INTRODUCTION to the 2003 Edition

n 1898 a young scholar named Louis Ginz- Ginzberg called such stories “legends” and I berg published the first in a series of articles sought in his articles to recover the remains of on the Aggadah in the Church Fathers and in the what he believed were some of the earliest exist- apocryphal literature.1 The word “aggadah*”— ing aggadot. These, he argued, had been para- literally, “narrative” or “what is transmitted doxically preserved only in the books of the through telling”—is a technical term in classical Apocrypha, the earliest postbiblical writings, Jewish literature for the nonlegal traditions of the and in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Rabbis who lived in Roman Palestine and Baby- Now such a scholarly task would seem easy lonia in the first six centuries of the Common enough if these ancient authors had referred to Era. These traditions are preserved in both the them as Jewish aggadot; but they did not. So Talmud and the various collections of Midrash, Ginzberg hunted them down with the assiduity or Rabbinic biblical interpretation. Ginzberg and ingenuity of a tireless Sherlock Holmes. himself was mainly interested in aggadot about The articles, that resulted, as one later scholar biblical characters—stories famous in Jewish tra- noted, were in fact close to revolutionary and dition but not found in the Bible, like the story signaled an entirely new approach to the study of that Abraham was the first monotheist and that ancient Rabbinic lore. They were also the germ he had deduced the existence of one God by de- of this book, Legends of the Jews, arguably the sin- stroying his father’s idols, or the tale about Moses, gle most important contribution to the study of who, before returning to Egypt to lead the Israel- Rabbinic Aggadah in the modern period. ites, had first been general, then king of the Ethi- At the time he published his first articles, opians and had married their queen. Louis Ginzberg was twenty-five years old. Born in Kovno, Lithuania, in 1873, Ginzberg was the * “Aggadah” is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew direct descendant of several distinguished rab- “Haggadah.” Ginzberg himself tended to use the latter, but bis, including on his mother's side, the brother for purposes of consistency (because the Aramaic form is of the Gaon of Vilna (1720–97). Recognized as the more common one in use today) and clarity (to avoid a prodigy, even as a child, Ginzberg studied in any confusion with the Passover Haggadah) I have consis- tently used Aggadah and changed all instances of Hag- the great Lithuanian yeshivot of Telz and Slo- gadah to Aggadah. bodka. After his father moved the family to

 THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS

Amsterdam for business reasons, Ginzberg was pages) to be submitted in 1903. The book, sent to Germany to continue his rabbinical however, quickly exceeded its original plan; and studies and receive a secular education. At age in 1903, Ginzberg submitted not a completed twenty-one, he enrolled in the University of book but a reconceived plan for the work-in- Strassburg, where he studied Semitic languages progress. Eventually, the project grew to nearly and literature with the great Orientalist The- ten times its originally planned size—into four odore Noeldeke and completed his doctorate at large volumes, plus two dense volumes of foot- the University of Heidelberg in 1898. (His dis- notes printed in a minuscule font size and one sertation was “The Aggadah in the Church Fa- index volume of 612 pages alone. The first vol- thers and in the Apocryphal Literature.”) ume of Legends of the Jews appeared in 1909; the In 1899, persuaded that he would never re- next three in 1910, 1911, and 1913, respective- ceive a university position in Germany because ly. The two volumes of notes were published in he was Jewish, Ginzberg emigrated to the Unit- 1925 and 1928. The index (written on more ed States on the promise of a teaching position than seventy thousand note cards by Boaz Co- at Hebrew Union College. The job, however, hen, Ginzberg’s student and later an eminent was retracted even before he arrived, supposedly scholar of ancient Jewish law in his own right) because word had reached the school that the was completed in 1931; but because of lack of young European scholar was an adherent of money, it was not published until 1938.2 Ginz- modern biblical criticism! Pressed for a liveli- berg, to be sure, was not working all those years hood, Ginzberg found employment writing for full time on Legends. In 1902, he had been ap- The Jewish Encyclopaedia, for which, over several pointed professor of Talmud in the newly reor- years, he wrote more than four hundred articles, ganized Jewish Theological Seminary, where he some of which continue to be read today as ex- remained as its outstanding scholarly personali- emplary studies of their subjects. Two years lat- ty for the next fifty years, training some 650 er, however, the Encyclopaedia found itself in its rabbis and scholars and serving as the major in- own financial difficulties, and Ginzberg, out of tellectual force in the American Conservative work, considered returning to Europe. At the movement. By the time the index appeared in eleventh hour, however, Ginzberg was “rescued” 1938, he had also published eight other scholar- by Sulzberger. Judge Mayer Sulzberger of Phila- ly books, including seminal monographs on the delphia, one of the leading figures in American Palestinian Talmud, genizah documents, and Jewry at the time. Sulzberger had met Ginzberg Geonic literature, not to mention countless arti- socially and, loath to see any young Jewish schol- cles, responsa, and essays, both learned and ar leave the country, he suggested that Ginzberg popular. write a small popular volume on Jewish legends Legends of the Jews was originally written in for The Jewish Publication Society for the sum German, presumably because Ginzberg did not of one thousand dollars. Ginzberg agreed; and in feel comfortable enough in his newly adopted 1901, he signed a contract for the book. language (although he later became a stylist of The original terms of the agreement—pre- no small measure in English). The first two vol- served in a letter written to Ginzberg by Henri- umes were translated into a felicitous English by etta Szold, secretary of the Society—were that Henrietta Szold who, despite her official title of he produce a manuscript of “approximately one secretary of the Society, was actually its chief ed- hundred thousand words” (about 300 printed itor, manager, and main translator as well.3 By

 Introduction to the 2003 Edition now, the story of the unhappy romance that en- and events, and reproduce them with the great- sued between its author and translator has be- est attainable completeness and accuracy.”4 In- come part of the history of the work. Fifteen deed, not only was it an attempt to collect all years older than Ginzberg, Szold, who was for- Jewish legends, as the complete work with the ty-five and unmarried, first met the young Eu- two volumes of notes coalesced, it also became ropean professor in 1903 and instantly became the first comprehensive and critical attempt to enamored of him, turning her work on the analyze the legends and trace their development translation into a labor of love. Ginzberg at first and place in both Jewish tradition and world responded reluctantly to her interest; but over folklore. time, particularly after the death of his father in To appreciate the scope of Ginzberg’s 1907, when he found himself desperately in achievement, it is necessary to understand the need of companionship, the two developed nature of the “original sources” containing the what he called “an extraordinary friendship.” Jewish legends. Indeed, the title itself—Legends Their relationship came to an end only when, in of the Jews rather than “Legends of the Rab- 1908, after returning from a trip to Europe, he bis”—was a deliberate choice on Ginzberg’s abruptly announced his engagement to a young part, because he believed that Jewish legend— woman he had met abroad. Heartbroken, Szold Aggadah—was both earlier and greater than nearly suffered a nervous breakdown; she what was represented in Rabbinic literature. Al- begged off from completing the translation of though Ginzberg always gave pride of place to Legends and, ultimately, left The Jewish Publica- the Rabbinic sources, namely, the Talmud and tion Society to avoid having to deal with Ginz- midrashic collections, he argued that Aggadah berg. This was, however, a kind of happy both antedated the period of Rabbinic Judaism accident, because Szold was then able to devote (which, speaking from a critical historian’s per- all her energies to Zionist activities and the spective, begins only after the destruction of the founding of Hadassah—a fortunate casualty, as Temple in 70 C.E.) and left its traces far beyond it were, of Legends. In turn, the translation of the confines of the literature that the Rabbis the remaining volumes was taken over by a themselves produced. For Ginzberg, the real needy graduate student named Paul Radin, who origins of Aggadah lay in early postbibical litera- later went on to become one of America’s most ture, particularly in the works known as the important anthropologists. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, which were The romance behind the work notwith- composed in the last centuries before the turn of standing, Legends underwent a radical change the common era and the first centuries after- in the course of its writing. The original con- ward. With titles such as the Book of Enoch (an ception, as proposed by Mayer Sulzberger, was obscure figure mentioned in Gen. 4:21–24), or to produce a popular collection of Jewish leg- the Last Testaments of the Ten Tribes, or the Vi- ends about the Bible—“to offer a readable story sions of Ezekiel, these often arcane texts, were and narrate an interesting tale,” as Ginzberg probably originally composed in Hebrew, but himself wrote in the preface to the fifth volume. were now preserved only in translation in lan- As the work took shape, however, it became guages like Coptic and Old Church Slavonic. something quite different: the first attempt “to Typically presenting themselves as hidden or gather from the original sources all Jewish leg- suppressed “supplements” to the biblical canon, ends, insofar as they refer to biblical personages these works, as Ginzberg was among the first to

 THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS realize, were actually the earliest testimony to kabbalist Hayyim Vital.5 Nor was this purely a extrabiblical Jewish legend. Unhappily, the matter of intellectual vision. Ginzberg’s know- Christian Church early on had adapted and ap- ledge of Western culture from its beginnings in propriated these books (often adding Christian- ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia through early izing elements to the original Jewish texts); and modern European intellectual history was dazz- in response, the Rabbis had largely disavowed ling. Remember, too, that he was in his thirties them, thereby shutting them out of the Jewish when he wrote Legends, an age when many biblical canon and excluding them from subse- young scholars today are still completing their quent Jewish tradition. As part of his project, doctoral dissertations. Ginzberg saw it as his duty to reclaim the Jewish To give just a hint of the range of materials legends in these books for Judaism. he drew upon, consider his portrait of Abraham Further, Ginzberg’s vision of the range of in the first volume.6 The idea that the world Jewish legend did not end with the literature of owed its existence to the merits of the patriarch the Rabbis. Just as he felt compelled to reclaim was derived from a Palestinian source; that the Aggadah in the Apocrypha and Pseude- Abraham left Ur at great personal sacrifice was pigrapha, so too he understood that “in the rich from an Egyptian text; that Abraham proved the literature of the Church Fathers many a Jewish emptiness of their faith to the wise men of Egypt legend lies embalmed which one would seek in came from a Roman source; and that Laban, Ba- vain in Jewish books.” And this was true not laam, and Abraham’s father derived their art of only of the literature of Christianity but of that sorcery from the cities Abraham had built for of Islam as well. Hagar and Ishmael was from a Babylonian one. Finally, Ginzberg understood that in Jew- So, too, Ginzberg derived Abraham’s mother’s ish tradition the late dating of a text did not name from one source, Abraham’s designation necessarily rule out its containing very early as “the true friend of God” from a second, the traditions that had not been preserved any- discovery of the true faith from a third, the tale where else. As a consequence, he made rich use of Abraham’s remarkable tree from a fourth, the of the medieval writers—commentators, hom- source of Sarah’s barrenness from a fifth, the ilists, poets, and philosophers—as well as of parents of Hagar from a sixth, and so on. The Kabbalah and its mystical texts. Indeed, “new number of sources that Ginzberg consulted is legends arose” even among the Hasidim, and so literally mind-boggling. he felt it incumbent to include those as well, One might expect that a narrative woven for what they might teach us about the later out of all these separate strands and pieces history of Jewish legend. would have been full of loose threads and dis- Ginzberg’s vision of the parameters of Jew- tracting digressions. But Ginzberg was an excel- ish legend was therefore exceedingly broad—in lent storyteller, and he masterfully wove fact, unparalleled among his contemporaries together the many fragmentary aggadot to pro- and hardly surpassed since his time. His book duce short vignettes with titles such as “The was probably the first to cite in the same passage Babe Proclaims God” and “The Patron of He- sources from the Talmud and Midrash; from the bron.” Helped along by Szold’s mellifluous first-century Greek Jewish philosopher Philo, prose, despite its somewhat Victorian diction, the Zohar; from the Church Fathers Origen and Ginzberg managed, in better than workman- Tertullian; and from the seventeenth-century like style, to fit an impressive number of aggadot

 Introduction to the 2003 Edition into a coherent sequential narrative; and the sto- cient Judaism, even sympathetic ones, who ries and motifs that he could not fit into the maintained that Judaism as a living phenome- main text itself he placed in the notes. Follow- non and a religion of vitality had ceased to exist ing the lead of the legends themselves rather from the moment the Jews lost their political than the biblical narrative, Ginzberg nonethe- independence and the Temple was destroyed. less managed to retell the entire biblical history For these scholars, Ginzberg wrote, the Juda- from the Creation to the return of the Jews from ism of the Synagogue was “something different Babylonian captivity as though there were no from the Judaism of the Bible, something actu- difference between the “Bible” proper and the ally opposed to it,” and its literature was at best Bible “of Jewish imagination and phantasy.”7 “poetic phantasmagoria, the vaporings of mor- The result was something like a cross between bid visionaries.”10 the Grimm Brothers’ fairy tales and Charles By viewing the Aggadah as the popular folk Lamb’s Stories from Shakespeare. In fact, Ginz- literature of ancient Judaism, Ginzberg wished berg’s “retold Bible” hearkens back to some of to reverse judgment about the value of Aggadah the very sources he mined for aggadot, to such and, by extension, about their valuation of Rab- ancient texts as Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiq- binic Judaism in general. Quite the contrary, uities and to medieval works like the Chronicle Ginzberg argued: of Yerahmeel and Sefer Hayashar—works that The school and the home are not mutually also freely “retold” the Bible, adding aggadot opposed to each other in the conceptions of and legends as though they were part of the the Jews. They study in their homes and original text. they live in their schools. Likewise there is What impelled Ginzberg’s work, however, no distinct class of scholars among them, a was not a desire to emulate the classical tradi- class that withdraws itself from participa- tion but a conception of Aggadah as the folk tion in the affairs of practical life. Even in literature of the Jewish people. Ginzberg never the domain of the Halakhah [Rabbinic law], spelled out exactly what he meant by “folk lit- the Rabbis were not so much occupied with erature,” but it is possible to reconstruct his theoretic principles of law as with the con- ideas from his references to Aggadah as a crete phenomena of daily existence. These “popular literature,” as tales “spontaneously they sought to grasp and shape. And what is brought forth by the people,” as “the product true of the Halakhah is true with greater of practical, pulsating life,” and as a literature emphasis of the Aggadah, which is popular “created by the people for the people.”8 In in the double sense of appealing to the peo- treating Aggadah as folk literature, Ginzberg ple and being produced in the main by the was, on the one hand, reacting to earlier schol- people. 11 ars of Rabbinic literature such as the great The Aggadah, in short, embodied the living nineteenth-century German Jewish founder of spirit of the Jewish people—indeed, it proved the Science of Judaism, Leopold Zunz, who the existence of that living spirit even when the had considered Aggadah to be mainly a prod- Jews lived in exile under foreign rule and, flee- uct of the schoolhouse and academy, at worst ing the sad conditions of their contemporary ex- “extravagances of an unbridled scholastic istence, allowed their imaginations to roam mind.”9 This view of Aggadah was shared, par- freely in the ancient past of the Bible, the Torah. adoxically, by many Christian students of an- For ancient and medieval Jews, Ginzberg wrote,

 THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS

“Torah was the magic means of making a sordid The teachers of the Aaggadah, called actuality recede before a glorious memory.”12 Rabbanan d’Aggade in the Talmud, were In viewing Aggadah as the folk literature of no folklorists, from whom a faithful re- the Jews and as an instrument for validating production of legendary material may be Jewish national existence in the present as well expected. Primarily they were homilists, as in the past, Ginzberg was very much a child who used legends for didactic purposes, of his time. The very title of the work places it and their main object was to establish a among the many books of national legends and close connection between the Scripture folklore that appeared in the nineteenth centu- and the creations of the popular fantasy, ry, including the folktale collections of the to give the latter a firm basis and secure a Brothers Grimm. Indeed it was a basic princi- long term of life for them.13 ple of European Romantic thought that every This midrashic connection to Scripture people must possess its own homeland, lan- was, however, a belated, secondary addition, a guage, and national literature. Where such a lit- mere scholastic veneer. “One of the most im- erature did not manifestly exist, it was portant tasks of the modern investigation of the invented, as in the case of the famous Icelandic Aaggadah,” he wrote, “is to make a clean separa- epic Laocoon. Ginzberg had no need to invent tion between the original elements and the later the legends of the Jews; he had only to rediscov- learned additions.”14 And this was precisely the er them. And this he did, searching for them task he set himself in Legends—a task whose ex- not only in the obvious sources of Jewish litera- ecution was neatly summed up in the difference ture but also, as noted, in the Apocrypha, between the first four volumes of the legends Pseudepigrapha, early Christian literature, and proper and the two volumes of footnotes, which medieval Islamic and Asian literature. He dug were densely packed with scholarship. (In this through these documents, looking for treasures new edition, for purposes of greater conve- with all the zeal and painstaking patience of an nience, each legend is immediately followed by intrepid archaeologist. its set of footnotes.) By placing Aggadah within its larger histor- The enormous body of scholarship origi- ical framework, Ginzberg sought to distinguish nally contained in the two volumes of notes re- between its legendary substance and its fre- mains remarkably relevant; it is certainly not quently scholastic form. The latter, he felt, was out of date. Given the substantial discoveries the main reason Aggadah had not been suffi- and advances in scholarship made over the last ciently appreciated and properly understood. century, this is truly remarkable. Critical edi- According to Ginzberg, the Rabbinic academy tions of many texts that Ginzberg consulted was not the birthplace or fount of Aggadah, have changed our understanding of numerous only the site of its later transmission. Little of details, and Ginzberg wrote before the discovery the original Aggadah had been preserved in its of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic library earliest form. In Christian tradition, the pseude- at Nag Hammadi, two exceedingly valuable pigraphic literature had preserved the Jewish troves of documents that have considerably legends in the form of apocalyptic prophecies, fleshed out our understanding of the ancient while in Jewish tradition the same legends were Jewish world. Even so, the material in these mainly transmitted in the form of Midrash, or sources has generally confirmed rather than re- scriptural exegesis. Ginzberg wrote: futed Ginzberg’s view of the close “inner rela-

 Introduction to the 2003 Edition tion” among the early postbiblical writings and ingenuity [namely, Midrash] and popular fancy the later Rabbinic texts. More recent method- both contributed toward the production of these ological shifts in research have added nuances to legends” (emphasis added). Indeed, even the the way scholars approach the literary sources somewhat schizoid character of Legends—with Ginzberg treated. In the main, though, no its first four volumes addressed explicitly to the scholar even today can study biblical legends general reader and its last two volumes intended without first consulting Ginzberg to see what he primarily “if not exclusively”15 for the scholar— already discovered and pointed out. argued against the easy distinction between The single underpinning of the work that popular legend and exegetical scholasticism. In is no longer accepted by most scholars is Ginz- a more than slightly ironic fashion, the notes berg’s light-handed dismissal of the midrashic tend to “deconstruct” the simple, straightfor- dimension of Aggadah as a secondary, belated ward narrative related in the first four volumes feature. Nor would contemporary scholars by laying bare a complex subtext of often inter- agree that one might easily make a “clean sepa- secting and multilayered levels of influence, ration” between the original Aggadah and the borrowings, and interpretive commentaries ly- later learned additions. Over the last quarter- ing innocently beneath the seemingly transpar- century, students of Midrash and Aggadah have ent prose of the legends. The reader willing to noted the close connection between exegesis make the passage from the simple narrative re- and imagination in classical Jewish literature. told in the first four volumes to the dense anno- Exegesis—the desire to interpret Scripture, the tations in the last two—virtually one footnote need to explain difficulties in the biblical text— per paragraph of narrative text—may feel as if is no longer seen as mere scholarly detritus but he or she were stepping into an unsettling as one of the great occasions for the exercise of fourth dimension of reality of unending schol- the Jewish imagination. Fictional invention was arly complication and refinement. an intrinsic part of the way in which the Bible To be fair to Ginzberg, he was not alone was read by its earliest audience to fill out the among Jewish thinkers in his time in approach- many lacunae and gaps in its narrative. Ag- ing the imaginative lore of the Rabbis from the gadah, in other words, was not simply Jewish vantage point of folklore or to see its imagina- fantasy. Homiletical Midrash was a valid—even tive, popular dimension as distinct from and the most cogent—medium for solving interpre- even opposed to its midrashic, exegetical side.16 tive difficulties in the biblical narrative, for Legends of the Jews was one of three major an- making the Bible relevant and meaningful to thologies of classical Jewish Aggadah to appear contemporary readers, for bridging the gap be- in roughly the same period. In 1908–09, poet tween the strangeness of what the Bible seemed Haim Nahman Bialik and editor Yehoshua Ha- to say and what its audience felt it ought to na Ravnitzky published their classic Sefer Ha mean. ’Aggadah, whose title in English—The Book of In fact, in the course of his own career, Ginz- Legends—does more to convey its authors’ berg himself partially revised his earlier views. In sense of Aggadah as a lost epic or as the quasi- a talk titled “Jewish Folklore: East and West”— mythic folk literature of the Jews. And only delivered in 1936 as an address at the Tercente- slightly later, Micah Yosef Berdichevsky (Bin- nary of Harvard University—Ginzberg ac- Gorion) published the first of several antholo- knowledged that “most frequently scholastic gies of Jewish folklore that culminated in his

 THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS monumental Mimekor Yisrael (published post- dichevsky saw as the key to a renewed Jewish humously in 1939). creativity in the modern world.19 For Ginzberg, Each of these books had a somewhat differ- in contrast, the midrashic side of the legends ent character and agenda. Bialik and Ravnitzky’s was simply the mark of their transmission by Sefer Ha ’Aggadah was compiled as part of the the Rabbis—the difference between the Sages’ Zionist project of kinnus, the “ingathering” of didactic interests and the more spontaneous classical Jewish literature, and was consciously outpourings of the popular masses, who were intended to reclaim the epic of Jewish tradition the Aggadah’s real authors. for the Zionist pioneers in Palestine in their Yet the real difference among these works newly reborn Hebraic culture.17 Berdischevsky’s was that Ginzberg was infinitely more sympa- anthologies were folklore collections that he thetic to the Rabbis than either of his far more hoped would inspire a rebirth of Jewish creativi- ideologically secular contemporaries. The sim- ty; to this day, Mimekor Yisrael remains the most ple reason for this is because, deep down, Ginz- complete compilation of classical Jewish folk- berg was himself a rabbi—that is, the complete lore.18 Ginzberg’s Legends, in turn, had a dual product of the Lithuanian yeshivot in which he purpose—first, to present to an American audi- had received his earliest training in the study of ence the wealth of Jewish legends in a readable, Torah. Even when his critical modernity took interesting form (per Mayer Sulzberger’s origi- him outside or beyond the tradition, he still re- nal commission); and second, to use this occa- mained of the tradition, schooled and immersed sion as a pretext to collect legends from every in its depths of learning and in its commitment conceivable source and to analyze and trace to study as the greatest of God’s command- their parallels, influences, and sources. It was the ments. Like the ancient Rabbis, for whom study only one of the three works to offer a genuinely of Torah was a kind of “magic,” so, too, To- original, major contribution to scholarship. rah—that is, Torah in the largest sense of the Yet for all the differences among their word, encompassing all learning and wisdom works, the editors of all three anthologies connected to Judaism—remained for Ginzberg sought to distance Aggadah from midrashic exe- the essence of Jewishness; one might even say, gesis, each for his own reason. In Bialik’s case, it its “magic.” was largely personal: He identified Midrash Ginzberg is, arguably, the paradigmatic ex- with the beit midrash of the traditional yeshivah, ample of the modern Jewish scholar who has from which he had fled as a youth to become moved from the world of tradition to that of the poet laureate of the Zionist movement. In critical scholarship and carried this passion for his mind, Midrash never lost its depressing asso- learning from one realm of discourse to the oth- ciations with the stifling and deadening tradi- er. Even when he no longer fully subscribed to tional world he sought to escape. Berdichevsky’s the tenets underlying the material he studied, he feelings were less obviously autobiographical: was not deterred from treating the sources with He was primarily interested in recovering the the same commitment and love and care he creative act that he saw embodied in Jewish leg- might have felt had he remained more conven- end. As he understood it, the midrashic or hom- tionally orthodox in practice and faith. Not that iletic frame was a later editorial intervention the path he had chosen for himself was without that prevented the reader’s direct encounter conflict: Even as an elderly man, he could be with the creative legend, an encounter that Ber- stricken by guilt for having betrayed the pious

 Introduction to the 2003 Edition world of his forefathers to pursue the “scientific” approach to Rabbinic literature.20 Yet just as he 1. For a complete bibliography of the articles, see The Responsa of Professor Louis Ginzberg, ed. David could write that his illustrious ancestor the Vil- Golinkin (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of na Gaon was “the real founder of historic criti- America, 1996), 1, n. 1. Golinkin’s introduction to the cism among the Jews”21—a claim the Vilna book is also the most complete recent biographical sketch Gaon himself might have found difficult to ac- of Ginzberg’s life. As Golinkin notes, the articles consisted of Ginzberg’s doctoral dissertation. I also wish to thank cept—so, too, study of the traditional texts and Professor Golinkin for reading and commenting on a draft intellectual immersion in the tradition consti- of this introduction. tuted Louis Ginzberg’s path to Judaism, even to 2. Jonathan Sarna, JPS: The Americanization of Jew- ish Culture 1888–1988 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication holiness. Society, 1989), 178. To this day Legends of the Jews remains the 3. For the complete story, see Sarna, 130–35; and single indispensable reference work on Ag- Baila Shargel, Lost Love (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication gadah. It is the first book to which a student or Society, 1997). 4. Legends, xxxi. scholar turns to learn the main lines of the post- 5. See, for example, p. 80–93. biblical understanding of a biblical episode and 6. For what follows, see the devoted sketch by So- its sources. It is also the first place to look to find lomon Goldman, “The Portrait of a Teacher,” in Louis out the answer to such questions as What was Ginzberg Jubilee Volume, English Section (New York, The American Academy for Jewish Research, 1945), 6–7, from the day on which Abraham was born? Who which I have borrowed the list of examples. among our ancestors was identified with Aesop? 7. Legends, xxv. The final section of the legends is ac- What was Moses’ physical appearance? and tually devoted to the story of Esther whose book, accord- ing to Ginzberg, was the last of the scriptural writings even What was the name of Potiphar’s wife? One though the events recounted in it took place in Persia some need only refer to the index, which will give you twenty years before the return from Babylonian captivity. both the legend and the note in which the leg- 8. For these references, see his English introduction end’s source and all its versions can be found. to Genizah Studies, I:xv; Legends, xxix. 9. “Jewish Folklore: East and West,” in On Jewish So, too, the reader will find here the full range Law and Lore (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, of the rich and often unpredictable and contra- 1955), 61. dictory treasures of the world of Aggadah—an 10. Legends, xxix. imaginative universe in which mythological 11. Legends, xxix–xxx. 12. Legends, xxx. tales about demons and magic co-exist with 13. Legends, xxix–xxx. moralistic stories about the piety of the patri- 14. Legends, xxx. archs. Yet, in addition to being an invaluable 15. Legends, xxv. 16. For an excellent study of the background, see map to the world of Aggadah, Legends also re- Mark W. Kiel, “Sefer ha ’aggadah: Creating a Classic An- mains exemplary testimony to the life of its au- thology for the People and by the People,” Prooftexts 17 thor, to an intellectual career of scholarly (1997): 177–97. devotion to the sources of tradition in response 17. See David Stern, introduction to Sefer Ha ’ag- gadah, The Book of Legends (New York: Schocken, 1996), to the challenge of modernity. It is a double rea- xvii–xxii. son to celebrate the re-issuing of this monument 18. Dan Ben-Amos, introduction to Mimekor Yisra- of modern Jewish learning. el: Selected Classical Jewish Folktales, coll. Micha Joseph Bin David Stern Gordon, ed. Emanuel Bin Gorion, Trans. I. M. Lask, prep. Dan Ben-Amos (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1990), xiii.

 THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS

19. See Zipora Kagan, “Homo Anthologicus: Micha Louis Ginzberg (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, Joseph Berdyczewski and the Anthological Genre,” Proof- 1966), 265–66. The incident is also discussed and contex- texts 19 (1999): 41–57. tualized in Golinkin, 9–13. 20. See, for example, the episode recounted in Eli 21. Louis Ginzberg, Students, Scholars, and Saints Ginzberg’s loving portrait of his father, Keeper of the Law: (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1945), 234.

 INTRODUCTION to the Notes

he reader who wishes to acquaint himself fields of learning. The student of comparative T with the aim and purpose of “Legends of folklore will be attracted not only by the rich the Jews” and with the method and system fol- material offered him for his studies, but also by lowed by the author will find the necessary in- the fact of its being Jewish. The Jews may well formation in the preface in the first volume. I be described as the great disseminators of folk- desire, however, to supplement it with a few re- lore. Many a legend that originated in Egypt or marks which I hope will be useful as a guide to Babylonia was appropriated by the European the notes. peoples and many a European fairy tale found [The Legends], containing the Bible as its way to Asia through the medium of the Jews, mirrored by Jewish imagination and phantasy, who on their long wanderings from the East to are intended chiefly for the general reader and the West, and back from the West to the East, not for the scholar. It is true, I flatter myself, brought the products of oriental fancies to the that the latter too will welcome the opportunity occidental nations, and the creations of occi- offered him for the first time of reading hun- dental imagination to the oriental peoples. dreds of legends in connected form instead of The danger of confounding popular beliefs being forced to hunt for them in the vast litera- with the belief of a people is great, and I have on ture of the Jews spreading over a period of two more than one occasion strongly protested thousand years and in Christian writings of against the methodological error of a certain many a century. In the arranging and setting of school of theologians, who attempt to draw a the material in order, however, my main effort picture of the Jewish religion by the artificial was to offer a readable story and narrate an in- light of popular fancies. But who will gainsay teresting tale. that theVolksfrömmigkeit* is reflected in the leg- [The notes], on the other hand, . . . are ends of a people? If this be true of legend in meant primarily, if not exclusively, for the stu- general, how much more so of Jewish legend, dent. The material dealt with in them is of a na- and particularly of that part thereof in which ture which, in the opinion of the author, will Jewish imagination expressed itself with regard interest not only students of the legendary lore of the Jews, but also students of many other * Piety of the common man.

 THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS to biblical events, persons and teachings. Cre- There are few Jewish authors about whom so ation, the election of Israel, the Torah, the mer- much has been written as about Philo. And yet its of the Fathers, reward and punishment, and the most important problem connected with many similar problems, engaged the attention, Philo is not yet solved. Was he a Jewish thinker not only of Jewish thought, but also of Jewish with a Greek education, or a Greek philosopher imagination. It is a well known fact that one with Jewish learning? I hope that the very nu- cannot know any one thing well unless he goes merous references in the Notes to the frequent beyond it and apprehends its relation to other similarity of the views held by the Rabbis and by things. To understand a people, it is not suffi- Philo will contribute something towards the so- cient to study its thought and imagination, but lution of this problem. I call special attention to also the relation of the two to one another. Al- those notes where apparently philosophic utter- most one half of this volume is therefore intend- ances of Philo reveal themselves on close scruti- ed as much for the student of Jewish religious ny as sound rabbinic doctrine, the philosophical thought as for the Jewish folklorist. tinsel of which can be easily removed. One of the outstanding characteristics of Notwithstanding the early claim of the “the popular mind” is its conservatism and ad- Church to be the sole and true interpreter of the herence to old forms. Nothing perhaps il- Bible, the products of later Jewish thought and lustrates this more clearly and convincingly imagination found their way into it. The chan- than the close affinity that exists between the nels through which they reached the Christian pseudepigraphic literature and the rabbinic world were two. The Church had at its very be- Haggadah, notwithstanding the centuries that ginning adopted the pseudepigraphic literature lie between some of the Pseudepigrapha and the as well as the Hellenistic writings, especially Midrashim. Fascinating as the study of the rela- those of Philo. Besides this literary influence of tion between these two branches of Jewish liter- later Judaism upon the Church, cognizance ature is, it is barely in its infancy. Jewish scholars must also be taken of the oral communications have sorely neglected the study of the Pseude- made by Jewish masters to their Christian disci- pigrapha, and non-Jewish scholars that of Rab- ples. Not only the Church Fathers, Origen, Eu- binics, and consequently very little has been sebius, Ephraem and Jerome, of whom it is well achieved in this field of learning. The [notes] known that they studied the Bible under the contain, besides hundreds of parallels between guidance of Jewish teachers, have appropriated a the rabbinic sources and the pseudepigraphic good deal of Jewish legendary lore, but also Ter- writings, also a number of lengthy studies on tullian, Lactantius, Ambrosius, Augustine and the Pseudepigrapha, especially on their relation many other teachers and leaders of the Church to the Haggadah. To mention only two exam- have come under direct influence of Jews. It is ples: To the Books of Adam, i. e. the Vita Adae true that the Church Fathers sometimes sneer- and the Apocalypse of Moses, ten pages are devot- ingly refer to the fabulae Judaicae, but more of- ed (118–128), and an almost equal number of ten they accept these fabulae and even refrain pages is given to the Books of Enoch (153–162). from betraying the source from which they drew What has just been said about the relation them. The large material culled from the writ- of the pseudepigraphic literature to the Hag- ings of the Church Fathers to illustrate their de- gadah might be applied mutatis mutandis also to pendence upon Jewish tradition will be, I hope, the affinity between Philo and the Rabbis. of some value to the student of the patristic

 Introduction to the Notes literature. At the same time the student of Jew- general Folklore. There are a considerable num- ish literature will be interested to learn that ber of doctoral dissertations, mostly in German, many a Haggadah first met with in Jewish liter- which attempt to give the lives of prominent ature in a Midrash composed in the seventh or figures of the Bible according to the Haggadah. eighth century, and even later, was transmitted At their best, they are correct translations of as Jewish tradition by the Church Fathers of the some sections of the Midrash Rabba, and there fifth or fourth or even the third century. Not in- was no need to refer to translations, as the notes frequently the patristic literature throws also are written for those who are able to make use of some light upon the origin of a Haggadah the original sources. For this very reason, I also which often owes its existence to the desire of refrained from giving explanations to the texts combating Christian interpretation of the Bible. quoted if they are found in the commentaries. An interesting example of such a Haggadah is Explanations are given in the notes only when pointed out on page 3, note 3. the commentators fail to do so, or where I differ The problems that presented themselves to with their views. As I have a thorough dislike for the author were so manifold and diverse that it polemics, I rarely gave my reasons for the refusal was quite impossible to deal fully with them. to accept the views of others. What I strove to achieve, and I hope that I have As to the literature on general Folklore, I not failed, was to have the legendary material as was guided by the consideration that a student complete as possible. There are very few Jewish of comparative Folklore is surely acquainted legends bearing on biblical events or persons with the standard works of Bolte and Polivka, that will not be found, or at least referred to, in Cosquin, Child, Clouston, Hartland, Grässe, this work. When a legend has several variants, I Hertz, Köhler, Oesterley and other great mas- give them if they are essential, otherwise the stu- ters of this field of study, and it would have been dent is referred to the sources for further minute entirely superfluous to call attention to the very study. I found it therefore advisable to give the numerous parallels found in these works to Jew- reference to all parallel passages of the original ish legends. The relation of the legendary lore of sources, as in most cases some slight variants are the Jews to that of the other nations is of ex- not lacking. The order of the sources is the treme interest to the student of Folklore, but the chronological one, i. e. the older source precedes discussion of this relation does not fall within the younger one, except when on account of its the scope of this work. fulness or for some other reason the text is based A folkloristic motif often appears in a vari- on the latter one, in which case it comes first. ety of legends which formally are quite distinct I have purposely avoided references to sec- from one another. In cases like this, reference is ondary sources, and while one is frequently ac- made either to the text of the related legend or customed to be referred to Rashi, Yalkut and to the note pertaining thereto. The attention of other mediaeval authors as sources for Jewish the student is, however, called to the fact that it legend, these authors are mentioned in the is necessary to examine both text and note to notes only when they offer either material not make clear the meaning of such a reference. To found in the older literature extant or some im- avoid multiplying the references, it was found portant variants. advisable to refer to the index, which contains I have also been very sparing with referen- under the subject headings all the passages of ces to modern writers on the Haggadah or on text and notes that are related to one another.

 THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS

The index will also give a complete bibliography The transliteration of Hebrew words is that of the works quoted in the notes. For the conve- of the Jewish Encyclopaedia, except that be- nience of the reader, however, a list of abbreviat- cause of typographical difficulties, I did not ed titles of books is attached to this volume. I make use of the diacritical points. Accordingly have followed the usual forms of quoting, and H stands for h and j, K for k and q, T for f no special directions are necessary for those who and t and Z for z and x. are able to make use of the sources in their orig- In the concluding lines of the preface I can inal. The titles of the Hellenistic and patristic not help giving expression to the feeling of deep works are given in Latin, and the editions re- sadness that overcomes me at the thought that ferred to are the critical ones, if there be any, Dr. B. Halper, who greatly assisted me in seeing otherwise the vulgate text is used. Most of the this work through the press, was snatched away writings of the Church Fathers, for instance, are from our midst before its completion. With the quoted according to the Patrology of Migne. In devotion of the friend and the interest of the quoting the works of Philo the divisions of the scholar he did much more for this book than older editions are retained for the benefit of even the most conscientious editor could be ex- those who have not the critical edition of Cohn pected to do. His untimely death was a great and Wendland at their disposal. Almost all the loss to Jewish scholarship and still more to his Hebrew works made use of in the notes were ac- friends, who will always remember him with cessible to me in their first editions. In quoting, love and affection. however, the Talmudim, Midrashim and similar LOUIS GINZBERG works, the ordinary editions are referred to, ex- New York, April 24, 1925 cept where critical editions exist.

 PREFACE to the Original Edition

Was sich nie und nirgends hat As the name of a man clings to him, so men * begeben, das allein veraltet nie. cling to names. For the primitive savage the he term Rabbinic was applied to the Jew- name is part of the essence of a person or thing, T ish Literature of post-Biblical times by those and even in the more advanced stages of culture, who conceived the Judaism of the later epoch to judgments are not always formed in agreement be something different from the Judaism of the with facts as they are, but rather according to the Bible, something actually opposed to it. Such ob- names by which they are called. The current esti- servers held that the Jewish nation ceased to exist mate of Rabbinic Literature is a case in point. at the moment when its political independence With the label Rabbinic later ages inherited from was destroyed. For them the Judaism of the later former ages a certain distorted view of the litera- epoch has been a Judaism of the Synagogue, the ture so designated. To this day, and even among spokesmen of which have been the scholars, the scholars that approach its investigation with un- Rabbis. And what this phase of Judaism prejudiced minds, the opinion prevails that it is brought forth has been considered by them to purely a learned product. And yet the truth is be the product of the schools rather than the that the most prominent feature of Rabbinic product of practical, pulsating life. Poetic phan- Literature is its popular character. tasmagoria, frequently the vaporings of morbid The school and the home are not mutually visionaries, is the material out of which these opposed to each other in the conception of the scholars construct the theologic system of the Jews. They study in their homes, and they live Rabbis, and fairy tales, the spontaneous crea- in their schools. Likewise there is no distinct tions of the people, which take the form of sa- class of scholars among them, a class that with- cred legend in Jewish literature, are denominated draws itself from participation in the affairs of the Scriptural exegesis of the Rabbis, and con- practical life. Even in the domain of the Hala- demned incontinently as nugœ rabbinorum. kah, the Rabbis were not so much occupied with theoretic principles of law as with the con- crete phenomena of daily existence. These they * What has never occurred, sought to grasp and shape. And what is true of That alone never grows old. the Halakah is true with greater emphasis of the

 THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS

Haggadah, which is popular in the double sense only he could not find an equivalent for it in of appealing to the people and being produced Greek. A singer of the Synagogue a thousand in the main by the people. To speak of the Hag- years after Josephus, who expressed his senti- gadah of the Tannaim and Amoraim is as far ments in Hebrew, uttered the same thought: from fact as to speak of the legends of Shake- “The Holy City and all her daughter cities are vio- speare and Scott. The ancient authors and their lated, they lie in ruins, despoiled of their orna- modern brethren of the guild alike elaborate ments, their splendor darkened from sight. legendary material which they found at hand. Naught is left to us save one eternal treasure It has been held by some that the Haggadah alone—the Holy Torah.” The sadder the life of contains no popular legends, that it is wholly a the Jewish people, the more it felt the need of factitious, academic product. A cursory glance taking refuge in its past. The Scripture, or, to use at the pseudepigraphic literature of the Jews, the Jewish term, the Torah, was the only rem- which is older than the Haggadah literature by nant of its former national independence, and several centuries, shows how untenable this the Torah was the magic means of making a sor- view is. That the one literature should have did actuality recede before a glorious memory. drawn from the other is precluded by historical To the Scripture was assigned the task of supply- facts. At a very early time the Synagogue dis- ing nourishment to the mind as well as the soul, avowed the pseudepigraphic literature, which to the intellect as well as the imagination, and the was the favorite reading matter of the sectaries and result is the Halakah and the Haggadah. the Christians. Nevertheless the inner relation be- The fancy of the people did not die out in tween them is of the closest kind. The only essen- the post-Biblical time, but the bent of its activity tial difference is that the Midrashic form prevails was determined by the past. Men craved enter- in the Haggadah, and the parenetic or apocalyptic tainment in later times as well as in the earlier, form in the pseudepigrapha. The common ele- only instead of resorting for its subject-matter to ment must therefore depart from the Midrash on what happened under their eyes, they drew from the one hand and from parenesis on the other. the fountain-head of the past. The events in the Folklore, fairy tales, legends, and all forms of ancient history of Israel, which was not only stud- story telling akin to these are comprehended, in ied, but lived over again daily, stimulated the de- the terminology of the post-Biblical literature of sire to criticise it. The religious reflections upon the Jews, under the inclusive description Hag- nature laid down in the myths of the people, the gadah, a name that can be explained by a circum- fairy tales, which have the sole object of pleas- locution, but cannot be translated. Whatever it is ing, and the legends, which are the people’s ver- applied to is thereby characterized first as being dict upon history—all these were welded into one derived from the Holy Scriptures, and then as be- product. The fancy of the Jewish people was en- ing of the nature of a story. And, in point of gaged by the past reflected in the Bible, and all fact, this dualism sums up the distinguishing its creations wear a Biblical hue for this reason. features of Jewish Legend. More than eighteen This explains the peculiar form of the Haggadah. centuries ago the Jewish historian Josephus ob- But what is spontaneously brought forth by served that “though we be deprived of our the people is often preserved only in the form im- wealth, of our cities, or of the other advantages pressed upon it by the feeling and the thought of we have, our law continues immortal.” The the poet, or by the speculations of the learned. word he meant to use was not law, but Torah, Also Jewish legends have rarely been transmitted

 Preface to the Original Edition in their original shape. They have been perpetu- the most recent not later than the tenth. The ated in the form of Midrash, that is, Scriptural Midrashic literature has been preserved only in exegesis. The teachers of the Haggadah, called fragmentary form. Many Haggadot not found in Rabbanan d‘Aggadta in the Talmud, were no our existing collections are quoted by the au- folklorists, from whom a faithful reproduction of thors of the Middle Ages. Accordingly, a not in- legendary material may be expected. Primarily considerable number of the legends here printed they were homilists, who used legends for di- are taken from mediæval Bible commentators dactic purposes, and their main object was to and homilists. I was fortunate in being able to establish a close connection between the Script- avail myself also of fragments of Midrashim of ure and the creations of the popular fancy, to which only manuscript copies are extant. The give the latter a firm basis and secure a long term works of the older Kabbalah are likewise trea- of life for them. suries of quotations from lost Midrashim, and it One of the most important tasks of the mod- was among the Kabbalists, and later among the ern investigation of the Haggadah is to make a Hasidim, that new legends arose. The literatures clean separation between the original elements produced in these two circles are therefore of and the later learned additions. Hardly a begin- great importance for the present purpose. ning has been made in this direction. But as long Furthermore, Jewish legends can be culled as the task of distinguishing them has not been not from the writings of the Synagogue alone; accomplished, it is impossible to write out the they appear also in those of the Church. Certain Biblical legends of the Jews without including Jewish works repudiated by the Synagogue were the supplemental work of scholars in the prod- accepted and mothered by the Church. This is ucts of the popular fancy. the literature usually denominated apocryphal- In the present work, “The Legends of the pseudepigraphic. From the point of view of leg- Jews,” I have made the first attempt to gather ends, the apocryphal books are of subordinate from the original sources all Jewish legends, in so importance, while the pseudepigrapha are of fun- far as they refer to Biblical personages and events, damental value. Even quantitatively the latter are and reproduce them with the greatest attainable an imposing mass. Besides the Greek writings of completeness and accuracy. I use the expression the Hellenist Jews, they contain Latin, Syrian, Jewish, rather than Rabbinic, because the sources Ethiopic, Aramean, Arabic, Persian, and Old from which I have levied contributions are not Slavic products translated directly or indirectly limited to the Rabbinic literature. As I expect to from Jewish works of Palestinian or Hellenistic take occasion elsewhere to enter into a descrip- origin. The use of these pseudepigrapha requires tion of the sources in detail, the following data great caution. Nearly all of them are embellished must suffice for the present. with Christian interpolations, and in some cas- The works of the Talmudic-Midrashic lit- es the inserted portions have choked the origi- erature are of the first importance. Covering the nal form so completely that it is impossible to period from the second to the fourteenth cen- determine at first sight whether a Jewish or a tury, they contain the major part of the Jewish Christian legend is under examination. I be- legendary material. Akin to this in content if lieve, however, that the pseudepigraphic materi- not always in form is that derived from the Tar- al made use of by me is Jewish beyond the cavil gumim, of which the oldest versions were pro- of a doubt, and therefore it could not have been duced not earlier than the fourth century, and left out of account in a work like the present.

 THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS

However, in the appreciation of Jewish Leg- fused into one typical legend, the component ends, it is the Rabbinic writers that should form parts of which are analyzed in the notes. In other the point of departure, and not the pseudepig- instances I resorted to the expedient of citing rapha. The former represent the main stream of one version in one place and the others in other Jewish thought and feeling, the latter only an un- appropriate places, in furtherance of my aim, to dercurrent. If the Synagogue cast out the pseud- give a smooth presentation of the matter, with epigrapha, and the Church adopted them with a as few interruptions to the course of the narra- great show of favor, these respective attitudes tive as possible. For this reason I avoided such were not determined arbitrarily or by chance. The transitional phrases as “Some say,” “It has been pseudepigrapha originated in circles that har- maintained,” etc. That my method sometimes bored the germs from which Christianity devel- separates things that belong together cannot be oped later on. The Church could thus appropriate considered a grave disadvantage, as the index at them as her own with just reason. the end of the work will present a logical rear- In the use of some of the apocryphal and rangement of the material for the benefit of the pseudepigraphic writings, I found it expedient to interested student. I also did not hesitate to treat quote the English translations of them made by of the same personage in different chapters, as, others, in so far as they could be brought into for instance, many of the legends bearing upon accord with the general style of the book, for Jacob, those connected with the latter years of the which purpose I permitted myself the liberty of Patriarch, do not appear in the chapter bearing slight verbal changes. In particulars, I was guided, his name, but will be found in the sections de- naturally, by my own conception of the subject, voted to Joseph, for the reason that once the son which the notes justify in detail. steps upon the scene, he becomes the central fig- Besides the pseudepigrapha there are other ure, to which the life and deeds of the father are Jewish sources in Christian garb. In the rich litera- subordinated. ture of the Church Fathers many a Jewish legend The fact that Job is placed between Jacob’s lies embalmed which one would seek in vain in sons and Moses may appear strange to some read- Jewish books. It was therefore my special concern ers, since in the Bible Job is one of the last books; to use the writings of the Fathers to the utmost. but “legend is above time and space,” and I have, The luxuriant abundance of the material to therefore, given Job the place which legend has be presented made it impossible to give a verbal ascribed to him. rendition of each legend. This would have re- Again, in consideration of lack of space the quired more than three times the space at my dis- Biblical narratives underlying the legends had to posal. I can therefore claim completeness for my be omitted—surely not a serious omission in a work only as to content. In form it had to suffer subject with which widespread acquaintance may curtailment. When several conflicting versions of be presupposed as a matter of course. the same legend existed, I gave only one in the text, reserving the other one, or the several others, LOUIS GINZBERG. for the notes, or, when practicable, they were NEW YORK, March 24, 1909

 ABBREVIATIONS OF TITLES OF BOOKS IN THE NOTES

Abkat Rokel rykm ybr...lkwr tqba, Warsaw 1876, ‘Asarah Haruge Malkut twklm ygwrh hr[ h[m quoted by book and chapter. ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch VI, 19–35. Abudrahim µhrdwba, Warsaw 1877, quoted by sec- ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot twrbdh tr[ rdm ed. Jellinek, tion and page. Bet ha-Midrasch I, 62–90 (quoted by page) and Aggadat Bereshit tyarb tdga ed. Buber, Cracow in twdgahw twrdmhm twy[m rwbj, Venice, 1902, quoted by chapter and page. 1605, quoted by Commandment. Aggadat ‘Olam Katan ÷fq µlw[ tdga ed. Jellinek, ‘Aseret Melakim µyklm tr[ rdm ed. Horowitz, Bet Ha-Midrasch, V, 57–59. Bibliotheca Haggadica I, 38–55, Frankfort ο. Μ. Aggadat Shir µyryh ry tdga ed. Schechter, Cam- 1881. bridge 1896. R. Asher. Glosses on the Pentateuch by R. Asher b. Aggadat Tefillat Shemoneh‘Esreh hnwm tlpt tdga Jechiel; comp. Hadar. hr[, ed. Jellinek, Bet Ha-Midrasch, V, 53–56. Astruc. R. Solomon Astruc hrwth yrdm ed. Eppen- Aggadta de Shimon Kefa apyk ÷w[md atdga, ed. stein, Berlin 1889. Jellinek in Bet Ha-Midrasch V, 60–62. ATAO. A. Jeremias, Das alte Testament im Lichte Aguddat Aggadot ....ryam µyyj ...twdga tdga des alten Orients, Leipsic 1907. Åywwrwh, Frankfort o. M., 1881. Ayyumah Ka-Nidgalot twlgdnk hmwya by R. Isaac Al-Barceloni ynwlxrb ...brhl hryxy rps wryp ed. Onkeneira, Berlin 1701. Halberstam, Berlin 1885. ‘A l i y y o t E l i y y a h u ÷wag whyla ...twdlwt whyla twyl[ Baer, Siddur lary tdwb[ rds, Roedelheim 1868. ly[h [why ... tam ... anlywwm dysjw, Stettin, 1861. R. Bahya. Commentary on the Pentateuch by R. Alkabez. See Menot ha-Levi. Bahya b. Asher, Warsaw 1853, quoted by chapter Aphraates. The Homilies of Aphraates ed. by and verse. Wright, London 1869. BaR hbr rbdmb rdm ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by Alphabet of R. Akiba 1 and 2 ybrd atyb apla rdm chapter and paragraph. abyq[ ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch III, 12–64. Baraita di-Ma’aseh Bereshit ed. Chones in Buber, Alphabet of Ben Sira 1 and 2 arys ÷bd atyb apla hml tw[yry 47–50, Warsaw 1896. hynw hnwar ed. Steinschneider, Berlin 1858. Baraita di Mazzalot twldmd atyyrb ed. Wertheimer, Alphabetot twtyb apla rdm ed. Wertheimer, dy ybtk µyrdm rxwa I, 1–28, Jerusalem, 1913. µlh abyq[ ybrd twytwa rdm 81–121, Jerusa- Baraita di-Shemuel ÷fqh lawmd atyyrb ed. Frank- lem 1914. fort o. M. 1863. ARN 1 and 2. twajswn ytb ÷tn ybrd twba tksm Barceloni; See Al-Barceloni. ed. Schechter, Vienna 1887, quoted by chapter Baruch, Greek. The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch ed. and page. James, Texts and Studies vol. V, Cambridge, 1897. Artapanus περf Ίουδαίων in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 3 Baruch. See Baruch, Greek.

 THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS

Batte Midrashot twrdm ytb Vols. I–IV ed. Werthei- Ephraim. Ephraemi Syri Opera Omnia ed. P. Bene- mer, Jerusalem 1893–1897. dictus and Assemanus, Rome 1737–1743. Ben ha-Melek ryznhw ûlmh ÷b ed. Mantua 1557, ER and EZ afwz whyla rdsw hbr whyla rds ed. quoted by chapter. Friedmann, Vienna 1900, quoted by chapter (old Benjamin R., Itinerary of ÷ymynb r tw[sm rps, ed. Grün- numbering) and page. hut and Adler, Jerusalem (Frankfort o. M.) 1904. ‘Eser Galuyyot twylg r[ rdm, ed. Grünhut in Benjamin R. of Tudela. See Benjamin R. Itinerary of. Likkutim III, 2–22. Bertinoro. Glosses on the Pentateuch in twpswth yl[b Eshkol ysdh hdwhy wnbr brhl rpkh lka Goslow hrwt ymwj hmj l[, Warsaw 1876. 1836, quoted by No., folio and column. BHM Vols. I–VI. rdmh tyb ed. Jellinek. Leipsic Eshkol rb shrba wnbr wdsy lwkah rps qjxy ed. 1853–1877, quoted by volume and page. Auerbach, Halberstadt 1867–1869, quoted by BR hbr tyarb rdm ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by volume and page. chapter and paragraph. Comp. also Theodor. ha-Eshkol y[dmw ytwrps ¹sam lwkah, ed. Fuchs and Günzig, Cracow 1898–1909. Caro, Isaac qjxy twdlwt, Constantinople 1518, Eupolemus ðåñf ôÒí Oí ô` ºïõäáß{ âáóéëÝùí, in quoted by chapter and verse. Eusebius, Praep. Evang. Codex Naz. Codex Nazareus ed. Norberg, Copen- Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica ed. Gifford, Ox- hagen s. a. ford 1903. EZ. See ER. Da‘at hrwth l[ llwk rwbj awhw µynqz t[d rps Ezekiel, the tragedian. ¸îáãùãÞ in Eusebius, Praep. tjnm rps ynhw ...twpswth yl[b wnytwbrm ÷warh Evang. rz[yla rb hdwhy wnybrm hdwhy, Leghorn 1783. 4 Ezra, Liber Esdrae Quartus ed. G. H. Box, Ezra Dhamari. See Manzur. Apocalypse, London 1912. Debir lary tmkjl yt[ ¹sam rybd, Berlin 1923. Demetrius ðåñf ôÒí Oí ô\ ºïõäáß{ âáóéëÝùí in Gadol u-Gedolah hlwdnw lwdg rdm, ed. Jellinek, Eusebius, Praep. Evang. Bet ha-Midrasch III, 121–130. Derek Erez Z. afwz Åra ûrd ed. Tawrogi, Königs- Gedulat Mosheh hm tlwdg ed. Amsterdam 1754. berg 1885. Geonica. Geonica by Louis Ginzberg, I and II, New Dibre ha-Yamim or Hayyamim hm l µymyh yrbd York 1909. h[ wnybr ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch. II, 1–11. Ginzberg, Compte Rendu. Compte Rendu des Mé- DR hbr µyrbd rdm ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by langes Israël Lewy, Paris 1914 = Rev. d. Etud. Juiv. chapter and paragraph. LXVI, 297–315 and LXVII, 133–151. DZ [afwz] µyrbdh hla rdmm µyfwql ed. Buber, Ginzberg, Haggada bei den Kirchenv. Die Haggada Vienna 1885. bei den Kirchenvätern, Amsterdam 1899. Hagga- da bei den Kirchenvätern II. Die Haggada bei den Ekah hbr hkya rdm ed. Buber, Wilna 1899, quot- Kirchenvätern und in der apocryphischen Littera- ed by chapter and page, or ed. Wilna 1887, quot- tur, Berlin 1900. ed by chapter and verse. Gorion ÷wyrwg aba rdm in atdgad yrps, ed. Bu- Eldad yndh ddla ed. Epstein, Presburg 1891. ber, Wilna 1886. Eleh Ezkerah hrkza hla rdm ed. Jellinek, Leipsic Güdemann, Religionsgeschichte. Religionsgechicht- 1853. liche Studien, Leipsic 1876. ‘Emek ha-Melek ûlmh qm[ by R. Naphtali b. Elcha- nan, Amsterdam 1648. Hadar yl[b wnytwbr µynwar l ÷trwt...µynqz rdh Emunot we-Deot wnybr...wrbj tw[dhw twnwmah rps dj rbd ...hrwth l[ hhlz twpswth yl[b hyd[s, Cracow 1880. arh awh... Leghorn 1840. 2 Enoch. The Book of the Secrets of Enoch translat- Hadassi. See Eshkol (1). ed from the Slavonic by W. R. Morfill and edit- Haggadat Teman. The Haggadah according to the ed...by R. H. Charles, Oxford 1896. Rite of Yemen . . . by William H. Greenburg, Enoch Hebrew; See Sefer Hanok. London 1896.

 Abbreviations of Titles of Books in the Notes

Haggoren or ha-Goren. ûr[n...÷rgh vols. I–IX, y[ Joel, Chronography. Chronographia ed. Bekker, Bonn yqxdwrwh aba lawm Berditschew-Berlin 1899– 1837. 1922. Joel, Blicke. Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte . . . I–II, Hallel µy[mh rps arqnh llh rdm ed. Jellinek, Breslau and Leipsic 1880–1883. Bet ha-Midrasch V. 87–110. JQR. NS. The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series Haserot twrtyw twrsj rdm ed. Wertheimer, Jerus- ed. Adler and Schechter, Philadelphia 1910 seq. alem 1900. Jub. The Book of Jubilees by Charles, London 1902. Hashkem µkh rdm in Grünhut µyfwqlh rps I, Judah b. Barzilai; See Al-Barceloni. 2–20; comp. Likkutim. Hasidim µydysj rps, ed. Wistinetzki, Berlin 1891. Kad ha-Kemah jmqh dk ed. Breit, Lemberg 1880– Hazofeh rgh Åram hpwxh vols. I–IV, V, VII hpwxh 1892. lary tmkjl ed. Blau, Budapest 1911–1923. Kaftor wa-Ferah. Estori Parhi, jrpw rwtpk, ed. Hekalot or 1 Hekalot ytbr twlkyh in Jellinek, Bet Luncz, Jerusalem 1897–1898. ha-Midrasch III, 83–108. Kaftor wa-Ferah. qjxy rb bq[y ... jrpw rwtpk 3 Hekalot twlkyh yqrpm qrp in Jellinek, Bet ha-Mi- wfaxwl, Basel 1581. drasch III, 161–163. Kallah atyyrbhw hlk tksm ed. Coronel, Vienna 5 Hekalot or Hekalot V twlkyh tksm in Jellinek, 1869, also reprinted in Talmud ed. Romm, Wilna Bet ha-Midrasch II, 40–47. 1895. 6 Hekalot or Hekalot VI ÷k µg arqnw twlkyh rps Kaneh or Kanah haylph rps awhw hnqh rps, ed. ûwnj rps in Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch V, 170– Koretz 1784. 190. ΚΑΤ. Ε. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und d. alte Hemdat ha-Hemdah hdmjh tdmj sm µyfwql ed. Testament; third edition by Winkler and Zim- Wertheimer, µylwry yzng III. 13b–15a, Jerusalem mern, Berlin 1902–1903. 1902. Kebod Huppah; See Huppat Eliyyahu. Hemdah Genuzah twbwt awhw hzwng hdmj rps Kebuzzat Maamarim µhrba tam µyrmam txwbq µynwagh, Jerusalem 1863. yqsnandap µhrba lawm yry l[...rgyyg, Warsaw, Hesed Le-Abraham. Azulai, µhrbal dsj ed. Lem- 1910. (with notes by Louis Ginzberg). berg 1860. dwmlth yllk. A. Marx: lalxb rl dwmlth yllk Hibbur ha-Ma’asiyyot; See ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot. yznka in Hoffmann-Festschrift 179–218. Hibbur Yafeh. See Rabbenu Nissim. Keli-Yakar. Solomon Ephraim b. Aaron, rqy ylk, Lu- Hippolytus, Philosophumena ed. Migne P. Gr. 16. 3. blin 1602 and frequently reprinted. Ps.-Hippolytus. Sermo in Sancta Theophania, Migne Ketoret ha-Sammim ÷tnwy swgrt l[...µymsh trfq Pat. Gr. 10. ymlwryw, Amsterdam 1671. ha-Hoker lary tmkjl dqm yt[ btkm rqwjh Kimha Dabishuna rwzjmhm yn qljw ÷war qlj ed. Fuchs, Cracow 1891–94. anwybad ajmq wryp µ[ amwr qq ghnm ypk Huppat Eliyyahu whyla tpwj ed. Horowitz hpwj dwbk Bologna s.a. (1546). 45–56, Frankfort o. M. 1888. Kinyan-Torah hrwt ÷ynq. The so called sixth chapter of Abot found in most editions of this Treatise. Imre No‘am hrwth l[ µywdj awhw µ[wn yrma rps Kisse we-Ipodromin. ûlmh hml l ÷ymwrdwpyaw ask, Cremona 1560. ed. Jellinek in Bet ha-Midrasch V. 34–39. Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses ed. Migne, P. Gr. 7. Koheleth hbr tlhq rdm ed. Wilna 1887, quoted R. Isaac ha-Kohen wryp µ[ bwya rps ÷hk qjxy rbj, by chapter and verse. Constantinople 1545. Koheieth Z. afwz tlhq rdm ed. Buber, afwz rdm 83–130, Berlin 1894. Jerome. Hieronymi Quaestiones Hebraicae in libro Konen ÷nwk rdm ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, Geneseos e recog. P. de Lagarde, Leipsic 1868. 23–29. Ps. Jerome. Quaestiones hebraicae in II Regum et in II Paralip., in Migne, Patrologia Lat. 23. 1329– Lekah atqysp hnwkmh bwf jql rdm Gen. and Exod. 1402. ed. Buber, Wilna 1880, Lev. Num. and Deut. ed.

 THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS

Padua, Wilna 1884, quoted by chapter and verse Masseket Kelim µylk tksm ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Mi- or Book and page. drasch II, 88–91 Leket Midrashim µyrdm fql rps, ed. Werthei- Mattenot Kehunah. R. Issachar Baer b. Naphtali mer, Jerusalem 1904. hnwhk twntm on Midrash Rabbah in ed. Wilna, Likkute ha-Pardes sdrph yfwql, Venice 1519. 1887. lz yrahl s yfwql. The edition used is that of Ma‘ayan Gannim. Masnut, bwya rps l[ ...µyng ÷y[m Leghorn 1785. ed. Buber, Berlin 1889. Likkutim I–VI µyfwqlh rps ed. Grünhut, Jerusa- Mekilta la[my ybrd atlykm rps ed. Friedmann, lem 1898–1902. Vienna 1870, quoted by massekta and folio. Mekilta D. r[fk[ z  tam...µyrbdl atlkm, re- Maamar ‘Aseret Melakim µyklm tr[ rmam, ed. printed from Lewy-Festschrift, Breslau 1911. Horowitz, twdga tdga 54–55, Berlin, 1881. Mekiita RS yajwy ÷b ÷w[m ybrd atlykm ed. Hoff- Ma‘areket twhlah tkr[m, Mantua 1558. mann, Frankfort o. M. 1905, quoted by page. Ma‘aseh Abraham ed. Horowitz wnyba µhrba h[m Meleket ha-Mishkan. ryam...÷kmh tkalmd atyyrb h[ in twdga tdga 43–46, Berlin, 1881. µwl ya, Vienna 1908. 2 Ma‘aseh Abraham µhrba h[m ed. Jellinek, Bet Melchizedek. Fragment in Charles, 2 Enoch 85–93. ha-Midrasch II, 118–119. Menot ha-Levi ywlh hml ...rbj...ywlh twnm rps 3 Ma‘aseh Abraham hmm h[ wnyba µhrba h[m Åbqla ÷b, Venice 1585. dwrmn µ[ wl [rya, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch Meshalim Shel Shelomoh. ûlmh hml l µylm, I, 25–34. ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch IV, 145; 152. Ma‘aseh Daniel. h[ laynd h[m, ed. Jellinek in MHG I and II tyarb rps...lwdgj rdm, ed. Bet ha-Midrasch V, 117–130. Schechter, Cambridge 1902; rps...lwdgh rdm Ma‘aseh R. Joshua b. Levi ywl ÷b [why rd h[m, twm ed. Hoffmann, Berlin 1913–1921. ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 48–51. Midrash Abraham wnyba µhrbad rdm ed. Jellinek, Ma‘aseh ha-Nemalah. hlmnh h[m, ed. Jellinek. Bet ha-Midrasch V. 40–41. Bet ha-Midrasch V, 22–26. Midrash R. Akiba ¹swy ÷b abyq[ r rdm ed. Jelli- Ma‘aseh Nissim. µysn y[mw h h[m Amsterdam nek, Bet ha-Midrasch V, 31–33; ed. Wertheimer, 1723. Leket Midrashim 18a–23b. Ma‘aseh Rokeah ...rz[yla ...wrbj ...jqwr h[m rps Midrash Esther rtsa tlgm rdm, ed. Horowitz in ayxngmm swmynwlq rb hdwhy...÷b Sanok 1912. Aguddat Aggadot 56–75. Ma‘aseh Torah hrwt h[m rdm ed. Jellinek, Bet Midrash le-Hanukkah hknjl rdm ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch II, 92–109. ha-Midrasch I, 132–136. Maasehbuch ûwb h[m, Amsterdam 1723, quoted Midrash Jonah hnwy rdm ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Mid- by No. and page. rasch I. 96–105. Ma‘asiyyot or Ma‘as. ed. G. Gaster, The Sefer ha- Midrash ha-Ne’elam; See Zohar Hadash. Ma‘asiyoth, in “Judith Montefiore” College, Re- Midrash Shir µyryh ry rdm ed. Grünhut, Jeru- port for the year 1894–1895, Cambridge, 1896. salem 1897. Ma‘ayan Hokmah hmkj ÷y[m ed. Jellinek, Bet ha- Midrash Temurah hrwmt rdm, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha- Midrasch I, 58–61. Midrasch I, 106–114. Magen-Abot. Duran, twba ÷gm, Leghorn 1762. Milhamot Melek ha-Mashiah, ed. Jellinek in twmjlm Maggid. R. Joseph Caro, µyrm rygm, Amsterdam jymh ûlm Bet ha-Midrasch VI, 117–120. 1708. Minhat Yehudah, see Da‘at. Malala, John. Chronographia ed. Dindorf, Bonn 1831. Mishle ylm rdm ed. Buber, Wilna 1893, quoted Manzur. Notes on...commentary... by Aboo Manzur by chapter and page. al-Dhamari.... by A. Kohut. New York s. a. (1894). Monatsschrift. Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Masnut; See Ma‘ayan Gannim. Wissenschaft des Judenthums, Dresden (later Masseket Gan ‘Eden ÷d[ ÷g tksmin lawmd atyyrb Breslau) 1852 seq. ÷fqh, ed. Frankfort o. M. 1863. Comp. also Sed- Moses bar Cepha. De Paradiso ed. And. Masius, er Gan Eden. Antwerp 1569.

 Abbreviations of Titles of Books in the Notes

Mota Muse. Faitlovitch, Mota Muse, Paris 1906. Ps.-Philo. Philonis Judaei Alexandrini Libri Antiqui- tatum, Basel 1527; sometimes the reference is Nahmanides. Derasha hmymt h trwt rd hrd added to James, the Biblical Antiquities of Philo, ÷bmrh, ed. Jellinek, Leipsic 1853. London and New York 1917. Neweh Shalom. Taussig, µwl hwn, Munich 1872. Philosophumena; see Hippolytus. Nispahim. Friedmann, afwz whyla rdsl µyjpsn, Pirke Mashiah r twrtsnw jym yqrpw whyla rps Vienna 1904. yajwy ÷b ÷w[m ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch III, Nur al-Zulm, Light of Shade and Lamp of Wisdom, by 65–82 Nathanel Ibn Yeshaya, ed. Kohut, New York 1894. Pirke R. Yoshiyyahu. whyay r yqrp, ed. Jellinek in Nistarot R. Simon; See Pirke Mashiah. Bet ha-Midrasch VI, 112–116. Pirke RHK; See PRK. Or ha-Hayyim lalxb rb µyyj r...µyyjh rwa, PK anhk brl tstwym...atqysp, ed. Buber, Lyck Mezirow 1801. 1860, quoted by Piska and folio. Or Zaru‘a hm rb qjxy wnybr...wrbj [wrz rwa Vols. Poznanski, Einleitung or Mebo yrtw laqzjy l[ wryp I–II, Zhitomir 1862; vol. III–IV, Jerusalem l[ awbm wl jpsw ...yxnglbm rz[yla ybrl r[ 1887–1890, quoted by folio and No. arqmh yrpm tprx ymkj Warsaw 1913–1914. Ha-Orah rb hml wnybrl...hrwah rps qjxy, ed. PR ytbr atqysp rdm ed. Friedmann, Vienna Buber, Lemberg 1905. 1880, quoted by Pesikta and folio. Orehot Hayyim ÷rha...rbj ra µyyj twjra rps PRE rz[yla ybr yqrp, Amsterdan 1709 or Warsaw lynwlm ÷hkh, Florence 1750. 1852. Orient. Ltz. Orientalistische Literatur-Zeitung ed. PRK wdqh wnybr yqrp ed. Grünhut, Likkutim III, Peiser, Königsberg 1898 seq. or wdqh wnybrd aqrp ed. Schönblum hl Otot ha-Mashiah jymh twtwa ed. Jellinek. Bet ha- µyjtpn µyrps, Lemberg, 1877. Midrasch II, 58–63. Pugio Fidei. Pugio Fidei Raymundi Martini . . . . . Ozar Midrashim dy ybtk µyrdm rxwa I–II ed. Adversus Mauros et Judaeos, Leipsic 1667. Wertheimer, Jerusalem 1913–1914. Rabbinovicz; See Variae Lectiones. Pa‘aneah ymwj hmj l[ hpy wryp awhw azr jn[p lawy hybar ybrb rd[yla wnybr wrbj...hybar rps, hdwhy rb qjxy wnybr...wrbyj...hrwt, Prague 1607 ed. Aptowitzer, Berlin 1913. Panim Aherim µyrja µynp rdm ed. Buber yrps Rabbenu Nissim. h[wyhm hpy rwbj awhw twy[m rps atdgad 45–82, Wilna 1886. bq[y rb µysn wnybr µkjhl, Warsaw 1881. Pardes hhld yr ÷waghl...sdrph rps Constanti- RAsh; See R. Asher. nople 1802. Raziel ûalmh layzr rps, ed. Wilna 1881, quoted Perek Gan ‘Eden; Comp. Note 90 on p. 31. by caption and page. Pesikta Hadta atdj atqysp ed. Jellinek, Bet ha- REBN rz[yla ...rbyj rz[h ÷ba arqnh...rps hz har Midrasch VI, 36–70. ÷bar arqnh ÷tn rb Prague 1610, quoted by folio Petahiah R., Itinerary of. See Pethahiah, R. of Ratis- and No.; ed. Raschkes. Jerusalem 1913 (Vol. I) bon. and 1915 (vol. II). Pethahiah,R.of Ratisbon. grwpng[rm hyjtp...bwbs, REJ. Revue des Études Juives, Paris 1880 seq. ed. Grünhut, Jerusalem (Frankfort o. M.) 1905. Reshit Hokmah. ...whyla...rbj ra hmkj tyar Petirat Aharon. ÷rha tryfp rdm, ed. Jellinek in adyw yd Josefow 1868, quoted by chapter and folio. Bet ha-Midrasch I, 91–95. Responsen der Geonim µynwrjalµgw µynwarl÷wrkw Petirat Mosheh or 1 Petirat Mosheh. tryfp rdm ybkrh whyla µhrba tam...ty[ybr trbjm..., h[ wnybr hm, ed. Jellinek in Bet ha-Midrasch I, Berlin 1887. 115–129. RITBA abfyrh ywdj rps, Amsterdam 1729. 2 Petirat Mosheh. h[ wnybr hm tryfp rdm, ed. RSBM. µbr btk ra hrwth wryp ed. Rosin, Jellinek in Bet ha-Midrasch VI, 74–78. Breslau 1881. 3 Petirat Mosheh wnybr hm tryfpl rd, ed. Gaulmyn Ruth R. hbr twr rdm ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by in hm l µymyh yrbd, ed. Paris 1629, f. 34–59. chapter and verse.

 THE LEGENDS OF THE JEWS

Ibn Sabba‘ [bs µhrba ybr...rbyj hrwth l[ wryp Shitah Hadashah bq[y tkrbl hdh hfy in rdm rwmh rwrx wm arqw lz Venice 1523, quoted by hbr tyarb, Wilna 1887 pp. 376–377. Parasha and folio. ShR hbr twm rdm ed. Wilna 1887, quoted by Ps. Sa‘adya. µymyh yrbd l[ wryp, ed. R. Kirchheim, chapter and paragraph. Frankfort o. M. 1874. Shu‘aib. Joshua ibn Shu‘aib hrwth l[ twrd, Con- Sa‘arat Eliyyahu. lqwxz whyla ...twm l[ ...whyla tr[s stantinople 1523, quoted by Parasha and folio. µhrba ...wnb y[ µybwtb...anlywwm, Wilna 1894. Sibyll. The Sibylline Oracles, ed. Geffken, Leipsic 1902. Seder R. Amram rds µ[ ...znka ghnmk hlpt rwds Sifra µynhk trwt rps awh br ybd arps, ed. Weiss, µlh µrm[ br, ed. Frumkin, Jerusalem 1912. Vienna 1862, quoted by chapter and verse. Seder Gan ‘Eden ÷d[ ÷g rds ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Mi- Sifre D. and N. br ybd yrps, ed. Friedmann Vienna drasch II, 52–53. 1864, quoted by paragraph (D = Deuteronomy, Seder Rabba di Bereshit hbkrmdtyarbd hbr rwds N = Numbers) and sometimes the page is added. lwdg ÷hk la[my rd ed. Wertheimer, Batte Mi- Sifre Z. Der Sifre Sutta . . . von Dr. S. Horovitz, Bre- drashot I, 1–31. slau 1910. ÷hkh ykdrm wrbh ÷hk ytp rps Seder Ruhot twjwr rds ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch Sifte Kohen ...... , V, 176–180. Wansbeck 1690. fwqlyh rbd l[ Sefer Eliyyahu. See Pirke Mashiah. Sikli, Talmud Torah. Poznanski, ylyqs lannj rb bq[y rl hrwt dwmlt Sefer ha-Hayyim lalxb rb µyyj r...µyyjh rps, Cracow 1593. (= Hazofeh III, 1–22) and in Festschrift-May- dwmlt fwqlyh l wtyar Sefer Hanok ûwnj rps, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch baum, Leipsic 1915, ylyqs lannj rb bq[y rl hrwt II, 114–117. . yxwqm bq[y rb hm wnybr lwdg twxm rps Sefer Noah jn rps, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch SMG. ... , III, 155–160. quoted by Commandment. µt wnbrl ryh rps Solomon ben ha-Yatom. hml rl ÷yqm tksm wryp Sefer ha-Yashar , ed. Rosenthal, twyj Årp ybx yry l[ µwtyh ÷b Berlin 1898. ... . Berlin 1909. Sekel or Sekel Tob tyarb rps l[ bwf lk rdm Spicilegium Syriacum. Spicilegium Syriacum, ed. by W. Cureton, London 1855. hml rb µjnm wnybr wrbj twmw, ed. Buber, Syncellus. Chronographia ed. Dindorf, Bonn 1829. Berlin 1900–1901. Sha‘are Gan ‘Eden µnhygw ûr[ ÷g, ed. Jellinek, Bet ha- Tadshe ryay ÷b sjnp rd atyyrb wa adj rdm ed., Midrasch V, 42–51. Epstein in µyrwhyh twynwmdqm, Vienna 1887 pp. Sha‘are Simhah. R. Isaac b. Judah ibn Gayyat, yr[ I–XLVI. hjm, Fürth 1862. Talpiot whyla ...ydy y[m wnnwk ra twyplt rdm rps Sha‘are Yerushalaim µjnm rb hm rl...µylwry yr[ ÷hkh, Lemberg 1870. ryr lydn[m, Warsaw 1865. ¹swy Å[w ¹swy ¹n[ wryp µ[ amwjnt rdm µynwagh twbwt qrx yr[ rps Tan...... Sha‘are Zedek ... , Sa- ¹swy rb lydnwz ûwnj rhl Wilna 1833, quoted by loniki 1792. Parasha and paragraph. ayyjy ÷hyldg µkjl hlbqh tll rps Shalshelet ... , Tan. B. ÷yhw µwdqh amwjnt rdm ed. Buber, Wil- Venice 1587. na 1885, quoted by Book and page. bwf µ rh hrwth twrd Shem Tob b. Shem Tob ... Tan., Introduction. Buber, l[ rwa Åypmh lwdg awbm ¹swy rb , Venice 1547. amwjnt rdm, Wilna 1885. lawm rdm Shemuel ed. Buber, Lemberg 1893, Targum Jerushalmi (1) Pseudo-Jonathan ed. Gins- quoted by chapter and page. burger, Berlin 1903. Shibbale ha-Leket. rb hyqdx wnybr wrbj...fqlh ylb Targum Yerushalmi (2) Das Fragmenten-thargum apwrh µhrba, ed. Buber, Wilna 1886, quoted by ed. Ginsburger, Berlin 1899. paragraph and page. Tefillat R. Simeon. yajwy ÷b ÷w[m r tlpt. ed. Jell- Shir hbr µyryh ry rdm ed. Wilna 1887, quoted inek in Bet ha-Midrasch IV, 117–126. by chapter and verse. Tehillim bwf rj hnwkmh µylht rdm ed. Buber, Shitah. See Shitah Hadashah. Wilna 1891, quoted by chapter and page.

