Meshalim on Election and Power. Two Examples in Tanhuma Buber.

Studies in the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature Edited by Ronit Nikolsky Arnon Atzmon LEIDEN | BOSTON For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV Contents Preface ix Arnon Atzmon and Ronit Nikolsky 1 Let Our Rabbi Teach Us: An Introduction to Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature 1 Arnon Atzmon and Ronit Nikolsky Part 1 Bibliographical Survey 2 A Bibliographical Survey of Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Research: Past, Present, and Future 21 Marc Bregman Part 2 Textual Findings 3 Tanhuma as a Textual Martyr: On the Reception of Tanhuma Literature in Literary and Documentary Genizah Sources 31 Moshe Lavee 4 The Transmission of Midrash Tanhuma in Ashkenaz as Reflected in Binding Fragments from Germany 63 Andreas Lehnardt Part 3 Language and Terminology 5 The Language of the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature: The State of Research 103 Yehonatan Wormser 6 “Rabbi Tanhuma Said”: A Code Phrase for Introducing Quotations from Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature 119 Gila Vachman For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV vi Contents Part 4 Sources and Parallels 7 Pesikta in the Tanhuma: The Case of Pericope Shekalim Arnon Atzmon 131 8 A Tanhumaic Tradition on a Hasmonean King: Between Tannaitic Sources and the Babylonian Talmud 157 Tal Ilan Part 5 Adjacent and Later Literatures 9 The Affinity between the Lost Midrash Yelammedenu and Midrash Vayekhulu 173 Amos Geula 10 The Provenance of Aggadat Bereshit: A Reassessment of the Origins of the Work as a “Tanhuma Satellite” 202 Lieve Teugels 11 Tanhuma in Masquerade: Discovering the Tanhuma in the Latter Midrash Rabbah Texts 222 Shalem Yahalom Part 6 Cultural Context 12 Dramatic Dialogues in the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Midrashim Dov Weiss 249 13 Meshalim on Election and Power: Two Examples in Tanhuma Buber 270 Eric Ottenheijm 14 Joseph, Judah, and the Study of Emotions in Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature 290 Ronit Nikolsky For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV vii Contents Part 7 Textual Witnesses 15 Survey of Textual Witnesses of the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature 317 Arnon Atzmon Bibliography 327 Index of Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Passages Index of Sources 351 Modern Author Index 359 General Index 362 348 For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV Chapter 13 Meshalim on Election and Power: Two Examples in Tanhuma Buber Eric Ottenheijm, Utrecht University Any assessment of the historical context of midrashic traditions contained in Tanhuma Buber (TB) may profit from a rhetorical analysis of the meshalim (“parables”) contained in this late rabbinic homiletic midrash.1 Meshalim mainly serve exegetical interests, and either originate in rabbinic beit midrash (“study house”) discussions or in synagogue-based homilies, but in both contexts their performativity is highly dependent on the ability of the tales to be accessible for and recognizable to the intended audience.2 The sages deploying these stories and their listeners or readers share a cultural repertoire of metaphors and of narrative patterns peculiar to meshalim.3 As such, standard motifs, stock 1 The notorious difficulties in outlining the different strata of the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu literature (TYL) are outlined in Myron B. Lerner, “The Works of Aggadic Midrash and the Esther Midrashim,” in The Literature of the Sages, ed. Shmuel Safrai et al. (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006), 133–229, here 150, 154, 164, 169–170; on Buber’s edition, see Marc Bregman, The Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature: Studies in the Evolution of the Versions (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2003), 40ff. 2 In this study, I will use the Hebrew term mashal (pl. meshalim) to denote the literary form labeled as either the parable or simile in English. The Hebrew term mashal is an emic term that covers a range of literary forms: saying-similitude, narrative parable, and wisdom saying. Very helpful is the definition provided by David Stern, Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), 5: “A parable suggests a set of parallels between an imagined fictional event and an immediate, ‘real’ situation confronting the parable’s author and his audience.” An inclusive definition appears in Ruben Zimmermann, Kompendium Der Gleichnisse Jesu (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007), 25. See for the issue of definition also Eric Ottenheijm and Marcel Poorthuis, “Parables in Changing Contexts: A Preliminary Status Questionis,” in: Parables in Changing Contexts. Essays on the Study of Parables in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. JCP 35, ed. Marcel Poorthuis and Eric Ottenheijm (Brill: Leiden, 2020), 1–14. 3 According to the Bildfeld theory, metaphors are rooted in social and cultural reality but also adapt to the textual reality in which they are used: Catherine Hezser, “Rabbinische Gleichnisse und ihre Vergleichbarkeit mit neutestamentlichen Gleichnisse,” in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu: Methodische Neuansätze zum Verstehen urchristlicher Parabeltexte, ed. Ruben Zimmermann and Gabi Kern (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 217–236. Her approach follows Harald Weinrich, Sprache in Teksten (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1971): a Bildfeld is a combination of a social, cultural or literary dimension of a metaphor (Bildspendende Bereich) © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004469198_014 For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV Meshalim on Election and Power 271 characters, and established traditional narrative patterns like a king going to war or a father summoning his son belong to the rabbinic standard rabbinic repertoire. But above all, the parables’ rhetorical efficacy depends on their ability to address the social position of the reader or listener: these expect the tale to comment on their social reality.4 Repeated performance of orally or textually transmitted meshalim reshapes both form and content in order to satisfy the needs of the intended audience; even new motifs may pop up, fueled by and furnished according to changing contexts and expectations.5 The way in which TB adapts old traditions or creates new meshalim suggests new modes of homiletic engagement: how did the editor envisage circumstances that had to be addressed, and where does the renewed performance of the mashal fit in with the editor’s (or darshan’s) ideological outlook? It is here that the addition of terminology, minor motifs, or narrative patterns may indicate a distinctive social context addressed by the mashal. In this study, I will address two midrashic sections containing meshalim by adducing two methodological approaches. The first focuses on narratology, terminology, and rhetoric, taking into account that the mashal still contains elements of its genre as one of performance. The second, outlined in the second section, discusses the way in which TB revises and adapts a well-known tannaitic midrash on God offering his Torah to the nations. The possible historical contexts addressed by these performances will be discussed in the final section. and its reception in a specific literary context (Bildempfangende Bereich). Several Bildfelder constitute a treasury of meanings accessible to the average public, which is called a Bildwelt. The narratives may express collective memories and, as such, establish and maintain social belonging, as outlined by Maurice Halbwachs, Das kollektive Gedächtniss (Frankfurt on the Main: Suhrkamp, 1991). 4 This social engagement is part of the rhetoric, as discussed in Stern, Parables in Midrash, 11, 86: the audiences “figure actively in its narration.” Pierre Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), 124, argues that the efficaciousness of religious speech depends on the ability to address the social position of the public: “The religious message that will be most capable of satisfying a group’s religious demand, and therefore of exercising its properly symbolic function of mobilization upon that group, will be the one that provides it with a quasi-systematic set of justifications for its existence as the occupant of a determinate social location.” 5 Regina F. Bendix and Galit Hasan-Rokem, eds., A Companion to Folklore (Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell, 2012), 62: “However, not all texts announce themselves as belonging to a particular category; instead, in many cases, references to genre are extra-textual or contextual, as part of a performance, as a way of differentiating between one kind of text and another, or as part of the larger cultural expectations that are used for interpretation and determining meaning.” For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 272 1 Ottenheijm The Royal Palace A unique TB mashal commenting on Abraham’s plea for Abimelech compares him to a friend of a king in a royal palace: ‫ משל‬,)‫ ויתפלל אברהם וגו' (בר' כ יז‬,‫ מה כתיב למעלה מן הענין‬.‫וה' פקד את שרה‬ ‫ וכל מה שהיה אוהבו‬,‫ למלך שהיה לו אוהב והיה מחבבו ביותר‬,‫למה הדבר דומה‬ ‫ וכל מי שהיה‬,‫ כיון שהיו הכל יודעים שהמלך מחבבו ביותר‬,‫שואל ממנו היה עושה‬ ‫ ולאותו אוהב לא‬,‫מבקש שררה היה בא אצלו והוא מבקש מן המלך ועשה לו חפצו‬ ,‫ אמרו לו בני פלטין שלו אדונינו המלך אוהבך זה מבקשי לאחרים‬,‫נתן שררה מאומה‬ '‫ שנאמר זרע אברהם אוהבי (יש‬,‫ זה אברהם‬,‫ מי הוא זה האוהב‬,‫ולנפשו אינו מבקש‬ .)‫מא ח‬ “And the Lord dealt with Sarah as He had said” (Gen 21:1); what has been written earlier? “And Abraham prayed, etc.” (Gen 20:17). A parable. To what is this similar? (A) It resembles a king who had a friend and he was most loved. And everything that the friend asked from him, he did. (B) As soon as everyone knew that the king loved him most of all, whosoever wanted an office came to him and he asked the king and he performed his wish. But no office at all was given to this friend. (C) The members of his palace said: our Lord the King! This friend of yours only asks for others, he does not ask for himself! (D) Who is this friend? This is Abraham, as it is said: “The seed of Abraham, my friend” etc. (Isa 41:8) (TB Vayera 36)6 The context of the mashal is the midrashic comment on God’s visit to Sarah in Genesis 21:1 to announce that Isaac will be born, just as the three men had promised in Genesis 18:10. The homilist addresses the sequence of scenes, since before the story of God’s visit we have read about Abraham’s stay with Abimelech and his pretending that Sarah was his sister, resulting in Abimelech taking Sarah into his palace (Gen 20:2) and in God’s punishment of barrenness on Abimelech’s house. Crucial for the midrash and the insertion of the mashal is Abraham’s successful intercession by prayer to undo the barrenness of Abimelech’s household (Gen 20:17). After the parable, a dialogue unfolds between the angels and God, where the angels notice that Abraham prays for the fertility of others while he himself is still childless and in need of divine help. Could he not have prayed for himself, since even after the visit of the 6 All translations are mine, unless mentioned otherwise. Biblical quotes follow the NRSV. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV Meshalim on Election and Power 273 three men Sarah is still barren? This question allows the homilist to address his central issue: wherein lies the power of Abraham’s prayer?7 Here, the readings of the two basic versions, TP and TB, differ: TP addresses Abraham’s prayer for Abimelech from a different angle, and lacks the mashal.8 TB suggests, as becomes clear from the mashal, that Abraham did have the power to intercede; it is just that he refrained to do so for his own purposes. The mashal contains three scenes and combines several independently attested motifs. The basic narrative is built around two characters: the king and his most beloved friend, who is depicted as someone whom the king would not refuse anything. The motif of the “most loved friend” in the opening scene of the mashal (A) is clearly defined by the expression “my friend” in a verse in the nimshal, “Abraham, my friend” (Isa 41:8). To this basic situation, a second scene (B) is added in which everyone turns to this friend to ask for an office (serara). Immediately, the mashal hastens to add that no office was given to the friend at all, thereby inserting a remarkable element that allegedly does not need any explanation.9 Here, however, a third scene (C) comes into play: enter the “members of the palace,” who, allegedly astounded by this situation, offer the crucial focalization of this mashal: “This friend of yours only asks for others and he does not ask for himself.”10 At first sight, this scene comments on the dialogue between the angels and God in the midrash. However, it also paves the way for the mocking irony of the narrator/editor, since the “members of the palace” indeed would have expected God’s friend to behave like they themselves would have behaved in this environment, that is, they would have looked after their own interests. It is clear that the narrative offers a glimpse into regular political court habits. Consequently, the Bildfeld of “friend” is not 7 8 9 10 ‫ מה כתיב למעלה מן הענין‬is a favored editorial expression in TB (51 times, as over against only once in Midrash Tannaim and 5 times in Genesis Rabbah [GenR]) and may echo the performative context of the homily, possibly alluding to the reading of the Sefer Torah. Marc Bregman, “The Triennial Hafṭarot and the Perorations of the Midrashic Homilies,” Journal of Jewish Studies 32, no. 1 (1981): 74–84, here 76, mentions a similar expression in relation to the reading from the Prophets. Moreover, this version focuses on Sarah (14) and her self-shaming (tradition on ona’ah), while Abraham (16) is mentioned there only as one who prays for “the bad Abimelech” and receives a pardon for him. ‫ לא … מאומה‬is Biblical Hebrew, typical for late midrashim, not to be found in tannaitic or early amoraic sources! Focalization is a strong rhetorical tool to focus on meaning in narrative. See Monika Fludernik, An Introduction to Narratology (London: Routledge, 2009), 38. Here, the focalization is a form of authorial presence. See Stern, Parables in Midrash, 82–86. The motif of “members of the palace” appears infrequently in amoraic midrash, but in tannaitic sources only in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai 3:7 and Sifre Numbers Beha’alotekha 99. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 274 Ottenheijm only informed by Scripture, but by imperial reality as well.11 Ignaz Ziegler says regarding this mashal that it was actually Abraham who showed the expected behavior, since in early Imperial Court members or clients of the Emperor asking favors and positions for others were the ones rewarded by the “king.”12 However, Ziegler takes recourse to a source that lauds the policies of the Roman emperor Hadrian, and he takes this imperial propaganda for historical fact. It is more feasible to assume that flattery and bribery were typical behaviors, especially in Byzantine courts. This is suggested in the narrative of the mashal: the reaction of the “members of the palace” underlines the fact that Abraham must have done something unexpected, and, at least in their eyes, something weird. Again, as in the second scene, the nature and character of the friend’s authority come to the fore in a positive sense, and in contrast to the other inhabitants of or visitors to the royal palace: the “friend” is not seeking aggrandizement for himself. Socially, he departs from the script of the imperial patron–client relationship. 2 Authority Abraham does not ask for himself, only for others. Given the exegetical function of the mashal, this also expresses an awareness of time lapses between the changing situation of “others” in comparison and the situation of the “friend,” who is Abraham. Indeed, in the biblical text, it takes a year before Sarah will become pregnant. So the outcome of his prayer for Abimelech, the “others” in the mashal, is visible immediately, whereas the outcome of his own fate will be suspended. However, the time lapse has a rhetorical function as well.13 Abraham is not only the paragon of the biblical believer, he is also the embodiment, like all the Patriarchs, of aspects of the collective personality of the Jewish people. The nimshal of the mashal indeed quotes “the seed of Abraham, my friend” (Isa 41:8), which includes the progeny of Abraham. Here, I would like to suggest, the homilist addresses the political position of his audience. Describing Abraham as a peculiar form of client-friend of the king, the homilist locates a sense of political powerlessness in him, which is combined 11 12 13 Alan Appelbaum, The Rabbis’ King-Parables: Midrash From the Third-Century Roman Empire (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010), 47–49, points to the equally ambiguous amicus in Latin usage. Ignaz Ziegler, Die Königsgleichnisse des Midrasch: Beleuchted durch die Römische Kaiserzeit (Breslau: Schottlaender, 1903) 202, mentions De vita Hadriani 15 (from the Historia Augusta): amicos ditavit et quidem non petentes, cum petentibus nihil negaret. Stern, Parables in Midrash, 68, argues that scriptural exegesis offers as an ideological medium. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV Meshalim on Election and Power 275 with the highest religious intimacy.14 The powerlessness in the political sense shows itself in the invisibility of the outcome of the religious intimacy, and this is expressed in the amazed reaction of the members of the palace that “he does not pray for himself, only for others!” Nonetheless, so the suggestion, this powerlessness will be vindicated, like Sarah would receive a son after all. The keyword expressive of the expected relationship between the friend and the king in this mashal is serara, “office” (or “authority”), which is taken up to deny any formal request by Abraham.15 The occurrence of the term in our mashal may be informed by a traditional saying: “Whosoever flees from an office, the office will come after him” (‫כל מי שבורח מן השררה השררה רודפת‬ ‫)אחריו‬. Since Abraham is not seeking the same favors bestowed upon regular visitors or members of the palace, his requests are fulfilled. In TB, serara is only positive when granted by God, not as a sought-after commodity or as a gift by the nations. This connotes both an ethical and a political rhetoric, depending on who is addressed. In our case, in blending the biblical topos of Abraham as a “friend of God” with the political meaning of a friend as a client, the darshan may have wanted to comment on the changed social and political situation of his community. This reading is enhanced when we, finally, turn to the nimshal, 14 15 Abraham as a friend alluding to a corporate personality occurs in older traditions: GenR Lekh Lekha 41; ExR Yithro 27, Ki Tisa 44; NumR Shelah 16; Pesikta Rabbati (PesR) 33, etc. TB Yithro 5 and TB Shalah 3. Serara (‫ )שררה‬occurs 8 times in halakhic midrash, more frequently, however, in amoraic and late midrashim (217 times). In tannaitic midrash, it connotes ruling over Israel (biblically) or office over a local community; only once does it allude to (Roman?) foreign powers (Midrash Tannaim Deut 26:19; but see Menahem Kahana, “The Halakhic Midrashim,” in The Literature of the Sages, ed. Shmuel Safrai et al. (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006), 3–105, here 101–102, on the problematic nature and text basis of this source). In late midrash, serara is ambiguous, and often receives negative appraisal. In TB, the occurrences are the following: (1) Vayeshev 7, Joseph greets people also after he has been given serara; in most cases, people receiving power do not greet anymore; (2) Vayeshev 4: ‫כל‬ ‫מי שבורח מן השררה השררה רודפת אחריו‬, “All who flee from authority, authority runs after him”, positive examples are Saul and Moses and a negative example is Abimelech; (3) Tsav 14, Aaron is talked about with the same expression: “Take Aaron, because he runs from authority”; (4) Achare Mot 4, there is the prayer of the high priest on the Day of Atonement – note that the text follows immediately with the Sages of Caesarea’s warning against exerting power; (5) Achare Mot 7: Nadab and Abihu want to take control of the community instead of Moses and Aaron – there is a similar tradition in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya in Achare Mot 13; (6) Bamidbar 11: exegesis of Song 7:1 on the rule of Israel; (7) Behaalotkha 12: tradition about the Levites whom Moses has to choose; (8) Behaalotkha 13: tradition on God who only grants rule to those who have been tried, and shows Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Levi as examples. TP Korah 6 contains a mashal addressing how Moses tries to appease Korah by telling a story of how people who revolted against slaves (Aaron) were made freemen and “senators” (‫ = סנקליטיקוס‬σύγκλητος). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 276 Ottenheijm the exegetical application (D), which is spelled out explicitly: “Who is this friend? This is Abraham.” Could one not have surmised this already? Here. we encounter traces of the “speech act” lying behind the text. Moreover, “this is Abraham” focalizes on the contrast between the informal powers bestowed on Abraham as a friend of God and the cultural and political expectations of a client of the Imperial Court.16 3 Torah for the Nations? TB’s discussion of Moses’s farewell speech (Deut 33) offers a revised version of the well-known midrash of God visiting the nations to offer His Torah.17 Its base verse, “And he said: ‘The Lord came from Sinai, and shone to His people from Seir and appeared from Mount Paran’” (Deut 33:2), is taken as a signal that God first visited the nations before He came to Sinai to reveal the Torah to Israel alone. To notice and assess TB’s changes and adaptations, let us take a look at its tannaitic precursors in Sifre to Deuteronomy (SifreDeut) and Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael (MekhI). The midrash’s main rhetorical thrust is the nations’ inability to uphold the Laws of the Torah, which, so its version in SifreDeut, is based on the nations’ alleged “essence”: ‫ כשנגלה הקדוש ברוך הוא ליתן תורה‬,(‫ ”ה׳ מסיני בא“ (דב׳ לג ב‬:‫ ויאמר‬.‫דבר אחר‬ ‫ תחילה הלך אצל בני‬.‫לישראל לא על ישראל בלבד הוא נגלה אלא על כל האומות‬ ‫ ”לא‬:‫ מה כתוב בה? אמר להם‬:‫ מקבלים אתם את התורה? אמרו לו‬:‫ אמר להם‬,‫עשו‬ ‫ שנאמר‬,‫ כל עצמם של אותם האנשים ואביהם רוצח הוא‬:‫ אמרו‬.(‫תרצח“ (שמ׳ כ יב‬ ‫ הלך אצל בני עמון‬.(‫ ”ועל חרבך תחיה“ (בר׳ כז מ‬,(‫”והידים ידי עשו“ (בר׳ כז כב‬ :‫ מה כתוב בה? אמר להם‬:‫ מקבלים אתם את התורה? אמרו לו‬:‫ אמר להם‬,‫ומואב‬ ‫ היא שנאמר ”ותהרין שתי‬,‫ כל עצמה של ערוה להם‬:‫ אמרו לו‬.(‫”לא תנאף“ (שמ׳ כ יב‬ ‫ מקבלים אתם‬:‫ אמר להם‬,‫ הלך אצל בני ישמעאל‬.(‫בנות לוט מאביהן“ (בר׳ יט לו‬ ‫ כל‬:‫ אמרו לו‬.(‫ מה כתוב בה? אמר להם ”לא תגנוב“ (שמ׳ כ יב‬:‫את התורה? אמרו לו‬ .(‫ שנאמר ”והוא יהיה פרא אדם“ (בר׳ טז יב‬,‫עצמם אביהם ליסטים היה‬ Another interpretation: “And He said: God came from Sinai” (Deut 33:2). When the Holy One Blessed be He was about to give the Torah to Israel, he did not (want to) reveal it only to Israel but to all the nations. He first 16 17 A similar performance with “this” (albeit in a biblical quote) is demonstrated in Stern, Parables in Midrash, 59–60. Parallel in MekhI Bahodesh Yitro 5 (Horowitz/Rabin 221); bAZ 2b; elements recur in GenR 27:40, Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer (PDRE) 41, and PesR Add. 1, 3. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV Meshalim on Election and Power 277 went to the sons of Esau and He said to them: Will you accept the Torah? They said to Him: What is written in it? He said to them: “Thou shalt not murder” (Ex 20:13). They said to him: The very essence of these people and their fathers is to be murderers, as it is said: “But his hands are the hands of Esau” (Gen 27:22) and “And by your sword you shall live” (Gen 27:40). He went to the sons of Ammon and Moab, and He said to them: Will you accept the Torah? They said to Him: What is written in it? He said to them: “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Ex 20:12). They said: Their very essence is immodesty, as it is said: “And the daughters of Lot became pregnant from their father” (Gen 19:36). He went to the sons of Ishmael, and He said to them: Will you accept the Torah? They said to Him: What is written in it? He said to them: “Thou shalt not steal” (Ex 20:12). They said: The very essence of their father is robbery, as it is said: “He shall be a wild ass of a man, with his hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him; and he shall live at odds with all his kin” (Gen 16:12). SifreDeut, VeZot HaBerakha 343 [Finkelstein 395–396] In its continuation, the midrash emphasizes, with a reading of Micah 5:14, that not only the aforementioned ones, but all nations refused to obey (‫)לא שמעו‬, and not only to accept the Torah but even to keep the Seven Noahide Laws. This is buttressed by a parable which, tellingly, compares the nations to a dog and Israel to a donkey, both assigned to carry a proportionate part of the load: ‫וכן לכל אומה ואומה שאל להם אם מקבלים את התורה שנאמר ”יודוך ה׳ כל מלכי‬ ‫ יכול שמעו וקבלו? תלמוד לומר ”ועשיתי‬.(‫ארץ כי שמעו אמרי פיך“ (תה׳ קלח ד‬ ‫ לא דיים שלא שמעו אלא‬.(‫באף ובחימה נקם את הגוים אשר לא שמעו“ (מיכ׳ ה יד‬ ‫ כיון שראה‬.‫אפילו שבע מצות שקבלו עליהם בני נח לא יכלו לעמוד בהם עד שפרקום‬ .‫ נתנם לישראל‬,‫הקדוש ברוך הוא כך‬ .‫משל לאחד ששילח את חמורו וכלבו לגרן והטעינו לחמור לתך ולכלב שלש סאים‬ ‫ פרק ממנו סאה ונתנו על החמור וכן שיני וכן‬.‫היה החמור מהלך והכלב מלחית‬ ‫ כך ישראל קבלו את התורה בפירושיה ובדקדוקיה אף אותם שבע מצות שלא‬.‫שלישי‬ ‫ לכך נאמר ”ויאמר ה׳ מסיני בא‬.‫יכלו בני נח לעמוד בהם ופרקום באו ישראל וקבלום‬ .(‫וזרח משעיר למו“ (דב׳ לג ב‬ And so He asked each and every nation to accept the Torah, as it is said: “All the kings of the earth shall praise you, O Lord, for they have heard the words of your mouth” (Ps 138:4). I could have understood: they heard and accepted. No, Scripture says: “And in anger and wrath I will execute vengeance on the nations that did not obey” (Mic 5:14). It did not suffice for For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 278 Ottenheijm them not to listen [to the Torah], but even the Seven Laws that the sons of Noah accepted, they could not uphold them before they loosened themselves from them; as soon as the Holy One Blessed be He saw that, He gave them to Israel. A parable: [It resembles] one who sent his donkey and his dog to the threshing floor. They loaded the donkey with a letech and the dog with three seah. The donkey went but the dog panted. So he took one seah from it and loaded it on to the donkey, and so with a second and a third part. Likewise Israel, they take upon themselves the Torah with its interpretation and its details. Even the Seven Laws of Noah that the nations did not accept and they had unburdened themselves from them, Israel came and accepted these. Therefore it says: “He said: The Lord came from Sinai, and dawned from Seir upon us” (Deut 33:2). SifreDeut, VeZot HaBerakha 343 [Finkelstein 396] The parable featuring a dog and a donkey offers a polemical but traditional imagery that compares heathens to lazy dogs and the heavily burdened Israel to a donkey. The dog is not able to carry out the task assigned to him, which is to transport the equivalent of three times 144 eggs, and its punch line is how, as a result, the donkey receives even the load originally destined for the dog.18 4 Polemic and Expectation In MekhI, the anti-nations rhetoric of the midrash is present, but it is articulated to a lesser degree and balanced with more positive outlooks on their task and responsibility. The midrash on God’s dialogue with the nations is presented as part of MekhI’s comment on the first of the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:2; MekhI Bahodesh 1) to explain the phrase “Your God” (Ex 20:2), and, like SifreDeut, it explains why the nations did not accept the Torah offered to them by means of referring to their alleged character as embodied by their forefathers in the Torah. These dialogues contain a polemic flavor similar to that in SifreDeut, but also carry the paradoxical notion of a biblically informed destiny: their unwillingness flows forth from the character assigned to them by the Torah itself. Where SifreDeut characterized this as their essence (‫)עצמם‬, 18 Adin Steinsaltz, The Talmud (New York: Random House, 1989), 288: letech is half a kor, and constitutes 15 seah. Given the fact that one seah is 144 eggs, this results in either 124 liters (3.5 bushels) or 215 liters (6 bushels), depending on the current halakhic definitions of an egg’s volume. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV Meshalim on Election and Power 279 MekhI qualifies it as their “blessing” (‫)ברכה‬, buttressing a biblically informed destination assigned to each nation. In MekhI, this rhetoric is balanced both with a unique midrash on Deuteronomy 33:2 and by offering a narrative expecting the nations’ individuals to participate in Torah despite their collective failure: thus, the collective failure seems to be a part of God’s plan. Moreover, SifreDeut’s midrash on Micah, expressing that all nations refused to listen, is lacking in MekhI. Instead, a midrash of Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Jose the Galilean, accentuates that God had “released” the nations from their assigned task to fulfil the Commandments after their initial refusal to accept the Torah. It is based on a combination of Habakkuk 3:3–6 (v. 3 in wording quite similar to Deut 33:2) as addressing this offer of the Torah to the nations: “‫וכי מה עשו הגוים דווים האלו שלא רצה ליתן להם את התורה? ”משפטים בל ידעום‬ ‫ שלא רצו לקבל שנ׳ ”אלוה מתימן יבא“ וגו׳ (חב׳ ג ג( ”ונוגה כאור‬:(‫(תה׳ קמז כ‬ ‫תהיה“ וגו׳ (חב׳ ג ד( ”לפניך ילך דבר“ וגו׳ (חב׳ ג ה( ”עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר‬ .(‫גוים“ וגו׳ (חב׳ ג ו‬ Well, what did these wretched nations do that He did not want to give the Torah to them? “And ordinances they have not known” (Ps 147:20): since they did not want to accept, as it is said: “God came from Teman,” etc.; “And a brightness appears like a light” etc. “before Him goes pestilence,” etc. “He stood and measured [‫ ]וימודד‬the earth; he looked, and released [‫ ]ויתר‬the nations” (Hab 3:3–6). MekhI Bahodesh 1 [Horowitz/Rabin 206] The wretched (‫דווים‬, thus Lauterbach’s translation) nations were not willing to accept the Torah and, as a result, God released them.19 This testing and subsequent release is buttressed by the rabbinic reading of Habakkuk 3:6 as referring to a sequence of divine judgment (measuring), to be followed by release (‫)היתר‬, reading Hebrew ‫ יתר‬as alluding to the halakhic term to “release from religious obligation.”20 The MekhI, moreover, not only lacks the massive midrash of SifreDeut on all the nations refusing to obey, but, contrary to SifreDeut, still opts for a 19 20 “Sad” is one of the meanings of ‫דווים‬. Note that they are still bound to keep the Noahide Laws, but miss the golden opportunity to accept the better fate of Torah. The midrashic reading of the two verbs differ from regular Biblical Hebrew translations. Hebrew ‫ וימדד‬is a hapax legomenon of ‫מוד‬, “tremble,” but the rabbis read (Mishnaic Hebrew) it as a participle from ‫מדד‬, “measure.” ‫ היתר‬is translated in the RSV as follows: “He looked and shook the nations”; cf. LXX Hab 3:6: ἐπέβλεψεν καὶ ἐτάκη ἔθνη (“he looked, and the nations melted away”). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 280 Ottenheijm universal abiding of the law, even if this option is viable for individuals now that the nations had failed to accept the Torah. This is an issue addressed in the sequence of the midrash that elaborates on the motif of space: why was the Torah revealed in the desert? The desert is a public space, and the midrash hurries to read this spatial context of revelation as a textual signal to announce the universal availability of the Torah. Whereas the midrash, in its first move, already explained why the Torah was accepted only by Israel, it continues to discuss the obligations of the nations despite their refusal. The spatial metaphor is crucial here: just as the Torah was given in the desert, so the Noahide Laws comprise, at least in theory, universal public ethos, and create a divine economy accessible to both Jews and non-Jews.21 Moreover, the nations may still obtain merits for keeping these laws, even if they appear to refuse to do so, not because of laziness, but because of envy. This last option is buttressed by its mashal, which equates the nations and Israel with two overseers, one over straw and one over silver and gold: ‫ אם בשבע מצות שנצטוו בני נח שקבלו עליהן אינן יכולין‬:‫אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר‬ ‫ משל למלך שמנה לו שני אפטרופסין אחד‬.‫לעמוד בהן קל וחומר למצות שבתורה‬ ‫ זה שהיה ממונה‬.‫ממונה על אוצר של תבן ואחד ממונה על אוצר של כסף ושל זהב‬ ‫ וזה‬,‫על התבן נחשד והיה מתרעם על שלא מנו אותו על אוצר של כסף ושל זהב‬ ‫ בכסף וזהב על אחת‬,‫ ריקה בתבן כפרת‬:‫שהיה ממונה על הכסף ועל הזהב אמר לו‬ ‫ ומה אם בשבע מצות שנצטוו בני נח לא יכלו‬:‫ והלא דברים קל וחומר‬.‫כמה וכמה‬ .‫ על אחת כמה וכמה בכל המצות שבתורה‬,‫לעמוד בהם‬ Rabbi Simon ben Eleazar says: If the sons of Noah could not endure the seven commandments enjoined upon them, how much less could they have endured all the commandments of the Torah. A parable of a king who appointed two administrators: One was an administrator over a treasure of straw and the other was an administrator over a treasure of silver and gold. The one who was an administrator over a treasure of straw was suspected, and he complained that he was not appointed over the treasure of silver and gold. They said to him: empty head! If you are suspected over the treasure of straw, how could we trust you with a treasure of silver and gold? This a matter of light and heavy (i.e., argumentum a fortiori): If the nations could not endure the Seven Laws of Noah, how much less so all the commandments that are in the Torah! MekhI Bahodesh 1 [Horowitz/Rabin 221] 21 Marc Hirshman, “Rabbinic Universalism in the Second and Third Centuries,” Harvard Theological Review 93, no. 2 (2000): 101–115, here 103, argues that this is part of a former universal ideology subsequently left by the rabbis. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV Meshalim on Election and Power 281 Keeping the Noahide commandments is compared here to being an “administrator over straw,” and followed by an a fortiori reasoning: if the nations are not capable of even keeping the Noahide commandments, how much less so could they keep all of the Mosaic commandments, which parallel the motif of administrating silver and gold in the imagery of the parable. The mashal disparages the nations as foolish, for they do not estimate the task assigned for them to the full extent. It sharply denunciates their unwillingness to guard apparently cheap commodities, but it simultaneously aggrandizes Israel’s valor and merit for having to watch over “silver and gold,” a regular metaphor for the words of the Torah. In short, like that of SifreDeut, the MekhI’s social rhetoric suggests the nations’ wickedness and inability, but unlike SifreDeut’s rhetoric, it perpetuates the responsibility attributed to individuals among them by the Torah, which even after their refusal is still incumbent on them: the parable does not feature a closure of the responsibility to administrate the straw! 5 The Refusal of the Nations This all changes drastically in TB’s version of this midrash.22 TB presents a truncated version of the midrash and structures it homiletically, for example adding first person plural speech (“now we have to comment”) or by commenting that the word “Seir” refers to the sons of Esau, and the word “Paran” refers the sons of Ishmael, without giving any further information, thus suggesting that this tradition was well known.23 The dialogues between God and these peoples are absent, so is any other juridical context as elaborated in the version of the Talmud (bAZ 2b).24 Moreover, TB disposes of any irony that is present 22 23 24 The homily is present in TB VeZot HaBerakha 34–35. TB often revises and rearranges older homiletic material. See Lerner, “Aggadic Midrash,” 150. The editorial terminology tsarich lemor, psq, and mida shows a well-structured homiletic discourse, which is neatly followed by the mashal; cf. Margarete Schlüter, “Ein Auslegungsmidrash in Midrash Tanhuma,” Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 14 (1986): 71–98. The Babylonian Talmud’s usage of the midrash on Deut 33:2 and Hab 3:6 appears in the sugya on the eschatological judgment of the nations. They are judged for not upholding the Noahide commandments and for not sustaining Israel in her obligations in the Torah. Its basic form is a teaching of Rabbi Yohanan: “They say to him: Lord of the world, did You offer it to us and did we not accept it? But who could [one] find saying thus, as it is written: ‘And he said: the Lord came from Sinai and He shone upon them from Seir’ (Deut 33:2). And it is written: ‘God came from Teman, etc.’ (Hab 3:3). What did He seek in Seir and what did He seek in Paran? Said Rabbi Yohanan: this teaches that the Holy one Blessed be He turned to every nation and language [offering the Torah], and they did not accept it until He came to Israel and they accepted it.” For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 282 Ottenheijm in the MekhI that the nations’ moral failure to keep basic rules (in the parable: administrating the straw) results from the character attributed to them by the Torah.25 Third, where MekhI (and the Bavli as well) defends a public ethos defined by Noahide commandments, a tertium datur between keeping the Torah’s full obligations and complete lawlessness, TB’s rereading of the midrash omits this theme as well.26 And compared to SifreDeut’s massive disparaging of the nations, TB even acerbates the polemic tone of the midrash. Most importantly, TB reads Habakkuk 3:6, allegedly against the MekhI, not as a release from the obligation to keep the law, but as a divine punishment for their unwillingness to accept the Torah: ‫וכתיב ”עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים“ (חב׳ ג ו( שראה שלא רצו לקבל את התורה‬ .(‫הקפיצן לגיהנם כמו שאמר ”לנתר (בהם( ]בהן[ על הארץ“ (ויק׳ יא כא‬ And it is written: “He stands and measures the earth, He looks, and releases the nations” (Hab 3:6): when He saw that they did not want to accept the Torah, He has them leap and jump to hell, as it is said: “(Jointed legs) to leap with on the ground” (Lev 11:21). TB VeZot HaBerakha 3 Torah as a remedy against death and hell and non-obeisance to the Torah as resulting in going to hell is a topos in TB: here, this opposition is adduced to contrast Israel with the nations.27 Crucial is TB’s reading of the notorious difficult biblical verb ‫ ויתר‬in Habakkuk 3:6, which deviates from the interpretation “to release” in the MekhI. TB associates the verb with the Torah’s description of a species of locusts, “leaping” (‫ )ויתר‬on four legs and therefore being allowed for eating (Lev 11:21).28 However, it deviates from the regular 25 26 27 28 MekhI Bahodesh 1 (Lauterbach 198–200); MekhI Bahodesh 5 (Lauterbach 233–236); PesR 21:2 (dialogue between Rabbi Joshua and Hadrian). TB’s treatment of the Noahide commandments occurs where it discusses theft between Jews and non-Jews as being a most heinous crime. This may be suggestive of a non-Jewish context behind the midrash. Compare the programmatic statement on retribution in TB Bereshit 1, Pekudei 5, a midrash on Abraham (quoting Deut 33:2b), who is promised the freedom of the nations and hell due to sacrifices and the Torah. Since the Temple has been destroyed, now he must choose between being ruled by the nations or hell; of course, he chooses the first, but is promised redemption in the world to come. TB reads ‫ ;הקפיצן לגיהנם‬a similar verb is used in the Targumim on Lev 11:21; ‫התירן והקפיצן‬ ‫ לגיהנם‬in TP may be a contamination. The midrash apparently reads ‫ ויתר‬as piel, “leaping,” which is explicated as God causing the nations to leap into hell. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV Meshalim on Election and Power 283 midrashic interpretation of this peculiar verb.29 Whereas Leviticus 11:21 defines an allowed form of locust, the equation of the locust’s moves with the nations leaping into hell presupposes a negative connotation of locusts as destined for destruction. This imagery of locusts as representing the nations and destined for destruction may have been influenced by the homophonic yeter (“what was left”) in Joel’s vision of four species of invading locusts (Joel 1:4).30 In the end, so is the suggestion, all of these empires will, like locusts, be consumed or disappear. It is clear that this peculiar apocalyptic reading of Leviticus 11:21 in connection to Habakkuk 3:6 is TB’s own invention. Concluding, TB revises a rabbinic interpretation of Habakkuk 3:6 as a release from the law into a divine punishment as a result of disobeying; it omits the Noahide commandments and their respective merits, and offers an innovative midrash portraying the nations as locusts leaping into hell.31 6 Political Rhetoric The resulting binary opposition of law and death, of obeisance and disobeisance governs the continuation of TB’s discourse. Indeed, TB takes up 29 30 31 Leviticus Rabbah (LevR) 20:5, with a parallel in Pesikta de-Rav Kahana (PDRK) 26:5, contains a midrash contrasting the fate of the sons of Aaron, who died because they entered the Holy of Holies (Lev 16:1), with that of Titus, who left in peace. LevR and PDRK read Lev 11:21 in alignment with Job 37:1: “At this my heart trembles, indeed, all but leaps (yittar) out of its place.” Joel has ‫נתר‬, natar, “to leave.” The intertextuality of the midrash remains, however, unclear. Targum Pseudo Jonathan of Habakkuk 3:6 reads the punishment on the nations as being the result of their trespassing of God’s law and therewith incurring guilt. Rabbinic sources, operating with the four empires scheme of Daniel 6, read the fourth type of locust (Joel 1:4) as referring to the Romans. The connection with leaping is complicated: LXX Leviticus 11:21 reads πηδᾶν, “to leap”; Targum Neofyti on Leviticus 11:21 uses a similar verb for “leaping” to the one our midrash does (i.e., ‫)קפץ‬. Most probably, Joel 1:4 was read into Leviticus 11:21 as referring to enemies of God’s people that would be “consumed” after having devoured Israel, alluding to the law on edible locusts in Leviticus. This may have propelled the semantic connection between Habakkuk 3:6 and Leviticus 11:21. Discussion of Noahide commandments only appears in TP Noah 4 (idolatry, stealing, gorging) as an aside. Note, moreover, that TB presents a teaching of Rabbi Yochanan on God offering His Torah in all tongues, based on Deuteronomy 33:2 (Exodus 22). The nations fainted after hearing the Torah in their own language, and only Israel remained unharmed. TB, however, continues as follows: “How did the voice go forth? Rabbi Tanhuma declared: It went forth in a dual role, destroying the nations that would not accept the Torah and giving life to Israel, which accepted the Torah” (trans. John Townsend). Note that Aggadat Bereshit 44, edited in a Byzantine context as well, presents the midrash on Deuteronomy 33:2 without Habakkuk 3:6. See John Townsend, ed. and trans., Midrash Tanhuma, Vol. 3 (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav, 2003). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 284 Ottenheijm SifreDeut’s midrash on Micah 5:14 and rebuts any objection that the nations actually might have wanted to listen to God: .(‫ובמקום אחר הוא אומר ”יודוך ה׳ כל מלכי ארץ כי שמעו אמרי פיך“ (תה׳ קלח ד‬ ‫ שמא רצו לשמוע? בא מיכה המורשתי ופסק הדבר שנאמר‬:‫ועדיין צריכין אנו לומר‬ ‫”ועשיתי באף ובחימה נקם את הגוים אשר לא שמעו“ (וגו׳( (מיכה ה יד( הא למדת‬ .‫שלא רצו לקבל את התורה‬ And in another place it says: “All the kings of the world shall praise you, Lord, for they have heard the words of Your mouth” (Ps 138:4). And do we [therefore] still have to say: perhaps they did want to listen [to God’s offering the Torah to them]? Came Micah the Morashtite and decided (‫ )פסק‬the matter, as it is said: “In anger and wrath will I wreak retribution on the nations that have not listened” (Mic 5:14).32 This teaches that they did not want to accept the Torah. TB VeZot HaBerakha 3 In quoting Psalms 138:4, the homilist rhetorically suggests that the kings of the nations might have wanted to listen, since “they have heard the words of Your mouth.” However, this is countered by a prophetic utterance that states that the nations will suffer retribution for not having listened. The addition focuses on king imagery, presenting a binary opposition between Torah and earthly kings of the nations. This political dimension recurs in the sequence of the midrash, which features King David, celebrating how Israel witnesses the nations’ unwillingness to accept God’s teaching of the Torah: ‫בא דוד ונתן הודאה להקב״ה על כך שנאמר ”אתה האל עושה פלא הודעת בעמים‬ ‫ רבש״ע פלאים שעשית בעולמך שהודעת תורתך‬:‫ אמר דוד‬.(‫עוזך“ (תה׳ סז טו‬ .(‫לאומות העולם אין עוזך אלא תורה שנאמר ”ה׳ עוז לעמו יתן“ (תה׳ כט יא‬ David came and gave thanks to the Lord for that, as it is said: “You are the God who works wonders, You have manifested Your strength among the peoples” (Ps 77:15). David said: Master of the world! The wonders that You worked in Your world (are?) that You taught Your Torah to the nations of the world, (since) “Your strength” means only Torah, as it is said: “And the Lord will give strength to His people” (Ps 29:11). TB VeZot HaBerakha 3 32 For ‫ פסק‬as “making a decision,” see TP Reeh 5; TP Ki Tisa 15; and TP Mishpatim 4. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV Meshalim on Election and Power 285 Reading “strength” as Torah is based on Psalms 29:11 and is well attested in early sources, but here it buttresses TB’s reading of the nations’ failure. Why this repeated stress on non-acceptance and why the binary opposition of Israel and the nations? This rhetorical focus may constitute what James Scott has qualified as a “hidden transcript,” the encoded resistance of colonized people to the public script of the colonizing power.33 Where the public transcript would celebrate kings as bringing law and order, the hidden transcript, here in the form of midrashic exposition, shows the kings and the nations as actually doing the opposite, as unwilling to accept divine law, therewith plunging their peoples into chaos and tragedy. The continuation of TB’s exposition again comments on political rule. In a mashal-like saying, Rabbi Abahu explains why God offered the Torah, doubtlessly knowing the failure of this enterprise beforehand: ‫ גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שאין אומות העולם מקבלין את‬:‫אמר ר׳ אבהו‬ ‫ ומפני מה יצא ידיהם? אלא כך הוא מדותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא עד שיצא‬.‫התורה‬ ‫ לפי שאין הקדוש ברוך הוא בא בטרוניא על‬,‫ידי בריותיו ואחר כך טורדן מן העולם‬ .‫בריותיו‬ Rabbi Abbahu said: It is revealed and known before Him who spoke and the world came into being, that the nations of the world would not accept the Torah. And why did He want to justify Himself for them (by offering them the Torah)? But such is the measure of the Holy one Blessed be He. It is only after he has reached out to His creatures that He will banish them from the world. For the Holy one Blessed be He does not come in tyranny to His creatures. TB VeZot HaBerakha 3 The phrase that the Holy One Blessed be He “does not come in tyranny” occurs in late rabbinic sources and opposes God’s behavior to the behavior of tyrants who do not leave any choice to their subordinates.34 The parabolic imagery presupposes experience with kings who impose laws on people without seeking consent or reaching a truce. This imagery tells of frustrated expectations. The binary opposition of God’s law and the kings’ laws, as well as the direct 33 34 James Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990). Parallel in PDRK Suppl. 1; and bAZ 3a. For this term, see Samuel Krauss, Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, Vol. 2 (Berlin, 1899; repr. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1964), 265. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 286 Ottenheijm punishment of the nations by sending them into hell, reflects an atmosphere of deterioration of Jewish – non-Jewish relations. The absence of the nations’ merits in keeping the Noahide Laws – as a frustrated albeit still existing expectation in the MekhI – as well as the ingenious reading of Habakkuk 3:6 as promising direct punishment of the nations in hell: these revisions and innovations point to a changed political context where public ethics became redefined, and a negative perception of the nations informed the new performance of the meshalim’s rhetoric.35 The question now is: in what circumstances would a homilist comment on oppressive governmental policies by adducing religious language of obedience? 7 Historical Context Political rhetoric informs TB’s production and revision of meshalim’s narratives as well as its revision of midrashic tradition, and these revisions and additions suggest that the homilist commented on political powerlessness and a deteriorating, non-Jewish political regime. The political rhetoric is not limited to our examples, as TB’s exposition on a verse in Ecclesiastes, “Keep the King’s command” shows: ‫ משביע אני עליכם שאם תגזור עליכם מלכות גזרות אל תמרדו‬:‫אמר להם רוח הקדש‬ ‫ אבל אם‬.(‫ אלא ”אני פי מלך שמור“ (קה׳ ח ב‬,‫עליה בכל דבר שהיא גוזרת עליכם‬ .‫תגזור עליכם לבטל את התורה ואת המצות ואת השבת אל תשמעו להם‬ The Holy Spirit said to Israel: If a government imposes harsh decrees upon you, I adjure you not to rebel against that government but rather “keep the King’s command” (Eccl 8:2). However, if that government should decree that you must annul the Torah and the commandments and the Sabbath, do not listen to them.36 TB Noah 15 35 36 This rhetoric governs the final section of TB’s exposition of Deuteronomy 33:2–3, a parable contrasting the beauty of the king and his entourage with the beauty of God and His entourage. Since it is not so dissimilar to the source in MekhI Bahodesh 14, we will not expand on it further. Contrast parables were a known pun on imperial prestige. See Stern, Parables in Midrash, 74: “The main function of […] antithetical midrashim […] was to demonstrate the dissimilarity between the Roman emperor and God, and thus to explode the myth of the divine emperor.” On God’s promise to release Israel from the nations, see TP Yitro 5:17 (Ex 20:23); cf. TB Tsav 6 (Balaam’s speech). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV Meshalim on Election and Power 287 This midrashic exposition is unique and it shows, like the deviations in TB’s version of the midrash on Deuteronomy 33:2, the innovative character of TB. It is noteworthy that TB earlier underlined the nations’ refusal to listen to God; now, in turn, it prescribes in what circumstances Israel should refuse to listen (‫ )אל תשמעו‬to the nations. Can we contextualize these innovations and, therewith, historically locate TB’s appeal to oppressive or to negatively valuated imperial politics? Here we move from the known into the unknown, since no historical names or historical data are provided. Nevertheless, echoes of a more specific context have come to the fore. The mashal about Abraham depicts him as a king’s friend behaving contrary to what was to be expected in and around a royal court, a culture of patronage imbued with bribery or flattery. The contrast-mashal depicting a human king acting tyrannically suggest responses to imperial policies as well. The fact that the homilist addresses such social and political contexts must have been of interest for his intended audience as well. This rhetoric fits late Byzantine Empire conditions quite well, and possible candidates may be sought after here.37 From the late 4th century CE onward, emperors like Theodosius began to meddle with internal Jewish affairs. However, whereas Theodosius’s state policies undeniably contained anti-Jewish laws, it is questionable whether these really affected the legal position of the Jews.38 This did happen, though, with Justinian’s Law Code (527–565 CE).39 Justinian, striving for a unified empire with a unifying religion, inaugurated a public ethos that parted from the relatively beneficiary attitude toward Jews under Roman law thus far.40 From then on, Jews lost their age-old 37 38 39 40 The material discussed reflects the early (Genesis) or middle (Deuteronomium) stratum of the TY corpus, as suggested in Bregman, The Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature, 4. Günter Stemberger, Juden und Christen im Heiligen Land: Palästina unter Konstantin und Theodosius (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1987), 237–251, shows an increase of anti-Jewish measures but stresses the relatively continued privileged position of Jews and their vitality in the Land. See also Heinz Schreckenberg, Die christliche adversus Judaeos Texte in ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1–11.Jhd). 4. überarbeitete und ergänzte Auflage (Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 1999), 368–372. In this era, according to Schreckenberg, “trotz einiger Schärfe werden Existenz und religöse Autonomie der Juden nicht ernstlich gefährdet” (368). On Justinian and the Jews, see Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Roman Society 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 179. Schreckenberg, Die christliche adversus Judaeos Texte, 406–415, offers a succinct characterization of this process: “Nun hört das Judentum auf, eine staatlicherseits ‘erlaubte’, sozusagen amtlich zugelassene Religion zu sein, und die Bürgerrechte und Menschenrechte der Juden werden so eingeschränkt, da, die Rechtskontinuität der Jahrhundertelang relativ toleranten Kaisergesetze fast verloren geht” (406). An attempt by Justinian to force Jews to convert, by converting a synagogue to a church in Cyrenaica, North Africa (Procopius, de Aedificiis 6.2), was, however, not followed in later times (414). For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV 288 Ottenheijm status as members of a religio licita and were reckoned among Christian heretics and pagans.41 Novella 146, banning Hebrew as a language for synagogue liturgy, clearly marks this new state policy, even if the causes and the effect of this law are debated among scholars.42 Finally, Justinian’s rule marked a sharp decline in the legal status of Jews both in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora. Italy, for example, which was partially occupied by the Byzantines in 540 CE, and has been suggested as a geographical location for TB’s final editing.43 In this context, a mood of powerlessness propelled renewed apocalyptic readings and a binary theology of Jewish and non-Jewish coexistence, as well as new strategies of political accommodation in view of the Byzantine appropriation of biblical heroes as theological legitimation for state power.44 8 Conclusion Meshalim sometimes contain clues that are suggestive of the social horizon of their performance. This is not only the case on the level of the metaphor, but true for the narrative as well: especially the embellishments and unnecessary details are important in this respect. TB’s revisions and additions clearly show rhetorical echoes of drastically changed religious and political circumstances. TB stages corrupt imperial courts where the real friend (“client”) is someone whose fate is not advocated before the king, failing kings, and nations, and bad policies toward the Jews. Justinian’s reign may be a candidate for this social historical reality in which the Jews found themselves under worsening 41 42 43 44 Stemberger, Juden und Christen, 240–241, mentions Cod. Theod. XVI, 5,44 (24/11/208) as a law that labels Jews together with heretics and Donatists as threatening Christian sacraments, even if the prime battle is against African Donatists. On the deteriorating legal positions of Jews, see Amnon Lindner, “The Legal Status of Jews in the Byzantine Empire,” in Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, ed. Robert Bonfil et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 159–176. Schreckenberg, Die christliche adversus Judaeos Texte, 413–415. Leonard Rutgers, “Justinian’s Novella 146 between Jews and Christians,” in Making Myths: Jews and Early Christian Identity Formation (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 49–78, argues that this law aimed at marginalizing the Hebrew language as a symbol of Jewish covenantal claims based on literal readings of biblical texts, advocating allegorical (i.e., Christian) interpretations as based on the Septuagint instead. Nicholas de Lange, “Jews in the Age of Justinian,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 401–426, locates the law in an inner Jewish conflict on religious leadership. Bregman, The Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature, 168. On this new Christian state theology: Spyros N. Troianos, “Christians and Jews in Byzantium: A Love–Hate Relationship,” in Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, ed. Robert Bonfil et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 136–141. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV Meshalim on Election and Power 289 legal conditions. In any case, TB clearly reflects a sharp decline in the political status both of the homilist and his audience. In this context, the rabbinic homilist interpreted Abraham as a politically powerless but ethically just person, and divine revelation as a moment that revealed the nations’ corrupt leaders’ unwillingness to accept divine law. TB deploys a homiletic strategy of religious superiority and resistance, deploying biblical apocalyptic imagery. The Jewish nation, progenitors of Abraham, the intimate friend of God, and ultimate bearers of the Torah and its promises, may be in turmoil now; however, it will be vindicated in a final, divine retribution. Acknowledgements This study is part of the Research Project ‘Parables and the Partings of the Ways’ (NWO funded 2014–2020, project nr. 360 25 140). For information about this ongoing project: www.parabelproject.nl. Parts of this article were presented at the European Association for Jewish Studies (Paris, 2014) and in a seminar on late midrash organized by Ronit Nikolsky and Lieve Teugels (Utrecht, 2015). I thank Arnon Atzmon and Ronit Nikolsky for organizing inspiring and beneficial sessions on late rabbinic midrash, for their helpful comments, and for the editorial work. For use by the Author only | © 2022 Koninklijke Brill NV