Daf Ditty Eruvin 34: Boxthorn

‫ ָיִבינוּ ִסּיֹרֵתֶכם‬,‫ י ְבֶּט ֶרם‬10 Before your pots can feel the thorns, He will sweep it
.‫ ישענוּ‬,‫ָחרוֹן‬-‫ַחי ְכּמוֹ‬-‫ ָאָטד; ְכּמוֹ‬away with a whirlwind, the raw and the burning alike.
Psalm 58:101

National officials, press barons, journalists, Internetians, "Human Rights"

agencies, public intellectuals and a growing segment of the vox populi are

1
Throughout his psalms, David struggles with the reality that righteous people sometimes suffer while the wicked thrive. Psalm
58 is directed at the wicked, chastising them for their corruption and deceit. He warns that Hashem will bring retribution upon them
for their sins, and he invokes several metaphors from nature to express his sentiment. The atad (‫)אטד‬, ‘boxthorn tree,’ grows in the
desert and is quite thorny. It seems to defy nature, as it is strong and durable despite growing in unfavorable conditions. The wicked
might prick like the boxthorn and seem invincible, but David tells them that before they mature into a large, strong bramble, God
will hurl them away and destroy them.

1
 tapping increasingly into the poisoned aquifer of anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist
feeling.
Yet what is perhaps even more disconcerting is the comparable attitude of
many in the Jewish community today, mainly of the Left, who have made
common cause with their enemies, defamers and traducers.

There is not much question that what we are observing is a pathology of the
first magnitude, what the Talmudic sages called sin'at akhim, or brotherly
hatred, an element of Jewish life sufficiently pronounced to merit a name of
its own.2

2
David Solway is a Canadian poet, educational theorist, travel writer and literary critic of Jewish descent. He is a member of the
Jubilate Circle and formerly a teacher of English Literature at John Abbott College.

2
The Gemara relates that a certain army [pulmosa] once came to Neharde’a and took quarters in
the study hall, so that there was not enough room for the students. Rav Naḥman said to the
students: Go out and create seats by compressing reeds in the marshes, and tomorrow, on
Shabbat, we will go and sit on them and study there.

RASHI

Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection to Rav Naḥman, and some say that it was Rav Ukva bar
Abba who raised the objection to Rav Naḥman, from the mishna that states that if the reed was
detached and then stuck into the ground, yes; but if it was not detached and not stuck into the
ground, no.

This shows that it is not enough to compress the reeds, and they must actually be detached from
the ground before they may be used on Shabbat.

3
Rav Naḥman said to him: There, in the mishna, we are dealing with hard reeds, which may not
be bent and used on Shabbat, unlike soft reeds.

He adds: And from where do you say that we distinguish between hard reeds and reeds that
are not hard? As it was taught in a baraita:

Reeds, boxthorn, and thistles are species of trees, and therefore they are not included in the
prohibition of food crops in a vineyard, which applies only to herbs planted among vines.

And it was taught in another baraita: Reeds, cassia, and bulrushes are species of herbs, and
therefore they are included in the prohibition of food crops in a vineyard.

These two baraitot contradict one another, as one states that reeds are trees, while the other says
that they are considered herbs.

Rather, conclude from this that we must distinguish between them as follows: Here, in the first
baraita, it is referring to hard reeds, which are like trees; whereas there, in the second baraita,
it is referring to reeds that are not hard. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this
that our resolution of the contradiction is correct.

The Gemara raises a question with regard to the previously cited baraita: Is cassia a type of herb?
Didn’t we learn in a mishna:
One may not graft rue to white cassia, as this involves the grafting of herbs to a tree?

4
This proves that white cassia is a tree. Rav Pappa said: There is no difficulty, as cassia is distinct
and is considered a type of herb, and white cassia is distinct and is considered a type of tree.

Summary3

An army once came to Nehardea and Rav Nachman told his disciples, ‘Go out into the marsh and
prepare an embankment [from the growing reeds] so that tomorrow we might go there and sit on
them’.

Rami bar Chama raised the following objection against Rav Nachman or, as others say: Rav Ukva
bar Abba raised the objection against Rav Nachman: [Have we not learnt] that only if it had been
uprooted and then inserted [in the ground is the eiruv effective, [from which it follows, if it was]
not first uprooted and then inserted [in the ground the eiruv is] not [effective]? (Obviously because
it is forbidden to use a growing reed. How then could Rav Nachman permit the use of an
embankment made of growing reeds?)

— The other replied: There [it is a case] of hardened reeds. (which are regarded as trees the use
of which on the Shabbos is forbidden. Soft reeds, however, which come under the category of
herb, may, therefore, be used.)

And from where is it derived that we draw a distinction between hardened, and unhardened reeds?
— From what was taught: Reeds, thorns and thistles belong to the species of trees and are not
subject to the prohibition of kil'ayim in the vineyard; and another- [Baraisa] taught: Reeds, cassia
and bulrushes are a species of herb and subject to the prohibition of kil'ayim in the vineyard.

[Now are not the two Baraisos] contradictory to each other?

It must consequently be inferred that the former deals with hardened reeds while the latter deals
with such as are not hardened. This is conclusive. –

But is cassia a species of herb? Have we not in fact learnt: Rue must not be grafted on white cassia
because [this act would constitute the mingling of] a herb with a tree? —

Rav Pappa replied: Cassia and white cassia are two different species.

3
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Eiruvin_34-1.pdf

5
Hard reeds that are not hard

The straightforward meaning of Rav Naĥman’s statement is that he classifies reeds according to
their elasticity and softness:

When the reed is soft, it is considered an herb, both to permit treading on it on Shabbat, as there is
no prohibition against stepping on herbs, and with regard to the prohibition to plant it in a vineyard.

With regard to the prohibition against diverse kinds, it is surprising that the same species can at
times be considered an herb and at other times a tree.

The Rashba explains that Rav Naĥman’s intention was to differentiate between species of reeds:
There are types of reeds that are hard and are defined as trees, and there are reeds that are soft and
are considered herbs. It is possible that the Rambam understood this discussion in a similar manner.

6
 ‫ ה ל כ ות כ ל א ים ה ׳‬, ‫מ ש נה ת ור ה‬

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

Gemara to discuss a number of cases where plants may be used on Shabbat. The Gemara relates
that a certain army [pulmosa] once came to Neharde’a and took quarters in the study hall, so
that there was not enough room for the students. Rav Nahman said to the students: Go out and
create seats by compressing reeds in the marshes, and tomorrow, on Shabbat, we will go and sit
on them and study there.

In this case, when the army was stationed in Neharde’a, and soldiers were billeted in the yeshiva
facilities, leaving little room for the students, Rav Nahman suggested that they make chairs from
the reeds near the lake so that study on Shabbat could take place there.

4
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

7
Rami bar Hama brought our Mishna as a proof-text that use of the reeds should be forbidden while
they are still rooted in the ground.

Rav Nahman responded by distinguishing between reeds that had hardened and are considered
trees – which have a rabbinic decree forbidding their use on Shabbat – and soft reeds that are
considered vegetables, on which no such rabbinic decree was ever established.

Rav Nahman proves that this distinction exists by quoting two baraitot, one that includes reeds in
a list with trees, like the higi and the atad, while the other lists them with vegetables like kidah and
urbani.

The atad is the well-known boxthorn tree that accepts the challenge of leadership in Yotam’s
parable (see Shoftim, ch. 9) see below, after the position was turned down by the olive tree, the fig
tree and the grapevine – all of the fruit-bearing trees of significance.

The atad is identified as a Lycium plant belonging to the Solanaceae family. It reaches a height of
about 10 feet and grows wild in the desert. Its sharp thorns make it a prime candidate for the threat
of the leader that sinks his claws into his constituency, destroying them together with himself, as
represented in Yotam’s parable regarding his half-brother, Avimelekh. (see below)

Elsewhere, in Avoda Zara 70b, we encounter the same army in the same town of Neharde’a

8
The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain army [pulmusa] that entered
Neharde’a and opened many barrels of wine.

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: There was a similar incident
that was brought before Rabbi Elazar, and he deemed the wine permitted.

But I do not know whether he permitted it because he holds in accordance with the opinion of
Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Concerning uncertainty with regard to entry, the person or item is
ritually pure, or whether he permitted it because he maintains that most of those who went
with that army were Jews, i.e., that although it was a gentile army, the ancillaries were mostly
Jews.

And in Berachos 30b regarding the Mussaf prayer with a quorum:

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said that Ḥiyya bar Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the
opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said it in the name of his mentor, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.
Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: You have spoken well, as proven by what Shmuel said: In
all my days I have never prayed the additional prayer as an individual in Neharde’a, where
there is always a prayer quorum, except for the day

when the king’s army [pulmusa] came to the city, and the Sages were preoccupied and did not
pray communally, and I prayed as an individual, and I was an individual

9
 Uzziah, Jotham and Ahaz 1508
fresco painting by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel (Museum: Vatican
Museums)

Jotham’s Parable and atad

;f‫ ִלְמֹשַׁח ֲﬠֵליֶהם ֶמֶל‬,‫ ָהְלכוּ ָהֵﬠִצים‬f‫ח ָהלוֹ‬ 8 The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over
.‫ מלוכה )ָמְלָכה( ָﬠֵלינוּ‬,‫ַויּ ֹאְמרוּ ַלַזּ ִית‬ them; and they said unto the olive-tree: Reign thou over
us.

,‫ִדְּשׁ ִני‬-‫ ֶהֳחַדְלִתּי ֶאת‬,‫ ַהַזּ ִית‬,‫ט ַויּ ֹאֶמר ָלֶהם‬ 9 But the olive-tree said unto them: Should I leave my
‫ ָלנוַּﬠ‬,‫ִבּי ְיַכְבּדוּ ֱא„ִהים ַוֲאָנִשׁים; ְוָהַלְכִתּי‬-‫ֲאֶשׁר‬ fatness, seeing that by me they honour God and man,
.‫ָהֵﬠִצים‬-‫ַﬠל‬ and go to hold sway over the trees?

‫ ָמְלִכי‬,‫ַאְתּ‬-‫ ְלִכי‬:‫ ַלְתֵּאָנה‬,‫י ַויּ ֹאְמרוּ ָהֵﬠִצים‬ 10 And the trees said to the fig-tree: Come thou, and
.‫ָﬠֵלינוּ‬ reign over us.

,‫ָמְתִקי‬-‫ ֶהֳחַדְלִתּי ֶאת‬,‫ ַהְתֵּאָנה‬,‫יא ַותּ ֹאֶמר ָלֶהם‬ 11 But the fig-tree said unto them: Should I leave my
-‫ ָלנוַּﬠ ַﬠל‬,‫ְתּנוָּבִתי ַהטּוָֹבה; ְוָהַלְכִתּי‬-‫ְוֶאת‬ sweetness, and my good fruitage, and go to hold sway
.‫ָהֵﬠִצים‬ over the trees?

‫ מלוכי‬,‫ַאְתּ‬-‫ ְלִכי‬:‫ ַלָגֶּפן‬,‫יב ַויּ ֹאְמרוּ ָהֵﬠִצים‬ 12 And the trees said unto the vine: Come thou, and
.‫)ָמְלִכי( ָﬠֵלינוּ‬ reign over us.

10
 ,‫ִתּירוִֹשׁי‬-‫ ֶהֳחַדְלִתּי ֶאת‬,‫ ַהֶגֶּפן‬,‫יג ַותּ ֹאֶמר ָלֶהם‬ 13 And the vine said unto them: Should I leave my wine,
-‫ ָלנוַּﬠ ַﬠל‬,‫ַהְמַשֵׂמַּח ֱא„ִהים ַוֲאָנִשׁים; ְוָהַלְכִתּי‬ which cheereth God and man, and go to hold sway over
.‫ָהֵﬠִצים‬ the trees?

,‫ ַאָתּה‬f‫ ֵל‬:‫ָהָאָטד‬-‫ ֶאל‬,‫ָהֵﬠִצים‬-‫יד ַויּ ֹאְמרוּ ָכל‬ 14 Then said all the trees unto the bramble: Come thou,
.‫ָﬠֵלינוּ‬-f‫ְמָל‬ and reign over us.

‫ ִאם ֶבֱּאֶמת ַאֶתּם‬,‫ָהֵﬠִצים‬-‫ ֶאל‬,‫טו ַויּ ֹאֶמר ָהָאָטד‬ 15 And the bramble said unto the trees: If in truth ye
;‫ ֹבּאוּ ֲחסוּ ְבִצִלּי‬,‫ ֲﬠֵליֶכם‬f‫ֹמְשִׁחים ֹאִתי ְלֶמֶל‬ anoint me king over you, then come and take refuge in
-‫ ְות ֹאַכל ֶאת‬,‫ָהָאָטד‬-‫ֵתֵּצא ֵאשׁ ִמן‬--‫ַא ִין‬-‫ְוִאם‬ my shadow; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble,
.‫ַא ְרֵזי ַהְלָּבנוֹן‬ and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

Judges 9:8-15

Prof Stan Patterson writes:5

The tree is a common metaphor for Israel and is here used in a most creative manner. The
trees that go seeking a king are not identified as a species until the end of the parable where
they become the victims of the “bramble’s” treachery. Knowing the species of the trees
desiring a king is necessary for a clear understanding of Jotham’s intended message. For the
first tree approached is the olive tree, the second is the fig, third is a non-tree, the grape vine,
and finally the bramble. All are significantly smaller than the cedar of Lebanon and thus
incapable of fulfilling the request to “reign over” or “wave over” the cedar by virtue of their
relative size.

The olive and fig both refuse the request for advancement on the basis of a clear recognition
of their calling and personal satisfaction coming from the product their service provides. The
move away from the realm of trees addresses Abimelech’s lack of formal son-status, which
disqualifies him from service as the primary leader to replace Gideon. The vine, though not a
tree, reveals wisdom common to both of the previous candidates. All three knew what they
were created for and were not successfully tempted to covet a role that was not theirs in order
to gain power and the glory of position.

The bramble was a different sort of candidate. The bramble was lying in wait for an opportunity
to dominate and rule. The bramble certainly has a legitimate purpose in the ecology of God’s
creation, but that purpose is not attended by the prestige or public honor that is granted to
the olive, the fig, the vine, or the Cedar of Lebanon.

While certainly not the species referenced in Judges 9, without doubt kudzu qualifies as a
bramble of the highest order. It is opportunistic and voracious in its quest for dominance. It
can grow as much as 3 feet on a warm summer day and has the capacity to envelop and kill
trees by dominating the source of sunlight so completely that the tree starves. The bramble
(regardless of species) provides no possibility of symbiotic advantage to the tree.

5
https://www.andrews.edu/services/jacl/current_issue/parable-of-the-bramble.html

11
The bramble readily accepted the offer of kingship and just as readily followed with a threat
of coercive dominance. A paraphrase of the response might be, “Yes, I will do it. In fact, if
you don’t allow me to wave over you and be king, I will personally destroy you by fire.” This
eager acceptance and subsequent threat are both empty and shelter a tragic lie, for the truth
is that dominant coercive leadership brings decay and death.

The tree that shelters under the bramble would never have suffered the promised fire, but it
would have entered into a leadership relationship resulting in death.

Abimelech ruled Israel for three years (Judges 9:22) but is appropriately not remembered as
Israel’s first king. He was betrayed and died at the hands of his own “flesh and bones”
relatives—the Shechemites.

Jotham, who escaped into exile, does not reappear thereafter in the biblical record, but his
brief appearance and the parable of the trees provides a powerful testimony and insight into
the danger posed by the self-centered leader who aims at ascending to power and position
via dominance.

Lycium is a genus of flowering plants in the nightshade family, Solanaceae. The genus has
a disjunct distribution around the globe, with species occurring on most continents
in temperate and subtropical regions.

12
South America has the most species, followed by North America and southern Africa. There are
several scattered across Europe and Asia, and one is native to Australia. Common names English
names for plants of this genus include box-thorn and desert-thorn.
Lycium barbarum

Lycium are shrubs, often thorny, growing 1 to 4 meters tall. The leaves are small, narrow, and
fleshy, and are alternately arranged, sometimes in fascicles. Flowers are solitary or borne in
clusters. The funnel-shaped or bell-shaped corolla is white, green, or purple in color. The fruit is a
two-chambered, usually fleshy and juicy berry which can be red, orange, yellow, or black. It may
have few seeds or many. Most Lycium have fleshy, red berries with over 10 seeds, but a few
American taxa have hard fruits with two seeds
There are about 70 to 80 species. The most common are Lycium barbarum and Lycium chinense,
whose fruits (wolfberries or goji berries) are a traditional food crop in China.
The generic name Lycium is derived from the Greek word λυκιον (lykion), which was applied
by Pliny the Elder (23-79) and Pedanius Dioscorides (ca. 40-90) to a plant known as dyer's
buckthorn. It was probably a Rhamnus species and was named for Lycia (Λυκία), the ancient
southern Anatolian region in which it grew. The berry is called lycii fructus ("lycium fruit") in
old Latin pharmacological texts.
Matin Levey comments on Boxthorn as an ingredient in early ink preparations in late antiquity6:
That it was a black soot is without doubt since it was used to write in Torah scrolls. Almost all of
these have a black script. Soot from olive oil was the best for the preparation of fine soot. To bring
it into a mass which would stick together, it was mixed with a resin like that of balsam. It was also
put in a glass flask with olive oil in the sun to dry. The soot ink was prepared also from different
kinds of soot. For example, resin or pitch was burned, or the resinous wood of the pine was used.
Often this material was falsified with the soot of the baker's oven. For use, the soot was generally
mixed with gum.

6
Some Black Inks in Early Mediaeval Jewish Literature Author(s): Martin Levey Source: Chymia , 1964, Vol. 9 (1964)

13
Michael Livni writes:7

The question of authority in Judaism is one of the central themes in its history, ancient and modern.

Our story, the parable of Jotham (Jud. 9:1-6), takes place during that period of Jewish history when
internal tensions and external circumstances were leading to three different foci of authority: The
prophet, the priest, and the king, all of them under the sovereignty of God.

The tension between what is and what could be (in the reign of the Divine on earth here and now)
is a unique contribution of the people of Israel to the family of nations, as is the concept of the
equal worth of all human beings that has its roots in the biblical idea that we are created in the
Divine image.

It is the rejection of the determinism of traditional societies and the acceptance of human
responsibility for the state of the world; that is, the possibility of mending the world – what we call
tikkun olam. This idea has recently been restated by Thomas Cahill. 8

7
https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/304/304_jOTHAM30.pdf
8
Thomas Cahill, The Gifts of the Jews (New York: Doubleday, 1998). .

14
He was preceded by Max Weber, who believed that the fundamental distinctiveness in the religious
orientation of the Occident stemmed originally from ancient Jewish prophecy: "World historical
interest in Jewry rests upon this fact." 9

JOTHAM AND ABIMELECH

The first time that the question of monarchical dynasty was raised during the period of the Judges
was when: . . . the men of Israel said to Gideon, 'Rule thou over us, both thou and thy son, and thy
son's son also: for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian.'

And Gideon said to them, 'I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the Lord
shall rule over you' (Jud. 8:22-23).

Thus, Gideon rejected the idea that he should become king and found a dynasty. Martin Buber
concluded that this passage authentically represents, in the period of the Judges, ".. . . a will of a
religious and political kind in one, historically localizable . . . stage."3 Judges 9:1-6 relates the
story of how Abimelech, the illegitimate son of Gideon (here called Jerubbabel), murdered 70 of
Gideon's legitimate sons.

Only Jotham, the youngest son, hid and escaped. Abimelech sought to do what in a later generation
the prophet Elijah accused King Ahab of doing with vineyard of Naboth: 'Hast thou murdered and
also taken possession?' (I Kgs 21:19).

With the aid of the Shechemites, his mother's kin, Abimelech sought to introduce the foreign idea
of centralized monarchical leadership into the agrarian, free, and decentralized Israelite tribes.
When Jotham heard of the murder of his brothers, he went up to Mount Gerizim and uttered the
Parable of the Trees and explained its meaning in the context of what Abimelech had done and
would still do (Jud. 9:7-21). In the parable, the trees wish to crown a king.

They turn to the olive tree, then to the fig tree, and to the vine.

The olive, the fig and the vine all refuse. Then the trees propose kingship to the bramble: And the
bramble said unto the trees: 'If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and take refuge in
my shadow; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.'

The message is clear: It is contempt of monarchy. Abimelech as king would cause a conflagration
and, as the bramble, could offer little refuge. Note that the olive, fig and vine are three of the seven
agricultural species with which the Land of Israel is blessed. They were all found in the area of
Northern Samaria, where our story takes place: For the Lord God brings thee into a good land . .
. a land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and fig trees and pomegranates; a land of olive oil and
honey (Deut. 8:7-8).

However, the bramble – a thorn bush presumably but not certainly a species of the genus lycium
[Hebrew atad] – has no useful function to perform in any case. It is an ilan srak, a tree that bears

9
Reinhard Bendix, Max Weber (New York: Doubleday, 1960) p. 217.

15
no fruit. At best, it seems useless. At worst, its thorns make it very unfriendly, and when it is dry
it is easily inflammable and a potential fire hazard.

So here we have a value judgment on Abimelech and the foreign idea of centralized rule. At the
belief level, Jotham represents the theocratic potentially decentralized idea that only God is truly
sovereign. All are potentially equal and can be imbued with the holy spirit. It is a pre-democratic
democratic idea.

The judges are "called," as were Moses, Samuel and the later prophets. This was charismatic
leadership called forth by circumstances, as distinct from the later institutionalization of charisma.
Perhaps there is the thought that a monarchy will always result in "king worship" (as in the case of
Egypt), and hence there will be a danger of idolatry. At a more practical level, the individualistic
Israelite agriculturalists were unwilling to forgo their free life.

At a later stage, Samuel warned the Israelites of how a king would exploit them if they insisted on
having one (I Sam. 8:11-21).

However, such were the geopolitical realities resulting from the confrontations with the Philistines
that centralized organization and leadership became necessary.

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, 'No, but we will have
a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go
out before us, and fight our battles' (8:19). God then instructed Samuel to heed the people, and he
anointed Saul.

Yairah Amit writes10

The parable is thus intended to bring out the attachment of the trees to the idea of kingship. To
this end, it is also fashioned in a three and four pattern.

This structure enables it to repeat four times, one after another, the situation in which “the trees
went forth to anoint a king over them.”

On the fourth and decisive occasion, all of the trees address the bramble (9:14), and the bramble,
who is unable to do anything useful, accepts upon himself the task of reigning as king.

The ironic fashioning of the bramble as one under whose shade they come to take shelter, but
whom it would be better for them to fear because of its fire, is a characterization of the unsuccessful
attempt to set up a monarchy without divine approval.

10
Amit, Yairah. The Book of Judges: The Art of Editing. Trans. Jonathan Chipman. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

16
Possible connection to Aesop?

Zachary Margulies writes:11

Recent scholarship has entertained the possibility that Jotham’s Parable of the Trees (Judg 9:8-15)
is derived from the Greek text of one of Aesop’s Fables (Perry)12. This article refutes this notion,
tracing the dependence of Aesop’s fable on one Septuagint tradition, which itself is a translation
of the Hebrew. The article goes on to propose a pre-exilic setting for the biblical fable, based not
on its foregrounded opinion of monarchy, but on its background assumptions of deity.

11
VT 69 (2019) 81-94 brill.com/vt Vetus Testamentum Aesop and Jotham’s Parable of the Trees (Judges 9:8-15)

12
B.E. Perry, Aesopica Vol. 1 (Baltimore, 1952), pp. 422-423.

17
The origins of the fable told by Jotham in Judg 9:8-15 have drawn considerable speculation, due
to both the passage’s rare genre and its uncertain relationship to the surrounding narrative. While
not the only fable in the Hebrew Bible, the genre narrowly-defined appears only here and in 2 Kgs
14:8-10.213 This has led scholars to suggest that the fable-genre is not native to biblical narrative,
and that this fable in particular is either quite early, or a very late addition to the book.14 Based on
its seemingly oral qualities, older scholarship tended to identify the fable as an old poetic piece
incorporated by the author of the Abimelech narrative.

With the more recent recognition that the Jotham narrative (Judg 9:1-25) is likely part of a later
introduction framing an older Abimelech narrative (9:26-54),15 some have argued recently that the
parable was the latest addition.

Others, such as Jeremy Schipper in his recent work on parables, demur; while it may or may not
predate its present context, it is well suited to it.16 As with many issues in Biblical Studies, there
is no consensus.

In a recent article on the relationship between Hebrew and Greek literature, Thomas Römer has
argued in a number of cases for the dependence of Hebrew texts on Greek originals, suggesting a
Hellenistic date of authorship.17

Römer provides several useful passages for the discussion of the interrelationship of eastern
Mediterranean literature, ordering them in increasing likelihood of dependence. As his most
confident example, Römer proposes that Jotham’s Fable (Judg 9:8-15) is a direct translation of
Aesop’s Fable of the Trees and the Olive (Perry #262).18

The similarities are undeniable, as there is near word-to-word correspondence, with only verses
12 and 13 (the vine pericope) missing from Aesop’s version.

13
For a comparison of the two, see J. Sasson, Judges 1-12 (New Haven, 2014), p. 375
14
For the former, see B. Lindars, “Jotham’s Fable—A New Form-Critical Analysis” Journal of Theological Studies 24 (1973),
pp. 355-366. For the latter, K. Schöpflin, “Jotham’s Fable (Judg 9:8-15)—A Prophetic Text within the Book of Judges” in Basel
und Bibel: Collected Communications to the XVIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament,
Basel 2001, (Frankfurt am Main, 2004), pp. 97-102. Limiting the passage’s genre to “fable,” however, is deceptive. Noting that
fable is our word, not theirs, J. Schipper broadens the category to parable, which he defines as “short stories from any narrative
genre that function as explicit comparisons created by a biblical author rather than the reader.” Though fables use plants or animals
instead of humans as their characters, they serve the same narrative function as other types of parables. With this broader category,
Schipper finds seven parables in the Hebrew Bible (J. Schipper, Parables and Conflict, p. 2).
15
D. Fleming, The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible (New York, 2012), pp. 60-61.

16
For an overview of the scholarship on the fable, see J. Schipper, Parables and Conflict in the Hebrew Bible, (Cambridge,
2009), pp. 26-28.
17
T. Römer, “The Hebrew Bible and Greek Philosophy and Mythology—Some Case Studies,” Semitica 57 (2015), pp. 185-203

18
B.E. Perry, Aesopica Vol. 1 (Baltimore, 1952), pp. 422-423.

18
While acknowledging other possibilities, Römer understands the biblical passage as ultimately
derived from the Greek tradition, either through literary dependence or “a fixed oral tradition”
derived from the Aesop tradition.

If true, this would certainly lend support for the late dating of many other passages in the Bible
with Greek themes and tropes; it would also bolster Schöpflin’s assertion that the fable is a late
insertion into Jotham’s speech (Judg 9:7, 16-20).

Septuagint versions of Jotham’s Fable

. The two earliest variant manuscripts, Rahlf’s “LXX A” (Codex
Alexandrinus) and “LXX B” (Codex Vaticanus), date from the fifth and
fourth centuries CE, respectively.

19
Serge Frolov19 identifies the fable as one of three passages in the Gideon-Abimelech pericope
that are likely to have oral origins. He notes the highly repetitive nature of verses 8-14; each of the
exchanges is essentially identical, with variation only in the name of the tree, the tree’s produce,
and its epithet. Verses 8-14 are so repetitive that some have even suggested that verse 15, the odd
line out, is not original to the fable.

This repetition has led many to read the passage as poetry, though this is not universally accepted.
According to Frolov, the structure is suited to oral story-telling; the number and order of the trees
is irrelevant, and could be expanded or contracted to fit the context.

This proposal is corroborated by the nonbiblical recitations of this tale.

Rearranging the fable, Josephus reports the order as fig-vine-olive ( Jewish Antiquities V.236-
239), while Perry omits the vine entirely. Even the use of the epithets to fill out a line has a
distinctly oral-derived quality, evoking the epic poetry of Archaic Greece and Ugarit.

African boxthorn is a large shrub which grows up to 5 metres (16 ft) high and is covered in spines.

19
S. Frolov, Judges, The Forms of Old Testament Literature (Grand Rapids, 2013), p. 187.

20
The leaves are oval in shape and are 10–40 millimetres (0.39–1.57 in) long and 4–10 millimetres
(0.16–0.39 in) in width.
The solitary flowers emerge from the leaf axils and are purplish.
The species was first formally described in 1854 by British botanist John Miers in the Annals and
Magazine of Natural History. His description was based on plant material collected
from Uitenhage in South Africa.

Use of Boxthorn as a political weapon

“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide

behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew

behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharqad tree would not do that because it is one of the

trees of the Jews.”

Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791

For Muslims the boxthorn tree is their botanical metaphor for the Jews, but for Israelis their own

self-chosen botanical metaphor is the prickly pear. Both are thorny plants at home in the desert

and more than capable of protecting themselves in that harsh environment. For Muslims the Jew

is a tree that must be torn out of the soil, but the Jew in Israel sees his people becoming trees whose

roots hold fast to the soil of a revived land.

21
Lycium ferocissimum, the boxthorn tree, or the Gharqad tree, is the overarching metaphor of David

Solway’s The Boxthorn Tree. Muslims see the Jews as the people of the boxthorn tree and that

same genocidal Hadith, which appears in the Hamas covenant, among so many other Muslim

Brotherhood documents, is how Solway’s book looks back at Muslim hatred, persecution and

terror.

The Boxthorn Tree by David Solway is a collection of essays, literary in intent, practical in

expression, that touch on the topics of Jewish identity and Jewish life under the shadow of constant

genocide. As Solway notes, Jews live always under the threat of the fate of the boxthorn tree and

of every tree in a desert land. There is always someone seeking to tear them out of their small

piece of good earth.

22
David Solway however explores more than just Islamic terror, that quintessential threat, which in

the Hadith, from whose name the book emerges, the end of the world concludes with every rock

and tree, but the boxthorn tree, crying out for the death of the Jew. The Boxthorn Tree is about

more than the rendezvous with evil that has become such a part of Jewish history; it is about

Jewishness itself.

23