1. See Paul, S. M., 'Enfiqlopedyah miqra'it(Jerusalem, 1976), s.v. “Shir ha-shirim.”Google Scholar

2. Thus Artom, E. S., Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim.,2d ed. (Tel Aviv, 1973); Amos Ḥakham, (Tel Aviv, 1942); Mordecai Halter, Shir ha-shirim, (Tel Aviv, 1963), pp. 18–20, and others.Google Scholar

3. He writes: “The court ladies, hearing the rustic girl say that she wishes to be with her shepherd, tell her ironically to go, and be employed in the low and toilsome occupation of a shepherdess, rather than enjoy the exalted and easy life of a royal favourite” (Ginsburg, C. D., The Song of Songs, [London, 1857], p. 136). Note also his other interpretive comments.Google Scholar

4. Tur-Sinai, N. H., Ha-Lashon ve-ha-sefer, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1951), 2: 366.Google Scholar

5. Isaac Heinemann illustrated them well in his book Darkei ha-'aggadah, (Jerusalem, 1954). For exegesis on the Song of Songs see also Urbach, E. E., “Derashot HaZaL u-ferushei Origenes le-Shir ha-Shirim ve-ha-vikkuah ha-yehudi-noseri”, Tarbiz, 30 (1960): 148–150.Google Scholar

6. Heinemann, Darkei, pp. 130–36. The verses are taken as one unit in: Sifre, Num., 138–39; Song R. 1:7 (a few pericopae); Exod. R., 2:4; Tanḥuma Exod. 14; Tanhuma (ed. Buber), Exod. 12; in Exod. R. 3:4 there is exegesis only on verse 7 (in a fashion similar to earlier exegeses, but in the Almighty's response verse 8 is missing); in Sifre, Deut., 305 (ed. Friedmann) and in ARNa 17, verse 8 is cited (as support for Moses' words to Joshua), and in the Mekhilta (henceforth: Mek.), Shirata, 10, ed. Horowitz-Rabin, p. 149 (Lauterbach, 2: 77) there is exegesis on the verse (without citing the speaker, but here also it refers to the generation of the wilderness): “The kids enter but not the goats.” For another exegesis on verse 8 see B.T. Shab. 33b.

7. The versions appear in the article itself or in the Appendices.

8. Finkelstein, Louis, ed., Sifre 'al sefer Devarim, (Berlin, 1939), p. 325Google Scholar. See also the extensive discussion in his book: Mavo le-massekhtot 'Avot ve-'Avot de-Rabbi Natan, (New York, 1950), pp. 112–14. A similar classification of the versions is implied in Lieberman's comment (Tosefta ki-feshuṣah, henceforth: Tos. Kif, p. 271). See also Bacher, Wilhelm, Aggadot ha-tanna'im, 4 vols. (Berlin, 1922), vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 33, n. 2;Google ScholarNeusner, Jacob, A Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai, (Leiden, 1970), pp. 186–187.Google Scholar

9. The division is according to the number of versions, and no chronological order is intended.

10. The tradition about his wealth is preserved in B.T. Giṣ. 56a; Lam. R. 1:17 (§ 31); and in the group B stories. Even though all of them are later than the Tosefta, the very mention of the name makes it seem likely that the narrator and the audience knew of his wealth and possibly even of the tradition about the amount in the ketubbah, from her father and father-inlaw (see 4.1).

11. The phrase “each day” (be-khol yom), appears in the P.T. (Appendix I) and Lam. R. (Appendix II) versions. In the Genizah fragments of Lam. R. the phrase “each year” appears. In Rabinowitz's opinion (Rabinowitz, Z. M., “Geniza Fragments of Midrash Lamentations” [Hebrew], Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, (Jerusalem, 1977), 3: 439), the version is enlightening, because the story in other versions is “questionable and exaggerated, for would not five hundred denarii a day be sufficient?” One version, however, cannot overshadow all the others and the phrase “each year” does not coincide with the levirate laws (see n. 12; in Lam. R. the phrase “and she was only awaiting the levir” does not appear). The sages' verdict is tied to the halakhah “the bridegroom undertakes [to provide] ten denarii for her basket [of perfumes] for each and every portion” (Mishnah Ket. 6:4, Tos. Ket. 6:6). See Lieberman's discussion Tos. Kif, p. 277, and Rashi writes (Ket. 66b, s.v. “la-quppah”): “the Mishnah does not specify whether it is each day, each Sabbath, each month or each year.” In the B.T. discussion the question of time is raised and the issue is left unsolved (teiqu), but there are grounds for the B.T. exegetes' observation (see Tosafot, s.v. “le-yom rishon o le-khol yom va-yom” and see Shifah mequbbeṣet, and Menahem ha-Meiri on B.T. Ket. 66b) that the allotment of ten denarii a day for each portion would have depleted the husband's resources quickly and it is reasonable that the allotment was given one time only. Rashi, in his explanation of our story in the B.T., renders as “for one day's needs” and the Tosafot's words point to this same interpretation, but the sum for one day's needs seems illogical, even for someone extremely wealthy. In light of the B.T. version “for that day,” one might infer that the sum was given one time only on that particular day, but the Palestinian sources remain hard to fathom. Whatever the case, the phrase serves to make the woman's unexpected reaction more severe.Google Scholar

12. Tos. Yev. 6:7, ed. Lieberman, p. 20; B.T. Yev. 41b; B.T. Ket. 107b.

13. I am grateful to Dr. Zvi Groner for this observation.

14. For a summary of opinions see Gilat, Y. D., Encyclopedia Judaica, (Jerusalem, 1971), s.v. “Eleazar ben Zadok.”Google Scholar

15. Similarly, in Even Shoshan's dictionary: “So I will be privileged to hear the heralding of the redemption of Israel, as it is right that…”

16. Rubin, Yaaqov, Hebrew Encyclopedia, (Jerusalem, 1979), s.v. “Shevu'ot u-nedarim.”Google Scholar

17. In our case: if what I said is incorrect. It is interesting to note Rashi's second interpretation (B.T. Makkot 5b, s.v. “er'eh ba-nehamah”): “he swears his sons will die and I will not see consolation for them.”

18. Perhaps this is an additional reason for the language of the oath at the beginning of his words.

19. This conclusion contradicts that of Naomi Cohen in her article, “The Theological Stratum of the Martha b. Boethus Tradition.” Harvard Theological Review, 69 (1976): 187–195. There may even be grounds for citing the story's connection to a historical event. This tie is strengthened by the mention of the place—Acre—which was a Roman colony in the period of the Destruction (see Atlas Carta, p. 78).Google Scholar

20. In the halakhic context: “This was said in what regard? The poor of Israel, but also the honored of Israel—each according to his own honor.” See above and Tos. Kif., p. 277.

21. “They taught his name was not Nakdimon, but Boni” (B.T. Ta'anit 20b and see Lieberman, p. 270, n. 40).

22. R. Aha, mentioned often in the P.T., was in the fourth generation of Palestinian Amoraim. See Albeck, Hanokh, Maw la-talmudim, (Tel Aviv, 1969), pp. 316–318.Google Scholar

23. For the verse's connection to the story, see Naomi Cohen, n. 19 above.

24. Regarding the B.T., see 3.4. One should note that the Song verse comes as an additional verse, said by R. Eleazar at the end of the story about Martha and before our story.

25. Rabinovitz, Z. W.(Sha'arei toral eref Yisra'el, [Jerusalem, 1940]) p. 388 suggests that the version be corrected and writes: ‘“They taught it once happened that Miriam the daughter of Nakdimon ben Gurion.’ This is like the B.T. 66b and Tos. Chap. 5, and Sifre Niṣṣsavim, 305, and ARN Ch. 17 [in none of these sources does the first name Miriam appear—my note], and Pes. R. Chap. 30 §9, and Lam. R. 1:17 §51. ‘That they allotted her,’ etc. said R. Aha, ‘and they did not follow her words with Amen.’ R. Eleazar ben R. Zadok said ‘May I behold the Consolation if I did not see her picking barley grain beneath horses’ hoofs in Acre, and I applied to her this verse: ‘If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, etc’ (this is according to all six aforementioned sources).”Google Scholar

26. See Maharzu's (Ze'ev Wolf) explanation, s.v. “gediyyotayikh”.

27. Above, n. 11. According to Lieberman, the deed was not “because of the law of our Mishnah, but because she rises with him and does not fall with him” (Tos. Kif., p. 277). In my opinion this is not the case with the sugya, in the B.T.

28. The Tosafot ignore the matter of “for that day,” and Maharam Schiff writes that the text of the Tosafot might not have included “for that day.”

29. Braude, WilliamPesikta Rabbati, [New York and London, 1968] translates the verse as follows: “If thou are not known, O thou fairest among women, it is because thou followest upon, etc.” (p. 589), and inn. 15 he cites the accepted translation. Braude's translation is based on R. Zadok's question to the father—“Who is this young woman with you?—(the section is missing from the printed texts and is present in the Parma MS), but in the Hebrew source the verse is cited literally. I feel it preferable to bring the interpretation as a footnote and to cite the original in the text, rather than vice versa.Google Scholar

30. Compare with Finkelstein's opinion, above, and n. 8.

31. This separation exists in a number of exegeses; see above n. 6.

32. The interpretation is common in the Middle Ages as well, but I refrain from expanding upon the issue here.

33. Compare Jonah Fraenkel's conclusion in his article, ”Bible Verses quoted in Tales of the Sages“ in Heinemann, Joseph and Noy, Dov, eds., Studies in Aggadah and Folk-Literature(Jerusalem, 1971), p. 99.Google Scholar

34. For a similar conclusion on the genre of the exegetical story, see my article: “Hasippur ha-dareshani be-midrash qadum u-me'uhar,” Sinai, 86 (1980): 246–266.Google Scholar

35. There is also a version: “and her father would not enter, etc.”—all in the singular.

36. There is only one version: “I have not found [its meaning] until now”—and this seems likely to me.

37. In most MSS, “and the language,” and this is how it should be.

38. The division into units is intended to shorten the discussion and the comparison.

39. Following Braude's translation, n. 29, which I feel is appropriate here also.

40. Compare the second interpretation with Rashi, s.v. “im lo ted'i,” B.T. Ket. 67a. Regarding the Arabs, see Epstein-Halevi, Elimelech, Haaggadah-ha-hisforit-biyyograflt, (Tel Aviv, 1975), pp. 257–258. Although it is reasonable that the choice of Arabs echoes a historical fact (in Halevi's opinion), it would not be far wrong to suppose the play on words (shepherds) (Arabs) had some influence.Google Scholar

41. Rashi interprets the proverb (s.v. “melah mamon heser”) thus: “Whoever wants to salt his wealth-—hat is to preserve it—will regularly deplete it for charity, and this depletion is the wealth's continued existence. And others say ‘benevolence’ (ion): he shall practice benevolence from it, and her father's household did not practice charity properly, and its wealth dissipated.” See also Samuel Edels, s.v. “melah mamon heser” and the commentary Anaf Yosef, (in Ein Ya'aqov), s.v. ‘“amerah lo, rabbi, la ke-dein,” Halevi, Ibid, p. 258, writes: “The proverb, ’the salt of money is missing should be understood at face value: money has no salt which can preserve it for a long time.” According to his interpretation, the daughter does not blame her father for the loss of the money, but the discussion (Appendix III. C) makes the interpretation of the rishonim, seem more acceptable.

42. Her father-in-law's identity has not been preserved in rabbinic sources, but see Tos. Kif., p. 270.

43. Even though this interpretation can fit the Sifre version also, because the narrator in the two versions is not interested in finding a solution for the plight of the girl, it seems preferable to use this interpretation here only. Here, not only is the former interpretation untenable, but perhaps the daughter of Nakdimon is afraid that R. Yohanan has reservations about her because of her father's behavior.

44. See Samuel Edels's interpretation, s.v. “ashrekha”: “He said happy art thou in both cases because in truth both contradictory situations are to Israel's advantage, etc.”

45. The passage, with a few variations, is found in the Sifre as part of R. Yohanan's words.

46. This is also the reason why it is doubtful that in the original context R. Eleazar responded to the second story in the B.T., even though from a chronological standpoint it is possible for R. Eleazar to have responded to a story about R. Yohanan.

47. See Finkelstein, above n. 8.

48. Picking grain under the feet of cattle is more probable outside the city. Yet it is interesting that in the Pes. R., undoubtedly a relatively late midrash, the encounter is also in the market.

49. Compare with Halevi, above n. 40.

50. E. E. Urbach (“Ha-Yehudim be-'arsam bi-tequfat ha-tanna'im,” Befiinot, 4 [1953]: 70), writes: “unbiased inspection of this story shows that the entire issue of ‘you did not want, etc’ is a later addition. R. Yohanan, upon witnessing the spectacle, read out only the verse ‘if thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock.’ The person who adds this draws the conclusion from the story, and this addition is absent in all the parallel sources, etc. The addition should be ascribed to the time of its being included in the compilation.” In my opinion, the whole story in the Mek. is the result of editing. We have no reliable way of examining the history of the story before the editing, and rabbinic stories reflect the compilers' standpoints more than they do the reality of the periods narrated.

51. Wacholder, Ben Zion, “The Date of the Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael”, Hebrew Union College Annual, 39 (1968): 117–144.Google Scholar