Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T09:01:03.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

External Appearance versus Internal Truth: The Aggadah of Herod in Bavli Bava Batra

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2011

Yonatan Feintuch
Yonatan Feintuch*
Affiliation:
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
*
tani700@gmail.com

Extract

King Herod ruled Judea from 37 to 4 bce. His life and achievements are described in detail in the writings of Flavius Josephus and have been explored in numerous historical studies. In rabbinic literature, however, mention of Herod's image and achievements is scarce. The few sources that do exist are very brief, with the exception of one significant source in the Babylonian Talmud (henceforth: BT), which will be discussed in this article.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
AJS Review , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , April 2011 , pp. 85 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 2011

King Herod ruled Judea from 37 to 4 bce. His life and achievements are described in detail in the writings of Flavius Josephus and have been explored in numerous historical studies.Footnote 1 In rabbinic literature, however, mention of Herod's image and achievements is scarce.Footnote 2 The few sources that do exist are very brief, with the exception of one significant source in the Babylonian Talmud (henceforth: BT), which will be discussed in this article.

The opening chapter of tractate Bava Batra in the BT contains a relatively lengthy Aggadah about Herod (3b–4a; henceforth: the Aggadah). The direct and immediate context of this Aggadah is a halakhic discussion (3b, line 18 and onward) about the prohibition to destroy or take apart a synagogue, even if it is done with the intention of rebuilding it. On this background, the Talmud asks how the scholar Baba b. Buta advised Herod to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem and reconstruct it. After offering two possible answers to the questions, the text presents the Aggadah:Footnote 3

The characters and the historical background

The characters of the story include historical figures from the time of Herod, who appear in the house of the Hasmoneans and the Romans. The story itself is not, most probably, a precise historical account; indeed, that is not its purpose. Instead, it is an Aggadah that has a historical kernelFootnote 16 with which its creators took the freedom to formulate and convey their message without being bound by precise historical facts.Footnote 17

Another character is Baba b. Buta, a disciple of Shammai the Elder.Footnote 18 Rabbinic literature alludes to several stories that attest to Baba's wisdom, piety, humility, and honesty.Footnote 19 Here, too, it is difficult to ascertain the historical reliability of the details, yet it seems fitting that Baba's character appears here beside Herod, because of the historical period as well as the character's traits.Footnote 20

Literary analysisFootnote 21

Form

The Aggadah is composed mostly in Babylonian Aramaic and includes a story and two “appendices.” The continuity is interrupted occasionally by alternative traditions; these adopt the linguistic form of “some say” (lines 8–11, 32–33), and contain interpretive comments (lines 41–42). The story falls into four sections:

  1. A. Herod and the Hasmonean girl

  2. B. The killing of the scholars

  3. C. The conversation with Baba b. Buta, which may also be divided into the following parts:

    1. 1. Herod disguising himself and the “test” he gives Baba b. Buta

    2. 2. Herod's “revelation” and Baba b. Buta's advice

  4. D. The renovation of the Temple and Rome's reaction

The two “appendices” consist of the following:

  1. A. The beauty and splendor of Herod's buildingFootnote 22

  2. B. A discussion about the legitimacy of Baba b. Buta's advice to a non-Jewish king with a short discussion about the biblical character of Daniel

Each part, especially A and B, constitutes a story in itself. Nonetheless, they are woven into a single narrative framework in a fashion that creates literary unity in both content and structure: In both parts Herod murders an entire group whom he fears, and leaves one person who is useful to him. The comparison is emphasized in the structure (lines: 4–5; 15–16 in the story text, above)

The repetition of the structure in the first two parts highlights the repetitive nature of Herod's actions, emphasizing a pattern that characterizes his personality: Herod is a paranoid, murderous tyrant who is willing to kill anyone standing in his way; he spares only those few who do not pose a threat for him and may be of use later on. The use of wordplay further draws the reader's attention to the similar purpose of sparing both the girl and the sage; such wordplay is apparent in the majority of the textual witnesses, between the word למינסבה—to marry—with respect to the girl, and the expression למינסב עצה—to take advice—with reference to the sage.

Central themes

Two central themes are evident throughout the story and are stressed in recurrent vocabulary that serves as keywords:Footnote 24

  1. A. Servant versus king (עבד-מלך‎)Footnote 25

  2. B. Building versus destroying (בניה—סתירה‎)

Each of these two themes relies on the tension that exists between two opposites, as we shall explore below.

A. Servant versus King

A central theme in the Aggadah takes note of the roles of servant versus king (henceforth: servant-king). The Hebrew root ע.ב.ד, meaning “servant,” appears in the story six times (lines 1, 3, 6, 17, 38, 40) and occurs once more in Appendix B.Footnote 26 The Hebrew root מ.ל.כ, meaning “kingdom,” appears seven times (five times in the story itself, in lines 11, 12, 20, 21, 34, and twice in an interpretive parenthetical clause, at line 41). The lines preceding the story contain two additional appearances, while Appendix B includes three.Footnote 27

The servant-king theme is central to the content of the story as well. Herod is originally a servant (line 1) aspiring kingship. When the chance presents itself, he usurps the kingship by force and wipes out the royal family. Subsequently, tension follows with regard to the question of Herod's legitimate status as a king; issues remain about whether as a usurper he is still a servant or, indeed, a king. This tension about his status is expressed by several peripheral circles: the Hasmonean girl, the rabbis, and the Romans. The Hasmonean girl, in a dramatic proclamation, undermines the status of Herod and his house (line 6); then, by committing suicide, she prevents his marriage with the legitimate royal family. The rabbis threaten Herod's status by expounding the following verse: “From the midst of thy brethren shalt thou set up a king . . .” (line 12), thus denouncing the appointment of a king who is not officially of Jewish lineage.Footnote 28 Finally, the “true” existing monarchy, the Roman Empire (termed in the story and its appendices as just מלכותא (“the kingdom”), attenuates Herod's status as a king with the scorning sentence: “such is the custom of bad servants: they consult after the thing is already done . . . your genealogical record, however, is here in our archives, in which it can be seen that you are not a king (rekha), nor a descendant of kings” (line 39). They thus they declare that even if Herod in practice rules Judea and operates independently against their will, in their eyes he is still but a servant. The Roman Empire, because of its external status on the one hand and its undisputed rule on the other, constitutes a sort of mirror, reflecting the truth beyond all disguises and illusions.

However, the external environment's attenuation of Herod's status does so no more than Herod does himself. His lack of confidence in his own status leads to his unsuccessful, repetitive attempts to reinforce it. Herod attempts to marry the king's daughter, a step that might provide official legitimacy to his reign. However, when his attempt fails, he tries (at least according to one opinion)Footnote 29 to create a superficial impression of marriage to the royal family by conserving the Hasmonean girl's body in honey and pretending that she remains alive. The biblical verse questioning the legitimacy of his rule, which Herod attributes to the rabbis, is described in the story as a thought passing through his mind; indeed, it is unclear whether the rabbis had actually threatened his rule. At any rate, he murders them. Herod continues to fear the only remaining rabbi and consequently blinds him. The story describes, with considerable irony, how Herod places a garland of lizards ('כלילא דיילי') on Baba b. Buta's head.Footnote 30 Within that plot, Herod intends to mock the rabbi,Footnote 31 yet the narrator actually directs the irony back at Herod himself, as this act expresses, once again, Herod's lack of confidence in his own reign. Herod's dialogue with Baba b. Buta also reveals his self-doubt. Herod's act of disguising himself expresses the king's insecurity about his subject's loyalty, which leads to a desire to discover Baba b. Buta's true feelings toward him. To test Baba b. Buta's loyalty, Herod attempts in the dialogue to make claims against his own status as a king. Obviously, such a dialogue serves the function of expressing Herod's internal doubts.

During the dialogue with Baba b. Buta, the latter employs various verses to support his decision not to be tempted to curse Herod. With the exception of the verse “nor put a curse upon a chieftain among your people” (Exodus 22:29),Footnote 32 the three other verses consist of different parts of the same verse, Ecclesiastes 10:20: “Don't revile a king even among your intimates. Don't revile a rich man even in your bedchamber. For a bird of the air may carry the utterance, and a winged creature may report the word.” Analysis of Ecclesiastes 10 reveals that the connection between the chapter and the Aggadah about Herod is not limited to this verse alone. Several verses in the chapter, if read in the context of the Aggadah, contribute significantly to the theme of servant-king. For example (verse 7): “I have seen slaves on horseback, and nobles walking on the ground like slaves” is a statement that matches the theme which, we assume, is central to the story. Likewise, verse 17: “Happy are you, O land whose king is a master (lit., a free man). . . .” It is unreasonable to ignore the silent cry of the narrator when he alludes to this chapter. Again, the verse cited by Baba b. Buta is but a link to the statements of Ecclesiastes 10, which add a valuable interpretation to the story.Footnote 33

At the end of the dialogue, Herod explicitly reveals his insecurity by responding to Baba b. Buta's suggestion. Herod states, “I fear the Kingdom.” Here the text contains an expression that parallels the words of Baba b. Buta, who had said, with regard to Herod (line 25), “I fear him.” Herod is thus again presented in an ironic manner, being compared to the blind rabbi who fears him. Herod reveals that deep inside he is still a servant and that the only absolute reign is that of “the Kingdom”—the Roman Empire. In general, Herod's attempts to stabilize his status as a king, some of which are grotesque (e.g., conserving the body in honey) or just plainly pathetic, are unsuccessful, and the picture that emerges is ironic, as these attempts express his lack of self-confidence.

Another literary device demonstrating the tension of the servant-king theme is found in the sophisticated wordplay in a message the Romans send to Herod: עבדי בישא בתר דעבדין מתמלכין. The simple literal translation of the sentence is thus: “Bad servants consult only after the deed is done.” The Romans criticize Herod for rebuilding the Temple and then consulting his superiors (although to the reader this may allude also to Herod's slaying of all the rabbis and his subsequent consulting of Baba b. Buta on ways to correct the mistake). Yet the use of the Hebrew roots ע.ב.ד (servant) and מ.ל.כ (king) is not incidental, but rather creates an ambiguity related to the theme. The sentence may be read: עבדי בישא—bad servants, תר דעבדין—after being servants, מתמלכין—attempt to become kings. Yet, as far as the Romans are concerned, such a move is meaningless: A servant remains a servant.

The theme of servant-king is thus constructed on the gap, or tension, between the impression that Herod tries to create as a king and the internal, inevitable truth, which exist both in the external environment and inside Herod himself, causing a constant questioning of the legitimacy of his moves. This tension is intensified in the story by another pair of keywords: eye/sight—voice/hearing: The Hebrew root ע.י.ן (eye) appears in the story four times (at lines 2, 15, 32, 33); ח.ז.י/ר.א.ה (to see) appears twice in the story (5, 17) and three times in appendix A. These words emerge at key points, as shall be seen hereinafter.

The story begins with Herod “casting his eyes”Footnote 34 upon the Hasmonean girl, and from there his rebellion progresses. The episode of the Hasmonean girl ends with Herod conserving her body in honey for seven years. Here, indeed, the key words עיןor ראיהare not mentioned. However, it is clear that the issue is creating a sort of visual illusion: an attempt to take someone who has died and pretend she is alive. The aim, at least according to one version (line 11), is to deceive the public by attempting to give Herod's kingship artificial legitimacy through the illusion of a marriage to the official dynasty. According to the second version, however, the assumption is that Herod's intention was to have intercourse with her; here the issue is to create a (self-) illusion, even if it is not necessarily visual.

In a sense, the killing of the rabbis follows the same pattern. What troubles Herod is the verse “Be sure to set as king over yourself one of your own people.” Herod believes that in physically killing the rabbis he will abolish their doctrine and destroy the truth they express.

The encounter between Herod and Baba b. Buta relies, to a large extent, on the symbolism of eyesight: Herod, who has blinded Baba b. Buta, approaches him, assuming that the latter is at a disadvantageous position. The story emphasizes the irony by phrasing Herod's opening sentence with the word see: “Let the master see what the bad servant Herod has done.”Footnote 35 It seems that Herod is trying to scorn the blind rabbi and emphasize his inferiority. Yet soon the tables are turned and it is the rabbi who has the upper hand. It is difficult to determine whether Baba b. Buta knew to whom he was speaking. One way or the other, however, he controls the conversation in an ironic and unexpected manner. All of Herod's attempts to thwart him are in vain. The story thus presents the issue of eyesight, whose absence in the rabbi not only does not harm him but possibly even contributes to his triumph. Since eyesight has a misleading and deceiving potential, sometimes the blind, who act without it, “see” the precise truth.Footnote 36 Herod then admits his mistake and asks for advice on how to correct it.

Baba b. Buta's response emphasizes the issue of eyesight (line 39 on): “You have blinded the eye of the world.” The word eye here has double meaning: It is metaphorical, in the sense of rabbis being the eye of the world, but it also has the simple literal significance of Baba b. Buta's eye, which had been blinded. Here, the story again implies that true sight is not necessarily the sight of the eye, but is something deeper. “The eye of the world” means the rabbis, who represent Torah and wisdom, which are independent of external eyesight.

The path of repentance suggested to Herod is also phrased in terms relating to eyesight. The expression “the eye of the world” (or its equivalent in the alternative version, “the light of the world”) has double meaning: It holds an obvious metaphorical connotation—the Temple, which like the rabbis, constitutes “the eye of the world” because of the Torah that emanates from it. There is also a more physical meaning, since Herod's reform is related to the external aspect of beautifying the appearance of the building: a positive occupation with the outward appearance of things in place of a negative one. In the appendix, we learn that Herod intended to cover the building with gold. It is possible that this statement parallels the idea of Herod's covering the Hasmonean girl with “golden” honey. The consistency of his actions is emphasized: Herod, even when he makes amends, acts like Herod, through external appearances.

In his actions toward the Romans, Herod repeats the pattern of attempting to delude and deceive.Footnote 37 The Romans, however, expose his intentions in a clear and scathing manner; their harsh response emphasizes the gap between Herod's ambitions and their realization.

Eyesight versus hearing. The limits of eyesight are shown through a contrast to the sense of hearing. The sense of hearing is real and not an illusion. The story opens with a voice,Footnote 38 according to which a servant who should rebel “now” would succeed. Indeed, Herod seizes the opportunity and his rebellion succeeds, completed through the killing of all his masters’ descendants. The next use of the sense of hearing (or in this case, voicing) is in the words of the Hasmonean girl (line 6). The story emphasizes that she raises her voice and orally expresses the inner truth that is interwoven in the whole story. She reveals that both the servant who had become a king and his descendants rule illegitimately; their real status remains that of servants. In the discussion of Herod with Baba b. Buta, the power of sounds and voices in uncovering the truth is also emphasized: Baba b. Buta answers Herod's claim about their being alone with the following claim: “for a bird of the air may carry the utterance . . .” (line 27). Unlike eyesight, which has a limited focus onto those who are present, and from which one can hide visual things, sounds are not limited or blocked by screens (physical nor metaphorical). What is said will eventually be discovered.Footnote 39

Eyesight is thus exhibited by the story as an inferior sense with many limitations. This sense is often misleading or deceiving, whether done intentionally or without intention. This idea intensifies in light of what was said previously, that Herod is a servant attempting to rule, and succeeds in doing so in certain external senses, yet fails in other, more essential, ones. To a large extent, Herod's success in achieving royal status depends on various visual illusions. The sense of eyesight is presented as a possible means for creating an external illusion that lacks real truth behind it.

B. Building versus Destroying

This theme appears in the story in a more limited manner than the previous one, at least in a literal sense. The terms building and destroying occur mainly in the last part. All in all, the Hebrew root ס.ת.ר (destroy) appears five times, and the root ב.נ.ה (build) three times. Herod, according to Baba b. Buta's advice, destroys the existing building of the Temple in order to build another one in its place. But in a sense beyond the literal, the theme exists in other places in the story as well. In fact, Herod “destroys” a whole layer of rabbis and is advised to “build” something parallel, the Temple, to correct what he had destroyed. The story also begins with Herod “destroying” the house of the Hasmoneans. This destruction, however, does not find its correction in the story.

The links between the Aggadah and the talmudic sugya within which it is integrated

The Aggadah of Herod appears after a talmudic discussion about the first section of the Mishnah (Baba Batra 1:1), consisting of the following two statements:

If two jointholders agreed to make a partition in a courtyard, they must build a wall in the middle. Wherever it is the local custom to build with untrimmed stones, [or with] hewn stones, [or with] half-bricks, [or with] bricks—so they must build it. . . .

The talmudic discussions preceding the Aggadah relate to these two statements in the Mishnah:

  1. 1. There is a discussion about the law of damage of “sight,” presented through an interpretive discussion about the concept of “partition” in the Mishnah.

  2. 2. There is a discussion about the possible building materials of the partition, which includes three parts:

    1. a. An interpretive discussion about the words גויל, גזית, לבנין וכפיסין (untrimmed stones, hewn stones, half-bricks, bricks) that appear in the Mishnah.

    2. b. A discussion about building materials, following the examples in the Mishnah.

    3. c. A discussion about destroying a synagogue and rebuilding it. At the end of this discussion appears the Aggadah about Herod. As mentioned, this Aggadah is simply part of the discussion about the ruling of R. Hisda, which forbids the destruction and rebuilding of a synagogue. With this prohibition in the background, the Talmud questions the advice Baba b. Buta had given Herod to destroy the Temple and rebuild it. Indeed, the theme of destroying and building is important, as demonstrated above.

However, it is unclear why the entire unit, which opens with the discussion on R. Hisda's ruling and ends with the Aggadah about Herod, was placed in its present location in the BT. This unit does not relate directly to the Mishnah nor to the talmudic segment before it, which deals, following the Mishnah, with various building materials. Seemingly, the natural location of R. Hisda's ruling about destroying a synagogue and then rebuilding would be in the fourth chapter of tractate Megillah (26a–b), where a discussion about precisely this matter—destroying a synagogue—is found. Indeed, R. Hisda's ruling appears there. However, the rest of the discussion about R. Hisda's ruling, which appears in Bava Batra, does not appear in the Megillah sugya, although its insertion there would be more natural. Since we are not dealing with the Megillah tractate, we shall not go into detail about its discussion. Nevertheless, an attempt should be made to understand the appearance of the discussion about destroying and building and the story of Herod in Bava Batra, assuming that the lines from “and R. Hisda said” until the end of the story about Herod form one unit.

Theoretically, the integration of this unit into its present context may be explained in several ways:

  1. A. A link to the previous talmudic section: the section that precedes the discussion about destroying and building deals, following the Mishnah, with the various building materials with which the partners build the partition between them. The discussion about the building materials develops into one about אמה טרקסין—the partition that had existed in the Temple and separated the outer sanctum from the inner. In this context, the difference between the First and Second Temples is mentioned. One difference between the two is expressed in the proclamation “great shall be this second house,” which states that the advantage of the Second Temple over the First is in its magnificence. To this we may tie the story about Herod and its discussion about the Temple's splendor after Herod's renovation. It is plausible that the whole unit dealing with the building of a synagogue and its destruction has been presented in this context. This link seems to be the most direct and therefore the most reasonable explanation for inserting the unit into its present location.

  2. B. The link between the Aggadah about Herod and the first talmudic section on the Mishnah, which deals with “damage of sight.” This type of damage is caused by one's ability to gaze intrusively into a neighbor's private area. The Talmud discusses the question of whether “damage of sight is considered damage.”Footnote 40 In the Aggadah about Herod, as we have seen, a central motif relates to the sense of eyesight. The story deals intensively with the evaluation of this sense, mainly from a negative perspective. The Aggadah about Herod, however, does not explicitly mention the concept of damage of sight. Yet the story begins with the words, “Herod was a servant of the Hasmoneans. There was a girl among them upon whom he cast his eyes.” The expression “cast his eyes,” at the very least, implies damage of sight in the sense of gazing at something that does not belong to oneself, the royal family obviously being out of limits for the servant Herod.Footnote 41 We have seen that a central point in the story concerns Herod's action on the external-visual plane, whether in an attempt to deceive or in order to redeem himself. It might thus be said that the desire to present the story of Herod in relative proximity to the discussion of damage of sight had influenced, at least as an additional secondary consideration, the integration of the whole unit about destroying and rebuilding synagogues into the chapter. Alternatively, it is possible that after its integration, the relative proximity of the Aggadah about Herod to the discussion about damage of sight had influenced the content and design of the Aggadah. At the very least, it could be said that reading the story in the context of the discussion about damage of sight, which, in a sense, precedes the story though it is not adjacent to it, might draw the reader's attention to the issues related to eyesight in the story and the ethical views expressed in it.Footnote 42

The precise circumstances of the integration of the Aggadah about Herod into its present context at the beginning of the first chapter of Baba Batra are not entirely clear.Footnote 43 The story in itself is the only source in rabbinic literature that deals with the character of this tyrant, whose reign undoubtedly had a great impact, positively and negatively, on the final hundred years of the Second Temple, and had left its architectural mark on the Land of Israel. By means of the rich and sophisticated literary design of this story, the Talmud has succeeded in drawing the paranoid and internally torn character of Herod. It appears that the story, which describes also Herod's desire to correct some of his wrong deeds and attributes to him the significant enterprise of the renovation and expansion of the Second Temple, reflects a complex and somewhat ambivalent attitude, at least of the redactors of the BT, toward the man and his eminent architectural project. Yet at the same time, the creators of the story express a profound worldview about the relationship between what the eye can see and the inner truth that often underlies the appearance of things.

References

1. For historical sources and scholarship, especially in the context of the story that this article discusses, see below, note 16.

2. In rabbinic literature, Herod is mentioned almost invariably in the context of the rebuilding of the Second Temple (for rabbinical sources and additional ancient Jewish sources, see Schwartz, Daniel R., “Hordos ba-mekorot ha-Yehudiyim,” in Ha-melekh Hordos utekufato, ed. Naor, Mordekhai [Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Zvi, 1985], 38–42)Google Scholar. It should be noted that in tannaitic sources the construction of the Temple is said to have occurred in Herod's days, albeit without any mention of his involvement (see Sifra, Beḥukotai, par. 1:1, to Leviticus 26:4 [ed. Weiss, p. 110d] and parallels in Vayikra Rabba, Beḥukotai, par. 35, to Leviticus 26:3 [ed. Margaliyot, 4:828] and B. Ta‘anit 23a). The identification of the Temple as “Herod's Building” is only in amoraic sources (see B. Sukkah 51b and a partial parallel in the Aggadah that will be discussed below, B. Bava Batra 4a). According to Schwartz (esp. 38, 42) Herod himself is hardly mentioned in rabbinic literature because as a “secular” king, who generally avoided contact with the “religious” world, his relevance to this literature is minimal.

3. The Aggadah is presented here and translated according to text of the Vilna printed edition. In the footnotes, I note textual variants significant to the literary analysis, according to the following textual witnesses: M = MS Munich 95; F = MS Florence 9-I-II; E = MS Escorial G-I-3; P = MS Paris 1337; V = MS Vatican 115; Y = Ein Ya'akov, ed. princ., Salonika 1510. It should be noted that most of the Aggadah is missing from MS Hamburg 165 of tractate Nezikin. As a rule, in the Talmudic segment discussed in this article, the differences among the various textual witnesses are minimal.

4. M, F, V- שמע קלא, (V—an additional 'בת' between the lines); E—שמעינהו דקאמרי. Cf. Epstein, Jacob. N., Mevo'ot le-sifrut ha-’amora'im (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1962), 198Google Scholar.

5. M, F—The whole line is missing; V—כי מטא לגבא.

6. M—כי היכי דליפוק לי' קל' דנסי' בת מלכי. Y—כי היכי דניפוק ליה שם דנסיב בת מלכא.

7. All translation of biblical verses is according to the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh translation, in The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Berlin, Adele and Brettler, Marc Z. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

8. M, F, Y—שיירי.

9. E, M, F, V, Y—למיסב, P—למינסב.

10. A garland of lizards (according to Sokoloff, M., A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmud and Geonic Period [Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002], 533Google Scholar), and see also below, note 30.

11. M, F—הני מילי מלך האי לאו מלך הוא. E—הני מילי מלך האי הדיוט הוא. P—הני מילי מלך האי עבדא הוא. V—האי מלך מלך הדיוט הוא.

12. M—adds: א"ל האי עבדא הוא.

13. Cf. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, par. Mishpatim, to Exodus 22:27 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, 318, and cf. the parallels noted by Horovitz there): “A ruler of your people. . . . Why does it say ‘of your people’? When they behave in accordance with the custom of your people” (In some of the MS: “When they follow the custom of your people,” see textual variants for line 6 there); B. Yevamot 22b (as in all BT parallels): “It is written here, you shall not curse a ruler of your people, he who behaves in accordance with the custom of your people” (it can be assumed that the printed text of the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, presented by the Horovitz-Rabin edition, was affected by the above-mentioned Babylonian text).

14. M, E, F, P, V, Y—דצניעיתו.

15. M, E, F, P—כיבה. It is possible that the version of סימא in the other witnesses was created under the influence of Baba b. Buta's blinding.

16. Regarding the various parts of the story in comparison with historical sources: On the story in general, see Halevy, A. A., Sha‘arei ha'aggadah (Tel Aviv: Gottenberg Press, 1982), 183–88Google Scholar. On Herod and the Hasmonean girl, see Josephus, Flavius, Jewish War, 1, 22, 1–5, ed. Loeb, (London: Heinemann, 1927), 205–11Google Scholar; Shalit, Avraham, Hordos ha-melekh—ha-’ish u-fa‘olo (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1964), 40–43, 276–86Google Scholar. On the identity of the Hasmonean girl in the Aggadah, see also Ben-Zion Lurie, “Demuyot mi-zman kibbush Yerushalayim bi-yedey Sossius,” Proceedings of the 4th World Congress for Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1969), 1:97, and, in contrast, Feldman, Louis H., Josephus and Modern Scholarship (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1984), 282CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On part B of the Aggadah (the killing of the scholars), see Shalit, Hordos ha-melekh, 60–61 (and his footnotes, especially n. 10); on the building of the Temple, see ibid., 194ff. On Herod's personality, see Kasher, Aryeh and Witztum, Eliezer, King Herod: A Persecuted Persecutor: A Case Study in Psychohistory and Psychobiography, trans. Gold, Karen (Berlin and New York: W. de Gruyter, 2007)Google Scholar. At the forty-first annual conference of the Association for Jewish Studies (Los Angeles, December 2009), Jeffrey L. Rubenstein presented a paper titled “King Herod in Ardashir's Court: The Bavli Story of Herod (Bava Batra 3b–4a) in Light of Sasanian Sources.” In this intriguing paper, Rubenstein demonstrated that the story of Herod discussed here was influenced not only by Josephus but also largely by several Sasanian traditions. Thus, it seems that previous scholarly rulings with respect to the historical and literary kernels of the Herod story need to be reexamined. The idea that the Aggadah in Bava Batra is not a historical account, but rather a literary text based on a historical kernel, is supported by the fact that Part B of the story, dealing with the confrontation between Herod and the scholars, has several thematic parallels in the Talmud, which are very similar to the present story in their plot; they deal, however, with different characters. See B. Berakhot 48a; B. Sotah 47a (B. Sanhedrin 107b); B. Kiddushin 66b; B. Sanhedrin 19a. We find another tradition about King Yannai being brought before the Sanhedrin on account of his servant who committed murder, an event that ended with the death of all the Sanhedrin's scholars except for Shimon b. Shatah. This tradition parallels Josephus’ account of Herod being brought before the Sanhedrin for killing thieves in the Galilee without a trial, and silencing the judges with his belligerent appearance, with the exception of one rabbi (possibly Shammai the Elder; see Shalit, Hordos ha-melekh, 33 and n. 151; concerning the relationship between the stories about Yannai and Herod, see also nn. 152–53), who threatened the reticent judges with punishment from heaven (Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 14, 9, 4 [ed. Loeb, 539–43]). The relation between the characters of Herod and Yannai finds its expression also in the scholium of Megillat Ta‘anit, in the passage that relates to the second of Shevat (ed. Noam, 109–110, MS F; cf. also 122): “The second of Shevat. . . . Mourning is forbidden . . . and why do they differ? On the first it is not written that mourning is forbidden as on the second. On the first, Herod had died and on this, King Yannai. . . .” Further on it is recounted that Yannai attempted to bring about the killing of all the scholars on the day of his death, but the attempt was thwarted by his wife. According to Schwartz (above, note 2), the phenomenon that part of the Herod stories were “transferred” in rabbinic literature to Yannai is related to the sparse contact between Herod and the religious world, in contrast with Yannai, who as a High Priest and a Hasmonean spurred more interest among the rabbis. Thus, for example, the story in B. Sanhedrin 19a about Yannai is actually the story about Herod, but Yannai's name was inserted as the wicked king, and subsequently, Shimon b. Shatah's character was also inserted.

17. About this issue, see, e.g., Moshe D. Herr, “Tefisat ha-historyah ’etzel-hazal,” Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress for Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1977), 3:129–42; Fraenkel, Jonah, Darkhei ha-’aggadah ve-hamidrash (Givatayim: Yad la-Talmud [Massada], 1991), 235–38, esp. 238Google Scholar; Friedman, Shamma Y., “La-’aggadah ha-historit ba-Talmud ha-Bavli,” in Saul Lieberman Memorial Volume, ed. Friedman, Shamma Y. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993), 119–63Google Scholar; Rubenstein, Jeffrey L., Talmudic Stories, Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 3–8Google Scholar; Gafni, Isaiah M., “Tekufat ha-Mishnah ve-ha-Talmud: ḥeker shenot dor—hesegim u-tehiyot,” Cathedra 100 (2001), 215–26Google Scholar. Another general issue in the background of stories like that of the Herod story is the relationship between rabbinic literature and the writings of Flavius Josephus. This topic has already been the elaborated on by scholars, from many different angles. For example, Neusner (Neusner, Jacob, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999], 1:58–59; 387–88Google Scholar) points to parallels between the sages and Josephus, yet emphasizes the differences in the details between them. S. R. Isenberg (Isenberg, S. R., “Power through Temple and Torah in Greco-Roman Palestine,” in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, ed. Neusner, Jacob [Leiden: Brill, 1975], 2:24–52Google Scholar), conversely, agrees with Neusner that indeed there are sometimes differences in details between Josephus and rabbinic literature, yet he claims that it still appears that both sources lean on a common tradition, so that the differences do not express a real contradiction between the sources. Shaye J. D. Cohen, in “Parallel Historical Tradition in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature,” Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress for Jewish Studies, BI [1986] 7–14) addresses several examples and claims that parallels in Josephus to rabbinic stories can be used as controls, through which one can learn about the historical precision and the modes of formulating stories by the rabbis. For additional references, see Feldman (note 16 above), 296. See also Milikowsky, C., “Josephus between Rabbinic Culture and Hellenistic Historiography,” in Shem in the Tents of Japhet: Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism, ed. Kugel, Jacob L. (Leiden: Brill, 2002), esp. 181–90Google Scholar.

18. See T. Hagigah 2:11 (ed. Lieberman, 385); B. Beiẓah 20a; and cf. Ben-Shalom, Yisrael, Beit Shammai u-ma'avak ha-kanna'im neged Roma (Jerusalem: Yad Izhaq Ben Zvi, 1994), 104–107Google Scholar.

19. See M. Keretot 6:3; B. Nedarim 66a; B. Gittin 57a. In B. Beiẓah 21a it is recounted that despite the fact that he belonged to the house of Shammai, he supported a ruling of the house of Hillel when he knew that this was the true ruling. See also Heiman, Aaron, Toldot tann'aim ve-’amora'im (Jerusalem: Kirya Ne'emana, 1964), 1:261–62Google Scholar.

20. For the historical basis of Herod's and Baba b. Buta's meeting, see Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 15, 7, 10; 15, 10, 4 (ed. Loeb, 123–27; 177–81); Ben-Shalom, Beit Shammai, 106.

21. For a comparison of various parts, expressions, and motifs in this story to parallels in Ancient Greek literature, see Halevy, Sha‘arei ha'aggadah, 180–88.

22. Although in content this “appendix” constitutes a continuation of the story by discussing the renovation of the Temple, it is separated from the story by the opening term אמרי” (“it was said”), and by the appearance of questions and answers, unlike the story that precedes it.

23. This line does not appear in the textual witnesses M, F (see above, note 5); therefore, the comparison to the parallel sentence is only according to E, P, V. However, the content-related comparison is obvious even according to M, F, as well as in the use of the Hebrew root נ.ס.ב (in all the manuscripts) with regard to the Hasmonean girl: כי היכי דלימרו בת מלך נסב. In general, it seems that the author of the story or the redactor made intentional use of the root נ.ס.ב, and thus it seems that the versions that include this root are preferable to those that contain an alternative such as “למשקל”.

24. On keywords (Leitwörter) see, e.g., Alter, Robert, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981) 88–113Google Scholar; Bar-Efrat, Shimon, Ha-‘itzuv ha-’omanuti shel ha-sippur ba-mikra (Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Po‘alim, 1984), 22–23Google Scholar; and Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, 251–53. Avraham Walfish, “Shitat ha-‘arikha ha-sifrutit ba-Mishnah ‘al-pi masekhet Rosh Hashanah” (PhD Diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2001), 19, addresses rabbinic literature, and adds several additional criteria.

25. Secondary to this theme is that of rabbis versus kings in the second part of the story. In this part, Herod kills the rabbis and confronts Baba b. Buta, and it is possible that this implies the question about who a true king is, by way of the saying in B. Gittin 62a: “and they said: How do we know that rabbis are called kings? . . . as it is written ‘By me kings reign etc.’”

26. The root ע.ב.ד appears four additional times with a different meaning: “doing” (lines 17, 18, 36, 40).

27. The verse from Daniel, where the root appears twice consecutively, was counted as one appearance. The root appears one more time in line 38, meaning “consulting.”

28. See Shalit, Hordos, 42, 60 (and n. 1 there), and cf. M. Sotah 7:8, the opposite attitude toward Agrippa regarding the same biblical verse (on the identity of this Agrippa, see Saul Lieberman, Tosefta ki-fshutah, Sotah, 638). However, cf. in T. Sotah 7:16 (ed. Lieberman, 196) there is criticism in the name of R. Natan of the attitude described in the Mishnah. On both sources, see Schwartz, Daniel R., Agrippas ha-rishon: melekh Yehudah ha-’aḥaron (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 1987), 173–76Google Scholar.

29. The two versions in the Talmud (lines 8–11) express two opinions that had probably existed among the rabbis about Herod's motive for marrying the Hasmonean girl. (In actuality, both opinions find expression in the duality that exists at the beginning of the story: line 2 states that Herod “cast his eyes” upon the girl, as an introduction to the story and as a motive for the events that follow. In line 3, however, there is a description of a voice that promises success to the servant who rebels, which implies that the desire to rule is at the center of his motives.) These two aspects of Herod's actions are the basis for Shalit's discussion (above, n. 16) on the question of whether Herod's marriage to Miriam derived from his desire to strengthen the legitimacy of his rule or from his desire for her.

30. Concerning the meaning of the expression 'כלילא דיילי': 'כלילא' is a crown or garland. 'יילי/ילי/יאלי' is interpreted by Jastrow, Marcus (A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature [New York: Judaica Press, 1985], 576)Google Scholar as “hedgehogs,” while Sokoloff (Dictionary, 533) translates it as “lizards.” With regard to our issue, Jastrow writes: “Herod put around Baba's head a garland made of skin of hedgehogs which pricked his eyes out.” In his interpretation of the entire sentence, Jastrow follows in the footsteps of Rashi, who interprets (beginning at the words אהדר ליה כלילא דיילי‎): ילא is a vermin whose hair is hard as needles and he made a garland from its skin around his eyes.” According to these interpretations, the garland itself served to blind the rabbi. However, it seems that the garland serves two separate purposes in the story: 1. “Crowning” the rabbi with a thorny crown (as a means of ridicule, which is ironically directed by the narrator at Herod himself as part of the theme of servant-king). Possibly an ironic metaphoric use is made here of a motif from the stories of the New Testament of a garland of thorns the Romans had placed on Jesus’ head. 2. Blinding the rabbi, in order to weaken him and simplify Herod's exploitation of him.

31. See the previous note.

32. See above, note 12, about these lines being based on the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, as well as several Babylonian sources. In light of the fact that the use of this verse interrupts the sequence of the three parts of the verse from Ecclesiastes, it is possible that originally there had been three parts to Herod's persuading attempt and that the three had been answered by part of the verse from Ecclesiastes. At a later stage, the discussion about the verse from Exodus was transferred into the story because of the relation to the content of the dialogue. This assumption, however, has no support in the textual witnesses.

33. I thank Assaf Englard for pointing out this connection to me. It is possible that there is a connection to additional verses in chapter 10. For example, verses 9–10, “ . . . he who breaches a stone fence will be bitten by a snake. He who quarries stones will be hurt by them; he who splits wood will be hurt by it” might be interpreted, in the context of the story, as criticism regarding the destruction of the Temple and its renovation by Herod. Verse 12, “A wise man's talk brings him favor, but a fool's lips are his undoing,” is an appropriate description of the dialogue between Herod and Baba b. Buta.

34. There is an interesting parallel, which combines a motif related to eyes and the reversal of the status between a man and his master (B. Gittin 58a): “Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: What is signified by the verse, ‘And they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage?’ A certain man once cast his eyes upon the wife of his master, he being a carpenter's apprentice. Once, his master wanted to borrow some money from him. He said to him: Send your wife to me and I will lend her the money. So he sent his wife to him and she stayed three days with him. The master then came to him. Where is my wife whom I sent to you? he asked. He replied: I sent her away at once, but I heard that the youngsters played with her on the road. What shall I do? He said: If you listen to my advice, he replied, divorce her. But, he said, she has a large marriage settlement (ketubah). Said the other: I will lend you the money for her ketubah. So he went and divorced her and the other went and married her. When the time for payment arrived and he was not able to pay him, he said: Come and work off your debt with me. So they used to sit and eat and drink while he waited on them and tears used to fall from his eyes and drop into their cups. From that hour the doom was sealed. . . .” This Aggadah, like that of Herod, opens with the expression “cast his eyes upon . . .” and the casting of the eyes is upon the master's wife. At the end of the story, the tables have turned and the previously married master is now a servant without a wife serving his former apprentice, who is married to his wife. The story also concludes with the motif of the eyes: “and tears used to fall from his eyes”—the harm to the master is shaped in the story as being expressed by the eyes, giving the story a closed structure. Another story, in which Baba b. Buta also appears, opens with a man who “has cast his eyes” (B. Gittin 48b): “There was a man who cast his eyes upon his wife to divorce her, but hesitated because she had a big marriage settlement. He accordingly invited his friend and gave them a good feast and made them drunk and put them in one bed. He then brought the white of an egg and scattered it among them and brought witnesses and appealed to the court. There was a certain elder there of the disciples of Shammai the Elder, named Baba b. Buta, who said: This is what I have been taught by Shammai the Elder, that the white of an egg contracts when brought near the fire, but semen becomes faint from the fire. They tested it and found that it was so, and they brought the man to the court and flogged him, and made him pay her ketubah.”

35. This sentence contains the previous motif as well: Herod calls himself a servant and with Baba b. Buta's answer מאי אעביד ליה, the story plays on the words between them.

36. In worldwide literature, use is made of the motif of the blind person seeing the truth better than those who can see, cf. Fraenkel, Jonah, Sippur ha-’agada: ’aḥdut shel tokhen ve-ẓura (Tel Aviv: ha-Kibbutz Ha-Meuhad, 2001), 302–303Google Scholar and n. 30 there, and 211 n. 50, and his reference to Sophocles' stories. See also B. Berakhot 58a: “The blind R. Sheshet . . .”—the blind rabbi “sees” better than the seeing heretic. At the end of the story, the heretic is blinded according to one version, and according to the other is killed by R. Sheshet, with an ironic use of the expression “cast his eyes upon.”

37. About the three years of the messenger to Rome cf. M. Baba Batra 3:2 and M. Yoma 6:8, regarding the sign according to which the scapegoat has reached its destination.

38. Indeed, in the printed editions the expression “Divine voice” appears, but in most manuscripts the expression does not occur (see above, note 4).

39. The evaluation of eyesight mentioned in this paragraph (and its opposite regarding hearing) is, of course, quite radical. In practice, of course, the sense of eyesight can also reveal the truth, just as the sense of hearing has its own limitations. In the story, the purpose is to highlight the disadvantages of the sense of eyesight, in order to emphasize its potential dangers.

40. This discussion is not directly related to the Mishnah. Its natural context is the last section of the third chapter, which discusses cases of damage of sight. The redactors of the tractate had chosen, in a somewhat artificial manner (by a connection to an interpretive question about the word partition in the Mishnah), to place this discussion at the beginning of the tractate, probably because the discussion, by the way it progresses, surveys many of the tannaitic sources that deal with the laws of neighbors, which is the subject of the first chapter. On saboraic discussions of such kind, which are placed at the beginning of the tractate, see Weiss, Abraham, ha-Yeẓirah shel hasavora'im (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1913), 8 and onwardGoogle Scholar; Brandes, Yehudah, “Ha-Messukha ha-rishona,” in: ‘Al derekh ha-’Avot, ed. Bazak, Amnon, Vigoda, Shmuel, and Munitz, Meir (Alon Shevut: Tevunot, 2001), 33–47Google Scholar.

41. It may be argued that Herod's casting his eyes at the girl is not precisely identical to gazing into a private domain in the sense indicated in the formal damage of sight. However, Herod's deed is, in the least, one type of usage of eyesight (whether physical or metaphorical; it seems, in this case, to be both) in a negative, intrusive manner. See, e.g., negative uses of the expression “cast his eyes” in T. Ketuvot 12:2 (ed. Lieberman, 95); B. Gittin 58a (above, note 34); and B. Sotah 9a.

42. Conversely, it is possible that the story adds an ideological point of view to the discussion. The discussion about damage of sight, which is halakhic-legal in nature, typical of the laws of torts, explores the halakhic-legal question of whether damage of sight is legally defined as damage. The discussion does not contain moral and ethical questions, which deviate from the domain of conviction or exemption, and even the legal question had not been decided upon in the discussion. The story, however, does not deal with the legal domain, but rather, the ethical one. It does not deal specifically with damage of sight, but in a more comprehensive manner, with the sense of eyesight in general. This occupation with the sense of eyesight expresses a certain ethical view of this sense and its limitations: It is presented by the story, as shown above, as limited in the best of cases and as misleading and deceiving in the worst. Herod uses the appearance of things in order to deceive others, whereas the blind rabbi, who cannot use this sense, penetrates through Herod's “disguise” and overcomes the king with his words.

43. For a general discussion on the redactional setting of stories in the BT, see Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, esp. 15–24, 32, 255–67; Feintuch, diss., esp. 19–28. In the latter, I have demonstrated the existence of substantial thematic and literary links between the majority of the stories in the tractate Nezikin and their halakhic contexts. In such cases, I have shown, new light is shed on the both the halakhic and the aggadic parts of the sugya as a result of reading the Aggadah in its wider halakhic context. Thus, both halakhah and Aggadah benefit from their juxtaposition in one context. However, the Herod story is one of the exceptions in the tractate Nezikin. As shown above, the links between this story and its wider halakhic context are vague, and thus it is difficult to point to any specific new light that is shed on the story as a result of reading it in its BT context.