Rabbinics. Christianity. Rabbi Yokhanan and Origen On The Song of Songs. A Third-Century Jewish-Christian Disputation. Reuven Kimmelman

Harvard Divinity School
Rabbi Yokhanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-Century Jewish-Christian

Disputation
Author(s): Reuven Kimelman
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 73, No. 3/4 (Jul. - Oct., 1980), pp. 567-595
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509740
Accessed: 22-01-2018 04:29 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press, Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review
This content downloaded from 149.105.1.53 on Mon, 22 Jan 2018 04:29:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
RABBI YOHANAN AND ORIGEN
ON THE SONG OF SONGS:
A THIRD-CENTURY JEWISH-CHRISTIAN
DISPUTATION*
Reuven Kimelman
Brandeis University
Waltham, MA 02154
A. Introduction
The rabbinic influence on Origen's exegesis of the Song of

Songs has been the focus of three major studies.1 The first was by
*This study has benefited considerably from the comments and kindnesses of
the following scholars who read the MS at various stages: Professors Alexander
Altmann, Louis Feldman, Judah Goldin, Robert Grant, Rowan Greer, Sid Leiman,
Wayne Meeks, Ed Sanders, Morton Smith, John Strugnell and Ephraim Urbach. In
addition to the standard HTR abbreviations the following have been used:
CC Contra Celsum
Ginzberg CPT L. Ginzberg, Commentary on the Palestinian Tal-
mud (Hebrew; 4 vols.; New York, 1941-60).
Kasher TS M. M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah (28 vols.; New
York/Jerusalem, 1949-78).
Lieberman HJP S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (2d
ed.; New York, 1962).
MHG Midrash HaGadol (Jerusalem, 1947-75)
Gen., ed. M. Margoliot, 1947;
Exod., ed. M. Margoliot, 1956;
Lev., ed. A. Steinzalts, 1975;
Num., ed. Z. Rabinowitz, 1967;
Deut., ed. S. Fish, 1972.
RY Rabbi Yohanan
Weiss Dor I. H. Weiss, Dor Dor VeDorshav (vol. 3; Vien-
na, 1883).
1Based on a statement by Origen in the Prologue to his Commentary (below, n.
16) mentioning that the Jews allow only the mature to hold this book in their
568 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Y. Baer in 1956;2 the second by E. E. Urbach in

third by N. R. M. de Lange.4
hands, G. Scholem argued that Origen was aware of a Jewish my

(Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Traditio
38-40). Cf. S. Lieberman, Mishnat Shir HaShirim, apud Scholem,
126, esp. n. 45. Origen also cited a Jewish tradition that the Sc
multi-room house in which the keys have been mixed up and no
enter (Selecta in Ps., PG 12. 1080). Similarly, Saadyah Gaon desc
lock whose key is lost (Hamesh Megillot, ed. Kafah, p. 26). E
noted the connection between Origen's and Saadyah's comm
(below, n.3) that the allegorical interpretation cannot be traced b
70 C.E. and that the mystical interpretation is likely the work
Cohen contended, "The mere fact that the work was housed i
4-R.K.] of the Dead Sea Sect is sufficient evidence to warrant th
the work was not regarded as an erotic one long before the d
Temple" ("The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religious Menta
S. Z. Leiman, ed., Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible [Ne
n. 15).
Both the Rabbis and Origen expounded a mystical meaning to the Song. Why
specifically the Song should become susceptible to mystical exegesis is explained by
Y. Muffs: "As Professor Lieberman has pointed out to me, for the rabbis, the
allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs as a dialogue of love between God
and Israel, was for them the only peshat. The use of the Song in the local bars,
which most moderns might consider much closer to the original intent of the
writer, was not peshat for the rabbis at all; it was simply so much blasphemy. Now if
the rabbis considered the simple meaning of the Song of Songs to be the dialogue
of love between God and Israel, what then was their midrashic interpretation? In all
probability it was the esoteric one, which was more concerned with the mystical
contemplation of the divine soma, than with the dialogue of love between God and
His people" ("Joy and Love as Metaphorical Expressions of Willingness and
Spontaneity in Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew, and Related Literatures," Christianity,
Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults [ed. J. Neusner; Leiden, 1975] 3.21). For
additional literature on the canonization of the Song of Songs, see S. Z. Leiman,
ed., The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: the Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence
(Hamden, CN, 1976) 201-2, n. 642.
21n Zion 21 (1965) 1-49; and in English as "Israel, the Christian Church, and the
Roman Empire from the Time of Septimius Severus to the Edict of Toleration of
313," Scripta Hierosolymitana (henceforth SH) 7 (1961) 79-149.
3In Tarbiz 30 (1960) 148-70; and in English as the "Homiletical Interpretations
of the Sages and the Expositions of Origen on Canticles, and the Jewish-Christian
Disputation," SH 22 (1971) 247-75.
4 N. R. M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in
Third-Century Palestine (Cambridge, 1975). De Lange marshalls evidence to demon-
strate that "Origen holds a key position in the history of the relations between Jews
and Christians" (p. 1). He contends that "special attention must be paid to the
debate between Church and Synagogue as it manifests itself in Origen's work" (p.
13). He also adduces evidence for the thesis that Origen-had access to contemporary
Jewish exegesis. Similar conclusions, albeit with less documentation, are drawn by
H. Bietenhard, Caesarea, Origenes und die Juden (Stuttgart, 1974). David J. Halperin
REUVEN KIMELMAN 569
Origen mentioned having consulted a certain 'IovXXos

7rarpuXpx7~R.5 H. Graetz identified him with Hillel, the brother of
the Patriarch Judah II.6 G. F. Moore contended that 'IovXXoq is
probably a scribal error for 'IovSa', and referred to the Patriarch
Judah II himself.7 W. Bacher suggested that Origen was in contact
also with R. Hoshaya Rabba, then head of the Caesarean acade-
my.8 H. Graetz thought that Origen disputed with R. Simlai.9 R. P.
C. Hanson guessed at one time that Origen was in contact with
Resh Laqish.10 G. Alon believed that Origen had contact with
"Jews, their Sages, and even the Patriarchal house."11 Finally, G.
Scholem has presumed that Origen was in contact with a member
of the rabbinic academy of Caesarea.12
This study is not intended to assess the above assertions.13 They
are recorded for the purpose of illustrating the growing consensus
that Origen was in contact with some rabbis. Instead, this study
focuses on the comments of R. Yohanan (henceforth RY) and
Origen on the Song in order to demonstrate that they were aware
of each other's exegetical tendency.
The thesis is that RY led the exegetical battle against Origen's
Christologization of the Song's allegory.14 For the rabbis, the
has also argued that Origen's First Homily on Ezekiel is a Christianization of the
rabbinic homiletic complex on the Sinaitic revelation ("Origen, Ezekiel's Merkabah,
and the Ascension of Moses," read at the 1979 Annual Meeting of the American
Academy of Religion, New York City, and as yet unpublished).
5 Comm. in Ps., PG 12. 1056B.
6 H. Graetz, "Hillel, der Patriarchensohn," MGWJ 25 (1881) 433-34. B. Lifshitz
argued that "the name is undoubtedly a copy of a Latin form of Hillel. The double
lambda reproduces the n1W''n '1 and reflects the exactness of the copy" ("The
Ancient Synagogue of Hammat-Tiberias, its Floor and Inscriptions," [Heb] Studies
in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel [ed. B. Obed; University of
Haifa, 1974] 106).
7G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge, MA,
reprinted 1962) 165, n. 1.
8W. Bacher, "The Church Father Origen and Rabbi Hoshaya," JQR 3 (1891)
357-60. Cf., however, E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Heb;
Jerusalem, 1969) 486, n. 76; ET 934, n. 83.
9H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden (Leipzig, 1908) 4. 229-30.
10R. P. C. Hanson, Origen's Doctrine of Tradition (London, 1954) 155, n. 2. He
subsequently withdrew the suggestion (Allegory and Event [Richmond, VA, 1959]
174).
"G. Alon, Toledot HaYehudim BeEres Yisrael (2 vols.; Tel Aviv, 1953-55) 1.130,
n. 9; see also 2. 112, n. 130.
'2G. Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York, 1965) 12.
13See de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 23-28.
14 The role of RY was alluded to by Baer (n. 2 above), Zion 21 (1965) 19, 27;
and SH 7 (1961) 102, 112. R. Loewe ("The Jewish Midrashim and Patristic and
dramatis personae of the allegory are God and Israel; for Orig
they are the Christian functional equivalents, namely, Christ
the Church. Both understood the Song as a theological epit
mium.
On the one hand, it is possible that Origen thought of this ide
fication while visiting Hippolytus in Rome around the year 21
Hippolytus understood the king to be Christ and his bride
Church.s On the other hand, R. P. Lawson, at the conclusio
his discussion of the allegorical interpretation of "the Church
the Bride of Christ" says:
Origen is aware, of course, that the consummation of the bridal union of
the Logos and the Church takes place only in the Incarnation. But the
Church is Sponsa Christi from the creation of the world. In the last analysis,
this thought gives us the key to the Commentary of the great Alexandrian.16
The correspondence, mutatis mutandis, between this and the

lowing passage ascribed to R. Simeon b. Yohai is striking:
R.Simeon b. Yohai taught: [At creation] the Sabbath pleaded to the Holy
One.... All have a mate, while I have no mate. God replied: The Ecclesia
of Israel is your mate. And when they stood before the mountain of Sinai,
He said to them: Remember what I said to the Sabbath, that the Ecclesia of
Israel is your mate, [hence] Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy
(Exod 20:8).17
To keep it holy is l'Ppb which here connotes "to consecrate in

marriage." Thus, the Sabbath is Sponsa Israelis, in potentia, from
creation, although the consummation of the bridal union is de-
layed until the word of God becomes "incarnate" at Sinai.
It is not surprising that RY should assume the role of antagonist
in this theological debate. In the mid-240s Origen returned to
Scholastic Exegesis of the Bible," Studia Patristica 1 [1957] 499) opined that RY
may have been a link in the chain from Origen to R. Abbahu.
15Even this, according to J. Danielou, is just a transposition of the rabbinic
interpretation (Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture [ET Philadelphia, 1973] 260).
The possibility that Hippolytus may have integrated into his commentary rabbinic
comments on the Song has been made more credible by the study of G.
Chappuzeau, "Die Auslegung des Hohenliedes durch Hippolyt von Rom," JAC 19
(1976) 45-81. On the other hand, B. McNeil contends that the allegorical application
of the Song to Christ and the Church "already existed within the Christian Church
in the second century" ("Avircius and the Song of Songs," VC 31 [1977] 33).
16 R. P. Lawson, Origen:The Song of Songs-Commentary and Homilies (ACW 26)
Introduction, p. 14. Subsequent citation of Origen's work on the Song of Songs
refers to the pages of Lawson's translation and from Origenis, Commentarium in
Canticum Canticorum and Homiliae in Canticum Canticorum, ed. W. A. Baehrens
(GCS; Origenes, vol. 8).
17Gen. Rab. 11.8 (eds. Theodor-Albeck) 95-96 and notes.
REUVEN KIMELMAN 571
Caesarea after his second trip to Athens with half of the Comm
tary to the Song already written. The rest was to be wri
shortly.18 During the same decade RY was making intermit
trips to Caesarea to pay his respects to his teacher, the aforem
tioned R. Hoshaya Rabba. Within a decade RY was the undisput
rabbinic master,19 and would naturally be called upon, within
academy and without, to respond to the theological challenges
the day. That he rose to this challenge and was well-versed
variety of different Christian claims is well-attested to in two o
studies.20
In Caesarea, the headquarters of Palestinian Christianity,21 O
gen, chief homilist of the Palestinian Church, was delivering pu
sermons almost daily.22 Much of this material was incorpor
into his later writings.23 Caesarea itself had a meeting pl
(odeum) where religious controversies were held. The odeu
probably to be identified with one of the t'azN ^Z of rabb
literature.24 L. Levine has even speculated that "the Bible
New Testament as well as other Jewish and Christian writings
deposited here for references during these exchanges."25
18 See P. Nautin, Origene: sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris, 1977) 411, 435-37.
19See R. Kimelman, "Rabbi Yohanan of Tiberias: Aspects of the Social
Religious History of Third-Century Palestine" (Ph.D. diss., Yale University,
14-16. For the social significance of RY, see idem, "Third-Century Tiberias
Alliance between the Rabbinate, the Patriarchate, and the Urban Aristocr
Aufstieg und Niedergang der rimischen Welt (eds. H. Temporini and W. H
Berlin, forthcoming supplement to 11.8).
20Kimelman, "Rabbi Yohanan of Tiberias," chaps. 5 and 7.
21See A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Th
Centuries (ET New York, 1908) 1. 106-14.
22See J. Danielou, Origen (ET New York, 1955) 24; and Nautin, Origene,
According to Nautin (ibid.) Origen covered the Hebrew Bible in three years. T
he notes, is similar to the Palestinian Jewish triennial lectionary cycle. This pr
of Origen's allowed his congregation to know in advance the sermon text for
day. Thus those who were aware of rabbinic interpretations could have be
prepared with questions. Such a situation helps to account for the social re
behind the exegetical controversies in this study.
23See Nautin, Origene, and H. Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Cla
Tradition (Oxford, 1966) 71.
24For example, b. Sabb. 116a. See T. R. Herford, Christianity in Talmud
Midrash (London, 1903) 167-69; cf., however, J. Z. Lauterbach, Rabbinic E
(Cincinnati, 1951) 569-70.
25Caesarea under Roman Rule (Leiden, 1975) 83. The Aruk HaShalem
Kohut; Vienna, 1878-85) 2. 46a, made a similar suggestion.
In the Contra Celsum (henceforth CC), composed ca. 24

Origen mentioned his frequent disputes with Jews.26 In
instances he underscored the fact that the Jews involved were
regarded as wise, thus indicating that his opponents were rabbis
who were titled :,oMn.27
These disputations may have been public events, for Origen
recalled that "once in a discussion with some Jew ... many people
were present to judge what was said" (ibid., 1.55). It seems that
Origen was at times bested by the Jews, as he conceded in his
Epistle to Africanus (5):
For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is
their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of
the true readings as they have them.
Indeed, such thinking probably induced him to undertake the

compilation of the Hexapla,28 as he explained in the same Epistle:
As I have tried to take account of all the Jewish editions, we ought not to
find ourselves quoting for controversial purposes texts which are not in
their copies, and conversely, we shall be able to use texts in their copies
even if they are not in ours.
Given that RY and Origen were both sometime denizens of

Caesarea in the 240s; that both held similar positions in their
respective religious communities as dean of the academy and
popular preacher; that each had some acquaintance with the
other's language;29 that each polemicized against the other's
261.45, 49, 55, 56; 2.31; 4.29; cf. comm. in Matt. 14.24. For Origen's explicit
knowledge of Jewish tradition, see G. Bardy, "Les traditions juives dans l'oeuvre
d'Origene," RB 34 (1925) 217-52; Hanson, Origen's Doctrine of Tradition, 148-56;
and de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 123-32.
27CC 1.45, 55, 56; 2.31. In his Epistle to Africanus 7 (PG 11.61-64) Origen
mentions extensive conversation with a Hebrew bearing the title ro0o4 vj = ]a
,an. See de Lange, Origen and the Jews, 34 and 162-163, nn. 58-60, for a
discussion of this and similar terms for rabbis in Origen and Jerome.
28See P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (2d ed.; Oxford, 1959) 239-40. Nautin,
Origene, 334-47, however, argues that Origen did not structure, far be it compose,
the Hexapla ex nihilo, nor was its primary purpose to serve in polemics with Jews.
29Origen had some working knowledge of Hebrew. See Bardy, "Les traditions
juives," 217-19, who concluded that besides the reading and transcribing of
Hebrew, he "never possessed more than a superficial knowledge of the language";
Kahle, Cairo Geniza, 240-41; Hanson, "Interpretations of Hebrew Names in
Origen," VC 10 (1956) 103-23; and idem, Allegory and Event, 167-75. The
question of Origen's knowledge of Hebrew has been reexamined recently by de
REUVEN KIMELMAN 573
theological position;30 that both had sim

and that they understood the setting of
there is sufficient warrant to investigat
were aware of each other's exegesis of
to counter opposing arguments in their r
in CC 1.45, Origen recorded his dispu
result of the scattering of Jews among
become proselytes." This very positon wa
A first sign of potential cross-fertili
parallels, or, at least, similar issues ad
manner. A verbal tabulation would be ideal. In the absence of
such, we must be "prepared to break down the categories in which
the other side presents the thought which we would seek in the
other, and having grasped its essential meaning, to recreate it in
categories appropriate to the language and faith"33 of the other.
The existence of such parallels, however, does not automatically
reflect influence. As S. Krauss noted, "The Agadic exegesis of the
Lange, Origen and the Jews, 21-23. His conclusion coincides with Bardy's. He notes,
however, that "Origen's lack of Hebrew knowledge has no bearing on the question
of his access to Jewish scholarship. It is, in that sense, a red herring" (155, n. 61).
With regard to RY's knowledge of Greek, I have tabulated about 250 loanwords,
mainly Greek, from the statements of RY or from those that were addressed to him
in conversation. This, on its own, is insufficient to prove that RY could understand
Greek. Bear in mind, however, that RY had access to those who did, such as R
Abbahu. Thus RY's alleged lack of Greek does not preclude access to Greek
Christian thought.
30For RY, see above, n. 20, and further below; for Origen, see Hanson, Allegory
and Event, 297-310; CC passim; and literature in n. 4, above.
31That is, in the context of revelation which is conceived of by both as a nuptial
event. For Origen, see below on Song 1:2; for RY, see below also on Song 1:2; and
Lieberman (Mishnat Shir HaShirim, 118-20, esp. n. 7), who finds three distinct
rabbinic positions on the original setting of the Song: (1) Sinai-advocated by R.
Aqiba and RY; (2) at the Sea-advocated by R. Eliezer and R. (?) Pappas; (3) Tent
of Meeting-R. Meir and R. Huna. This tripartite division of rabbinic opinion was
already noticed by J. Bonsirven, Exegese rabbinique et exegese paulinienne (Paris,
1939) 214-16. For the history of the nuptial element in Christianity, see C.
Chavasse, The Bride of Christ: An Enquiry into the Nuptial Element in Early Christianity
(London, 1940).
32B. Pesah 87b. Also a homily on Ezek 14:14, to which Origen ascribes a Jewish
origin, is recorded in the name of RY (Tanhuma, ed. Buber wysb 5). See A.
Vaserstein, "Midrash Yehudi Esel Origenis," Tarbiz 46 (1976) 317-18.
33R. Loewe, "The Jewish Midrashim and Patristic and Scholastic Exegesis of the
Bible," 507. Although this statement may be accepted guardedly, his comparable
statement in "Apologetic Motifs in the Targum to the Song of Songs," Biblical
Motifs-Origins and Transformations (ed. A. Altmann; Cambridge, MA, 1966) 174,
lacks sufficient controls.
Scriptures was peculiar to the spirit of the times and flouri

among the Christians as exuberantly as among the Jews.
each instance, the case has to be argued on its own merits.
Consequently, in order to exercise some controls, this inve
tion focuses on the first six verses of the Song. It contrasts
those comments of Origen and RY which do not result from
exigencies of the literal meaning of the text. Finally, it exam
those comments of each which, as will be shown, achieve gr
clarity when viewed in light of the other. The structure
inquiry follows the order of the verses, implying that a dispu
which is reflected in consecutive verses (five out of the ope
six) is itself a contribution to the cumulative evidence for s
exchange.
Note that there is no a priori claim that the content of the
exegesis of Origen or RY is unique to their respective traditions,
although that sometimes is the case. What is unique, at least, is
their application of the respective Jewish or Christian position to
the specific verse of the Song. This is significant, for underlying
the Jewish and Christian polemic is the claim of each party to be
able to explicate the Song in terms of its own position. The more
comprehensive the explication of any one party, the more cogent
is its claim that its relationship to God is the one rhapsodized
about in the Song and that it (the Church or the Synagogue) is the
Bride.
B. The Disputation
On Song 1:2, Let Him kiss me with the kisses of His mouth, Origen
commented:
The Law is said to have been ordained by angels in the hands of a mediator
(Gal 3:19). All those . . . were the introductory songs sung by the
Bridegroom's friends; but this song is that which the Bridegroom himself
was to sing as his marriage hymn, when about to take his Bride; in which the
same song the Bride no longer wants the Bridegroom's friends-the
34S. Krauss, "The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers," JQR 5 (1893)
122-23. According to Porphyry, Origen used the books of Chaeremon, the Stoic,
and Cornutus, from whom he learned the figurative interpretation as employed in
the Greek mysteries, and applied it to the Jewish writings (Eusebius, H.E. 6.19.8).
On the whole subject of Jewish, Christian, and Hellenistic allegory see Hanson,
Allegory and Event, 11-129, and H. A. Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge, MA, 1968) 1.
115-35. For a survey of traditional exegesis of the Song, see M. Pope, Song of Songs
(AB; Garden City, 1977) 89-132.
REUVEN KIMELMAN 575
prophets or angels-to sing to her, but longs to h

with her, speak with his lips; wherefore she say
kisses of His mouth.35
According to Origen, the bridegroom i

the Church. His exegesis follows the c
that revelation in Christ superseded the
relied on the Pauline argument in favor
Sinaitic revelation by virtue of its having
angels and a mediator.36
RY, if he is to respond to Origen, must
how to counter the position that the Tor
by virtue of having been mediated whet
The issue of angels was less problematic
the rabbinic tendency to exclude any me
he reportedly did in the following comm
God (Exod 20:2):
Consider the analogy of a king who was standin
giving orders. The general thought: He is about
when God was standing issuing commands on M
He is about to deal through me. Gabriel thou
35Prologue 4; (Lawson, 46; Baehrens, 80. 6-12).

90. 24-47).
36For a survey of the idea in rabbinic, apocrypha
Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect (ET New Yo
Childs, The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia, 1974) 3
natural for Origen to underscore the mediation
peculiar that when he wrote his defense of Chris
allude to any mediator. Instead, he declared unequ
Preface to On First Principles (4) that "God Him
that the emphasis on mediation in commenting o
awareness of the role the Song plays in Jewish
Origen's junior, Theophilus (Ad Autolycum 3.9), f
that God gave the Law and that Moses was only
Grant, Theophilus of Antioch-Ad Autocylum (Oxf
why Origen et al. would adjust their positions for
are sometimes compelled to say, not what they
necessary for their purpose, they do this only in th
48 [to Pammach] 13).
37See Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect, 172-7
an Angel and Not by a Messenger," Religions in A
1968) 419, esp. n. 3. RY's colleague, R. Levi, w
mediation signifies a lowering of the tenor of t
Rab. 32.3). Indeed, most of the homilies on Exod
that resorting to an angel to protect Israel is a sign
through me. But as soon as they saw Him say: I am the Lord thy God, th
said: He is dealing (directly) with His children and giving the Torah to H
people.38
RY, however, could not expunge the role of middleman39 from

Moses. Deut 5:5 clearly recorded Moses saying: It was I standing
between the Lord and you at that time.40 Furthermore, rabbinic
tradition and especially RY's own colleagues41 continued to main-
tain that Moses was a mediator m'D1 = EtEo-tr7i). 42 RY, however,
was adamant in stating that God gave the commandments. In fact,
he made this point in explicating the opening word of the Ten
Commandments (Exod 20:2)-'aZn as an acronym for ^vt_ n3n
n~ina n^:n (I Myself wrote and gave [them]).43 This, as S.
Lieberman has shown, meant to exclude Moses from this role.44
Nonetheless, RY could not circumvent the tradition which consi-
dered Moses to be the mediator of the Covenant. Instead, he tried
to reduce the role of Moses to a mere go-between, a marriage
broker. The actual words, however, which espoused Israel to God
were uttered by God Himself. Thus, RY in explaining that the
verse was uttered by Israel at Sinai, commented:
38Pesiq. R. 21.5 (ed. Ish Shalom) p. 100a = MHG Deut. 102.

39See L. Finkelstein, Tarbiz 20 (1950) 96.
40Modern biblical scholarship is equally perplexed at how to harmonize the
different accounts of Moses' role at Sinai. See Childs, Book of Exodus, 351-60; S.
Loewenstamm, Encyclopedia Biblica 5 (Jerusalem, 1968) 1027-33; and EncJud 12.
385, whose resolution echoes that of RY below, saying; "At Sinai, Moses nego-
tiated Israel's acceptance of God's offer of a covenant." This resolution that Moses
was some sort of t''{p "n:o is reflected also in the comment of Midrash Hashkem
on Deut 5:5, which interpreted Moses' assertion as saying 'att'p =1: bae BIN
tn^^n It-Z (see Kasher TS 2. 191, n. 49)"I was like a man holding the marriage cup."
41For example, Resh Laqish, Exod. Rab. 3.5 (See R. David Luria, ad loc., based
on Ramban ad Exod 3:13): R. Isaac, Deut. Rab. 3.12; and R. Judah b. Pazzi, y.
Meg. 4.1 74d = MHG Deut. 97.
42See Lieberman, HJP 81, n. 271. Moses is also compared to a 'Za=?, "bride's
agent" (MHG Exod. 690 and last three parallels) as well as to a =^,I?'tID
(rrpEofri-VT') "ambassador" (Song Rab. 1.2.3 = Ginze Midrash led. Rabinovitz;
Tel Aviv, 19761: Exod. Rab. 42.3.
43B. Sabb. 105a. See S. Lieberman, Sinai 75 (1974) 1-3, esp. n. 5. This
divergence of opinion on the mediation of Moses continues in the medieval
disagreement between Halevy (Kuzari 1.87), who disallowed any mediation, and
Maimonides (Guidefor the Perplexed 2.33), who did allow for mediation. Cf. Kasher
TS 16. 223-35.
44HJP 81-82. A polemic overtone against the deprecating of the Torah for having
been mediated may be heard in the parallel "Do not make light of the Torah that
gave you for... I Myself wrote and gave [them]" (Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 12.24 [ed
Mandelbaum] p. 222).
REUVEN KIMELMAN 577
It was as if a king wanted to marry a woman of good and noble family. He

sent an envoy to speak with her. She replied: I am unworthy of being his
handmaid. Nevertheless, I desire to hear from his own mouth. When the
envoy returned to the king, he was full of smiles, but he would give no
clear report to the king. The king, who was very discerning, said: This man
is full of smiles, which would seem to show that she said she wants to hear
from my own mouth. (Song Rab. 1.2.3)
The text continues by explaining that Israel is the woman of good

family, Moses is the envoy, and the king is the Holy One, blessed
be He.
According to this interpretation, Moses did not mediate the
verbal exchange; he only arranged the rendezvous.45 In this man-
ner, RY's exegesis served to undermine Origen's position46 with
regard to the inadequacy of Sinai as mediated revelation.47 He
achieved this with a counter exegesis on the very same verse on
which Origen had pegged his view.48
45Compare R. Murray: "[in Ephraem] as in Aphrahat the apostle is the 'go

between' (makora) acting for the heavenly Bridegroom" vis-a-vis the Church
(Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition [Cambridge,
1975] 142, see 151).
46Pace Urbach, "Homiletical Interpretations," (SH 255, Tarbiz 154): "Origen's
exposition appears to be a copy of the ... dictum of R. Yohanan."
47 There is a comment ascribed to RY in Song Rab. 1.2.2 that mentions an angel
which brought -Ia'tn, "the divine locution" (or "the logos"), to each and every
one. This presents a stark contrast to RY's otherwise consistent anti-mediation
position. There is reason therefore to suspect that the text is corrupt and should
read instead as does the parallel in Yal. 2.991, and MS de Rossi, no. 1240, namely:
"RY said: An angel went forth before each commandment (lit. 'locution') and went
around to each Israelite and said to him: Do you accept this commandment. ..."
The Hebrew is quite similar. Song Rab. reads: "':'n "r' l n n ^ 1'l". The other two
read: '~:~ b: ^:' Na" -,2 " ljnm. Cf. Kasher TS 16.214b-215a, and Urbach,
"Homiletical Interpretations," SH 254, n. 19; Tarbiz 153, n. 19.
On the other hand, the text may be correct, but mistakenly attributed to RY. The
next homily which is attributed "to the Rabbis" does away with the function of the
angel by emphasizing that the TIl: itself made the rounds of all the Israelites. This
is precisely the contrast which we have found between RY and his colleagues
(above, n. 41). Thus it is possible that the attributions to RY and "the Rabbis"
have been inadvertently transposed. Such mistaken transpositions between "RY"
and "the Rabbis" have occurred elsewhere; see S. Krauss, Paras VeRomi BaTalmud
UBaMidrashim (Jerusalem, 1948) 122; and Tanhuma (ed. Buber) 1. 69-70, n. 132.
Incidentally, the ET of Urbach (SH 255, n.23) mistranslates the Hebrew (Tarbiz
154, n.23) and thus poses no problem for the above suggestion.
48RY's comment was subsequently expanded by two of his more prominent
disciples; "R. Yosi b. R. Hanina said: it is as if a king were distributing largesse to
his soldiers through his generals, officers and commanders, but when his son came,
The dispute continues with the interpretation of the last h

the same verse (1:2b):
For thy loved ones are better than wine.
RY's comment appears in two versions of which the second i

special interest:
Simeon b. Abba in the name of RY: The words of the Scribes are as
precious as the words of the Torah. The students of the academy in the
name of RY: -nn ,'n '-I D-ilbD 9"'? ^a:''n. The words of the Scribes are
more precious than the words of the Torah. As it says: l`" l1"'1 'l am Thy
loved ones are better than wine.49
In his Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud (CPT),50 L.

Ginzberg confessed, "We do not know what brought RY to expli
cate this verse as speaking with regard to the words of the Scrib
in their relationship to the words of the Torah." In explaining t
substance of RY's remark, Ginzberg suggested that RY is exp
cating 7"' from "' (breast), indicating that just as a baby suc
from his mother's two breasts so Israel sucks from the Written
and Oral Torah. According to Ginzberg, such a comparison of
breast to Torah is a commonplace, and the implication of the
comparison is that the two Torahs are commensurate with one
another.
Ginzberg did not think it strange that RY should read T'l' as
''1. After all, the LXX does the same, translating acTuoroi aoov
(and the Vg ubera tua-R.K.). Moreover, continued Ginzberg, two
tannaitic authorities disagree on how to read the verse.51 R.
Ishmael holds as the LXX and thus reads T"1^. R. Josua, however,
proves that the reading should be ',m by noting the parallel
construction of the word ^'.)a in the following verse. RY,
according to Ginzberg, read the verse both defective and plene: as
he gave him with his own hand. . . . R. Isaac said: It is as if a king were eating
sweetmeats, and when his son came he gave him from his own hand" (Gen. Rab.
1.2.5; cf. Tanhuma, ed. Buber, ky ts' 10; Exod. Rab. 41.2; and Ginze Midrash 113).
49Y. Ber. 1.7 3b = Sanh. 11.6 30a = 'Abod. Zar. 2.8 41c = Song Rab. 1.2.2. For
the variants and a suggestive explanation of them, see Ginzberg, CPT 1. 151. Upon
returning from Palestine, R. Dimi, a frequent tradent of RY, also said on this verse:
"Israel said before God: Master of the universe, the words of the [your-printed
ed.] beloved ones are more precious to me than the wine of Torah" ('Abod. Zar.
35a, ed. Abramson, which see for variants, p. 181, n. 21). The beloved ones (B'`n)
are the words of the Scribes (following Rashi and R. Hannanel, ad loc., and
Ginzberg, CPT 1. 149. This point is made more explicit in Midrash Shir HaShirim
1.2 (ed. Wertheimer) p. 5: "God loves (zana) the words of the Sages more than the
words of the Torah."
50 Ginzberg, CPT 1. 148.
51 M. 'Abod. Zar. 2.5; t. Para 10.3.
REUVEN KIMELMAN 579
l'l thy breasts, denoting the Written and Oral Torah, and a
denoting their propinquity or comparability.52
Lieberman rejects the assumption,53 one that he had former
held,54 that the aforementioned mishna is alluding to the LXX
concurs with Elijah of Vilna that only a question of synt
involved in the disagreement between R. Ishmael and R. Joshu
If Lieberman is correct, then RY's understanding of 'l"'
breast is not predicated on tannaitic tradition. Moreover, p
Ginzberg, the comparison of breast to Torah is hardly a comm
place. He cited b. 'Erub. 54b and Song Rab. 4.5. The latter so
is not pertinent since it only compares Torah to the breast's m
The former source does compare the Torah to the breast, but
anonymous and unparalleled-a phenomenon which probably da
its inclusion to the redaction process. While in later midra
literature the Torah is called "mother" (Exod. Rab. 30.5) an
said to have breasts (Midr. Prov. 5.20), only one homily assu
that Song 1:2 mentions "breasts."56 This late source, however,
more likely to have been influenced by RY than vice-ver
Evidence is therefore lacking for assuming that RY was followi
rabbinic tradition (even the Syriac understood the Hebrew as "
loved ones").
What then impelled RY to read the Hebrew as "breast,"
why is this specific verse used to support the somewhat radical
that Oral Torah is superior to or more precious than Writ
Torah?57 One possibility is to view RY's comment in relations
521'n1. or the variant W'1r, CPT 1. 149.

53Lieberman, Mishnat Shir HaShirim, 125, n. 42.
54Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim 3 (Jerusalem, 1938) 248-49.
55See Agadath Shir HaShirim (ed. Schechter) line 250; JQR 6 (1894) 68
Pardo, Hasde David (Jerusalem, 1971) 4.2, 165-66; and Pope, Song of Songs
Cf., however, Z. W. Rabinowitz, Sha'are Torat Babel (Jerusalem, 1961) 17
and A. Geiger, Urschrift und Ubersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhdngigkeit v
innern Entwicklung des Judentums (2d ed.; Frankfurt, 1928) 402-4 (Hebrew tr
257-59).
56 Agadath Shir HaShirim lines 243-45; see S. Schechter, "Corrections and N
to Agadath Shir HaShirim," JQR 6 (1894) 735, lines 240-48.
57Since Ginzberg could not account for this preference (CPT 1. 149, CPT 2
lines 17-18), he interpreted the prefix ? to mean "as" and not its usual "m
than"-n3o 'nt n1 ... . 'o r: t^1. Weiss, Dor 64-65 and B. Epstein, Torah
Temmima Tel Aviv, 1956) 3-Song, p. 6 nn. 1-2, understood the : to be one of
preference. Cf., however, Rabinowitz, Sha'are Torat Babel, 179-80.
Professor S. Z. Leiman wrote me the following with regard to RY's understanding
of '1"' as breast: "The ,n' remains '"t' ('nn) and RY is certainly free to read this
as "breast"-note 4:10 which certainly refers to the female partner, and note that
to Origen's comment on the very same verse. Origen, of cou

renders the verse according to the LXX: For thy breasts are b
than wine, commenting:
The Bridegroom's breasts are good therefore, because treasures of wisdom
and knowledge are concealed in them. The Bride, moreover, compare
these breasts to wine, and that in such a way as to point to the breast
superiority. By wine is meant the ordinances and teachings which the Bri
has been wont to receive through the Law and the Prophets before th
Bridegroom came. But she now reflects upon the teaching that flows fro
the Bridegroom's breasts, she is amazed and marvels: she sees that it is fa
superior to that with which she has been gladdened as with spiritual win
served to her by the holy fathers and prophets, before the Bridegroom cam
Both RY and Origen agree that the wine is the "ordinances

teachings which the Bride has been wont to receive through
Law and the Prophets." They also concur that the breasts ref
something superior. They diverge only on the referent. For
gen, they are the teaching of Christ; for RY, they are th
Torah.59
An alternative scenario would go as follows: RY initially pla
the words of the Scribes on par with those of Torah. Upon
ascertaining Origen's claim for the superiority of the teachings of
Christ based on Song 1:2, RY asserted the superiority of the words
of the Scribes. The students in the academy, having only heard
RY's revised version, argued for its authenticity by citing Song 1:2.
The mere fact that the verse is thought to be decisive indicates
t'n is almost always Kno in Song. The exceptions are mostly at 1:2, 1:4, and 4:10,
where m' is "'n and mentioned in conjunction with being more delightful than
wine. Such being the case, any midrashist would be prepared to read it 7'."
I take no issue with the above except to assert that why RY, and RY only,
adopted this unusual tack (see Pope, Song of Songs, 298) at this specific verse can
best be accounted for in the light of Origen's comment and RY's relationship to
such comments of Origen throughout this study. It is noteworthy that Origen, after
citing and commenting upon the next verse (1:3a), returns to this verse: "We must
not, however, overlook the fact that in certain versions we find written 'for thy
sayings are better than wine,' where we read, 'for thy breasts are better than wine.'
But although it may seem that this gives a plainer meaning in regard to the things
about which we have discoursed in the spiritual interpretation, we ourselves keep to
that which the Seventy interpreters wrote in every case" (ET Lawson, 74). Since
this is inserted as an afterthought it is possible that it reflects a later revision which
took into account a comment like RY's and/or was based on a reading of '1"'
instead of 'T"'. The possibility of revision is strong, since Origen may have been
working from his first Commentary to the Song which he composed before 215-see
Nautin, Origene, 418, and 250 n. 32.
58 1.2 (Lawson, 65; Baehrens, 94, lines 5-14).
59Could the following midrash be an allusion to this? "You are better off
embracing the breasts of Torah which give you an advantage than embracing the
bosom of a strange woman which gives you a liability" (Mid. Prov. 5.20).
REUVEN KIMELMAN 581
that the symbolism of the verse was already understood. S

understanding was assuredly enhanced by the debate on th
notation of the verse.
It is simpler to assume that RY is responding to Origen r
than vice-versa. Origen's interpretation flows smoothly fr
LXX and coheres with his basic presupposition that the "New
Testament" supersedes the "Old Covenant."60 Conversely, Ginz-
berg found RY's comment inexplicable in the context of rabbinic
thought.
Still, although Origen's interpretive pattern is typical, his hand-
ling of the details is strange. Having the bride sucking the bride-
groom's teats is palpable evidence of forced exegesis even by
Origen's standards.61 Such strained exegesis may indicate that a
polemical situation has put Origen into an uncomfortable corner
out of which he is trying to wriggle. If so, there would be evidence
that both Christian and Jewish positions were modified in content,
or in expression, by exposure to the other.62
Whichever interpretation be accepted, it is important to note
with regard to both that RY had a pronounced preference for Oral
Torah.63 He taught that "God made a covenant with Israel only for
60See Danielou, Origen, 139-73.

61Hippolytus, at most, has the Christian sucking the bride's two breasts, which
represent the Old and New Covenants; see Hanson, Allegory and Event, 116-17,
and Chappuzeau, "Die Auslegung des Hohenliedes," 62.
62 I owe much of this alternative scenario to Professor Morton Smith.
63This fact that RY strove to elevate the status of =',nm1 ",^' is forcefully
illustrated by his explanation of a tannaitic statement (y. Ma'as. S. 2.2 5c) by
saying: 'nmn -Ina-01 1 nt -W ^- 1 ^, n IN" (following the printed ed. and the Leiden
MS; the Vatican MS reads instead of Mnln, ",IB1i a reading which serves to make
RY's statement conform more to the Mishnah, and is therefore suspect). This is
despite a clear Mishnaic ruling to the contrary (m. Yad. 3.2):
B'mBIDID '"i':n mnlnrn naIn 1 :n ]N

n'ln 'ln"o ~'"'1D~ '"nlIW t1
On this, see. E. Shulzinger, Yad Eliyahu (Jerusalem, 1971) 5. 80, on the y. p

who underscores the novelty of RY's position as does the commentary,
Ahronah, to m. Yad. 3.2 and m. Tohar. 8.7. RY's penchant to exalt the Or
over the Written Torah, and to elevate rabbinic enactments to 'I'= mn, n
pointed out by Weiss, Dor 64-65. The juxtaposition of statements in Nu
14.4 (ed. Rome 116a; ed. Halevy 601-2) may also reflect an awareness on
of the editor of this same tendency. With regard to the ascriptions to R
Joshua b. Levi, see ,"v'n ^lnn ad loc. (n.15) and esp. y. Sukk. 3.4 53d.
the sake of that which was transmitted orally."64 Indeed, he

that the covenant is contingent upon keeping the oral part o
and the written part written.65 It was also RY, in contrast t
Eleazar, who held that most of Torah was oral and only a
written.66 Thus it is no surprise that RY propounded: "What
scribes are destined to innovate was already shown by God to
Moses."67 He contended, therefore, that no halaka should be
treated disdainfully, "for many halakot were said to Moses at Sinai
and they are all immersed in the Mishnah."68
The polemical cargo in the preference of Oral Torah is spelled
out in a comment which explains how the God-Israel covenant
could be challenged if the Oral Torah were indited.69
Moses asked that the Mishnah [i.e., the Oral Torah] also be in written form
like the Torah. But the Holy One . . .foresaw that the Nations would get to
translate the Torah, and reading it, say, in Greek, would declare: We are
Israel; we are the children of the Lord. The scales would appear to be
balanced between both claims, but then the Holy One . . .will say to the
Nations: What are you claiming, that you are My children? I have no way
of knowing other than that My child is he who possesses My secret lore
(mysterion). The Nations will ask: And what is Thy secret? God will reply:
it is the Mishnah.70
64B. Git. 60b, and anonymously in Tanhuma nh 3.

65 Y. Pe'a 2.6 17a; Meg. 4.1 74d = Hag. 1.8 76d; Exod. Rab. 47.3 = Tanhuma
(ed. Buber) ky ts' 18 with nn. 128-29. Our interpretation follows J. N. Epstein,
Mabo LeNusah HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1948) 694; and Ginzberg, CPT 4. 137-38.
RY's junior, R. Samuel b. Nahman, combined into one homily both the idea that
the covenant was made by virtue of the Oral Torah and the idea that the Oral Torah
is more precious than the Written Torah (y. Pe'a 2.6 17a = Meg. 4.1 74d = .Hag.
1.8 76d). See E. E. Urbach, "Halakah UNebuah," Tarbiz 18 (1946) 9.
66B. Git. 60b; see L. Finkelstein, New Lightfrom the Prophets (New York, 1969)
86 and 137, n.21.
67 B. Meg. 19b; see A. J. Heschel, Torah Min HaShamayim BeAsplaqariah Shel
HaDorot (London, 1965) 2.236, for this emphasis.
68 Y. Pe'a 2.6 17a = .lag. 1.8 74d.
69Pesiq. R. 5, p.14b and parallels. A. Rabinowitz, in his note to his translation of
W. Bacher's Agadot Amora'e Eres Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1925) 1/2, p. 51***, drew
attention to the anti-Christian overtones in the preference for the Oral Torah, as did
L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, repr. 1968) 6. 60, n. 308.
70 W.G. Braude in his translation of Pesikta Rabbati (New Haven, 1968) 93, n.
10, notes the following variant: "that the Nations should translate the Torah, and
reading it in Greek, would say: They-the Jews-are not Israel. Thereupon the
Holy One ... said to Moses: O Moses, the Nations will say: We are Israel! We are
the children of the Lord, and Israel will say: We are the children of the Lord. Then
the scales would appear to be balanced between both claims. The Holy One . . . will
then say to the Nations: ..." See Num. Rab. 14.10 (near the end) where it is
argued that the Oral Torah is Israel's sign of distinction and that it was not indited
REUVEN KIMELMAN 583
Thus there is warrant to assume that RY's preference for

Torah could not have been but enhanced by the awareness of t
Christian claim that the "Torah" of Christ is superior to the To
of Moses.
The parallel, albeit divergent, interpretations of Origen and
continue in the middle part of the next verse (1:3b): Thy nam
as ointment poured forth. Origen stated:
The literal interpretation ... also fits this passage .... It is entirely
possible to regard it as a prophecy uttered by the Bride concerning the
Christ in the future, when our lord and savior will come, his name will be
spread abroad upon the face of all the earth and upon the face of the whole
world, so that he will give forth a sweet fragrance everywhere, as th
apostle said (2 Cor 2:15-16). "For we are the aroma of Christ everywhere."7
RY interpreted the verse with reference to Abraham:

When the Holy One ... said to him: Get thee out of thy country andfrom thy
kindred (Gen 12:1) to what could he [sc. Abraham] be compared?-to
flask of foliatum that was standing in a corner and its fragrance was not
wafted abroad; then someone came and moved it and its fragrance was
wafted abroad. Even so the Holy One . . .said to Abraham: ... circulat
throughout the world and thy name shall grow great in My world.72
The parallel between the fragrance of Abraham and of

Christians is self-evident. Rabbinic literature often compar
good name to fragrance and also held that the righteous em
sweet fragrance.73 Origen, for his part, had a precedent in
verse cited from 2 Corinthians. The motif is insufficiently dis
tive to determine influence, though the common presenc
fragrance is noteworthy.
The crux of the comparison is the parallel between Abraham
Christians, who are the body of Christ. This is understandable,
in the generation of RY, as A. Altmann has observed, "Abr
assumes the role which Christian theology assigned to Jesu
For example, RY's colleague, R. Levi, added the following c
ment to the tannaitic identification (Sifra, ed. Weiss, 85c, 86a
"the greatest man among the giants" (Josh 14:15) with Abraha
in order to prevent the nations from distorting it as they did the Written Torah
Urbach, "Halakah UNebuah," 7, n. 50. According to Marmorstein, "La reorg
tion du doctorat en Palestine a troisieme siecle," (REJ 66 [1913] 52) RY's
prohibition against the inditing of halaka can be attributed to "tendences
antichr6tiennes."
711.4 (Lawson, 75; Baehrens, 106. 10-17).
72Song Rab. 1.3.3. Cf. Gen. Rab. 39.5, p. 366 and note.
73See R. Mach, Der Zaddik in Talmud und Midrasch (Leiden, 1957) 103-4; and
Ginzberg, Legends, 7. 170, s.v., "fragrance of the body of the pious"; and esp. b.
'Abod. Zar. 35b.
74"Homo Imago Dei in Jewish and Christian Theology," JR 47 (1967) 251.
Altmann cited the following homily.
He was called "the greatest man" because he was worthy of

created first prior to Adam, but God said: "Perhaps Ad
spoil matters and there will be no one to rectify matters a
Hence, Adam was created first, and when he sinned, Ab
came to make amends in his place (Gen. Rab. 14.6.130 pa
and notes). Thus, it is Abraham who undoes the wrong of A
It was also RY who placed Abraham above the planetary
ences (Gen. Rab. 44.5.432 parallels and notes). Other ex
include the idea that the Torah was given to Moses on accou
Abraham.75 Some even held that the world was created on
of Abraham (Gen. Rab. 12.9.107 parallels and notes). Ab
was also credited with being the archetypal missionary.76 I
this "evangelical" role is ascribed to Abraham (Midr. Ps.
from that Psalm (110) which the Church took to be
quintessentially christological.77 In fact, in the circle of RY i
underscored that the subject of Psalm 110 is Abraham (y. Ber
9b = Ta'an. 1.1 63d), an identification accepted by the midr
tradition in general.78 This identification is in stark contrast t
earlier tradition reported by the Church Fathers that the
applied Psalm 110 to King Hezekiah.79
S. Spiegel also drew attention to the fact that the circle of R
portrayed the binding of Isaac in terms which parallel the Chri
understanding of the crucifixion of Jesus. Christianity, for its
as Spiegel pointed out, had already understood the event o
Golgotha as having been adumbrated by that of Moriah.80
It was also through Abraham that the same circle countered
would-be claimants to be the covenantal successors of Israel:
75 Y. Sabb. 16.1 15c = MHG Gen. 419 and parallels. See Midr. Ps. 22.19 with
W. G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms (New Haven, 1959) 2.437, n. 36; and Exod.
Rab.28.1.
76Gen. Rab. 39.14.379; Ginzberg, Legends, 7. 7, s.v., "Abraham, missionary
activity of."
77Ps 110:1 is the most oft-quoted verse in the NT. See D. M. Hay, Glory at the
Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (Nashville, 1973). I am indebted to
Professor Wayne Meeks for this information.
78See Lev. Rab. 25.6 (ed. Margoliot) p. 580 and n. 5; Yalqut HaMekiri Ps 110;
Ginzberg, Legends, 5. 224-25, n. 95; and Hay, Glory 28-32.
79Justin Dialogue 33; Tertullian Against Marcion 5.9.
80The Last Trial (New York, 1969) ch. 9, pp. 90 and 99-100; with regard to the
adumbration, see p. 84 and nn. 28-30. Cf. G. Vermes, "The Binding of Isaac and
the Sacrifice of Jesus" in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden, 1973) 193-227.
REUVEN KIMELMAN 585
Abraham had misgivings, saying before God: Sovereign of the Universe,

you made a covenant with Noah that you would not destroy his seed from
off the earth, and I arose and accumulated more commandments and good
deeds than him so that my covenant superseded his covenant. Shall
perhaps another arise and surpass me in good deeds and commandments so
that his covenant supersede mine? God thereupon said to him: Fear not,
Abram, I am thy shield (Gen 15:1). From Noah I did not raise shields of the
righteous, but from you I will raise shields of the righteous. Nay more: if
your children fall into transgression and evil deeds, I will see what
righteous man there is among them who can say to the Attribute of Justice:
Enough! and I will take him as an atonement for them.8l[emphasis-R. K.]
Finally and most significantly, RY also contended that Abraham

was worthy of atoning for all the sins of Israel (Lev. Rab.
29.8.679).
In the light of the centrality of Abraham and Jesus in the
respective religious traditions it is not surprising that the Historiae
Augustae ("Alexander Severus" 29.2) over a century later had
icons of Abraham and Jesus, among the representatives of other
religions, in the private chapel of Alexander Severus. Nor is it
surprising in the light of the role that Abraham assumed in
rabbinic literature that a later midrash should record a tradition
that when "God sought to create the world... he saw Abraham
who was to arise and said: 'Now I have found a rock (VrEpa) on
which to build and establish the world.' Accordingly, He called
Abraham a rock" (Isa 51:1-2.- Yal. 1.766).
The next instance of parallel exegesis is verse five:
0 daughters of Jerusalem.
Origen's and RY's comments reflect the divergent understandings

of Jerusalem. Origen first takes up this verse in his Prologue:
The Bride had progressed to the point where there was something greater
than the kingdom of Jerusalem. For the Apostle says there is a heavenly
Jerusalem, and speaks of believers coming thither.82
In the text of the Commentary, Origen fleshes out the allusion:83
Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But that
Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all (Gal
4:25-26). Paul thus calls the heavenly Jerusalem both his own mother and
81Gen. Rab. 44.5 and Song Rab. 1.4.3.

82Prologue 4 (Lawson, 53; Baehrens, 85. 18-20).
832.3 (Lawson, 114; Baehrens, 131. 1-9).
that of all believers.... Paul, therefore, plainly declares that everyone who
through faith from Christ follows after liberty, is a son of the freewoman;
and he says that this freewoman is the free Jerusalem, which is above; sh
it is who is the mother of us all.84
RY's comment on Daughters of Jerusalem is:

Jerusalem will one day become the metropolis of all countries, and draw
people to her in streams to do her honor.5
RY specifically employed the Greek term "metropolis" to expl

its etymological meaning of "mother-city."86 As a mother-cit
Jerusalem has daughter (i.e., outlying) cities. As Origen him
explained: "The metropolis of (Judea) is Jerusalem, this being
mother-city of a number of others whose names ... are gather
together ... in the Book of Joshua."87 To say that Jerusale
destined to be a metropolis of all countries implies that a
mother of colonies all countries will pay their respects to her.
is on the assumption that she is destined to achieve a terrestr
grandeur greater than her previous one.
This term "metropolis" on the lips of RY88 and in the light
the setting of this study may bear an additional cargo of mean
By using a term for mother-city, RY could be directing
exegetical barbs at the Pauline-based exegesis of Origen. His po
is that the Jerusalem of the verse which is "the mother of us
is not the heavenly one, but, on the contrary, the earthly on
which all people shall come. Conversely, Origen wrote (On
Principles 4.3.8):
If therefore Israel consists of a race of souls and Jerusalem is a city of
heaven, it follows that the cities of Israel have for their mother city the
84 See Horn. in Jos. 17.1, and Augustine Against the Jews 5.8: "When the J
hear these words, they take them in their natural meaning and imagine an ear
Jerusalem which is in slavery with her children, and not our eternal mother w
in heaven."
85Song Rab. 1.5.3: Exod. Rab. 23.10; and Tanhuma (ed. Buber) Hosafa Le-
Debarim 3.
86 R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, "Metropolis of all Countries" (Heb) Yerushalayim

LeDoroteha (Jerusalem, 1968) 172, listed various connotations.
870n First Principles 4.13.6. Philo also referred to Jerusalem as /ur)Tpo7roXLv
(Legatio 281; In Fla. 46) as did Josephus in War 7.8.7 (375). Baruch 4:9; 2 Baruch
3:1; and Yalqut HaMekiri Ps 147:4, all call Jerusalem "The mother of Israel." And
in 4 Esdras 8:7 "Zion is the mother of us all." See Ps 87:5 LXX.
88The idea itself is attributed to earlier authorities in 'Abot. R. Nat. 35 (ed.
Schechter) 106 and parallels.
REUVEN KIMELMAN 587
Jerusalem in the heavens; and so consequently does Judea as a whole.

[emphasis-R.K.]
That this was a subject of further contentiousness may be gathered

from two additional comments of RY and Origen. RY said:
The Holy One ... said: I will not enter the Jerusalem which is above until
I enter the Jerusalem which is below.
And Origen, responding to the idea of the centrality of the earthly

Jerusalem, said in CC (7.28-29):
We only wish to dispel any mistaken notion which supposes that the
sayings about a good land which God promises to the righteous were
spoken about the land of Judea. . .the words "to a land good and large,
flowing with milk and honey" cannot be made to refer to it, even if Judea
and Jerusalem are shown to be a symbolical shadow of the pure land which
is good and large and lies in a pure heaven, in which is the heavenly
Jerusalem. The Apostle discusses this land, as one who is risen with Christ
who seeks the things that are above (Col 3:1) and has found a meaning not
89B. Ta'an 5a; Midr. Ps. 122.4. E. Urbach, ("Yerushalayim Shel Mata VeYeru-
shalayim Shel Ma'alah," Yerushalayim LeDoroteha, Israel Exploration Society [Jeru-
salem, 1968] 156-71) argued that Aptowitzer's thesis (see Tarbiz 2 [1932] 272; and
S. Lieberman, Midreshe Teman [Jerusalem, 1970] 14-16), that the Jewish concept
of the Jerusalem above was suppressed due to Christian acceptance, is untenable on
two counts. One, there is insufficient evidence that this "Christian idea" was known
in Palestine before 70 C.E. Two, first-century Christianity was insufficiently threat-
ening to cause suppression of Jewish motifs (p. 160). Such conditions did hold in
the third century, allowing for RY's original rabbinic formulation of "Jerusalem
which is above" (p. 156). (For the minimal impact of Christianity on Rabbinic
Judaism in the first century see R. Kimelman, "Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of
Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity," Jewish and
Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2, Judaism from the Maccabees to the Mid-Third Century,
led. E. P. Sanders; London: SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress (forthcoming)]). Urbach
saw the setting of the comment as an effort to dampen apocalyptic fervor for the
Jerusalem above by reducing it to an appendage of the Jerusalem below.
Urbach did sense the polemical character of RY's comment and the tenuousness
of its biblical support (p. 157). He, however, did not offer any specificity to the
setting beyond the fact that, "In the days of RY there, apparently, spread in
Palestine the idea of the existence of the Jerusalem above" (p. 171). The setting is
transparent in light of Origen's comment and the dispute under discussion. With
regard to Urbach's general thesis, see W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land
(Berkeley, 1974) 151, n. 163, and literature cited, 149 and 162-63.
90 As Moore pointed out, Judaism 2. 365-66, "Eulogies of the profuseness of
nature in the land of Israel are found in rabbinical sources" as well as in extra
rabbinical sources (see also Gen. Rab. 15.7, p. 139 notes and parallels). RY also
indulged in such messianic speculations (Midr. Ps. 72.6).
contained by any Jewish mythological interpretation. [emphasis-R.K.]91
For Origen, earthly Jerusalem is but a symbolical shadow of

heavenly one.92 For RY, on the contrary, the destiny of hea
Jerusalem depends upon the destiny of the earthly one. Jeru
is more than "Urbs Sion unica, mansio mystica, condita coelo
medieval poetry.
Another interaction of the thought of Origen and RY w
affected their respective interpretations of the Song was occa
by their theologies of Jewish exile. Jewish misfortune and su
tion had long been an argument against Israel's claim to a sp
relationship with God. Cicero had long ago mocked the J
claim:
How beloved of the immortal gods that nation was is proved by the fac
that it is defeated, that its revenues have been farmed out and that it i
reduced to a state of subjugation.93
His argument has remained a theme of both pagan and Chri

polemics against Jews.94
In response to the pagan taunt, RY advocated faithfulness
Torah as the means of Israel's ultimate vindication:
A king married a noble lady and wrote her a generous ketuba (= a writ of
dowry and marriage) and leaving her went to the country by the sea where
he stayed for many years . . .and her family mocked her [for remaining
faithful]. ... So in this world the Nations of the World mock Israel telling
her: How long will you suffer death for the sake of your God .. .and Israel
enters the synagogues and the houses of learning and takes the Torah
scroll-this being the ketuba-and reads it, and is comforted . In the end
the Holy One ... will say to Israel: I marvel how you were able to wait for
Me all these years. And Israel will reply: ... But for Thy Torah which
Thou didst write for us, the Nations of the World would long since have
caused us to abandon Thee.95
91A phrase borrowed from Titus 1:14 denoting literal interpretation; see de
Lange, Origen and the Jews, 105.
92J.C. Plumpe (Mater Ecclesia: An Inquiry into the Concept of the Church as Mother
in Early Christianity [Washington, 1943] 76) underscored Origen's "overemphasis
on the church as a caelestis urbs and his evident disinclination to regard her, as she
actually was in good part, in conditione terrenae alicuius urbis."
93Pro Flaccum 28. See A. Marmorstein, "Judaism and Christianity in the Middle
of the Third Century," HUCA 10 (1935) 234-40.
94See J. Juster, Les juifs dans l'empire romain (Paris, 1914) 1. 46, n. 5; and Y.
Levy, Olamot Nifgashim (Jerusalem, 1969) 87, n. 48.
95Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 19.4, p. 305f., and parallels. See Baer, "Israel, the Christian
Church, and the Roman Empire" (above, n. 2) SH 102, Zion 19, for a possible
REUVEN KIMELMAN 589
This theme that Israel is not divorced from God as long a

possesses the marriage-ketuba is subsequently used in a Jew
Christian context. Here, Israel scorns any presumption that
sins annulled the Torah-ketuba or that she no longer retains t
title Israel:
Israpl is like a noble woman who rebelled against the king and was driven
out of the king's palace. People called her the king's divorcee. She replied:
Although the king drove me out of my home, I still hold my ketuba and
bear His name.9
This polemic surfaces in the comments of Origen and RY

Jeremiah 3 and Song 1:5. In the same decade (240-50) in wh
Origen composed his Commentary to Canticles, he completed h
Homilies on Jeremiah. On Jeremiah 3, which begins:
If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries smeone else, may sh
still go back to him? ... 97 And you, who have prostituted yourself with so many
lovers, you would come back to Me?
Origen commented:
God has given to the congregation of Israel a writ of divorce on account of
her sins [as evidenced by the fact that] they do not possess ... the Temple
and have been driven from their place.98
setting.
96Midrash Shir HaShirim 6.2, p. 107. Apropos is M. Simon's description (Verus
Israel [Paris, 1964] 165): "For Christianity, it was not only a question of defining its
originality, but indeed of demonstrating its legitimacy and the fall of the rival
religion. It was a matter of ousting Israel from its place and installing itself
henceforth as the sole depository of revelation. Conversely, Judaism had to work at
refuting the polemical and doctrinal pronouncements of the Church and the latter's
interpretation of Scripture by demonstrating the eternity of the covenant between
God and His People . . . Each religion contested the right of the other to exist."
97Following the LXX; the MT reads: "May he go back to her."
98See Origene, Homelies sur Jeremie, (SC 232; ed. Nautin; Paris, 1976) 4.2, p. 263
and n. 2.
RY,99 aware of the charge that exile implies divorce,100 respo

in commenting on Song 8:8:
The Nations of the world would taunt Israel saying to them: Why did G
expel you from His land and why did He lay waste His sanctuary? Isra
thereupon retorted: We are like a king's daughter who went to do '1m
~'; in her father's house. In the end she will return to her own home
peace (Song Rab. 8.9.2).
The Yefeh Qol, ad loc., explained the expression oD'tn by,10
99It is possible that R. Meir (of the second century) had already formulat
type of response to the pagan taunt (see Midr. Panim Aherim B [ed. Bube
Bet HaMidrash [ed. Jellinek] 1.21-22). Although this comment is found
above medieval collections, it may very well be, in the main, authentic mat
R. Meir, since it has the hallmarks of being a response to elements of th
Christian Cicero-like taunt-lacking, as it does, any reference to the two ele
of divorce and the destruction of the Temple which characterized the Ch
offensive. Moreover, it corresponds to R. Meir's known position (Sifre Deut.
Finkelstein] p. 157; and 308, p. 346-47) that Israel remains the children
whether behaving appropriately or not. If the idea had been formulated by R
then RY's contribution consisted in placing the response in a marriage cont
order to undermine the Christian charge of divorce, and to attach it to the
validate Israel's ongoing claim that she remains the Bride of the Song.
100As the Syrian Church Father Ephraem (306-73) says of Israel's "divo
God: "He wrote and delivered to her the divorcement as being rejected and
polluted ... He drove her out and sent her forth from His chamber" (Rhythm
against the Jews 13).
101 The expression V'W'" b: is difficult. N. H. Torczyner in the Yohanan Levy
Memorial Volume (Jerusalem, 1949) 59ff., connected it with the Latin regale
repudium or legale repudium the former of which means a unilateral divorce, as
opposed to divortium which is bilateral. The former is especially used when the
woman is not in her husband's house to receive the divorce.
This explanation, which implies that Israel is, in some manner, partially divorced,
fits a related homily which resolved the conflict between Isa 50:1 and Jer 3:8 with
this parable (MHG Deut. 685):
It is comparable to a king who was angry with his wife and wrote out her
get and threw it to her, but then snatched it from her and tore it up.
Whenever she demanded her alimony, he said to her: You are divorced.
And whenever she demanded to remarry another, he would say: Where is
your get with which I divorced you?
Similarly, whenever Israel does the will of the Holy One ... He says to
them: Where is your mother's writ of divorce (Isa 50:1). And whenever Israel
does not do the will of the Holy One ... He says to them: I have sent her
away and given her her divorce papers. (Jer 3:8)
Lam. Rab. 1.3 concluded the analogue differently:
Similarly, whenever Israel wished to practice idolatry, the Holy One. . .said
to them: (Isa 50:1). Wherever they wished that He should perform
miracles for them as formerly, the Holy One. . .said to them: Have I not
REUVEN KIMELMAN 591
context by citing b. Pesah 87b (another passage by RY!):

It is comparable to a man who became angry with his wife. Where does he
send her?-to her mother's house [i.e., Babylonia, the former home of the
matriarchs and of the patriarchs] ... The reason for the exile conforms to
common practice. If one is angry with his wife, he sends her to her father's
house. When the anger subsides, he fetches her back home. So God exiled
us to Babylonia until the anger subsides. Then He will bring us back to our
land in peace.
According to RY, the exile reflects a temporary separation, not a

divorce; a hiatus, not a rupture.102 Indeed, the very verse of
already divorced you? as it is written. . . (Jer 3:8)
Similar parables which account for such ambiguous situations are assigned to RY in
Num. Rab. 2.15.
There is no difficulty in assuming that RY knew the Latin legal term. His
knowledge of Roman legal terminology was relatively extensive; see Kimelman,
"Tiberias" (above, n. 19) n. 186. Furthermore, RY used the term repudium
elsewhere: l^"nMV i1 nlan:l wIrnm; 1r3 , (Gen. Rab. 18.5, p. 166 Vatican MS-see B.
Cohen, "Concerning Divorce in Jewish and Roman Law," PAAJR 21 [1952] 10f.).
The difficulty is that the law of repudium (pE1OVSLov) according to Cohen and S.
Lieberman, TextsS (New York, 1975) 226, applies when the woman sues for
divorce, as opposed to divortium when the divorce is granted by the husband.
I am unable to read this understanding of the terminology into the parable.
Accordingly, I find it attractive to follow Kasher (TS 2.248, n. 101) in rendering
RY's phrase in Gen. Rab. 18.5, p. 166: oT FiN ?T :,r,: V11W as "there is divorce by
mutual consent." According to Cohen, p. 7, however, it means "the dissolution of
marriage if either party became disillusioned with the partnership." Despite the
attractiveness of Kasher's suggestion, Cohen's parallels in Roman law to the
contrary remain an obstacle. Consequently, I have based myself on the contextual
analysis of Yefeh Qol, although his own etymology is forced. On the other hand,
both Rashi's (b. Pesah 87a) and Ramban's (Hilkot Qorban Pesah 2.11) interpreta-
tions are too positive to account for the expression in RY's parable.
102This perspective on RY helps to explain the manner in which he accounted for
the absence of a verse in Ashre (Ps 145): Because the fall of Israel's enemies [i.e.,
Israel] begins with it, for it is written: Fallen ,~b is the virgin of Israel, she shall no
more rise (Amos 5:2)-b. Ber. 4b.
This situation may be clarified by noting another polemical situation, in the
twelfth century, in which this verse and the previously-cited Jer 3:8 converged in
the mind of the great anti-Christian Jewish polemicist, Radak. As his biographer
F. E. Talmage put it: "Christianity claimed that .. . Israel had been given a bill of
divorce (Jer 3:8); that the daughter of Israel has fallen and is to rise no more (Amos
5:2). Not quite, replies Radak: 'It is as if He had given them a bill of divorce.' She
is not to rise again-for a long time" (David Kimhi-The Man and the Commentaries
[Cambridge, MA, 1975] 138). Note that the Talmud, ad loc., continued; "In the
West [i.e., Palestine] this verse is thus interpreted: She is fallen, but she shall no
more fall, Rise, 0 virgin of Israel." Clearly, there is a need felt to wrench the verse
out of its plain meaning. In this case, it is by inverting the inflection of the verse as
RY did to Jer 3:1 (see below, n. 106).
With regard to the I verse in the LXX, the Peshitta and the Dead Sea Scrolls, see
Jeremiah 3 wherein Origen saw a repudiation, RY audacio

interpreted as a call for reconciliation,'03 a resumption of rel
He commented:104
So great is repentance that it annuls a prohibition of the Torahl?5 [see De
24:1-4], for it is said: If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him a
marries someone else, may he go back to her? ... And you have prostitu
yourself with so many lovers. Yet, return to Me, says the Lord.06
This dispute about whether Israel remains the favorite of

continues in their respective exegesis of Song 1:5-6:
I am black and beautiul, 0 daughters of Jerusalem.
Origen commented:
Address yourself to the daughters of Jerusalem, you members of t
Church and say: The Bridegroom loves me more and holds me dearer th
you. o
M. Dahood, Psalms (AB; New York, 1970) 3. 335. Insofar as the LXX and the
Peshitta are the scriptural versions of Caesarean and Syrian Christianity respec-
tively, there is the possibility that RY's comment is parrying those who are arguing
for the superiority of the LXX or the Peshitta on the basis that these versions
contain the missing I verse which begins 1Pn:. RY's response would then serve to
point out that their version is not only not superior, but also incorrect. As R.
Nahman b. Isaac pointed out subsequently, the following verse (Ps 145:14)
mentions raising InD and therefore assumes that the previous verse should
mention falling (^B72) surely not faithfulness (t"00) as theirs does; see A.
Dobzewitz, Sefer HaMesaref (Odessa, 1876) 3-4. That RY's comment is impelled
by polemical considerations is inferred from the fact that Amos 5:2 was interpreted
against its grain in Palestine, and its latter part: Rise 0 Virgin of Israel is appropriate
for the context in Psalm 145.
103An alternative tactic for solving the theological dilemma posed by this verse is
to exclude the t^ (Jer 3:1) from the theological realm as does Sifre Deut. 306 (p.
330 with parallels and MHG Deut. 685). This strategy is closed to RY since he, as
noted by Heschel, Torah Min HaShamayim 197, on the contrary, frequently
explained t'" as referring precisely to God (b. Sanh. 93a; Sota 42b and 48a). He is
therefore left with no choice but to interpret the verse against its grain as he did in
similar cases; see Num. Rab. 2.15.
104B. Yoma 86b = MHG Deut. 649. The idea is developed in Pesiq. R. 44, p.
184a, albeit anonymously.
105RY also said: "So great is [the power of] repentance that it annuls a man's
final sentence" (b. Ros. Has. 17b).
106 RY takes 7al as an exhortation as does the Vg: tamen revertere ad me, dicit
Dominus, et ego accipiam te!! See the balancing act of the Targum and Radak, ad loc.
107Homilies on Song of Songs 1.6 (Lawson. 227; Baehrens, 37.9-11). For an
analysis of this verse in the light of other comments of Origen, see J. Chenevert,
L'eglise dans le commentaire d'Origene sur le Cantique des Cantiques (Montreal, 1969)
127-29; and E. Benz, "Ich bin schwarz und schon: Ein Beitrag des Origenes zur
Theologie der negritudo," Wort und Religion (eds. H. J. Greschat and H. Jungreith-
mayr; Stuttgart, 1965) 225-41.
REUVEN KIMELMAN 593
It is the Caesarean, R. Isaac (a major transmitter of RY's logia,

fact all the agadic passages that he transmits are in the nam
RY),108 who responded to Origen. On the next verse: Tak
notice of my swarthiness, it is the sun that has burned me (1:6
Isaac related this parable:109
It happened once that a provincial lady had a black maidservant who went
down with a companion to draw water from the spring, and she said to the
companion: Tomorrow my master is going to divorce his wife and marry
me. Why? asked the other. She replied: Because he saw her hands stained.
Retorted the other: Foolish woman, listen to what you are saying. Here is
his wife whom he loves exceedingly, and you say he is going to divorce her
because once he saw her hands stained. How then will he tolerate you who
are stained all over and black from the day of your birth?
So because the Nations of the World taunt Israel saying: This nation
degraded itself; as it says: They exchanged their glory for an ox ... (Ps
106:20). Israel replies to them: If we who sinned only once are to be
punished thus, how much more so are you?
And Israel further says to the Nations of the World: We will tell you
what we resemble. We are like a king's son who went out to the pasture
area of the city and the sun beat down on his head so that his face became
darkened. But when he went back to the town with a little water and a little
bathing his skin became white again and his former splendor was
restored. 110
So it is with us. If the sun of idolatry has tanned us, you are darkened
from birth. While you were still in your mother's womb you served idols.
How? When a woman is with child and she enters her idol-house, both she
and her child kneel and prostrate themselves to the idol.
According to Origen, the Church has displaced sinful Israel as

God's beloved.11 R. Isaac's riposte is that God would not prefer a
sin which is both congenital and chronic to a "skin-deep" sin
108See Bacher, Agadot Amora 'e, 2.1, 189.

109 Song Rab. 1.6.3 and with variants in Midrash Shir HaShirim 1.6, p. 29; and
Midrash Agadah trwmh 26. For the expansion of the theme, see Urbach, "The
Homiletical Intrepretations," SH 263ff., Tarbiz 160ff.
l101n the context of a Christian-pagan polemic, Origen was ready to concede the
Jewish point in this exchange that "the whole people, after they had done evil in
the sight of the Lord, are recorded to have been converted to living a better life and
to worshipping God according to the Law" (CC 7.18, end). See above, n. 36.
I lStrikingly, the references in this parable are reversed in the fifth-century
pseudo-Augustinian Altercation between the Church and the Synagogue, where the
Synagogue is described as a handmaiden who has tried to usurp the place of the
"true bride" of the Lord. See A. L. Williams, Adversus Judaeos (Cambridge, 1935)
326-36.
which occurred only once. Surely, he argued, Christianity's

temporary idolatry112 disqualifies her more than Israel's hist
peccadillo.
The respective positions of Origen and RY on the Song allegory
are epitomized in their deciphering of the dramatis personae of
Song 2:14: My dove. According to Origen, Christ is speaking to the
Church,113 according to RY, the Holy One is speaking to Israel
(Song Rab 2.14.1).
C. Conclusion
The result of this examination of the comments of Origen and

RY on the first six verses of the Song114 show them differing on
five major issues115 which divided Judaism and Christianity of that
period. They are:
112This is probably an allusion to the lapsing of Christians during the Decian

Persecution (251). Cyprian, in his De lapsis, written in the spring of 251, lamented:
"The many brethren who had fallen away during the persecution.... He spoke of
those who had sacrificed to the gods even before they were forced to do so, of parents
who had brought their children to participate in these rites, and especially of those who,
for a blind love of their property, remained and denied the faith" (emphasis R.K.;
cited by J. Quasten, Patrology [Westminster, 1950-60] 2. 348). A similar situation is
described by Eusebius, Martyrs of Palestine (9.2), when an edict of Maximinus in
the year 308 ordered: "that all people, in a mass, men with their wives and house-
holds, even babes at the breast, should offer sacrifices and libations and taste with
scrupulous care the accursed sacrifices themselves" (emphasis R.K.; trans. H. J.
Lawlon and J. E. L. Oulton [London, 1927]). For these suggestive settings, see
Baer, "Israel, the Christian Church, and the Roman Empire," SH 102, Zion 19.
Of course, it is also possible that there is no reference to a contemporary event at
all, only to the fact that most Christians of the late third century are of pagan
lineage. See Commentary 2.1 (Lawson, 92): "The daughters of this earthly Jerusa-
lem who, seeing the Church of the Gentiles, despise and vilify her for her ignoble
birth; for she is baseborn in their eyes, because she cannot count as hers the noble
blood of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob." Still, Origen's answer on verse 1:6a
(Lawson, 107) smacks of R. Isaac's: "She tells them that it is not a natural condi-
tion in which she was created, but something that she has suffered through force of
circumstance."
113 Commentary 3 (4).14, end (Lawson, 253).
114Origen's Commentary comprised ten books (see Eusebius H. E. 6.32.2 and
Jerome Ep. 33.4), most of which have been lost.
115 Urbach, "The Homiletical Interpretations," SH 268ff., Tarbiz 164ff., sug-
gested another parallel between Origen and RY ad Song 2:12, which, however, is
beyond the purview of this study.
REUVEN KIMELMAN 595
1. A Covenant mediated by Moses versus one negotiated by

him.
2.The NT versus the Oral Torah as "superseding" Scrip-
ture.
3. Christ versus Abraham.
4. The heavenly versus the earthly Jerusalem.
5. Israel being repudiated versus Israel being disciplined.
Note that when these antitheses are juxtaposed to each other, they
appear as halves of a debate. In the light of this and the com-
monality between Origen and RY, as discussed in the introduction,
it is safe to conclude that a contemporary Jewish-Christian dispute
on the meaning of the Song is reflected in the exegesis of Origen
and RY.1"6
116For evidence of actual Jewish-Christian disputations in the fourth century, see

R. L. Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind (New Haven, 1971) 29-30.
ted W Kixi .X<-iyor

hs.is :isthe firstt s us attempt to
eal with the impact of lberai.:.
on We"ean scholaishni . Ten

Rabbinics. Christianity. Rabbi Yokhanan and Origen On The Song of Songs. A Third-Century Jewish-Christian Disputation. Reuven Kimmelman

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Rabbinics. Christianity. Rabbi Yokhanan and Origen On The Song of Songs. A Third-Century Jewish-Christian Disputation. Reuven Kimmelman

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Harvard Divinity School

Rabbi Yokhanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-Century Jewish-Christian

The rabbinic influence on Origen's exegesis of the Song of

Y. Baer in 1956;2 the second by E. E. Urbach in

hands, G. Scholem argued that Origen was aware of a Jewish my

Origen mentioned having consulted a certain 'IovXXos

The correspondence, mutatis mutandis, between this and the

To keep it holy is l'Ppb which here connotes "to consecrate in

In the Contra Celsum (henceforth CC), composed ca. 24

Indeed, such thinking probably induced him to undertake the

Given that RY and Origen were both sometime denizens of

theological position;30 that both had sim

Scriptures was peculiar to the spirit of the times and flouri

prophets or angels-to sing to her, but longs to h

According to Origen, the bridegroom i

35Prologue 4; (Lawson, 46; Baehrens, 80. 6-12).

RY, however, could not expunge the role of middleman39 from

38Pesiq. R. 21.5 (ed. Ish Shalom) p. 100a = MHG Deut. 102.

It was as if a king wanted to marry a woman of good and noble family. He

The text continues by explaining that Israel is the woman of good

45Compare R. Murray: "[in Ephraem] as in Aphrahat the apostle is the 'go

The dispute continues with the interpretation of the last h

RY's comment appears in two versions of which the second i

In his Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud (CPT),50 L.

521'n1. or the variant W'1r, CPT 1. 149.

to Origen's comment on the very same verse. Origen, of cou

Both RY and Origen agree that the wine is the "ordinances

that the symbolism of the verse was already understood. S

60See Danielou, Origen, 139-73.

B'mBIDID '"i':n mnlnrn naIn 1 :n ]N

On this, see. E. Shulzinger, Yad Eliyahu (Jerusalem, 1971) 5. 80, on the y. p

the sake of that which was transmitted orally."64 Indeed, he

64B. Git. 60b, and anonymously in Tanhuma nh 3.

Thus there is warrant to assume that RY's preference for

RY interpreted the verse with reference to Abraham:

The parallel between the fragrance of Abraham and of

He was called "the greatest man" because he was worthy of

Abraham had misgivings, saying before God: Sovereign of the Universe,

Finally and most significantly, RY also contended that Abraham

Origen's and RY's comments reflect the divergent understandings

In the text of the Commentary, Origen fleshes out the allusion:83

81Gen. Rab. 44.5 and Song Rab. 1.4.3.

RY's comment on Daughters of Jerusalem is:

RY specifically employed the Greek term "metropolis" to expl

86 R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, "Metropolis of all Countries" (Heb) Yerushalayim

Jerusalem in the heavens; and so consequently does Judea as a whole.

That this was a subject of further contentiousness may be gathered

And Origen, responding to the idea of the centrality of the earthly

contained by any Jewish mythological interpretation. [emphasis-R.K.]91

For Origen, earthly Jerusalem is but a symbolical shadow of

His argument has remained a theme of both pagan and Chri

This theme that Israel is not divorced from God as long a

This polemic surfaces in the comments of Origen and RY

RY,99 aware of the charge that exile implies divorce,100 respo

The Yefeh Qol, ad loc., explained the expression oD'tn by,10

context by citing b. Pesah 87b (another passage by RY!):

According to RY, the exile reflects a temporary separation, not a

Jeremiah 3 wherein Origen saw a repudiation, RY audacio

This dispute about whether Israel remains the favorite of

It is the Caesarean, R. Isaac (a major transmitter of RY's logia,

According to Origen, the Church has displaced sinful Israel as

108See Bacher, Agadot Amora 'e, 2.1, 189.