Talmud zu Schir haSchirim 1:18

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah: Three lectured their teachings⁴¹About the Work of the Chariot. in front of their teachers: Rebbi Joshua in front of Rabban Joḥana ben Zakkai, Rebbi Aqiba in front of Rebbi Joshua, Ḥananiah ben Ḥakhinai in front of Rebbi Aqiba. From there on their mind was not pure⁴²Studies of Ez. 1 were no longer tolerated.. Four entered the Garden⁴³Gnostic interpretations., One peeked and was hurt; one peeked and died; one peeked and cut saplings, one entered in peace and left in peace. Ben Azzai peeked and was hurt; about him the verse says⁴⁴Prov. 25:16. The implication is that eating more than his fill is dangerous., if you found honey, eat your fill. Ben Zoma peeked and died, about him the verse says⁴⁵Ps. 116:15., dear in the Eternal’s eyes is the death of his pious. Aḥer peeked and cut saplings. Who is Aḥer? Elisha ben Abuya, who killed the children of Torah. They said, if he saw a student excelling in Torah he killed him. Not only this, but he went to the school house and saw children in front of their Bible teacher. He said, what are these sitting doing here? The profession of this one is builder, the profession of this one is carpenter, the profession of this one is hunter, the profession of this one is tailor. When they heard this, they left him⁴⁶The teacher. and went away. About him the verse says⁴⁷Eccl. 5:5., do not let your mouth make your flesh sin⁴⁸This quote seems to support Y. Kutscher’s suggestion that “Aḥer” does not mean “the other” but “the one in heat”, since “flesh” describes the male organ., etc.; for he destroyed the deeds of himself. Also in the time of religious persecution they⁴⁹The Romans, during the Hadrianic persecutions. made them⁵⁰The Jews. carry loads. They⁵⁰The Jews. intended that two together should carry one load, because of two persons who performed one work⁵¹It is implied that the Jews were forced to carry on the Sabbath. Two people carrying one load do not break a biblical prohibition. Cf. Šabbat Chapter 1, Note 105.. He⁵²Elisha ben Abuya. said, make them carry singly. They⁴⁹The Romans, during the Hadrianic persecutions. went and made them carry singly. They⁵⁰The Jews. intended to unload in karmelit, in order not to carry from a private to a public domain⁵³To avoid breaking a biblical prohibition, Šabbat Chapter 1, Note 73.. He⁵²Elisha ben Abuya. said to them⁴⁹The Romans, during the Hadrianic persecutions., let them carry flasks; they made them carry flasks⁵⁴To be transported from one private domain to another through public domain, a biblical infraction.. Rebbi Aqiba entered in peace and left in peace; about him the verse says⁵⁵Cant. 1:4. Babli 15b., draw me, I shall run after you, etc.

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits are decided,” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, if the Torah had been given decided²¹חתך “to cut” in this connection is a translation of Latin decidere (literally “to cut off; settle, decide.) There is no reason why R. Yannai could not have acted as a Roman Judge, just like his contemporary R. Jonathan (cf. Bava batra 3:4 and Introduction to Tractate Neziqin.) R. Yannai counts it as an advantage that the Torah is formulated as a set of potentially ambiguous principles rather than a collection of court decisions which would represent unchangeable precedents., no foot could stand. What is the reason? The Eternal spoke to Moses²². Qorban He`edah takes this as a reference to Ex. 12:1, where v. 2 continues: This month is for you the beginning of months; first it shall be for you of the year’s months. The two clauses in the verse have different status. In the first part, God designated the first month of the year of the Exodus. In the second part, Moses and his successors are commanded to determine every year which month should be “first”. The Torah does not give an algorithm to determine which lunar month has to serve as “Spring Month” (Ex. 13:4). Any calendar system agreed to by Moses’s successors has divine sanction. (The current method, concentrating on designating the seventh month, from time to time yields rather questionable results.). He said before Him: Master of the Universe, inform me what is the practice. He told him, to bend²³This is the opposite of rigidity. The understanding of Torah and with it the entire code of behavior required by it is a function of time. While precedents should be overthrown only for very weighty reasons, no rule is invariable for all times. after the majority.¹⁸The use of the verb נטה “to bend” referring to judicial decision is from Ex. 23:2. If there was a majority for acquitting, they acquitted; if there was a majority for convicting, they convicted; so that the Torah²⁴That means, every precept in the Torah can be explained as having 49 different negative and 49 different positive aspects. could be explained in 49 ways impure and 49 ways pure, the numerical value of²⁵Cant. 2:4: “His banner over me is love.” The numerical value is 6+4+3+30+6 = 49. ודגלו. And so it says²⁶Ps. 12:7. “Sevenfold” is interpreted as 7² = 49.: the commands of the Eternal are pure sayings; molten silver in an earthenware crucible, refined sevenfold. And it says²⁷Cant. 1:4. Since מישרים is a plural, it indicates that the Torah has a plurality of straightforward interpretations., the straightforward love You.

Rebbi said to Rav Periri⁷⁸He appears only here and the title “Rav” is impossible for anybody in the Yeshivah of Rebbi except Rav himself. R. S. Cirillo changes the name to Rebbi Pedat (who however lived long after Rebbi), R. Eliahu Fulda and R. Moses Margalit use “Rebbi Peridah,” a mythical figure from the Babylonian Talmud who is reputed to have lived for over 400 years. He would fit into the story but one might doubt that Rebbi would hurt him. I wonder whether the person in question is not Rav himself and פרירי is an (Aramaic-Arabic فورار) address of endearment “my lamb”. In that case, one has to translate: Rebbi said to Rav: My lamb, will you not show me.… Since Rav was a relative of the Heads of the Diaspora and rich, he could have owned real estate whose yield would sustain him during his years of study.: Would you show me the bunch of grapes in your vineyard? He said to him, if you come out, I will show it. When he was still far away, he spied something like an ox. He said to him, does not the ox destroy the vineyard? He said to him, what you take for an ox is the bunch of grapes. He quoted for it (Cant. 1:12): “As long as the King was at his round table, my nard gave its fragrance79;” the Temple is destroyed and you persist in your obstinacy? Immediately, they looked for it and it was never found again.

HALAKHAH: “[Denial] about words of the Sopherim is more serious,” etc. Halakhah 6:“One executes him not,” etc. ⁵⁴This and the next paragraphs are from Berakhot 1:7 (Notes 182–191) (ת). It is copied again in Avodah zarah 2:8 41c l. 46 (ע). The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are pleasant like the words of Scripture; your throat is like good wine⁵⁵Cant.7:10. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, for your friendship is better than wine⁵⁶Cant.1:2.. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: You may know that he words of the Sopherim are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, because if Rebbi Tarphon did not recite at all he would only have transgressed a positive commandment. But because he transgressed the words of the House of Hillel he should have suffered death since it says, if one breaches a wall he will be bitten by a snake⁵⁶Cant.1:2..

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua when they were walking on a road, why did they forbid Gentiles’ cheeses²⁸¹They were forbidden in Mishnah 6 for all usufruct without any obvious reason.? He told him, because they make them with stomach of cadaver²⁸²The rennet is taken from the stomach contents of cattle killed by Gentiles and therefore automatically have the status of cadavers. Since the rennet causes the milk to curdle, its addition cannot be said to be insignificant. Therefore one understands that the cheeses are forbidden as food. Since the rennet is produced from an animal and cheese (including kosher cheese made by Jews) is made by cooking milk with rennet, it could be forbidden for all usufruct as meat cooked in milk following R. Simeon ben Ioḥai (Mekhilta dR. Ismael Masekhta deKaspa20).. He answered him, is not the stomach of an elevation offering²⁸³An elevation offering is burned completely on the altar. The stomach contents (and the contents of its intestines) are not burned; the innards have to be washed before being put on the altar (Lev. 1:9). Eating from a cadaver is a simple infraction which requires no sacrifice; eating from an animal dedicated as elevation sacrifice is both an infraction and larceny requiring a sacrifice. more serious than the stomach of a cadaver and they said, a Cohen who is not repulsed may burn it raw²⁸⁴The Cohen may eat the stomach contents raw since they are considered excrement; the rennet therefore cannot be considered meat and the Gentile’s cheese should be permitted even as food! For the expression “to burn” for “to slurp” see Note 321.; they did not agree to this but said one has no usufruct²⁸⁵While the previous statement is essentially correct there is a (customary or rabbinic) rule that it would not be decorous to do so; one refrains from using any part of the animal (except the hide given to the priests, Lev. 7:8) as a practical rule. but does not commit larceny²⁸⁶As a rule of biblical law. Therefore Gentiles’ cheese could at most be rabbinically forbidden..
He³⁰³R. Joshua. gave a second argument and said, because they curd it with stomach content of calves for pagan worship. He³⁰⁴R. Ismael. retorted, then why did they not forbid it for usufruct²⁸⁹Therefore even R. Ismael must agree that these cheeses are forbidden; but they should be forbidden for usufruct.? He³⁰³R. Joshua. deflected him to an other subject³⁰⁵As the Babli explains, since it was a new purely rabbinic restriction introduced after the destruction of the Temple, he did not want to disclose the reason. and said to him, my brother Ismael, how do you read, for your (m.) friends are better than wine, or for your (f.) friends are better than wine³⁰⁶Cant. 1:2. Since the Song is read as a dialogue between God (m.) and Israel (f.), the theological interpretation depends on the vocalization which was not directly expressible before the invention of vowel signs. The interpretation given in the Halakhah requires the identification of דּוֹדִים as “friends, lovers” rather than “friendship, love.”? He³⁰⁴R. Ismael. told him, for your (f.) friendship is better. He³⁰³R. Joshua. answered, it is not so since the next verse implies it, by the scent of your (m.) good oils³⁰⁷Cant. 1:3. As in most cases, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted. The verse ends: therefore girls love you. Since the Song of Songs clearly celebrates heterosexual love, the speaker must be a female addressing a male.
The following interpretation of the Mishnah follows S. Naeh [שלמה נאה, טובים דודיך מיין, מבט חדש על משנת ע״ז ב:ה; מחקרים בתלמוד ובמדרש, ספר זכרון לתירצה ליפשיץ, י-ם 2005 ע' 434-411.]. There are two problems. What is the relationship of the Mishnah 7 and the first part of Mishnah 8 to the second part of Mishnah 8? Also the discussion in Mishnah 8 does not seem to make sense. Since Cant. 1:2 starts: May he kiss me with kisses of his mouth, it should be clear that the speaker is the female. Why should R. Ismael, who everywhere else requires that a verse be interpreted according to its plain sense, suddenly switch speakers in middle sentence? Why does R. Joshua refer to 1:3, when a referral to 1:2 would be more appropriate? The unvocalized text of 1:2–3 has a chiastic structure: It starts clearly with the masculine, has a middle section which could be read in the masculine or the feminine, and ends again with the masculine.
R. Ismael proves convincingly that there is no biblical basis for the prohibition of Gentile cheese; it is purely rabbinical. It can be regarded as a “fence around the law” only with regard to the prohibition of intermarriage, since it is designed to make social intercourse between Jews and Gentiles as difficult as possible. Then the question arises as to the status of the much more important prohibitions oil and wine. The prohibition of oil clearly is rabbinical even though it is mentioned as particularly meritorious in Daniel; no reason could be found in dietary laws to prohibit Gentile cold pressed virgin olive oil. While wine actually used for pagan libations is biblically forbidden, the extension of the prohibition to almost any wine moved in any way by a Gentile, even one adhering to a faith not practicing libations (or even prohibiting the drinking of wine), must be considered rabbinical. Now wine in mentioned in v. 1:2 and oil in v. 1:3. The discussion between Rabbis Ismael and Joshua is about the status of the prohibitions of wine and oil.
As mentioned in Note 306, any rabbinic reference to the Song of Songs unquestionably reads sentences put into the mouth of the female as coming from the congregation of Israel (as represented by its rabbinical leaders) and that of the male as referring to God. R. Joshua asks R. Ismael about his opinion about the actual rules referring to Gentile wine. The latter, by putting the reference to wine in the mouth of the male, asserts that the prohibition of Gentile wine essentially is God’s decree, is biblical. R. Joshua, the overriding authority, informs him that the references to wine and oil have equal status; since the prohibition of oil in almost all cases has no pentateuchal basis, the prohibition of wine also in almost all cases is purely rabbinical (Cf. Halakhah 5:4, Note 67)..

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua when they were walking on a road, why did they forbid Gentiles’ cheeses²⁸¹They were forbidden in Mishnah 6 for all usufruct without any obvious reason.? He told him, because they make them with stomach of cadaver²⁸²The rennet is taken from the stomach contents of cattle killed by Gentiles and therefore automatically have the status of cadavers. Since the rennet causes the milk to curdle, its addition cannot be said to be insignificant. Therefore one understands that the cheeses are forbidden as food. Since the rennet is produced from an animal and cheese (including kosher cheese made by Jews) is made by cooking milk with rennet, it could be forbidden for all usufruct as meat cooked in milk following R. Simeon ben Ioḥai (Mekhilta dR. Ismael Masekhta deKaspa20).. He answered him, is not the stomach of an elevation offering²⁸³An elevation offering is burned completely on the altar. The stomach contents (and the contents of its intestines) are not burned; the innards have to be washed before being put on the altar (Lev. 1:9). Eating from a cadaver is a simple infraction which requires no sacrifice; eating from an animal dedicated as elevation sacrifice is both an infraction and larceny requiring a sacrifice. more serious than the stomach of a cadaver and they said, a Cohen who is not repulsed may burn it raw²⁸⁴The Cohen may eat the stomach contents raw since they are considered excrement; the rennet therefore cannot be considered meat and the Gentile’s cheese should be permitted even as food! For the expression “to burn” for “to slurp” see Note 321.; they did not agree to this but said one has no usufruct²⁸⁵While the previous statement is essentially correct there is a (customary or rabbinic) rule that it would not be decorous to do so; one refrains from using any part of the animal (except the hide given to the priests, Lev. 7:8) as a practical rule. but does not commit larceny²⁸⁶As a rule of biblical law. Therefore Gentiles’ cheese could at most be rabbinically forbidden..
He³⁰³R. Joshua. gave a second argument and said, because they curd it with stomach content of calves for pagan worship. He³⁰⁴R. Ismael. retorted, then why did they not forbid it for usufruct²⁸⁹Therefore even R. Ismael must agree that these cheeses are forbidden; but they should be forbidden for usufruct.? He³⁰³R. Joshua. deflected him to an other subject³⁰⁵As the Babli explains, since it was a new purely rabbinic restriction introduced after the destruction of the Temple, he did not want to disclose the reason. and said to him, my brother Ismael, how do you read, for your (m.) friends are better than wine, or for your (f.) friends are better than wine³⁰⁶Cant. 1:2. Since the Song is read as a dialogue between God (m.) and Israel (f.), the theological interpretation depends on the vocalization which was not directly expressible before the invention of vowel signs. The interpretation given in the Halakhah requires the identification of דּוֹדִים as “friends, lovers” rather than “friendship, love.”? He³⁰⁴R. Ismael. told him, for your (f.) friendship is better. He³⁰³R. Joshua. answered, it is not so since the next verse implies it, by the scent of your (m.) good oils³⁰⁷Cant. 1:3. As in most cases, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted. The verse ends: therefore girls love you. Since the Song of Songs clearly celebrates heterosexual love, the speaker must be a female addressing a male.
The following interpretation of the Mishnah follows S. Naeh [שלמה נאה, טובים דודיך מיין, מבט חדש על משנת ע״ז ב:ה; מחקרים בתלמוד ובמדרש, ספר זכרון לתירצה ליפשיץ, י-ם 2005 ע' 434-411.]. There are two problems. What is the relationship of the Mishnah 7 and the first part of Mishnah 8 to the second part of Mishnah 8? Also the discussion in Mishnah 8 does not seem to make sense. Since Cant. 1:2 starts: May he kiss me with kisses of his mouth, it should be clear that the speaker is the female. Why should R. Ismael, who everywhere else requires that a verse be interpreted according to its plain sense, suddenly switch speakers in middle sentence? Why does R. Joshua refer to 1:3, when a referral to 1:2 would be more appropriate? The unvocalized text of 1:2–3 has a chiastic structure: It starts clearly with the masculine, has a middle section which could be read in the masculine or the feminine, and ends again with the masculine.
R. Ismael proves convincingly that there is no biblical basis for the prohibition of Gentile cheese; it is purely rabbinical. It can be regarded as a “fence around the law” only with regard to the prohibition of intermarriage, since it is designed to make social intercourse between Jews and Gentiles as difficult as possible. Then the question arises as to the status of the much more important prohibitions oil and wine. The prohibition of oil clearly is rabbinical even though it is mentioned as particularly meritorious in Daniel; no reason could be found in dietary laws to prohibit Gentile cold pressed virgin olive oil. While wine actually used for pagan libations is biblically forbidden, the extension of the prohibition to almost any wine moved in any way by a Gentile, even one adhering to a faith not practicing libations (or even prohibiting the drinking of wine), must be considered rabbinical. Now wine in mentioned in v. 1:2 and oil in v. 1:3. The discussion between Rabbis Ismael and Joshua is about the status of the prohibitions of wine and oil.
As mentioned in Note 306, any rabbinic reference to the Song of Songs unquestionably reads sentences put into the mouth of the female as coming from the congregation of Israel (as represented by its rabbinical leaders) and that of the male as referring to God. R. Joshua asks R. Ismael about his opinion about the actual rules referring to Gentile wine. The latter, by putting the reference to wine in the mouth of the male, asserts that the prohibition of Gentile wine essentially is God’s decree, is biblical. R. Joshua, the overriding authority, informs him that the references to wine and oil have equal status; since the prohibition of oil in almost all cases has no pentateuchal basis, the prohibition of wine also in almost all cases is purely rabbinical (Cf. Halakhah 5:4, Note 67)..

“Because they curdle it,” etc. ³⁰⁹This paragraph and the next are from Berakhot 1:7 (Notes 182-191) and Sanhedrin 11:6 (Notes 54-57); Midrash Cant. 1(18). The Geniza fragment ends here on line 2.The colleagues in the name of Rebbi [Joḥanan]: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are (more pleasant than) [pleasant like] the words of Scripture; your throat is like good wine³¹⁰Cant.7:10; Babli 35a.. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, for your friends are better than wine³¹¹Mishnah Berakhot 1:7.. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Bar Pazi: You may know that the words of the Sopherim are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, because if Rebbi Tarphon³¹²Cant. 1:2. did not recite at all he would only have transgressed a positive commandment. But because he transgressed the words of the House of Hillel he should have suffered death since it says, if one breaches a wall he will be bitten by a snake³¹³Eccl. 10:8..

¹⁹⁰Midrash Cant. rabba 1(43), Pesiqta dRav Cahana Šimˋu (ed. Buber p. 118a). Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁹¹Cant. 1:6.: My mother’s sons bore ill-will against me, (etc.) [they made me a guard of the vineyards; my vineyard I did not guard.]¹⁹²Addition from G. What caused me to guard the vineyards? Because my vineyard I did not guard. What caused me to keep two days in Syria¹⁹³Those parts of the kingdom of David and Salomon which were not part of the Second Commonwealth; its status was intermediary between that of the Land and the diaspora but holidays were kept there for two days as in the diaspora; cf. Peah 7:6 Note 119.? Because I did not keep one day in the Land. I was thinking that I would be rewarded for both, but I am rewarded only for one. What caused me to separate two ḥallot in Syria¹⁹⁴Biblical law prescribes ḥallah only for produce of the Land (Num. 15:18–19). Rabbinic practice extends the obligation to the rest of the world but, since the soil outside the Land is intrinsically impure, any ḥallah outside the Land is impure and must be burned. In Syria, some dough has to be given to the Cohen to be consumed in imitation of the obligation in the Land; cf. Ḥallah 4:7.? Because I did not separate one ḥallah in the Land. I was thinking that I would be rewarded for both, but I am rewarded only for one. Rebbi Joḥanan read for them, but I Gave them prescriptions which are not Good[and laws by which they cannot live]¹⁹⁵Ez. 20:25. He considers the second day of a holiday in the diaspora as a kind of punishment.. Rebbi Abbahu went to Alexandria and made them carry lulavim on the Sabbath¹⁹⁶In a year in which the first day of Sukkot was a Sabbath he told the Jews of Alexandria to keep only one day of the holiday since he knew the (as yet unpublished) rules of calendar computation. Since the obligation to take the “four kinds” essentially is restricted to the first day (Lev. 23:40) he permitted the ceremony on a Sabbath against the rule that in the diaspora the “four kinds” may not be taken on the Sabbath. (Cf. Sukkah 3:13).. Rebbi Immi heard it and said, who (feeds them) [brings them]¹⁹⁷The text of G [in brackets] is preferable over that of L (in parentheses). Rebbi Abbahu every year¹⁹⁸In the absence of a published calendar, the exact computation of the date of the holiday depends on the presence of a competent scholar, which is rare outside the Land.? Rebbi Yose sent and wrote to them: even though we wrote you the order of holidays, do not change the usage of your departed ancestors¹⁹⁹The action of R. Abbahu is officially disapproved of with the publication of the calendar rules. While today anybody who knows how to add and subtract can compute the Jewish calendar and there is no longer any ambiguity in fixing the holidays, the calendar rules were published by the Academy of R. Yose (the talmudic sources do not mention any participation of the Patriarch) with the explicit stipulation that they may be used only if the second day of holidays be observed outside the Land (Babli Besah 4b). {Quoted by R. Ḥananel ad40b, Roqeaḥ §198, Maˋase Roqeaḥ §93, Or zaruaˋ §140 (vol. 2 p. 211a in the edition Jerusalem 2010).}.

BARAITHA.⁹⁹Pes. 50b (Sonc. ed., p. 246). As for them who write [Torah] scrolls tefillin and mezuzoth, they, their traders and their traders’ traders¹⁰⁰i.e. all who trade with them directly or indirectly. do not see a sign of blessing.
GEMARA. ‘As for them who write scrolls’:¹⁰¹V inserts: ‘Tosiftha, end of tractate Bikkurim’, a marginal note which was included in the text. because they may omit or add a letter.¹⁰²Cf. ‘Erub. 13a (Sonc. ed., p. 81), R. Ishmael’s injunction to R. Meir, who was a scribe, ‘Be meticulous in your work, because your occupation is sacred; should you perchance omit or add one letter, you would thereby destroy all the universe’.
We have learnt there:¹⁰³Sanh. 88b (Sonc. ed., p. 587). If one says, ‘There is no precept of tefillin so that a Biblical law may be transgressed’, he is exempt [from punishment].¹⁰⁴Since all people know that the Torah commands the donning of tefillin. [But if he rules that the phylactery of the head must consist of] five compartments, thus adding to the words of the Sages, he is liable.¹⁰⁵Because not everyone is aware of the rule that it must have four compartments. According to whom is this? It is according to R. Simeon who said: [It is written,] For thy love is better than wine:¹⁰⁶Cant. 1, 2. In the Heb. the word for love is plural and interpreted by R. Simeon in the sense of ‘beloved men’, i.e. the scribes and scholars who are beloved of God. [these are the scribes]. Accordingly when the man¹⁰⁷Who declared that there was no precept of tefillin. uproots a whole [commandment of the Torah] or a whole verse, he is not liable;¹⁰⁸This is the reading of H; the word in V is corrupt. but where he uproots the law concerning a suspended letter¹⁰⁹Certain words in the Heb. text have a letter suspended above the line; cf. ARN, p. 164. or crownlets on letters¹¹⁰Cf. Men. 29b (Sonc. ed., p. 190): ‘Raba said: Seven letters in the Torah require each three crownlets’. he is liable.¹¹¹Cf. j.Ber. I, 4, 3b: ‘The words of the scribes … are dearer than the words of the Torah’.
The Rabbis have taught:¹¹²For the parallels to these passages, cf. Pes. 50b (Sonc. ed., p. 245). The [earnings of] writers of scrolls, [the wages of] interpreters,¹¹³Officials who delivered the Sabbath lecture to the congregation. The Rabbi whispered his statements to the interpreter, who explained them to the people. The term may also denote those who translated the reading of the Torah in the service into Aramaic for the understanding of the congregation. money which comes from countries overseas,¹¹⁴Danger was involved in the transport of goods by sea and there was the risk of loss. and [the payment of] ḥazzanim¹¹⁵Functionaries who combined the offices of supervisor of children’s studies in the Synagogue, beadle, court crier and janitor. Cf. Shab. 11a (Sonc. ed., p. 41, n. 7). never see a sign of blessing. ‘The [earnings of] writers of scrolls’: what are these scrolls? The twenty-four books¹¹⁶On the number of the books of the Bible, cf. L. Blau, Zur Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift, pp. 6ff. if not examined. ‘Interpreters’: because they receive pay for work on the Sabbath. ‘Money which comes from countries overseas’: because a miracle happened.¹¹⁷And miracles do not happen every day; Pes. 50b (Sonc. ed., p. 240). ‘And [the payment of] ḥazzanim’: Because [they are engaged] in the work of the Lord. It has been taught:¹¹⁸Pes. loc. cit. They who write scrolls, tefillin and mezuzoth do not see a sign of blessing; but if they engage [in this task] for its own sake,¹¹⁹i.e. their aim is to be of service to the community, profit being a secondary consideration. they do see [a sign of blessing].

She has no claim to wine since poor Jewish women do not drink wine²⁴⁹And the rules are written only for the poor; Tosephta 5:8; Babli 64b.. Do rich women drink? Did we not state: It happened that the Sages assigned to Martha bat Boethos²⁵⁰The paradigm of a rich widow; cf. Yebamot 6:4, Note 75. two se‘ah of wine every day. How can the court assign wine²⁵¹Let a woman drink wine in the absence of a husband. The Babli, 65a, approves of not more than one cup of wine per meal.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, because of “Whoring, wine, and cider will destroy the mind.²⁵²Hosea 4:11. It is inferred that drinking wine induces sexual desires.” But did we not state: ”If she was nursing, one reduces the amount of her work and increases her food”? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said wine, for it increases the milk²⁵³The same statement is in the Babli, 65b.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also²⁵⁴The original scribe wrote אין which by the first corrector was changed into אף. One has to assume that the scribe intended אִין, Babylonian Aramaic “yes”; in a Yerushalmi text this is a corruption. they assigned it for cooking²⁵⁵If her food was cooked with wine there was no problem since cooking eliminates the alcohol.. Nevertheless, she cursed them and said to them, so you should give to your daughters. Rebbi Aḥa said, and we answered her, Amen²⁵⁶As confirmation.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said, I should not see consolation²⁵⁷Being part of an oath formula, the positive has a negative implication and vice versa. The implication is that the speaker would give up his share of paradise if what he says is not true. if I did not see her collecting barley grains between horses’ hooves at Acco. I quoted about her the verse: “The dainty one among you and the pampered, …²⁵⁸Deut. 28:56, the chapter of curses.” “If you have no experience, most beautiful of women, go following the flock …²⁵⁹Cant. 1:8. This verse has a positive interpretation in all Midrash sources.”. But did we not state²⁶⁰The reliability of the tradition about Martha bat Boethos is questioned since a parallel tradition is reported about another woman. But it seems that both traditions are one and that Martha (“the lady”) bat (“of the family of”) Boethos is Miryam bat Simeon ben Boethos, cf. Yebamot 6:4, Note 75; Josephus Antiquities xv. 320 ff. In the Babli, 65a and 66b/67a (for the second story, Tosephta 5:9–10), both stories refer to one person, the widowed daughter-in-law of one Nikodaimon ben Gorion waiting for her levir; in the second story (in an intended contrast to the Yerushalmi) it is emphasized that nobody said “amen”, (because the unhappiness of a childless widow cannot be compensated with money.): It happened that the Sages assigned to Miryam, the daughter of Simeon ben Gorion, a daily supply of perfume for 500 denar, when she was only waiting for her levir. Nevertheless, she cursed them and said to them, so you should give to your daughters. Rebbi Aḥa said, and we answered her, Amen. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said, I should not see consolation if I did not see her bound with her hair to a horse’s tail at Acco. I quoted about her the verse: “The dainty one among you and the pampered, …”.

Set a plan for yourself to study Torah. How so? When Moses our teacher saw [that his children] were not learned enough (in Torah) to be able to rise to leadership after him, he wrapped himself up and arose to pray. He said before God: Master of the World! Let me know who should come in and go out as the head of this people, as it says (Numbers 27:15–17), “Moses spoke to the Eternal, saying, Let the Eternal, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation who will go out before them and come in before them.” The Holy Blessed One replied to Moses: Moses, [take Joshua for yourself. Then the Holy Blessed One said to Moses]: Go and find a disseminator for him, and have him give a teaching at the head of the great men of Israel.¹The disseminator transmits the words of the teacher to the multitude. By being told to establish a disseminator, Moses was being asked to appoint Joshua in his lifetime as a teacher of the nation. Immediately, Moses said to Joshua: Joshua, these that I turn over to you are not goats but kids, (and not sheep) but lambs. For they still have not taken on the mitzvot. They still have not become fully grown goats, as it says (Song of Songs 1:8), “If you do not know, most beautiful of women, go out and follow the footsteps of the flock, and graze your kids by the shepherd’s dwellings.”

Once, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai was walking through the marketplace and he saw a young woman who was collecting barley from under the legs of the animals of the Arabs. He said to her: My daughter, who are you? She was quiet. He said again: My daughter, who are you? She was quiet. Then she said to him: Wait one moment. She wrapped herself with her hair and sat in front of him and said: Rabbi, I am the daughter of Nakdimon ben Gurion. He said to her: So my daughter, where is all your father’s money? She said: Rabbi, isn’t it like what they say in Jerusalem: One who wants to preserve his fortune must give some of it up. (Or, as some say, must be kind.) He said to her: And what about your father-in-law’s household? She replied: One lost the fortunes of the other. Then Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said to his students: All my life, I have read this verse (from Song of Songs 1:8), “If you do not know, most beautiful of women, go out and follow the footsteps of the flock, and graze your kids by the shepherd’s dwellings.” But I did not understand [that there was a punishment in] it until what I saw today. Now I see that Israel will be punished by subjugation to a lowly nation [and not only to a lowly nation, but to the dung droppings of their animals]. Again she spoke to him and said: Rabbi, do you remember that you signed my marriage contract? He said: Yes. Then he said to his students: It is true that I signed this young woman’s marriage contract, which was worth a million golden Tyrian dinars. Her father’s family would not leave their house to enter the Temple unless a woolen rug was laid out for them.

Rabbi Hananya, deputy of the priests, would say: Anyone who takes words of Torah to heart is no longer troubled by thoughts of destruction, thoughts of hunger, foolish thoughts, lustful thoughts, thoughts of temptation, thoughts of another man’s wife, thoughts of meaningless things, or thoughts of human burden. So it was written in the book of Psalms by King David (Psalms 19:9), “The precepts of the Eternal are true, bringing joy to the heart. The commandments of the Eternal are clear, illuminating the eyes.” But anyone who does not take words of Torah to heart is troubled by thoughts of destruction, thoughts of hunger, foolish thoughts, lustful thoughts, thoughts of temptation, thoughts of another man’s wife, thoughts of meaningless things, and thoughts of human burden. So it was written in Deuteronomy (28:46–48) by Moses our teacher, “They will be a sign and a proof against you and your offspring for all time. Because you would not serve the Eternal your God with joy and gladness over the abundance of everything. You will have to serve, in hunger and in thirst, naked and lacking everything.” “In hunger.” How so? (When a person wishes) to eat even barley bread, but has nothing, and then his enemies come and ask him for wheat bread and fatty meat. “In thirst.” How so? When a person wishes he could drink just a drop of vinegar, or beer, but has nothing, and then his enemies come and ask him for the finest wine in the land. “Naked.” How so? When a person wants to wear a wool or linen shirt, but has nothing, and then his enemies come and ask him for the finest silk in the land. “Lacking everything.” Without a candle, without a knife, and without a table. Another interpretation of “lacking everything”: Without vinegar and without salt. For this is a curse that people often give: May there be no vinegar or salt in your house!
He would also say (with regard to Song of Songs 1:6): “Do not look at me, for I am blackened, scorched by the sun.” These are all the Jewish girls who cast off the yolk of the Holy Blessed One, and accepted human kingship upon themselves.
[The verse continues:] “My mother’s children were angry with me.” This is Moses, who killed the Egyptian, as it says (Exodus 2:11–12), “Sometime after that, when Moses had grown older, he went out among his brothers and saw what they were enduring…and he turned this way and that, and saw that there was no one there.” What do we learn from “there was no one there”? This teaches that Moses brought the question before the council of angels who serve God, and asked them: Shall I kill this man? They said to him: Yes, kill him. And did Moses kill him with a sword? No, he killed him with words, as it says (Exodus 2:14), “Are you saying you will kill me, just as you killed the Egyptian?” This teaches that Moses killed him by saying the [Ineffable] Name of God.
(Another interpretation of) “My mother’s children are angry with me”: this is Moses, who fled to Midian, as it says (Exodus 2:15,17), “Pharaoh heard what happened, and sought to kill Moses, and Moses fled from Pharaoh. He arrived in the land of Midian, and sat down by a well…And some shepherds came and tried to drive [Jethro’s daughters] away. And Moses got up and saved them, and gave water to their flocks.” Then Moses came and sat among them to render judgment. He said: The general practice in the world is for men to fill the buckets and women to give water to the animals. Here, women draw the water and men give the water to the animals. There is a perversion of justice in this place! (They are guilty by law, and have become guilty through this incident.) Some say that the whole time Moses was standing near the mouth of the well, the water was bubbling up to meet him, and when he left, the water went back down. Then Moses said: Woe is me! For I have left my people and come to live among these heathens.
Another interpretation of “My mother’s children are angry with me”: This is Israel, who made the Golden Calf. At first, they said (Exodus 24:7), “Everything the Eternal has said, we will do and we will understand.” And then they went back and said (Exodus 32:4), “These are your gods, Israel!”
Another interpretation of “My mother’s children are angry with me”: These are the spies, who slandered the land and caused Israel to die in the desert, as it says (Numbers 14:29), “In this desert your carcasses will fall.”
“They made me guard the vineyards” (Song of Songs 1:6). The Holy Blessed One said: Who is it that caused Me to favor the heathens? Israel! (For while) the heathens live well, [Israel] are oppressed, scorned, and scattered about.
Another interpretation of “They made me guard the vineyards”: This is Israel, who were exiled to Babylon. And prophets rose among them and told them to separate their donations and tithes. The people said to them: We were exiled because we did not separate our donations and tithes, and now you tell us we should separate them? [And that is why it says, “They made me guard the vineyards.”]

Rabbi Yosei would say: Anyone who honors the Torah will be honored by others, as it says (I Samuel 2:30), “For those that honor Me, I will honor; and those who scorn Me will not be taken seriously.” “Those who honor Me, I will honor” – this refers to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who showed honor to the One who spoke and brought the world into being when he marched out at the head of his troops. His servants said to him: The custom is that kings march out only at the rear of their troops, and you are marching out at the head of your troops. He said to them: Am I going out to encounter a human king? No, I am going to encounter the King of all kings, the Holy Blessed One. That is why the Holy Blessed One showed honor to him by punishing him personally, as it says (Song of Songs 1:9), “I have likened you, my darling, to a mare in Pharaoh’s chariots.”

Rabbi Papius would say: The congregation of Israel was favored above the horses in Pharaoh’s chariot, as it says, “You led your horses into the sea.”
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karha would say: When Pharaoh went into the sea, he rode on a male horse. But then the Holy Blessed One revealed it to be a female horse, as it says (Song of Songs 1:9), “To a mare in Pharaoh’s chariots.” But was it perhaps not a chariot, but a cherub? As it says (Psalms 18:11), “He mounted a cherub and flew, gliding on the wings of the wind.” What happened is that the cherub appeared like a team of female horses, and they all went into the sea.
Those who scorn Me will not be taken seriously” – this is Sennacherib, who scorned the One who spoke and brought the world into being (thus scorning the Holy Blessed One), as it says (Isaiah 37:24–25), “Through your servants you have blasphemed my Lord. Because you said: Thanks to my vast chariotry, I have climbed the highest mountains to the remotest parts of the Lebanon, and have cut down its loftiest cedars, its choicest cypresses, and have reached its highest peak, its densest forest. I have drawn and drunk water. I have dried up all the streams of Egypt with the soles of my feet.” Therefore, the Holy Blessed One punished him through an emissary, who shaved his head and beard, and sent him back in shame to his own land.
(Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka would say: One who learns in order to teach, etc.) He would also say: You need not be ready to study the entire Torah, but neither are you free to leave it all aside. Rather, one who continues to add to his learning adds greatly to his reward.
Rabbi Elazar ben Hamsa would say: The study of bird offerings and the calculations of menstruation – these are the essence of the Law.
Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri would say: Legal matters, ritual purity, bird offerings, and the calculations of menstruation – these are the essence of the Torah.
He would also say: Setting the [great] table, and establishing and supporting a court – both bring goodness into to the world.