshvan Flood naturallyexpected Flood naturallyexpected when kima sets when kimarises

Tos. Rashi Marheshvan:kima sets Marheshvan:kima rises Iyyar:kima rises Iyyar:kima sets Flood naturallyexpected Flood naturallyexpected R.H. in Iyyar in Marheshvan Flood naturallyexpected Flood naturallyexpected when kimarises when kimarises

whereina "change"is needed.In R.H. theFlood beganwith a "change,"whether it began in Iyyaror in Marheshvan. Essentiallythe differencehas to do withthe phrase"God alteredthe order of theworld/the work of creation":in SO it appearsonly once, and, accordingto all witnesses,with regard to Iyyar(when rain does not fall). In R.H. it appearstwice, withregard to bothMarheshvan and Iyyar.But withregard to one of them(depending upon the reading)the comingof the Flood is not unnatural-kimaanyway rises58-so what need is therefor a change?The sugyafollowing the baraitaasks this veryquestion; its answer,however, suggests that the baraita means somethingnot even hintedat and is thereforeprob- lematic.Most probably,the introductionof this phrase a second timeserves to emphasizethe supernaturaland point

58 In R.H., as opposed to SO, all witnessesagree thatthe Flood would naturallycome whenkima rises.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions [23] KIMA AND THE FLOOD IN SEDER 'OLAM 127 out thatno matterwhen the Flood occurred,it shouldnot be considereda naturalevent. So whatdid God change(if kima was in the correctposition for a flood)?He took away two stars fromkima.59 This "change" applies to both Iyyarand Marheshvan,while the other change applies to only one (dependingupon the reading). The motifof takingtwo starsfrom kima is partof a larger aggadicelaboration on the interrelationshipof two constella- tions, kima and 'ayish.In B.T. Berakhot59a we findthat "when the Holy One, blessed be He, wishedto bringthe Flood to the worldHe took away two starsfrom kima and broughtthe Flood to theworld, and whenHe wishedto close it He took away two starsfrom 'ayish and closed it."60The R.H. passage is simplyquoting from the largerpassage61 the

59 R. Yom Tov b. AbrahamIshvili (RiTVa'), Hiddushimto R.H., ad. loc. discussesthis possibility, but for him the problem is to explainwhy the Talmud does not givethis obvious response to the question"What did He change?" ProfessorDavid Halivni(Meqorot u-mesorot: bi'urim be-talmud le-seder mo'ed [Jerusalem,1975], p. 370,note 2) refersto theRitva, and seemssatisfied with the latter'sexplanation. He concludes(concerning this point we followhim) that the originalformulation of thispassage is thatof SO withonly one "change."He thenpresents two alternativeexplanations of the R.H. text: eitherit developedby meansof a mechanicaltransferral of thisphrase from one halfof the baraitato the other,or by meansof an amalgamationof two differentformulations of thisbaraita, each containingonly one "change,"but in one the"change" is associatedwith R. Yehoshu'aand in theother with R. 'Eli'ezer.The focusof Halivni'sreconstruction is very different from the one in thispaper. Since he acceptsthe positionof the Ritva whilerejecting the answergiven by thelater sugya, his majorconcern is withthe development of the R.H. textcontaining two "changes" and notwith the inter-relationship of SO and R.H. 60 The passagetranslated here is in Hebrewwhile further elaborations upon thismotif both before and afterthe passage are in Aramaic.Does thisindicate thatthis passage is an independenttradition unit which was incorporatedinto the sugya? 61 This does not meana mechanicalborrowing from Berakhot. The baraita in R.H. was almostdefinitely formulated before the passage was incorporated intothe sugyain Berakhot.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 128 MILIKOWSKY [24] phrase "He took away two stars from kima and broughtthe Flood to the world" in order to tell us exactly what change God made in the order of creationwhen he broughtthe Flood. Since this extraordinaryact of God-taking two stars away fromkima-is the same whetherit occurredin Marheshvanor in Iyyar,whether kima is risingor setting,it has no relevance to our basic problem.The otherchange in the work of creation is very relevant: accordingto all witnessesof R.H. God made kima rise in order to bringthe Flood to the world. If kima's risingis necessaryin order to bringthe Flood, it followsthat the naturaltime for the Flood to come is when kima rises,and the anomalous time when kima sets. Keeping this in mind, that accordingto both the Rashi and Tosafot text of R.H., that is to say, whetherkima is said to rise in Iyyar or Marheshvan, it is its rising which is the necessary antecedent for the coming of the Flood, we shall returnto the problem of the two alternativereadings in SO and R.H. and also to the question of the relationshipbetween these two texts. Let us start with the Rashi text of R.H.: In Marheshvan kima rises and the springsfill up, thatis to say, the timeof the rainfall (Marheshvan) is the natural time for the Flood to begin. In Iyyar kima sets and the springsempty, that is to say, the coming of the Flood is anomalous at this time, so the natural order must be changed and kima made to rise. When one compares this with ed. pr. textof SO, whichalso has kima risingin Marheshvanand settingin Iyyar,there is no tension between the texts. Both agree that in Marheshvan it is not necessaryto make any change in order to bringthe Flood and in Iyyar it is necessary. The problem, though,is obvious: if kima is the Pleiades, in Marheshvan it sets not rises.62

62 This forced Rashi to interpret"rising" and "setting" the way he does (above, note 12). Rashi was convincedthat the naturaltime for the Flood was Marheshvan(see next note), but the textwhich has the Flood naturallycoming in Marheshvan also has kima rising in Marheshvan. Consequently,"rising" cannot mean heliacal rising.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions [25] KIMA AND THE FLOOD IN SEDER 'OLAM 129 With the Tosafot text of R.H.-kima settingin Marhesh- van and risingin Iyyar-the problemsare different.If kima's rising causes the flood, and according to the natural order kima rises in Iyyar and sets in Marheshvan,then the position of kima must be changed in Marheshvan,but not in Iyyar. This itselfis a problem: why should the naturalorder need to be changed in Marheshvan-the rainyseason-and not need to be changed in Iyyar-the dry season? Tosafot and other exegetes who uphold this text give the following answer: Flooding should be expected at the end of the winter,in Iyyar, when the springshave filled up, and not at the beginningof the winter,in Marheshvan.63Though one can see a certain logic in this argument,nonetheless, it counters our natural tendencyto connect the Flood with rainfall(and not simply overflowingsprings), and of course, rain falls in Marheshvan not Iyyar. The real problem, however, becomes evident when we compare the Tosafot textof R.H. and the Ant. 891 textof SO (both containingkima settingin Marheshvan). According to SO the Flood naturallycomes in Marheshvanwhen kima sets, and in Iyyar when kima rises the natural order must be changed. How did this become the passage we find in the Tosafot text of R.H.: the Flood naturallycomes in Iyyarwhen kima rises, and in Marheshvan when kima sets the natural order mustbe changed to make kima rise? The contradictionis blatant: in R.H. withno supernaturalchange of the positionof kima the Flood is associated withIyyar and the risingof kima; in SO withno supernaturalchange the Flood is associated with Marheshvan and the settingof kima. Since there is littledoubt in my mind that the Ant. 891 text of SO is original,I cannot understandhow the R.H. passage,

63 See, e.g., Tosafot and R. Solomon b. Abraham ibn Adret, cited above, note 53. The improbabilityof the Flood being naturallyexpected in Iyyar ratherthan Marheshvanwas probablythe reason Rashi chose the Rashi textof R.H. and not the Tos. text.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 130 MILIKOWSKY [26] as evidencedin theTosafot text, could have developed from it. The changein the baraitais not merelythe elaborationof existingmaterial nor the inclusionof additionalmaterial, both of whichare relativelycommon in thetransmission of rabbinic sources,but the replacementof the originalmeaning of the passage witha directlycontradictory one. True thattexts are often"corrected," but in our case thiswould presuppose that some scholar,reading (or hearing)that the Flood should naturallycome in Marheshvan,the rainyseason, "changed" thisto have theFlood naturallycome in Iyyar.In otherwords, the firstpossibility is so illogicalthat it mustbe changed:such a presuppositionseems veryimprobable.64 My conclusiontherefore is that the Tosafottext of R.H. did notdevelop out of theAnt. 891 textof SO, eventhough 1) both agree thatkima sets in Marheshvanand risesin Iyyar; and 2) this agrees with our conclusionthat kima is the Pleiades. The essentialpoint of thefollowing hypothetical reconstruc- tion of the transmission-historyof this passage is that,while the Tosafottext of R.H. and the Ant. 891 textof SO-both havingkima set in Marheshvan-contradicteach other,the Rashi textof R.H. and the ed. pr. textof SO-both having kima rise in Marheshvan-agreewith each other. Conse- quently,if one assumesthat the scholar who elaborated on the originalpassage and added "and made the constellationof kima rise at daybreak ... and broughta flood on the world" had in frontof hima formof the passageidentical to thatof the ed. pr. textof SO, it is easy to see how theR.H. passage developed out of the SO passage.65 In diagram form the transmission-historylooks like this: 4 In the finalanalysis, though, this is a subjectiveconsideration incapable of being proven or disproven. 65 See note 57. I use the phrase "SO passage" in place of the awkward "passage identical to the SO passage." The essential point is that we are dealing withthe interrelationshipof two passages in SO and R.H. and not with the interrelationshipof the two texts,SO and R.H. In rabbinicliterature the distinctionis crucial.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions [27] KIMA AND THE FLOOD IN SEDER 'OLAM 131 SO SO Ant. 891 ed. pr.

R.H. R.H. Tosafot Rashi

In theoriginal SO passage,kima, which was associatedwith thecoming of therain, must have been thePleiades, which set in Marheshvanand risein Iyyar.An alternativeinterpretation of kima,identifying it as an astralbody which sets in Iyyarand risesin Marheshvan,caused the text to be changedaccordingly (the ed. pr. textof SO). This textwas takenover into the BabylonianTalmud, and sometimeduring the transmission, the phrase"and made the constellationof kimarise at daybreak ... and brought a flood on the world" was added.66 Since, accordingto SO, thenatural order had to be changedin Iyyar -the dryseason, and accordingto theed. pr.text of SO, kima set at thistime, this new phrase conformed to the meaningof the originalpassage and merelymade explicitwhat typeof changewas necessaryin Iyyarfor the Flood to come. The furtheremendation of thispassage-from the Rashi text of R.H. to the Tos. text-is easy to explain.Since kimawas identifiedby all medievalexegetes and scholarsas thePleiades, whichset in Marheshvan,it was onlynatural to "correct"any textasserting the opposite.Sometime during the transmission of the R.H. passage,one or moreexemplars of the original text(i.e. the Rashi textof R.H.), whichhad kima settingin Iyyarand risingin Marheshvan,were emendedso thatkima sets in Marheshvanand rises in Iyyar.However, the R.H. passagealready stated explicitly that the Flood was broughtby makingkima rise at daybreak,with the further implication that the Flood is naturallyexpected in the monthwithin which kimanaturally rises at daybreak.In thisnew text, then, on the

66Whether or not all of the additions in the R.H. passage were added by one person is irrelevantto our discussion.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 132 MILIKOWSKY [28] one hand, kima, identifiedas Pleiades, sets in Marheshvanand rises in Iyyar,and, on the other hand, the Flood is naturally expected when it rises; there was no choice, therefore,but to conclude that the naturalhabitat of the Flood was Iyyar.Thus, the notion we find in the Tos. text of R.H., that in Iyyar kima's natural position does not need to be changed for the Flood to come while in Marheshvan it does need to be changed, did not arise deliberately;this conclusionwas forced by the earlier transmissionalstages of the passage. By means of this reconstructionwe can understand the differentdates given for kima's rising and setting in the differenttexts, resolve the apparent enigma of having two texts,Ant. 891 in SO and Tos. in R.H., agree with regard to the settingand rising of kima, yet differwith regard to the month within which kima's position must be changed, and therebysatisfactorily explain the formationof all versionsof this passage, the two in SO as well as the two in R.H.

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:23:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions