Arnon ATZMON Bar-IlanUniversity

PROPHET OF GLOOM OR COMFORT: THE CONFLICTING PORTRAYALS OF ’S PROPHECY IN PESIQTA᾿DE-RABHKAHANA᾿

ABSTRACT

The pisqa᾿ot of the Pesiqta᾿ de-rabh Kahana᾿ (PDRK) accompanying the two haphṭarot of rebuke that precede Tiš῾abe-abh radically differ in their appraisal of Jeremiah and his prophecy. In the first pisqa᾿, ThewordsofJeremiah, Jeremiah’s prophecy is portrayed as a harsh rebuke, contrasted with the gentler prophecies of and , and compared with the similarly harsh prophecy of . The second pisqa᾿, HearthewordoftheLord, paints Jeremiah’s prophecy in a gentle light, comparing it with ’s respectful rebuke of Laban, and this time contrasting it favorably with the harsh and disrespectful language used by Isaiah and Ezekiel. While there are several ways we might understand the sharp differences between these two juxtaposed pisqa᾿ot, I suggest that the editor of PDRK intentionally fash- ioned them in this manner so as to influence and shape the mood of the synagogue audience hearing them during these three weeks.

RÉSUMÉ

Les pisqa᾿ot de la Pesiqta᾿de-rabhKahana᾿ (PDRK) qui accompagnent les deux haphṭarot de réprimande précédant Tiš῾abe-abh diffèrent radicalement dans leur éva- luation de Jérémie et de sa prophétie. Dans la première pisqa᾿, Les parolesdeJérémie, la prophétie de Jérémie est présentée comme une sévère réprimande : en cela, elle est semblable à la prophétie de Moïse et se distingue des douces prophéties d’Isaïe et d’Ézéchiel. La seconde pisqa᾿, ÉcoutezlaparoleduSeigneur, dépeint la prophétie de Jérémie de façon plus posée et la compare à la réprimande respectueuse que Jacob adresse à Laban. Le langage irrespectueux et sévère utilisé par Isaïe et Ézéchiel appa- raît au contraire sous un jour négatif. Sachant qu’il y a plusieurs manières de com- prendre les différences entre ces deux pisqa᾿ot, je suggère que le rédacteur de PDRK les a intentionnellement façonnées ainsi, afin d’influencer l’auditoire qui les écoute durant trois semaines à la synagogue.

A. Jeremiah’s Prophecy in Ancient Literature

The image of the Jeremiah underwent a radical transformation already within the biblical corpus itself. In the book of Jeremiah, the prophet

Revuedesétudesjuives,176(3-4),juillet-décembre2017,pp.269-293. doi:10.2143/REJ.176.3.3268993 270 JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ is portrayed as a pursued and despised figure, rejected by his contemporar- ies. His name is not mentioned in other prophetic works of the period or in the book of Kings. However, in later biblical books, those describing the return of Israel to Zion, he is referred to as the herald of redemption, I, ,contemplatedthecalculations,thenumberoftheyearsthattheword of the Lord had come to Jeremiah the prophet, since the destruction of Jerusalem,seventyyears (Dan. 9:2).1 Jeremiah’s character became a focal point of literary and cultural creation in apocryphal literature of the Second Temple period,2 as can be seen in the large number of compositions connected to Jeremiah3 or his disciple Barukh son of Neriah.4 These compositions contain an assortment of traditions con- nected to Jeremiah, enlisting him as a symbol both for the destruction of the Temple and for its future rebuilding.5 Towards the end of the Second Temple period, and even more so after the destruction, Jeremiah’s character had a significant impact on the forma- tion of several key figures of the period. Josephus, for instance, at times views himself through the lens of Jeremiah. In WarsoftheJews, Josephus describes himself as turning to the Jews under siege in Jerusalem, requesting they treat him as the men of Jerusalem treated Jeremiah and refrain from killing him.6 So too in early Christian theology, Jeremiah played a central

* I would like to thank Beit Shalom Kyoto (Japan) for their financial support, and my good friend and colleague Dan Jaffé for ably translating the abstract to French. 1. Concerning Jeremiah’s reception in other biblical books see J. APPLEGATE, “Jeremiah and the Seventy Years in the : Inner-Biblical Reflections on the Prophet and his Prophecy,” in A. W. CURTIS, T. RÖMER (eds),TheBookofJeremiahandItsReception–Le LivredeJérémieetsaréception, Leuven, 1997, p. 91-110. 2. See M. LEUCHTER, “Remembering Jeremiah in the Persian period,” in D. V. EDELMAN, E. BEN ZVI (eds), RememberingBiblicalFiguresintheLatePersianandEarlyHellenistic Periods, Oxford, 2013, p. 384-414. 3. Concerning the Epistle of Jeremiah and its relationship with the book of Baruch see S. A. ADAMS, “Epistle of Jeremiah or Baruch 6?: The Importance of Labels,” Journalof SeptuagintandCognateStudies 44 (2011), p. 26-30. 4. On the development of external biblical traditions concerning Jeremiah see R. GOLD- STEIN, “Jeremiah between Destruction and Exile: From Biblical to Post-Biblical Traditions,” DeadSeaDiscoveries 20/3 (2013), p. 433-451. On the large volume of apocryphal material related to Jeremiah and Baruch see E. J. WRIGHT, BaruchBenNeriah:FromBiblicalScribe toApocalypticSeer, Columbia, 2003. 5. Qumran scrolls also contain a significant quantity of writings connected to Jeremiah. See G. J. BROOKE, “The Book of Jeremiah and its Reception in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The BookofJeremiahandItsReception, p. 183-205; D. DIMANT, “From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic ‘Apocryphon of Jeremiah’,” DeadSeaDiscoveries 20/3 (2013), p. 452-471. 6. Josephus, WarsoftheJews 5:391-393 (trans. THACKERAY, Loeb Classical Library). Concerning Josephus’s connection to the image of Jeremiah see S. J. D. COHEN, “Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius,” HistoryandTheory 21/3 (1982), p. 366-381. JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ 271 role and to a certain extent even served as an archetype for the image of Jesus. Thus, for instance, in Matthew 16:14, one of the figures with whom the people identify Jesus is the prophet Jeremiah.7 Another figure of this period with whom Jeremiah is identified, at least in the memory of later generations, is Raban Johanan b. Zakai, as can be seen in various agadot appearing in rabbinic sources.8 Josephus, Jesus and Raban Johanan b. Zakai, arguably the three Second Temple figures who would most symbolize for future generations the seismic changes that occurred in the first century C.E. were all connected with Jeremiah. Tanaitic literature, composed during the Roman period, does not relate to the image of Jeremiah in any systematic or organized fashion, and contains only a few scattered references to him.9 Midrašic literature from the Byzan- tine period contains the earliest systematic and detailed rabbinic portrayal of Jeremiah, relating to both his life and his prophecy.10 Such a detailed and focused approach to the image of Jeremiah is found in Pesiqta᾿ de-rabh Kahana᾿ (PDRK), a midrašic composition composed of sermons for readings and readings from the (haphṭarot) read on special calen- drical occasions (festivals and special Sabbaths).11 PDRK includes three units (pisqa᾿ot) that as far as we can tell were dedicated to haphṭarot read on the three Sabbaths preceding the fast of the ninth of the month of Ab, called the “three (haphṭarot) of rebuke.”12 The first two of these pisqa᾿ot (13-14)

7. This was the subject of numerous studies. See for instance M. WHITTERS, “Jesus in the Footsteps of Jeremiah,” CatholicBiblicalQuarterly 68 (2006), p. 229-247. 8. See A. TROPPER, “Yohanan ben Zakkai, Amicus Caesaris: A Jewish Hero in Rabbinic Eyes (Hebrew),” JewishStudiesInternetJournal 4 (2005), p. 133-149. 9. Below I will note several of the tanaitic midrašim and Talmudic baraitotwhich refer to the image of Jeremiah. 10. There are already several comprehensive quality scholarly surveys of the image of Jeremiah in talmudic and aggadic literature. However, they were not based on a full analysis of the midrašic context in which Jeremiah’s image appears. Among these surveys worth not- ing is: A. A. WIEDER, JeremiahinAggadicLiterature, Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1962; R. TOMES, “The Reception of Jeremiah in Rabbinic Literature and in the Targum,” in The BookofJeremiahandItsReception, p. 233-253. 11. For a basic scholarly survey on Pesiqta᾿ de-rabhKahana᾿ (PDRK) see W. G. BRAUDE, I. KAPSTEIN, PesiktaDe-RabKahana:R.Kahana’sCompilationofDiscoursesforSabbathsand FestalDays, London, 1975, p. xxxiii‒ci; H. STRACK, G. STEMBERGER, Introductiontothe and, Minneapolis, 1992, p. 319-321; R. A. ANISFELD, SustainMewithRaisin-Cakes: PesiktadeRavKahanaandthePopularizationofRabbinicJudaism, Leiden, 2009, p. 67-94. 12. PDRK is the earliest documentation of a cycle of haphṭarot connected with Tiš῾abe- abh. The liturgical poets Yanai and Kalir were already familiar with this cycle. However, the do not mention any special such cycle, even though the Babylonian does contain a discussion of the haphṭarot for the first of the month of Av that falls on Shabbat and for Tiš῾abe-abh. Concerning the cycle of haphṭarot around Tiš῾abe-abh and its connection with PDRK as well as the piyuṭim of Kalir and Targum Jonathan see E. R. STERN, FromRebuke 272 JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ relate to readings from the first two chapters of Jeremiah, and they are the focus of this article.13 These pisqa᾿ot present variegated and at times bla- tantly contradictory portrayals of Jeremiah’s prophecy. My main thesis in this article is that these contradictions are not the result of happenstance or eclectic collection of material from earlier sources by the editor of PDRK. Rather they represent intentional and directed editorial decisions by the editor who wished to shape these two readings into a complete liturgical move- ment, one which moves from emphasizing the harsher aspects of Jeremiah’s prophecy (the rebukes and foretold punishments) in the first pisqa᾿ to an emphasis on the softer elements of Jeremiah’s prophecies, his condolences, in the second pisqa᾿.14

B. Structure and Meaning in Pesiqta᾿de-rabh Kahana᾿

Before I begin analyzing these derašot, it would be helpful to make a few methodological points that serve as the basis of my analysis. Modern critical scholars have been intensely interested in the editing process through which these midrašim were composed. Beyond analyzing isolated units, their mean- ing and compositional history, scholars have emphasized the importance of the larger context in which the derašawas set. Many studies have attempted to delineate the editorial decisions that went into these compositions: which material to include, how to rework older material and where to place it within the composition. Such studies have been particularly successful in toConsolation, Providence, 2004. While Stern does discuss pisqa᾿ thirteen from PDRK and its connection to the overall structure of the cycle of haphṭarot, she does not discuss the mean- ing of the pisqa᾿ in terms of Jeremiah’s prophecy. 13. It is possible that the ten pisqa᾿ot that belong to the cycle of haphṭarot connected to Tiš῾abe-abh (pisqa᾿ot 13-22, as well as the pisqa᾿ entitled Šubha) form one literary unit within the framework of PDRK. Evidence for this is that in some manuscripts they appear as an independent MidrašHaphṭarot (for instance the Parma manuscript). On this see Y. ELBAUM, “Ša῾are tešubha le-῾olam petuḥim: ῾iyun be-maḥzor ha-petiḥot šel parašat Šubha bi-phsiqta᾿ de-rabh Kahana᾿,” in J. LEVINSON et al. (eds), Higayonle-Yona, Jerusalem, 2006, p. 288- 289. See also the historical study of L. M. BARTH, “The ‘Three of Rebuke and Seven of Con- solation’ Sermons in the ‘Pesikta de Rav Kahana’,” JournalofJewishStudies 33/1-2 (1982), p. 503-515. In my opinion Barth’s suggestion that the cycle of haphṭarot and pisqa᾿ot based on them form one unit all created at the same time is reasonable. 14. The image of Jeremiah also received expansive midrašic attention in the parallel pisqa᾿ot found in Pesiqta᾿Rabati, thought by scholars to have been composed later than PDRK. On these pisqa᾿ot see J. HEINEMANN, “A Homily on Jeremiah and the Fall of Jerusa- lem (Pesiqta Rabbati, Pisqa 26),” in R. POLZIN, E. ROTHMAN (eds),TheBiblicalMosaic: ChangingPerspectives, Philadelphia, 1982, p. 27-41; A. M. GOLDBERG, “Pesiqta Rabbati 26, Ein singulärer Text in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur,” FrankfurterJudaistischeBeiträge 17 (1989), p. 1-44. JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ 273 analyzing the so-called “homiletical midrašim” which are structured as col- lections of derašot (midrašic units) exhibiting clear signs of intentional literary editing.15 These units usually demonstrate a fixed literary structure: an opening containing a number of proems, the body of the unit containing interpretive derašot on a series of verses, and a closing deraša.16 In these compositions we can still sense a certain amount of tension between the smaller units from which the pisqa᾿ has been composed, the raw material available to the com- position’s editor, and the overall structure the editor wished to impose on this material in order to emphasize his broader message.17 My analysis below is based not only on the position that each midrašic paraša presents an integral and complete literary unit, but also on the assumption that the editor’s agenda is expressed mainly in the opening and closing sections of the paraša/pisqa᾿. It is less present in the interpretive derašot on selected verses that compose the body of the paraša itself. The rhetorical structure of the opening discourses (petiḥta’ot) and the conclu- sions (ḥatimot) allow for a greater degree of creativity than can be expressed in typical interpretive derašot, for in these sections the editor is free to select verses from elsewhere in the Bible and use them to build his message. In contrast, when it comes to the interpretive sections that focus on the sequence of verses in the biblical passage being interpreted, the editor tends to draw from earlier compositions, leaving less of his own mark on them. Further- more, the petiḥta’ot and the closing deraša by their very nature carry broader significance on the whole biblical passage, and hence are a more fitting canvas for expressing the editor’s message. Therefore those sections reflect a greater degree of literary intervention on the part of the editor in terms of his choice of his material as well as his reworking of it.18

15. The most foundational article on the subject remains J. HEINEMANN, “Profile of a Midrash: the Art of Composition in Leviticus Rabba,” JournaloftheAmericanAcademyof Religion 39 (1971), p. 141-150. Compare: R. S. SARASON, “Toward a New Agendum for the Study of Rabbinic Midrashic Literature,” in E. FLEISCHER, J. PETUCHOWSKI (eds),Studiesin Aggadah,TargumandJewishLiturgy, Jerusalem and Cincinnati, 1981, p. 55-73; B. L. VISOTZKY, “The Misnomers ‘Petihah’ and ‘Homiletic Midrash’ as Descriptions for Leviticus Rabbah and Pesikta de-Rav Kahana,” JewishStudiesQuarterly 18/1 (2011), p. 19-31. 16. Great advances in the study of aggadic midrašimhave been made in recent years due to the development of analyticals for dissecting recurring literary structures in homiletic midrašim. The scholar most responsible for these advances is Arnold Goldberg. See his article: A. GOLDBERG, “Form-Analysis of Midrashic Literature as a Method of Description,” Journal ofJewishStudies 36/2 (1985), p. 159-174. 17. See L. M. BARTH, “Literary Imagination and the Rabbinic Sermon; Some Observations,” WorldCongressofJewishStudies 7 (1977), p. 29-36. 18. Of course, such a dichotomous division is only true in the abstract; in practice, we find many different levels of editing in every section of the midraš. 274 JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿

In my discussion below I use the methodological assumptions I have outlined here to read two consecutive pisqa᾿ot. I will show how the editor’s coherent and consistent reworking of the earlier midrašic material shaped Jeremiah’s prophecy such that it begins with an emphasis on prophecies of punishment and then shifts to a focus on prophecies of condolence. This shift in emphasis was designed to mirror the biblical readings taking place in the synagogue during the weeks leading up to the fast of the Ninth of Ab.19

C. Pisqa᾿The Words of Jeremiah

The first haphṭara of the “three haphṭarot of rebuke” is taken from the opening of the book of Jeremiah. In accordance, the first pisqa᾿ in PDRK focuses mainly on the first words of the book, thewordsofJeremiah. Under- lying the unit of proems is the conception of thewordsofJeremiahas “words of rebuke.” This is based on an interpretive deraša ascribed to tana’im that appears only later in the pisqa᾿, immediately following the proem unit:20 7. R. Tanhuma said […] in the name of R. Meir: […]: Every passage in which the intent – [דברים] or thewords ,[דברי] thewordsof ,[דבר] it is said, theword is to deliver curses and rebukes. It is written: Thesearethewordswhich MosesspoketoallIsrael (Deuteronomy 1:1), and what further is written there? Thewastingofhungerandthedevouringofthefierybolt (Deuteronomy 32:24). It is written: ThewordoftheLordthatcometothesonof (Hosea 1:1), and what further is written there? YouarenotMypeople (Hosea 1:9). It is written: ThewordsofJeremiah (Jeremiah 1:1), and what further is written there? Suchasarefordeathtodeath,andsuchasareforcaptivitytocaptivity (Jere miah 43:11).21

19. Compare: N. ILLOUZ, “The Words of Jeremiah”:Chapter Thirteen of the Pesikta De-RavKahana, Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, California School, 1980. In this excellent work Illouz presents a literary analysis of the entire pisqa᾿. While my underlying assumptions as to the literary editing of the pisqa᾿ are similar, when it comes to the details there are many difference between my analysis and hers. Most impor- tantly, the emphasis in this article is on the unit of proems and the concluding deraša, and less on the body of the pisqa᾿ which contains a series of interpretive derašot on the verses, which was her focus. 20. Throughout this article I have quoted only the portions of the midrašic material neces- sary for understanding my discussion. My translation is based loosely on that of Neusner: PesiqtadeRabKahana, J. NEUSNER (trans.), Atlanta, 1997, v. 11, p. 29-53. 21. The text is based on Mandelbaum’s edition, p. 230. However, the prophecy referred to in this quote was stated about Egypt, not Israel. It is more likely that the original quote was the verse that refers to Israel’s fate in Jeremiah 15:2. JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ 275

According to the tradition cited in the name of R. Meir, theword/words of/words are all terms that precede “curses and rebukes.”22 As proof he cites examples from three prophets: Moses, Hosea and Jeremiah, each of whom uses one of these terms. We should note that R. Meir is clearly not making a general lexicological remark, for these terms appear in dozens of other places in the Bible, many of which are not words of rebuke. Rather, his examples are all taken from the beginning of biblical books. He means to say that a book that opens with one of these phrases should be generally understood as a book of “curses and rebukes.” For this reason, R. Meir cites the most vituperative rebuke in the book, one that warns of death, and not the first rebuke found in the opening of the book.23 This overall assessment of Jeremiah’s prophecy as “curses and rebukes” serves as the background of the entire unit of proems, as I demonstrate below. The first two proems (1 and 2) characterize Jeremiah’s prophecy, thewords ofJeremiah, as words of rebuke and contrast it with Isaiah and Ezekiel’s prophecies. In both cases Jeremiah’s harsh prophecy is presented as a threat to be realized when Israel fails to responds to the milder rebukes of earlier prophets. The first proem is ascribed to R. Aba’ b. Kahana᾿, a fourth century Palestinian sage.24 The daršan explains a verse in Isaiah as if it hints at the future arrival of the prophecy of Jeremiah:

22. Compare SiphreNumbers 99 (ed. HOROVITZ-RABIN, p. 97): “Andand spokeagainstMoses: The word spoke is always harsh language.” 23. It is worth noting the difference between this deraša and a parallel in SiphreDeut. 1 (ed. FINKELSTEIN, p. 1-3): “ThesearethewordsthatMosesspoke – Did Moses prophecy these words alone? Did he not write the entire Torah? … What then does Scripture say, Theseare thewordsthatMosesspoke? This teaches that these are words of rebuke… Similarly you say, ThesearethewordsthattheLordspoketoIsraelandJudah but did Jeremiah speak only these words. Did he not write two books! ... What then does Scripture say, Thesearethewords? This teaches that these are words of rebuke.” Despite their similarity, these are two different derašot. The Siphre interprets the introductory phrases Andthesearethewords or Thewords of as summarizing the prophecies of a certain prophet or literary creation. These words do not, according to the Siphre, limit or summarize the prophet’s work; rather they characterize his work as “words of rebuke.” Therefore, the examples in the Siphre include: Moses, , Jeremiah, and . For the same reason the Siphrecites the verse Andtheseare thewordsthattheLordspoketoIsraelandJudah (Jer. 30:4), for it is this verse that might be read as limiting the scope of Jeremiah’s literary creation, more so than, Thewordsof Jeremiah that appears in the beginning of the book. The editor of this pisqa᾿ chose to use R. Meir’s deraša and not that found in the Siphre (assuming he knew of it) out of his interest in the overall characterization of Jeremiah’s prophecy. 24. There are scholars who believe that the entire midraš received its appellation based on the name of this sage, assuming that the original composition opened with this pisqa᾿. See A. GOLDBERG, “Review of Bernard Mandelbaum, ed., Pesikta de Rav Kahana” (Hebrew), KiryatSefer 43 (1967), p. 72, n. 6. 276 JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿

1. R. Aba’ bar Kahana᾿ opened (interpreted the verse): Cryaloud,Odaughter !OAnathoth,[ענייה]Answerher![ליישה] ofGallim!Hearken,OLaishah (Isaiah 10:30)25 […] Hearken,OLaishah: Hearken to my commandments, hearken to the words of the Torah, hearken to the words of prophecy. If not, then Laishah: Lo, a lion will come down upon you, this refers to Nebuchadn- ezzar, the wicked man, concerning whom it is written, Alionhasgoneupfrom Poor in righteous ones, poor in words :[ענייה] thethicket (Jeremiah 4:7) Poor of the Torah, poor in religious duties and good deeds. And if not, OAnathoth: will come and prophecy [ענתותייא] Lo, a man who comes from Anathoth :Therefore Scripture had to state .[דברי תוכחות] against you words of rebuke The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, [one of the priests at Anathoth] (Jeremiah 1:1).

The words Hearken,OLaishah!Answerher,OAnathoth!are explained by the daršan as a direct address from God in which He presents Israel with a clear choice laid out in symmetrical stanzas: Either hearken to the words of Torah and prophecy or Laishah i.e. Nebuchadnezzar will come upon you. in Torah and performance of commandments then (ענייה) If you are poor Anathoth i.e. Jeremiah of Anathoth will prophecy against you words of rebuke.26 Note the parallel between the rise of Nebuchadnezzar and Jeremiah’s prophecy – both are portrayed as a harsh threat. The closing sentence “There- fore Scripture had to state: ThewordsofJeremiahsonofHilkiah,[oneofthe priestsatAnathoth]” serves a double purpose. It connects Jeremiah to Ana- thoth and it also serves as structural conclusion hinting at the understanding of thewordsofJeremiah as words of rebuke. In the derašaitself there is no basis for understanding thewordsofJeremiah as rebuke. Rather, the daršan clearly has in mind R. Meir’s deraša, which opens the interpretive section of the pisqa᾿, as I noted above. This proem is also found in LamentationsRaba (LamR), where it appears in the beginning of a lengthy unit of proems. The body of the deraša is identical to the version found in PDRK but the conclusion is different: “And if not, OAnathoth: the one from Anathoth will come and prophecy against you, as it is written, ThewordsofJeremiahsonofHilkiah, since the punish- ment came, he laments upon them, How[Ekha].” According to this version, the threat inherent in Jeremiah’s prophecy is the lamentation (the book of Ekha itself) which will come about as a result of disobedience to the words of the prophet.

25. Compare the translation of the verse by B. S. CHILDS, Isaiah, Louisville, 2001, p. 89. 26. The symmetry is not perfect for in the second stanza the words, “and if not” make already presents the negative side! The words “and if not” are ”(ענייה) little sense, “poor there to preserve the symmetrical structure. JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ 277

In the version in LamR there is perfect symmetry between the two stan- zas. Both contain prooftexts for identifying Laishah as Nebuchadnezzar and Anathoth as Jeremiah. In PDRK, in contrast, the symmetry is flawed for the verse ThewordsofJeremiah serves also as a structural conclusion to the proem and not just as support for identifying Jeremiah as the “one from Anathoth.” Similarly, the contrast in LamR between Isaiah’s prophecy and Jeremiah’s lamentation is more convincing than the contrast in PDRK between Isaiah’s prophecy and that of Jeremiah. This contrast is meaningful only in light of R. Meir’s deraša which characterizes Jeremiah’s prophecy as “words of rebuke.” The weakness and lack of symmetry in the PDRK proem leads to the conclusion that the editor of the pisqa᾿ made secondary use of earlier material, shifting Jeremiah’s role from that of lamenter to rebuking prophet.27 Between the lines a contrast was created between “the prophetic words” of Isaiah and the “rebuking words” of Jeremiah.28 This editorial refashioning is based on the second proem of this series in which the motif of the comparison between Jeremiah’s prophecy and that of other prophets is spelled out even more directly, as we shall see now. The second proem is ascribed to R. Aha’, another Palestinian sage of the fourth century. R. Aha’ expounds upon a verse from Proverbs containing two midrašic motifs connected to the broader issues of the pisqa᾿, “rebuke” and “the words of”: 2. R. Aha’ opened (interpreted the verse): Giveheedtomyreproof,behold,I unto you, I will make my words known to you [רוחי] will pour out my spirit (Proverbs 1:23).29 […] If you give heed tomyreproof, then Iwillpouroutmy spirituntoyou – through Ezekiel, ThewordoftheLordcametoEzekielsonof Buzi,thepriest (:3). But if not, Iwillmakemywordsknowntoyou – by Jere miah, therefore Scripture had to state ThewordsofJeremiahsonof Hilkiah (Jeremiah 1:1).

27. This reconstruction may explain the puzzling appearance of this proem at the opening of the proem unit. The first proem seems to be somewhat out of place for it focuses on the word Anathoth which appears in the continuation of the verse, and not thewordsof from the verse’s very beginning. This deraša seems to have been moved up to the beginning and then fashioned in accordance with the second proem, which we shall examine below. I should clarify that I am not claiming that PDRK is dependent on LamR. Rather, my claim is that in this particular case the deraša was preserved in LamR in a more original fashion, whereas it was reworked in PDRK. In order to prove any literary dependency of one composition on the other, a comprehensive comparison of all parallels would be necessary. Such a comparison is beyond the scope of this paper. Paris, Alliance) צ .See Mandelbaum’s edition, p. 225, where he notes that in Ms .28 Israélite Universelle H 47 A) and in YalquṭŠim‘oni (as well as in the parallel in LamR) Isaiah is mentioned explicitly: “Isaiah said to Israel.” 29. Compare other notes on this translation, R. J. CLIFFORD, Proverbs:ACommentary, Louisville, 1999, p. 41-42. 278 JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿

In R. Aha’’s reading of the verse from Proverbs, God presents Israel with two choices: “If you give heed tomyreproof then Iwillpouroutmyspirit untoyou” – you will receive Ezekiel’s prophecy, hinted at in the continuation came. If Israel refuses to(רוח)of the citation from Ezekiel: Lo,astormywind obey God, Iwillmakemywordsknowntoyou – you will receive Jeremiah’s prophecy, hinted at in the phrase ThewordsofJeremiah. Here Jeremiah’s prophecy is presented in stark contrast with Ezekiel’s. Ezekiel’s prophecy comes as a reward, for the “spirit” which Ezekiel brings to Israel is a reflection of the secrets of the chariot which Ezekiel possesses. Jeremiah’s prophecy is, in contrast, conceived of as punishment and rebuke. In this case, the contrast between the two prophecies emerges naturally from the daršan’s reading of the verses. It is likely that the first proem was also shaped with this motif in mind so that there too Jeremiah’s prophecy would be contrasted with that of another prophet (Isaiah). In sum, the first two proems present Jeremiah’s “words of rebuke” as an antithesis to the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel. The two proems that fol- low (3 and 4) create an analogy between Jeremiah’s prophecy and that of Moses. This motif is also detectable in R. Meir’s deraša, which as I noted above is found only after the unit of proems. Like the second, the third proem is also ascribed to R. Aha’. Its foundation is a deraša on a verse from Zechariah containing a dialogue between God and the people of Israel: 3. R. Aha’ opened (interpreted the verse): Yourfathers,wherearethey?And theprophets,dotheyliveforever?[ButMywordsandMystatutes,whichI commandedMyservantstheprophets,didtheynotovertakeyourfathers?] (Zechariah 1:5). Said R. Aha’:30 The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: My children, yourfathers, who sinned before me, wherearethey?They said to him: Lord of the universe, Andtheprophets,dotheyliveforever?He said to them: Nonetheless, even though they have died, does their prophecy not endure? Moses died, but does not his prophecy endure? So too Jeremiah, who lives, and whose words endure! Therefore Scripture had to state, Thewordsof JeremiahsonofHilkiah (Jeremiah 1:1).

R. Aha’ reads the verse as a dialogue between God and Israel. God turns to Israel with a rhetorical question: “Yourfathers, who sinned before me, wherearethey?” Israel responds in due fashion: “Andtheprophets,dothey liveforever?” In other words, even those who do not sin still die. God’s response is also phrased rhetorically — even if the prophets did die, their

30. In light of the fact that the proem preserves the formula of an interpretive deraša on the verse from Zechariah, “R. Aha’ said…” we can assume that the entire proem is the creation of the editor of PDRK based on the interpretive deraša of R. Aha’. See Albeck’s introduction to MidrašBerešitRaba, v. 3, Jerusalem, 1965, p. 15-17. JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ 279 prophecy lives on (hinted at in the following verse, ButMywordsandMy statutes…) God cites Moses’ prophecy as an example, “Moses died, but does not his prophecy endure?” It seems that after this remark, the editor of the pisqa᾿ develops the deraša such that it will relate to thewordsof Jeremiah. He adds another stanza to the deraša, one dealing with Jeremiah, “So too Jeremiah, who lives, and whose words endure!” This addition devi- ates from the original deraša both in language and style. Instead of “his prophecy endures” (in reference to Moses and the prophets), we find in connection with Jeremiah “whose words endure,” a change necessary to connect the deraša to the central verse of the Torah reading Thewordsof Jeremiah. In addition, this stanza is not phrased as a rhetorical question, as were the earlier stanzas. Rather it is a positive statement, “Jeremiah, who lives, and whose words endure.” This change seems to have been intended to emphasize and fortify the prophecy of Jeremiah and its relevance, and this is the new meaning that the midraš finds in the phrase Thewordsof Jeremiah. Between the lines an analogy is drawn between Moses’ prophecy and Jeremiah’s, an analogy found in greater force in proem six with which the unit of proems concludes. This proem also contains the motif “words of rebuke” which was at the core of the first two proems discussed above: 6. R. Judah bar Simon opened (interpreted the verse): Iwillraiseupforthem aprophetlikeyoufromamongtheirbrethren (Deuteronomy 18:18). It is writ- ten, TherearosenoprophetagaininIsraellikeMoses (Deuteronomy 34:10), and yet you say, Aprophetlikeyou?Rather it means, likeyou in giving rebuke. You find that whatever is written about this one is written about that one: This one prophesied for forty years and that one prophesied for forty years; This one prophesied concerning Judah and Israel and that one prophesied concerning Judah and Israel; As to this one, the members of his tribe opposed him, and as to that one, the members of his tribe opposed him; This one was thrown into the river, and that one was thrown into a pit; This one was saved by a slave girl, and that one was saved by a slave boy; This one came with words of rebuke, and that one came with words of rebuke. Therefore Scripture had to state, ThewordsofJeremiah (Jeremiah 1:1).

This proem is based on the verse from Deuteronomy Aprophetlikeyou, read by the daršan as alluding to the similarities between Moses’ prophecy and Jeremiah’s – “likeyou in giving rebuke.”31 Essentially the deraša takes note of similarities between the biographies and prophecies of Moses and

31. Most of this proem is found without amoraic attribution in MidrašTanaim on Deuter- onomy (ed. HOFFMAN, 111) as an interpretive deraša on the verse Aprophetlikeyou. Here in PDRK it is ascribed to R. Judah bar Simon. 280 JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿

Jeremiah.32 However, the main similarity between these two prophetic fig- ures is anchored in the theme of “words of rebuke,” mentioned both in the beginning and the end of the deraša. At the end of the deraša the similarity that “this one came with words of rebuke and this one came with words of rebuke” connects with the concluding line “Therefore Scripture had to state, ThewordsofJeremiah.” However, the mention of these words at the outset of the deraša, “likeyou in giving rebuke,” reveals that the characterization of both Moses’ and Jeremiah’s prophecy as rebuke underlies the entire deraša, in accordance with R. Meir’s interpretation found later in the pisqa᾿. The sixth proem, which concludes the unit of proems, includes therefore, the motif of comparing Moses’ prophecy to Jeremiah’s that was only alluded to in the third proem, as well as the motif of “rebuke” that lies at the basis of both proems. All four proems portrayed thewordsofJeremiahas “words of rebuke,” contrast them with the words of other prophets (Isaiah and Ezekiel) and compare them with Moses’ prophecy. At the heart of this unit there are two additional proems (4-5) which focus on the Jeremiah’s descent from Rahab, a lineage that bolsters the humiliation of Israel predicted in Jeremiah’s prophecy. The first of these proems is ascribed to R. and is based on a verse from Proverbs: 4. R. of Sikhnin in the name of R. Levi opened (interpreted the verse): asonwhoactsshamefullyand[ימשל]Aslavewhodealswiselywillruleover willshareaninheritancewiththebrothers(Proverbs 17:2). Aslavewhodeals 33asonwhoactsshamefully[ימשל] wisely refers to Jeremiah; willruleover refers to the Israelites, who shamed themselves through idolatry. Said R. Aba’ bar Kahana᾿: It is written, Yetyouwerenotlikeaharlot,becauseyouscorned who [דמקלקלתא] hire (:31). Let the son of the corrupt woman [דמתקנתא] mended her ways come and rebuke the son of the proper woman who has deviated in her ways.34 You find that whatever is written with respect to Israel in a negative spirit is written as a matter of praise for Rahab […] And ,aninheritancewiththebrothers – this refers to Jeremiah [לחלק]willshare concerning whom it is written, AndJeremiahwentforthfromJerusalemtogo thereinthemidstof [לחלק]intothelandofBenjamintoreceivehisportion]

32. On the connection between Jeremiah and Moses in the Bible itself see W. L. HOL- LADAY, “Jeremiah and Moses: Further Observation,” JournalofBiblicalLiterature 85/1 (1966), p. 17-27. On this connection in rabbinic literature see A. A. WIEDER, “Josiah and Jeremiah: Their Relationship According to Aggadic Sources,” in M. A. FISHBANE, P. R. FLOHR (eds), Texts and Responses, Leiden, 1975, p. 60-72. According to Wieder, the trend to connect Jeremiah to Moses in rabbinic literature is related to the rabbinic notion of Jeremiah as the last of the prophets, allowing therefore for Jeremiah to close the prophetic circle begun with Moses. .as rebuke. See BRAUDE, Pesikta, p. 255, n. 8 ימשל The daršan reads the word .33 34. See M. SOKOLOFF, ADictionaryofJewishPalestinianAramaicoftheByzantinePeriod, 2nd ed., Ramat Gan-Baltimore, 2002, p. 327a. JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ 281

hisbrethren] (Jeremiah 37:12) […] R. Benjamin b. Levi said: It was to carry around many prophecies. What is written is not, the word of Jeremiah, but rather, thewordsofJeremiah (Jeremiah 1:1).

R. Levi interprets the verse from Proverbs as referring to Jeremiah and his prophecies. The slavewhodealswisely is Jeremiah who willruleover meaning “rebukes” the sonwhoactsshamefully, interpreted as Israel who worshipped foreign gods. The identification of Jeremiah with the slavewho dealswisely is not explicitly explained, but can be assumed to be based on the midrašic motif of Jeremiah being a descendant of Rahab, herself descended from Canaan, considered to be a slave.35 This motif appears more sharply in proem five, as we shall see below. The editor of the pisqa᾿ expanded the identification of Jeremiah with the slave who deals wisely through another deraša ascribed to R. Aba’ bar Kahana᾿. This deraša is based on one of the sharpest verses of rebuke in Ezekiel, found in a prophecy whose central motif is Israel’s whoring after appears twenty-two times through verse 35). In this זנ"ה other gods (the root verse the prophet rebukes Jerusalem for being even worse than a harlot.36 R. Aba’ identifies the harlot in this verse as the harlot Rahab and explains youscornedhireas referring to her having abandoned harlotry. R. Aba’ portrays Ezekiel as the descendent of the harlot Rahab who rebukes Jerusa- lem, “Let the son of the corrupt woman who mended her ways come and rebuke the son of the proper woman who has deviated in her ways.” R. Aba’ proceeds to use a series of biblical contrasts to concretize the distinctions between the repentant ways of Rahab and the corruption of the residents of Jerusalem. The central idea is that Ezekiel, the descendant of the repentant harlot Rahab is a prophet worthy of rebuking the people of Jerusalem whose mother went astray.37 We should note that the non-biblical idea that Ezekiel descends from Rahab is not made explicit here, nor anywhere else in ancient literature. It is found only in an interpretive deraša located towards the end of the pisqa᾿.38 The placement of R. Aba’’s deraša here creates the impression

35. Concerning Jeremiah as a descendant of Rahab see below. On Rahab as a Canaanite see SiphreZuṭa 10: “Rahab the harlot who was from the land of Canaan.” 36. On the interpretation of this verse see M. GREENBERG, Ezekiel, Garden City, 1983, p. 284. 37. An interpretive deraša brought later in this pisqa᾿ deals differently with the scorn heaped on the prophet due to his lineage from Rahab. Compare ToseftaMegila3:34: “It happened that they were reading Inform Jerusalem [the chapter of Ezekiel discussed here, A.A.]. He said to him: Go out and let them know of the abominations of your mother.” 38. The deraša is on the words thesonofHilkiah. Jeremiah is presented as one of four, including Ezekiel, who comes from a disgraced family. Their problematic lineage explains why “the verse had do describe their lineage.” 282 JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ that the “son of the corrupt woman” refers to Jeremiah, who is also identi- fied as Rahab’s descendant. This bolsters the interpretation of Jeremiah as the slavewhodealswisely. The placement of the deraša here also sharpens the sting in Jeremiah’s rebuke – he is not only the slave, meaning the son of a Canaanite woman, he is also the son of a “corrupt woman.” Following R. Aba’’s deraša, the proem returns to the original deraša of R. Levi which identified Jeremiah with the second half of the verse from Proverbs, Andwillshareaninheritancewiththebrothers. The expression will shareaninheritance hints at Jeremiah about whom it was said, Jeremiah wentforthfromJerusalemtogointothelandofBenjamintoreceivehis thereinthemidstofhisbrethren. In R. Benjamin bar Levi’s (לחלק)portion does not mean to receive an inheritance, in חלק interpretation the verb accordance with its simple meaning. Rather it means to issue multiple (divided) prophecies. Jeremiah went out among his brethren not to divide the land, but to divvy out prophecies. The derašaconcludes by the interpreting thewordsofJeremiahas proof that Jeremiah issued multiple prophecies. The main interest of the deraša is therefore in contrasting theslavewho dealswisely, i.e. Jeremiah descendant of Rahab, with thesonwhoacts shamefully. While the tracing of Jeremiah’s lineage to Rahab does appear already in earlier literature (SiphreNumbers 78, ed. HOROVITZ, p. 74), there the stress was placed on the merit of Rahab from whom kings and prophets descended.39 Here, in PDRK, the motif of Jeremiah’s descent from Rahab does not glorify Rahab but rather highlights the humiliation and disgrace of Israel being rebuked by the slavewhodealswisely, the descendant of the harlot Rahab. The following proem is even blunter with regard to Jeremiah’s prophecy and his lineage from Rahab: 5. R. bar Nahman opened (interpreted the verse): Butifyouwillnot driveouttheinhabitantsofthelandfrombeforeyou,[thenthoseofthemwhom youletremainshallbeasthornsinyoureyes,andaspricksinyoursides] (Numbers 33:55). Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel: Isaidtoyou,You shallutterlydestroythem,theHittiteandtheAmorite (Deuteronomy 20:17). But instead of doing so, you did this, Rahabtheharlotandherfather’shousehold andallshehaddidJoshuasavealive (Joshua 6:25). Lo, Jeremiah comes from the descendants of Rahab the harlot, and he is the one who serves words as thornsinyoureyes,andaspricksinyoursides. Therefore Scripture had to state, ThewordsofJeremiah (Jeremiah 1:1).

39. The Siphre mentions eight prophets. However, aggadic midrašim add another two, “Ezekiel and Buzi.” See note above. JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ 283

This proem, ascribed to R. Samuel bar Nahman, is based on the curses directed at Israel in the book of Numbers – should they notdriveoutthe inhabitantsofthelandthose that remain will become thornsinyoureyes, andaspricksinyoursides. In the daršan’s eyes the disobedience occurred when Joshua saved of the life of the harlot Rahab and the members of her household, considered here to be a sin. As a result, the punishment was meted out through Jeremiah, “of the descendants of Rahab” who put “words asthornsinyoureyes.”40 The deraša is connected, somewhat artificially, with thewordsofJeremiah, interpreted to be “words asthorns.” It is the sharpest derašain terms of characterizing thewordsofJeremiah as a pun- ishment and curse. This proem, as well as the previous one, reverses the typical positive appraisal of Rahab and Joshua in rabbinic literature. This is a result of the emphasis on the negative aspects of Jeremiah’s prophecy, his humiliating the people of Jerusalem. Jeremiah himself is described as the slave who deals wisely who humiliates the son who acts shamefully and therefore his prophecies are considered “words asthornsinyoureyes.” Overall, as I have shown, the structure of the proem unit consistenly emphasizes the interpretation of thewordsofJeremiah as “words of rebuke,” strikingly different from the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel but similar to the prophecy of Moses. At the heart of the unit lie two derašot stressing the extra level of humiliation inherent in being rebuked by a descendant of the harlot Rahab. The body of the pisqa᾿ is composed of a series of interpretive derašot on the words of the first verse. However, in the middle of section fourteen an amoraic dispute appears that cannot be seen as an interpretation of the verse. Rather, it is the beginning of the pisqa᾿’s concluding unit. In this source the amora’im dispute whether Jeremiah concluded his prophecy with words of comfort, as did the other prophets.41 The phrase “words of rebuke” that appears in this deraša echoes the central motif of the proem unit, but tem- pers it – “Yet he too concluded with words of comfort.” This leads to the pisqa᾿’s concluding derašawhich continues to stress Jeremiah’s comforting his people: 15. ThewordoftheLordcametohiminthedaysofJosiah[…] kingofJudah […] until the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the son of Josiah, king ofJudah,untilthecarryingawayofJerusalemcaptiveinthefifthmonth

40. R. Samuel b. Nahman similarly transmits a deraša in the continuation that Jeremiah is from a flawed family. Thus he is consistent in considering lineage from Rahab to be lowly, due to her descent from Canaan. 41. This source is found already in the Palestinian Talmud (yBer. 5:1 [8:4]); Cf. Siphre Deuteronomy 342 (ed. FINKELSTEIN, p. 391-392). 284 JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿

(Jeremiah 1:2-3). Said R. Abun: A lion came up under the sign of the lion and destroyed the lion of God [Ariel]. The lion came up – this refers to Nebuchad- nezzar the wicked man, concerning whom it is written, Alionhasgoneupfrom thethicket(Jeremiah 4:7); Under the sign of the lion–untilthecarryingaway ofJerusalemcaptiveinthefifthmonth(Jeremiah 1:3); and destroyed the lion of God –Oh,Ariel,Ariel,thecitywhereDavidencamped(Isaiah 29:1). It was so that the lion should come up under the sign of the lion and rebuild the lion of God [Ariel]. The lion should come up – this is the Holy One, blessed be He, of whom it is written, Thelionhasroared,whowillnottremble(Amos 3:8); Under the sign of the lion – AndIshallchangetheirtimeofmourningtorejoicing (Jeremiah 31:12). And rebuild the lion of God –TheLordbuildsJerusalem, thescatteredonesofIsraelhewillbringbacktogether(Psalms 147:2).

This deraša emphasizes the softening of the severity of Jeremiah’s prophecy, and the emphasis on its notes of consolation. The daršan detects hints of the future rebuilding of Jerusalem already in the verses at the beginning of Jeremiah which present his prophecy. Worthy of note is how the conclusion of the pisqa᾿ connects with the earlier proem unit: The lion motif hearkens back to the appearance of Laishah from the first proem. While the structure of this deraša is rather typical of the characteristic concluding derašot of interpretive midrašim, in this case it also serves as a chain linking this pisqa᾿ with the one that follows, as I shall now demonstrate.

D. Pisqa᾿Hear the word of the Lord

The pisqa᾿ which follows in PDRK relates to the words Hearthewordof theLord (Jeremiah 2:4) and reflects the custom to read on the second Sab- bath of the pre-Ninth of Ab cycle the direct continuation of the haphṭara from the first Sabbath, ThewordsofJeremiah.42 The determination of this reading for the second haphṭara was likely later than that of the preceding haphṭara. Evidence of this is the stability and uniformity from PDRK through medieval literature of the custom to read ThewordsofJeremiahas the first haphṭara, in comparison with the custom to read HearthewordoftheLord as the second haphṭara, for which there is greater variation.43 This may

42. According to widespread custom, the first haphṭaraconcludes with a positive note: ThussaystheLord:Irememberthedevotionofyouryouth…IsraelwasholytotheLord,the firstfruitsofhisharvest.Allwhoateofitwereheldguilty;disastercameuponthem,says theLord. This makes the second haphṭaraa direct continuation of the first. 43. The custom to read Hear is reflected in Pesiqta᾿Rabati as well as the piyuṭimof Yanai. The custom is cited in a later period by the Tosafot (bMeg. 31:2) where it is attributed to the Pesiqta᾿. It is also reflected in the writing of R. Solomon ibn Aderet and R. Nissim on Megila. However, Maimonides refers to a different custom: “The people have a custom to read words JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ 285 explain why this pisqa᾿ exhibits fewer signs of tight editing as well as less adhesion to the normal literary conventions than that found in the first pisqa᾿.44 The first three proems of this pisqa᾿ are transmitted anonymously, lacking the typical formula, “R. So-and-so began his exposition.” Moreover, the structure of the proems deviates from normal patterns, as we shall see below. The pisqa᾿ also lacks the typical clear concluding deraša found in PDRK. Nevertheless, the pisqa᾿, or at least its opening proems, still shows signs of intentional and ideological editing. Overall it emphasizes the more consoling and comforting aspects of Jeremiah’s prophetic rebukes. The pisqa᾿ opens with a complex proem that seems to be based on a verse from , but mainly expounds on the similarity between the language of Jeremiah’s prophecy and Jacob’s rebuke of Laban: 1. Thereforehearme,youmenofunderstanding,FarbeitfromGod,thatHe shoulddowickedness;AndfromtheAlmighty,thatHeshouldcommitiniquity (Job 34:10). R. Azaria, R. Jonathan bar Hagai in the name of R. Samuel bar R. : Better the anger of the fathers and not the humility of the sons. The anger of the fathers – from our father Jacob: ThenJacobbecameangryand upbraidedLaban,[Whatismyoffense?Whatismysin,thatyouhavehotly pursuedme?] (Genesis 31:36); And not the humility of the sons – from David, AndDavidfledfromNaiothinRamahandcameandsaidbeforeJonathan: WhathaveIdone?Whatismyiniquity?Andwhatismysinbeforeyourfather, thatheseeksmylife?(1 Samuel 20:1). Even while he is trying to reconcile with the other, he mentions bloodshed. […] Said the Holy One, blessed be He: By your life, in the very language by which you have rebuked your father-in- law, I shall rebuke your children, ThussaystheLord,Whatunrighteousness haveyourfathersfoundinMe,ThattheyaregonefarfromMe(Jeremiah 2:5).

The structure of this proem is problematic. The verse from Job referred to at the outset, Thereforehearme,youmenofunderstanding…, contains two words connected to the verse from Jeremiah (hear and wickedness) and thus we would expect that the deraša would focus on these words. But this verse is not interpreted at all. The internal deraša which focuses on Jacob’s rebuke of Laban, is found in GenesisRaba as an interpretive deraša contrasting the of rebuke as haphṭarot for three Sabbaths before the ninth of Ab. The first Sabbath they conclude with ThewordsofJeremiah, the second with ThevisionofIsaiah and the third with Howshehasbecomelikeaharlot” (LawsofPrayerandthePriestlyBlessing 13). 44. In two earlier articles I applied to two other pisqa᾿ot (Andithappenedinthethird month and Andithappenedatmidnight) the theory that midrašim on later Torah (or haphṭara) reading customs will adhere less strictly to the classic structure of midrašic material. See A. ATZMON, “In the Third Month: Shavuot and the Redaction of Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 12,” JournalofAncientJudaism 6, 1 (2015), p. 143-156; “Literature and Liturgy in Times of Transition: the Piska ‘And It Happened at Midnight’ from Pesikta de-Rav Kahana,” Associa- tionforJewishStudiesReview 40, 2 (2016), p. 241-259. 286 JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ gentleness and respect found in Jacob’s rebuke of Laban with the anger in David’s attempt to appease Jonathan. Jacob’s words are defined as rebuking and angry, but nevertheless, he addresses Laban with a high degree of gentility and respect. In contrast, David’s words to Jonathan, intended as appeasement, include sharp words and even a reference to murder. The deraša is connected to the haphṭara through the similarity between Jacob’s and the words of Jeremiah What [מה מצאת]words Whathaveyoufound unrighteousnesshaveyourfathersfound.45 Jacob’s gentle rebuke of Laban foretells the gentle rebuke God will mete out on Jacob’s descendants, “In the very language by which you have rebuked your father-in-law, I shall rebuke your children.” God will rebuke Israel without reference to death and blood-shed. Thus this deraša opens by emphasizing the gentle aspects of Jeremiah’s prophecy, a sharp contrast with the tone of the previous pisqa᾿ which emphasized his prophecy’s harsher sides.46 The third proem also seems to have a problematic midrašic structure. While it begins with the verse Ifyouarewillingand listen,youshalleat thegoodoftheland (Isaiah 1:19), a verse containing the motif “listen,” this motif is not connected to the same word in the haphṭara, as we would expect. Rather, the deraša interprets the second part of the verse. In the proem’s continuation a statement in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahman is brought without any clear connection with the earlier material: is falling down, it is [בירה] R. Samuel bar Nahman said: Even while a palace rises, it is still called [קיקלה] still called a palace, and even when a dung heap a dung heap. Even while a palace is falling down, it is still called a palace – HearthewordoftheLord,OhouseofJacob,andallthefamiliesofthehouse ofIsrael (Jeremiah 2:4), even while they are declining, he still calls them the houseofIsrael. And even when a dung heap rises, it is still called a dung heap – Behold,thelandoftheChaldeans,thisisthenationthatwasnothing (Isaiah 23:13), would that they were still nothing!

R. Samuel’s statement is based on a saying which teaches that the mem- ory of a thing’s honor remains even when its external situation has changed — even though the palace has fallen, it is still called “the palace” and even when garbage has been picked up it is still called “garbage.” R. Samuel

45. This proem does not relate to the beginning of the verse HearthewordsoftheLord, but rather to its continuation. We saw a similar phenomenon in the previous pisqa᾿, which began with a proem related to the word Anathoth. 46. The second proem does not contribute to the portrayal of Jeremiah’s prophecy and therefore I have not discussed it here. I will just note that it deals with “hearing” and therefore is an appropriate proem for HearthewordoftheLord. However, in reality these words are not mentioned in other verses from Jeremiah and Isaiah. This phenomenon contributes to the likelihood that the pisqa᾿ was edited in a relatively late period. JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ 287 attaches the two parts of the saying to the prophecies concerning Israel and Babylonia. The section of the deraša most relevant to the proem deals with the verse HearthewordoftheLord,OhouseofJacob,andallthefamilies ofthehouseofIsrael. Even when rebuking them, Jeremiah refers to them with the honorable term, thehouseofIsrael.47 The theme of Jeremiah speak- ing gently to Israelis further developed in the following deraša: [מטרונא] R. Levi said: The matter may be compared to the case of noble woman the other ,[עירוני] at hand, one a villager [שושבינים] who had two companions The one who was a villager would speak words of .[בן מדינה] a city-dweller are you ;[בת טובים] Are you not a daughter of good folk“ ,[נחומים] consolation But the one who was ”?[בת גניסים] not the daughter of a distinguished family Are you not the“ .[קינתורים] a city-dweller would speak words of reprimand are you not the daughter of ;[בת עניים] daughter of the lowest of the poor ,So too in the case of Jeremiah ”?[בת סכופים] afflicted ones/impoverished folk since he was a villager, from Anathoth, he would go to Jerusalem and speak to Israel words of consolation, HearthewordoftheLord,OhouseofJacob,[and allthefamiliesofthehouseofIsrael] (Jeremiah 2:4) [...] But Isaiah, because he was a city-dweller, from Jerusalem, would speak to Israel words of repri- mand, HearthewordoftheLord,yourulersofSodom,[attend,youpeopleof Gomorra] (Isaiah 1:10). Said R. Levi: and Amaziah were brothers, and because Isaiah was the son of the king’s brother, he would speak to Israel in terms of reprimand, in line with this verse, Arichmananswersimpudently (Proverbs 18:23). [Ms. Oxford 2 adds: But Jeremiah who was not so, who comes from the descendants of Rahab, would speak words of consolation, as it is written, HearthewordoftheLord,OhouseofJacob,[andallthefamilies ofthehouseofIsrael] (Jeremiah 2:4)].48

R. Levi compares Jerusalem to a noble woman with two companions escorting her.49 The first is a simple “villager” whereas the second is a city dweller, raised in the more sophisticated “polis.” The simple villager respects the noble woman in accordance with her status, whereas the second,

47. According to most textual witnesses as well as the Mandelbaum edition there is no real conclusion to this proem (but see below). The deraša could have concluded here with a quote of the verse from the Torah reading while preserving the “correct” structure of a proem. However, the deraša continues with a second half of the saying, exemplifying it with Isaiah’s prophecy against the Babylonians. 48. Ms. Oxford - Bodleian Library MS Opp. Add. Qu. 79 (Cat. Neubauer 152). This manu- script was written in 1474 in Sephardi script. According to the Mandelbaum edition (and most manuscripts) the deraša concludes with the stanza about Isaiah. However, it seems in this case that the text found in Ms. Oxford 2 is preferable, for it preserves the symmetry between the stanzas. Moreover, it provides a fitting conclusion to the proem, as I shall demonstrate below. 49. A similar parable concerning a matron’s various companions (the people of Israel) is ascribed to R. Levi in LamentationsRaba 1: “R. Levi said: A parable to a matron that had three companions, one who saw her while calm, one who saw her while distressed, and one who saw her disgraced.” 288 JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ the city dweller, derides her. The parable is related to Jerusalem and her two prophets, Jeremiah and Isaiah. Both address Israel saying Heartheword(s) oftheLord, but they diametrically differ in how they refer to the people. Jeremiah, the villager from Anathoth, relates to Jerusalem and its inhabitants with respect, terming them HouseofJacob,andallthefamiliesofthehouse ofIsrael, whereas Isaiah, the city-dweller from Jerusalem calls them You rulersofSodom,attend,youpeopleofGomorra. In the continuation, in an additional deraša, R. Levi contrasts the genealogy of Isaiah with that of Jeremiah. Isaiah, descendant of kings, feels free to sharply rebuke Israel, whereas Jeremiah, the descendant of the harlot Rahab, appeases them, “As it is written, HearthewordoftheLord,OhouseofJacob.” This quote is an appropriate conclusion to the entire proem. The order of Jeremiah and Isaiah was reversed here as to allow for Jeremiah to appear at the conclusion of the proem. In sum, this proem continues the trend set in the first proem to emphasize the gentler aspects of Jeremiah’s rebuke. In the first proem Jer- emiah’s rebuke was compared with the gentle rhetoric used by Jacob when scolding of Laban, whereas in the last proem, the contrast is drawn between the temperate and respectful rhetoric used by Jeremiah and the humiliating tone of Isaiah’s prophecy. This trend continues in the first interpretive deraša which follows the unit of proems.50 This complex deraša relates to the phrase Hearthewordofthe Lord. Its opening includes a parable similar in rhetoric and content to the parable cited in the last proem: 4. R. Levi said: The matter may be compared to the case of noblewoman who brought into the king two myrtles and lost one of them and was [מטרונא] distressed on that account. The king said to her: Take good care of this other one as if you were taking care of the two of them. So too, when the Israelites stood at Mt. Sinai, they said: EverythingthattheLordhasspokenweshalldo andweshallhear (Exodus 24:7). They lost the weshalldo– theyhavemade themamoltencalf (Exodus 32:7). Said the Holy One, blessed be He: Be sure to take care of the weshallhear as if you were taking care of both of them; When they did not hear, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: Hearthe wordoftheLord (Jeremiah 2:4).

As in the concluding proem, here too R. Levi relates a parable involving a noble woman. In the proem there are two companions, here there are two

50. This deraša may be seen as a type of proem, even if its structure does not match the classical structure of proems. In other words, this is not a deraša of a verse found elsewhere. Rather it is a narrative parable used by the daršan to relate to the first verse of the haphṭara reading. Goldberg calls this genre a “topical proem.” See A. GOLDBERG, “On the Authenticity of the Chapters ‘Vayehi Bahazi Hallayla’ and ‘Shor o Kesev’ in the Pesiqta” (Hebrew), Tarbiz 38 (1969), p. 74. JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ 289 myrtles. After one of the myrtles is lost, the king warns the noble woman to watch over the second myrtle, “as if you were taking care of both of them.” God views the preservation of the second myrtle as equivalent to the pres- ervation of both. This is likened to Israel who accepted on themselves both Weshalldoandweshallhear, but after the sin of the golden calf were left with only one, Weshallhear. God says to Israel that if they preserve the we shallhear part of their acceptance, He will reckon it as if they preserved both Weshalldoandweshallhear. God emphatically assures Israel that He will remain with them even after their sin. This idea connects with the haphṭara, interpreting HearthewordoftheLord as God’s encouragement to Israel to preserve Weshallhear even after their failures.51 The second element of the deraša also relates to Hearthewordofthe Lord: HearthewordoftheLordbefore you hear thewordsofJeremiah– Hear the words of the Torah, before you have to hear the words of prophecy; Hear the words of the prophecy, before you have to hear the words of rebuke; Hear the words of rebuke before you have to hear the words of reprimand; Hear the words of reprimand before youhavetoheartheSoundofthehornandthepipe (Daniel 3:15); Hear in the land before you have to hear abroad; Hear while alive before you have to hear when dead; Let your ears hear before your bodies have to hear; Let your bodies hear before your bones have to hear, Oyedrybones, hearthewordoftheLord (:4).

The daršan reads the phrase, HearthewordoftheLord, as contrasting with thewordsofJeremiahhimself. That is to say, the address to Israel,

51. A similar parable is found in a fascinating parallel in Exodus Raba, Jethro 27:9: “Another interpretation: HearthewordoftheLord. A parable to a king who said to his serv- ants, ‘Watch over for me these two cups of glass.’ He said to them: Be careful with them. Before he went into his palace, a calf was waiting at the opening of the palace. He charged the servant and broke one of them. The servant was trembling before the king. The king said to him: Why are you trembling? He responded: The calf charged me and broke one of the cups. The king said to him: If so, know that you should be cautious with the second cup. Thus said the Holy One, blessed be He: You poured two cups at Sinai, Weshalldoandweshall hear. You broke Weshalldo when you made the calf. Be careful about, Weshallhear. This is what it means, HearthewordoftheLord,OHouseofJacob.” However, despite the simi- larity there is one essential difference between the two. In ExodusRaba the parable illustrates the relationship between a king and his servant who fails to watch over one of two cups he was given. When the first cup is broken, the king warns the servant to protect the second cup. So too Israel is commanded to preserve Weshallhear. In contrast, the PDRK refers to a more intimate relationship, between a king and his noblewoman. The noble woman is the one who brings the two myrtles to the king, but loses one of them. The king’s response, “Take good care of this other one as if you were taking care of the two of them” shows that he sees the remaining second myrtle as equivalent to both. This is a strong message of the retention of God’s intimacy with Israel even after their sin with the golden calf, so long as they continue to preserve Weshallhear. 290 JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿

HearthewordoftheLord, precedes the address to hear thewordsofJere- miah. From here the daršan presents a progressive series of addresses to the people, in each stage their “hearing” relates to a deteriorating situation which is a result of their refusal to hear earlier. For our purposes, the crucial point is the end of the deraša which refers to the final warning/hearing after the situation has deteriorated to its lowest. This stage is associated with Ezekiel’s prophecy, “Hear in the land before you have to hear abroad… Let your bodies hear before your bones have to hear, Oyedrybones,hear thewordoftheLord.”52 The placement of Ezekiel’s prophecy at this point in the deteriorating situation implies that Jeremiah’s prophecy is more ele- vated than that of Ezekiel. Ezekiel’s prophecy is one of exile, addressed to “dead bones.” While the pisqa᾿ continues with more interpretive derašot, these are not essential for the present issue, which relates more to the unit of proems. In total, this unit of proems consists of several derašot which portray Jeremiah as a gentle and merciful prophet of rebuke. The language of his rebuke is similar to that of Jacob’s rebuke of Laban: Both are described as “the anger of the fathers,” gentler than David’s harsh rebuke, “the humility of the sons.” Jeremiah, the village dweller lacking proper lineage, pays honor to Israel even while rebuking them, calling them house of Jacob whereas Isaiah, the urbanite of elevated lineage, calls them rulersofSodom. In Jeremiah’s address to Israel, HearthewordoftheLord, hints at his mes- sage of comfort, “Take good care of this other one as if you were taking care of the two of them, […] We shall do and we shall hear.” In the end, Jeremiah’s prophecy is greater than that of Ezekiel, for the latter is a proph- ecy of exile addressed to dry bones. These characteristics of Jeremiah and his prophecy in the unit of proems Hear the word of the Lord, contrast sharply with his portrayal in the proems of the previous pisqa᾿, Thewords ofJeremiah, where Jeremiah was portrayed as a harsh prophet of rebuke.

E. The image of Jeremiah’s Prophecy in Pesiqta᾿de-rabh Kahana᾿

Already in the Bible Jeremiah is a multi-faceted and occasionally contra- dictory character. On the one hand, he foresees the destruction of the Temple and sharply warns the inhabitants of Jerusalem of the consequences of their iniquities. On the other hand, he shares in suffering Jerusalem’s destruc- tion, empathizing with the subjects of his prophecy. This tension between

52. Cf. EcclesiastesRaba 4:1(5). JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ 291 the various aspects of Jeremiah’s prophecy is expressed in multiple places in post-biblical literature, including midrašic compositions. The editor of PDRK fashioned the derašot for the haphṭarot that precede the Ninth of Ab in accordance with this dialectic. In the first pisqa᾿ he chose to emphasize the harsher aspects of Jeremiah’s prophecy, and then contrasted them in the second, where he emphasized Jeremiah’s gentleness and the words of comfort that were also part of his prophetic output. In pisqa᾿ 13, thewordsofJeremiah are presented as harsh rebukes, con- trasted with the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel, and compared with the prophecy of Moses. The two derašot found at the heart of the unit of proems emphasize the severity and humiliation of being rebuked by a descendant of the harlot Rahab. The conclusion of the pisqa᾿detects a slight softening of the harshness of Jeremiah’s prophecy, and emphasizes his tones of consolation. This conclusion serves as a transition to the following pisqa᾿. Pisqa᾿ 14, HearthewordoftheLord, paints Jeremiah’s prophecy in a gentle light, comparing it with Jacob’s respectful rebuke of Laban, and again contrasting it with the language used by Isaiah and Ezekiel, but this time in the opposite manner. In this pisqa᾿, Jeremiah’s descent from Rahab explains why he addresses the audience of his rebuke with greater reverence and tenderness. There are three lenses which I suggest we could use to understand how such radical differences were formed in the portrayal of Jeremiah. On a most basic level, the two pisqa᾿ot present different overviews on Jeremiah’s prophecy. The first pisqa᾿ relates to the verses that introduce Jeremiah’s overall prophecy, “thewordsofJeremiah… until the exile from Jerusalem.” In accordance, the derašot also reflect a bird’s eye view of his prophecy. Statistically speaking, there is no doubt that Jeremiah’s prophecy can be characterized as being full of rebukes and evoking a gloomy atmosphere. This is expressed well in the Babylonian Talmud which explains why the book of Jeremiah precedes Isaiah (in the Talmud’s ordering of the books of the Bible) in the following way (Babha’Batra’ 14b): “Since the book of Kings ends with destruction and Jeremiah is all destruction.” The books of Ezekiel and Isaiah in contrast are not as severe. Clearly this does not mean that Jeremiah contains only prophecies of gloom and doom. Rather, com- pared to other prophets, his prophecy is characterized as harsh.53 From this

53. Jeremiah is associated with punishment elsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud (Ber. 57b): “One who sees… Jeremiah should be concerned about being punished.” In contrast, Isaiah and Ezekiel have more positive connotations: “[One who sees] Ezekiel, should expect wis- dom, Isaiah, should expect comfort.” 292 JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ vantage point the first pisqa᾿perceives Jeremiah’s prophetic career to be one of unforgiving censure, similar to the prophecy of Moses, and even more severe than those of Isaiah and Ezekiel. Jeremiah’s lineage sharpens even more the humiliation of his denunciation. In contrast, the second pisqa᾿ does not expound on the verses which intro- duce Jeremiah’s overall prophetic career; rather it relates to the prophecy itself. As a result, the pisqa᾿ focuses on the rhetoric that Jeremiah uses. This vantage point results in a different conception of Jeremiah’s prophecy. His language is gentler and more respectful than that used by other prophets. He is contrasted favorably with both Isaiah, the city-dweller and Ezekiel the “prophet of exile.” Jeremiah is not alienated from his people; rather he shares in their suffering. He prophecies the destruction and exile and then experi- ences them himself.54 Isaiah, in comparison, prophesied before the exile and most of Ezekiel’s prophecies took place after he was already in exile. The second lens through which the differences between these pisqa᾿otcan be understood is philological. The verses with which each haphṭara opens usually dictate the tone of the midrašic interpretations and in this particular case they are what caused the distinct differences in the nature of the pisqa᾿ot. The fact that thewordsofJeremiahwere already interpreted by the tana’im as “words of rebuke” set the tone for the first pisqa᾿. In contrast, Hearthe wordoftheLord,OhouseofJacobandallthefamiliesofthehouseofIsrael was conceived of as a gentle and respectful address by the prophet to his audience. The prophet is the conduit through which the word of the Lord is brought to Israel, but he remains firmly identified with his people. The words “what did your ancestors find” remind the daršanim of Jacob’s respectful words to Laban. The third lens through which I suggest we could use in understanding these differing portrayals is liturgical. The editor wished to create an atmos- phere of rebuke on the first Sabbath of the “three of rebuke” and accom- plished this by emphasizing the harsh, humiliating aspects of Jeremiah’s prophecy. On the second Sabbath the editor intentionally softened the per- ception of Jeremiah’s prophecy, in preparation for the haphṭara of the third Sabbath, ThevisionofIsaiah / Howshewaslikeaharlot. In other words, the editor prepared for the extremely harsh and rebuking haphṭara from Isaiah by softening the preceding week’s rebuke taken from the book of Jeremiah. Seen through this lens, the editor of PDRK used these derašot as an opportunity to shape the atmosphere of the synagogue during the calendrical cycle.

54. This issue is dealt with at length in a colorful manner in pisqa᾿ 13, section 9. JEREMIAH’SPROPHECYINPESIQTA᾿ DE-RABH KAHANA᾿ 293

Analysis of these pisqa᾿ot exemplifies well the tension between the raw midrašic material inherited by the editor of PDRK and the overall literary framework of the pisqa᾿ot. The editor inherited midrašic material that was originally created for interpretive purposes, modified it and placed it into a setting that would highlight the broader message or purpose he wished to shape.55 The overall structure of these two pisqa᾿ot allows the audience to experience the character of Jeremiah and his prophecy and integrates into the liturgical movement throughout the weeks leading up to the Ninth of Ab.

Arnon ATZMON [email protected]

55. An outstanding example of this is the tracing of Jeremiah’s lineage to Rahab which serves different and even opposite purposes in the two pisqa᾿ot.