Jacob Neusner - Rabbinic Narrative_ A Documentary Perspective - Volume Two_ Forms, Types and Distribution of Narratives in Sifra, Sifre to Numbers, and Sifre to Deuteronomy ... (The Brill Reference Li

RABBINIC NARRATIVE:
A DOCUMENTARY PERSPECTIVE
VOLUME II
THE BRILL REFERENCE LIBRARY
OF JUDAISM
Editors
J. NEUSNER (Bard College) — H. BASSER (Queens University)
A.J. AVERY-PECK (College of the Holy Cross) — Wm.S. GREEN (University of
Rochester) — G. STEMBERGER (University of Vienna) — I. GRUENWALD
(Tel Aviv University) — M. GRUBER (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev)
G.G. PORTON (University of Illinois) — J. FAUR (Bar Ilan University)
VOLUME 15
RABBINIC NARRATIVE:
A DOCUMENTARY
PERSPECTIVE
Volume Two:
Forms, Types and Distribution
of Narratives in Sifra,
Sifré to Numbers, and Sifré to Deuteronomy
BY
JACOB NEUSNER
BRILL
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2003
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Neusner, Jacob, 1932-
Rabbinic narrative : a documentary perspective / by Jacob Neusner
v. cm.—(The Brill reference library of Judaism, ISSN 1566-1237 ; v. 15)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Contents: v. 1 Forms, types, and distribution of narratives in the Mishnah, Tractate
Abot, and the Tosefta—v. 2. Forms, types, and distribution of narratives in Sifra,
Sifré to Numbers, and Sifré to Deuteronomy. v. 3. Forms, type, and distribution of
narratives in Song of Songs Rabbah and Lamentations Rabbah and a reprise of Fathers
according to Rabbi Nathan Text A v. 4. The precedent and the parable in diachronic
view.
ISBN 90-04-13023-3 (v. 1. alk. paper)— ISBN 90-04-13034-9 (v. 2. alk. paper)—
ISBN 90-04-13035-7 (v. 3. alk. paper)— ISBN 90-04-13036-5 (v. 4. alk. paper)
1. Mishnah—Criticism, Narrative. 2. Narration in rabbinical literature. 3. Rabbinical literature—
History and criticism. 4. Midrash—History and criticism. 5. Parables in rabbinical literature.
I. Title II. Series.
BM496.9 .N37 N48 2003
296.1/2066 dc21 2003050220
CIP
ISSN 1566-1237
ISBN 90 04 13034 9
© Copyright 2003 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands

preface v
CONTENTS
Preface ........................................................................................... ix
Introduction .................................................................................. 1
I. What, exactly, Do I Mean by “Narrative”? .................. 1
II. Pseudo-narrative ............................................................ 5
III. What Questions Do I Address to the Narrative
Compositions? ............................................................... 10
IV. What Do I Mean by Distinguishing Non-Documen-
tary from Documentary Writing? ................................. 12
V. What Is at Stake? ........................................................... 13
VI. A Special Problem in Sifré to Numbers and Sifré to
Deuteronomy ................................................................. 15
PART ONE
NARRATIVES IN SIFRA
FORMS, TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION
1. Sifra 1-33: Parashat Vayyiqra Dibura Denedabah ................ 21
2. Sifra 34-69: Parashat Vayyiqra Dibura Dehobah ................. 24
3. Sifra 70-98: Parashat Sav ....................................................... 26
4. Sifra 99-121: Parashat Shemini ............................................. 28
5. Sifra 122-126: Parashat Tazria .............................................. 32
6. Sifra 127-147: Parashat Negaim ............................................ 35
7. Sifra 148-159: Parashat Mesora ............................................. 36
8. Sifra 160-173: Parashat Zabim .............................................. 38
9. Sifra 174-194: Parashat Aharé Mot ....................................... 39
10. Sifra 195-210: Parashat Qedoshim ........................................ 41
11. Sifra 211-244: Parashat Emor ................................................ 42
12. Sifra 245-259: Parashat Behar ............................................... 48
13. Sifra 260-277: Parashat Behuqotai ........................................ 49
14. Narratives in Sifra .................................................................. 57
i. The Authentic Narrative .................................................. 58
ii. The Mashal ........................................................................ 58
a. The Halakhic Parable ................................................. 61
vi contents
b. The Exegetical Parable ............................................... 63

iii. The Ma#aseh ..................................................................... 67
iv. Not Classified .................................................................... 71
v. Sifra’s Narratives in Canonical Context .......................... 73
PART TWO
NARRATIVES IN SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS
15. Sifré to Numbers 1-7. Numbers 5:1-14 ................................. 79
16. Sifré to Numbers 8-21. Numbers 5:11-31 ............................. 80
17. Sifré to Numbers 22-38. Numbers 6:1-9:14 .......................... 81
18. Sifré to Numbers 39-58. Numbers 6:22-7:89 ........................ 83
19. Sifré to Numbers 59-71. Numbers 8:1-9:14 .......................... 84
20. Sifré to Numbers 72-84. Numbers 10:1-10 ........................... 85
21. Sifré to Numbers 85-98. Numbers 11:1-23 ........................... 89
22. Sifré to Numbers 99-106. Numbers 12:1-16 ......................... 95
23. Sifré to Numbers 107-115. Numbers 15:1-41 ....................... 97
26. Sifré to Numbers 131. Numbers 25:1-16 .............................. 106
27. Sifré to Numbers 132-152. Numbers 26:52-29:40 ................ 112
29. Sifré to Numbers 159-161. Numbers 35:9-35:34 .................. 120
30. Narratives in Sifré to Numbers .............................................. 122
ii. The Mashal ........................................................................ 125
a. The Halakhic Parable .................................................. 126
b. The Exegetical Parable ................................................ 127
iii. The Ma#aseh ..................................................................... 140
v. Sifré Numbers’ Narratives in Canonical Context ........... 141
PART THREE
NARRATIVES IN SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY
31. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Debarim. 1-25 .................... 147
32. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Vaethanan. 26-36 ............... 154
33. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Eqeb. 37-52 ........................ 157
contents vii
34. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Re"eh. 53-143 ..................... 167

35. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Shofetim. 144-210 .............. 170
36. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Ki Tese. 211-296 ................ 171
37. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Ki Tabo. 297-303 ............... 172
38. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Nesabim. 304-305 .............. 173
39. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Ha"azinu. 306-341 .............. 178
40. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Vezot Habberakhah.
342-357 ................................................................................... 189
41. Narratives in Sifré to Deuteronomy ....................................... 202
ii. The Mashal ........................................................................ 206
a. The Halakhic Parable .................................................. 206
b. The Exegetical Parable ................................................ 206
c. The Non-Exegetical Parable ........................................ 228
iii. The Ma#aseh ..................................................................... 229
v. Sifré to Deuteronomy’s Narratives in Canonical
Context ............................................................................. 234
Appendix: Information without Knowledge. Clemens Thoma

on the Parable ............................................................................... 237
Index of Subjects .......................................................................... 245

Index of Ancient Sources ............................................................. 248
This page intentionally left blank
contents ix
PREFACE
Narratives constitute a coherent sector of Rabbinic documentary

writing, with their own definitive traits, inductively discerned. These
indicative traits of narrative characterize one document, and not
another, e.g. narratives in the Tosefta not the Mishnah, or more
commonly, one group of documents, and not some other, e.g., the
Mishnah and the Tosefta but not Sifra or the two Sifrés. That is
the point of this study,1 which carries out my second exercise in the
detailed, systematic classification, by documents, of Rabbinic nar-
rative writing. For Sifra and the two Sifrés this research-report sup-
plies these facts:
(1) What are the preferred types and forms of Rabbinic narra-
tive?
(2) How are these distributed across the canonical documents
of the formative age, the first six centuries C.E.?
(3) Do the several canonical documents or groups of documents
exhibit each its particular preferences for types and forms of narra-
tives?
An anomaly in the documentary program characteristic of the ca-
nonical writings explains why the answers matter. The rule is that
the respective Rabbinic compilations from the Mishnah through the
Bavli form coherent documents, each distinguished from all others
by its congeries of indicative traits of rhetoric, logic, and topic.2
Consequently, if we were handed a coherent piece of unattributed
canonical writing of an exegetical, analytical, or expository charac-
ter—indeed of any type of writing but narrative—we should have
solid grounds on which to assign that writing to a particular docu-
ment, whether the Mishnah,3 whether Song of Songs Rabbah.
1 Continuing Rabbinic Narrative: A Documentary Perspective. Volume One. Forms,
Types, and Distribution of Narratives in the Mishnah, Tractate Abot, and the Tosefta. Leiden,
2003: Brill. The Brill Reference Library of Judaism.
2 These traits are defined, document by document, in my Introduction to Rab-
binic Literature. N.Y., 1994: Doubleday. The sole exception to the rule is Mekhilta
attributed to R. Ishmael, where the sub-divisions of the document, the tractates,
have to be differentiated from one another.
3 With the qualification that the Tosefta and the Mishnah overlap.
x preface
But when it comes to narrative writing, matters are not so clear.

In Writing without Boundaries4 I demonstrate for a sample of eight doc-
uments, that writing roughly classified as narrative ignores the oth-
erwise-governing documentary indicators. The unique congeries of
rhetoric, logic, and topic that otherwise dictate the character of the
writing in that document and in no other simply do not govern nar-
rative writing of that same document.5 Consequently, if we were
handed a narrative without indication as to its source, we presently
have only a limited6 basis on which to assign it to one document
and not to some other, e.g., to the Mishnah and not to Song of Songs
Rabbah.
Now therefore I ask the documents to reveal their preferences,
respectively, as to narrative types and their functions. This we may
find out by describing and classifying the narratives contained in each
document in sequence. Do the documents provide a clear account
of the kinds of narrative (1) they require to accomplish their goals—
4 Texts without Boundaries. Protocols of Non-Documentary Writing in the Rabbinic Canon,
Lanham MD, 2002: University Press of America. Studies in Judaism series. Volume
One. The Mishnah, Tractate Abot, and the Tosefta, Volume Two. Sifra and Sifré to Numbers;
Texts without Boundaries. Protocols of Non-Documentary Writing in the Rabbinic Canon, Volume
Three. Sifré to Deuteronomy and Mekhilta Attributed to R. Ishmael. Volume Four. Leviticus
Rabbah.
5 That is not to ignore the appearance in more than a single document of some
compositions and even composites. First, the volume of peripatetic writing in the
aggregate is trivial, as I show in Extra- and Non-Documentary Writing in the Canon of
Formative Judaism. II. Paltry Parallels. The Negligible Proportion and Peripheral Role of Free-
Standing Compositions in Rabbinic Documents. Binghamton 2001: Global Publications.
Academic Studies in the History of Judaism Series. Second, and more impor-
tant, in many, many instances in which a composition or composite or even entire
chapter appears in two or more documents, we are able by appeal to the charac-
teristic traits of each document to discern to which of the two documents the shared
pericope is primary, and to which it is secondary. For example, a passage of the
Mishnah cited in Leviticus Rabbah never conforms to the indicative traits of Leviticus
Rabbah and always conforms to those of the rest of the Mishnah. More to the
point (and more subtly), a protracted passage, an entire parashah, that occurs both
in Leviticus Rabbah and Pesiqta deRab Kahana can be shown to be primary to
Leviticus Rabbah (conforming to its paramount documentary traits) and second-
ary to Pesiqta deRab Kahana (not conforming to the otherwise-indicative traits of
Pesiqta deRab Kahana). This I show in From Tradition to Imitation. The Plan and Program
of Pesiqta deRab Kahana and Pesiqta Rabbati. Atlanta, 1987: Scholars Press for Brown
Judaic Studies.
6 Because of the results set forth in Volume I and here, we can now, in fact,
define the narrative protocols that govern in the Mishnah and the Tosefta, Sifra
and the two Sifrés. These protocols signal probabilities: a ma#aseh/case with cer-
tain attributes is very likely to derive from the Mishnah, not Sifré to Deuteronomy,
and so on; so too for the Mashal/parable.
preface xi
and also (2) those not required? This we may discover by comparing and
contrasting the repertoire of types of narratives of one document with
that of another document, whether kindred (Mishnah/Tosefta) or
distinct (Mishnah, Song of Songs Rabbah).
Why do the answers matter for the study of Rabbinic Judaism?
At this time we do not know how Rabbinic narratives correlate with
the boundaries defined by a particular document—or whether in the
Rabbinic canon narratives form a non-documentary corpus of writing
altogether. And what is at stake in answering that question is how
on the foundations of literary evidence and its traits we are to de-
scribe the Rabbinic structure and system. That is because a theory
on the way in which the documentary evidence took shape and on
how it accomplishes its compilers’ goals is required for that descrip-
tion. If we do not know whether or how narratives fit into the ca-
nonical constructions of Rabbinic Judaism in its formative age and
normative statement, we cannot account for important data of that
Judaism.
Why then does the historical, literary, and religious study of that
Judaism now require investigation of the order and regularity ex-
hibited by narratives in the respective documents. Since narratives
assuredly represent a distinct type of writing in the Rabbinic can-
on, we wonder whether they carry a distinctive message as well.
Specifically, do they represent a separate component of the canon-
ical documents in program as well as in form? Or do they cohere
to the theological program of the document(s) in which they find
their place? That is one way of dealing with the anomaly of narra-
tives in the canonical compilations, a way demanded by the interi-
or logic of the documentary hypothesis.
That problem certainly leaves open a variety of illuminating mat-
ters, not dealt with here. Issues of “narrativity” and “poetics,” im-
portant in the literary-theoretical context, for example, do not per-
tain to the study of problems of religion, its history and theology.7
7 One current instance of the aesthetic reading of Rabbinic narrative is Jef-
frey L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture. Baltimore,
1999: Johns Hopkins University Press. He “strives to recapture the meaning and
literary impact that the stories would have had for their original authors and
audiences,” so Eliezer Segal, review, Journal of American Academy of Religion 2001,
69:954. Other instances are Yonah Frenkel, Iyunim be#olamo haruhani shel sipur ha"agadah
(Tel Aviv, 1981), and Ofra Meir, Hademuyot hapoalot besipure hatalmud vehamidrash
(Jerusalem 1977), and her Sugyot bapoetikah shel sipure hazal (Tel Aviv, 1993). My
reading of David Stern, Parables in Midrash. Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Litera-
xii preface
To be sure, a definition of “narrative” in contrast to all other kinds

of writing in the Rabbinic canon is required. But even there, the
documentary hypothesis governs the kind of definition that is set
forth. Specifically, in the Introduction to, and Chapter One of,
Volume One, the latter devoted to what I call pseudo-narratives,
I define what, for the present purpose, I mean by narrative. There
I answer the two-sided question of inclusion and exclusion. In those
two statements readers will find a full account of my analytical pro-
cedures: the questions I systematically raise, item by item, document
by document, and how I find answers to them. For those who pre-
fer a brief summary, I supply a precis in the Introduction to this
volume, which follows.
What, then, do I claim in this project to prove? I state with heavy
emphasis:
Narratives no less than expository, exegetical, and analytical writing, do form
part of the documentary self-definition of the Rabbinic canonical writings, a fact
established in Volume One for the Mishnah and the Tosefta and here for Sifra
and the two Sifrés. The fulcrum of interpretation and analysis, for narrative as
much as for all other kinds of canonical writing in formative Judaism, therefore
is the document.
What I show is that the repertoire of narrative forms and types
in the documents treated in Volume One and here does serve the
manifest documentary purposes of the respective compilers of those
writings and does not ignore or disrupt them. The genre, the nar-
rative, assumes a subordinated role within the programs of the sev-
eral Rabbinic documents. And with what consequence for the study
of the formative history of Judaism, which is the center of my en-
terprise? Again with emphasis:
It is analytically meaningless to talk about “the Rabbinic narrative” or “the
Rabbinic parable” or “the Aggadah” or “the Rabbinic folk-tale” or any com-
parable, generic category that ignores documentary boundaries. The principal,
and primary, analytical initiative commences with the document—the traits
of its narrative, parable (Mashal), Aggadah, folk-tale, and other generic cate-
ture, Catherine Hezser, Form, Function, and Historical Significance of the Rabbinic Story
in Yerushalmi Neziqin, and Galit Hasan-Rokem, Web of Life. Folklore and Midrash in
Rabbinic Literature is reproduced in the Appendix of Volume One, and of the spe-
cial problem of the parable in documentary context by Clemens Thoma and his
co-workers, in the present volume. These represent a vast literature of literary-
critical analysis, both classical and contemporary. The answers to the documen-
tary questions of a formal, form-analytical character that I raise in this exercise
do not present themselves in that literature, with which I do not intersect.
preface xiii
gories. We may then speak of the narrative or parable or case/precedent (ma#aseh)

in the Mishnah or the Tosefta or Sifra or one or another of the Talmuds, and
only then ask how the narrative or parable or ma#aseh as represented by the
one document compares, or contrasts, with that of another.
It follows that, just as in Volume One I identified the documen-
tary preferences as to narrative that characterize the Mishnah, trac-
tate Abot, and the Tosefta,8 so here I do the same for the three Tan-
naite Halakhic Midrash-compilations, which carry forward the work
of the Mishnah and the Tosefta and cite both documents verbatim.
We begin with the data of the Sifra, then Sifré to Numbers, and fi-
nally, Sifré to Deuteronomy. Volume Three then moves on to the
characterization of some of the Rabbah-Midrash-compilations of the
formative canon.
Concrete results even now come into view. My preliminary im-
pression is that just as Mishnah-Tosefta prefer the ma#aseh, the former
in its stripped-down, economical version, the latter in that version
and in developments thereof, so Sifra and the two Sifrés prefer the
Mashal, ordinarily, as the context requires, for Halakhic clarification
or, still more commonly by far, for exegetical exposition. In both
instances the Mashal derives from the exegetical or Halakhic con-
text, particular to the case at hand, and not from some corpus of
free-floating stories adapted for the purpose at hand. Indeed, the
Mashal and the Ma#aseh emerge as affines in Sifra and the two Si-
frés, differentiated by formal qualities, not by function at all. The
preference of the Rabbah-Midrash-compilations will likely prove to
be the fully-articulated story, with a beginning, middle, and end, with
tension and resolution thereof, as I showed for the Fathers Accord-
ing to Rabbi Nathan in Judaism and Story.9
8 Clearly, at this stage we can say nothing about the types of narrative viewed
in abstraction from the documents, e.g., in a canonical framework: “the Rabbinic

narrative,” or “Talmudic stories” viewed without differentiation in their own frame-
work or in documentary context, let alone “the Aggadic narrative,” as though all
“Aggadah” formed an undifferentiated composition. The conclusions of the Pref-
ace pertain. But once the types of narratives of each canonical document, viewed
on its own, have been collected and classified rigorously—explaining not only
inclusion but exclusion—then work on “the Rabbinic narrative” or “Talmudic
stories” or “the Aggadic narrative” will become analytically possible. As matters
now stand, the premise of inquiry—documentary lines mean nothing—is untested
by Rabbinic narratologists.
9 Judaism and Story: The Evidence of The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan. Chicago,
1992: University of Chicago Press. Reprint: Binghamton, 2002: Global Publica-

tions, Classics in Judaic Studies series.
xiv preface
The larger plan of this project now takes shape. First, I plan a
volume III of collection, classification, and analysis of narrative and
pseudo-narrative data, document by document, for Lamentations
Rabbah, Leviticus Rabbah-Pesiqta deRab Kahana, and Song of
Songs Rabbah. These documents—so I have the impression at this
time—prefer the fully-articulated, authentic narrative to the ma#aseh
and furthermore shape the Mashal to their larger documentary pref-
erence for authentic narrative, a preference not documented for
Mishnah-Tosefta or for the Tannaite Midrash-compilations. To
volume III I will add a unit on “The Fathers According to Rabbi
Nathan Text”, reprising the results from Judaism and Story.
What then? A work of systematization, correlating the several prin-
cipal types of narratives with the documentary venues they serve is
required. For when the three volumes are completed, I will have
shown the documentary correlation of narrative forms and types to
particular compilations and explained the correlation by appeal to
the larger program of the compilers of the respective documents.
Results to sustain that work are already in hand. I contemplate a
study tentatively called The Case, the Parable, and the Story in Rabbinic
Judaism: A Canonical Perspective. This will yield the case/ma#aseh high-
lighted as a distinct problem, with its variations as these character-
ize the usage in the different documents, so too the parable/Mashal
and the “authentic story” (anecdote, protracted narrative).
As is always the case, I conduct my research in conversation with

many colleagues and through diverse media, other peoples’ publi-
cations not the least of them. From some writings and counselors I
learn what to do, from other writings, what not to do. I am espe-
cially thankful to those who, by telephone and e-mail, comment as
the work unfolds in its successive drafts and changing results. In that
context, as ever, Professor William Green has been especially help-
ful.
I express a special word of thanks to Professor Steven D. Fraade,
Yale University, for promptly supplying me with data that I required
and did not have ready at hand; and to Professors Ben LaFarge, Bard
College, and Galit Hasan-Rokem, Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
for guiding me, in questions of literary theory, to illuminating books
and articles, which I should otherwise have missed.
JACOB NEUSNER
Bard College
introduction 1
INTRODUCTION
In volume one, introduction and chapter one, I define the project

in detail. These accounts explain the program of this volume as well.
For those readers who wish to proceed directly to the evidence and
analytical problems addressed in these pages, a very brief précis of
the main points follows.
I
What, exactly, do I Mean by “Narrative”?
A narrative piece of writing in the Rabbinic corpus of late antiq-

uity is governed by a teleological logic of coherent discourse, a matter
defined presently, and all other kinds of writing in that same cor-
pus cohere through an other-than-teleological logic of coherent dis-
course. That consideration affords a completely objective criterion
for defining narrative both inclusively and exclusively. Where that
logic functions, the composition qualifies as narrative, where not,
not. But I hasten to qualify: the canon encompasses pseudo-narra-
tives, meaning, writing that resembles a story but that coheres other
than through teleological logic.
By “logic of coherent discourse” I mean, the logic by which
the writer links two or more sentences into a statement deemed to
cohere, to make sense, to form a whole that exceeds the sum of the
parts as in syllogistic writing. The logic uniquely characteristic of
narrative joins two or more facts to convey a proposition through
the setting forth of happenings in a framework of inevitability, in a
sequence such that the sequence itself makes the point. In Rabbinic
narrative the order of the components of the completed construc-
tion (allegations, incidents, statements) establishes not merely the facts
of what happens, but the teleology,—the purpose or goal of the facts
in necessary order— that explains those facts. Then we speak not
only of events but of their causal, consecutive relationships. This
definition of matters takes on greater concreteness when we consider
the alternative logics of coherent discourse that function in the Rab-
binic canon.
2 introduction
Therein I discern four available logics of coherent discourse by

which two or more sentences are deemed to constitute a statement
of consequence and intelligibility.1 These are as follows:
(1) the teleological logic that imparts coherence to data to yield
a coherence based on the teleology, or end-purpose, of all data, which
is different from
(2) the propositional, syllogistic logic that imparts coherence to
data to yield a proposition and generate a syllogism, which is dif-
ferent from
(3) the arbitrary logic that joins two or more statements together
on purely formal grounds, and which also is different from
(4) the paradigmatic logic that through the juxtaposition shows
the structural coherence of two or more rules or cases, yielding a
pattern, more concretely: producing (in context) jurisprudence out
of laws, laws out of cases, exemplary cases out of random coinci-
dences.
Of the four logics that in my survey I have found to define the
media of establishing coherence within pericopes of the canonical
documents, two require consideration here, teleological logic and by
contrast syllogistic or propositional logic.
In the teleological mode of thought that signals narrative and only
narrative we link fact to fact and also prove (ordinarily implicit)
propositions by appeal to the goal or end—hence, teleological—a logic
of coherence that is implicit in the purposive sequence of facts. The
logic of narrative establishes coherence by the principle of much
historical writing of facts deemed continuous and causative, post hoc,
ergo propter hoc: because one matter preceded another, the prior matter
has caused the posterior one—hence, history or story. It follows that
only at the end of the composite do all the pieces fall into place.
When the goal is realized, the consequences of the combination of
this with that become apparent. Then the reason, first this, then that,
emerges. So by invoking the word “teleology,” I mean to stress that
the pieces of data cohere not by reason of their own traits but by
appeal to a goal beyond themselves.
How come the goal is signaled by the very sequence of fact-bear-
ing sentences? It is because the goal transcends, and imposes pro-
1 I have spelled these matters out in detail in The Making of the Mind of Judaism.
Atlanta, 1987: Scholars Press for Brown Judaic Studies.

introduction 3
portion, coherence, and order on, all the distinct parts of data. No
datum is fixed and final until the end. Here the reader does not know
what the message really is until the end of the story. In teleological
discourse, therefore, the point is at the end, and not learned along
the way. Stopping at any point before the end will demolish the
construction and leave incoherent and senseless bits and pieces lit-
tering the path to nowhere. By contrast, in a propositional compo-
sition of a syllogistic character, each component is fully cogent in
its own traits and terms, e.g., it may be constituted by an opinion
that on its own bears a meaningful statement.
So what defines narrative and no other type of Rabbinic writing
is a trait of mind that discerns purpose in the very order of facts,
first this, then that, therefore this led to that and explains it. The “logic”2
that makes sequence, movement, dialectics register so that “this”
coheres to “that” as I said may be roughly characterized: post hoc,
ergo propter hoc: that happened in sequence after this, it therefore
happened because of this. In more abstract language, the logic par-
ticular to narrative joins a sequence of statements of action or thought
in such a way as to yield a cogent statement. By reason of their or-
der the parts cohere into a whole that exceeds the sum of the parts.
That order is taken to bear meaning and exhibit purpose or inten-
tion, and that logic I therefore call “teleological,” hence “the teleo-
logical logic characteristic of and, in Rabbinic context, unique to
narrative.”
Now contrast teleological with syllogistic or propositional logic.
By far the most important logic of coherent discourse is the philo-
sophical logic of proposition and syllogism. By it facts and reason
cohere to yield syllogisms, e.g., two facts produce a third. A way of
conducting philosophical argument is the demonstration we know
in general as Listenwissenschaft, that is, a way to classify and so estab-
lish a set of probative facts. These compel us to reach a given con-
clusion, one that transcends any and all of the facts but is contained
within each of them. These probative facts derive from the classifi-
cation of data, all of which point in one direction and not in an-
other. Then the traits of the individual bits of data register on their
2 I put “logic” in quotation-marks here because of the dubious standing of the
matter, as everyone recognizes. But then Aristotle produced natural philosophy

but not the ordered history or intent and purpose that sustains unfolding stories.
4 introduction
own, and, seen in any order but only all together, they yield a pat-
tern, produce a generalization, demonstrate a principle.
A catalogue of facts, for example, may be so composed that,
through the regularities and indicative traits of the respective en-
tries, that the catalogue yields a proposition affecting more facts
than are catalogued, thus producing a syllogism. In the Halakhah
this may or may not be articulated, but it never has to be, that is
the power and art of the Mishnah, the foundation-document of
the Halakhah. In the Aggadah, in the main Rabbah-compilations,
Leviticus Rabbah, for example, the besought proposition is ordi-
narily articulated, outset and end, in complex composites of a syl-
logistic character. Accordingly, items are interchangeable. Each
exemplifies a trait common to them all; that is why the list works.
Therefore the order of the items rarely registers the besought propo-
sition; the traits common to the items, in whatever sequence, make
all the difference.
A list of parallel or comparable items all together points to a simple
conclusion; the conclusion may or may not be given at the end of
the catalogue, but the catalogue—by definition—is focused. All of
the catalogued facts are taken to bear self-evident connections to one
another, established by those pertinent shared traits implicit in the
composition of the list. These therefore bear meaning and point
through the weight of evidence to an inescapable conclusion. The
discrete facts then join together because of some trait common to
them all. This is a mode of classification of facts to lead to an iden-
tification of what the facts have in common and—it goes without
saying, an explanation of their meaning. These and other modes of
philosophical argument are entirely familiar.
How do the two logics of coherent discourse compare and con-
trast? Philosophical logic of coherence differs from the teleological
logic characteristic of narrative for in philosophical logic, the sequenc-
ing of the facts in a philosophical construction bears no part of the
burden; we can reproduce our cases in any order with the same result.
By contrast, in teleological logic the manufactured sequence estab-
lishes a moral that by reason of the position of the data in some way,
rather than in some other, is always blatant. Here too, it hardly
matters whether or not the generalization is stated in so many words.
That is because the power of well-crafted narrative is so to order
the components of the construction as to make unnecessary explic-
introduction 5
itly announcing the moral. So narrative sees cogency in the neces-

sary order of events understood as causative. Purpose, therefore cause,
takes the form of a story of what happened—once upon a time, some-
one did something with such-and-such a consequence—because it
had to happen.
Whatever the form, whether invested with the aura of story-tell-
ing or not, the presence of teleological logic marks a composition
as narrative, and the absence of that logic denies it that status. If,
as we shall now see in pseudo-narratives, we are told in the form of
a story about what happens in the Temple on various occasions, the
tale of how rites are performed, we can invoke the formal issue: does
the outcome become clear only at the end, or is the sequence merely
formal, a matter of a correct ordering of action, but not teleologi-
cal—message-bearing, detail by detail when in fixed array.3
II
Pseudo-narrative
Let us return to the matter of verisimilitude as against authenticity:

what about compositions that by the criterion of teleological logic
do not qualify as narratives but that do convey a narrative “tone”
or impression, e.g., a sequence of actions and their outcomes, or a
setting for a story that is not actually told, e.g., “they were walking
along the way and he said to him…,” “he said to him…” “he said
to him…”—with no action but only talk that is propositional, not
ordered teleologically? I call “pseudo-narratives” those compositions
that adopt what looks like a narrative tone but cohere on some foun-
dation other than the logic of teleology. In that connection I iden-
tify three special problems, all involving a described action or event,
none invoking teleological logic. These bear resemblance to stories,
the rhetoric corresponding to what generally characterizes narratives
in Rabbinic context. But their principal parts do not cohere through
the required logic of coherent discourse. They are
(1) “conversations”4 (“he said to him… he said to him…”);
3 I follow Ithamar Gruenwald’s definition of ritual in his Rituals and Ritual Theory
in Ancient Israel. He sees ritual as action, fixed and autonomous, without reference
to the story that accompanies the action (myth).
4 Quotation-marks signify the distinction between verbatim reports of conver-
sations and fabrications of “conversations” out of surmise or convention, such as

characterize nearly the whole of the Rabbinic canonical record of things people
6 introduction
(2) presentations of ritual conduct in the Temple (and in the

court) (“he did this… he did that…”); and
(3) the precedent or case, usually but not invariably marked
ma#aseh.5
The “conversations” construct a setting for what are, in fact,
merely exchanges of principles or arguments: scripted, artificial dia-
logue, a pseudo-narrative setting for an analytical presentation. An
example would be an account of how one day, such-and-such hap-
pened, the rabbis ruled so-and-so, and Rabbi X argued… Rabbi Y
argued… through several matched exchanges, followed by “they
voted and ruled….” Here is an event that yields a rule, not a nar-
rative.
The presentations of ritual conduct in the Temple represent a
particular type of writing restricted to a particular topic. They imi-
tate the preference of Scripture, e.g., Leviticus 16, for presenting
rituals through described action, not “he should do thus and so” but
“he did/does thus and so.” Much scripted dialogue may accompany
the presentation of cultic activities. But the details all register on their
own, omit any one and the account fails. To make matters concrete,
let me give a single example of such a pseudo-narrative cultic com-
position, one that sets forth the rite of reaping the barley sheaves
used in the grain offering of the #omer on the opening day of Pass-
over. Here we have a scripted language, a fixed exchange of for-
mulas, each autonomous and bearing sense unto itself, not only at
the end:
Mishnah-tractate Menahot 6:3
A. How did they do it?
B. Agents of the court go forth on the eve of [the afternoon before]
the festival [of Passover].
C. And they make it into sheaves while it is still attached to the
ground, so that it will be easy to reap.
D. And all the villagers nearby gather together there [on the night
supposedly said to one another. In that record literary convention and artifice
govern; there is nothing that remotely qualifies as a verbatim report of things re-
ally said, as a conversation that really took place on some one day in some deter-
minate situation.
5 The distinction between a precedent and a unique case, lacking authority as
a precedent, makes no difference in the contexts we survey, hence I avoid mak-

ing a commitment as to how I classify the ma#aseh in the Mishnah. In the Tosefta
the ma#aseh takes on further tasks in context, sometimes replicating the Mishnaic
usage, some times going well beyond.
introduction 7
after the first day of Passover], so that it will be reaped with great pomp.
E. Once it gets dark [on the night of the sixteenth of Nisan], he says
to them, “Has the sun set?”
F. They say, “Yes.”
G. “Has the sun set?”
H. They say, “Yes.”
I. “[With] this sickle?”
J. They say, “Yes.”
K. “[With] this sickle?”
L. They say, “Yes.”
M. “[With] this basket?”
N. They say, “Yes.”
O. “[With] this basket?”
P. They say, “Yes.”
Q. On the Sabbath, he says to them, “[Shall l reap on] this Sabbath?”
R. They say, “Yes.”
S. “[Shall I reap on] this Sabbath?”
T. They say, “Yes.”
U. “Shall I reap?”
V. They say, “Reap.”
W. “Shall I reap?”
X. They say, “Reap”-
Y. three times for each and every matter.
Z. And they say to him, “Yes, yes, yes.”
AA. All of this [pomp] for what purpose?
BB. Because of the Boethusians, for they maintain, “The
reaping of the [barley for] the offering of the first sheaf of barley
is not [done] at the conclusion of the festival.”
This account of the rite contains no prescriptive language of a
Halakhic character. The upshot could readily be translated into the
rhetoric of law, e.g., The agents of the court do thus and so…, with-
out the colloquy that translates the law into a tale of how things were
done. The effect is the same. The narrative is sustained by scripted
language, fixed formulas that encase and encapsulate the activity.
The tacked-on conclusion, AA-BB, does not serve to impose sense
and meaning on the details, only on the rite overall; each detail is
necessary in its own right. Do the components hold together only
by reason of the goal of the narrative, or is there a principle of co-
gency deriving from sequence, so that each item on its own lays claim
to its legitimate position in the whole? Do we have something akin
to the logic of proposition (if not syllogism) that generally charac-
terizes the presentation of the Halakhah and of the theological con-
structions of the Aggadah? The answer presents itself when we realize
that the order of action in succession is everything. At stake is the
8 introduction
sequencing of the rite, and this is made explicit in every cultic pseudo-
narrative. Stop before the end and the account is incomplete, but
coherent to that point.
The indicative fact is, the pseudo-narrative of sequenced actions
that “he does… did… will do…” serves in the Halakhic documents,
particularly the Mishnah, only for ritual, and mainly for the Temple’s
rituals. This well-documented preference for the use of the language
of description, in addition to the language of Halakhic prescription,
for the particular purpose of embodying ritual behavior, is best ex-
plained by Ithamar Gruenwald, in his Rituals and Ritual Theory in
Ancient Israel. Gruenwald addresses matters in this language, with what
is important for my argument in italics:
The study of rituals mostly concerns the particulars of what is done,
how it is done, and the reason and purpose of doing as embedded in
the very act of doing… rituals are performative “signs”… Each ritual
consists of several sub-acts that configure rituals as sequentially struc-
tured events. They are spread out in time and in space. In other words,
the doing of any rituals creates dynamics that turns complex struc-
ture into a process.
… what makes the difference between a ritual and a non-ritual
act.…The answer focussed on three factors: (1) the logic that shapes
the internal structuring; (2) the dynamics that emerges from the sequencing of
ritual acts; (2) and the mental process that activates intentionality. There
is an inner logic that constitutes the structure of every ritual. Without
that logic, the ritual statement becomes redundant. The specific manner
in which the various parts become a coherent whole shows the man-
ner in which every ritual becomes a compositional event. Whatever
its shape, ritual always is a unique statement that exists in its own right.
In our understanding here, doing the ritual in the right manner means allocating
to it, as well as its various components, processual coherence. In this respect, ritu-
als are analogous to verbal arguments. Reverse or displace any part in a certain
argument, or drop it altogether, and the whole argument changes, or loses its com-
municative capacity.6
What is important here is the stress on the sequencing of ritual acts,
the notion of ritual as process (“processual coherence”). He states
my point of emphasis in so many words: “rituals are analogous to
verbal arguments…” That strikes at the heart of the matter and
removes the tales of how things were or are done in the Temple from
6 Ithamar Gruenwald, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel. Leiden, 2002:
Brill. Brill Library of Formative Judaism series.

introduction 9
consideration within the definition of narrative as defined by the

quality of logic of coherent discourse.
Indeed, Gruenwald captures the matter in the italicized portion
of the cited passage. Within Gruenwald’s theory of matters, which
I find compelling, we are able to explain the traits of the narrative-
Halakhic protocol, right alongside the philosophical-Halakhic pro-
tocol, serves in particular in the context of Temple rites and activities.
There is no myth that accompanies the verbal realization of the rite;
it does not belong, and if present, is tacked on and scarcely inter-
sects in detail (as with the Boethusians of Mishnah-tractate Menahot).
The logic is established in the gesture that establishes a series, that
is, three times repeated. More to the point, everything rests on the
sequencing of ritual acts, which is the point of emphasis that can be
conveyed only in the narrative medium selected in the cases at hand.
If the sequence is the key, how else to convey it than say, first he did
this, then he did that? But, I repeat, the sequencing, step by step,
violates the logic of teleology that signifies narrative and only nar-
rative: not the sequence step by step but the goal and end of the
whole impose coherence. That is precisely the opposite of the logic
of ritual pseudo-narrative, by which every acted out component of
the process belongs only where it is, takes on meaning and signifi-
cance only in its proper position—and not from the telos of the whole.
Gruenwald’s emphasis on ritual as process then provides us with
the key to understanding the scripted exchanges that are portrayed
in the Halakhah of the cult—alongside, I emphasize, the philosophi-
cal-expositional portrayal of that same Halakhic category-formation.
Within the definition given in the Introduction for the logic that
always signals the presence of narrative, the absence of which in-
variably marks a piece of writing as something other than narrative,
Gruenwald’s formulation of the traits of ritual discourse in the
Halakhah validates treating the cited passages and their counterparts
as other-than-narrative. Since in the Mishnah-Tosefta the use of
descriptive language such as is cited above serves only Temple (and
court) procedure, I am justified in omitting all such passages from
my repertoire of candidates for analysis set forth in the Mishnah and
the Tosefta.
As I showed in volume one, the ma#aseh in the Mishnah follows a
simple pattern: (1) in such and such a place, thus and so took place,
10 introduction
and (2) Rabbi Y ruled in this wise—the whole stripped down to the
essential facts. Each component is required in its place, and in con-
text is clear; the conclusion resolves tension, it does not impose
meaning on the antecedent components. The Tosefta invokes the
marker, ma#aseh, for both this and also other kinds of writing, some
of which qualify as narrative. We shall pursue the ma#aseh in the
Tannaite Midrash-compilations and compare the data with those
deriving from the Mishnah and the Tosefta. And here, the Mashal
emerges as the paramount pseudo-narrative form, dependent for its
coherence on exegetical (sometimes: Halakhic) context, not on its
own internal sequential logic.
III
What Questions Do I Address to the Narrative Compositions?
What in documentary context do I wish to know about narratives

(and pseudo-narratives)? Here is the set of questions, in the order
that strikes me as logical and necessary, which, in the encounter with
each authentic narrative in each document, I uniformly raise.7 Then,
at each point, in italics I underscore the particular aspects of spe-
cial interest.
1. We now realize that a piece of writing qualifies as a narra-
tive because it attains coherence through the teleological logic of
coherent discourse defined earlier. This commonly means that, at
some point and in some articulated way, the narrative invokes a fi-
nite action, it records something that has happened, or it asks the
reader to imagine a real-time, real-life event:
On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action or
event that precipitates the telling of the tale and how does the teleology assert
itself?
7 Obviously, a considerable range of questions bears on each pericope, and I
select only those that advance the particular inquiry at hand. When it comes to
the Mashal/proverb, for example, C. Thoma and his co-workers collect much
information that my program does not require. In the Appendix, I spell out why
I think purposelessly collecting information yields facts but not knowledge. The
same as to be said about collecting variant readings in the MSS evidence for a
given document, let alone variant versions of a given composition spread over many
documents. These represent interesting and occasionally useful collections of in-
formation, but on their own they lack self-evident pertinence to any given thesis
or to the solution of a given problem.
introduction 11
The answer is required to justify my classifying the composition

as a narrative.
2. The sequence of data, I have argued, is not random but de-
terminative. The sequence conveys the purpose, in context, that each
component is meant to serve. A narrative thus coheres by reason of
a tension that is precipitated and resolved, a point that is proved by
the narrative, thus:
What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of the
tale and how is the point of tension resolved?
3. The narratives fall into diverse categories, each with its own
traits. These categories, defined by formal criteria, do not represent
the outcome of taste and judgment and critical acumen, which I do
not claim to possess, but only of a simple, material assessment of
concrete features of the writing:
How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that they
yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal qualities,
e.g., long or short, complex or simple?
But, I stress, these questions pertain to authentic narratives, not
to inauthentic narratives, encompassing the ma#aseh and the mashal/
parable. There the question of narrative logic does not apply. With
reference to the Mashal, I want to know whether the parable is par-
ticular to its exegetical context or adapted from a circulating, ready-
made corpus of similes in the form of narratives. That is a key
question for the study at hand, as is already clear. In many instances
the simile/parable tracks the exegetical problem and is explicitly so
characterized; in some instances the parable serves but not in all
details and gives clear indication of adaptation. In due course we
shall see that the Ma#aseh and the Mashal intersect in function, dif-
fering in formal aspects alone.
The larger question of documentary preferences as to narrative
(or pseudo-narrative) is addressed at chapters fourteen, thirty, and
forty-one. There I ask whether the document contains compositions
or composites that qualify as narrative, and, if so, whether these
compositions and composites exhibit common traits or preferences.
Then, in due course, I compare and contrast the narratives charac-
teristic of one document with those preferred by another: the forms
of a narrative in Sifra as against those paramount in the two Sifrés,
not to mention the Mishnah and Tosefta—and so throughout.
What about the literary context? Through the use of diverse
margins, broad for the narrative, indented for the context, I indi-
12 introduction
cate my views on the form-analytical data of a given composition.

In that way I preserve the narrative in its larger context while sig-
naling its formal limits. The visual signal permits us to see very clearly
the way in which authentic narratives are distinguished from their
documentary context—if they are to be so distinguished.
IV
What Do I Mean by Distinguishing
Non-Documentary from Documentary Writing?
Clearly, I have pressed the question of whether a piece of writing

conforms to the documentary program of the compilation in which
it occurs. Before I explain why I deem the issue urgent,
I have to clarify the distinction between documentary, extra-docu-
mentary, and non-documentary writing. With that distinction in
hand, we turn to the difference that distinction makes.
Documentary writing conforms to the traits of a particular docu-
ment so that, stripped bare of its reference-system (supplied in any
case by modern scholarship) we should reliably assign the composi-
tion to the correct place within the canon. Extra-documentary writing
exhibits the traits of documentary writing but belongs to no extant
document. That is best illustrated by a composite devoted to the
exposition of a passage of Proverbs or Chronicles, matching in rheto-
ric and logic of coherent discourse Rabbah-Midrash-compilations
for Leviticus or Genesis or Song of Songs, but devoted to a topic,
Proverbs or Chronicles, for which we have no document. That is
extra- but not non-documentary writing.
Compositions and composites called “non-documentary,” disre-
gard the rules of documentary writing such as govern in any and
all of the score of canonical compilations. They not only ignore the
indicative traits of the documents in which they occur, but they in
no way replicate for a fresh topic a known model of any extant docu-
ment. So while we have Midrash-compilations, if not for one scrip-
tural book, then for another, we have no canonical compilation of
8 I deal with an aspect of this larger problem in Why No Gospels in Talmudic
Judaism? Atlanta, 1988: Scholars Press for Brown Judaic Studies. Now: Lanham
MD, 2001: University Press of America. Studies in Judaism series.
introduction 13
stories, e.g., lives of sages, on the one side,8 histories of Israel, on

the other.9 So too there are elaborate stories of the false Messiah
and the true one, and the like. But in the entire formative canon
there is nothing remotely recording the life of a Messiah, beginning
to end. Entire chapters in the lives of principal sages and their mas-
ter-disciple circles, sustained stories about paradigmatic events in
Israel’s history—none of these types of writing coalesces into coherent
documents in the way in which the compositions and composites
located in the Mishnah or Genesis Rabbah or the Bavli (to name
three disparate cases) do. By that criterion the non-documentary
represent a kind of writing intended to stand on its own, not planned
for a larger composite.
That carries us to the perspective of the documentary hypothesis
on narrative: what difference, for the history of Rabbinic Judaism,
does the non-documentary status that completed research of mine10
has assigned to narrative make?
V
What Is at Stake?
Why does the status as to the documentary venue of narratives matter

in the formative history of Rabbinic Judaism? To specify the answers,
I track the unresolved questions, reproduced in italics, of religion,
literature, and history, that I spell out in The Three Questions of For-
mative Judaism: History, Literature, and Religion.11
1. Religion: At stake for understanding the religious system of formative
Rabbinic Judaism: Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest
to thought that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules
and symmetry of the canon?
A corpus of extra-, including non-, documentary writing did find
its way into the process of documentary composition and compila-
tion. Of the three types of the identified extra-documentary writ-
ing—(1) exegesis of clumps of Scripture from books not accorded,
9 I explain that fact in The Presence of the Past, the Pastness of the Present. History,
Time, and Paradigm in Rabbinic Judaism. Bethesda, 1996: CDL Press.

10 All other inquiry into Rabbinic narrative ignores documentary lines and so
affirms the same premise as I did in the work that precipitated this project. Stern
on the Parable, treated in Volume One, suffices to prove that point.
11 Leiden, 2002: Brill. The Brill Reference Library of Judaism.
14 introduction
by entire documents, systematic commentaries in the Rabbinic canon

of late antiquity, (2) agglutination of topical miscellanies, and (3)
narratives—the first two self-evidently cohere to the model of the
canonical documents, though not to the particular program of any
extant document. Hence they raise no questions of a documentary
character, but rather confirm the definition of a conventional com-
pilation. As large formal aggregates they cannot be differentiated from
the documentary writing to which they correspond. I find no recur-
rent differences in the regnant conceptions of the anomalous writ-
ing that are asymmetrical or even jarring, let alone differences in
contents.
What issue precipitates the inquiry? It is a debate that has flour-
ished for nearly three decades, since the publication of my Judaism:
The Evidence of the Mishnah.12 In response, people posited a “Judaism
beyond the texts.” By that they mean to allege we have access to
Judaic thought beyond the limits of the extant documents, knowl-
edge that is a priori, on the one side, or that is represented in bits
and pieces of writing that survive, out of context, in the Rabbinic
documents. Here is a clear opportunity to investigate the qualities
of normative-Judaic writings that originate outside of the documen-
tary boundaries. So what about the “Judaism beyond the texts”—
at least, that alleged Judaic structure and system to which the texts
willy-nilly afford only occasional and fragmentary access?
2. Literature: At stake for discerning the literary qualities of the Rab-
binic canon: Does non-documentary writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns
of form and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these pat-
terns and how are we to classify and to interpret them in documentary context?
The question is readily unpacked. Extra-documentary writing is
readily characterized within the limits of extant, documentary writ-
ing. For forms and patterns of the non-documentary writing, that
is, the narrative compositions and composites, we do not know the
answer. This part of the work supplies the beginnings of one.
3. History: What sort of historical data do narratives supply? What are
the linkages between one narrative composition and another? Can we identify
particular viewpoints or points of origin of one kind of story as against some
other?
The answers to these questions yield points of regularity and or-
12 Chicago, 1981: University of Chicago Press.

introduction 15
der a given narrative contains to justify linking it with other items

of a formally-comparable character: the taxonomic phenomenology
of the narratives viewed as a whole. In the matter of Mishnah-Tosefta,
that inquiry, independent of this study, concerned a narrative tra-
dition deriving from the patriarchate, from Hillel through Judah the
Patriarch’s sons: a specific set of traits that differentiate that tradi-
tion from any and all other classifications of narratives.
So I ask a uniform set of questions, thus imposing on the data a
set of taxonomic considerations of a consistent order. In line with
the important consideration just now introduced, I (1) establish my
reason for regarding a pericope as “narrative” to begin with. I then
(2) identify the source of the movement from one constitutive ele-
ment of the tale to the next, indicating what imparts the dynamism
and purpose (“teleology”) to the composition. Finally, in line with
the purpose of this survey, I finally (3) ask each item to tell how it is
to be classified. The nature of the work—a piece by piece examina-
tion of the evidence—requires that the phenomenological outcome
take shape cumulatively.
VI
A Special Problem in
Sifré to Numbers and Sifré to Deuteronomy
The two Sifrés contain a fair number of exegetical amplifications of

Scripture’s narratives. For the purpose of this study these are classi-
fied not as narratives or pseudo-narratives but as exegetical ampli-
fications pure and simple. I do not include these in a study of Rab-
binic narrative. A single example suffices.
CXXXI:III
1. A. And Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Every one of you slay
his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.” [And behold,
one of the people of Israel came and brought a Midianite woman to
his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congre-
gation of the people of Israel; while they were weeping at the door of
the tent of meeting. When Phineas the son of Eleazar son of Aaron
the priest saw it, he rose and left the congregation, and took a spear
in his hand and went after the man of Israel into the inner room, and
pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman, through her
body. Thus the plague was stayed from the people of Israel. Never-
theless those that died by the plague were twenty-four thousand. And
16 introduction
the Lord said to Moses, “Phineas the son of Eleazar son of Aaron the
priest has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he
was jealous with my jealous among them, so that I did not consume
the people of Israel in my jealousy]:”
B. The tribe of Simeon came to Zimri, saying to him, “Behold, you
dwell securely, but we are condemned to death.”
C. He went and collected twenty-four thousand out of his tribe
and came to Cozbi. He said to her, “Submit to me.”
D. She said to him, “I shall submit only to the greatest among
you, who is of the stature of Moses your lord.”
E. He said to her, “I too am the lord of the tribe, and not only
so, but my tribe is greater than his tribe anyhow. And not only
so, but he is second in order of birth, and I am third in order of
birth.”
F. He seized her by her hand and brought her into the midst of
all Israel, as it is said, “And behold, one of the people of Israel
came and brought a Midianite woman to his family, in the sight
of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the people
of Israel; while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meet-
ing.”
G. Phineas responded at that moment and said, “Is there no man
here who will kill and kill again? Where are ‘the crouching lions,
the lion of Judah’ (Gen. 49:9), ‘Dan is a lion’s whelp’ (Dt. 33:22)?”
H. He began to cry out. When he saw that everyone kept silent,
he went out of his sanhedrin and he took off the spear-head and
put it in his garment and was leaning on the stock. He went along
as if leaning on his staff. They said to him, “Phineas, where are
you going?”
I. He said, “Levi is not greater than Simeon in any setting. We
find that Simeon is greater than Levi.”
J. They said, “Let him go and come in.” The separatists
[Perushim (!)] permitted the matter.
K. When he came in, the Omnipresent did six miracles
for him:
L. First, that Zimri should have taken out his penis
from the woman and an angel held them together
[so that he did not do so leaving Phineas free to
act];
M. another, that he should have spoken out [for help]
but he did not speak out;
N. a third, that Phineas got his spear right through
the penis of the man and the vagina of the woman,
and everybody saw his penis in her vagina, on
account of those who keep clean, so that they would
not say, “There was no uncleanness there.” Indeed,
he too went to do what he needed to do.
introduction 17
O. fourth, that they did not fall off the spear but stayed
where they were;
P. fifth, that an angel came and raised up the lintel
[so he could carry them out on his spear];
Q. and sixth, that an angel came and destroyed the
people [so they paid no attention to what Phineas
had done].”
R. When he came forth and Phineas saw that the angel was strik-
ing the people too much, Phineas cast them down before the Om-
nipresent, and prayed, as it is said, “Then Phineas stood up and
interposed and the plague was stayed, and that has been reckoned
to him as righteousness from generation to generation for ever”
(Ps. 106:30-31).
S. Six more miracles were done for him:
T. the seventh: the head of the spear was lengthened
so that it pierced the two bodies and come out above;
U. the eighth: Phineas’s arm was strengthened to the
task;
V. the ninth: the spear did not break;
W. the tenth: their blood did not drip onto Phineas,
so he was not contaminated;
X. the eleventh: they did not die while they were in
his hand, so he was not contaminated;
Y. the twelfth: ordinarily the one on top ought to have
been on the bottom on the spear, but a miracle was
done and Zimri was turned over onto Cozbi when
the deed was done.
Z. Now all Israel saw them and declared them guilty unto death.
2. A. The tribe of Simeon came to the tribe of Levi. He said
to him, “Now, does this son of the daughter of Puti want to
uproot an entire tribe from Israel? And don’t we know whose
son he is?” [Bavli: “For the father of his mother fattened calves
for idolatry, and he has himself killed the head of a tribe of
Israel.”]
B. When the Omnipresent realized that everybody was deni-
grated him, he began to state his praiseworthy genealogy:
““Phineas the son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest has turned
back my wrath from the people of Israel” (Num. 25:11).
C. “A priest, son of a priest, a zealot, son of a zealot, one
who turns back wrath the son of one who turns back wrath
‘has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel.’”
The exegetical amplification, No. 1, commences with C-F, the matter
of Cozbi, then comes Phineas’s response, G-J+K-Q, then R +S-Y
and Z. It is difficult to see how the autonomous units, G-J, R, and
Z form a coherent narrative, with a beginning, middle, and end, the
18 introduction
whole defined by a goal that imparts meaning to the antecedent

details in sequence. No. 2 presents the same puzzle. What I see here
is, rather, a paraphrase and gloss of Scripture, not an independent
narrative. It is, rather, a pseudo-narrative constructed around Scrip-
ture’s own narrative.
introduction 19
PART ONE
NARRATIVES IN SIFRA
1. parashat vayyiqra dibura denedabah 21
CHAPTER ONE
SIFRA 1-33:
PARASHAT VAYYIQRA DIBURA DENEDABAH
III:VI
1. A. “… an offering to the Lord, of cattle [he shall choose
his offering from the herd or from the flock]”
B. Might one suppose that the rule applies also to a wild
beast, which also falls into the classification of cattle, in line
with this verse: “This is the wild beast which you may eat among
all the cattle which is upon the earth” (Lev. 11:2) [RSV: “These
are the living things which you may eat among all the beasts
that are on the earth”].
C. Scripture states [so as to exclude that reading,] “from
the herd or from the flock” [that is, only of domesticated, but
not of wild, beasts].
2. A. Might one suppose that one should not bring an of-
fering of a wild beast, but if one has brought a wild beast as
an offering, it is valid?
B. The matter may be compared to the case of someone whose master
said to him, “Go and bring me wheat,” and he went and brought
him both wheat and barley.
C. Lo, such a one is in the position of merely having
added to the instructions.
D. Scripture makes it explicit: “he shall choose his
offering from the herd or from the flock,”
E. You have as eligible for an offering among beasts
only those of the domesticated herd or flock alone.
F. Lo, to what may the matter be compared?
G. To the case of someone whose master said to him, “Go and bring
me only wheat.”
H. Lo, if he went and brought him both wheat and
barley, lo, such a one is in the position of having violated his
master’s instructions.
The parable, in two formulations, B, G, serves as a simile: the case
is like such and such a transaction, thus a hypothetical situation clar-
ifying the Halakhah in particular. The form of the initial statement
is interesting: the parabolic action, B, [G], followed by an explicit
22 1. parashat vayyiqra dibura denedabah
interpretation, C, [H], then a scriptural foundation for the besought

proposition, D-E. The secondary formulation, then, at F-G, with its
ruling at H, recapitulates the matter. So there is no missing the point.
The Halakhic parable does not quality as an authentic narrative.
There is no pretense at purposive narrative endowed with coher-
ence only at the end. The passage gains coherence only within the
flow of the exposition of the law produced by exegesis; it is part of
a propositional exposition.
So the form requires a statement of an action followed by a rul-
ing, B followed by C, G by H, with a comparable wording at C, H.
Then we have to notice that without the marker, “the matter may
be compared to…,” the shank of the pseudo-narrative proves re-
markably routine. Have we seen such a kind of writing before, with
the statement of an action followed by a judgment or ruling there-
on? Of course we have: in the ma#aseh in its simplest, Mishnaic form:
(1) statement of a case, (2) definitive ruling. B, G then function as
does the opening clause of a ma#aseh, and the only difference between
G, G, and the counterpart in the ma#aseh is “the matter may be com-
pared” (whether or not phrased as a question) in place of ma#aseh b.
Had the marker been ma#aseh b, rather than the matter may be compared
to, what should we have expected? A statement of the resolution of
the case is necessary, without it the ma#aseh-form is senseless:
Ma#aseh b: a master said to a slave, ““Go and bring me wheat,”
and he went and brought him both wheat and barley.”
The case came before Rabbi X, who ruled….
How does the parable then differ from the ma#aseh? In strict form,
not at all: case/ruling for the latter, case/resolution for the former.
In context the difference is clear: about what can a sage have made a
ruling! The parable is required by its Halakhic context, meaning, no
imaginable case can sustain the intervention of a sage. So C, H,
function where and as required: as the counterpart to a sage’s rul-
ing.
There is yet another difference between the Halakhic parable and
the ma#aseh. The ruling of the ma#aseh always reverts back to the is-
sue at hand, comparable to the parable at D-E, and does not leave
unarticulated the outcome of the transaction, as at H. The ruling-
clause is integral to the form of the ma#aseh, while the parable func-
tions perfectly well without a reversion to a systematic exploitation
of the simile, which is allowed to make its statement within its own
framework. The audience is assumed to be perfectly able to see the
1. parashat vayyiqra dibura denedabah 23
parallel to the parable in the concrete Halakhic issue in play. The

language of simile has left no obscurity on that point.
I need hardly observe that none of this has anything to do with
the authentic narrative defined earlier. Readers are forewarned that
through Sifra we shall find not a single authentic narrative, and the
results for the two Sifrés prove sparse as well.
24 2. parashat vayyiqra dibura dehobah
CHAPTER TWO
SIFRA 34-69:
PARASHAT VAYYIQRA DIBURA DEHOBAH
LXVI:I
1. A. “The priest shall make expiation on his behalf for the error
that he committed unwittingly, [and he shall be forgiven. It is a
guilt-offering, he has incurred guilt before the Lord]:”
2. A. “... unwittingly:”
B. excluding a case in which others informed him.
C. Or might it be the case that even though he denies [the obliga-
tion still pertains? [Third parties informed him that what he had
done involved the possibility of his having committed a trans-
gression, the penalty of which is extirpation, and he denies the
claim and states that he was certain that the matter lay beyond
all doubt].
D. Scripture states, “He shall bring [to the priest a ram without blem-
ish from the flock or the equivalent as a guilt-offering]... for the
error that he committed unwittingly, and he shall be forgiven,”
E. lo, if he were to have acted knowingly, atonement shall not be
achieved for him. [For that purpose he has to produce a sin-of-
fering, not a guilt-offering.]
F. To what may this matter be compared?
G. To the case of the heifer the neck of which is broken [in expiation
of the discovery of a neglected corpse].
H. Even though the neck of the heifer is broken, if then the mur-
derer is found, lo, the murderer is put to death.
The parabolic case, F-G, is realized at H. Here is another Halakhic
parable, which carries out the mission of the Ma#aseh where the
Ma#aseh does not enter the picture. The formulation of a Ma#aseh out
of G-H is readily envisaged:
Ma#aseh : A village presented the heifer-offering and then the
murderer was found.
The case came to sages and they ruled he [the murderer] is liable
to the death-penalty.
The difference in form is clear: sages’ ruling is replaced by the ar-
ticulation of the point of the case/parable. The difference between
2. parashat vayyiqra dibura dehobah 25
the Ma#aseh and the Halakhic parable then is to be located in the

documentary task. The Mishnah-Tosefta expound the law and am-
plify the law by presenting a few cases/precedents in which sages’
rulings figure. Sifra proposes to explain the Halakhah in dialogue
with Scripture. For that purpose, clarification of the law, not an
account of how it applies, is required, and framing matters as a simile,
rather than as a precedent, accomplishes the task of amplification.
To state matters simply, when the issue is application, the Ma#aseh
figures, when it is clarification and amplification of the Halakhah,
the Halakhic parable comes into play.
The entire simile, F-G+H, requires its setting, 2A-E, for sense and
coherence. The point, H, is that even though the neglected corpse
has atoned in behalf of the community for the murder, the murder-
er himself remains culpable and has to atone as well. The heifer
atones for those who have not acted knowingly, not for the one who
has. So the Halakhic transaction is precisely captured in the simile,
F-G+H.
This has nothing to do with the narrative indicated by the perti-
nent type of logic.
26 3. parashat sav
CHAPTER THREE
SIFRA 70-98:
PARASHAT SAV
XCVIII:VI
1. A. “And Moses killed it and took the blood:”
B. For all seven days of consecration, Moses served in the high
priesthood.
C. He would slaughter the beast, he would toss the blood, he
would sprinkle the blood, he would perform the rite of pu-
rification, he would pour oil, who would atone.
D. That is why it is written, “And Moses killed it and took the
blood.”
2. A. There is then a parable: to what may the matter be
compared?
B. To a princess who was married when she was a minor,
and they made an agreement with her mother that the
mother would serve until her daughter would learn [what
was required of her].
C. So with Aaron, at first he was a Levite, as
it is said, “And is not Aaron, your brother, the
Levite” (Ex. 4:14).
D. But when he was chosen to serve as High
Priest, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to
Moses, “You will serve me until Aaron will learn.”
E. Moses would then slaughter the beast and
Aaron would watch him, toss the blood and Aaron
would watch him, sprinkle and Aaron would
watch him, perform the rite of purification and
Aaron would watch him, pour on the oil and
Aaron would watch him, atone and Aaron would
watch him.
Here we have an exegetical parable, not a Halakhic one. I cannot
imagine how a Ma#aseh would have accomplished the task here, or
what a Ma#aseh could have looked like. It is a detail of the scriptural
narrative that requires attention. What demands explanation is why,
prior to Aaron’s assuming his task, Moses served in the high priest-
hood for seven days, performing all the rites, No. 1. The simile then
3. parashat sav 27
creates a situation that is comparable: the Levitical standing of Aaron

marked him as a minor, requiring instruction. The parable on its
own, B, serves, C-E amplify what is clear. The parable-form does
not require the ruling/resolution that realizes the task of the Ma#aseh-
form. But the parable does require the statement, 1.A-D, to estab-
lish a context and meaning for itself.
XCVIII:VII
3. A. “... and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the
ram:”
B. They placed their hands on it in rejoicing and celebrated a fes-
tival day.
C. The matter may be compared to one who had paid off a
debt that was owing and so celebrated a festival.
D. So too, Aaron and his sons, once they had com-
pleted the rite involving the day and its acts of sanctifi-
cation, the rite involving the utensils and their sanctifi-
cation, and presented the second ram and laid hands on
it with rejoicing, they made a festival day.
Once more, in an exegetical parable, not a Halakhic one, C sets forth
a case, Ma#aseh b- someone paid off a debt that was owing and cel-
ebrated a festival-day for himself. But “the case came before the sages,
who ruled” hardly fits, and the parable by itself has no context ei-
ther, so D is required by C, which, without D, makes no sense.
28 4. parashat shemini
CHAPTER FOUR
SIFRA 99-121:
PARASHAT SHEMINI
XCIX:I
1. A. [“And it came to pass on the eighth day Moses called Aaron and
his sons and the elders of Israel, and he said to Aaron, Take a
bull calf for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering, both
without blemish, and offer them before the Lord” (Lev. 9:1-7).
7. A. [Moses said to them,] “You should know that the Omnipresent
has become reconciled with you, to accept atonement for your
sins.
B. “As to the sin concerning which you are frightened, it has al-
ready been sacrificed before the Omnipresent, as it is said, ‘to
sacrifice before the Lord.’
C. Said the Israelites before Moses, “But how can a city celebrate
the king without seeing his face?”
D. He said to them, “It is on that very stipulation: ‘for today the
Lord will appear to you.’”
No. 7 illustrates the kind of pseudo-narrative that is not addressed
here: the use of dialogue to create a setting for the presentation of
an argument, analysis, or proposition. I do not reproduce further
examples of what does not pertain to our problem.
XCIX:II
2. A. “… and all the congregation stood near and stood be-
fore the Lord:”
B. All of them came near with great jubilation and stood be-
fore him.
C. It is like the case of a king who got mad at his wife and divorced
her. After some days he was reconciled with her.
D. She immediately girded her loins and tied her kerchiefs and she
served him with an excess of enthusiasm.
E. So Israel, when they saw that the Omnipresent was reconciled
to accepting atonement for their sins, they all came near with
jubilation and stood before him.
F. That is the meaning of the statement: “… and all the congrega-
tion stood near and stood before the Lord.”
4. parashat shemini 29
The exegetical parable/simile, C-D, on its own bears no meaning:

a woman rejoices when reconciled to the husband who has divorced
her. E supplies the required context. Thus we have a Mashal: a king
divorced his wife and took her back. She girded her loins… enthu-
siasm. As a Ma#aseh, the pseudo-narrative would have required, “the
case came before sages who ruled…,” but that is absolute gibber-
ish. The upshot is, the exegetical parable cannot be confused with
the Halakhic one.
5. A. “Draw near to the altar:”
B. There is a parable [explaining why Moses had to instruct Aaron
to come to the altar]. To what may the matter be compared?
C. To a mortal king who married a woman who was shy in his pres-
ence.
D. Her sister came to her. The sister said to [the shy bride], “Why
did you get involved in this matter? But it is so that you will serve
the king, so show a little spunk and come and serve the king!”
E. So said Moses to Aaron, “Aaron, my brother, why were
you chosen to be high priest? It is so that you will perform
acts of service before the Holy One, blessed be He.
F. “Now show a little spunk and come and carry out your acts
of service.”
The exegetical parable is fully realized, B-D explained by E-F. The
theoretical ma#aseh, “there was a case concerning…,” with “sages
ruled” replaced by the sister’s instructions, is impossible.
XCIX:IV
4. A. At that hour punishment overtook Nadab and Abihu.
B. But some say that it was at Sinai that they got it, for they saw
Moses and Aaron walking along ahead, while they were coming
after them, and all Israel following.
C. Nadab said to Abihu, “In yet a little while these two old men
will die, and we shall lead the congregation.”
D. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, “We shall see who will bury
whom! They will bury you, and they will continue to lead the
community.”
5. A. Another matter: When the sons of Aaron saw that all of the of-
ferings had been presented and all the rites had been carried out,
and yet the Presence of God had not come to rest upon Israel,
said Nadab to Abihu, “Now can anyone cook without fire?”
B. They forthwith took unholy fire and went in to the Holy of Holies,
C. as it is said, “Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each
took his censer and put fire in it.”
D. Said to them the Holy One blessed be He, “I shall honor you
still more than you have honored me.
E. “You have brought in before me unclean fire. I shall burn you

up with clean fire!”
I see at No. 5 no more than an amplification of Scripture through
exegesis of details. They put unholy fire on the altar, God burned
them up with pure fire. I do not see here a narrative that orders
details through appeal to a teleological logic of coherence, rather
simply an exegesis of Scripture given pseudo-narrative tone: they did
so and so, he said to them… I do not log items like this in my cat-
alogue in chapter fourteen.
XCIX:VI
6. A. “… and offered unholy fire before the Lord, such as he had not
commanded them:”
B. R. Ishmael says, “Can one think that it was actually ‘unholy fire’?
Scripture says, ‘such as he had not commanded them,’ meaning
that the issue was that they brought it in without taking coun-
sel.”
C. R. Aqiba says, “They brought in only a kind of fire that is used
in a double stove, as it is said, ‘and offered unholy fire before
the Lord.’
D. “If so, why is it said, ‘such as he had not commanded them’?
E. “It was because they had not consulted Moses, their master.”
F. R. Eliezer says, “Nadab and Abihu became liable for punish-
ment only because they taught law in the presence of Moses, their
master, for whoever teaches law in the presence of his master is
liable to death.”
G. And it happened concerning [Ma#aseh b] a certain
student who gave instruction in the presence of
Eliezer [without permission].
H. He said to Imma Shalom, his wife, “He will not finish
out this week.”
I. And he died [that week].
J. After the Sabbath, sages came to him and said
to him, “My lord, are you a prophet?”
K. He said to them, “I am not a prophet nor the
disciple of a prophet, but thus have I received
as a tradition from my masters: ‘whoever
teaches law in his master’s presence is liable
to death.’”
The Ma#aseh of G is unconventional, not carrying in its wake a Hala-
khic ruling. Rather, like a parable, it is illustrative, specifically, it
embodies in narrative Eliezer’s statement, F, which is repeated at
K as a “tradition from my masters.” The components are G-I, the
student passed an opinion in Eliezer’s presence, Eliezer’s comment,
4. parashat shemini 31
and the outcome. Then J-K explain the incident and, as noted, K
links it to its expository context.
Generalizing on the case at hand, the ma#aseh-form here requires
a case and the counterpart to a ruling, which is, an articulated gen-
eralization—the secondary development of the primary form, case/
ruling. The context in which the whole holds together and makes
sense is then clear, the exegesis of the case of Nadab and Abihu.
Absent that case, the Ma#aseh appears random and pointless.
CHAPTER FIVE
SIFRA 122-126:
PARASHAT TAZRIA
CXXV:III
1. A. “Then she shall be clean:”
B. so as to eat meat of sacrifices.
2. A. “... from the flow:”
B. this teaches that all of the blood that she sees at this point de-
rives only from the source.
3. A. “... bloods:”
B. This teaches that many sorts of blood are unclean in her con-
nection:
4. A. “Such is the Torah concerning her who bears a child,
male or female:”
B. A woman who suffered multiple miscar-
riages, who aborted a female during the eighty
days, and then went and aborted a female dur-
ing the eighty days, and so too one who aborts
twins, bring a single offering [for the entire
sequence of abortions]. R. Judah says, “She
brings an offering for the first and not for the
second, for the third and not for the fourth” [M.
Ker. 2:4A-C].
5. A. “Such is the Torah concerning her who bears a child,
male or female:”
B. A woman who is subject to doubt concern-
ing the appearance of five births or five fluxes
presents a single offering and eats animal sac-
rifices thereby. And the remainder of the offer-
ings are not obligatory for her. If she is subject
to five confirmed miscarriages or five confirmed
fluxes, she brings a single offering and eats
animal sacrifices, but the rest of the offerings,
the other four, do remain obligatory for her.
C. There was a case [Ma#aseh] in which a pair
of birds in Jerusalem went up in price to a golden
denar.
D. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, “By this
sanctuary! I shall not rest tonight until they shall
5. parashat tazria 33
change hands at silver denars.” He entered the

court and taught the following law: “The woman
who is subject to five confirmed miscarriages
or five confirmed fluxes brings a single offer-
ing and eats animal sacrifices, and the rest of
the offerings do not remain obligatory for her.”
E. And pairs of birds changed hands on that very
day at a quarter-denar each [one one-hundredth
of the former price] [M. Ker. 1:7A-Q].
The Ma#aseh, 5.C-E, is primary to the Mishnah, and violates the
formal rules of Sifra.
CXXIV:I
1. A. “If she shall bear a female:”
B. I know only that the rule applies to a female. How do I know
that it encompasses the one of doubtful sexual traits and the one
who bears physical traits of both sexes?
C. Scripture says, “And if she bears a female, then she shall be un-
clean.”
D. The matter depends solely upon the act of giving birth.
E. And she shall be unclean two weeks. Two weeks which are four-
teen days.
CXXIV:II
1. A. His disciples asked R. Judah b. Roes, “Might
we interpret the verse of Scripture, ‘she shall be un-
clean two weeks’ to mean that she shall be unclean
for seventy days [since the words ‘two weeks’ and
‘seventy days’ are made up of the same consonants]?
B. He said to them, “Uncleanness and cleanness
pertain both to the male and to the female. Just as
the days of purifying are twice in the case of the
female what they are in the male, so the days of un-
cleanness will be twice in the case of the female what
they are in the male.”
C. After the disciples had gone their way, he went
out and called them back and said to them, “I need
not have taken your question seriously, because the
matrix of meaning rests with the vowels that we at-
tach to the consonants [and these clearly indicate
the answer, as given in the translation of the verse
at hand].”
2. A. But this is the correct reply in this mat-
ter: Uncleanness and cleanness pertain both to
the male and to the female. Just as the days of
purifying are twice in the case of the female
34 5. parashat tazria
what they are in the male, so the days of un-

cleanness will be twice in the case of the fe-
male what they are in the male.
B. But take this route:
C. Since in the case of the male, the days of
purifying are few, so the days of uncleanness
will also be few.
D. But in the case of the female, since the
days of purifying are many, the days of unclean-
ness surely should be few.
E. Scripture says, “she shall be unclean for
two weeks, as during her menstruation.
F. “And she shall be unclean two weeks:”
G. Two weeks which are fourteen days.
This standard pseudo-narrative, No. 1, (“they asked… he said to
them…”) could as well have taken the form of a dispute followed
by a debate, as is proven by No. 2.
history, time and paradigm 35
CHAPTER SIX
SIFRA 127-147:
PARASHAT NEGAIM: —
36 7. parashat mesora
CHAPTER SEVEN
SIFRA 148-159:
PARASHAT MESORA
CXLVIII:I
12. A. “... living” [Lev 14:4: “Two living, clean birds”]:—and not slaught-
ered.
B. “... clean”—and not unclean.
C. “... clean”—and not terefot.
D. “... and a wood” (Lev. 14:4) –
E. Might one think that any sort of wood is acceptable?
F. Scripture says, “of cedar” (Lev. 14:4).
G. If it is cedar, might one think it may be smooth?
H. Scripture says, “and wood” (Lev. 14:4).
I. How so?
J. A chip of cedar.
K. R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel says, “And its head is to be smooth
(TRP).”
13. A. Said R. Judah, “It was my week [to study
and serve as disciple with my master], and
I went after R. Tarfon, to his house.
B. “He said to me, ‘Judah, my son, give me
my sandal,’ and I gave it to him.
C. “He put his hand to the window and gave
me a staff from it.
D. “He said to me, ‘Judah, with this staff
have I declared three lepers clean.’
E. “And in that incident I learned seven
laws:
F. “1. That it is of cypress wood;
G. “2. and that its head is smooth;
H. “3. and its length is a cubit;
I. “4. and its thickness is as thick as a
quarter of the leg of the bed, divided exactly,
one into two, and two into four;
J. “5. and they sprinkle and repeat and do
it even a third time with the same staff;
K. “6. and that they declare clean while the
Temple is standing and while the Temple
is not standing;
7. parashat mesora 37
L. “7. and that they declare clean in the

provinces [T. 8:2D, M. Neg. 14:6].
The Halakhic report does not appeal for coherence to teleological
logic and simply elaborates on the plan of a ma#aseh, now taking the
case/precedent and setting forth not one rule but seven. Here is a
fine example of loosening up the formal limits of the Ma#aseh among
the circles writing for the Tosefta. Translating each entry into a stan-
dard Ma#aseh poses no challenge. Here is how one of the seven the-
oretically-possible Ma#asim will have emerged:
With one and the same staff they sprinkle and repeat and do it
even a third time with the same staff
Ma#aseh b: R. Tarfon put his hand to the window and put out a
staff from it. With this staff he declared three lepers clean.
Then we have an example of how Tosefta produces a precedent,
but the Tosefta’s form is more complex than the usual one. The
upshot is simple. The composition is primary to the Tosefta and taken
over by Sifra, whose paramount formal program is completely ig-
nored. I do not log this into my catalogue of Ma#asim, and the pas-
sage does not bear on the matter of narratives in Sifra.
38 chapter five
CHAPTER EIGHT
SIFRA 160-173:
PARASHAT ZABIM:—
CHAPTER NINE
SIFRA 174-194:
PARASHAT AHARÉ MOT
CLXXIV:II
1. A. [“The Lord spoke to Moses, after the death of the two sons of
Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord and died; and the
Lord said to Moses, Tell Aaron your brother not to come at all
times into the holy place within the veil, before the mercy seat
which is upon the ark, lest he die; for I will appear in the cloud
upon the mercy seat” (Lev. 16:1-2).] “Tell Aaron your brother
not to come at all times into the holy place within the veil:”
B. [Since the passage begins, “The Lord spoke to Moses, after the
death of the two sons of Aaron,” without indicating what it was
that God said to Moses, and then proceeds to what he is told to
tell Aaron, “and the Lord said to Moses, Tell Aaron your
brother,”] we do not in fact know what was said to Moses in the
original act of speech.
C. R. Eleazar b. Azariah would say, “One may then
propose a parable: to what may the matter be compared?
D. “To the case of a sick person, whom a physician came
to see. He said to him, ‘Do not drink cold things, and
do not lie in the damp.’
E. “Another physician came and said to him, ‘Do not
drink cold things, and do not lie in the damp, so you
won’t die the way Mr. So-and-so died.’
F. “This made a deeper impression on him than the
first of the two.
G. “So it is said, ‘The Lord spoke to Moses, after
the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew
near before the Lord and died; and the Lord said
to Moses, Tell Aaron your brother not to come at
all times into the holy place.’
The setting for the exegetical parable commences with God’s speak-
ing to Moses without indicating the message, and proceeds, “Tell
your brother not to come at all times…,” bearing the message that
by coming at the wrong time, Aaron’s sons perished. The parable
does not require the context to make its statement, that the fram-
40 9. parashat aharé mot
ing of a message affects its effectiveness. But the exegetical intent is

clear. Because the parable on its own makes its point, whether the
same parable can have served in some other exegetical context is
not to be dismissed out of hand.
9. parashat aharé mot 41
CHAPTER TEN
SIFRA 195-210:
PARASHAT QEDOSHIM
CCX:II
9. A. “Lest the land vomit you out, when you defile it [as it
vomited out the nation that was before you” (Lev. 18:28):
B. The land of Israel is not like other lands.
C. It does not support those who practice transgression.
D. To what may the matter be compared?
E. To the case of a prince whom they fed something that his stom-
ach could not stand, and he vomited it up.
F. So the land of Israel does not support those how practice
transgression.
G. Therefore it is said, “Lest the land vomit you out, when
you defile it [as it vomited out the nation that was before
you” (Lev. 18:28).
The exegetical parable, 9D-E, translated into an explanation for the
cited verse at F+G, establishes a simile between the prince and the
Land, so explaining the Scriptural reference to the Land’s vomiting
up its inhabitants if they are sinful. Certainly the parable is particu-
lar to the case it serves as a simile; out of context, D-E stand for
nothing.
42 11. parashat emor
CHAPTER ELEVEN
SIFRA 211-244:
PARASHAT EMOR
CCXI:I
1. A. [“And the Lord said to Moses, Speak to the priests, the sons of
Aaron, and say to them that none of them shall defile himself
for the dead among his people, except for his nearest of kin, his
mother, his father, his son, his daughter, his brother, or his vir-
gin sister (who is near to him because she has had no husband,
for her he may defile himself). He shall not defile himself as a
husband among his people and so profane himself. They shall
not make tonsures upon their heads, nor shave off the edges of
their beards, nor make any cuttings in their flesh” (Lev. 21:1-
5).]
15. A. “… for her he may defile himself:”
B. it is a religious duty to do so.
C. If he did not wish to contract corpse-uncleanness, he is forced
against his will to do so.
16. A. There is the case of a priest, Joseph, whose wife
died on the eve of Passover and who did not want
to contract corpse-uncleanness on her account.
B. Sages forced him and made him unclean against
his will.
The Ma#aseh is standard for the Mishnah: an economical statement
of the case plus the sages’ action or ruling.
CCXI:I
19. A. “… for her he may defile himself:”
B. He is not to contract corpse-uncleanness on account of her limbs.
C. For a man may not contract corpse-uncleanness on account of
a limb that has fallen from a living person who is a relation of
his on his father’s side.
D. But he does contract corpse-uncleanness so as to bury a bone as
small as a barleycorn from a relative on his father’s side.
E. R. Yosé says, “A man does not contract corpse-uncleanness so
as to bury a bone as small as a barleycorn from a relative on his
father’s side.”
20. A. There was the case of Joseph b. Paxes, on the
11. parashat emor 43
foot of whom a wart came up. The physician wanted

to chop it off.
B. He said to him, “When you have cut it so as
to leave only a thread like a hair’s breadth, tell me.”
C. He chopped it off until he left only a thread
like a hair’s breadth and told him.
D. He called Nehunia, his son, and said to him,
“Honia, my son, Up to this point you were obli-
gated to take care of me. From this point, go out,
for a priest does not contract corpse-uncleanness on
account of a corpse from a living person in the case
of his father.”
E. And when the case came before sages, they said,
“This is the sort of case concerning which Scrip-
ture says, ‘Sometimes a righteous man perishes in
spite of his righteousness’ (Qoh. 7:15).
F. “The righteous man perishes, and his righteous-
ness with him.”
The statement of the case, A-D, serves its purpose, to make the point
of D. Then the sages comment on the case. This represents a vari-
ation on the more elaborate versions of the Ma#aseh in the Tosefta.
CCXIII:I
1. A. [“The priest who is chief among his brethren, upon whose head
the anointing oil is poured and who has been consecrated to wear
the garments, shall not let the hair of his head hang loose nor
rend his clothes; he shall not go in to any dead body, nor defile
himself, even for his father or for his mother; neither shall he go
out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for
the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him; I
am the Lord:”
B. “The priest who is chief among his brethren:”
C. He is to be chief among his brethren in standing, wealth, power,
wisdom, and looks.
D. If he does not have these traits, how do we know that they should
raise him above his brothers?
E. Scripture says, “who is chief among his brethren,” meaning, he
should be chief at least relative to his brethren.
2. A. They report about Phineas of Habbatah that
the lot fell on him to serve as high priest.
B. The temple treasurers and administrators went
to fetch him and found him quarrying stone, so they
filled up the quarry with golden denars.
C. Said R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel, “Now was
he a stonecutter? And was he not my son-in-
law? And did they not find him ploughing, as
it is said, ‘There were twelve yokes before him,

and he was with the twelfth’ (1 Kgs. 19:19).”
The report, 2.A-B, shows that if the high priest at the time of his
election is not distinguished, the priesthood makes up the difference
for him. It is difficult to know how to classify this item. It is not a
case/precedent, nor does it bear the marker of a parable or the traits
thereof.
CCXIV:I
1. A. “[And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow or one di-
vorced, or a one who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he shall
not marry; but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people,
that he may not profane his children among his people; for I am
the Lord who sanctify him” (Lev. 19:10-15).]
6. A. “… he shall take to wife:”
B. What is the point of Scripture here?
C. How do you know that if he had betrothed a widow and then
was appointed high priest, he may consummate the marriage?
D. Scripture says, “he shall take to wife.”
E. There is the case of Joshua b. Gamala, who
consecrated Marta daughter of Beisos, and the king
appointed him high priest, and he then consummated
the marriage.
F. Might one suppose that if in the case of a levirate marriage, the
priest had made a verbal agreement to enter into the levirate
marriage, he may if in the interval appointed high priest none-
theless consummate the marriage?
G. Scripture says, “he shall take to wife:”
I. but not a levirate wife.
The Ma#aseh serves as a precedent for 6.C, the betrothal was not set
aside by the election to the high priesthood. The absence of a sag-
es’ ruling is noteworthy.
CCXXVII:I
1. A. [“And when you sacrifice a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Lord,
you shall sacrifice it so that you may be accepted. It shall be eaten
on the same day, you shall leave none of it until morning: I am
the Lord. So you shall keep my commandments and do them: I
am the Lord. And you shall not profane my holy name, but I
will be hallowed among the people of Israel. I am the Lord who
sanctify you, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be
your God: I am the Lord” (Lev. 22:26-33).]
4. A. “And you shall not profane [my holy name]:”
B. I derive the implication from the statement, “you shall not pro-
fane,” that sanctification is covered.
C. And when Scripture says, “but I will be hallowed,” the sense is,
“Give yourself and sanctify my name.”
D. Might one suppose that that is when one is all alone?
E. Scripture says, “among the people of Israel.”
5. A. In this connection sages have said:
B. Whoever gives his life on condition that a
miracle is done for him—no miracle will be done
for him.
C. But if it is not on condition that a miracle be
done for him, a miracle will be done for him.
D. For so we find in the case of Hananiah,
Mishael, and Azariah, that they said to
Nebuchadnezzar, “We have no need to answer
you in this matter, for if so it must be, our God
whom we serve is able to save us from the burn-
ing fiery furnace, and he will save us from your
power, O king. But even if he does not, be it
known to you, O king, that we will not serve
your god or worship the statue of gold that you
have set up” (Dan. 3:16-18).
E. And when Marianos seized Pappos
and Lulianos, brothers in Laodicea, he
said to them, “If you come from the people
of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let
your God come and save you from my
power.”
F. They said to him, “Hananiah,
Mishael, and Azariah were worthy men,
and Nebuchadnezzar was a king worthy
of having a miracle done on his account.
G. “But you are a wicked king, and you
are not worthy of having a miracle done
on your account, and, for our part, we
are liable to the death penalty inflicted
by Heaven, so if you do not kill us, there
are plenty of agents of punishment before
the Omnipresent, plenty of bears, plenty
of lions, plenty of panthers, plenty of fi-
ery snakes, plenty of scorpions, to do
injury to us.
H. “But in the end the Omnipresent is
going to demand the penalty of our blood
from your hand.”
I. They say that he did not leave
there before orders came from
Rome, and they chopped off his
head with axes.
5.E-H dramatize the exchange by the detail of E, and I is a dra-

matic conclusion that hardly intersects with the point of the forego-
ing, which is at G-H. I do not see the mark of an authentic narra-
tive.
CCXXXVIII:I
1. A. [“You shall take for yourself on the first day the fruit of goodly
trees, branches of palm trees and boughs of leafy trees and wil-
lows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the Lord your
God seven days. You shall keep it as a feast to the Lord seven
days in the year; it is a statute for ever throughout your genera-
tions; you shall keep it in the seventh month. You shall dwell in
booths for seven days; all that are native in Israel shall dwell in
booths, that you generations may know that I made the people
of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of
Egypt; I am the Lord your God. Thus Moses declared to the
people of Israel the appointed feasts of the Lord” (Lev. 23:39-
44).]
B. “You shall take for yourself:”
C. R. Judah says, “We find reference to ‘taking’ both here and be-
low [‘On the fifteenth day of the seventh month... you shall take
on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees,
and boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook’ (Lev. 23:39-
40)].
D. “Just as ‘taking’ stated below involves making a bunch of the
specified species, so here too what is required is making a bunch
of the specified species.”
E. And sages say, “Even if the species are not made
into a bunch, the act is valid.”
2. A. “You shall take for yourself:”
B. each individual [is responsible to do so].
3. A. “[You shall take] for yourself:”
B. one that belongs to you, not a stolen one.
C. In this connection sages have said:
D. A person does not fulfill his obligation
on the first day of the Festival to wave the
lulab [palm branch] by using the lulab of
his fellow [M. Suk. 3:13C],
E. unless he gives it to him as an uncondi-
tional gift, and he to his fellow, and he to his fel-
low, even if they are a hundred people.
F. There was the case of [Ma#aseh b-] Rab-
ban Gamaliel and elders, who were travel-
ing in a boat [T.’s version: and had no lulab
with them. Rabban Gamaliel bought a lulab
for a golden denar. Once he had fulfilled his
obligation with it, he gave it to his fellow,

and his fellow to his fellow, so that all of
them fulfilled their obligation. Afterward
they returned it to him (T. Suk. 2:11B-D).
[Sifra’s version:] And only Rabban Gamaliel alone
had a lulab. Rabban Gamaliel gave it as a gift to
R. Joshua, and R. Joshua to R. Eleazar b. Azariah,
and R. Eleazar b. Azariah to R. Aqiba, and all of
them thereby carried out their obligation.
While the version in Sifra differs in articulation from that in Tosef-
ta, in fact the Ma#aseh is primary to Tosefta and secondary here.
CCXLII:I
1. A. [“Now an Israelite woman’s son, whose father was an Egyptian,
went out among the people of Israel; and the Israelite woman’s
son and a man of Israel quarreled in the camp, and the Israelite
woman’s son blasphemed the Name and cursed. And they brought
him to Moses. His mother’s name was Shelomit, daughter of Dibri,
of the tribe of Dan. And they put him in custody until the will
of the Lord should be declared to them” (Lev. 24:10-23).]
B. “Now an Israelite woman’s son, whose father as an Egyptian,
went out among the people of Israel:”
C. Whence did he come?
D. He came out of Moses’s court, for he had come to gain the
right to plant his tent in the midst of the camp of Dan [“His
mother’s name was Shelomit, daughter of Dibri, of the tribe
of Dan”].
E. They said to him, “What claim do you have to plant your
tent in the midst of Dan?”
F. He said to them, “I derive from the women of the tribe of
Dan.”
G. They said to him, “Does Scripture not say, ‘The Israelites
shall camp each with his standard, under the banners of
their fathers’ house; they shall camp around the tent of
meeting at a distance’ (Num. 2:2). [The right of belonging
to a tribe derives from the father, not the mother.]”
H. He went into Moses’s court and came out vanquished, and
so he went and cursed.
The dramatized exchange does not qualify as a narrative, since the
climactic point, H, hardly affects the coherence of the foregoing. I
include the item only for the sake of completeness.
48 12. parashat behar
CHAPTER TWELVE
SIFRA 245-259:
PARASHAT BEHAR
CCLV:I
1. A. “And if your brother becomes poor and can-
not maintain himself with you, [you shall maintain
him; as a stranger and a sojourner he shall live with
you. Take no interest from him or increase, but fear
your God; that your brother may live beside you.
You shall not lend him your money at interest nor
give him your food for profit. I am the Lord your
God who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt
to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God”
(Lev. 25:35-38).]
B. Do not let him go down.
C. Lo, to what is the matter to be com-
pared?
D. To a load on an ass.
E. While the ass is yet standing in place,
a single individual can take hold of him
and lead him.
F. If the ass falls to the ground, five
people cannot raise him up again.
Why not let the destitute brother “go down”? Because it will be more
difficult to raise him up from the ground than to support him while
he is standing up—the exegetical parable leaves no doubt as to its
pertinence. It is particular to the case it wishes to clarify.
12. parashat behar 49
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
SIFRA 260-277:
PARASHAT BEHUQOTAI
CCLXI:I
1. A. “… then I will give you your rains in their season, [and the land
shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their
fruit. And your threshing shall last to the time of vintage, and
the vintage shall last to the time for sowing; and you shall eat
your bread to the full and dwell in your land securely. And I will
give peace in the land, and you shall lie down and none shall
make you afraid]:”
3. A. “… then I will give you your rains in their season:”
B. on the night of the Sabbath [when no work can be done any-
how].
4. A. There was the case, [Ma#aseh] in the time of
Simeon b. Shatah, in the time of Queen Shelamsu,
when it would rain from Friday night to Friday night
[on a weekly basis],
B. so that the grains of wheat grew as large as
beans, and the grains of barley were like olive pits,
and the lentils were like golden denars.
C. Sages made a bundle of some of them and left
them behind for coming generations,
D. so as to demonstrate how much sin accomplishes
[in less virtuous generations].
E. This serves to illustrate the following:
F. “But your iniquities have made a sepa-
ration between you and your God, and your
sins have hidden his face from you, so that he
does not hear” (Is. 59:2).
G. They have held back goodness from you.
The Ma#aseh, 4.A-B, amplifies 3.B and links the “rain in season” to
the larger issue of sin. Since people have sinned, rain does not fall,
and the crops suffer. So far as I can see, the Ma#aseh therefore has
no Halakhic program; it serves the Aggadic-theological proposition
expressed at C-D, and then articulated at F-G. I know in Mishnah-
Tosefta of no comparable utilization of the Ma#aseh for other than
50 13. parashat behuqotai
Halakhic purposes. What we have is an exegetical Ma#aseh compa-

rable to the exegetical parable. The difference is only the specifici-
ty: the event took place in a particular reign, and sages made a re-
mark in that context, rather than “the matter is to be compared to
the case of a queen, in whose time…,” and such.
CCLXII:I
8. A. “… and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword:”
B. They will fall before you, not in the ordinary way.
9. A. “And I will have regard for you:”
B. There is a parable: to what is the matter com-
parable?
C. It is to be compared to the case of a king who
hired a large work force, and there was there a certain
worker, who did work for him over a long period
of time.
D. The workers came to collect their wages, and
that worker came with them.
E. The king said to him, “My son, I shall turn to
you [and pay you special attention]. These young
workers who have worked for me have done a fair
amount of work, so I shall give them a modest wage,
but to you I am going to make a substantial settle-
ment.”
F. So the Israelites are in this world:
G. They seek their reward before the Om-
nipresent, and the nations of the world seek their
reward before the Omnipresent.
H. The Omnipresent says to the Israelites,
“My children, I shall pay attention to you. The
nations of the world who have worked for me
have done a fair amount of work, so I shall give
them a modest wage, but to you I am going to
make a substantial settlement.”
I. That is in line with the statement,
“And I will have regard for you.”
The force of the exegetical parable, B-E, is realized at F-H, which
articulates the matter in so many words. The exegetical parable
amplifies the cited verse, “They will fall before you, not in the ordi-
nary way,” explaining the special reward that is coming to Israel.
The parable is particular to the exegetical setting, since it wishes to
explain why the enemies of Israel are rejected by God.
13. parashat behuqotai 51
CCLXIII:I
1. A. “And you shall eat old store long kept, [and you shall clear out
the old to make way for the new. And I will make my abode
among you, and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk
among you and I will be your God and you shall be my people:”
5. A. “And I will walk among you:”
B. The matter may be compared to the case of a
king who went out to stroll with his sharecropper
in an orchard.
C. But the sharecropper hid from him.
D. Said the king to that sharecropper, “How come
you’re hiding from me? Lo, I am just like you.”
E. So the Holy One, blessed be He, said to
the righteous, “Why are you trembling before
me?”
F. So the Holy One, blessed be He, is
destined to walk with the righteous in the
Garden of Eden in the coming future, and
the righteous will see him and tremble
before him,
G. [and he will say to them,] “[How
come you’re trembling before me?] Lo,
I am just like you.”
Linking Scripture’s context to that of Eden, the exegetical parable
flows, B-D, and bears a primary articulation at E, then a secondary
and explicit one at F-G. God’s walking among Israel is what requires
explanation, and the parable invokes the story of Eden to supply it.
Israel compares to Adam and Eve, sharecroppers in Eden, who hid
from God and trembled when he walked among them. But Israel
need not tremble, being composed of the righteous in the Garden
of Eden in the coming future; now there is no reason to tremble,
the sin of rebellion having been atoned for. Now God and Israel
are consubstantial, G. This is a daring and grand parable, built out
of the Eden-narrative and expressing its point in the context of the
blessings and the curses of Leviticus 26-27. A parable of such pow-
er has no autonomous standing, outside of its exegetical context here.
Telling the parable in the present instance as some sort of “narra-
tive” out of any exegetical context yields gibberish.
CCLXIII:I
8. A. [“And I will walk among you and I will be your God and you
shall be my people. I am the Lord your God, who brought you

forth out of the land of Egypt, that you should not be their slaves;
and I have broken the bars of your yoke and made you walk
erect”] “…and I have broken the bars of your yoke:”
B. The matter may be compared to the case of a
householder who had a cow for ploughing, and he
lent it to someone else to plough with it.
C. That man had ten sons. This one came and
ploughed with it and went his way, and that one
came and ploughed with it and went his way, so
that the cow got tired and crouched down.
D. All the other cows came back, but that cow did
not enter the fold. [It had been worked to death,
and no one concerned himself with its welfare.]
E. The owner hardly agreed to accept consola-
tion from that man, but he went and broke the yoke
and cut off the carved ends of the yoke.
F. So is Israel in this world.
G. One ruler comes along and subjugates
them and then goes his way, then another ruler
comes along and subjugates them and goes his
way, so that the furrow is very long.
H. So it is said, “Plowmen plowed across my
back; they made long furrows. [The Lord, the
righteous one, has snapped the cords of the
wicked]” (Ps. 129:3-4).
I. Tomorrow, when the end comes, the
Holy One, blessed be He, will not say to
the nations, “Thus and so have you done
to my children!”
J. Rather, he will immediately come
and break the yoke and cut off the ends
of the yoke.
K. For it is said, “and I have broken
the bars of your yoke.”
L. And further, “The Lord has snapped
the cords of the wicked.”
The exegetical parable continues the work of amplifying the escha-
tological message. As usual in the present corpus, the parable, B-E,
requires explicit articulation as to its meaning in Israel’s eschato-
logical context, F-H, I-L. On its own, the parable yields no obvious
lesson—what can E possibly mean out of its present exegetical con-
text!—so, as before, it appears to me the parable is the consequence
of the message, not the cause. That is to say, G is the starting point,
and it is what requires explanation. But the householder, possessor
of the ox, is left without explicit identification. Then I-L complete
the exposition. That the parable is integral to the composition and

makes sense only in the present context seems to me self-evident.
But then the parable functions in Aggadic settings as does the Ma#aseh
in Halakhic ones.
CCLXV:I
1. A. [“But if you will not hearken to me and will not do all these
commandments, if you spurn my statutes and if your soul ab-
hors my ordinances, so that you will not do all my command-
ments but break my covenant,] also I [will do this to you]:”
9. A. “I will set my face against you:”
B. Just as, in connection with the good, it says, “I will set my face
upon you,”
C. so, in connection with the bad, it says, “I will set my face against
you.”
D. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who
said to his servant, “I shall turn away from all my other
tasks and I shall attend to you—on account of evil.”
The exegetical parable builds on the contrast between setting the
face upon and against, and it clarifies the negative usage,
“against..attend to.” The point of the parable is specific to the exe-
getical problem.
CCLXVII:II
1. A. [“And if in spite of this you will not hearken to me but walk
contrary to me, then I will walk contrary to you in fury and chastise
you myself seven-fold for your sins. You shall eat the flesh of your
sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.” (Lev. 26:27-
33).]
B. “You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you
shall eat the flesh of your daughters:”
C. They say concerning Doeg b. Joseph that he
died and left a young son to his mother, and she
would take his measure from year to year by hand-
breadths and give his weight in gold to Heaven.
D. Now when the siege-works encircled Jerusalem,
she slaughtered him with her own hand and ate him.
E. And concerning her Jeremiah mourns,
saying, “Look, O Lord, and see! With whom
have you dealt thus? Should women eat their
offspring, the children of their tender care?”
[Should priest and prophet be slain in the sanc-
tuary of the Lord?]” (Lam. 2:20).
F. The Holy Spirit replied, saying
“Should priest and prophet be slain in the
sanctuary of the Lord?”
G. The priest-prophet is Zechariah b.

Jehoiada the priest.
I do not know how to classify C-D. If we substituted for “they say”
Ma#aseh b…, the form would work perfectly well, but the result would
be gibberish. The composition reports an episode, a fact of histo-
ry—not a Halakhic case or example, not an exegetical exercise in
the manner of the parable. C-D illustrate the base-verse, “You shall
eat…,” but add nothing to the understanding of that verse or the
theological context of its assertion, such as we found earlier.
The invocation, E, of Jeremiah’s lament adds nothing, because it
deals with the clause of the base-verse (Lam. 2:20) that is not perti-
nent here and is tacked on in the agglutinative process of forming
exegeses of Lam. 2:20 into a coherent corpus (a process that yield-
ed no compilation but could have).
CCLXVII:II
4. A. “… and cut down your incense altars:”
B. this refers to soothsayers and enchanters in Israel.
5. A. “… and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols:”
B. What were dead bodies doing with idols?
C. Elijah of blessed memory went around among all those who
were bloated by famine. If he found someone bloated by
famine and lying in hunger, he would say to him, “My son,
what family do you come from?”
D. He replied, “From such and such a family.”
E. He said to him, “And how many were you?”
F. He replied, “We were three thousand.”
G. “And how many survive of you?”
H. He said to him, “I.”
I. He said to him, “Do you want to say a single thing and
live?”
J. He said to him, “Yes.”
K. He said to him, “[Say,’] ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord is our
God, the Lord alone.’”
L. He forthwith cried out and said, “Silence! [This he did] so
as not to make mention of the name of the Lord. Father
did not teach me thus.”
M. What did he do? He took his idol and put it on his heart
and caressed it and kissed it, until his stomach burst and
he and his idol fell to the earth.
N. That is what is meant by the verse, “and cast your dead
bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols.”
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the action
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale?
The authentic narrative finds its focus at L-M, where all the de-
tails are made to cohere in an account of why the corpses of the
Israelites were cast among the idols. All the prior details come to-
gether only at the end, which imparts its sense on the preceding data.
And the conclusion to which all thing lead also forms a climax. Eli-
jah offers the survivor a chance to live, but even the proclamation
of the Shema# offends the man, who instead caressed his idol. The
loyalty of the apostate Israelite to idolatry imparts coherence to all
the details and explains why the dead bodies are joined to the rem-
nants of the idols.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of the
tale and how is the point of tension resolved? This question reinforces the
foregoing.
The conflict is between Elijah and the idolater, who prefers death
over life. The resolution comes with the rejection even of the She-
ma# and the consequent death of the idolater.
3. How, in light of other, comparable, pieces of writing and the data that
they yield, is the narrative classified, and what are its indicative formal quali-
ties, e.g., long or short, complex or simple?
The story, unfolding through dialogue, is short and simple, mak-
ing its point without ambiguity. It is propositional, and the proposi-
tion is, idolaters prefer death over monotheism. So far as I can see,
this is the sole authentic narrative in Sifra.
CCLXVIII:II
1. A. “Then the land shall enjoy its Sabbaths [as long as it lies deso-
late, while you are in your enemies’ land; then the land shall
rest and enjoy its Sabbaths. As long as it lies desolate it shall have
rest, the rest which it had not in your Sabbaths when you dwelt
upon it. And as for those of you that are left, I will send faint-
ness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; the sound of
a driven leaf shall put them to flight” (Lev. 26:34-39).]
3. A. “… the sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight:”
B. Said R. Yohanan b. Qorhah, “Once we were in session
among trees, and the wind blew and brought down leaves
one on the other, and we got up and ran, saying, ‘Woe is
us! What if the charioteers catch up with us!
C. “After a while we looked back and saw that there was no
one there, and we sat down on the spot and wept, saying,
woe is us! For in us is realized this verse of Scripture: ‘the
sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight, and they
shall flee as one flees from the sword,’—out of fear!
D. “‘… and they shall fall when none pursues’—out of faint-
ness.”
The report illustrates the cited verse. This strikes me as pseudo-nar-

rative, a dramatic setting for the exegesis of the cited verse through
a specific case/incident, along the lines of the exegetical parable.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
NARRATIVES IN SIFRA
Viewed whole, Sifra forms a systematic compilation of Midrash-ex-

egeses on the book of Leviticus. Three forms dictate the entire rhe-
torical repertoire of the document. The first is the protracted argu-
ment or dialectical form, meant for the demonstration that if we wish
to classify things and so find the governing rules, we must follow the
taxa dictated by Scripture rather than relying solely upon the traits
of the things we wish to classify as we do in the Mishnah. The sec-
ond, the citation-form, adduces passages of the Mishnah or the
Tosefta in the setting of Scripture and links the Halakhah of the
Mishnah or Tosefta to Scripture. The third, covering more than half
of the compilation, is commentary form, in which the citation of a
phrase of Scripture is followed by an amplificatory clause of some
sort. The forms of the document admirably express the polemical
purpose of the authorship at hand. What they wished to prove was
that a taxonomy resting on the traits of things without reference to
Scripture’s own classifications cannot serve. They further wished to
restate the oral Torah (set forth in the Mishnah and the Tosefta) in
the setting of the written Torah. And, finally, they proposed to ac-
complish the whole by rewriting the written Torah. The dialectical
form accomplishes the first purpose, the citation-form the second,
and the commentary form the third.
To Sifra’s program, narrative proves only episodically pertinent.
Even then, it is pseudo-narrative of two kinds, the Ma#aseh and the
parable or Mashal—not the authentic narrative that defines our prob-
lem. We shall have, therefore, to find out how the Ma#aseh and the
parable pertain to the documentary program of Sifra or to its exe-
getical realization of that program.
58 14. narratives in sifra
I. The Authentic Narrative
First, we turn to the sole narrative that, by the announced crite-

rion, we may classify as authentic, Elijah and the surviving idol-
ater:
CCLXVII:II.5. “… and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies
of your idols:” What were dead bodies doing with idols? Elijah of blessed
memory went around among all those who were bloated by famine.
If he found someone bloated by famine and lying in hunger, he would
say to him, “My son, what family do you come from?” He replied,
“From such and such a family.” “And how many survive of you?” He
said to him, “I.” He said to him, “Do you want to say a single thing
and live? “[Say,’] ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord alone.’”
He forthwith cried out and said, “Silence! [This he did] so as not to
make mention of the name of the Lord. Father did not teach me thus.”
What did he do? He took his idol and put it on his heart and caressed
it and kissed it, until his stomach burst and he and his idol fell to the
earth. That is what is meant by the verse, “and cast your dead bodies
upon the dead bodies of your idols.”
The anecdote fits into the exegesis of the cited verse, “and cast your
corpses on the corpses of your idols,” then explicitly explaining to
what sort of case the reference pertains. But the story stands on its
own and need not be addressed only in exegetical context. Still, it
precisely accomplishes the compilers’ purpose in amplifying that
context. Later on we shall ask whether this item finds an integral
position in the program of Sifra.
II. The Mashal
The Mishnah and the Tosefta are extensively cited and glossed in
Sifra, so a brief account of the Mashal in those two documents af-
fords perspective on what we shall find in Sifra.
As to the Mishnah, the compositions marked Mashal all fall into
the category of Halakhic parables, for the three parables set forth
by the Mishnah effect a Halakhic exegesis. That is to say, a Hala-
khic parable provides an inert simile to clarify a normative law, in
all cases, a law of Scripture. The Halakhic parable of Sifra carries
forward the Halakhic parables of the Mishnah, all of which consist
of a simile lacking development or complexity: “this is like that.”
14. narratives in sifra 59
1. Mishnah-tractate Sukkah 2:9: They made a parable: To what is the

matter comparable? To a slave who came to mix a cup of wine for his
master, and his master threw the flagon into his face.
2. Mishnah-tractate Niddah 2:5; The sages made a parable in con-
nection with the woman: (1) the room, (2) the front hall, and (2) the room
upstairs.
3. Mishnah-tractate Niddah 5:7: Sages have made a parable in regard
to the woman: (1) an unripe fig, (2) a ripening fig, and (2) a fully ripe fig.
We shall identify numerous parables in Sifra that follow the same

plan: an inert simile, lacking all narrative energy.
In the Mishnah, then, “Mashal” signals a static, inert simile, lack-
ing all narrative articulation. It refers to a comparison of a Hala-
khic category to an arrangement of rules or to a growth-process of
nature. The transaction at No. 1 invokes a transaction without out-
come: a tableau, not an illuminating drama. It scarcely hints at the
development in the Tosefta of an anecdotal aspect of the Mashal, a
more complex articulation of the simile.
The Tosefta’s parables are more elaborate and diverse. There the
Mashal occurs not only as a static simile, “this is like that…,”1 but
also as a dynamic, protracted narrative, involving a series of para-
digmatic transactions. The Tosefta’s other-than-static kind of Mashal
is represented by the following:
Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 1:11
1:11 J. Similarly, “Remember not the former things, nor con-
sider the things of old” (Is. 43:18). Remember not the former
things—these are [God’s mighty acts in saving Israel] from the
[various] kingdoms; nor consider things of old—these are [God’s
mighty acts in saving Israel] from Egypt.
K. “Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth”
(Is. 43:19)—this refers to the war of God and Magog [at the end
of time].
L. They drew a parable, to what may the matter be compared? To
one who was walking in the way and a wolf attacked him, but he was saved
from it. He would continually relate the incident of the wolf. Later a lion
attacked him, but he was saved from it. He forgot the incident of the wolf
1 Further examples of the same sort of free-standing parabolic material, par-

ticular to the exegetical problem and requiring explicit linkage to the exegetical
or Halakhic task at hand, are at Tosefta-tractate Berakhot 6:18, Tosefta-tractate
Sheqalim 1:6, Tosefta-tractate Sotah 15:7, Tosefta-tractate B.Q. 7:3, 4, Tosefta-
tractate Sanhedrin 1:2, Tosefta-tractate Sanhedrin 8:9, Tosefta-tractate Zebahim
12:9, Tosefta-tractate Niddah 2:8, Tosefta-tractate Niddah 3:5 and Tosefta-tractate
Zabim 1:11.
and would relate the incident of the lion. Later still a serpent attacked him,
but he was saved from it. He forgot the other two incidents and would
continually relate the incident of the serpent.
M. So, too are Israel: the recent travails make them forget
about the earlier ones.
What is important is two facts. First, the Mashal now portrays a se-
ries of events. Second, the Mashal stands on its own, and produces
a coherent composition out of relationship with the exegetical task
defined by Is. 43:18. That that relationship is not self-evident is con-
veyed by the requirement implicit in M: to make the relationship
of the parable to the case explicit. True to the documentary char-
acter of Tosefta, the static parables, in the model of the Mishnah’s
simile lacking a narrative articulation, are more numerous.2
Now let us take up the parable as represented in Sifra. What
defines the parable here as in the Mishnah and the Tosefta is the
announcement that a case or proposition may be approached through
a simile, an account of a transaction the components of which are
comparable in character or relationship to the case or proposition
at hand. That account, like the Ma#aseh, then may, but need not,
report an anecdote, involving a transaction comparable to the one
at hand but more readily accessible in its simplicity of detail than
the one at hand.
Sifra’s parable thus takes two forms. In the first, it simply sets up
a situation comparable to the one under discussion, lacking all ac-
tivity or movement. In the second, it narrates a transaction or event
deemed comparable to the one under discussion. In neither case does
the logic of teleology have to impart coherence to the composition.
Rather, the context—the situation to be replicated in other, more
accessible terms—does. In this document the parable serves two
purposes, clarification of an exegesis of a verse of Sifra, or clarifica-
tion of a Halakhic ruling set forth in Leviticus. The question that
engages us in the present context is, does the Mashal of either type
stand on its own, or does it require the exegetical context to bear
specific meaning? To answer that question I catalogue the parables
identified in chapters one through thirteen. To set off the parable
2 Further examples of the dynamic parable, are at Tosefta-tractate Sukkah 2:6,
Tosefta-tractate Hagigah 2:4, Tosefta-tractate Sotah 11:4, Tosefta-tractate B.Q.

7:2, Tosefta-tractate Baba Qamma 7:13.
from its context, I underline the parabolic component of the com-

position.
a. The Halakhic Parable

Ordinarily, like that of the Mishnah, the Halakhic parable of Sifra
is so closely tied to, generated by, the case at hand that it is incom-
prehensible beyond that context. That is to say, removed from the
case that is clarified, the Halakhic parable yields no sense whatso-
ever; it is incoherent and gibberish. The Halakhic parables before
us involve descriptions of situations, rather than unfolding transac-
tions or singular events. They are inert, not dynamic, and they scarce-
ly qualify even as anecdotal. The economical, stripped-down descrip-
tion of what is said and done recalls the Halakhic Ma#aseh. The
difference is, the Halakhic Ma#aseh frames a transaction or a circum-
stance on which sages make a ruling, while the Halakhic Mashal
establishes a counterpart situation in which the outcome is implicit
and requires no articulated ruling. The power of the simile there-
fore lies in its self-evident implication.
1. III:VI. 2. Might one suppose that one should not bring an offering of
a wild beast, but if one has brought a wild beast as an offering, it is valid?
The matter may be compared to the case of someone whose master said
to him, “Go and bring me wheat,” and he went and brought him both
wheat and barley. … Lo, to what may the matter be compared? To the
case of someone whose master said to him, “Go and bring me only wheat.”
The paired parables match the case and have no autonomous
standing, since out of context they bear no point I can discern.
Here there is no unpacking of a transaction, only the descrip-
tion of the case, lacking an outcome. This is a situation, not a
transaction with secondary amplification.
2. LXVI:I. 1. A.“The priest shall make expiation on his behalf for the
error that he committed unwittingly, [and he shall be forgiven. It is a guilt-
offering, he has incurred guilt before the Lord]:” “unwittingly:” excluding
a case in which others informed him. lo, if he were to have acted know-
ingly, atonement shall not be achieved for him. To what may this matter
be compared? To the case of the heifer the neck of which is broken [in
expiation of the discovery of a neglected corpse]. Even though the neck of
the heifer is broken, if then the murderer is found, lo, the murderer is put
to death.
The parable, hardly a simile in the form of a narrative such as
we come to expect, is particular to the Halakhic problem, as
the secondary amplification, “Even though the neck is broken...”
indicates clearly. The parabolic case exactly matches the Hala-

khic issue and does not yield to generalization beyond that is-
sue. I see the construction of a situation, not the description of
a protracted event.
3. CLXXIV:II. 1. “Tell Aaron your brother not to come at all times into
the holy place within the veil:” R. Eleazar b. Azariah would say, “One
may then propose a parable: to what may the matter be compared? To
the case of a sick person, whom a physician came to see. He said to him,
‘Do not drink cold things, and do not lie in the damp.’ Another physician
came and said to him, ‘Do not drink cold things, and do not lie in the
damp, so you won’t die the way Mr. So-and-so died.’ This made a deeper
impression on him than the first of the two. So it is said, ‘The Lord spoke
to Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near
before the Lord and died; and the Lord said to Moses, Tell Aaron your
brother not to come at all times into the holy place.’
We have stages of activity, one physician came, then another,
with the following consequence; this comes close to narrative,
in that the second and last component of the composition sheds
light on the meaning of the first. This is an unfolding anecdote,
not merely a replication of a circumstance. Because the para-
ble as articulated (“this made a deeper impression than the
first…”) on its own makes its point, whether the same parable
can have served in some other exegetical context is not to be
dismissed out of hand. But the articulation of the point, “So it
is said…,” does link the parable tightly to the Halakhic case.
4. CCLV:I. Do not let him go down. Lo, to what is the matter to be com-
pared? To a load on an ass. While the ass is yet standing in place, a single
individual can take hold of him and lead him. If the ass falls to the ground,
five people cannot raise him up again.
The parable is particular to its case and cannot be readily un-
derstood out of relationship to it. This too is not an anecdote
but a circumstance.
We see two facts. First, it is a fixed trait of the Halakhic parables of

Sifra that the case dictates the simile; only one of the Halakhic par-
ables can stand outside of its Halakhic context. Second, the Hala-
khic parables tend not to entail the protracted description of an
anecdotal transaction, e.g., actions and reactions. With the noted
exception,—the same as the exception to the particularity of the
parable to the details of the Halakhic case—they also cannot be called
narratives and qualify as pseudo-narratives only with difficulty.
Rather, as similes, they tend to serve to replicate the relationships

of a Halakhic problem in another, neutral situation not particular
to the details of the Halakhic rule at hand.
b. The Exegetical Parable

The task of the exegetical parable is to clarify not a law but a state-
ment of Scripture. The link to Scripture is intimate, and ordinarily
the parable bears no self-evident meaning or message out of exe-
getical context, as we shall now see. It is necessary to articulate this
connection point by point, e.g., in the first entry, “So with Aaron….”
None of these parabolic compositions has the capacity to stand on
its own. Most of them, however, involve protracted transactions, e.g.,
action and reaction.
1. XCVIII:VI. 1. “And Moses killed it and took the blood:” For all seven
days of consecration, Moses served in the high priesthood. He would slaughter
the beast, he would toss the blood, he would sprinkle the blood, he would
perform the rite of purification, he would pour oil, he would atone. There
is then a parable: to what may the matter be compared? To a princess
who was married when she was a minor, and they made an agreement
with her mother that the mother would serve until her daughter would
learn [what was required of her]. So with Aaron, at first he was a Levite,
as it is said, “And is not Aaron, your brother, the Levite” (Ex. 4:14). But
when he was chosen to serve as High Priest, the Holy One, blessed be He,
said to Moses, “You will serve me until Aaron will learn.”
The parable, “A princess was married as a minor” matches the
case point by point, as the articulation of matters makes explic-
it. I cannot think of what the parable as articulated here can
mean outside of this particular context. What we see is how the
exegetical parable constructs a situation, rather than tells a tale
of what was said or done in sequences. I see no stages of activ-
ity, no initiative with its consequences, just the construction of
a situation,—a woman married under such-and-such stipula-
tion,—deemed to illuminate Aaron’s situation in the priesthood.
2. XCVIII:VII.3. “... and Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head
of the ram:” They placed their hands on it in rejoicing and celebrated a
festival day. The matter may be compared to one who had paid off a debt
that was owing and so celebrated a festival. So too, Aaron and his sons,
once they had completed the rite involving the day and its acts of sancti-
fication, the rite involving the utensils and their sanctification, and pre-
sented the second ram and laid hands on it with rejoicing, they made a
festival day.
The simile is to one who has paid a debt, and on its own that
bears no self-evident message or connection to a particular prob-
lem or case. Only when “So too, Aaron and his sons…” comes
into play does the simile register. The exegetical parable not only
replicates the scriptural situation but then yields a detailed ac-
count of how that is so. So in its rich detail the parable is par-
ticular to the case at hand, which it matches.
3. XCIX:II.2. “… and all the congregation stood near and stood before
the Lord:” All of them came near with great jubilation and stood before
him It is like the case of a king who got mad at his wife and divorced her.
After some days he was reconciled with her. She immediately girded her
loins and tied her kerchiefs and she served him with an excess of enthusi-
asm So Israel, when they saw that the Omnipresent was reconciled to ac-
cepting atonement for their sins, they all came near with jubilation and
stood before him.
What the parable supplies is access to the emotions that the
exegete imputes to Israel. That the parable exactly replicates
Scripture’s description of the situation is self-evident; that it can
serve for some other situation certainly cannot be rejected out
of hand. The parable involves a sequence of stages, first this,
then in consequence, that. It must be deemed an unrealized
story, where a situation has been described but not then led to
its consequence or conclusion, e.g., the king then resolved….
4. CCX:II 9. “Lest the land vomit you out, when you defile it [as it vomited
out the nation that was before you” (Lev. 18:28): The land of Israel is not
like other lands. It does not support those who practice transgression. To
what may the matter be compared? To the case of a prince whom they fed
something that his stomach could not stand, and he vomited it up. So the
land of Israel does not support those how practice transgression.
The parable is particular to the case invoked by Scripture, and
its details exactly replicate that case, comparing the Land to a
“prince.” The parable requires no stages, e.g., something was
done and someone responded in such-and-such a way, and its
pertinence is made explicit as usual.
5. CCLXII:I. 9. “And I will have regard for you:” There is a parable: to
what is the matter comparable? It is to be compared to the case of a king
who hired a large work force, and there was there a certain worker, who
did work for him over a long period of time. The workers came to collect
their wages, and that worker came with them. The king said to him, “My
son, I shall turn to you [and pay you special attention]. These young workers
who have worked for me have done a fair amount of work, so I shall give
them a modest wage, but to you I am going to make a substantial settle-
ment.” So the Israelites are in this world: They seek their reward before
the Omnipresent, and the nations of the world seek their reward before
the Omnipresent. The Omnipresent says to the Israelites, “My children, I
shall pay attention to you. The nations of the world who have worked for
me have done a fair amount of work, so I shall give them a modest wage,
but to you I am going to make a substantial settlement.”
Here we have a fully-realized narrative, people did such and such
with the following result, a transaction that both captures the
issue of Scripture and explains its point. The elaborate story does
not strike me as limited to the context before us; its players—
those who work only a little and are paid a modest wage, as
against those who work hard and are paid a large salary—need
not be Israel and the nations, and its problem is not particular
to the eschatological issue that animates the version at hand.
6. CCLXIII:I.5. “And I will walk among you and I will be your God and
you shall be my people:” The matter may be compared to the case of a
king who went out to stroll with his sharecropper in an orchard. But the
sharecropper hid from him. Said the king to that sharecropper, “How come
you’re hiding from me? Lo, I am just like you.” So the Holy One, blessed
be He, said to the righteous, “Why are you trembling before me?” So the
Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to walk with the righteous in the Garden
of Eden in the coming future, and the righteous will see him and tremble
before him,
As I said in the presentation of this remarkable parable, the entire
composite is particular to the verse of Scripture that is clarified
by reference to an intersecting verse of Scripture. The task of
the parable is to build the bridge from the one to the other.
7. CCLXIII:I. 8. “… and I have broken the bars of your yoke:” The matter
may be compared to the case of a householder who had a cow for plough-
ing, and he lent it to someone else to plough with it. That man had ten
sons. This one came and ploughed with it and went his way, and that one
came and ploughed with it and went his way, so that the cow got tired and
crouched down. All the other cows came back, but that cow did not enter
the fold. The owner hardly agreed to accept consolation from that man,
but he went and broke the yoke and cut off the carved ends of the yoke.
So is Israel in this world. One ruler comes along and subjugates them and
then goes his way, then another ruler comes along and subjugates them
and goes his way, so that the furrow is very long. Tomorrow, when the
end comes, the Holy One, blessed be He, will not say to the nations, “Thus
and so have you done to my children!” Rather, he will immediately come
and break the yoke and cut off the ends of the yoke.
The parable, rich in activity, explains why God broke the bars
of Israel’s yoke and its components are particular to the exe-
getical requirements of Scripture’s case. The parable makes sense

only in that context, as signaled by the anticipated “so is Israel
in this world…,” which leaves no doubt as to the particularity
of the parable to the exegetical context.
8. CCLXV:I.9 .[“But if you will not hearken to me and will not do all
these commandments, if you spurn my statutes and if your soul abhors my
ordinances, so that you will not do all my commandments but break my
covenant,] also I [will do this to you]:” Just as, in connection with the good,
it says, “I will set my face upon you,” so, in connection with the bad, it
says, “I will set my face against you.” The matter may be compared to the
case of a king who said to his servant, “I shall turn away from all my other
tasks and I shall attend to you—on account of evil.”
The scarcely-realized parable, bearing no account of things done,
simply paraphrases the verse that is amplified, translating the par-
ticipants from God and Israel to the king and the servant.
Of the twelve parables that I have identified, nine are particular to

the exegetical setting. Those that on the surface can serve for some
purpose other than the specific one at hand involve a more elabo-
rate transaction than those particular to the terms of the verse that
is amplified or the Halakhic ruling that is clarified.
Halakhic Parables of Sifra
Parable particular to its Halakhic setting: III:VI. 2, LXVI:I. 1, CCLV:I
Parable not particular to its Halakhic setting: CLXXIV:II. 1
Exegetical Parables of Sifra
Parable particular to its exegetical setting: XCVIII:VI. 1, XCVIII:VII.
3, CCX:II 9, CCLXIII:I.5, CCLXIII:I. 8, CCLXV:I.9
Parable not particular to its exegetical setting: XCIX:II. 2, CCLXII:
I. 9
Our sample is limited and sustains no global generalization. Not only

so, but the proportion of the document as a whole that we have
reviewed in this rubric is negligible. We do not deal with a princi-
pal part of the document. But it is equally clear that Sifra’s framers
have found uses for the Mashal, both Halakhic and exegetical, that
escaped the attention of the compilers of the Mishnah and the Tosef-
ta. Though the number of entries is modest, it is also well-delineat-
ed and bears uniform traits. So we may offer a tentative theory of
matters.
Both types of parable tend to emerge from the particular setting
and to respond to an exegetical assignment. That is to clarify a dis-

tinctive case or problem or ruling. The parables, whether Halakhic
or exegetical, that predominate emerge from the details of particu-
lar cases, translated into readily accessible similes. Some, to be sure,
bear an autonomous, internally cogent, narrative; the free-standing
parables then require and receive an explicit statement showing how
the simile applies to the particular case at hand.
Do parables circulate autonomous of the documents, with their
compositions of Halakhic amplification or exegetical clarification?
Or are they integral to the process of documentary formulation and
extenuation? On the basis of the Halakhic set we cannot posit a
corpus of similes, whether inert or anecdotal, circulating hither and
yon, available for an indeterminate purpose and then shaped for the
case at hand. On the basis of the exegetical set, matters are less clear,
but the larger part of our data proves integral to the exegetical task
at hand.
The upshot may be simply expressed. Overall, the parables ap-
pear more likely to commence within the exegetical process than
outside its limits, to respond to a particular exegetical task, rather
than to define one. That proposition proves coherent with the use
of parables in the Mishnah, where the signal, Mashal, always prom-
ises an inert simile, meaning, this is like that, rather than an active
narrative, “the matter may be compared to the case of a king who….”
In the Tosefta, the same kind of parable predominates, but the dy-
namic Mashal, bearing its own meaning out of exegetical/Halakhic
context, does occur. That represents a step beyond the Mishnah’s
rather sparse and casual utilization of the genre. And Sifra follows
suit.
III. The Ma#aseh

Sifra’s corpus of Ma#asim is to be seen in the context of the two doc-
uments to which Sifra is intimately connected, the Mishnah and the
Tosefta. Of the narratives and pseudo-narratives of the Mishnah,
80% are Ma#asim, and of these, most are Halakhic Ma#asim: cases or
precedents. The Tosefta follows suit, with Ma#asim forming just un-
der 80% of its narrative or pseudo-narrative corpus. But as with the
Mashal, so with the Ma#aseh, the Tosefta not only replicates the Mish-
nah’s forms but produces secondary developments thereof. The
Tosefta’s Ma#asim divide into those in the model of the Mishnah’s
Ma#asim (55%) and those not (45%). These represent a form-analyt-

ical distinction, not a functional difference. The latter tend to a more
elaborate form. All of the Ma#asim of the Mishnah, but only part of
those in the Tosefta are of a Halakhic character. Since the Tosefta
both intersects with the Mishnah and makes a statement of its own,
we should not be surprised at these results. Sifra yields seven Ma#asim,
about half as many Ma#asim as parables. And not all of them are
active similes, tied to the Halakhic process, like those of the Mish-
nah and most of those of the Tosefta.
1. XCIX:VI. 6. “… and offered unholy fire before the Lord, such as he
had not commanded them:” R. Eliezer says, “Nadab and Abihu became
liable for punishment only because they taught law in the presence of Moses,
their master, for whoever teaches law in the presence of his master is liable
to death.”
And it happened concerning [Ma#aseh b] a certain student who gave
instruction in the presence of Eliezer [without permission]. He said to Imma
Shalom, his wife, “He will not finish out this week.” And he died [that
week].
This is an unconventional usage, because the Ma#aseh does not
exemplify a ruling, but rather provides a specific case in which
the rule at hand is enforced by Heaven. The Mishnah-Tosefta
contain nothing comparable.
2. CXXV:III. 3. “... bloods:” This teaches that many sorts of blood are
unclean in her connection: “Such is the Torah concerning her who bears
a child, male or female:” A woman who is subject to doubt concerning the
appearance of five births or five fluxes presents a single offering and eats
animal sacrifices thereby. And the remainder of the offerings are not obliga-
tory for her. If she is subject to five confirmed miscarriages or five con-
firmed fluxes, she brings a single offering and eats animal sacrifices, but
the rest of the offerings, the other four, do remain obligatory for her.
There was a case [Ma#aseh b] in which a pair of birds in Jerusalem
went up in price to a golden denar. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, “By
this sanctuary! I shall not rest tonight until they shall change hands at sil-
ver denars.” He entered the court and taught the following law: “The woman
who is subject to five confirmed miscarriages or five confirmed fluxes brings
a single offering and eats animal sacrifices, and the rest of the offerings do
not remain obligatory for her.” And pairs of birds changed hands on that
very day at a quarter-denar each [one one-hundredth of the former price]
[M. Ker. 1:7A-Q].
The Ma#aseh is particular, showing how the law is set aside in the
situation at hand by extenuating circumstances. The Ma#aseh as case/
precedent of the Mishnah-Tosefta prefers to exemplify, not to set
forth a one-time incident/anecdote. Here, again, we find ourselves

in unfamiliar territory.
3. CCXI:I. 15.”… for her he may defile himself:” it is a religious duty to
do so. If he did not wish to contract corpse-uncleanness, he is forced against
his will to do so.
There is the case of [Ma#aseh b] a priest, Joseph, whose wife died on the
eve of Passover and who did not want to contract corpse-uncleanness on
her account. Sages forced him and made him unclean against his will.
The Ma#aseh illustrates the working of the law, and the example
is standard for the Mishnah.
4. CCXI:I. 19. “… for her he may defile himself:” He is not to contract
corpse-uncleanness on account of her limbs For a man may not contract
corpse-uncleanness on account of a limb that has fallen from a living per-
son who is a relation of his on his father’s side But he does contract corpse-
uncleanness so as to bury a bone as small as a barleycorn from a relative
on his father’s side. R. Yosé says, “A man does not contract corpse-un-
cleanness so as to bury a bone as small as a barleycorn from a relative on
his father’s side.”
There was the case of [Ma#aseh b] Joseph b. Paxes, on the foot of whom
a wart came up. The physician wanted to chop it off. He said to him, “When
you have cut it so as to leave only a thread like a hair’s breadth, tell me.”
He chopped it off until he left only a thread like a hair’s breadth and told
him. He called Nehunia, his son, and said to him, “Honia, my son, Up to
this point you were obligated to take care of me. From this point, go out,
for a priest does not contract corpse-uncleanness on account of a corpse
from a living person in the case of his father.” And when the case came
before sages, they said, “This is the sort of case concerning which Scrip-
ture says, ‘Sometimes a righteous man perishes in spite of his righteous-
ness’ (Qoh. 7:15).
The Ma#aseh represents a protracted narrative, but a standard
Halakhic one, since we have not only the case but sages’ im-
plicit ruling, recast as a secondary explanation.
5. CCXIV:I.1. “[And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow or
one divorced, or a one who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he shall not
marry; but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people, that he may not
profane his children among his people; for I am the Lord who sanctify him”
(Lev. 19:10-15). “… he shall take to wife:” What is the point of Scripture
here? How do you know that if he had betrothed a widow and then was
appointed high priest, he may consummate the marriage? Scripture says,
“he shall take to wife.”
There is the case of [Ma#aseh b] Joshua b. Gamala, who consecrated
Marta daughter of Beisos, and the king appointed him high priest, and he
then consummated the marriage.
The Ma#aseh illustrates the law, a standard example. But there
is no sages’ ruling to validate the outcome; that is taken for grant-

ed, it seems to me.
6. CCXXXVIII:I, 1. [“You shall take for yourself on the first day the
fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees and boughs of leafy trees and
willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven
days. You shall keep it as a feast to the Lord seven days in the year; it is
a statute for ever throughout your generations; you shall keep it in the sev-
enth month. You shall dwell in booths for seven days; all that are native
in Israel shall dwell in booths, that you generations may know that I made
the people of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land
of Egypt; I am the Lord your God. Thus Moses declared to the people of
Israel the appointed feasts of the Lord” (Lev. 23:39-44).] “[You shall take]
for yourself” one that belongs to you, not a stolen one. In this connection
sages have said: A person does not fulfill his obligation on the first day of
the Festival to wave the lulab [palm branch] by using the lulab of his fel-
low [M. Suk. 3:13C], unless he gives it to him as an unconditional gift,
and he to his fellow, and he to his fellow, even if they are a hundred people.
There was the case of [Ma#aseh b] Rabban Gamaliel and elders, who
were traveling in a boat [T.’s version: and had no lulab with them. Rabban
Gamaliel bought a lulab for a golden denar. Once he had fulfilled his ob-
ligation with it, he gave it to his fellow, and his fellow to his fellow, so that
all of them fulfilled their obligation. Afterward they returned it to him (T.
Suk. 2:11B-D). [Sifra’s version:] And only Rabban Gamaliel alone had a
lulab. Rabban Gamaliel gave it as a gift to R. Joshua, and R. Joshua to R.
Eleazar b. Azariah, and R. Eleazar b. Azariah to R. Aqiba, and all of them
thereby carried out their obligation.
The case is primary to the Tosefta and secondary to Sifra.
7. CCLXI:I. 3. “… then I will give you your rains in their season:” on
the night of the Sabbath [when no work can be done anyhow].
There was the case, [Ma#aseh ] in the time of Simeon b. Shatah, in the
time of Queen Shelamsu, when it would rain from Friday night to Friday
night [on a weekly basis], so that the grains of wheat grew as large as beans,
and the grains of barley were like olive pits, and the lentils were like golden
denars. Sages made a bundle of some of them and left them behind for
coming generations, so as to demonstrate how much sin accomplishes [in
less virtuous generations].
The case does not exemplify a Halakhic ruling, it is Aggadic in
its data, and that represents a utilization of the Ma#aseh–marker with-
out a counterpart in the Mishnah or the Tosefta.
Four of the seven items in Sifra’s corpus of Ma#asim replicate the traits
of the Ma#aseh in the Mishnah-Tosefta. No. 3, CCXI:I.15, matches
the form and function of the Ma#aseh in the Mishnah, and No. 4,
CCXI;i.19 has its counterparts in the Tosefta. No. 5, CCXIV;i.1,
would do well to include a ruling, e.g., “and sages did not object.”
No. 6, CCXXXVIII:I.1, originates in the Tosefta. But Sifra’s cor-
pus of Ma#asim carries us beyond the limits of the Mishnah and the
Tosefta at XCIX:VI.6, Eliezer’s prediction of the student’s immi-
nent demise, and CCLXI:I.3, the crops in the time of Simeon b.
Shatah, where the Ma#aseh exemplifies a theological proposition: how
much of a loss sin exacts. In these two items, we find ourselves in
unfamiliar territory.
IV. Not Classified
Thus far we have identified one authentic narrative and two classes
of pseudo-narratives, the Mashal and the Ma#aseh . Now let us turn
to the items I was unable to classify in the initial presentation of
matters.
1. CCXIII:I.1: “The priest who is chief among his brethren:” He is to be
chief among his brethren in standing, wealth, power, wisdom, and looks.
If he does not have these traits, how do we know that they should raise
him above his brothers? Scripture says, “who is chief among his brethren,”
meaning, he should be chief at least relative to his brethren.
They report about Phineas of Habbatah that the lot fell on him to
serve as high priest. The temple treasurers and administrators went to fetch
him and found him quarrying stone, so they filled up the quarry with golden
denars.
If instead of the marker, “they report about,” ("amru #alav #al…)
the composition began, Ma#aseh b, we should have no problem
classifying the item as an unconventional use of the Ma#aseh-form,
lacking a ruling.
2. CCXXVII:I.4. “And you shall not profane [my holy name]:” I derive
the implication from the statement, “you shall not profane,” that sanctifi-
cation is covered. And when Scripture says, “but I will be hallowed,” the
sense is, “Give yourself and sanctify my name. Might one suppose that that
is when one is all alone? Scripture says, “among the people of Israel.” In
this connection sages have said: Whoever gives his life on condition that a
miracle is done for him—no miracle will be done for him. But if it is not
on condition that a miracle be done for him, a miracle will be done for
him. For so we find in the case of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, that
they said to Nebuchadnezzar, “We have no need to answer you in this
matter, for if so it must be, our God whom we serve is able to save us from
the burning fiery furnace, and he will save us from your power, O king.
But even if he does not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve
your god or worship the statue of gold that you have set up” (Dan. 3:16-
18).
And when Marianos seized Pappos and Lulianos, brothers in Laodicea,

he said to them, “If you come from the people of Hananiah, Mishael, and
Azariah, let your God come and save you from my power. They said to
him, “Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were worthy men, and Nebuchad-
nezzar was a king worthy of having a miracle done on his account. But
you are a wicked king, and you are not worthy of having a miracle done
on your account, and, for our part, we are liable to the death penalty inflicted
by Heaven, so if you do not kill us, there are plenty of agents of punish-
ment before the Omnipresent, plenty of bears, plenty of lions, plenty of
panthers, plenty of fiery snakes, plenty of scorpions, to do injury to us. But
in the end the Omnipresent is going to demand the penalty of our blood
from your hand.” They say that he did not leave there before orders came
from Rome, and they chopped off his head with axes.
“He said to them… they said to him…” represents a drama-
tized exchange of fixed positions. Only the concluding statement,
“They say… chopped off his head…” suggests that we shade
over into a pseudo-narrative. The context defines the sense,
which is meant to illustrate the act of sanctification of God’s name
that registers.
3. CCXLII:I.1. “Now an Israelite woman’s son, whose father as an Egyp-
tian, went out among the people of Israel:”
He came out of Moses’s court, for he had come to gain the right to
plant his tent in the midst of the camp of Dan [“His mother’s name was
Shelomit, daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan”]. They said to him, “What
claim do you have to plant your tent in the midst of Dan? He said to them,
“I derive from the women of the tribe of Dan.” They said to him, “Does
Scripture not say, ‘The Israelites shall camp each with his standard, under
the banners of their fathers’ house; they shall camp around the tent of meeting
at a distance’ (Num. 2:2). [The right of belonging to a tribe derives from
the father, not the mother.]” He went into Moses’s court and came out
vanquished, and so he went and cursed.
I see nothing more than dramatized dialogue: he said to them…
they said to him….
4. CCLXVII:II 1. “You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall
eat the flesh of your daughters:”
They say concerning Doeg b. Joseph that he died and left a young
son to his mother, and she would take his measure from year to year by
handbreadths and give his weight in gold to Heaven. Now when the siege-
works encircled Jerusalem, she slaughtered him with her own hand and
ate him. And concerning her Jeremiah mourns, saying, “Look, O Lord,
and see! With whom have you dealt thus? Should women eat their off-
spring, the children of their tender care?” (Lam. 2:20).
Once more, the marker Ma#aseh would have yielded an uncon-
ventional case, illustrative of the cited verse—an exegetical

Ma#aseh .
5. CCLXVIII:II. 3. “…the sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight:”

Said R. Yohanan b. Qorhah, “Once we were in session among trees,
and the wind blew and brought down leaves one on the other, and we got
up and ran, saying, ‘Woe is us! What if the charioteers catch up with us!
After a while we looked back and saw that there was no one there, and we
sat down on the spot and wept, saying, woe is us! For in us is realized this
verse of Scripture: ‘the sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight, and
they shall flee as one flees from the sword,’—out of fear!
This is an exegetical Ma#aseh, pure and simple, spelling out
through the anecdote what it means to flee at the sound of a
driven leaf.
The unclassified items prove less puzzling in perspective than they

did when we first encountered them. The “they report about” items,
CCXIII:I.1, CCLXVII:II.1, compare with the Ma#aseh, and slightly
dramatized dialogues, CCXXVII:I.4, CCXLII:I.1 present no sur-
prises. The final item, XXLCVIII:II.3, is nothing other than an
exegetical Ma#aseh.
V. Sifra’s Narratives in Canonical Context
The first thing to notice is what we do not find: a corpus of narra-

tives of formidable proportions. The single authentic narrative we
do find, moreover, responds to its exegetical context in detail and
stakes a formidable claim to a position well within Sifra’s documen-
tary program. The pseudo-narratives, the Ma#aseh and the Mashal,
serve the document’s program as well. Where Sifra intersects with
the Mishnah-Tosefta in setting forth the Halakhah, the Ma#aseh serves
in Sifra as it does in Mishnah-Tosefta, but in some ways adapts it-
self to the particularity of Sifra as well. Where Sifra takes as its task
the systematic exposition of Leviticus, the Mashal accepts the two
tasks, Halakhic clarification, exegetical amplification. So at no point
does the corpus of narrative and pseudo-narrative compositions of
Sifra carry us beyond the documentary limits. Now to the questions
that animate this survey.
1. Do anomalous or asymmetric compositions or composites attest to thought
that takes place beyond the limits of the documents subject to the rules and sym-
metry of the canon? The narratives and pseudo-narratives realize the
documentary program and are tightly linked to the exegetical or

expository task, as seen in the details that follow:
The Authentic Narrative: the exegetical context is blatant and ex-
plicit.
The Mashal:
The Halakhic Mashal: Sifra’s Halakhic Meshalim remain
wholly within Sifra’s documentary tasks at all four entries,
and three of them are particular in detail to Sifra’s cases.
The Exegetical Mashal: The exegetical Mashal is partic-
ular to its context at No. 1,4, 6, 7, 8. It is explicitly linked
to its context at Nos. 2, 3, 5.
The Ma#aseh : Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 undertake an exegetical task,
which is explicit; No. 2 forms an anecdote, illustrating the work-
ing of the law (and its priorities); No. 7 illustrates the theologi-
cal proposition of Scripture.
Not Classified: No. 1 illustrates the Halakhic ruling; No. 2 sup-
plies an anecdote to the exegesis of the base-verse; Nos. 4, 5 il-
lustrates the verse of Scripture that is cited.
To answer the question: No, the narrative and pseudo-narrative

writings find a place entirely within the frame of reference of the
documentary compositions and composites of Sifra. They do not
provide access to some other viewpoint or system than the Rabbin-
ic one that defines Sifra’s program. Not only so, but Sifra’s compil-
ers have adapted the narrative and pseudo-narrative writing to their
larger purpose and task, which is that of exegesis of the book of
Leviticus.
2. Does non-documentary, narrative writing exhibit readily-discernible
patterns of form and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these
patterns and how are we to classify and to interpret them? The rules that
govern the writing of Sifra’s narratives and pseudo-narratives are
readily discerned. While the exegetical and Halakhic Meshalim and
the Ma#asim form anomalies in the setting of Sifra’s paramount rhe-
torical forms, both kinds of writing prove integral to the document’s
program. Sifra has imposed variations on the received models of the
Mashal and the Ma#aseh, true to its larger documentary plan of exe-
gesis of Leviticus and integration of the Mishnah and the Tosefta
to Leviticus adapting those forms as well.
3. At what point in the process that yielded the canonical writings as we

know them did documentary considerations intervene, and what is the meaning
of that intervention? When and under what circumstances did documentary con-
siderations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary venue? The
upshot is, the documentary program of Sifra governs the writing of
the narrative and pseudo-narrative types that occasionally make their
appearance in the compilation. Just as the Ma#aseh is not cobbled
onto the Mishnah but proves integral to its work, so the Mashal is
taken over, as essential to their task, by the authors of the composi-
tions that comprise Sifra. In each context in which an exegetical
Mashal makes its appearance, we are able to tell on our own, or are
explicitly instructed to recognize, precisely why the Mashal at hand
presents the only option available to the exegetes assigned to clarify
and render cogent the book of Leviticus, point by point. In this sur-
vey no proposition emerged with greater clarity than the integral
position of the Mashal in its exegetical, and in its Halakhic, contexts.
That not only explains what we find, the Ma#aseh and the Mashal,
but accounts also for what we do not find: the authentic narrative.
Sifra contains some anecdotal writing but not a single fully-told story,
possessed of its own autonomy, coherent within itself, governed by
the teleological logic of narrative, and, in context, free-standing, not
affected by its documentary context or limited to the documentary
program. For authentically non-documentary writing, we shall have
to look elsewhere than to Sifra, to a document the assignment of
which is to be realized only with authentic narratives, autonomous
of their exegetical or Halakhic contexts.
Then who told stories, and with what result for documentary
composition? To say now what I anticipate seeing in due course:
when and where documents undertook theological, as distinct from
Halakhic and exegetical, assignments, then and there they could
accomplish their task only through the provision of the kind of au-
thentic, fully-realized, protracted and complex narratives that as a
document Sifra does not require and does not set forth. But what
theology demanded that only ambitious narrative of a teleological
logic of coherent discourse could accomplish remains to be seen in
the actuality of the documents that are comprised in significant pro-
portion by narrative. In the present part of the study we do not
address such documents; in Sifra as in the two Sifrés, narrative,
whether authentic or not, supplies a negligible proportion of the
whole. We shall now see, however, that documents can and do dic-
tate the kind of narratives they will generate in the realization of
their larger assignment.
PART TWO

CHAPTER FIFTEEN
SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 1-7.

NUMBERS 5:1-14: —
80 chapter five
CHAPTER SIXTEEN

NUMBERS 5:11-31: —
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

NUMBERS 6:1-9:14
XXII:VI
1. A. “... to the Lord:” (Num. 6:1-4).
B. The religious obligation in taking the vow of the Nazirite must
be for the Name [and sake of God, and not for any lesser pur-
pose].
2. A. Said Simeon the Righteous, “In my entire life I accepted
a share of the guilt offering brought in connection with the
Nazirite vow only one time [for in all other cases I regarded
the vow as having been taken for improper motives].
B. “Someone came from the south, a man of beautiful eyes
and handsome visage, with flowing curls. I said to him, ‘Why
in the world did you decide to take a vow to destroy that
lovely head of hair [by shaving it all off in the completion
of the Nazirite vow? You should not have taken the Nazirite
vow that would require you to cut off your hair as an of-
fering.]’
C. “He said to me, ‘I was a shepherd in my village, and
I went to draw water from the well and I looked at my re-
flection in the water. My heart took hold of me and sought
to drive me out of the world [by taking pride in my looks].
I said to [my hair], “Wicked one, you take pride in some-
thing which does not belong to you, but which belongs to
the dirt and the worm and the maggot. Lo, I shall shave
you off for the sake of Heaven.”’
D. “Forthwith I patted his head and kissed him on his head,
saying to him, ‘May people like you become many in Is-
rael, who carry out the will of the Omnipresent.’
E. “And in you is fulfilled the verse: ‘When either a
man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a
Nazirite, to separate himself to the Lord.’”
The story, familiar from Tosefta Nazir, is tacked on to illustrate the
cited verse. It does not engage with that verse in a formal way, but
it surely is positioned to amplify its meaning. I do not know why it
should be deemed primary to one of the two documents, secondary
to the other; it is free-standing in both contexts.
82 17. sifré to numbers 22-38. numbers 6:1-9:14
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The point of the narrative
is that the vow is meant to be “for the sake of the Lord,” and here
is what that requires. So the point of the story emerges only at the
end, E. On that basis I classify the composition as an authentic nar-
rative.
tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The conflict is between
the sages’ stress on the purity of heart that the vow requires and the
commonplace motivation that leads people to take the view. It is
resolved by the story itself, the example of the Nazirite showing what
is required.
ties, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? The anticipated three stag-
es are B, C-D, and E, the prologue, the main event, and the up-
shot. These do not strike me as indicative traits of any compelling
quality.
17. sifré to numbers 22-38. numbers 6:1-9:14 83
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

NUMBERS 6:22-7:89
84 chapter five
CHAPTER NINETEEN

NUMBERS 8:1-9:14: —
CHAPTER TWENTY

NUMBERS 10:1-10
LXXXII:I
1. A. “So they set out from the mount of the Lord three
days’ journey; [and the ark of the covenant of the Lord
went before them three days’ journey to seek out a rest-
ing place for them]” (Num. 10:29-36):
B. It is hardly necessary to say so, since in any event it
is stated, “Twelve days from Horeb” (Deut. 1:2).
C. So why does Scripture say, “So they set out from
the mount of the Lord three days’ journey”?
D. The purpose is to teach that on that very day the
Presence of God made the trip of thirty-six mil, so that
the Israelites might enter the land.
E. There is a parable to be drawn: it is to men going off to war.
When they go forth, they rejoice, but, as they grow weary, their
hands grow faint.
F. But for the Israelites that is not how it is. Rather, as they grow
tired, they rejoice, saying, “So shall we go and inherit the land
of Israel.”
G. Another matter: They said, “Our fathers have sinned,
so a decree was issued against them that ‘in this wilder-
ness their corpses will fall’ (Num. 14:29). But as for us,
we shall not sin and die in the wilderness, but we shall
go and inherit the land of Israel!”
The exegetical parable, E, is particular to the case. It takes on mean-
ing from its interpretation at F. People in general tire as the jour-
ney unfolds and so lose heart, but the Israelites rejoiced as they drew
nearer to the Land. It is the combination of A and B that requires
the parable’s clarification, and the point of the parable is to under-
score the Israelites’ commitment to the project. Then G goes over
the same point. E without F is unintelligible because pointless. But,
I hasten to add, were E articulated, developed with an intervening
clause, between E and F, in which some unit, inspired by some cause,
86 20. sifré to numbers 72-84. numbers 10:1-10
rejoice even in the fatigue of battle, the parable could have stood
autonomous of its setting. The upshot is, the person who invoked
the parable has no conception of the parable as a free-standing com-
position, called upon from a supply of available narratives and adapt-
ed to clarify a given transaction or proposition.
LXXXII:II
1. A. “[So they set out from the mount of the Lord three
days’ journey;] and the ark of the covenant of the Lord
went before them [three days’ journey to seek out a resting
place for them]” (Num. 10:29-36):
B. In the ark which went forth with them in the camp
were the shards of the tablets, as it is said, “... although
neither the ark of the covenant of the Lord nor Moses
departed out of the camp” (Num. 14:44).
2. A. R. Simeon b. Yohai says, “What is said is not,
‘the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before
them,’ but rather, ‘and the ark of the covenant of
the Lord went before them.’
B. “[The and refers to the fact that] God, as well
as the ark, went before them, thus:
C. The matter may be compared to the case of a viceroy who went
before his armies, preparing the way before them so that they
would take up an encampment.
D. So the Presence of God went before Israel and prepared the
way before them so that they would take up an encampment.
The exegetical parable is particular to the case, and D explains the
obvious connection. C without D makes no point I can discern, nor
does it pretend to narrate a tale of any kind, but successfully trans-
lates the case at hand into accessible terms. It is an inert simile, a
tableau, not a play.
LXXXIV:I
1. A. “And whenever the ark set out, Moses
said, ‘Arise, O Lord, and let your enemies be
scattered, and let them that hate you flee be-
fore you.’ And when it rested, he said, ‘Return
O Lord to the ten thousand thousands of Is-
rael’” (Num. 10:29-26):
B. [In the written version] there are dots
above and below the word to indicate that this
was not its correct place.
C. Rabbi says, “It is because the pericope at
hand constitutes a scroll unto itself.”
20. sifré to numbers 72-84. numbers 10:1-10 87
D. On the basis of this view they have

said:
E. In the case of a scroll which
was blotted about, but in which
eighty-five letters remained legible,
as the number in the passage, “And
whenever the ark set out,” imparts
uncleanness to the hands [as does
any holy scroll of the Torah] [M.
Yad. 3:5].
F. R. Simeon says, “In the written version
there are dots above and below the word to
indicate that this was not its correct place. And
what ought to have been written instead of this
passage? ‘And the people complained in the
hearing of the Lord’ (Num. 11:1ff.).
G. “The matter may be compared to the case of people
who said to the king, ‘We shall see whether you will come
with us to the ruler of Acre.’ By the time they got to Acre,
he had gone to Tyre. When they got to Tyre, he had
gone to Sidon. When they got to Sidon, he had gone to
Biri. When they got to Biri, he had gone to Antioch. When
they got to Antioch, the people began to complain against
the king, for they had wandered on the way, and the
king had to complain against them, that on their account
he too had wandered on the way.
H. “So the Presence of God went on a single day a dis-
tance of thirty-six mils so that the Israelites should enter
the land. The Israelites began to complain before the
Omnipresent that they had wandered on the way. But
the Omnipresent has to complain against them that on
their account the Presence of God had gone on a single
day thirty six mils so that Israel should enter the land.”
The pattern of the exegetical parable is clear: the narrated simile,
then the explicit interpretation thereof. The point that the parable
is required to clarify is how two parties can register complaints against
one another, both with reason. Then the people with the case against
the king keep missing him, and he keeps missing them. It is difficult
to imagine any other point that the parable can have clarified, but
the narrative of G certainly can stand on its own.
LXXXIV:II
1. A. “[And whenever the ark set out,] Moses said, ‘Arise, O Lord,
[and let your enemies be scattered, and let them that hate you
flee before you.’ And when it rested, he said, ‘Return O Lord to
the ten thousand thousands of Israel’]” (Num. 10:29-26):

B. While this verse says, “... whenever the ark set
out, Moses said, ‘Arise, O Lord,’” another verse of
Scripture says, “At the command of the Lord they
encamped, and at the command of the Lord they
set out” (Num. 9:23).
C. How are both verses of Scripture to stand side
by side?
D. The matter may be compared to the case of a mor-
tal king who said to his servant, “See to it that you so
arrange things for me that I may go and hand over an
inheritance to my son.”
E. Another matter: to what may the matter be com-
pared? To the case of a mortal king who was going on
the way and his ally went along with him. As he was
setting out on the journey, he said, “I shall not set out
until my ally comes.” And when he encamps, he says,
“I shall not make camp until my ally comes.”
F. In this way we may sustain both the statement
that it was on the orders of Moses that they made
camp as well as the statement that it was at the com-
mand of the Lord they made camp, on the com-
mand of Moses they journeyed, on the command
of the Lord they journeyed.
The two exegetical parables, D, E, address the same problem, name-
ly, the incongruity of the cited verses: how can Moses command the
Lord to arise or return to repose, when the intersecting verses are
explicit that God gives the orders? The parable resolves the prob-
lem by having God command his servant (Moses), who passes on
the orders, D. In E, Moses is in the position of the ally, to God’s
king; now it is a mark of divine favor that God responds to Moses’s
initiatives. Lest we miss the point, it is articulated at F. The para-
bles can accommodate other situations besides the one at hand, but
they take on precise meaning only in the present context, as F con-
firms.
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

NUMBERS 11:1-23
LXXXV:IV
1. A. “[And the people complained] in the hearing of the
Lord [about their misfortunes; and when the Lord heard
it, his anger was kindled]:”
B. This teaches that the Israelites had every intention
of making the matter heard by the Omnipresent.
C. R. Simeon would say, “To what is the matter to be compared?
To someone who was cursing the king while the king was going
by. They said to the man, ‘Silence, so the king will not hear.’
D. “He said to them, ‘Who is going to tell you that it was not my
very intent to make him hear!’”
E. “So the Israelites had every intention of making the
matter heard by the Omnipresent.”
The exegetical parable once more rests on the details of the case,
to which it appears particular. The tale without E is gibberish. That
is because C-D are wholly out of context.
LXXXVI:I
1. A. “[And the people complained in the hearing of the
Lord about their misfortunes; and when the Lord heard it,
his anger was kindled, and the fire of the Lord burned among
them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp.] Then
the people cried to Moses, [and Moses prayed to the Lord,
and the fire abated. So the name of that place was called
Taberah, because the fire of the Lord burned among them”
(Num. 11:1-3):
B. Now what good could Moses do for them? Was it
not suitable to say only, “And the people cried to the Lord”?
And why then does it say, “Then the people cried to Moses”?
C. Said R. Simeon, “The matter may be compared to a mortal king
who got mad at his son, and the son went off to the king’s ally.
He said to him, ‘Go and plead for me to father.’
D. So the Israelites went to Moses and said to him, ‘Plead for us
before the Omnipresent.’”
E. Is it possible to suppose that Moses held back?
F. Scripture says, “... and Moses prayed to the Lord.”

G. Is it possible that the Omnipresent held back?
H. Scripture says, “... and the fire abated.” The meaning
is that the fire stopped on the spot.
I. Had it gone back up to heaven, it would eventually have
done damage. If it had receded in any direction, it would
have covered that entire area. So the meaning of, “... and
the fire abated,” is that the fire stopped on the spot.
The exegetical parable once more matches the case set forth by the
Scriptural passage, as D makes explicit. Without D, C is truncated
and lacking in point and context.
LXXXVII:II
1. A. “... [we remember the fish we ate in Egypt for noth-
ing,] the cucumbers, [the melons, the leeks, the onions, and
the garlic; but now our strength is dried up and there is
nothing at all but this manna to look at]” (Num. 11:5-6):
B. R. Simeon says, “On what account did the manna turn
for them into everything they could want, except for the
five things listed here? ‘
C. “The matter may be compared to the case of a mortal king, who
handed his son over to a tutor. The king went into session and
gave orders, saying to him, ‘See to it that he not eat any bad
food and not drink anything polluted.’ Nonetheless, the son com-
plained against his father, saying, ‘It was not because he loves
me, but because it was not possible to eat these things.’”
C. And sages say, “The manna would turn for the Israel-
ites into anything they might desire, but with their eyes they
saw only manna, as it is said, ‘... now our strength is dried
up and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at.’
They said, ‘We have only manna from morning to night.’”
The exegetical parable, C, serves Simeon’s reading of the verse and
does not intersect with that of sages. The son’s churlishness instan-
tiates Israel’s, for neither party could impute to the king the benev-
olence that motivated him. But out of this context, what can have
been the motivation for the son, and why should that detail have
served? Here is another instance in which the context of the para-
ble derives from the exegetical instance, not from the inner require-
ments of the parable itself, which here has no independent stand-
ing or meaning.
LXXXIX:IV
2. A. “... and the taste of it was like the taste of cakes baked
with oil:”
B. This word is an abbreviated word.

C. Another explanation: there are three words here:
cakes baked with oil and honey, that is, what is laid
out in oil, then drenched in honey. So manna was
prepared, and so did suitable Israelites eat it.
D. Another explanation for the statement, “... and
the taste of it was like the taste of cakes baked with
oil:” just as for an infant the teat is the main thing and
everything else is secondary, so the manna was the main
thing for the Israelites and everything else was secondary
to it.
E. Another explanation: just as in the case of a teat
even though an infant may suck on it all day long, he
does not do any harm to it, so in the case of manna,
even though the Israelites ate it all day long, it did not
do them any harm.
F. Another explanation: just as in the case of a teat,
it is really only one thing but [for the infant] it turns
into many things, so the manna turned for Israelites
into everything they could imagine. It may be com-
pared to saying to a woman, “Do not eat garlic or onions
on account of the infant.”
G. Another explanation: just as in the case of the
teat, the infant is pained when he has to give it up, so
the Israelites were pained when they had to give up
the manna, as it is said, “And the manna ceased on
the next day” (Joshua 5:12).
H. It may be compared to saying to someone, “On what account
are you eating barley-bread?” He replies, “Because I do not have
wheat bread.” “On what account are you eating carobs?” He
says, “Because I do not have honey.”
I. So if the Israelites had had in hand some of that handful of manna
that they took up on the day on which Moses died, from which
they ate for the next forty days, they would never have wanted
to eat the produce of the land of Canaan.
“Another explanation” at G links H-I to the foregoing, but in fact
the exegetical parable, H+I, is particular to Josh. 5:12, not the pas-
sage of Numbers to which it is attached. What requires clarification
is at G: why did the manna cease so abruptly. It was so the Israel-
ites would be forced to make do with the produce of the Land, not
comparing it with the manna. The exegetical parable, H, is partic-
ular to the case at hand.
LXXXIX:V
1. A. “When the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the
manna fell with it” (Num. 11:7-9):
B. This teaches that the manna fell on the thresholds of
the houses and on the doorposts.
2. A. Then the people would recite the Shema, say the Prayer,
then someone would go to the door of his house and col-
lect his food and the food of his household, and afterward
the sun got hot and the manna melted.
B. Along these same lines, R. Simeon says, “On what ac-
count did the manna not come down for Israel on one day
in a year? It was so that [lacking their regular rations] they
should turn their hearts to their father in heaven.
C. “One may draw a parable. To what may the matter be com-
pared? To a king who made a decree for his son that he should
provide a living for his son all together on only one day a year,
and he would greet his father only at the time that he was there
to collect his living. One time the king went and made a decree
that he would provide his living every day. The son said, ‘Even
if I greet father only at the time that he provides my living, it is
enough for me.’
D. “So is the case with Israel: If someone had five sons or five daugh-
ters, he would sit and stare, saying ‘Woe is me, maybe the manna
will not come down tomorrow! We’ll all die of starvation. May
it be your pleasure that it will come down.’ So it turned out that
they set their hearts heavenward.”
E. Along these same lines R. Dosetai b. R. Yosé says, “On
what account did the Omnipresent not create hot springs
in Jerusalem like the hot springs in Tiberias? It is so that
someone should not say to his fellow, ‘Let’s go up to Jerusa-
lem. Now if we go up only to take a single bath, it would
be enough for us!’ So as a result the pilgrimage would not
be for a proper motive.”
The composition, LXXXIX:V.2B-D+E is tacked on and free-stand-
ing. It makes its point without reference to the base-verse. The terms
of the exegetical parable are required by the case, D, and it shows
why the king provided the living on only one day a year. It nur-
tured in the son the correct attitude of gratitude. So, in line with
Simeon’s premise, the manna did not come down one day a year,
so that the Israelites would not take it for granted, but would be
reminded of the beneficence of their father in heaven. All of this is
made explicit. Then E broadens the issue to encompass right atti-
tudes of all kinds, not only gratitude for Heavenly grace.
XCI:II
1. A. “... I am not able to carry all this people alone, the
burden is too heavy for me. If you will deal thus with me,
kill me at once, if I find favor in your sight, that I may not
see my wretchedness” (Num. 11:11-15):
B. [What was the basis for Moses’ complaint?] It is be-
cause the Holy One, blessed be he, showed to Moses the
entire order of punishments that was destined to come upon
them.
C. R. Simeon would say, “To what may the matter be compared?
It is to someone who was going forth to be put to death, with his
sons. He said to the executioner, ‘Put me to death first, before
you put my children to death.’
D. “Is this not in line with what is said with regard to
Zedekiah: ‘And the king of Babylonia slaughtered the sons
of Zedekiah before his very eyes,’ and afterward ‘... he
blinded the eyes of Zedekiah’ (Jer. 52:11).
E. “So did Moses say before the Omnipresent, ‘If you will deal thus
with me, kill me at once. It would be better for me if you would
kill me first, so that I shall not see the punishment that is des-
tined to come upon them.’”
Moses could not carry the burden, and the burden was knowledge
of the punishments that were going to come upon the people, E, so
the exegetical parable, C, is particular to the case at hand, E, and
explicitly so. The inserted case, D, need not detain us.
XCIII:I
3. A. “... and I will take some of the spirit which is upon you
and put it upon them; [and they shall bear the burden of
the people with you, that you may not bear it yourself]”
(Num. 11:17):
B. To what may Moses be compared at that moment? To a lamp
which is set on a candelabrum, from which many lights are kindled,
and which on that account does not lose a bit of its light.
C. So Moses did not lose any of his wisdom [when he shared it with
the others].
B. Why is this said? Because Moses said, “How shall I by
myself bear your trouble, your burden, and your strife”
(Deut. 1:12), therefore it is said, “... and they shall bear the
burden of the people with you.”
The exegetical parable establishes an inert simile, but it is one that
can serve a variety of cases, not only the one before us.
LXXXV:IV
1. A. “[And the people complained] in the hearing of the Lord
[about their misfortunes; and when the Lord heard it, his
anger was kindled]:”
B. This teaches that the Israelites had every intention of
making the matter heard by the Omnipresent.
C. R. Simeon would say, “To what is the matter to be compared?
To someone who was cursing the king while the king was going
by. They said to the man, ‘Silence, so the king will not hear.’
He said to them, ‘Who is going to tell you that it was not my
very intent to make him hear!’
D. “So the Israelites had every intention of making the matter heard
by the Omnipresent.”
We have already seen this item, which here is as particular to the
case as before.
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO

NUMBERS 12:1-16
CIII:VI
1. A. “Why then were you not afraid to speak against my
servant Moses?’ [And the anger of the Lord was kindled
against them, and he departed]” (Num. 12:1-16):
B. The sense of the statement of Scripture, “against my
servant Moses” is only this: “Instead of speaking against
me, you have spoken against my servant, Moses.”
C. The matter may be compared to the case of a mortal king who
had a trustee of state. The citizens were speaking against him.
The king said to them, “You have not spoken against him but
against me. And if you claim that I do not know what he does,
then that statement is still more damaging than the first [criti-
cizing the agent’s deeds].”
The exegetical parable matches the situation set up by the cited verse
of Scripture, A-B. It is particular to that task. The pertinence is so
blatant that no one spells out “so is the case with Moses and Isra-
el,” articulating the application of the parable.
CV:I
1. A. “... and when the cloud removed from over the tent, [behold,
Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. [And Aaron turned to-
wards Miriam, and behold, she was leprous…So Miriam was shut
up outside the camp seven days, and the people did not set out
on the march till Miriam was brought in again. And after that
the people set out from Hazeroth and encamped in the wilder-
ness of Paran]” (Num. 12:1-16):
B. The matter may be compared to a mortal king who said to a
tutor, “Punish my son, but only after I go along on my way should
you punish him, for the father has mercy on the son.”
C. Now it is an argument a fortiori : if the Omnipresent
has mercy on the righteous even when he is angry with them,
all the more so when he is pleased with them [will he show
mercy to them], as it is said, “Thus says the Lord, ‘In a
time of favor I have answered you’” (Is. 49:8).
Miriam’s punishment held up the progress of the Israelites, God going

on his way so as not to witness her disgrace. The exegetical parable
is certainly limited to the case at hand. C builds on the case, not
the parable.
CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE

NUMBERS 15:1-41
CXII:III
2. A. [“But the person who does anything with a high hand,
[whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the Lord, and
that person shall be cut off from among his people, because
he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken his
commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his in-
iquity shall be upon him]” (Num. 15:27-31).] “... reviles the
Lord:”
B. R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, “The matter may be compared to
the case of a man who says to his fellow, ‘You have cursed the
dish and so diminished [its contents].’”
C. Issi b. Arabia says, “The matter may be compared to the case of
a man who says to his fellow, ‘You have cursed the entire dish
and so left nothing at all of it.’”
The exegetical similes explain why the person is cut off from among
his people: he has cursed the dish and left nothing in it. It is diffi-
cult for me to see what the parables add to the clarification of Num.
15:27-31, being built so closely upon its pattern. The parables do
not unfold into a story with a point or a lesson but form inert simi-
les.
CXV:V
4. A. “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Speak to the people of Is-
rael and say to them to make tassels [fringes] [on the cor-
ners of their garments throughout their generations, and
put upon the tassel of each corner a cord of blue; and it
shall be to you a tassel to look upon and remember all the
commandments of the Lord to do them, not to follow after
you own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined
to go after wantonly. So you shall remember and do all my
commandments and be holy to your God. I am the Lord
your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be
your God. I am the Lord your God’” (Num. 15:37-41):
B. Another matter: why make mention of the Exodus from Egypt
in the setting of discourse on each and every one of the religious

duties?
C. The matter may be compared to the case of a king whose ally’s
son was taken captive. When the king paid the ransom [and so
redeemed him], he did not redeem him as a free man but as a
slave, so that if the king made a decree and the other did not
accept it, he might say to him, “You are my slave.”
D. When he came into a city, he said to him, “Tie my shoe-latch,
carry my clothing before me and bring them to the bath house.”
[Doing these services marks a man as the slave of the one for
whom he does them.]
E. The son began to complain. The king produced the bond and
said to him, “You are my slave.”
F. So when the Holy One, blessed be he, redeemed the seed of
Abraham, his ally, he redeemed them not as sons but as slaves.
When he makes a decree and they do not accept it, he may say
to them, “You are my slaves.”
G. When the people had gone forth to the wilder-
ness, he began to make decrees for them involving part of
the lesser religious duties as well as part of the more strin-
gent religious duties, for example, the Sabbath, the prohi-
bition against consanguineous marriages, the fringes, and
the requirement to don Tefillin. The Israelites began to com-
plain. He said to them, “You are my slaves. It was on that
stipulation that I redeemed you, on the condition that I may
make a decree and you must carry it out.”
The parable exactly replicates the Israelite circumstance, F+G be-
ing mirrored at B-E. The question is whether or not B-E can stand
on their own, and the answer is not entirely clear to me. The para-
ble closely tracks the lesson drawn from it at F, so I am inclined to
see the whole of C-E as particular to the case.
CXV:V
5. A. “[So you shall remember and do [all my commandments and
be holy to your God. I am the Lord your God who brought you
out of the land of Egypt to be your God.] I am the Lord your
God” (Num. 15:37-41):
6. A. R. Nathan says, “You have not got single religious duty that is
listed in the Torah, the reward of the doing of which is not made
explicit right alongside.
B. “Go and learn the lesson from the religious duty of the fringes.”
7. A. There is the case [ma#aseh] of a man who was meticu-
lous about carrying out the religious duty of the fringes.
He heard that there was a certain whore in one of the coastal
towns, who would collect a fee of four hundred gold coins.
He sent her four hundred gold coins and made a date with
her.
B. When his time came, he came along and took a seat at
the door of her house. Her maid came and told her, “That
man with whom you made a date, lo, he is sitting at the
door of the house.”
C. She said to her, “Let him come in.”
D. When he came in, she spread out for him seven silver
mattresses and one gold one, and she was on the top, and
between each one were silver stools, and on the top, gold
ones. When he came to do the deed, the four fringes fell
out [of his garment] and appeared to him like four witnesses.
The man slapped himself in the face and immediately with-
drew and took a seat on the ground.
E. The whore too withdrew and took a seat on the ground.
F. She said to him, “By the winged god of Rome! I shall
not let you go until you tell me what blemish you have found
in me.”
G. He said to her, “By the Temple service! I did not find
any blemish at all in you, for in the whole world there is
none so beautiful as you. But the Lord, our God, has im-
posed upon me a rather small duty, but concerning [even
that minor matter] he wrote, ‘I am the Lord your God who
brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God. I am
the Lord your God,’—two times.
H. “‘I am the Lord your God,’ I am destined to pay a good
reward.
I. “‘I am the Lord your God,’ I am destined to exact
punishment.’”
J. She said to him, “By the Temple service! I shall not let
you go until you write me your name, the name of your
town, and the name of your school in which you study
Torah.”
K. So he wrote for her his name, the name of his town,
and the name of his master, and the name of the school in
which he had studied Torah.
L. She went and split up her entire wealth, a third to the
government, a third to the poor, and a third she took with
her and came and stood at the school house of R. Hiyya.
M. She said to him, “My lord, accept me as a proselyte.”
N. He said to her, “Is it possible that you have laid eyes
on one of the disciples [and are converting in order to marry
him]?”
O. She took the slip out that was in her hand.
P. He said to [the disciple who had paid the money but
not gone through with the act], “Stand up and acquire
possession of what you have purchased. Those spreads that

she spread out for you in violation of a prohibition she will
now spread out for you in full remission of the prohibition.
Q. “As to this one, the recompense is paid out in this world,
and as to the world to come, I do not know how much [more
he will receive]!”
Now we have a free-standing narrative, bearing no close exegetical
task, parachuted down but pertinent in thematic context. The rhe-
torical pattern of Sifré to Numbers makes no impact, even in the
connecting language of 6.B. And Ma#aseh signals a completely dif-
ferent kind of writing from the standard case/example that ordinarily
follows.
1. On what basis does the narrative attain coherence, e.g., what is the ac-
tion or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? This authentic narra-
tive stands on its own, but illustrates the proposition of No. 6. It is
in these parts: A-D, the john backs out because he sees his show-
fringes, which remind him of the religious duties, plus E-I, the ex-
planation of why he has acted as he has, then J-Q, the reward to
the honorable man by reason of his repentance. The whole story
aims at the reward for abstinence brought about through observance
of the commandment. A-D create the problem, E-I show how it is
solved, and J-Q revert to A-D, now matching its narrative with the
counterpart in a situation of sanctification. Without J-Q, A-D and
E-I hang loose, but with that component, the first two parts cohere
and form a statement transcending the incident portrayed in them,
respectively, the match of the sin with the reward, the realization
of the redemption of the prostitute through the Torah, the very same
Torah that had motivated the man not to sin after all. So the ulti-
mate cogency of the components is established only within the tele-
ological logic of coherent discourse. What is striking, also, is the aspect
of the sanctification of God’s name by the man, such that the wom-
an responds to the commandment in her terms. That dimension is
realized only in the third unit and imposes on the first two units a
dimension not otherwise to be perceived.
2. What point of conflict or intersection of wills accounts for the telling of
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? This question reinforces
the foregoing. The conflict is between the natural impulse, subdued
by the Torah, and the promise of redemption contained within the
Torah. It is not only that the religious duties save the man from sin
but in the end bring the specified reward that resolves the tension.
ties, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? This is unique in context. The
formal traits shared with other authentic narratives are routine: tri-
partite construction, anecdotal quality.1
1 See Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Rabbinic Stories (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2002),
186-189, for further discussion and references to other treatments of this story.
He writes, “The story originated elsewhere [than in Sifré to Numbers]. That the
story originally was formulated as an exegesis of the verse in Numbers seems clear.”
Those two sentences strike me as contradictory, unless Rubenstein posits the ex-
istence of another Rabbinic exegetical compilation on the book of Numbers, which
has survived only in this story; or the autonomous circulation of the story, outside
of a documentary compilation. In any event, he treats the story as integral to the
Rabbinic system, the important point for this project.
CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR

NUMBERS 18:1-32
CXVII:I
3. A. [“Then the Lord said to Aaron, “And behold, I have given
you whatever is kept of the offerings made to me, all the conse-
crated things of the people of Israel. I have given them to you
as a portion, and to your sons as a perpetual due.”] “ … all the
consecrated things of the people of Israel:”
B. Scripture makes a covenant with Aaron concerning all the
Most Holy Things for the purpose of establishing an analogy and
so to make a covenant with them. For Korach came against Aaron
and protested against the priesthood.
C. To what is the matter comparable? It is comparable to the case
of a mortal king who had a household companion, to whom he gave
a field for a gift, but for whom he did not write a deed and seal it and
place it into the archives. Someone then came along and challenged
the man’s ownership to the field. Said the king to him, “Whoever
wants to come and challenge your ownership—come, and I shall write
and seal a deed and place the deed for you in the archives.”
D. Thus it was that Korach came along and challenged the priest-
hood against [Aaron]. Said to him the Omnipresent, “Whoever wants,
let him come and challenge you for the priesthood! Come, and I shall
write and seal and place in the archives a deed of ownership.”
E. That is why this passage is set forth alongside the passage
of Korach.
F. “... a memorial for the children of Israel,” (Num.
16:38)—lo, we learn that Korach was among those that were
swallowed up and burned.
The issue of why the covenant with Aaron concerning the Most Holy
Things is juxtaposed to the rebellion against Aaron by Korach, A-
B. That question is raised only inferentially, but C requires it. The
parable, C, then tracks the case: God gave the priesthood to Aaron
but did not confirm it in writing, just as the mortal king gave the
field but did not provide a deed. A land-grabber intervened, so the
king provided a deed in the archives. Then D goes over the details
point by point. Once more the parable is particular to the case it is
meant to clarify. There are in the parable no details that stand apart
from that case.
CXIX:II
1. A. And the Lord said to Aaron, “You shall have no in-
heritance in their land”—at the time of the division of the
land;
B. “neither shall you have any portion among them”—in
the spoil.
2. A. “I am your portion and your inheritance among the
people of Israel:”
B. “At my table you eat, and at my table you drink.”
C. There is a parable: to what is the matter to be compared? To the
case of a mortal king who gave his sons gifts, but to one son he gave
nothing at all. He said to him, “My son, even though I didn’t give
you a gift, at my table will you eat, and at my table, you will drink.”
D. And so Scripture says, “Their share have I given from
my offerings made by fire” (Lev. 6:10); “Offerings made
by fire for the Lord and his inheritance they will eat” (Dt.
18:1).
The priesthood eats God’s meat and drinks God’s wine, and that is
why it receives no share in the division of the Land. So the parable
is once more particular to the case. It does not sustain generalizing
to other cases in Scripture.
CXIX:III
1. A. “I am your portion and your inheritance among the people of
Israel. To the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel for an inher-
itance, in return for their service, which they serve, in the tent of
meeting. And henceforth the people of Israel shall not come near the
tent of meeting, lest they bear sin and die:”
H. There was great rejoicing for Aaron on the day on which a cov-
enant was made with him through the priestly gifts.
2. A. R. Ishmael says, “There is a common proverb that says, ‘It
was to my advantage that my cow broke its leg—it was to Aaron’s
advantage that Korach came along and challenged his priest-
hood.”
B. There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable?
C. It is comparable to the case of a mortal king who had
a household companion, to whom he gave a field for
a gift, but did not write a deed or seal it or place it
into the archives. Someone then came along and chal-
lenged the man’s ownership to the field. Said the king
to him, “Whoever wants to come and challenge your
ownership—come, and I shall write and seal a deed
and place the deed for you in the archives.
D. Thus Korach came along and challenged the priest-

hood against [Aaron]. Said to him the Omnipresent,
“Whoever wants, let him come and challenge you for
the priesthood! Come, and I shall write and seal and
place in the archives a deed of ownership.”
E. That is why this passage is set forth alongside the pas-
sage of Korach.
The passage is repeated from CXVII:I.3.
CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE

NUMBERS 19:1-22: —
106 26. sifré to numbers 131. numbers 25:1-16
CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX
SIFRÉ TO NUMBERS 131.

NUMBERS 25:1-16
CXXXI:I.1
E. R. Aqiba says, “Every passage contiguous to another provides
an appropriate occasion for a lesson to be derived therefrom.”
I. Along these same lines, you say, “And the daughter of a
priest, when she undertakes to fornicate” (Lev. 21:9), “and
the priest who is greater than his fellows” (Lev. 21:10)—
now what has one thing to do with the other!
J. He too is put to death through burning [if he commits for-
nication with a priest’s daughter].
K. There is a parable: to what is the matter compa-
rable? It is comparable to a centurion who has served
his term but failed to enter his primipilate, to which
he should have been promoted, but fled and went
his way. The king sent word and brought him and
imposed on him the penalty of having his head cut
off. Before he was taken out to be put to death, said
the king, “Fill up for him a measure of golden
denars,” and bring it to him and say to him, ‘If you
had acted as your fellows acted, you would receive
this measure of gold denars, and your life would have
been your own. Now you have lost your life and
lost your money.’”
L. So too in the case of a priest’s daughter who com-
mitted an act of fornication—the high priest goes
forth before her and says to her, “Had you acted in
the manner in which your mothers did, you would
have had the grace that from you a high priest should
go forth like this one. But now you have lost your
life and you have lost your honor.” Thus it is said,
“And the daughter of a priest, when she undertakes
to fornicate” (Lev. 21:9), “and the priest who is
greater than his fellows” (Lev. 21:10).
The parable, K, matches the lesson derived from the juxtaposition
of verses of Scripture, L. But here is a parable that is, at any rate, a
26. sifré to numbers 131. numbers 25:1-16 107
complete story. Hence we cannot take for granted that L is needed

to supply context and meaning to a piece of a narrative.
CXXXI:I.1
M. And along these same lines, you say, “Because you are not
my people, and I am not your God” (Hos. 1:9).
N. And it says, “Yet the number of the people of Israel shall
be like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured
nor numbered, and in the place where it was said to them,
[You are not my people,’ it shall be said to them, ‘sons of
the living God” (Hos. 1:10).
O. Now what has one thing to do with the other?
P. The matter may be compared to the case of a king
who got mad at his wife. He sent for a scribe to come
and write a writ of divorce for her. Before the scribe
got there, however, the king was reconciled with his
wife. Said the king, “It is impossible that the scribe
should go forth from here empty-handed. But say
to him, ‘Come and inscribe [a codicil to her mar-
riage-settlement] that I double for her the value of
her marriage-settlement [should I die or divorce
her].’”
Q. That is the point of the statement, “Because you are
not my people, and I am not your God” (Hos. 1:9),
followed by “Yet the number of the people of Is-
rael shall be like the sand of the sea, which can be
neither measured nor numbered, and in the place
where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
it shall be said to them, ‘sons of the living God’”
(Hos. 1:10).
Here, by contrast, is a parable that is highly specific to the case it is
meant to illuminate. It is a standard exegetical parallel, depending
on the cited verses for meaning, but imparting no new meaning to
those verses.
CXXXI:I.1
R. Along these same lines, you say, “Samaria shall bear her
guilt because she has rebelled against her God; they shall
fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces,
and their pregnant women ripped open” (Hos. 13:16).
S. And it further says, “Return, O Israel, to the Lord your
God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take
with you words and return to the Lord” (Hos. 14:1).
T. Now what has one thing to do with the other?
U. The matter may be compared to the case of a city
that rebelled against the king. The king sent a gen-
eral to destroy it. The general was shrewd and ca-

pable. He said to them, “Take some time [about
this rebellion of yours and stop it], for if not, I shall
do to you what I did to such and such a city and its
allies, to such and such a district and its allies.”
V. So Scripture states, “Samaria shall bear her guilt
because she has rebelled against her God; they shall
fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in
pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open” (Hos.
13:16), but further, “Return, O Israel, to the Lord
your God, for you have stumbled because of your
iniquity. Take with you words and return to the
Lord” (Hos. 14:1).
The third parable is identical in construction to the other two. But
it is comparable to the foregoing in that the exegetical task supplies
context and meaning to the parable, thus, once more, an exegetical
parable.
CXXXI:II
2. A. “Now they came and dwelt in Shittim”—in a place of foolish-
ness.
B. At that time the Ammonites and Moabites went and built for them-
selves enclosures from Beth Hajeshimoth to the Snowy Mountain, and
they installed there women selling every kind of delicacy. The Isra-
elites would eat and drink.
C. He made tents for them from the snowy mountain to Beth
Hajeshimoth [north to south] and put women in them, selling all
manner of goodies] [B. San. 106b: whores in them, old women out-
side, young women inside.
D. When an Israelite was eating and drinking and carousing and going
out for walks in the market to buy something from the old lady, [the
old lady would say to him, ‘Don’t you want some linen clothes?”]
E. The old lady would offer them at true value, and the girl would
call him and say to him from inside, “Come and buy it for yourself
for less.”
F. So he would buy it from her. This would happen two or three
times, and then [the young one] would say to him, “Come on in, you
are at home here. Sit down and make a choice for yourself.” He would
come in. Gourds of Ammonite wine would be set near her. (At this
point the wine of gentiles had not yet been forbidden to Israelites.)
She would say to him, ‘Do you want to drink a cup of wine?’
G. “When he had drunk a cup of wine, he would become inflamed.
He said to her, “Submit to me.” She would than take her the image
of Peor from her bosom and said to him, “Worship this.”
H. He would say to her, “Now am I going to bow down to an idol?”
[Sanhedrin: “Am I not a Jew?’]
I. She would say to him, “What difference does it make to you? Do

they ask anything more from you than that you bare yourself?”
[Sanhedrin:] But he did not know that that was how this idol was
served.] So he would bare himself to it.
J. On this basis, sages have said: He who bares himself to
Baal Peor—lo, this is the proper manner of wor-
shipping it. And he who tosses a stone to Hermes—
that is the proper manner of worshipping it [M.
San. 7:6].
K. “‘And not only so, but I shall not let you do so until you deny the
Torah of Moses, your master!’
L. “As it is said, ‘They went in to Baal-peor and separated them-
selves unto that shame, and their abominations were according as they
loved’ (Hos. 9:10).”
M. So he would become inflamed. He said to her, “Submit to me.”
She would say to him, “If you want me to submit to you, separate
yourself from the Torah of Moses, and he did just that, as it is said,
“But they came to Baal Peor and consecrated themselves to Baal and
became detestable like the thing they loved” (Hos. 9:10).
N. In they end they arrange idolatrous banquets for them, and they
called them and they ate, as it is said, “These invited the people to
the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to
their god.”
This authentic narrative builds to its climax and all the prior de-
tails lead the way to that point.
tion or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? I see three stages, first,
attracting the Israelite, B-F, then the act of worship to Peor, G-J,
then the sexual relations, involving repudiation of the Torah of
Moses, K-N. The story flows smoothly from start to finish, but the
point only emerges at the end: idolatry begins in easy stages, but
ends with the act of apostasy, which imparts its perspective on the
prior stages in the unfolding relationship. Each element of the story
takes on its ultimate meaning only at the end.
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? The tale explains how
from simple commercial relationships stretches a path straight to the
repudiation of the Torah, a path smoothed out by liquor and sex.
ties, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? The tripartite division of au-
thentic narratives governs here. But by this point, it is clear, that is
a trivial observation. Authentic narratives require examination as a
group, for viewed all together, they may yield the points of com-
parison and contrast that, in their actual setting, elude me.
CXXXI:II.2
O. R. Eleazar b. Shammua says, “Just as it is not possible for a nail
to be removed from the door without splinters, so it was not
possible for the Israelites to separate from Peor without the loss
of life.”
3. A. There is the case [ma#aseh] of Menahem b. Gubeta of
Ariah, who was treading figs in a vessel, and the prince[ly
angel] of Peor came upon him. He drove him off with
a metal spit and he fled and went his way.
B. But he came upon him a night later. He said to him,
“Menahem, do even you curse me?”
C. He was afraid of him and said to him, “I’ll never curse you
again.”
4. A. There is another case [ma#aseh] concerning Sebatayya
of Ulam, who rented out his ass to a gentile woman.
When she had left the city gate, she said to him to wait
while she went into her temple of idolatry.
B. When she came out, he said to her, “Wait till I go in and
do what you did.”
C. She said to him, “Is it possible that you’re not a Jew? He
said to her, “So what difference does it make to you?”
D. He went in and wiped himself on the nose of Peor, and all
the gentiles cheered him and said to him, “No one ever
did it that way before.”
5. A. There was yet another case [ma#aseh] of a ruler who came
from a seaside city to bow down to Peor. He said to
the servants of Peor, “Bring me a bullock, for us to offer
it to him, or a ram, for us to offer to him.”
B. They said to him, “That isn’t what we owe him, but all
you have to do is bare yourself to him.”
C. He set his orderlies on them and they crushed their heads
with clubs.
D. He said to them, “Woe is you and woe is your ‘error’!”
E. At that moment: “And the anger of the Lord was
kindled against Israel.”
The triplet carries forward the preceding authentic narrative. The
Ma#asim have nothing in common with those of the Mishnah and
the Tosefta. Ma#aseh here signals neither a precedent nor a case nor
even an example of a Halakhic ruling. What we have in each of the
three cases is a unique anecdote. No. 3 and No. 4 do not qualify as
authentic narratives, but No. 5 lays claim to that status, because the
details fall into place only with C-D. The three ma#asim form a top-
ical appendix to the narrative to which they are attached. The inci-
dents are singular but augment the point announced at the outset:
it was not possible for the Israelites to separate from Peor without
the loss of life.
CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN

NUMBERS 26:52-29:40
CXXXII:I
1. A. The Lord said to Moses, “To these the land shall be divided
for inheritance according to the number of names. To a large
tribe you shall give a large inheritance, and to a small tribe you
shall give a small inheritance; every man [tribe] shall be given
its inheritance according to its numbers. But the land shall be
divided by lot, according to the names of the tribes of their fa-
thers they shall inherit. Their inheritance shall be divided ac-
cording to lot between the larger and the smaller:”
H. R. Josiah says, “Among those who actually went forth
from Egypt was the land divided, as it is said, ‘accord-
ing to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall
inherit.’ Then why does Scripture say, ‘To these the land
shall be divided for inheritance according to the num-
ber of names’? That is on account of the women and
children.”
I. R. Jonathan says, “To those who actually come into the
land is the land divided, as it is said, ‘This was the num-
ber of the people of Israel, six hundred and one thou-
sand seven hundred and thirty’ (Num. 26:51), and it is
written [immediately thereafter], ‘To these the land shall
be divided for inheritance according to the number of
names.’
J. “And why does Scripture proceed to say, ‘… according to
the names of the tribes of their fathers’? Scripture has treated
differently this particular inheritance from all other inheritances
that are mentioned in the Torah. For in the case of all other
acts of inheritance in the Torah, the living inherit from the dead,
but here, the dead inherit from the living. [This is now explained.]”
K. Rabbi says, “There is a parable: to what is the matter compa-
rable? To two brothers, who were priests, living in the same town.
This one had a son, and that one had three sons. They went out to
the threshing floor [to collect the priestly dues]. This one took one
seah of grain, and these took three seahs. Then they brought them to
their fathers. The fathers went and divided up the grain equally between
them.
L. “Along these same lines, you say concerning those who were com-
ing into the land: this took a seah-area, and these took three seah-
areas, and they transferred them by inheritance to their fathers. Thus
the dead inherited from the living, and then they went and divided
it up equally.”
The Halakhic parable, K, responds to the rule of J, explaining how
the dead can define the results, as to inheritance, of the living. The
“father’s house” defines the unit of inheritance, not the heirs of that
house, as L explains, and as K then illustrates in a closely matching
simile. How the parable of K improves upon the application of L is
not obvious to me. Had Rabbi begun, “Ma#aseh b: two brothers liv-
ing in the same town…,” and ended, “And sages ruled that the fa-
thers were to divide up the grain…,” the outcome would have been
the same. All that separates the Halakhic parable from the conven-
tional Ma#aseh is the sages’ ruling, essential to the latter, never en-
compassed by the former.
CXXXIV:VII
1. A. The Lord said to Moses, “Go up into this mountain of
Abarim and see the land which I have given to the
people of Israel. And when you have seen it, you also
shall be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron
was gathered” (Numbers 27:12-23).
2. A. When Moses entered into [the territory that was to form]
the inheritance of the children of Reuben and the children of
Gad, he rejoiced, saying, “It appears to me that He has released
me from my vow.” He began to pour out supplications before
the Omnipresent.
B. There is a parable: to what is the matter to be compared?
C. To the case of a mortal king, who made a decree against his son
that he might not enter the door of his palace. He entered the gate-
way, with him after him; the courtyard, with him after him; to the
entry chamber with him after him. But when he came to enter the
bed-chamber, he said to him, “My son, from here onward, you are
forbidden [to enter].”
D. So at the moment at which Moses entered the inheritance of the
children of Reuben and the children of Gad, he rejoiced, saying, “It
appears to me that He has released me from my vow.” He began to
pour out supplications before the Omnipresent.”
2. A sets forth the exegetical task of the parable, 2.B-C, which is
then clarified at D. The situation of A is replicated by the parable,
only now in terms of the king, the prince, and the palace.
CXXXIV:VII.2
E. [Continuing CXXXIV:VII.2D:] Now does the matter not yield
an argument a fortiori:
F. If Moses, sage of sages, eminence of eminences, father of the proph-
ets, even though he knew that the decree was issued against him, did
not restrain himself from seeking mercy, all the more so the rest of
humanity, as it is said, “And I besought the Lord at that time, say-
ing, O Lord God, thou hast only begun to show your servant your
greatness and your mighty hand; for what god is there in heaven or
on earth who can do such works and mighty acts as thine? Let me go
over, I pray, and see the good land beyond the Jordan, that goodly
hill country and Lebanon” (Dt. 3:23)—this was in various modes of
supplication.
R. [Continuing the exegesis of Dt. 3:23:] “for what god
is there in heaven or on earth:”
S. For the trait of mortals is not the same as the trait of
the Omnipresent. The trait of mortals is that one who
is greater than his fellow nullifies the decree of his fel-
low, but as to you, who can stop you [from doing what
you wish]?
T. And so Scripture says, ““But he is unchangeable and
who can turn him? What he desires, he does” (Job
23:13).
U. R. Judah b. Baba says, “The matter may be
compared to the case of a man who is inscribed
in the government’s records. Even if he gives
a lot of money, it is not possible to remove his
name.
V. “But you say, ‘Repent and I shall accept you,”
as it is said, “I have swept away your transgres-
sions like a cloud and your sins like mist; re-
turn to me, for I have redeemed you’” (Is.
44:22).
The exegetical parable, U, clarifies Job 23:13, now with stress on
God’s power to do precisely what he wills. The parable registers that
an earthly government does not alter its decree, but through man’s
repentance God will alter his decree. The parable, U, absent its
application and explanation, V, is incomprehensible.
CXXXV:I.1. A. “But the Lord was angry with me on your ac-
count and would not hearken to me, and the Lord said to me,
‘Let it suffice you; speak no more to me of this matter. Go up to
the top of Pisgah and lift up your eyes westward and northward
and southward and eastward, and behold it with your eyes, for
you shall not go over this Jordan. But charge Joshua and en-
courage and strengthen him; for he shall go over at the head of
this people, and he shall put them in possession of the land which
you shall see” (Dt. 3:26-28):
7. A. “… speak no more to me of this matter:”
B. He said to him, “Moses, in this matter you may not ask any-
thing of me, but in another matter, make a decree for me, and
I shall carry it out.”
C. There is a parable: to what may the matter may be compared?
To the case of a king who made a harsh decree against his son, and
the son was begging his father. He said to him, “in this matter you
may not ask anything of me, but in another matter, make a decree
for me, and I shall carry it out.”
D. So did the Holy One, blessed be he, say to Moses, “Moses, in
this matter you may not ask anything of me, but in another matter,
make a decree for me, and I shall carry it out. And you may
make a decree and say what it is, and it will be carried out for
you.”
E. He said to him, “If not, then at least show it to me.”
F. He said to him, “That matter I shall do for you: ‘Go up to
the top of Pisgah and lift up your eyes westward and north-
ward and southward and eastward.’”
The pattern of the exegetical parable generated by the focus of ex-
egesis repeats itself at 7.C/D, required by 7.B.
CXXXVII:I
1. A. “… because you rebelled against my word in the wilder-
ness of Zin [during the strife of the congregation, to sanctify me
at the waters before their eyes:]”
B. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, “Also Moses and Aaron died by
reason of extirpation, as it is said, ‘because you broke faith with
me in the midst of the people of Israel at the waters of Meribath-
kadesh in the wilderness of Zin; because you did not sanctify me
in the midst of the people of Israel’ (Dt. 32:51).
C. “Lo, If you had sanctified me, even now your time to de-
part would not have come.
D. “Two sustaining leaders arose for Israel. One said, ‘Let my
offense not be written down,’ and the other says, ‘Let my offense
be written down.’
E. “David said, ‘Let my offense not be written down,’ as it is
said, ‘Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is
covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes no iniq-
uity’ (Ps. 32:1-2). Moses said, ‘Let my offense be written down,’
as it is said, ‘because you rebelled against my word in the wil-
derness of Zin [during the strife of the congregation, to sanctify
me at the waters before their eyes].’
F. “There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? To the case
of two women who were flogged in court. One was flogged because
she had gone astray, and the other was flogged because she had sto-
len unripe fruit of the Sabbatical Year.
G. “Now the one who was flogged because she had stolen unripe fruit
of the Sabbatical Year says, ‘By your grace! Announce my offense,
so that the by-standers may not suppose, ‘Just as the other one went
astray, so this one went astray.’ So they hung the unripe produce around
her shoulder, and the court crier proclaimed, ‘It is on account of this
unripe fruit that this one is flogged.’”
The exegetical parable, F, explains why Moses wanted his offense
to be made explicit, so that people would not suppose he was pun-
ished for a worse sin than the specified one. The parable then cap-
tures the matter. G makes explicit the connection to the exegetical
issue. The parable tracks the exegetical case, but there is no H to
articulate that fact.
CXLII:I
1. B. The Lord said to Moses, “Command the people of Israel
and say to them, ‘My offering, my food for my offerings by fire,
my pleasing odor, you shall take heed to offer to me in its due
season:’” (Num. 28:1-29:40):
C. Why is this stated?
D. Since it is said, “And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest,
who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before
the Lord; at his word they shall go out and at his word they shall
come in, both he and all the people of Israel with him the whole
congregation” (Num. 27:21).
E. There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? To the
case of a king, whose wife was departing this world. She was giving
him instructions concerning her children. She said to him, “By your
leave, admonish my children in my behalf.”
F. He said to her, “Instead of giving me instructions concerning my
children, give instructions to my children concerning me, that they
not rebel against me or treat me disrespectfully.”
G. So said the Holy One blessed be he to Moses, “Instead of giving
me instructions concerning my children, give instructions to my chil-
dren concerning me, that they not rebel against me or exchange my
honor for alien gods.”
H. What does Scripture say? “For when I have brought them
into the land flowing with milk and honey, which I swore to give
to their fathers, and they have eaten and are full and grown fat,
they will turn to other gods and serve them and despise me and
break my covenant” (Dt. 31:20).
I. Thus: Instead of giving me instructions concerning my chil-
dren, give instructions to my children concerning me.
J. That is why it is said, “Command the people of Israel .”
The exegetical parable, E-F, clarified by G and amplified by H-J,

explains why Num. 28:1ff. is required, to make sure that the Israel-
ites provide food for the Lord’s table. The contrast is at Num. 27:21,
where Moses explains how God will take care of the Israelites, not
they of him. Then, in line with G, E-F explain the situation to which
the present transaction corresponds, a perfectly particular simile as
usual.
CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT

NUMBERS 30:1-16
CLIII:VI.2. A. “and the Lord will forgive her:”

B. Lo, if the woman took a vow and he nullified
it in his heart but she went and deliberately violated
her vow [which she did not know was null], how
do we know that she needs forgiveness?
C. Scripture states, “and the Lord will forgive
her.”
D. Now lo, this produces an argument a fortiori,
namely:
E. If violating vows that have been nullified re-
quires forgiveness, all the more so those that are not
nullified at all.
F. There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? To
someone who intended to eat the meat of a pig but ate the
meat of a lamb.
G. Lo, matters yield an argument a fortiori: if some-
one who intended to eat the meat of a pig but ate
the meat of a lamb requires forgiveness, all the more
so one who intended to eat and did eat the meat of
a pig.
H. And this yields an argument a fortiori: if
vows that have been nullified requires forgive-
ness, all the more so those that are not nulli-
fied at all.
Something is slightly awry at F, G, since the parable is not fully re-
alized. There should be a transaction in which a ruling emerges from
the situation created by the simile. Instead, it is taken for granted
that a consequence has been drawn from the action of F, which yields
the fact upon which the argument a fortiori, G, is constructed, namely,
the intention to eat invalid meat overrides the action of eating the
valid meat, and that is what is repeated at H for the case at hand.
The Halakhic parable therefore consists of an exact replica of the
Halakhic situation, now in terms of eating rather than of vowing.
The foregoing is repeated at CLIII:IX.3 and CLIV:V.1, which I

have not reproduced.
CLVII:I
2. A. [The Lord said to Moses, “Avenge the people of Israel
on the Midianites; afterward you shall be gathered to your
people.” And Moses said to the people, “Arm men from
among you for the war, that they may go against Midian,
to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian]: “on the
Midianites:”
B. Now lo, are they not Moabites? They became so for a
specific purpose, as it is said, “So the elders of Moab and
the elders of Midian departed with the fees for divination
in their hand and they came to Balaam” (Num. 22:7).
C. This group [Midianites] had never before made peace
with that group [Moabites], but when they came to make
war against Israel, they made peace with one another and
they made war with Israel.
D. There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable?
E. To the case of two dogs who were in the corral, and
they were jealous of one another. A wolf came to take
a lamb from the corral, and one of them tried to stop
him. Said his fellow, “If I don’t go and help him now,
he will kill him and come after me and kill me.” So they
made peace with one another and made war with the
wolf.
F. So Moab and Midian had never lived in peace with
one another, as it is said, “He who smites Midian in the
fields of Moab” (Gen. 36:35). But when they came to
make war with Israel, they made peace with one another
and war with Israel.
The exegetical parable, E, amplified and applied by F, responds to
the question posed at B and answered at C. So the parable is par-
ticular to the case at hand, but in this matter, the details—Midian,
Moab—are readily interchanged as the case requires.
CHAPTER TWENTY-NINE

NUMBERS 35:9-35:34
CLXI:III
1. A. “You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of
which I dwell; for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Is-
rael:”
B. Scripture indicates that blood-shed imparts uncleanness to the land
and drives God’s Presence away, and because of blood-shed the house
of the sanctuary was destroyed.
C. There was the incident [ma#aseh] involving two priests of equal
standing, who were running up the ramp, and one of them got
there before the other to within four cubits. He took a knife and
stabbed the other in his heart.
D. Came R. Sadoq and stood on the steps of the porch and
said, “Listen to me, our brothers of the house of Israel! Lo, Scrip-
ture says, ‘If in the land that the Lord your God gives you to
possess, anyone is found slain, lying in the open country, and it
is not known who killed him, then your elders and your judges
shall come forth, and they shall measure the distance to the cit-
ies that are around him that is slain, and the elders of the city
that is nearest to the slain man shall take a heifer that has never
been worked and has not pulled in the yoke....’ (Dt. 21:1-3). So
come on and let’s measure to find out in behalf of which area is
it proper to undertake bringing the heifer—the inner sanctum
or the courts!”
E. All the Israelites broke out into tears.
F. And afterward the son of the youngster came along and found
that he was yet writhing [and still alive]. He said to them, “Our
brothers—lo, I am atonement for your sins! Still my son is writhing,
and the knife has not been made unclean [by reason of corpse-
uncleanness, so the Temple is safe from pollution].”
G. This is to teach you that considerations of uncleanness of
knives were more precious to them than blood shed.
H. And so too Scripture says, “Moreover Manasseh shed
very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from
one end to another, besides the sin that he made Judah to
sin so that they did what was evil in the sight of the Lord”
(2 Kgs. 21:16).
I. It is on that basis that sages have said, “Blood-shed drives

God’s Presence away, and because of blood-shed the house
of the sanctuary was destroyed.
This item is necessarily primary to Tosefta-tractate Kippurim [Yoma]
1:12, because T. Kip. 1:12 amplifies the corresponding passage of
the Mishnah: “There were two who got there at the same time,
running up the ramp. One shoved the other” [M. Yoma 2:2A-B].
The pertinence here is not haphazard, however, for the narrative is
connected to the base verse, A, at B/I, here showing how Israel defiles
the land in which God dwells, the Temple in particular.
Ma#aseh here promises not a case or a precedent but a fully artic-
ulated narrative, and that usage in Mishnah-Tosefta, Sifra, and both
Sifrés is uncommon indeed.
or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The Mishnah’s ma#aseh is
augmented with Saddoq’s recrimination, C-D, and then the climactic
response of the father of the deceased, who illustrates Saddoq’s com-
ment, A-B, though cited from the Mishnah, are integral to the am-
plified narrative before us. Lest we miss the point, G-H articulates
it. Viewed on its own, not as a complement to the Mishnah’s nar-
rative, the story is fully realized and coherent, start to finish.
tale and how is the point of tension resolved tale? The narrative charge comes
in the contrast between concern for uncleanness of the Temple and
the acceptance of the murder.
ties, e.g., long or short, complex or simple tale? Here the Tosefta has filled
out the Mishnah’s ma#aseh and made it work. That is not a common
phenomenon. The narrative leaves no doubt as to the lesson it wishes
to convey.
122 30. narratives in sifré to numbers
CHAPTER THIRTY
Like Sifra, Sifré to Numbers only episodically requires narratives to

accomplish its documentary task, and then, more uncommonly still,
comes the authentic narrative, whether successful or otherwise. Unlike
Sifra, which found useful both the Ma#aseh and the Mashal, when Sifré
to Numbers’ compilers include narratives, they select a single type,
to the near exclusion of all other possibilities. That is the exegetical
parable, closely bound to the verse of Scripture subject to illumina-
tion.
Clarifying the meaning and context of verses of Numbers, cited
and glossed, Sifré to Numbers derives its topical program, coher-
ence and order from Scripture. As with Sifra, the sole point of co-
herence for the discrete compositions is located in the sequences of
the base-verses of Scripture that are subject to commentary. Since
the task of the compilation is the orderly exegesis of successive verses
of Scripture, we should anticipate that the predominant kinds of
narratives (and pseudo-narratives) will be those that serve to clarify
the sense and meaning of cited verses. The exegetical mission of the
document as a whole ought also to define the assignment for narra-
tives. And so it does, but in a very particular way. What we shall
now see in the aggregate is that the document’s compilers or fram-
ers have made a particular choice among the available types of nar-
ratives: this, not that, for reasons we may readily adduce.
Specifically, just as the compilers or framers of Mishnah-Tosefta
favored the Ma#aseh over all other types of narrative or pseudo-nar-
rative composition, so the authorship of Sifré to Numbers has made
its choice: the parable. Specifically, as between the Halakhic and
the exegetical parable, a choice already documented in Sifra, the
compilers of the document (like those of Sifré to Deuteronomy)
choose the latter, and that matches their documentary program, the
line by line exegesis of the biblical book at hand. What marks the
exegetical parable is that its simile is shaped in response to the par-
ticularities of the verse of Scripture subject to explanation. The other
30. narratives in sifré to numbers 123
type of parable, the Halakhic kind, occurs seldom, the Ma#aseh ir-
regularly, and the successful story (defined in Volume One) rarely
indeed.
But there is more: there is a precise match between the players
and the transaction of the parable and the participants in the event
of the verse subject to clarification. The parabolic narrative (such
as it is) commonly tracks the base-verse subject to clarification. That
means the exegetical parable does not draw upon, and adapt for the
present purpose, a ready-made simile. It means the parable takes
shape in response to the exegetical task, and that is what I mean
when I repeatedly find the parable matching the exegetical assign-
ment. Not only so, but in most instances, that match is made ex-
plicit, lest we miss the point, “so is the case with Israel” and its coun-
terparts forming a routine component of the exegetical parable. That
is no empty claim but a restatement of the obvious. So I cannot
overstress: while they form similes of general intelligibility, the exe-
getical parables are always particular to the exegetical context. That
is why I maintain the exegetical parables are commonly composed
within, and respond to, the documentary program of exegesis of the
book of Numbers. That documentary task explains the preference
as to form and as to proposition or substance that is manifest in the
parabolic similes. It accounts for the fact of the near-exclusion of
all other narrative or pseudo-narrative writing.
The results for Mishnah-Tosefta’s Ma#aseh and Sifré to Numbers’
(and, as we shall see in Chapter Forty, Sifré to Deuteronomy’s) ex-
egetical parable lead to a working hypothesis that is now obvious.
It is this:
The respective documents impose their own preferences not only
on logic, rhetoric, and topic of the shank of the writing, but also on
the kind of narrative or pseudo-narrative they will regularly choose
from time to time to highlight their meaning.
If in the context of the Mishnah-Tosefta, Sifra, and the two Si-
frés, we can account for the dominant narrative or pseudo-narra-
tive types—the case-Ma#aseh, the Mashal-exegetical parable, respec-
tively—what of the fully articulated anecdotal story and other types
of stories, such as occur only rarely in Mishnah-Tosefta, Sifra, and
the two Sifrés? Is there a documentary task that dictates selection
of that type of narrative over other, available types, a documentary
match as close and commensurate as the Ma#aseh to the Mishnah,
the Mashal to Sifré to Numbers?
In Volume Three we shall see the counterpart phenomenon: a

clear preference for the fully-articulated story over all other kinds
of narrative and pseudo-narrative writing; then we shall ask why the
documents treated in Volume Three select as the documentary
medium the authentic, successful story: what task that classification
of narrative writing undertakes more successfully than any other?
Among the four authentic narratives we have identified in Sifré to

Numbers, two undertake a documentary task in the setting of the
book of Numbers. In addition to XXII:VI.1, Simeon the Righteous
and the Nazirite, which is shared with Tosefta Nazir, and CLXI:III.1,
primary at Tosefta’s amplification of M. Yoma 2:2, I find two au-
thentic narratives that occur for the first time, beyond Mishna-Tosefta
and Sifra, in Sifré Numbers. They are as follows (in abbreviated
versions):
1. CXV:V.6. R. Nathan says, “You have not got single religious duty that
is listed in the Torah, the reward of the doing of which is not made
explicit right alongside. Go and learn the lesson from the religious duty
of the fringes.” There is the case [Ma#aseh] of a man who was meticu-
lous about carrying out the religious duty of the fringes.…
The narrative amplifies the verse that concerns the wearing
of show-fringes. But for purposes of making the point that
the fringe invokes all the commandments, so elaborate and
particular a narrative hardly is required. Not only so, but, as
we saw above, the narrative bears its own focus and stands
autonomously, outside of documentary context. It need not
have been composed for the purpose of an exegetical collec-
tion on the book of Numbers.
3. CXXXI:II.2. “Now they came and dwelt in Shittim”—in a place of

foolishness. At that time the Ammonites and Moabites went and built
for themselves enclosures from Beth Hajeshimoth to the Snowy Moun-
tain, and they installed there women selling every kind of delicacy. The
Israelites would eat and drink. He made tents for them from the snowy
mountain to Beth Hajeshimoth north to south and put women in them,
selling all manner of goodies…
The elaborate story, in several parts, focuses on Baal Peor
and how the Moabites inveigled the Israelites to worship that
god. While to attain cogency the story does not require its
exegetical setting, it is surely natural to that setting, and the

details of the authentic narrative all respond to the larger
exegetical question: how exactly did they do it? On that basis
I classify the narrative as integral to Sifré to Numbers.
The upshot is simple. Three narratives (inclusive of Simeon and the
true Nazirite), one anecdotal and two of them elaborately articulat-
ed, serve the exegetical program of the document. That shows what
might have been: authentic narratives can have served. But with the
stated exceptions, they did not.
In fact, as we shall now see, the documentary program dictated
to the compilers a preference for the exegetical parable. The differ-
ence between the well-articulated narratives and the exegetical par-
ables—not authentic narratives at all—that predominate is, the lat-
ter closely respond to the details of the situation, participants, or
transaction signified by the verse that is subject to exegesis. By con-
trast the elaborate narratives treat these details as a mere pretext
for the telling of a story autonomous of the text subject to the com-
ment—most graphically illustrated in Nathan’s story about the show-
fringes’ power to save a man from sin.
For the compilers of Sifré to Numbers, therefore, the story is not
the thing, the base-verse is, and the discipline imposed by the task
of illuminating the base-verse, its participants, its transaction or event,
strongly favors utilizing the exegetical parable over any other nar-
rative or pseudo-narrative possibility. In the Rabbinic canon of the
formative age, the authentic narrative would find its task to perform—
but not here.
II. The Mashal
In Sifré to Numbers I find two Halakhic parables and twenty-nine

exegetical parables. The issue concerning all of them is, are the
parables of the document particular to the document at hand, lim-
ited to the terms of the exegetical task, or do they draw on a free-
standing corpus of parables, adapted for the work at hand—and how
should we know? Since all other accounts of “the Rabbinic para-
ble” treat documentary lines as null, that fundamental question de-
mands attention.
What I shall show is simple. While some common conventions
guide the formation of a great many parables, nearly all of the exe-
getical parables take shape in close conversation with the verse subject
to clarification, and the terms of the simile are particular to the con-
text in which the simile serves. Rarely is a detail superfluous, a match
other than exact between details of the parable and details of the
verse clarified by the parable. Occasionally we find a component of
a parable that is not commensurate, which marks the parable as not-
particular to its exegetical task but adapted therefor.
The available, ready-made heritage of parables then consists of
a literary convention available for particularization to a distinctive
context. Thus, while we commonly meet a king and a prince, a king
and a queen, or a king and an ally, these take on meaning and sig-
nificance only within the situation constructed by the base-verse, that
is, God and Moses, or God and Israel. Allusion to “king/prince” or
“king/ally” never leaves unclear the point of the parable in all its
specificity—and lest we miss the obvious, as I said, most exegetical
parables bear in their wake an explicit, wholly articulated message:
so is it here, with God and Israel, or God and Moses, and so on
throughout.
Once more, to highlight the parabolic materials apart from the
larger documentary context, I use underlining.
a. The Halakhic parable

1. CXXXII:I.1. “And why does Scripture proceed to say, ‘… according
to the names of the tribes of their fathers’? Scripture has treated dif-
ferently this particular inheritance from all other inheritances that are
mentioned in the Torah. For in the case of all other acts of inherit-
ance in the Torah, the living inherit from the dead, but here, the dead
inherit from the living. This is now explained.” Rabbi says, “There is
a parable: to what is the matter comparable? To two brothers, who
were priests, living in the same town. This one had a son, and that
one had three sons. They went out to the threshing floor to collect the
priestly dues. This one took one seah of grain, and these took three
seahs. Then they brought them to their fathers. The fathers went and
divided up the grain equally between them. Along these same lines,
you say concerning those who were coming into the land: this took a
seah-area, and these took three seah-areas, and they transferred them
by inheritance to their fathers. Thus the dead inherited from the liv-
ing, and then they went and divided it up equally.”
The parable of the priests, three brothers, sons of one priest,
and an only son of the other priest, producing two seahs for
each of the fathers, is tightly joined to the Halakhic case that

is clarified through the pseudo-narrative simile.
2. CLIII:VI.2. “and the Lord will forgive her:” Lo, if the woman took a
vow and he nullified it in his heart but she went and deliberately vio-
lated her vow which she did not know was null, how do we know that
she needs forgiveness? Scripture states, “and the Lord will forgive her.”
There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? To someone
who intended to eat the meat of a pig but ate the meat of a lamb.
Here the Halakhic situation—intending this (improperly),
doing that (not improperly)—is labeled a parable, but in fact
not only replicates the Halakhic situation but in no impor-
tant way revises its components.
The two Halakhic parables closely track the Halakhic transaction

that is subject to analysis. The point that is clarified always dictates
the terms of the simile. And not a single detail parts company from
the main point. We shall now see that that is the case, even more
so, with the exegetical parables.
b. The Exegetical Parable

The exegetical parables follow a simple form: citation of a verse and
a comment on it, followed by a parable embodying the simile that
embodies the relationships or terms, participants or transactions, of
the base-verse. The simile sometimes involves action, other times
requires only a replication of the situation outlined by the base-verse.
But that is now in other terms than Scripture’s. The close correspon-
dence comes to expression in many instances with an explicit exe-
gesis of the parable, explaining how it is relevant to the base-verse
and the situation portrayed therein. The exegetical parable has no
autonomous standing, being comprehensible only in exegetical con-
text. The relationships or terms, participants or transactions, of the
parable originate in, and form obvious counterparts to, those of the
base-verse; they are constructed to form similes of an abstract, but
wholly conventional, character, meant to treat as general the par-
ticularities of the base-verse and its participants and transactions.
In some instances the parable augments the proposition or adds to
the message of the base-verse, in many it simply recapitulates that
message.
1. LXXXII:I.1. The purpose is to teach that on that very day the Pres-
ence of God made the trip of thirty-six mil, so that the Israelites might
enter the land. There is a parable to be drawn: it is to men going off
to war. When they go forth, they rejoice, but, as they grow weary, their
hands grow faint. But for the Israelites that is not how it is. Rather, as
they grow tired, they rejoice.”
The parable explains the detail by means of the articulated
simile. Outside of the exegetical context, I detect no mean-
ing in the underlined composition, only a truism bearing no
message on its own. In the context of “but for the Israelites
that is not how it is,” the simile takes on meaning.
2. LXXXII:II.2. R. Simeon b. Yohai says, “What is said is not, ‘the ark
of the covenant of the Lord went before them,’ but rather, ‘and the
ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them.’ The and refers to
the fact that God, as well as the ark, went before them. The matter
may be compared to the case of a viceroy who went before his armies,
preparing the way before them so that they would take up an encamp-
ment. So the Presence of God went before Israel and prepared the way
before them so that they would take up an encampment.
The articulation of the application of the parable makes
obvious what was plain in the parable, closely replicating the
situation to be clarified. The underlining identifies the par-
able on its own and signals no message other than that im-
puted by “so the presence….”
3. LXXXIV:I.1 R. Simeon says, “In the written version there are dots
above and below the word to indicate that this was not its correct place.
And what ought to have been written instead of this passage? ‘And
the people complained in the hearing of the Lord’ (Num. 11:1ff.). The
matter may be compared to the case of people who said to the king,
‘We shall see whether you will come with us to the ruler of Acre.’ By
the time they got to Acre, he had gone to Tyre. When they got to Tyre,
he had gone to Sidon. When they got to Sidon, he had gone to Biri.
When they got to Biri, he had gone to Antioch. When they got to
Antioch, the people began to complain against the king, for they had
wandered on the way, and the king had to complain against them, that
on their account he too had wandered on the way. So the Presence of
God went on a single day a distance of thirty-six mils so that the Isra-
elites should enter the land.
The parable yet again goes over the same transaction, three
different ways of imagining the same situation, all three of
them expressly linked to the situation described in Scripture.
The parable, elaborate though it is, bears no self-evident
standing out of the context defined by Num. 11:1.
4. LXXXIV:II. 1. While this verse says, “... whenever the ark set out,
Moses said, ‘Arise, O Lord,’” another verse of Scripture says, “At the
command of the Lord they encamped, and at the command of the Lord
they set out” (Num. 9:23). How are both verses of Scripture to stand
side by side? The matter may be compared to the case of a mortal
king who said to his servant, “See to it that you so arrange things for
me that I may go and hand over an inheritance to my son.”
God is represented by the king, Moses by the servant, and
the parable closely replicates the situation conveyed by Scrip-
ture. It simply translates the terms of the verse into the ab-
straction of the king and the prince, the servant and the in-
heritance, which on their own bear no message. On its own,
“See to it that you…” is gibberish.
5. LXXXIV:II. 1. Another matter: to what may the matter be compared?
To the case of a mortal king who was going on the way and his ally
went along with him. As he was setting out on the journey, he said, “I
shall not set out until my ally comes.” And when he encamps, he says,
“I shall not make camp until my ally comes.”
The issue is the same as above.
6. LXXXV:IV.1 This teaches that the Israelites had every intention of
making the matter heard by the Omnipresent. R. Simeon would say,
“To what is the matter to be compared? To someone who was curs-
ing the king while the king was going by. They said to the man, ‘Si-
lence, so the king will not hear.’ He said to them, ‘Who is going to
tell you that it was not my very intent to make him hear!’ So the Is-
raelites had every intention of making the matter heard by the Omni-
present.”
As usual, Simeon articulates what is self-evident in the par-
able, and the exegetical force of the parable derives from its
match to the details of the transaction subject to clarification.
Here the simile does bear its own message, but the situation
to which it can pertain, beyond the one dictated by “so the
Israelites had every intention…” is unclear to me.
7. LXXXVI:I.1. Now what good could Moses do for them? Was it not
suitable to say only, “And the people cried to the Lord”? And why
then does it say, “Then the people cried to Moses”? Said R. Simeon,
“The matter may be compared to a mortal king who got mad at his
son, and the son went off to the king’s ally. He said to him, ‘Go and
plead for me to father.’
The match between the simile and the case is perfect. Israel
is the son, Moses is the king’s ally. Absent the exegetical task,
the simile can stand on its own, but still requires a counter-
part case for context.
8. LXXXVII:II.1. “... we remember the fish we ate in Egypt for noth-
ing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic;
but now our strength is dried up and there is nothing at all but this
manna to look at” (Num. 11:5-6): R. Simeon says, “On what account
did the manna turn for them into everything they could want, except
for the five things listed here? The matter may be compared to the
case of a mortal king, who handed his son over to a tutor. The king
went into session and gave orders, saying to him, ‘See to it that he
not eat any bad food and not drink anything polluted.’ Nonetheless,
the son complained against his father, saying, ‘It was not because he
loves me, but because it was not possible to eat these things.’”
The churlish attitude of the Israelites toward the manna is
captured by the exegetical parable, which underscores their
lack of acknowledgement of God’s love, expressed through
the manna. Here the parable deepens the message of Scrip-
ture.
9. LXXXIX:IV.2. “... and the taste of it was like the taste of cakes baked
with oil:” Another explanation: just as in the case of the teat, the in-
fant is pained when he has to give it up, so the Israelites were pained
when they had to give up the manna, as it is said, “And the manna
ceased on the next day” (Joshua 5:12). It may be compared to saying
to someone, “On what account are you eating barley-bread?” He
replies, “Because I do not have wheat bread.” “On what account are
you eating carobs?” He says, “Because I do not have honey.” So if
the Israelites had had in hand some of that handful of manna that they
took up on the day on which Moses died, from which they ate for the
next forty days, they would never have wanted to eat the produce of
the land of Canaan.
The explanation of the detail of Scripture’s narrative by the
exegetical parable is exact: they ate what they had to eat. Here
again, other situations can readily impart concreteness to the
abstract parable, but in the present context, the parable re-
quires its exegetical setting to establish its presence.
10. LXXXIX:V.2. R. Simeon says, “On what account did the manna not
come down for Israel on one day in a year? It was so that lacking their
regular rations they should turn their hearts to their father in heaven.
One may draw a parable. To what may the matter be compared? To
a king who made a decree for his son that he should provide a living
for his son all together on only one day a year, and he would greet his
father only at the time that he was there to collect his living. One time
the king went and made a decree that he would provide his living ev-
ery day. The son said, ‘Even if I greet father only at the time that he
provides my living, it is enough for me.’ So the case with Israel: If some-
one had five sons or five daughters, he would sit and stare, saying ‘Woe
is me, maybe the manna will not come down tomorrow! We’ll all die
of starvation. May it be your pleasure that it will come down.’ So it
turned out that they set their hearts heavenward.”

The same matter dealt with at LXXIX:IV.2 recurs, but the
parable conveys the opposite of a churlish attitude on the part
of Israel. Now the manna nurtures an attitude of gratitude
and trust.
11. XCI:II.1. “... I am not able to carry all this people alone, the burden
is too heavy for me. If you will deal thus with me, kill me at once, if
I find favor in your sight, that I may not see my wretchedness” (Num.
11:11-15): What was the basis for Moses’ complaint? It is because the
Holy One, blessed be he, showed to Moses the entire order of pun-
ishments that was destined to come upon them. R. Simeon would
say, “To what may the matter be compared? It is to someone who
was going forth to be put to death, with his sons. He said to the
executioner, ‘Put me to death first, before you put my children to
death.’ So did Moses say before the Omnipresent, ‘If you will deal
thus with me, kill me at once. It would be better for me if you would
kill me first, so that I shall not see the punishment that is destined to
come upon them.’”
Simeon’s parable exactly captures Moses’s transaction with
God. Here is a parable that can serve in a variety of particu-
lar contexts—and in the Rabbinic context, does.
12. XCIII:I.3 “... and I will take some of the spirit which is upon you and
put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with
you, that you may not bear it yourself” (Num. 11:17): To what may
Moses be compared at that moment? To a lamp which is set on a can-
delabrum, from which many lights are kindled, and which on that ac-
count does not lose a bit of its light. So Moses did not lose any of his
wisdom when he shared it with the others.
The parable of the candelabrum does not seem to me par-
ticular to the case at hand, since the notion that the one gains
while the other does not lose is a commonplace; the parable
here is an inert simile, not an active story.
13. LXXXV:IV.1. “And the people complained in the hearing of the Lord
about their misfortunes; and when the Lord heard it, his anger was
kindled:” This teaches that the Israelites had every intention of mak-
ing the matter heard by the Omnipresent. R. Simeon would say, “To
what is the matter to be compared? To someone who was cursing the
king while the king was going by. They said to the man, ‘Silence, so
the king will not hear.’ He said to them, ‘Who is going to tell you that
it was not my very intent to make him hear!’ So the Israelites had every
intention of making the matter heard by the Omnipresent.”
As before, Simeon’s parable replicates the relationship of the
verse of Numbers to which it is attached, adding only the

detail that the Israelites wanted God to hear—which is what
the verse says, “in the hearing of the Lord about….” The
parable accurately replicates, in the abstract relationships it
portrays, the details of Scripture’s situation.
14. CIII:VI.1. “Why then were you not afraid to speak against my ser-
vant Moses?’ And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, and
he departed” (Num. 12:1-16): The sense of the statement of Scripture,
“against my servant Moses” is only this: “Instead of speaking against
me, you have spoken against my servant, Moses.” The matter may be
compared to the case of a mortal king who had a trustee of state. The
citizens were speaking against him. The king said to them, “You have
not spoken against him but against me. And if you claim that I do not
know what he does, then that statement is still more damaging than
the first. criticizing the agent’s deeds.”
The parable captures the exact relationship portrayed by the
verse: the people spoke against Moses so God was angered,
the people spoke against the king’s agent, so the king was
angered. The parable adds, if you think that I don’t know
what my agent does, that is a still more deplorable charge.
15. CV:I.1. “... and when the cloud removed from over the tent, behold,
Miriam was leprous, as white as snow (Num. 12:1-16): The matter may
be compared to a mortal king who said to a tutor, “Punish my son,
but only after I go along on my way should you punish him, for the
father has mercy on the son.”
The parable captures the situation portrayed by the verse and
explains the reason that the cloud was removed, that is, why
God departed. The parable then is particular to the exegeti-
cal task, answering the question raised by the verse. No. 11
goes over the same ground in its own way.
16. CXII:III.2. “But the person who does anything with a high hand,
whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the Lord, and that person
shall be cut off from among his people, because he has despised the
word of the Lord and has broken his commandment, that person shall
be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him” (Num. 15:27-31).
“... reviles the Lord:” R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, “The matter may
be compared to the case of a man who says to his fellow, ‘You have
cursed the dish and so diminished its contents.’” Issi b. Arabia says,
“The matter may be compared to the case of a man who says to his
fellow, ‘You have cursed the entire dish and so left nothing at all of
it.’”
The simile of the dish involves no sequence of actions or
events but serves to capture the situation described in the base-

verse.
17. CXV:V.4. Why make mention of the Exodus from Egypt in the set-
ting of discourse on each and every one of the religious duties? The
matter may be compared to the case of a king whose ally’s son was
taken captive. When the king paid the ransom and so redeemed him,
he did not redeem him as a free man but as a slave, so that if the king
made a decree and the other did not accept it, he might say to him,
“You are my slave.” When he came into a city, he said to him, “Tie
my shoe-latch, carry my clothing before me and bring them to the bath
house.” The son began to complain. The king produced the bond and
said to him, “You are my slave.” So when the Holy One, blessed be
he, redeemed the seed of Abraham, his ally, he redeemed them not as
sons but as slaves. When he makes a decree and they do not accept it,
he may say to them, “You are my slaves.”
“So when the Holy One…” tightly connects the exegetical
parable to the problem raised by Scripture. The parable can
clarify more than the situation set forth by Scripture, but the
relationships will be uniform, whatever the details of the situ-
ation served by the parable as a simile.
18. CXVII:I.3 “ … all the consecrated things of the people of Israel:” Scrip-
ture makes a covenant with Aaron concerning all the Most Holy Things
for the purpose of establishing an analogy and so to make a covenant
with them. For Korach came against Aaron and protested against the
priesthood. To what is the matter comparable? It is comparable to the
case of a mortal king who had a household companion, to whom he
gave a field for a gift, but for whom he did not write a deed and seal
it and place it into the archives. Someone then came along and chal-
lenged the man’s ownership to the field. Said the king to him, “Who-
ever wants to come and challenge your ownership—come, and I shall
write and seal a deed and place the deed for you in the archives.” Thus
it was that Korach came along and challenged the priesthood against
Aaron. Said to him the Omnipresent, “Whoever wants, let him come
and challenge you for the priesthood! Come, and I shall write and seal
and place in the archives a deed of ownership.”
“Thus it was that Korach came along…” articulates the exact
match between the parable of the king, the companion, and
the gift, and Aaron, Korach, and the priestly gifts. If the
parable has been created for some other purpose, I cannot
imagine what it can have been, other than to explain a trans-
action identical to the one at hand.
19. CXIX:II.2 “I am your portion and your inheritance among the people
of Israel:” “At my table you eat, and at my table you drink.” There is
a parable: to what is the matter to be compared? To the case of a mortal

king who gave his sons gifts, but to one son he gave nothing at all. He
said to him, “My son, even though I didn’t give you a gift, at my table
will you eat, and at my table, you will drink.” And so Scripture says,
“Their share have I given from my offerings made by fire” (Lev. 6:10);
“Offerings made by fire for the Lord and his inheritance they will eat”
(Dt. 18:1).
As before, the exegetical parable simply replicates the situa-
tion described by Scripture, now in terms of the king and the
sons.
20. CXIX:III.1. “I am your portion and your inheritance among the people
of Israel. To the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel for an in-
heritance, in return for their service, which they serve, in the tent of
meeting. And henceforth the people of Israel shall not come near the
tent of meeting, lest they bear sin and die:” R. Ishmael says, “There
is a common proverb that says, ‘It was to my advantage that my cow
broke its leg—it was to Aaron’s advantage that Korach came along
and challenged his priesthood.” There is a parable: to what is the matter
comparable? It is comparable to the case of a mortal king who had a
household companion, to whom he gave a field for a gift, but did not
write a deed or seal it or place it into the archives. Someone then came
along and challenged the man’s ownership to the field. Said the king
to him, “Whoever wants to come and challenge your ownership—come,
and I shall write and seal a deed and place the deed for you in the
archives. Thus Korach came along and challenged the priesthood
against Aaron. Said to him the Omnipresent, “Whoever wants, let him
come and challenge you for the priesthood! Come, and I shall write
and seal and place in the archives a deed of ownership.”
The parable pertains to the verse of Scripture, not only to
the proverb, which articulates the task of the parable: to show
why it was to Aaron’s advantage that Korach challenged the
priesthood of Aaron. Then the parable contains a story ex-
actly matching the stated transaction in all details. It is diffi-
cult to identify any detail in the parable that is not required
by the situation involving Aaron and Korach.
21. CXXXI:I.1 “And the daughter of a priest, when she undertakes to
fornicate” (Lev. 21:9), “and the priest who is greater than his fellows”
(Lev. 21:10)—now what has one thing to do with the other! He too is
put to death through burning if he commits fornication with a priest’s
daughter. There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? It is
comparable to a centurion who has served his term but failed to enter
his primipilate, to which he should have been promoted, but fled and
went his way. The king sent word and brought him and imposed on
him the penalty of having his head cut off. Before he was taken out to
be put to death, said the king, “Fill up for him a measure of golden
denars,” and bring it to him and say to him, ‘If you had acted as our
fellows acted, you would receive this measure of gold denars, and your
life would have been your own. Now you have lost your life and lost
your money.’” So too in the case of a priest’s daughter who commit-
ted an act of fornication—the high priest goes forth before her and
says to her, “Had you acted in the manner in which your mothers did,
you would have had the grace that from you a high priest should go
forth like this one. But now you have lost your life and you have lost
your honor.” Thus it is said, “And the daughter of a priest, when she
undertakes to fornicate” (Lev. 21:9), “and the priest who is greater than
his fellows” (Lev. 21:10).
The match between the details of the law involving the priest’s
daughter who has fornicated and the faithless centurion is
precise, and the latter captures the situation of the former.
There is no autonomous transaction in play here.
22. CXXXI:I.1 “Because you are not my people, and I am not your God”
(Hos. 1:9). And it says, “Yet the number of the people of Israel shall
be like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor num-
bered, and in the place where it was said to them, You are not my
people,’ it shall be said to them, ‘sons of the living God” (Hos. 1:10).
Now what has one thing to do with the other? The matter may be
compared to the case of a king who got mad at his wife. He sent for
a scribe to come and write a writ of divorce for her. Before the scribe
got there, however, the king was reconciled with his wife. Said the king,
“It is impossible that the scribe should go forth from here empty-
handed. But say to him, ‘Come and inscribe a codicil to her marriage-
settlement that I double for her the value of her marriage-settlement
should I die or divorce her.’” That is the point of the statement, “Be-
cause you are not my people, and I am not your God” (Hos. 1:9),
followed by “Yet the number of the people of Israel shall be like the
sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered, and
in the place where it was said to them, You are not my people,’ it shall
be said to them, ‘sons of the living God’” (Hos. 1:10).
The contrast between Hos. 1:9 and Hos. 1:10 is captured in
the parabolic transaction, which does not stray far from the
one that is set forth in the message of Hosea. “That is the
point of the statement” then articulates what is self-evident.
So here is another parable particular to, invented in dialogue
with, its exegetical task.
23. CXXXI:I.1 “Samaria shall bear her guilt because she has rebelled
against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be
dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open” (Hos. 13:16).
And it further says, “Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you
have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take with you words and return
to the Lord” (Hos. 14:1). Now what has one thing to do with the other?
The matter may be compared to the case of a city that rebelled against
the king. The king sent a general to destroy it. The general was shrewd
and capable. He said to them, “Take some time about this rebellion
of yours and stop it, for if not, I shall do to you what I did to such and
such a city and its allies, to such and such a district and its allies.” So
Scripture states, “Samaria shall bear her guilt because she has rebelled
against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be
dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open” (Hos. 13:16),
but further, “Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have
stumbled because of your iniquity. Take with you words and return
to the Lord” (Hos. 14:1).
The contrast between Hos. 13:15 and 14:1 is embodied in
the parable, as above.
24. CXXXIV:VII.2. The Lord said to Moses, “Go up into this mountain
of Abarim and see the land which I have given to the people of Israel.
And when you have seen it, you also shall be gathered to your people,
as your brother Aaron was gathered” (Numbers 27:12-23). When Moses
entered into the territory that was to form the inheritance of the chil-
dren of Reuben and the children of Gad, he rejoiced, saying, “It ap-
pears to me that He has released me from my vow.” He began to pour
out supplications before the Omnipresent. There is a parable: to what
is the matter to be compared? To the case of a mortal king, who made
a decree against his son that he might not enter the door of his pal-
ace. He entered the gateway, with him after him; the courtyard, with
him after him; to the entry chamber with him after him. But when he
came to enter the bed-chamber, he said to him, “My son, from here
onward, you are forbidden to enter.” So at the moment at which Moses
entered the inheritance of the children of Reuben and the children of
Gad, he rejoiced, saying, “It appears to me that He has released me
from my vow.” He began to pour out supplications before the Omni-
present.”
The narrative of the parable replicates the situation of Moses,
and the match is exact. Once the relationship has been trans-
lated from Moses and God to the prince and the king, the
work of the parable is accomplished, each detail in its con-
text matching its counterpart in Scripture.
25. CXXXIV:VII.2 And so Scripture says, ““But he is unchangeable and
who can turn him? What he desires, he does” (Job 23:13). R. Judah
b. Baba says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a man who
is inscribed in the government’s records. Even if he gives a lot of money,
it is not possible to remove his name. But you say, ‘Repent and I shall
accept you,” as it is said, “I have swept away your transgressions like
a cloud and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you’”
(Is. 44:22).
The parable, which is not fully realized, captures the situa-
tion of the person who cannot buy his freedom. It is an inert
simile, since the “but you say…,” is not part of the parable
but distinguishes God’s policy from that of a mortal king. The
immutability of God is then qualified by the power of repen-
tance to change God’s mind.
26. CXXXV:I.7 “But the Lord was angry with me on your account and
would not hearken to me, and the Lord said to me, ‘Let it suffice you;
speak no more to me of this matter. Go up to the top of Pisgah and
lift up your eyes westward and northward and southward and east-
ward, and behold it with your eyes, for you shall not go over this Jordan.
But charge Joshua and encourage and strengthen him; for he shall go
over at the head of this people, and he shall put them in possession of
the land which you shall see” (Dt. 3:26-28): He said to him, “Moses,
in this matter you may not ask anything of me, but in another matter,
make a decree for me, and I shall carry it out.” There is a parable: to
what may the matter may be compared? To the case of a king who
made a harsh decree against his son, and the son was begging his father.
He said to him, “in this matter you may not ask anything of me, but
in another matter, make a decree for me, and I shall carry it out.” So
did the Holy One, blessed be he, say to Moses, “Moses, in this matter
you may not ask anything of me, but in another matter, make a de-
cree for me, and I shall carry it out. And you may make a decree and
say what it is, and it will be carried out for you.”
“So did the Holy one say to Moses” is matched by the ex-
egetical parable’s case of the king and the prince. All that shifts
is the actors, from the particular of Moses to the general of
the prince. All the parable does here is translation God and
Moses to king and prince.
27. CXXXVII:I.1. “David said, ‘Let my offense not be written down,’ as
it is said, ‘Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is
covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity’
(Ps. 32:1-2). Moses said, ‘Let my offense be written down,’ as it is said,
‘because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin dur-
ing the strife of the congregation, to sanctify me at the waters before
their eyes.’ There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable? To
the case of two women who were flogged in court. One was flogged
because she had gone astray, and the other was flogged because she
had stolen unripe fruit of the Sabbatical Year. Now the one who was
flogged because she had stolen unripe fruit of the Sabbatical Year says,
‘By your grace! Announce my offense, so that the by-standers may not
suppose, ‘Just as the other one went astray, so this one went astray.’
So they hung the unripe produce around her shoulder, and the court
crier proclaimed, ‘It is on account of this unripe fruit that this one is
flogged.’”
The parable exactly captures the situation of Moses, who
wishes his sin to be made explicit, lest people think it worse
than it was.
28. CXLII:I.1. The Lord said to Moses, “Command the people of Israel
and say to them, ‘My offering, my food for my offerings by fire, my
pleasing odor, you shall take heed to offer to me in its due season:’”
(Num. 28:1-29:40): Why is this stated? Since it is said, “And he shall
stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judg-
ment of the Urim before the Lord; at his word they shall go out and
at his word they shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel
with him the whole congregation” (Num. 27:21). There is a parable:
to what is the matter comparable? To the case of a king, whose wife
was departing this world. She was giving him instructions concerning
her children. She said to him, “By your leave, admonish my children
in my behalf.” He said to her, “Instead of giving me instructions con-
cerning my children, give instructions to my children concerning me,
that they not rebel against me or treat me disrespectfully.” So said the
Holy One blessed be he to Moses, “Instead of giving me instructions
concerning my children, give instructions to my children concerning
me, that they not rebel against me or exchange my honor for alien
gods.”
Once more, the “so said…” component is replicated in the
parabolic component, shifting the actors/characters accom-
plishing the task.
29. CLVII:I.2. The Lord said to Moses, “Avenge the people of Israel on
the Midianites; afterward you shall be gathered to your people.” And
Moses said to the people, “Arm men from among you for the war, that
they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance on
Midian: “on the Midianites:” This group Midianites had never before
made peace with that group Moabites, but when they came to make
war against Israel, they made peace with one another and they made
war with Israel. There is a parable: to what is the matter comparable?
To the case of two dogs who were in the corral, and they were jealous
of one another. A wolf came to take a lamb from the corral, and one
of them tried to stop him. Said his fellow, “If I don’t go and help him
now, he will kill him and come after me and kill me.” So they made
peace with one another and made war with the wolf. So Moab and
Midian had never lived in peace with one another, as it is said, “He
who smites Midian in the fields of Moab” (Gen. 36:35). But when they
came to make war with Israel, they made peace with one another and
war with Israel.
The case replicated by the parable dictates the construction

of the parable, which adds nothing. Any comparable situa-
tion of an alliance among erstwhile enemies can generate the
same parable of the two dogs.
What we see in the aggregate is that most, though not all, of the
parables respond to the details of the verses subject to exegesis, and
for the greater part, it is difficult to imagine how the consequent
parable can serve any but a corresponding transaction or relation-
ship (as the case may be). In the following parables an explicit ar-
ticulation of how the relationships portrayed by the parable embodies
the case at hand completes the project: 1, 2 (Simeon), 3 (Simeon), 6
(Simeon), 7 (Simeon), 8 (Simeon), 9, 10 (Simeon), 11 (Simeon), 12,
13 (Simeon), 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29: twenty-
three in all. In the following parables, there is no effort at spelling
out the application of the parable to the case: 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, 27—
six in all. The pronounced preference of the Meshalim of Sifré to
Numbers is to articulate the application of the Mashal.
Why the clear choice in favor of the exegetical parable over any
and all alternative media of amplification of the stories of the book
of Numbers? What I find most striking about the Meshalim we have
examined is the precise correspondence of the Mashal and the trans-
action or relationship set forth by the base-verse served by the par-
able.
Halakhic Parables of Sifré to Numbers
Parable particular to its Halakhic setting: I do not see how CXXXII:I.1
can be separated from its Halakhic context or serve any other Halakhic
setting.
Parable not necessarily particular to its Halakhic setting: —
Exegetical Parables of Sifré to Numbers
Parable particular to its exegetical setting: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
Parable not necessarily particular to its exegetical setting: 4, 5
These data permit us to raise the question: Do the Meshalim circu-
late independent of their documentary context? In most, though not
all, instances, the Mashal is constructed out of counterpart-players
or comparable transactions to the components of the verse under
discussion. That is made explicit in the vast majority of instances.
Now to revert and make a judgment on the fundamental question.
It is, has the exegetical task provoked the parable, or did the para-
ble take shape independent of the exegetical circumstance? The

governing criterion is the question: is the parable in every last detail
particular to the exegetical context, or is it necessary to adjust the
parable to that context? We know that such a necessity comes into
play when a detail of a parable proves superfluous, playing no role
in the exposition of the base-verse or context. Overall, then, the
answer to the question is, in Sifré to Numbers, the exegetical task is prima-
ry, the construction of a pertinent, illuminating simile only secondary and deriv-
ative.
What, then, can have circulated beyond the limits of Sifré to
Numbers? As to the conception that similes involving the king and
the prince, the king and the queen, the king and the ally, could be
constructed: the generative force derives not from the fixed conven-
tions of the abstract players, the king, the prince (not King Herod
or King Ardavan, not Queen Shelomsiyyon/Salome). Like chess
pieces, these nameless kings and princes and queens are available
to be moved hither and yon, to reconstitute a relationship or a trans-
action in terms analogous to mathematical symbols: purely abstract,
very precise.
III. The Ma#aseh

I found not a single Halakhic Ma#aseh, e.g., one serving as a case or
an example or a precedent. For a set of Ma#asim of another sort, see
the following unit. The contrast between Sifra and Sifré to Num-
bers is staggering. The Halakhic focus of the former underscores the
Aggadic interest of the latter, but the same may be said of the com-
parison of Leviticus and Numbers.
IV. Not Classified

I am unable to classify these matched Ma#asim. They bear no Hala-
khic message, and they also are not authentic narratives. The set
follows on the authentic story about Baal Peor, cited earlier.
CXXXI:II.3. There is the case ma#aseh of Menahem b. Gubeta of Ariah,
who was treading figs in a vessel, and the princely angel of Peor came upon
him. He drove him off with a metal spit and he fled and went his way. But
he came upon him a night later. He said to him, “Menahem, do even you
curse me?” He was afraid of him and said to him, “I’ll never curse you
again.”
CXXXI:II.4. There is another case ma#aseh concerning Sebatayya of
Ulam, who rented out his ass to a gentile woman. When she had left the
city gate, she said to him to wait while she went into her temple of idola-
try. When she came out, he said to her, “Wait till I go in and do what you
did.” She said to him, “Is it possible that you’re not a Jew? He said to her,
“So what difference does it make to you?” He went in and wiped himself
on the nose of Peor, and all the gentiles cheered him and said to him, “No
one ever did it that way before.
CXXXI:II.5. There was yet another case ma#aseh of a ruler who came
from a seaside city to bow down to Peor. He said to the servants of Peor,
“Bring me a bullock, for us to offer it to him, or a ram, for us to offer to
him.” They said to him, “That isn’t what we owe him, but all you have to
do is bare yourself to him.” He set his orderlies on them and they crushed
their heads with clubs He said to them, “Woe is you and woe is your ‘er-
ror’!”
The triplet more or less matches: a situation, a transaction, an out-
come. In the context of CXXXI:II’s stories about how Israel sinned
with Baal Peor, the triplet forms a topical appendix. But I have no
idea why the matching stories were composed. I do not see any ex-
egetical task that is carried out, let alone a point of intersection with
Halakhic analysis. What is more interesting, in Sifré to Numbers,
the marker, Ma#aseh, does not signal what it uniformly does in Mish-
nah and Tosefta. But the case is too rare and casual to permit gen-
eralization.
V. Sifré Numbers’ Narratives in Canonical Context

Apart from the exegetical parables, we find a negligible component
of narratives in our document. The two authentic narratives that
are primary to Sifré to Numbers are beautifully realized. But I see
no distinctive qualities shared by them that could signify marks of a
mode of narrative particular to our document. True, both are an-
ecdotal and both contain dialogue as well as action—but so what?
What is more striking is the absence of a clear model of how stories
are to be told, extending from the Mishnah’s two authentic narra-
tives, M. R.H. 2:8-9 and M. Ta. 3:9-10, through the Tosefta’s and
Sifra’s counterparts, and on to the present document. We have yet
to encounter a document in which authentic, successful narratives
find a capacious place in the documentary program. Neither the
Halakhic compositions, the Mishnah and Tosefta, nor the exegeti-
cal compilations treated to this point, Sifra and Sifré to Numbers,
yield more than random, episodic samples of narratives. In none of
the documents we have treated to this point (and we shall see the
same in Sifré to Deuteronomy) is a role assigned to protracted, de-
veloped narratives comparable to the magnificent stories of sages in

The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan Text A or in Lamenta-
tions Rabbati. The compilers of the Halakhic and the Halakhic-ex-
egetical compilations accomplish their goals through other media of
writing than the sort of narratives that qualify in studies of “the Rab-
binic story.” That fact strongly suggests that the compilers of the
documents chose the kind of narratives or pseudo-narratives they
deemed best to serve their documentary program and assignment.
Now let us turn to the questions concerning the documentary
hypothesis that animate this study and focus its analysis.
metry of the canon? The narratives and pseudo-narratives realize the
documentary program and are tightly linked to the exegetical or
expository task, as seen in the details that follow:
The Authentic Narratives: the two authentic narratives particular
to Sifré to Numbers and the one shared with Tosefta all fit within the
narrowest, strictest definition of the documentary program realized here,
in all three instances amplifying and extending the meaning of verses
of Scripture.
The Mashal:
The Halakhic Mashal: the narratives replicate in similes the trans-
actions and relationships of Scripture’s Halakhic norms.
The Exegetical Mashal: The exegetical parable is tightly linked to
the exposition of the base-verse, explicitly so, in these entries: 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 26, 27, 28.
The Exegetical Mashal bears no unique connection to its context
at Nos. 12, 25, 29.
The Ma#aseh: —
Not Classified: the three items complement an authentic narrative
that is integral to the exposition of Scripture.
I cannot find a single narrative or pseudo-narrative that leads us
beyond the limits of the Rabbinic system, narrowly construed.
2. Does non-documentary, narrative writing exhibit readily-discernible
patterns of form and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these
patterns and how are we to classify and to interpret them? The rules that in
the aggregate govern the writing of Sifré Numbers’ Meshalim are
not difficult to discern: the exegetical problem, a simile that trans-
lates the terms of Scripture’s statement into more abstract figures
(king/prince, king/queen, king/ally) to articulate essentially the same

transaction or situation, and, finally, an exposition of the applica-
tion of the simile to the case at hand. As I have argued, I see the
exegetical parable as integral to, characteristic of, the documentary
program of Sifré to Numbers. And in proportion and importance,
it is the only narrative mode of writing in play in our document.
siderations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary venue? It
follows that the documentary program of Sifré to Numbers has dic-
tated the indicative traits of nearly all the Meshalim in the document,
most of which then are joined by a superfluous announcement of
what is self-evident—the working of the simile in illuminating the
transaction set forth in Scripture’s narrative.
By way of exception: I cannot account for the three authentic
narratives: why not more, why not none? Certainly the two unique
to Sifré to Numbers differ; Nathan’s exquisite story about the pow-
er of show-fringes to save the man from sin hardly is demanded by
the verse of Scripture to which it is attached, while the story of the
Israelites and the Midianite women fills out the sketch that Scrip-
ture itself sets forth. So I cannot explain the composition of the au-
thentic narratives of the document either by appeal to the charac-
ter of Scripture’s own narratives—lacking in the one case—or by
Scripture’s failure to fill out a picture—hardly characteristic of the
other case. These matters can clarify themselves only when we take
up a document in which authentic, successful narratives form a prin-
cipal medium of documentary discourse.
PART THREE
NARRATIVES IN SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY

CHAPTER THIRTY-ONE
SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY.
PARASHAT DEBARIM. 1-25
I:IX
1. A. “And Dizahab” (Dt. 1:1):
B. [Since the place name means, “of gold,” what he was]
saying to them [was this:] “Lo, everything you did is for-
given. But the deed concerning the [golden] calf is worst
of them all.”
2. A. R. Judah would say, “There is a parable. To what may the case
be compared? To one who made a lot of trouble for his fellow.
In the end he [the trouble-maker] added yet another. He [the
victim] said to him, ‘Lo, everything you did is forgiven. But this
is the worst of them all.’
B. “So said the Omnipresent to Israel, ‘Lo, everything you did is
forgiven. But the deed concerning the [golden] calf is worst of
them all.’”
The parable, 2.A, exactly replicates the terms of the initial exege-
sis, 1.B. Then, 2.B, the parable is unpacked, as though it were not
obvious in its application. The upshot is, the parable is generated
by the exegetical problem and commences with the requirements
defined by that problem.
I:X
1. A. [“And Dizahab” (Dt. 1:1):] R. Simeon says, “There is
a parable. To what may the case [of Israel’s making the
calf of gold] be compared? To one who extended hospital-
ity to sages and their disciples, and everyone praised him.
B. “Gentiles came, and he extended hospitality to them.
Muggers came and he extended hospitality to them.
C. “People said, ‘That is so-and-so’s nature—to extend
hospitality [indiscriminately] to anyone at all.’
D. “So did Moses say to Israel, ‘[Di zahab, meaning,
enough gold, yields the sense,] There is enough gold for
the tabernacle, enough gold also for the calf!’
The meaning of “sufficiency of gold,” 1.D, is spelled out at 1.A-C,
a sufficiency for both commendable and deplorable activity. The
148 31. sifré to deuteronomy. parashat debarim. 1-25
parable then is particular to the verse it is meant to clarify and the

sense of the verse imputed by the exegete.
III:I
1. A. “[On the first day of the eleventh month of the for-
tieth year,] after the defeat of Sihon, [king of the Amorites,
who ruled in Heshbon, and the defeat at Edrei of Og, king
of Bashan, who ruled in Ashtaroth, Moses repeated to the
Israelites all the commands that the Lord had given him
for them]” (Dt. 1:3-4):
B. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who, with
his troops, went out into the field. His troops said to him, “Give
us hot white bread.”
C. He said to them, “I’ll provide it.”
D. Again his troops said to him, “Give us hot white bread.”
E. His second in command said to them, “It is because the king is
able [that he can do it]. Where do you think he got grindstones
[to grind the flour], where do you think he got an oven out here
in the field! [But he did provide! So you need not make demands
any more.]”
F. So did Moses say, “If I admonish Israel first, they will then ac-
cuse me, ‘It is because he has not got the strength to bring us
into the land and to overthrow Sihon and Og before us that he
is admonishing us [as an excuse for his own incapacities].’”
G. But he did not do it that way. Rather, after he had brought them
into the Land and overthrown Sihon and Og before them, then
and only then he admonished them.
H. On that account it is said, “... after the defeat of Sihon.”
What requires explanation is why Moses’s admonition commenced
after the defeat of Sihon. He showed his power, then had the right
to admonish, F-H. The king could provide bread in field-conditions,
and showed that he could do so twice. Then the second in com-
mand told the soldiers to rely on the king. The match between the
parable and the exegetical message, F-H, is somewhat awry, since
the king does not admonish the troops but (through his second in
command) tells them not to make demands any more. But if Moses
(second in command) were to correspond, he would not admonish
the Israelites but would tell them not to make demands of God. So
here is a case in which the parable does not match in acute detail
the components of the case it is meant to clarify.
VIII:I
1. A. “[Go, enter the land] that the Lord swore to your fa-
thers, [to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to assign to them and
31. sifré to deuteronomy. parashat debarim. 1-25 149
to their offspring after them]” (Dt. 1:6-8):

B. Why does Scripture then add, “to Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob”?
C. As to the matter of an oath taken to the patriarchs, lo,
Scripture in any event states, “The oaths proclaimed to the
tribes” (Hab. 3:9).
D. Why then add here, “to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”?
E. It is so as to indicate that Abraham on his own would
have been worthy [of gaining the land for Israel through
his merit], so too Isaac, so too Jacob.
2. A. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who gave
his servant a field as a gift. He gave it to him just as is. The slave
went and improved the field, and he said, “What I have was handed
over to me only as is.”
B. The servant then went and planted a vineyard and said, “What
I have was handed over to me only as is.”
C. [Each of the patriarchs is mentioned individually, because, in
like manner, each improved the land on his own.] So when the Holy
One, blessed be He, gave the land to our father Abraham, he gave
it to him just as is, as it is said, “Go, walk through the land, its length
and breadth, for I give it to you” (Gen. 13:17).
D. Abraham went and improved it, as it is said, “He planted a
tamarisk in Beer Sheva” (Gen. 21:33).
E. Isaac went and improved it, as it is said, “Isaac sewed in that
land and produced in that year a hundredfold” (Gen. 26:12).
F. Jacob went and improved it, as it is said, “And he bought the
parcel of ground” (Gen. 33:19).
The exegetical question is why the patriarchs are mentioned indi-
vidually, C, and the reason is, each improved the Land on his own.
Then the parable replicates the conditions set forth at C-F, and these
conditions govern A-B. It is not a very strong parable, bearing no
point of its own, for by itself, A-B are scarcely intelligible.
XI:I
1. A. “... May the Lord, the God of your fathers, increase your num-
bers a thousandfold and bless you as he promised you.—[How
can I bear unaided the trouble of you, and the burden, and the
bickering! Pick from each of your tribes men who are wise, dis-
cerning, and experienced, and I will appoint them as your heads]”
(Dt. 1:9-13):
B. They said to him, “Our lord, Moses, You cannot bestow such a
[paltry] blessing on us. The Omnipresent promised Abrahamour
father, ‘I shall certainly bless you, and I shall certainly multiply
your seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand on the sea-
shore’ (Gen. 22:17). [That is many times greater than a mere
thousandfold.] Accordingly, you set a limit to the blessing that
is coming to us.”
2. A. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who had
great wealth. He had a young son and had to go overseas. He said, “If I
leave my wealth in the hands of my son, he will go and squander it. Lo,
I shall appoint a guardian for him until he comes of age.”
B. When the son came of age, he said to the guardian, “Give
me the silver and gold that my father left in your guardianship.”
C. The guardian gave him a share of what was coming, suffi-
cient to provide for his needs.
D. The son began to complain, saying to him, “Lo, all the silver
and gold that father left in your trust!”
E. He said to him, “Whatever I gave you I provided out of my
own property alone. But as to what your father left you, it is in safe-keep-
ing.”
F. So Moses said to Israel, “‘May the Lord, the God of your
fathers, increase your numbers a thousandfold.’ That is what is coming on
my account. ‘... and bless you as he promised you...’ in such multitudes as
the sand on the seashore, the grass in the field, the fish in the sea, and the
stars in the heaven.”
The parable exactly matches the exegetical case: why has Moses
bestowed a paltry blessing? He is like the guardian, who provides
what the prince needs, but not what he wants. The application, F,
then shows how the parable works: Moses provides what he has on
his own account, and God will ultimately bestow the blessing as lavish
as the one given to Abraham. Here is another parable particular to
the case it illuminates.
XVI:II
1. A. [“I charged your magistrates at that time as follows: ‘Hear out
your fellow men and decide justly [between any man and a fel-
low Israelite or a stranger. You shall not be partial in judgment.
Hear out low and high alike Fear no man, for judgment is God’s,
And any matter that is too difficult for you, you shall bring to
me and I will hear it.’ Thus I instructed you, at that time, about
the various things that you should do]” (Dt. 1:14-18):] “... at that
time, saying...:”
B. [Moses says to the judges,] “In the past you were subject to your
own cognizance, but now, lo, you are servants, subjugated to the
public interest.”
2. A. There was the case [ma#aseh] involving R. Yohanan b.
Nuri and R. Eleazar Hisma. Rabban Gamaliel put them in
charge of the session, but the disciples were not aware of
them.
B. Now it was Rabban Gamaliel’s custom, when he would en-
ter the session and say, “Ask,” it was an indication that there
was no supervisor present. But when he would enter and

not say, “Ask,” it was an indication that there was a super-
visor there [who could deal with the disciples’ questions].
C. He came in and found R. Yohanan b. Nuri and R. Eleazar
Hisma in session by the disciples.
D. He said to him, “Yohanan b. Nuri and Eleazar Hisma, you
have treated the community shabbily, for you have not sought
to exercise authority over the community.
E. “In the past you were subject to your own cognizance, but
now, lo, you are servants, subjugated to the public inter-
est.”
tion or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? Here is a new utiliza-
tion of the marker, Ma#aseh, one for which we are hardly well pre-
pared. We are used to Ma#aseh as a case or precedent or example,
in a Halakhic setting in particular. Now, of all things, the Ma#aseh
here forms an authentic narrative, because D-E imposes sense and
meaning on all that has come before. Without that concluding state-
ment, the prior details do not cohere or yield a cogent narrative.
The point is, those in authority become subjugated to the public
interest and can no longer enjoy privacy or obscurity.
the foregoing. The conflict is between the modesty of the masters,
Yohanan and Eleazar, and their public duties.
ties, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? The story so closely matches
the exegetical case, repeating as it does 1.B, that it is readily trans-
formed into a parable. That would take the form of the story about
a king who appointed his son, the prince, to preside over his coun-
cil. The son came in and took a seat at the side, not exercising the
authority the father bestowed upon him. The king came in and found
the son failing at the task, and said what Gamaliel said to the named
authorities. So all that distinguishes a routine exegetical Mashal, such
as can readily be imagined, from a routine narrative anecdote (bear-
ing the marker, Ma#aseh, to be sure) such as we have, is the substitu-
tion of the king and the prince for the named sages.
XIX:II
1. A. “I said to you, [‘You have come to the hill country of
the Amorites which the Lord our God is giving to us. See,
the Lord your God has placed the land at your disposal.
Go up, take possession, as the Lord, the God of your fa-
thers promised you. Fear not and be not dismayed’]” (Dt.
1:19-21):] “You have come to the hill country of the Amorites
which the Lord our God is giving to us:”
B. The matter may be compared to the case of a king, who
handed his son over to a teacher. The teacher would take
the boy about and show him, saying to him, “All of these
vineyards are yours, all of these olive groves are yours.”
C. When he got tired of showing him around, he said to him,
“Everything you see is yours.”
D. So for all those forty years that the Israelites were in the
wilderness, Moses would say to him, “Lo, the Lord your
God is bringing you to a good land, a land of streams of
water, of fountains and depths, that spring forth in valleys
and hills” (Dt. 8:7).
E. When the came to the land, he said to them, “You have
come to the hill country of the Amorites which the Lord
our God is giving to us.”
The exegetical Mashal exactly replicates the program of the base-
verse, translating the case of Moses and Israel into that of the ped-
agogue and the prince. The rest is exact.
‘XXI:I
1. A. “I approved of the plan and so I selected twelve of your men,
one from each tribe. They made for the hill country, came
to the wadi Eshcol, and spied it out. They took some of the
fruit of the land with them and bright it down to us. And
they gave us this report, ‘It is a good land that the Lord our
God is giving to us’” (Dt. 1:22-25):
B. “I approved of the plan,” but the Omnipresent did not.
2. A. But if they approved the plan, then why was it written along with
the words of admonition?
B. The matter may be compared to the case of someone who said
to his fellow, “Sell me your ass.”
C. The other said, “All right.”
D. “Will you let me try it out?”
E. “All right. Come along, and I’ll show you how much it can carry
in the hills, how much it can carry in the valley.”
F. When the purchaser saw that there was nothing standing in the
way, he said, “Woe is me! It appears that the reason he is so
obliging is to take away my money.”
G. That is why it is written, “I approved of the plan.”
The exegetical parable makes the point that the ready agreement
of the seller to sell casts suspicion over the transaction, just as Moses’s
ready agreement signaled a dubious plan: God did not approve. The
parable begins with the exegetical task and bears no autonomous
standing that I can discern.
154 32. sifré to deuteronomy. parashat vaethanan. 26-36
CHAPTER THIRTY-TWO
PARASHAT VAETHANAN. 26-36
XXVI:III
1. A. “I pleaded with the Lord at that time, saying, [‘O Lord, God,
you who let your servant see the first works of your great-
ness and your mighty hand, you whose powerful deeds no
god in heaven or on earth can equal! Let me, I pray, cross
over and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan,
that good hill country, and the Lebanon.’ But the Lord was
wrathful with me on your account and would not listen to
me. The Lord said to me, ‘Enough, never speak to me of
this matter again! Go up to the summit of Pisgah and gaze
about, to the west, the north, the south, and the east. Look
at it well, for you shall not go across yonder Jordan. Give
Joshua his instructions and imbue him with strength and
courage, for he shall go across at the head of this people,
and he shall allot to them the land that you may only see.’
Meanwhile we stayed on in the valley near Beth-peor’]” (Dt.
4:23-29): “... at that time, saying:”
B. The matter may be compared to citizens of a city who wanted
the king to make their city a colony. Once he had two enemies,
who fell at his hand.
C. The citizens thought, “Now is the time to ask the king to make
our city a colony.”
D. So Moses wanted the Holy One, blessed be He, to let him
enter the land. When he saw that Sihon and Og had fallen
before him, he said, “Lo, the time is ripe for me to ask the
Holy One, blessed be He, to let me enter the land.”
E. That is the sense of the statement, “... at that time.”
The exegetical parable explains why that was the right time for
entering the plea. The details are exact, down to the two enemies
= Sihon and Og. Once the king had overcome his enemies, the cit-
izens, standing for Moses, entered their plea.
XXVIII:I
1. A. “Let me, I pray, cross over and see [the good land on the other
32. sifré to deuteronomy. parashat vaethanan. 26-36 155
side of the Jordan, that good hill country, and the Lebanon]”
(Dt. 4:23-29):
B. Is it really possible that Moses should have beseeched from
the Omnipresent to enter the land?
C. Has it not been stated, “For you shall not cross this Jordan
river” (2):27)?
D. The matter may be compared to a king who had two servants,
and he made a decree that one of them not drink wine for thirty
days.
E. [The servant said,] “Now that he has made a decree in my re-
gard not to drink wine for thirty days, I shall not even taste it for
an entire year, even for two years.”
F. Why did he do this? So as to treat as a bagatelle his master’s
decree [saying how little it meant to him].
G. The king went and he made a decree that the other of the two
not drink wine for thirty days.
H. He said, “It is not possible go without drinking wine even for a
single hour.”
I. Why did he do this? So as to express his love for his master’s
rulings.
J. So too in the case of Moses, he wanted to express his love
for the rulings of the Omnipresent and so pleaded with him
to enter the land.
K. That is why it is said, ““Let me, I pray, cross over.”
This powerful exegetical parable answers the question, Why did
Moses enter his plea? To show his love for God’s rulings. In the
exegetical parable, at E, the first servant shows his contempt for the
ruling by extending it. The second servant shows his respect for the
ruling by pleading against it. Moses, then, is the second servant. The
parable would be more exact if there were a counterpart in the Scrip-
tural narrative to the first servant, but the first servant is required
to draw the contrast and show Moses in the true light.
XXIX:IV
1. A. “‘Look at it well, [for you shall not go across yonder Jor-
dan. Give Joshua his instructions and imbue him with strength
and courage, for he shall go across at the head of this people,
and he shall allot to them the land that you may only see.’
Meanwhile we stayed on in the valley near Beth-peor]” (Dt.
4:23-29):
B. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who made
a decree that his son not enter his bedroom.
C. [The son] went into the gate of the palace, [and the king] re-
ceived him and spoke with him.
D. He came into the entry of the reception room, and the king
156 32. sifré to deuteronomy. parashat vaethanan. 26-36
welcomed him and spoke with him.

E. But when he came to enter the bed-chamber, he said to him,
“From this point onward, you are forbidden to enter.”
F. So Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He, “All I
want out of the land of Israel is only the width of the Jor-
dan River over there, an area of fifty cubits.”
G. He said to him, “Look at it well, for you shall not go across
yonder Jordan.”
The correspondence of the exegetical parable, B-E, to the scriptur-
al story, F-G, is exact, and the Mashal has been constructed to re-
spond to the narrative, King/prince = God/Moses, pure and sim-
ple.
XXXVI:IV
1. A. “... and on your gates” (Dt. 6:4-9):
3. A. The mark that Israelites are precious [to God] is that Scrip-
ture has encompassed them with religious duties [that sanctify
them]:
B. phylacteries on head and arm, mezuzot on their doors, show-
fringes on their garments.
4. A. And concerning them David has said, “Seven times
a day I praise you because of your righteous ordinances”
(Ps. 119:164):
B. When he entered the bathhouse and saw himself
naked, he said, “Woe is me, that I am naked of all re-
ligious duties.”
C. But then he noticed the mark of circumcision, and,
on that account, gave praise: “For the leader, on the
eighth, a psalm of David” (Ps. 12:1).
5. A. The matter may be compared to the case of a mortal king who
said to his wife, “Now go and put on all your ornaments, so that
you’ll be desirable to me.”
B. So said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel, “My chil-
dren, make yourselves distinguished through religious du-
ties, so that you’ll be desirable to me.”
C. And so Scripture says, “You are beautiful O my love as
Tirsah” (Song. 6:4).
D. “You are beautiful when you are desirable
[using the same letters as Tirsah] to me.”
The exegetical parable, 5.A, compares the king and his wife to God
and Israel. It is not particular to the context at hand, since it serves
any and all religious duties, but it does require a scriptural context,
articulated at 5.B-C, to make the move from the queen’s adornments
to the practice of religious duties.
33. sifré to deuteronomy. parashat eqeb. 37-52 157
CHAPTER THIRTY-THREE
PARASHAT EQEB. 37-52
XXXVII:I
5. A. And so you find in the case of Sennacherib,
when he came to entice Israel, what did he say
to them?
B. “... until I came to take you away to a land
like your own land” (2 Kgs. 18:32).
C. What is written is not. “a land more beau-
tiful than your land,” but merely, “a land like your
land.”
D. And that yields an argument a fortiori:
E. Now if someone who came with the intent
of expressing praise for his own country did not
disparage the Land of Israel, all the more so for
the glory of the Land of Israel.”
6. A. R. Simeon b. Yohai says, “That one
was a fool, and he did not know how to
entice people.
B. “The matter may be compared to
the case of someone who went to propose
to a woman. He said to her, ‘Your father
is a king and I am a king. Your father is
rich and I am rich. Your father gives you
meat and fish to eat and vintage wine to
drink, and I shall give you meat and fish
to eat and vintage wine to drink.’ That is
not really much of a come-on.
C. “What should he have said? ‘Your
father is a commoner, but I am a king.
Your father is poor, but I am rich. Your
father gives you vegetables and pulse to
eat, but I shall feed you meat and fish.
Your father gives you new wine to drink,
but I shall give you vintage wine. Your
father takes you to the bathhouse by foot,
but I shall take you in a palanquin.’“
158 33. sifré to deuteronomy. parashat eqeb. 37-52
D. And that yields an argument

a fortiori
E. Now if someone who came
with the intent of expressing praise
for his own country did not dispar-
age the Land of Israel, all the more
so for the glory of the Land of Is-
rael.
The exegetical parable replicates the terms of the verse that it clar-
ifies. Simeon’s parable at 6.B is extended at 6.C, lest we miss the
perfectly obvious point. And 6.D-E go back over 5.D-E, where they
belong. 6.B on its own serves as a fully-realized exegetical parable,
stating its point (“That is not really…”), rather than recording the
outcome, which is implicit.
XXXVIII:I
1. A. “[For the land that you are about to enter and pos-
sess] is not like the land of Egypt [from which you have
come. There the grain you sowed had to be watered by
your own labors, like a vegetable garden; but the land you
are about to cross into and possess, a land of hills and valleys,
soaks up its water from the rains of heaven. It is a land which
the Lord your God looks after, on which the Lord your God
always keeps his eye, from year’s beginning to year’s end]”
(Dt. 11:10-12):
B. The land of Egypt drinks its water from the depths, while
the land of Israel drinks its water from the heights.
C. The land of Egypt drinks its water from the depths, but
not from the heights. The land of Israel drinks from the
depths and the heights.
D. The land of Egypt drinks from the depths and then the
heights, the land of Israel drinks from the depths and the
heights at one and the same time.
E. As to the land of Egypt what is in the open drinks, what
is not in the open does not drink. In the land of Israel what
is in the open and what is not in the open alike drink.
F. The land of Egypt drinks water and then is sown. The
land of Israel drinks water and is sown, is sown and drinks
water, drinks water every day, is sown every day.
G. As to the land of Egypt, if you work it hard with mat-
tock and spade and give up the sleep of yours on its ac-
count, [it will yield a crop], and if not, it will not. As to the
land of Israel, it is not that way. But people sleep in bed,
and the Omnipresent brings rain down for them.
2. A. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who was
on the way and saw a son of distinguished parents and handed

a slave over to him to serve him.
B. Again he saw another son of distinguished parents, nicely
garbed and scented, but hard at physical labor, whom the king
knew, whose parents he knew.
C. He said, “I decree that I will personally take care of him
and provide his food.”
D. So all lands were given servants to tend them:
E. Egypt drinks from the Nile, Babylonia from the two rivers.
F. But the land of Israel is not that way. But people sleep in
bed, and the Omnipresent brings rain down for them.
The point of the exegetical parable, 2.A-C, is articulated at D-F,
the whole repeated from 1.G. So the parable responds to the rele-
vant verse, inclusive of its exegesis, translating the whole into a pseu-
do-narrative. The shift is simply the comparison, A to B-C, of Egypt
to Israel, the land of Egypt to the Land of Israel. “All lands” had
their servants, but the Land of Israel is served by God personally.
XXXVIII:I
4. A. R. Eliezer, R. Joshua, R. Sadoq were reclining at the ban-
quet of the son of Rabban Gamaliel. Rabban Gamaliel mixed
the cup of wine for R. Eliezer, but the latter did not want to
take it from him.
B. R. Joshua took it. Said to him R. Eliezer, “What’s this, Joshua!
Is it right that we should recline, while Gamaliel, the noble, should
stand over us and serve us?”
C. R. Joshua said to him, “Let him do his service. Abraham
was the greatest man of the age but served the ministering an-
gels, even though he thought that they were idol-worshipping
Arabs.”
D. “For it is said, ‘And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and
behold, three men stood over against him’ (Gen. 18:2).
E. “Now that yields an argument a fortiori:
F. “If Abraham, who was the greatest man of the age,
served ministering angels thinking that they were idol-
worshipping Arabs, Gamaliel, the noble, should surely
serve me!”
G. Said to them R. Sadoq, “You have neglected
the honor owing to the Omnipresent and occu-
pied yourselves with the honor owing to mortals.
H. “If he who spoke and brought the world into
being, restores the winds and brings clouds and
brings down rain, raises the crops and sets a table
for each and every person, should not Gamaliel,
the honored man, serve us?”
The pseudo-narrative provides a setting or the lesson, G-H. If we

stop with D, we have an action that is accounted for, A, by B-C+D.
XLIII:III
1. A. “… and thus you shall eat your fill. Take care not to be lured
away to serve other gods and bow to them. [For the Lord’s an-
ger will flare up against you, and he will shut up the skies so that
there be no rain and the ground will not yield its produce; and
you will soon perish from the good land that the Lord is assign-
ing to you]” (Dt. 11:13-17):
7. A. Rabban Gamaliel, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar b.
Azariah, and R. Aqiba were going toward Rome.
They heard the sound of the city’s traffic from as
far away as Puteoli, a hundred and twenty mil away.
They began to cry, while R. Aqiba laughed.
B. They said to him, “Aqiba, why are we crying
while you are laughing?”
C. He said to them, “Why are you crying?”
D. They said to him, “Should we not cry, since
gentiles, idolators, sacrifice to their idols and bow
down to icons, but dwell securely in prosperity,
serenely, while the house of the footstool of our God
has been put to the torch and left a lair for beasts
of the field?”
E. He said to them, “That is precisely why I was
laughing. If this is how he has rewarded those who
anger him, all the more so [will he reward] those
who do his will.”
8. A. Another time they went up to Jerusalem and
go to Mount Scopus. They tore their garments.
B. They came to the mountain of the house [of
the temple] and saw a fox go forth from the house
of the holy of holies. They began to cry, while R.
Aqiba laughed.
C. They said to him, “You are always giving sur-
prises. We are crying when you laugh!”
D. He said to them, “But why are you crying?”
E. They said to him, “Should we not cry over the
place concerning which it is written, ‘And the com-
mon person who draws near shall be put to death’
(Num. 1:51)? Now lo, a fox comes out of it.
F. “In our connection the following verse of Scrip-
ture has been carried out: ‘For this our heart is faint,
for these things our eyes are dim, for the mountain
of Zion which is desolate, the foxes walk upon it’
(Lam. 5:17-18).”
G. He said to them, “That is the very reason I have

laughed. For lo, it is written, ‘And I will take for
me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest and
Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah’ (Is. 8:2).
H. “And what has Uriah got to do with Zechariah?
What is it that Uriah said? ‘Zion shall be plowed as
a field and Jerusalem shall become heaps and the
mountain of the Lord’s house as the high places of
a forest’ (Jer. 26:18).
I. “What is it that Zechariah said? ‘Thus says the
Lord of hosts, “Old men and women shall yet sit in
the broad places of Jerusalem”’ (Zech. 8:4).
J. “Said the Omnipresent, ‘Lo, I have these two
witnesses. If the words of Uriah have been carried
out, then the words of Zechariah will be carried out.
If the words of Uriah are nullified, then the words
of Zechariah will be nullified.
K. “‘Therefore I was happy that the words of Uriah
have been carried out, so that in the end the words
of Zechariah will come about.’”
L. In this language they replied to him: “Aqiba,
you have given us comfort.”
tion or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The matched stories, 7,
8A-G, extended at H-K, form a tight match and make sense only
when joined. But each works on its own, since 7.E imparts coher-
ence to No. 7, and the composite of 8.G-K does the same for No.
8. There, 8.E-F makes a more elaborate statement than 7.D. Re-
move 7.E and its counterpart and the two stories become gibber-
ish, which shows how the whole aims at that climax and conclusion.
The repetition of the program of No. 7 at No. 8 intensifies the ef-
fect of the whole but changes nothing. What we have are two au-
thentic stories, coherent within the teleological logic that, in this study,
signifies the authentic narrative.
the foregoing. The contrast between expectation and reality, between
Israel’s standing and Israel’s condition, creates a tension, precisely
the tension that Aqiba resolves in his climactic statement.
ties, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? These exegetical narratives do
more than form a dramatic setting for an exchange of set-piece
speeches, since the setting and the interaction of the players and the
setting form the basis for the story. Matching the two incidents is
integral.
XLIII:VIII
1. A. If you do this, then “the Lord’s anger will flare up against you:”
B. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who was send-
ing his son to a banquet. He sat down and instructed him, say-
ing to him, “My son, do not eat more than you need to. Do not
drink more than you need to. In that way you will come home
clean.”
C. The son paid no attention to him. He ate more than he needed
to, drank more than he needed to, and he threw up and dirtied
all of the other guests.
D. They took him by his hands and legs and threw him out the back
door of the palace.
E. So said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel, “I brought
you into a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk
and honey, to eat its produce and be sated with its good-
ness, and to bless my name on that account.
F. “Since you did not endure in goodness, endure in punish-
ment: ‘the Lord’s angerwill flare up against you.’”
The exegetical parable invokes the king and the prince to make the
point that Israel misbehaved in the Land and so got itself thrown
out. Without E-F, the story lacks a focus, though it makes the obvi-
ous point that misbehaving gets one thrown out of the house.
XLIII:XV
1. A. Another matter concerning, “… and you will soon perish
from the good land that the Lord is assigning to you” (Dt.
11:13-17):
B. It will involve exile after exile.
C. And so you find in the case of the ten tribes that they suf-
fered exile after exile.
D. And so you find in the case of Judah and Benjamin that
they suffered exile after exile.
E. They went into exile in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar,
and in the eighteenth, and in the twenty-third.
2. A. R. Joshua b. Qorhah says, “The matter may be compared to
the case of a robber who invaded the field of a householder. He
cut down his heap [of grain], but the householder did not pay
attention. He cut down standing corn, and the householder did
not pay attention. And so matters proceeded [until the robber]
had heaped up his basket and gone his way.
B. “And so Scripture says, ‘For there is no gloom to her that
was steadfast? Now the former has lightly afflicted the land
of Zebulun and the land of Naftali, but the latter has dealt
a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jor-
dan, in the district of the nations’ (Is. 8:23).”
Israel is compared to a householder who pays no attention to the
activities of a robber. The comparison is not precise, since the house-
holder, A, does not lose the property, while Israel went into exile
and so lost the property, possession of which it had taken for grant-
ed. The exegetical parable, 2.A. works better for Dt. 11:13-17 than
it does for Is. 8:23. In sum, with the details awry, the parable seems
contrived, not natural to the exegetical task.
XLIII:XVI
1. A. Another teaching concerning the verse, “… and you will
soon perish from the good land that the Lord is assigning
to you” (Dt. 11:13-17):
B. [God says,] “Even though I shall exile you from the land to
overseas, keep yourself distinguished [from other nations]
through performing the religious duties, so that when you
return, performing the religious duties will not prove new
to you.”
C. The matter may be compared to the case of a mortal king who
grew angry with his wife and drove her back to the house of her
father. He said to her, “Keep yourself adorned with your jew-
elry, so that when you come back, they will not prove new to
you.”
D. So said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel, “My chil-
dren, keep yourself distinguished [from other nations] through
performing the religious duties, so that when you return,
performing the religious duties will not prove new to you.”
Here the exegetical parable, C-D, precisely serves the exegesis of
Dt. 11:13-17 at 1.B. Indeed, the parable, C, exactly matches the case
articulated at B.
XLV:I
1. A. “Therefore impress these my words upon your very
heart; [bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve
as a symbol on your forehead; and teach them to your
children, reciting them when you stay at home and when
you are away, when you lie down and when you get up,
and inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on
your gates, to the end that you and your children may en-
dure in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers to assign
to them, as long as there is a heaven over the earth]” (Dt.
11:18-21):
B. This use of the word [“impress,” which can be read to
sound like “medicine, ointment”] indicates that words of

Torah are compared to a life-giving medicine.
2. A. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who grew
angry with his son and gave him a severe blow, but then put a
salve on the wound and said to him, “My son, so long as this
bandage is on the wound, eat whatever you like, drink whatever
you like, and wash in either warm or old water, and nothing will
do you injury. But if you remove the bandage, the sore will im-
mediately begin to produce ulcers.”
B. So the Holy One, blessed be he, said to Israel, “My chil-
dren, I have created in you an impulse to do evil, than which
nothing is more evil.
C. “‘Sin couches at the door and to you is its desire’ (Gen.
4:7).”
D. “Keep yourselves occupied with teachings of the Torah, and
[sin] will not control you.
E. “But if you leave off studying words of the Torah, lo,
it will control you, as it is said, ‘ and to you is its desire’
(Gen. 4:7).
F. “All of its undertakings concern you. But if you want, you
will control it, as it is said, ‘But you may rule over it’ (Gen.
4:7).”
G. And Scripture says, “And if your enemy is hungry, give him
bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink,
for you will heap coals of fire upon his head” (Prov. 25:21-
22).
The parable, 2.A, exactly matches the requirements of 1.B: the Torah
is that ointment that protects the wound. The severe blow of 2.A is
the impulse to do evil, which God created in mind in consequence
of according him free will, as 2.B-C make explicit. Here, without
the detailed, secondary exposition, 2.B-F+G (the enemy being the
impulse to do evil) the parable, 2.A, lacks focus and intent.
XLVIII:I
1. A. “If then you faithfully keep all this instruction [that I com-
mand you, loving the Lord your God, walking in all his ways,
and holding fast to him, the Lord will dislodge before you
all these nations; you will dispossess nations greater and more
numerous than you. Every spot on which your foot treads
shall be yours; your territory shall extend from the wilder-
ness to the Lebanon, and from the River, the Euphrates, to
the Western Sea. No man shall stand up to you: the Lord
your God will put the dread and the fear of you over the
whole land in which you set foot, as he promised you]” (Dt.
11:22-25):
B. Why is this said?

C. Since it is said, “And it shall come to pass, if you will cer-
tainly listen to my commandments” (Dt. 11:13), might I draw
the inference that if someone has heard teachings of the Torah
and rested on his laurels and not repeated [and so reviewed]
them, [that suffices]?
D. Scripture says, “If then you faithfully keep...,”
E. which indicates that just as one has to take care of his coin,
that it not get lost, so he has to take care of his learning,
that it not get lost.
3. A. R. Ishmael says, “‘Only watch out and keep your soul diligently’
(Dt. 4:9) –
B. “The matter may be compared to a mortal king who caught a
bird and handed it over to his servant, saying to him, ‘Keep this
bird for my son. If you lose it, do not think that you have lost a
bird worth a penny, but it is tantamount to your life that you
will have lost.’
C. “So Scripture says, “For it is no vain thing for you,
because of it is your very life’ (Dt. 32:47).
D. “Something that you say is vain in fact is your very life.”
4. A. R. Simeon b. Yohai says, “The matter may be compared to the
case of two brothers who inherited money from their father.
B. “One of them converted it into ready cash and consumed it, and
the other converted it into ready cash and put it aside.
C. “As to the one of them who converted it into ready cash and
consumed it, he turned out to have nothing in hand.
D. “But the one who converted it into ready cash and put it aside
got rich after a while.
E. “So disciples of sages learn two or three things in a day,
two or three chapters in a week, two or three lections in a
month. Such a one turns out to get rich after a while.
F. “That is in line with the following verse of Scripture:
‘He who gathers little by little shall increase’ (Prov. 13:11).
G. “But the one who says, ‘Today I shall learn [what I
need], tomorrow I shall learn [what I need], today I shall
review [what I need], tomorrow I shall review [what I need],
turns out to have nothing in hand.’ And concerning him
Scripture says, ‘A wise son gathers in summer, but a son
who does shamefully sleeps in harvest’ (Prov. 10:5).
H. “And further: ‘The sluggard will not plow
when winter comes, therefore he shall beg in
harvest and have nothing’ (Prov. 20:4).
I. “And further: ‘He who observes the wind
shall not sow’ (Qoh. 11:4).
J. “‘I went by the field of the slothful man and
by the vineyard of the man void of understand-
ing, and lo, it was all grown over with thistles;

the face of it was covered with nettles, and the
stone wall was broken down’ (Prov. 24:30-31.”
The first exegetical parable, XLVIII:I.3, addresses the task of clar-
ifying Dt. 32:47, and the issue concerns keeping the soul, and the
base-verse is Dt. 4:9, not Dt. 11:22-25. Then the king has caught a
bird and given it to the servant, as God has taken the soul and giv-
en it to man. Man is to keep it and not lose it, because it is beyond
price. Here again the parable proves particular to its exegetical task.
The second exegetical parable, XLVIII:I.4, concerns Dt. 11:22-
25, the matter of protecting learning so that it not get lost. Now the
brothers have the same task, to protect their liquid capital, A-D. They
are compared to disciples of sages who gradually learn and protect
what they have learned. That is the point of the contrast between
G and E. This parable is not quite precise in its rendition of the
exegetical proposition, for the point of E is that the disciples acquire
knowledge slowly, and the parable contrasts immediate consump-
tion with husbanding the cash, C/D. The parable serves Prov. 13:11/
10:5, and is out of phase with Dt. 11:22-25.
CHAPTER THIRTY-FOUR
PARASHAT RE’EH. 53-143
LIII:I
1. A. “See, this day I set before you blessing and curse: [bless-
ing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God
that I enjoin upon you this day; and curse, if you do not
obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn
away from the path that I enjoin upon you this day and
follow other gods]” (Dt. 11:26-30):
B. Why is this passage stated? The reason is that, since it is
said, “Life and death I have placed before you, a blessing
and a curse” (Dt. 30:19), perhaps the Israelites might say,
“Since the Omnipresent has placed before us two ways, the
way of life and the way of death, let us go in whichever
way we choose.”
C. Accordingly, Scripture says, “Choose life” (Dt. 30:19).
2. A. The matter may be compared to someone sitting at a crossroads.
Before him were two paths. One of them began in clear ground
but ended in thorns. The other began in thorns but ended in
clear ground.
B. He would inform the passersby, saying to them, “You see this
path, which begins in clear ground? For two or three steps you
will be going in clear ground, and in the end you will be walking
in thorns. And you see this path, which begins in thorns? For
two or three steps you will be going in thorns, but in the end
you will be walking on clear ground.”
C. So did Moses say to Israel, “You see how the wicked flour-
ish in this world for two or three days succeeding. But in
the end they will have occasion for regret.”
D. So it is said, “For there shall be no reward for
the evil man” (Prov. 24:20).
E. “The tears of such as were oppressed and had
no one to comfort them” (Qoh. 4:1)
F. “The fool folds his hands together and eats his
own flesh” (Qoh. 4:5)
G. “The way of the wicked is as darkness, they do
not know at what they stumble” (Prov. 4:19).
168 34. sifré to deuteronomy. parashat re"eh. 53-143
H. [Moses continues,] “You see the righteous, who

are distressed in this world? For two or three days they
are distressed, but in the end they will have occasion
for rejoicing.”
I. And so it is said, “That he may prove you, to do
you good at the end” (Dt. 8:16).
J. “Better is the end of the thing than its beginning”
(Qoh. 7:8).
K. “For I know the thoughts that I think concern-
ing you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of
evil, to give you a future and a hope” (Jer. 29:11).
L. “But the path of the righteous is as the light of
dawn” (Prov. 4:18).
3. A. R. Joshua b. Qorhah says, “The matter may be compared to
the case of a king who invited guests. His friend was seated among
them. The king indicated to him to take a fine helping, but the
other did not grasp it.”
B. So it is said, “I will instruct you and teach you
in the way which you shall go, I will give counsel, my
eye will be upon you” (Ps. 32:8).
C. Now when he saw that the friend did not grasp, he took his hand
and put it on the fine portion.
D. So it is said, “O Lord, the portion of my inher-
itance and of my cup, you maintain my lot” (Ps. 16:5).
The first exegetical parable, 2.A-B, C, does not precisely respond
to the issue of 1.B-C, the Israelites not only are confronted by a choice
but are advised by Moses on their choice. Moses is then compared
to the one sitting at a crossroads, 2.A-B, and this is made explicit at
C. But then the point of the parable does not intersect, since it con-
cerns the wicked and the righteous, the wicked flourishing for a time
but later on paying the price for their choices, the righteous suffer-
ing briefly in this world, but preparing for a great reward later on.
The elaborate florilegium of verses does not affect the pristine quality
of the parable, which concerns its own problem and not that of the
base-verse.
The second exegetical parable, 3A, C, clarifies the intruded verse,
B, and D, a somewhat odd arrangement, which does not obscure
the intent. The king had to instruct the guest, who did not grasp
what was offered to him, just as God had to tell Israel which por-
tion to select.
CXVI:V
1. A. “… lend him sufficient for whatever he needs:”
34. sifré to deuteronomy. parashat re"eh. 53-143 169
B. You are not commanded to make him rich.

2. A. “Whatever he needs:”
B. even a horse, even a slave.
3. A. There is the precedent [ma#aseh] involving Hillel the El-
der, who gave a poor man, son of a good family, a horse
with which to work, and a slave to serve him.
B. There is the further precedent [ma#aseh] in Upper Ga-
lilee, in which they served a guest a litra of meat every day.
The two Halakhic ma#asim sustain the exegesis of the base verse, 2.A-
B, and carry the matter beyond its exemplary limits.
170 chapter five
CHAPTER THIRTY-FIVE
PARASHAT SHOFETIM. 144-210: —
CHAPTER THIRTY-SIX
PARASHAT KI TESE. 211-296: —
172 chapter five
CHAPTER THIRTY-SEVEN
PARASHAT KI TABO. 297-303: —
CHAPTER THIRTY-EIGHT
PARASHAT NESABIM. 304-305
CCCV:I
1. A. “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Take for yourself Joshua, son of Nun’“
(Num. 27:18):
3. A. R. Nathan says, “Moses was distressed in his heart
that one of his sons did not stand forth [as leader]. Said
to him the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Why are you
distressed in your heart? Is it that one of your sons has
not stood forth?
B. “‘Now are not the sons of your brother, Aaron,
tantamount to your own sons.
C. “‘And so too the man whom I am setting up over
Israel will go and stand at the door of Eleazar [the priest,
Aaron’s son].’
D. “To what may this be compared? To a mortal king who
had a son who was not worthy of the throne. He took the
throne from him and gave it to the son of his ally.
E. “He said to him, ‘Even though I have assigned great-
ness to you, go and stand at my son’s door.’
F. “So said the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Even though
I have assigned greatness to you, go and stand at the door
of Eleazar.’
G. “That is in line with this verse of Scripture: ‘And he
will stand before Eleazar the priest’ (Num. 27:21).
H. “At that moment Moses’s strength returned, and
he encouraged Joshua before the presence of all Is-
rael, as it is said, ‘And then Moses called Joshua and
said to him in the sight of all Israel, ‘Be strong and
resolute, [for it is you who shall go with this people in
the land that the Lord swore to their fathers to give
them, and it is you who shall apportion it to them. And
the Lord himself will go before you. He will be with
you. He will not fail you or forsake you. Fear not and
be not dismayed]’ (Dt. 31:7-8).
I. “He said to him, ‘I hand this people over to you.
They are still lambs. They are still children. Do not
go nitpicking for every little thing that they do. For
174 38. sifré to deuteronomy. parashat nesabim. 304-305
even their Lord did not go nitpicking for every little

thing that they do.’
J. “And so Scripture says, ‘When Israel was a child,
then I loved him’ (Hos. 11:1).”
The exegetical parable, D-G, interrupts the flow from C to H. The
parable begins in the situation set forth by Nathan, A-C, in which
Moses is instructed to subordinate himself, thus once more the king
and the prince form the simile, their relationships replicating the ones
between Moses and Eleazar the priest.
CCCV:II
1. A. M#SH B: Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai was riding on
an ass, and his disciples were following after him.
B. He saw a young girl gathering barley from underneath
the hooves of the oxen of Arabs. When she saw Rabban
Yohanan b. Zakkai, she covered herself with her hair and
stood before him and said to him, “My lord, feed me.”
C. He said to her, “Whose daughter are you?”
D. She said to him, “The daughter of Naqdimon b. Gurion
am I.”
E. She said to him, “My lord, do you remember when
you witnessed through your signature the document of my
marriage settlement?”
F. Said Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai to his disciples, “I
signed as witness the document of this girl’s marriage settle-
ment, and I read in it: ‘a thousand thousands of golden denars
deriving from the household of her father in law.’
G. “Members of this girl’s household would not go
up to the Temple Mount to prostrate themselves be-
fore people spread before them felt carpets under their
feet, and then they would go in and prostrate them-
selves and go home in rejoicing.
H. “My entire life I have sought the meaning of this verse
of Scripture, and now I have found it:
I. “‘If you do not know, O most beautiful among women,
go out in the footsteps of the flock and feed your kids be-
side the shepherds’ tents’ (Song 1:8).
J. “Now I know the meaning. Do not read ‘your kids’
but ‘your bodies’ [a shift in a consonant of the same word
yields both senses].
K. “So long as the Israelites carry out the will of the
Omnipresent, no nation or kingdom can rule them. But when
the Israelites do not carry out the will of the Omnipresent,
he will hand them over into the power of a despicable nation,
not only into the power of a despicable nation, but even
beneath the hooves of the beasts of a despicable nation.”
38. sifré to deuteronomy. parashat nesabim. 304-305 175
I see these components of the pseudo-narrative: A-F+G, Yohanan’s

encounter with the formerly-rich beggar, then H, I-K, the exegesis
of the verse, Song 1:8, yielding the lesson of K. The exposition, I-
K, is fully grounded at K, and that component surely stands on its
own. Then the encounter with the woman, A-G, attached to I-K
by H, forms an illustration of the cited verse as interpreted at K.
Clearly, K does not govern the unfolding of the prior components
of the construction, because without H-K, A-F+G are entirely co-
herent, forming on their own a comprehensible anecdote.
CCCV:III
1. A. In a single year three righteous persons, Moses,
Aaron, and Miriam died.
2. A. At that time the Israelites were scattered and
bereft of the merit of all religious duties. All the Isra-
elites gathered to Moses and said to him, “Where is
your brother, Aaron?”
B. He said to them, “God has put him away in a
secret place, for the life of the world to come.”
C. But they did not believe him. They said to him,
“We know of you that you are merciless. Perhaps he
said something to you that was not appropriate, and
you imposed upon him the penalty of death!”
D. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do at
that time? He brought the bier of Aaron and held it
up in the heavens of heavens, and the Holy One, blessed
be He, stood in lamentation over him, and the minis-
tering angels responded to him.
E. What did they say [in response to God’s lamen-
tation]? “The Torah of truth was in his mouth, and
unrighteousness was not found in his lips; he walked
with me in peace and uprightness and did turn many
away from iniquity” (Ma. 2:6).
3. A. At that moment the Holy One, blessed be He,
said to the angel of death, “Go, bring me the soul of
Moses.”
B. He went and stood before him and said to him,
“Moses, give me your soul.”
C. He said to him, “In a place in which I am in ses-
sion, you have no right to stand, and yet you say to
me, ‘Give me your soul’? He growled at him and the
other went forth in a huff.
D. The angel of death went and brought the tale
back to the Omnipotent. Once again the Holy One,
blessed be He, said to the angel of death, “Go, bring
me the soul of Moses.”
176 38. sifré to deuteronomy. parashat nesabim. 304-305
E. He went to where he was and looked for him but

did not find him.
F. He went to the sea and said to it, “As to Moses,
have you seen him?”
G. The sea said to him, “From the day on which
he brought Israel through my midst, I have not seen
him.”
H. He went to the mountains and said to them, “As
to Moses, have you seen him?”
I. They said to him, “From the day on which the
Israelites received the Torah on Mount Sinai, we have
not seen him.”
J. He went to Gehenna and said to it, “As to Moses,
K. It said to him, “I have heard his name, but him
I have never seen.”
L. He went to the ministering angels and said to
them, “As to Moses, have you seen him?”
M. They said to him, “Go to mortals.”
N. He went to Israel and said to them, “As to Moses,
O. They said to him, “God knows his way. God has
hidden him away for the life of the world to come, and
no creature knows where he is.”
P. For it is said, “And he was buried in the valley”
(Dt. 34:6).
4. A. When Moses died, Joshua wept, crying out
and mourning for him bitterly.
B. He said, “My father, my father, my lord,
my lord.
C. “My father, for he raised me, my lord, for
he taught me Torah.”
D. And he mourned for him for many days,
until the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Joshua,
“Joshua, how long are you going to continue this
mourning of yours? And has Moses died only unto
you alone? And has he not died, also, unto me?
E. “For from the moment that he died, there
has been deep mourning before me, as it is said,
‘And in that day did the Lord, God of hosts, call
to wee ping and to lamentation’ (Is. 22:12).
F. “But it is certain for him that he gains the
world to come, as it is said, ‘And the Lord said
to Moses, Behold, you are going to sleep with your
fathers and... will arise’ (Dt. 31:16).”
38. sifré to deuteronomy. parashat nesabim. 304-305 177
tion or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? No. 1 announces the
theme: the death of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, but only Aaron,
then Moses are dealt with. No. 2, on Aaron, qualifies as authentic,
because the details that unfold hold together only at the end. That
is, the point of the suspicion of Moses, A-C, is to permit God to make
a public lamentation for Aaron. Also entirely authentic, a triumph
of narrative skill, No. 3 needs all of the intermediate details to reach
hits climax and point at 3,O, God knows where Moses is, but no
one else does. 3.A-C introduces the problem: the angel of death has
to locate Moses. Moses himself dismisses him. Then comes the main
event, D-E, giving way to the dramatic sequence, F-G, the sea, H-
I, the mountains, J-K, Gehenna, L-M, the angels, N-O, Israel. Nei-
ther nature nor Israel can find Moses, which is explained only at
the end: God has hidden him away for life in the world to come.
No. 4 simply dramatizes the sayings that are cited.
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? The conflict between the
angel of death and Moses forms the dynamic of the narrative, re-
solved at the end in a decisive manner.
ties, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? The conglomerate, Nos. 2, 3,
and 4, does not cohere, but No. 3 deftly elaborates its message, go-
ing through five interlocutors, the fifth being the climactic one.
178 39. sifré to deuteronomy. parashat ha"azinu. 306-341
CHAPTER THIRTY-NINE
PARASHAT HA"AZINU. 306-341
CCCVI:IV
1. A. Another interpretation of the verse, “Give ear, O heavens, let
me speak:”
B. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who
handed his son over to a teacher to sit and take care of
him.
C. Said that son, “My father was thinking that he has accom-
plished something by handing me over to a pedagogue. But
I’ll keep watch as he eats and drinks and sleeps, and I’ll go
my way and do what I need to.”
D. Said his father to him, “For my part I have handed you
over to a teacher only so that he will be one from whom
you cannot escape.”
E. So did Moses say to the Israelites, “Perhaps you’re
thinking of fleeing from under the wings of God’s pres-
ence or leaving the earth.”
F. Not only so, but the heavens make a record, as it is
said, “The heavens shall reveal his iniquity” (Job 20:27).
G How on the basis of Scripture do we know that
also the earth gives out information?
H. “And the earth shall rise up against him” (Job
20:27).
The king/prince exegetical parable closely tracks the sentiment ex-
pressed at E. But E should cite “Give ear…,” and only then refer
to Job 20:27. Nonetheless, with the heavens as the counterpart of
the pedagogue, the parable is an exact match for its task: why should
the heaven give ear to God’s instructions?
CCCVI:VI
1. A. Another teaching concerning the verse, “Give ear, O heavens,
let me speak:”
B. R. Judah says, “The matter may be compared to the case of a
king who had two administrators in a town. He gave over to them
his property and handed his son to them and said to them, ‘So
long as my son does what I want, pamper him and give him luxu-
39. sifré to deuteronomy. parashat ha"azinu. 306-341 179
ries and feed him and give him drink.

C. “‘But when he does not do what I want, let him not taste a thing
of what belongs to me.’
D. “Along these same lines, so long as the Israelites do what
the Omnipresent wants, what is written concerning them? ‘The
Lord will open to you his good treasure, the heaven’ (Dt. 28:12).
E. “When they do not do what the Omnipresent wants,
what is written concerning them? ‘And the anger of the Lord be
kindled against you, and he shut up heaven, so that there shall
be no rain, and the ground shall not yield her fruit’ (Dt. 11:17).”
The king/prince story is more precise, because of the match of heav-
en and earth to the two administrators, and that is the major im-
provement of this exegetical parable over the earlier one.
CCCVI:VII
1. A. Another teaching concerning the verse, “Give ear, O heavens,
let me speak:”
B. R. Nehemiah says, “The matter may be compared to the case
of a king who had a son. The son went bad. The king began to
complain against him to his brothers, began to complain against
him to his friends, began to complain against him to his neigh-
bors, began to complain against him to his relatives.
C. The king did not stop complaining against him until he said, “O
heaven, O earth, to whom shall I complain against you, besides
these?”
D. That is in line with this verse: “Give ear, O heavens, let me speak;
let the earth hear the words I utter!”
The third and last king/prince parable on “Give ear…” tracks the
matter of the complaint to high heaven. None of the three parables
pretends to stand on its own; all three articulate the point of com-
parison and closely follow the point of Scripture. The absence of
an articulated application of the parable in all cases finds a ready
explanation: it was superfluous.
CCCVI:XXIV
1. A. Another teaching concerning the phrase, “May my discourse
come down as the rain, [my speech distill as the dew, like
showers on young growths, like droplets on the grass]:”
B. R. Meir would say, “One should also collect teachings of
the Torah in the form of encompassing principles, for if
you collect them solely as details, they will exhaust you and
in the end you will not know what to do anyhow.
C. “The matter may be compared to the case of someone who went
to Caesarea and needed a hundred or two hundred zuz for the
trip. If he took the money as change, the coins would tire him
out and he would not know what to do. But if he put them to-
gether and brought sela-coins with him, and then paid them out
one by one wherever he wanted, [then he could manage].
D. “So too, someone who goes to Bet Ilias to the market and needed
a hundred manehs or even two myriads for the expense of the
trip. If he took the money as selas, the coins would tire him out
and he would not know what to do. But if he turned them into
denars of gold and then paid them out in change as he needed,
[he would be all right].”
I see no connection between Meir’s statement and the base-verse
to which it is attached. The parable translates the abstraction of
Meir’s principle that one should organize knowledge philosophical-
ly, from encompassing principles, not from illustrative cases. The
parable, C, is explicit and closely follows Meir’s statement. Then the
“so too,” clause of D repeats the same point with slightly varied
details. We have, then, a duplication of the parabolic statement, but
no application of the parable to the matters discussed at B.
CCCVII:IV
1. A. Another comment concerning the verse, “The Rock—his deeds
are perfect. [Yes, all his ways are just; a faithful God, never false,
true and upright is he]:”
B. When they arrested R. Haninah b. Teradion, a decree
against him was issued, that he be executed by burning,
along with his scroll.
C. They told him, “A decree against you has been issued,
that you be executed by burning, along with your scroll.”
D. He recited this verse: “The Rock—his deeds are per-
fect.”
E. They informed his wife, “A decree against your hus-
band has been issued, that he be executed by burning, along
with his scroll, and against you that you be put to death,
and she recited this verse: ‘a faithful God, never false, true
and upright is he.’”
F. They told his daughter, “A decree against your father
has been issued, that he be executed by burning, along with
his scroll, and against your mother, that she be executed,
and against you, that you ‘do work,’ and she recited this
verse: ‘Great in counsel and mighty in work, whose eyes
are open’ (Jer. 32:19).”
G. Said Rabbi, “What great righteous people are these,
for in their hour of trouble they called forth three verses
which justify God’s decree in a way that none of the rest
of the verses of Scripture do it.
H. “All three of them formed the exact intention in such
a way as to justify the judgment of God concerning them.”

2. A. A philosopher went to the ruler and said to him, “My
lord, do not boast that you have burned the Torah, for to
the place [heaven] from which it has come forth, it now
returns, namely, to the house of its father.”
B. He said to him, “Tomorrow you will be judged in the
same way as these [and be put to death].”
C. He said to him, “You give me very good news, that
tomorrow my share will be with theirs in the world to come.”
tion or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The three martyrs, No.
1, all affirm the sentiment of the base-verse, that all God’s ways are
just, a point that Rabbi makes, G-H in underscoring the coherence
of the three components of the narrative. No. 2 is tacked on as a
complement.
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? The tension is between
the Torah-learning of Haninah and his fate, which is to be burned
with a Torah, and this is stated three times. Then it is resolved by
Rabbi, as noted.
ties, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? The personalization of the the-
ology of divine justice is given extreme form in contrasting the faith
of the sage and his fate.
CCCVIII:II
1. A. [“Is corruption his? No, his children’s is the blemish.—
that crooked perverse generation—their baseness has played
him false. Do you thus requite the Lord, O dull and witless
people? Is not he the father who created you, fashioned you
and made you endure!” (Dt. 32:4-6).] In the name of Abba
Hedores they have said, “The Israelites violated every
negative commandment in the Torah, and all this why?
B. “It was so as not to give an occasion to wicked people
to say, ‘So long as we sin against him, we are pained be-
fore him.’
C. “To what is the matter to be compared?
D. “To the case of someone who was going forth to be crucified,
with his father weeping for him and his mother throwing herself
before him, this one saying, ‘Woe is me,’ and that one saying,
‘Woe is me.’
E. “So this pertains only to the one who is going forth to be cruci-
fied [and not to the parents, who cry ‘woe is me’].
F. “And so Scripture says, ‘Woe to their soul, for they have

done evil to themselves’ (Is. 3:9).”
The base verse states that the children of God suffer a blemish, and
God is not blemished by them. When they sin, they are the ones to
suffer and to be blemished, not God. The exegetical parable makes
the point then that while the father and the mother suffer, the real
victim of the sin that has brought about the crucifixion is the sinner
himself. So in the parable the parents stand for God.
CCCVIII:III
1. A. “… that crooked perverse generation—their baseness
has played him false:”
B. Said Moses to the Israelites, “You are a bunch of crooks,
you are a bunch of perverts. You are going only into the
fire.”
C. To what may the matter be compared? To someone who had in
hand a crooked staff and he gave it to a craftsman to straighten
it out: “Straighten it out with fire, and if not, then flatten it with
a plane, and, if not, chisel it down with a chisel and throw it into
the fire.”
D. And so Scripture says, “And I will deliver you into the
hand of brutish men, skilful at destroying. You will be fuel
for the fire” (Ez. 21:36-37).
The exegetical parable makes the point of Scripture, which is, the
sinful Israelites are like a crooked staff and will be straightened out
with fire. The simile is generated by the point that the base-verse
wishes to register.
CCCIX:I
1.A. [“Do you thus requite the Lord, O dull and witless
people? Is not he the father who created you, fashioned you
and made you endure!” (Dt. 32:4-6).]
B. “Do you thus requite the Lord:”
C. To what may the matter be compared?
D. To someone who went into the forum and insulted a councilor.
E. Those who heard said to him, “Idiot! Are you going and insult-
ing a councilor? What if he wants to beat you up or to tear your
garment or imprison you? Can you beat him?”
F. And if it were a centurion, a still more powerful figure, how much
the more so, and if he were a consul, greater than both, how
much the more so!
The point of the exegetical parable is, the Israelites have taken on
someone infinitely more powerful than they, and the parable then
goes over that ground in terms of the government’s ranking officials.

CCCIX:II
1. A. Another interpretation of the phrase, “Do you thus requite the
Lord:”
B. To what may the matter be compared?
C. To someone who went into the forum and insulted his father.
D. Those who heard it said to him, “Idiot! Whom are you standing
and insulting? It is your father. Listen: how much work has he
done for you, how much effort has he invested in you! If you
have not honored him in the past, you have to honor him now,
so that he will not write over his entire estate to others.”
E. So did Moses say to the Israelites, “If you do not re-
member the miracles and acts of might which the Holy One,
blessed be He, did for you in Egypt, then at least remem-
ber how many good things he is going to give you in the
world to come.”
This exegetical parable follows a more familiar pattern, by articu-
lating the point of the simile, thus E explains C-D. The parable stress-
es that the insult not only is churlish and ungrateful for past favors,
but also unwise and wasteful of future ones, which introduces into
the reading of the base-verse a consideration not explicitly present
there.
CCCIX:V
1. A. “Is not he the father who has acquired [another meaning
for the letters of the word created] you:”
B. Said Moses to the Israelites, “You are precious to him,
you are things he has acquired on his own, not merely what
he has inherited.”
C. The matter may be compared to the case of someone whose father
left him as an inheritance ten fields. The man went and bought
a field with his own means, and that field he loved more than all
of the fields that his father had left him as an inheritance.
D. And so too, there is the case of someone whose father left him
as an inheritance ten palaces. The man went and bought a palace
with his own means, and that palace he loved more than all of
the palaces that his father had left him as an inheritance.
E. So did Moses say to the Israelites, “You are precious
to him, you are things he has acquired on his own, not merely
what he has inherited.”
The two parables, C, D, are explained by E. Israel is valuable to
God because he himself has brought Israel into being, a point that
registers at C in the heir’s showing favor to the field he has acquired
on his own more than those who inherited, and at D the same point
pertains to a palace. I do not see what is added by D. Then, in the
convention that prevails, E articulates how the simile applies.
CCCXII:I
1. A. “For the Lord’s portion is his people, [Jacob his own allotment]:”
B. The matter may be compared to a king who had a field, which
he handed over to tenant-farmers.
C. The tenant-farmers began to steal [the produce of the field that
was owing to the king, so] he took it from them and handed it
over to the[ir] children.
D. The [tenant farmers’ children] began to conduct themselves worse
than the earlier ones.
E. He took it from their children and handed it over to the chil-
dren of the children.
F. They began to conduct themselves even worse than the earlier
ones.
G. He had a son. He said to them, “Get out of what is mine. I don’t
want you in it. Give me my portion, which I may get back.”
H. So when our father, Abraham, came into the world,
chaff came forth from him, Ishmael and all the children of
Keturah.
I. When Isaac came into the world, chaff came forth from
him, Esau and all the nobles of Edom.
J. They began to conduct themselves worse than the earlier
ones.
K. When Jacob came along, no chaff came forth from him.
All the sons that were born to him were proper people, as
it is said, “And Jacob was a perfect man, dwelling in tents”
(Gen. 25:27).
L. Whence will the Omnipresent regain his share? It will
be from Jacob: “For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob
his own allotment.”
M. And further: “For the Lord has chosen Jacob to him-
self” (Ps. 135:4).
This conventional exegetical parable, B-G, explains why Israel is
God’s portion. Now it is the king/God and the prince/Jacob. Ish-
mael and Esau produced children worse than themselves, so God
took back the heritage and regains his share through Jacob alone.
The narrative of H-K is fairly closely matched by the details of B-
G, but the correspondence is not identical, and the clash between
the conduct of the third generation of the parable and Jacob’s prog-
eny is startling.
CCCXIII:I
1. A. [“He found him in a desert region, in an empty howl-
ing waste. He engirded him, watched over him, guarded
him as the pupil of his eye. Like an eagle who rouses his
nestlings, gliding down to his young, so did he spread his
wings and take him, bear him along on his pinions; the Lord
alone did guide him, no alien god at his side” (Dt. 32:10-
12).]
B. “He found him in a desert region:”
C. This refers to Abraham.
D. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who went
with his legions into the wilderness. His legions deserted him in
a difficult situation, a place in which were marauding bands and
thugs, and went their way.
E. He appointed for himself a single hero, who said to him, “My
lord, king, do not be disheartened, and do not take fright for
any reason. By your life! I am not going to leave you before you
walk into your own palace and sleep in your own bed.”
F. That is in line with the statement of Scripture, “He said
to him, ‘I am the Lord, who took you out of Ur Casdim’”
(Gen. 15:7).
Now Abraham is the king, God is the hero, and then the exegetical
parable closely tracks the Scriptural narrative, God finding Abra-
ham in a desert region and guiding him homeward. I assume the
absence of an articulated application of the parable is because it was
implicit in the parable, start to finish.
CCCXVI:I
1. A. [“He set him atop the highlands, to feast on the yield of the earth;
he fed him honey from the crag, and oil from the flinty rock,
curd of kine and milk of flocks; with the best of lambs and rams
and he-goats, with the very finest wheat—and foaming grape-
blood was your drink” (Dt. 32:13-14).]
3. A. “… he fed him honey from the crag:”
B. Like the area around Sikhni.
C. There was the case [Ma#aseh], when R. Judah said to
his son, “Go and bring me figs from the jar.”
D. He said to him, “Father, it is honey [for the figs have
turned into honey].”
E. He said to him, “Put your hand in it and you’ll bring
up figs.”
4. A. “… and oil from the flinty rock:”
B. This refers to the olives from Gischala.
5. A. There was the case, [Ma#aseh], when R. Yosé said to
his son in Sepphoris, “Go up and bring us olives from the
upper room.”
B. He went and found the upper room flooded with ol-

ive-oil.
The two Ma#asim serve not for a Halakhic purpose, let alone as nar-
rative. They illustrate the allegations of Scripture concerning the
productivity, as to honey and olive oil, of the Land.
CCCXVII:VI
1. A. Another comment concerning, “… with the very finest wheat [–
and foaming grape-blood was your drink]” (Dt. 32:13-14):
B. In time to come every grain of wheat is going to be the size of
the two kidneys of a big ox, the weight of four Sepphorean li-
ters.
C. And if you find that surprising, look at turnip-heads.
2. A. There was the case [Ma#aseh] in which they weighed a
turnip head at the weight of thirty Sepphorean liters.
3. A. There was the case [Ma#aseh] in which a fox made a
nest in the head of a turnip.
4. A. There was a case [Ma#aseh] in Shehin in the matter of
a mustard stalk, which has three twigs.
B. One of them split off and it was used as the roofing for
the hut of a pottery.
C. They opened it and found in it nine qabs of mustard
seeds.
5. A. Said R. Simeon b. Halapta, “There was a cab-
bage stalk in my house, and I would go up and down
on it, as one goes up and down on a ladder.”
Three more ma#asim follow suit. These bear no Halakhic burden, but
carry out no exegetical task. They just illustrate a proposition, and
the use of the marker, Ma#aseh, bears no more significance than its
omission, as the contrast between Nos. 2, 3, and 4, on the one side,
and No. 5 indicates. There are no conceptual or formal differences
between the one group, bearing the marker, and the other item,
lacking it.
CCCXXII:V
1. A. “For they are a folk void of sense, [lacking in all discernment]:”
E. “‘… lacking in all discernment’: There is not a single one of them
who will take a good look at things and observe, ‘Aforetime, one
of us could pursue among the gentiles a thousand, and two could
take a myriad captive, but now one of the nations can pursue of
us a thousand, and two make ten thousand flee.’
F. “‘How could one have routed a thousand or two put ten thou-
sand to flight, unless their rock had sold them, the Lord had given
them up? For their rock is not like our rock, in our enemies’ own
estimation.’“
G. R. Nehemiah interprets it to speak of the nations of the world:

“The nations of the world have lost the seven religious duties
that I assigned to them.”
H. “‘… lacking in all discernment’: There is not a single one of them
who will take a good look at things and observe, ‘Aforetime, one
of us could pursue among the Israelites a thousand, and two could
make a myriad flee, but in the time of the Messiah one of the
Israelites can pursue of us a thousand, and two make ten thou-
sand flee.’
I. “‘How could one have routed a thousand or two put ten thou-
sand to flight, unless their rock had sold them, the Lord had given
them up? For their rock is not like our rock.’“
2. A. There was the case [Ma#aseh] of the war in Judea, in
which a decurion ran after an Israelite on a horse to kill
him, but he could not catch up with him.
B. Before he caught up with him, however, a snake came
out and bit him on his heal.
C. He said, “Do not think that it is because we are strong
that they have been handed over to us.
D. “‘How could one have routed a thousand or two put
ten thousand to flight, unless their rock had sold them, the
Lord had given them up.’“
The Ma#aseh illustrates the exegeses of 1.E, and, verbatim, 1.I at 2.D.
But the Ma#aseh here coheres as an authentic story, since the point
of the unfolding details of the narrative, A-B, becomes clear only at
the end, C-D.
CCCXXIII:III
1. A. “… unless their rock had sold them, the Lord had given them
up:”
B. “I am not the one who is going to give you up. Others will give
you up.”
2. A. There was a case [Ma#aseh] in which the flies were the
ones to give them up in Judah.
The Ma#aseh illustrates the point that even lowly creatures of nature
handed the Israelites over to their enemies. Once more we find no
resemblance between the use of Ma#aseh in this document and in
Mishnah-Tosefta, or in Sifra for that matter.
CCCXXIII:III
3. A. R. Hanina of Tibeon says, “There is the comparison to one who
said to his fellow, ‘I am going to sell you as a slave, to be deliv-
ered at some time in the future.’
B. “[God speaks:] ‘But I for my part am not like that. But I sell you
and I forthwith hand you over.’”
This is an odd item, claiming to serve as an inert Mashal, A, which

takes on meaning only at B. It is uncommon for the interpretation
to be delivered within the pseudo-narrative framework of the para-
ble itself, as happens at B.
CCCXXXV:II
1. A. “… Enjoin them upon your children, that they may observe [faith-
fully all the terms of this Torah]:”
B. He said to them, “I have to be thankful to you for keeping the
Torah after me, so you too must be thankful to your children
for keeping the Torah after you.”
2. A. There was the case [Ma#aseh] when Our Rabbi came
from Laodicea, and R. Yosé b. R. Judah and R. Eleazar b.
Judah came and went into session in his presence.
B. He said to them, “Draw near. As I have to be thankful
to you for keeping the Torah after me, so you too must be
thankful to your children for keeping the Torah after you.
C. “Now were Moses not a great person, and had
others not accepted the Torah from him, it would have
been vain.
D. “We—all the more so [do we depend upon your
accepting and carrying out the Torah, thus keeping it
alive]!
E. “Therefore it is said, ‘Enjoin them upon your
children, that they may observe [faithfully all the terms
of this Torah].’”
The Ma#aseh, 2.A-B, serves as does a Mashal in illustrating the exe-
getical proposition, here 1.B to 1.A. The difference is the shift from
abstract figures, here a king/prince, to the named sages, Our Rab-
bi and his sons.
CHAPTER FORTY
PARASHAT VEZOT HABBERAKHAH. 342-357
CCCXLIII:I
1. A. [“He said, ‘The Lord came from Sinai; he shone upon
them from Seir. He appeared from Mount Paran and ap-
proached from Ribeboth-kodesh, lightning flashing at them
from his right, lover, indeed, of the people, their hallowed
are all in your hand. They followed in your steps, accept-
ing your pronouncements, when Moses charged us with the
Torah as the heritage of the congregation of Jacob. Then
he became King in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people
assembled, the tribes of Israel together’” (Dt. 33:2-6).]
B. “He said, ‘The Lord came from Sinai:’”
C. This indicates that, when Moses commenced, he did
not commence by dealing with what Israel needed first,
before commencing with words of praise for the Omnipres-
ent.
2. A. The matter may be compared to the case of a hired orator, who
was standing on the platform in court, to speak in behalf of a
client. He did not commence by dealing with the needs of that
man first, before he commenced by praising the king:
B. “Happy is the world because of his rule, happy is the world be-
cause of his judgment, on us shines the sun, on us shines the moon.”
C. And others gave praise along with him.
D. And then he opened up the matter of the needs of the person
who had hired him, and then at the end, he concluded by prais-
ing the king once more.
E. So too our lord, Moses did not commence by dealing
with the needs of Israel, before he commenced by praising
the Omnipresent:
F. “The Lord came from Sinai.”
G. Then he dealt with what Israel needed:
H. “Then he became King in Jeshurun, when the heads
of the people assembled, the tribes of Israel together.”
I. And at the end he closed by praising the Omnipres-
ent: “There is none like God, O Jeshurun” (Dt. 33:26).
The remarkable exegetical parable, No. 2, illustrates 1.B-C. But it
190 40. parashat vezot habberakhah. 342-357
does so in quite exceptional detail, with its matching of the clauses

of the professional orator, B, C, D, with Moses’s statements, F, G,
H. The parable is absolutely particular to its case, which has gener-
ated its details.
CCCXLIII:IV
1. A. Another teaching concerning the phrase, “He said, ‘The Lord
came from Sinai’:”
B. When the Omnipresent appeared to give the Torah to
Israel, it was not to Israel alone that he revealed himself
but to every nation.
C. First of all he came to the children of Esau. He said to
them, “Will you accept the Torah?”
D. They said to him, “What is written in it?”
E. He said to them, “‘You shall not murder’ (Ex. 20:13).”
F. They said to him, “The very being of ‘those men’
[namely, us] and of their father is to murder, for it is said,
‘But the hands are the hands of Esau”’(Gen. 27:22). ‘By
your sword you shall live’ (Gen. 27:40).”
G. So he went to the children of Ammon and Moab and
said to them, “Will you accept the Torah?”
H. They said to him, “What is written in it?”
I. He said to them, “‘You shall not commit adultery’ (Ex.
20:13).”
J. They said to him, “The very essence of fornication
belongs to them [us], for it is said, ‘Thus were both the
daughters of Lot with child by their fathers’ (Gen. 19:36).”
K. So he went to the children of Ishmael and said to them,
“Will you accept the Torah?”
L. They said to him, “What is written in it?”
M. He said to them, “‘You shall not steal’ (Ex. 20:13).”
N. They said to him, “The very essence of their [our] fa-
ther is thievery, as it is said, ‘And he shall be a wild ass of
a man’ (Gen. 16:12).”
O. And so it went. He went to every nation, asking them,
“Will you accept the Torah?”
P. For so it is said, “All the kings of the earth shall give
you thanks, O Lord, for they have heard the words of your
mouth” (Ps. 138:4).
Q. Might one suppose that they listened and accepted
the Torah?
R. Scripture says, “And I will execute vengeance in
anger and fury upon the nations, because they did not
listen” (Mic. 5:14).
S. And it is not enough for them that they did not
listen, but even the seven religious duties that the chil-
40. parashat vezot habberakhah. 342-357 191
dren of Noah indeed accepted upon themselves they

could not uphold before breaking them.
T. When the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that that is
how things were, he gave them to Israel.
tion or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? This absolutely authen-
tic, perfectly realized narrative coheres by reason of its conclusion
and goal, which is at T. The triplet of units, C-F, G-J, K-N, are
matched item by item, giving way at the end to O+P, T (treating
Q-S as an intrusion into the perfection established fore and aft. The
climax, imparting consequence to all that has gone before, is T: when
God saw that the nations by their nature could not obey the To-
rah, he gave it to Israel, which could try.
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? The conflict is between
Israel and the nations over God’s favor, and it is resolved by the
essential failure of the nations to accommodate God’s revealed will
in the Torah.
ties, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? The matched triplet adheres
to the general preference for a repetition of an action or for the di-
vision of a story into three subsets.
CCCXLIII:IV
1. A. Another teaching concerning the phrase, “He said, ‘The Lord
came from Sinai:’”
2. A. The matter may be compared to the case of a person
who sent his ass and dog to the threshing floor and loaded
up a letekh of grain on his ass and three seahs of grain on
his dog. The ass went along, while the dog panted.
B. He took a seah of grain off the dog and put it on the
ass, so with the second, so with the third.
C. Thus was Israel: they accepted the Torah, complete with
all its secondary amplifications and minor details, even the
seven religious duties that the children of Noah could not
uphold without breaking them did the Israelites come along
and accept.
D. That is why it is said, “The Lord came from Sinai; he shone upon
them from Seir.”
The secondary parable carries forward the preceding authentic nar-
rative, augmenting the reference to the seven commandments as-
signed to the children of Noah. They could not do even these, but
the Israelites took them and many more upon themselves. The par-
able depends upon its exegetical context for coherence and mean-
ing.
CCCXLIII:V
1. A. Another teaching concerning the phrase, “He said, ‘The
Lord came from Sinai; he shone upon them from Seir’:”
B. When the Holy One, blessed be He, proceeds to exact
punishment from Seir, he is destined to shake the entire
world with its inhabitants, just as he shook it when he gave
the Torah,
C. as it is said, “Lord, when you went out of Seir, when
you marched out of the field of Edom, the earth trembled,
the heavens dropped water, yes, the clouds dropped wa-
ter” (Judges 5:4).
D. And then: “And afterward his brother came forth, and
his hand held onto Esau’s heel, and he was called Jacob”
(Gen. 25:26).
E. Said to them the Holy One, blessed be He, “No na-
tion or language can come among you.”
2. A. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who wanted
to give a gift to one of his sons, and the king was afraid on ac-
count of [the consequent envy] of his brothers and allies, and on
account of his relatives.
B. What did the son do?
C. He went and dressed up and fixed his hair. The king said to him,
“To you I am giving a gift [having made yourself worthy of it].”
D. So when our father, Abraham, came into the world,
chaff came forth from him, Ishmael and the sons of Keturah.
E. They turned out worse than the first, and when Isaac
came along chaff came forth from him, Esau and all the
dukes of Edom, who turned out to be still worse than the
earlier ones.
F. But when Jacob came along, no chaff come forth from
him, but all his sons were born flawless, in line with this
verse:
G. “And Jacob was a flawless man, dwelling in tents” (Gen.
25:27).
H. Said to him the Holy One, blessed be He, “To you I
am going to give the Torah.”
I. That is in line with this verse, “The Lord came
from Sinai; he shone upon them from Seir.”
Once more, why Israel in particular? Now the meaning is, Israel,
not Isaac not Abraham (thus the rejection of the princes corresponds
to the rejection of the children of Abraham and of Isaac). But that

shifts the context, which is, why Israel, not the gentiles? The exe-
getical parable, 2.A-C, is particular to the context defined by D-I,
serving the base-verse and even the intersecting verses of 1.A-E.
CCCXLIII:III
1. A. [“… when Moses charged us with the Torah as the heri-
tage of the congregation of Jacob:”]
B. Another matter: Do not read the letters as though they
spelled the word “betrothed,” but rather as though they
sounded the word “heritage.”
C. This teaches that the Torah is the heritage of Israel.
2. A. There is a parable. To what may the matter be compared? To
the case of a prince who was taken overseas as a captive when
he was a child.
B. If he wanted to return, even after a hundred years, he would
not be ashamed to come back, for he says, “It is to my heritage
that I am coming home.”
C. So a disciple of a sage who separated from words of Torah and
went off to other matters, if he wanted to come back, even after
a hundred years, he would not be ashamed to come back, for he
says, “It is to my heritage that I am coming home.”
D. So it is said, “as the heritage of the congregation of Jacob.”
Now the exegetical parable’s prince is not Israel, with God as the
king, but it is the lapsed disciple of sages, who wishes to return home
to Torah-study. This represents a somewhat odd utilization of the
exegetical parable, ordinarily pertaining as it does to Israel as a whole,
Israel as the prince, not the disciple of the sage. In any event there
is nothing universal about the parable.
CCCXLIV:III
1. A. Another interpretation of the phrase, “… lover, indeed,
of the people, their hallowed are all in your hand]:”
B. This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not
apportion love to the nations of the world as he did to Is-
rael.
C. You may know that that is so.
D. For lo, sages have ruled, “That which is stolen from a
gentile is permitted, but from an Israelite is forbidden.”
2. A. Now the government sent two detectives, saying to them, “Go
and pretend to be Jews and examine their Torah and find out
what it is all about.”
B. They went to Rabban Gamaliel, to Usha, and studied Scripture
and repeated the Mishnah, exegesis of laws and lore. When they
were leaving, they said, “This entire Torah is certainly valuable
and praiseworthy, except for this one ruling, which you state,
‘That which is stolen from a gentile is permitted, but from an
Israelite is forbidden.’
C. “But we shall not inform the government about this matter.”
The episode, 2.A-C, cannot be called a narrative. It is attached for
obvious reasons. In the absence of the conventional marker, I can-
not classify it as a Ma#aseh. But that classification has already lost all
particular significance and is now, in this document, a mere formality.
CCCXLVII:I
1. A. [“Then he became King in Jeshurun, when the heads
of the people assembled, the tribes of Israel together” (Dt.
33:2-6). “May Reuben live and not die, though few be his
numbers” (Dt. 33:6). And this he said of Judah: Hear, O
Lord, the voice of Judah and restore him to his people.
Though his own hands strive for him, help him against his
foes” (Dt. 33:7).]
B. “… the tribes of Israel together. May Reuben live and
not die:”
C. What has one thing to do with the other?
D. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who came to
his children from time to time. When he would leave his chil-
dren, his children and relatives would accompany him.
E. He said to them, “My children, perhaps you have need to say
something, perhaps you have something in mind? Tell me.”
F. They said to him, “Father, we need nothing, and we have noth-
ing that we want, except for you to become reconciled with our
eldest brother.”
G. So were it not for the other tribal founders, the Om-
nipresent would not have become reconciled with Reuben.
H. That is why it is said: “… the tribes of Israel together.
May Reuben live and not die.”
The exegetical parable, D-F, answers the question of C, and the
answer is articulated at G-H. Without the application specified there,
we should scarcely have understood how the parable responds to
its assignment, but the parable on its own bears no self-evident les-
son or application. The effect of the whole is to invoke in the read-
ing of the blessing of Moses for the tribes the entire narrative of
Genesis.
CCCXLIX:I
1. A. [“And of Levi he said, ‘Let your Thummim and Urim
be with your faithful one, whom you tested at Massah, chal-
lenged at the waters of Meribah; who said of his father and
mother, “I consider them not.” His brothers he disregarded,

ignored his own children. Your precepts alone they observed
and kept your covenant. They shall teach your laws to Jacob
and your instructions to Israel. They shall offer you incense
to savor and whole-offerings on your altar. Bless, O Lord,
his substance and favor his undertakings. Smite the loins
of his foes; let his enemies rise no more’” (Dt. 33:8-11).]
B. “And of Levi he said:”
C. Why is this stated [concerning Levi in particular]?
D. Since Simeon and Levi both drank from a single cup,
as it is said, “Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and
their wrath, for it was cruel; I will divide them in Jacob
and scatter them in Israel” (Gen. 49:7).
E. The matter may be compared to the case of two who borrowed
money from the king. One of them paid the king back and then
went and lent the king money. But as to the other, it was not
enough that he did not pay the king back, but he went and bor-
rowed more.
F. So Simeon and Levi both borrowed at Shechem [by
committing murder taking and squandering some of the
merit that their ancestors and they had stored up], as the
following verse says: “Two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon
and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword and came
upon the city unaware and slew all the males” (Gen. 34:25).
G. In the wilderness Levi paid back what he had borrowed
[of the prior merit[: “Then Moses stood in the gate of the
camp and said, ‘Whoever is on the Lord’s side, let him come
to me.’ And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves to-
gether to him. And he said to them, ‘Thus says the Lord,
God of Israel: Put on everyone his sword upon his thigh....’
And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses”
(Ex. 32:26-28).
H. Then at Shittim he went and lent to the Omnipresent:
“Phineas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned
my wrath away from the children of Israel, for he was very
jealous for my sake among them, so I did not consume the
children of Israel in my jealousy” (Num. 25:11).
I. As to Simeon, it was not enough that he did not pay
back [what he had borrowed at Shechem], but he went and
borrowed more: “Now the name of the man of Israel that
was slain, who was killed with the Midianite woman, was
Zimri son of Salu, a prince of a father’s house among the
Simeonites” (Num. 25:14).
J. That is why it is said, “And of Levi he said.”
Here, once more, the exegetical parable, E, is systematically inter-
preted in context, G-I, and the parable is particular to its exegetical

case and task, as seems to be the pattern here.
CCCLII:VI
4. A. Another teaching concerning the question, on what
account did Benjamin enjoy the merit of having the Pres-
ence of God come to rest in his territory?
B. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who
had many children. When they grew up, each one of them
went and found a place for himself.
C. But the youngest of them was especially beloved of his
father. [The king] would eat and drink with him, leaning
on him when he went out and when he came in.
D. So Benjamin, who was righteous, was the youngest
of the tribal ancestors, and his father, Jacob, would eat
and drink with him, leaning on him when he went out
and when he came in.
E. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, “In the place
in which this righteous man laid his hands, I shall bring
my Presence to rest: ‘as he rests between his shoulders.’”
As earlier, the exegetical parable, B-C, is spelled out in context, D-
E, and responds to the precipitating question, A—all in rich detail.
Here once more the parable bears cogency only in its exegetical
context.
CCCLII:VII
1. A. And on what account did Benjamin enjoy the merit of having
the Presence of God come to rest in his territory?
B. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who from
time to time came to visit his children, and each one would say,
“Let him abide with me.”
C. The youngest of them all said, “Is it possible that father will ever
neglect my elder brothers and abide with me?”
D. His face fell, and he was disheartened.
E. [The king] said, “Have you seen my youngest son, looking down-
cast and disheartened? Now the food and drink will come from
you others, but my lodging will be with him.”
F. So the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “The chosen house
will be in the property of Benjamin, but the offerings will derive
from all of the tribes equally.”
A familiar parabolic narrative, the king (God) and the princes (trib-
al progenitors), involving periodic visits of the king to the princes,
now answers a cognate question. The details of the parable, B-E,
are somewhat elaborate for the exegetical issue resolved at F, but

are by no means disproportionate.
CCCLV:XV
1. A. Another statement concerning the phrase, “… may he be the
favorite of his brothers, [may he dip his foot in oil]:”
B. Among all Israelite territories there is none that so completely
observes the laws of the year of release as does the territory of
Asher.
2. A. “… may he dip his foot in oil:”
B. This teaches that the territory of Asher gushes oil like a spring.
3. A. There is the story that the people of Laodicea were short
of oil. They appointed a deputy and said to him, “Go and
buy oil for us for ten thousand talents.”
B. He went to Tyre and said to them, “I need oil worth
ten thousand talents.”
C. They said to him, “Go to So-and-so.”
D. He went to the house of So-and-so but did not find him.
They said to him, “Lo, he is out in the field.”
E. He went and found him harrowing under the olive trees.
F. He said to him, “I need oil worth ten thousand talents.”
G. He said to him, “Wait ‘till I finish this tree.”
H. When he had finished the work on that tree, taking his
utensils and going along, the deputy said, “This man can’t
have enough oil to fill my order of ten thousand talents’
worth. I guess the Jews are just kidding around with me.”
I. When he came to his house, the farmer called his slave-
girl and said to her, “Come and wash our feet.”
J. She filled a bowl with olive oil and washed off their
feet, this showing the sense of the verse, “… may he dip
his foot in oil.”
K. He set bread before him and he ate, then drank. After
he had eaten and drunk, he went and measured out for
him oil to fill an order for ten thousand talents’ worth.
L. He said to him, “Do you want any more?”
M. He said to him, “I don’t have money.”
N. He said to him, “Take more, and I’ll come along with
you and collect the money owing to me.”
O. He went and measured out for him another eighteen
thousand talents’ worth.
P. They say that that man did not leave behind a camel
or an ass in the land of Israel, that he did not lead away
with him [carrying so much oil].
Q. The people of Laodicea spied him coming and came
out to receive him three mils from the city and saluted him
with great dignity.
R. He said to them, “I don’t have this salute coming to
me. It belongs to this man [the Jew who was coming along].
For everything I have with me belongs to him, and not only
so, but I owe him, in addition to what I brought along, an
additional eighteen thousand talents.”
S. This serves to illustrate the verse: “There is one
who pretends to be rich but has nothing, there is one
who pretends to be poor and has much wealth” (Prov.
13:7).
tion or event that precipitates the telling of the tale? The authentic narra-
tive breaks down into these parts: (1) the deputy reaches Tyre and
finds the oil, A-H, he uses oil profligately, showing the abundance,
I-O, and the presentation of the oil to the purchasers, P-R. Then
the point of the story, stating what makes the whole cohere, is at S,
an illustration of Prov. 13:7. The flow of narrative is deliberate and
the whole merges as a coherent anecdote.
the tale and how is the point of tension resolved? The story illustrates the
blessing of Asher; this is what an abundance of oil looks like.
ties, e.g., long or short, complex or simple? The story follows the triplet-
model; it is average in length for our document, and simple in struc-
ture.
CCCLV:XVII
1. A. [“O Jeshurun, there is none like God, riding through
the heavens to help you, through the skies in his majesty.
The ancient God is a refuge, a support are the arms ever-
lasting. He drove out the enemy before you. By his com-
mand: Destroy. Thus Israel dwells in safety, untroubled is
Jacob’s abode, in a land of grain and wine, under heavens
dripping dew. O happy Israel! who is like you, a people
delivered by the Lord, your protecting shield, your sword
triumphant. Your enemies shall come cringing before you
and you shall tread on their backs” (Dt. 33:24-29).]
8. A. “… through the skies in his majesty:”
B. All the Israelites gathered before Moses and said to him,
“Our lord, Moses, tell us: what is the measure of honor [paid
to God] on high?”
C. He said to them, “On the basis of the lower heavens
you may know the measure of honor [paid to God] on high.”
9. A. There is a parable [Mashal]. To what may the matter be likened?
B. It may be compared to someone who said, “I want to witness

the honor paid to the king.”
C. They said to him, “Go to a town and you will see it.”
D. He went and saw a veil spread over the gate of the town, with
precious stones and pearls set in it, and he could not take his
eyes off it, until he stumbled.”
E. They said to him, “If you could not take your eyes off the veil
spread over the gate of the town, with precious stones and pearls
set in it without stumbling, had you actually entered the town,
how much the more so!”
F. On that account it is said, “… through the skies in his
majesty.”
The exegetical parable, 9.A-E, exactly captures the terms of the base-
verse. The base-verse requires an adumbration in the lower of the
honor paid to God in highest heaven, and the veil of the parable,
D, stands for the honor paid to God in the lower heavens. The de-
tail of E corresponds to nothing in the exegetical exposition of No.
8 but it makes a comment on No. 8: If you cannot take your eyes
off the lower heavens, how much the more will you be dazzled by
the honor paid to God on high. So the entire parable is formed in
correspondence with the exegetical task, which it realizes.
CCCLVI:IV
2. A. [“O happy Israel! Who is like you, [a people delivered
by the Lord, your protecting shield, your sword triumphant?
Your enemies shall come cringing before you and you shall
tread on their backs]:” “O happy Israel:”
B. All the Israelites gathered before Moses, saying to him,
“Our lord, Moses, tell us what good the Holy One, blessed
be He, is going to give us in the age to come.”
C. He said to them, “I do not know what to say to you?
Happy are you for what is ready for you.”
3. A. The matter may be compared to the case of a man who handed
his son over to a teacher, who would take him about and show
things to him and say to him, “All these trees are yours, all these
vines are yours, all these olive trees are yours.”
B. When he got tired of showing him things, he said to him, “I do
not know what to say to you? Happy are you for what is ready
for you.”
C. Thus said Moses to Israel, “I do not know what to say
to you? Happy are you for what is ready for you:
D. “‘O how abundant is your goodness, which you have
laid up for those who fear you’ (Ps. 31:20).”
Once more, the exegetical parable, 3.A-B, translates the exegesis of
the base-verse, 2.B-C, into terms of a father/son/teacher. Moses is

the teacher, the trees, vines, olive trees are the signs of the inherit-
ance, and the rest flows. Here again, without the exegetical task, we
have no comprehensible parable.
CCCLVII:XI
1. A. “[So Moses,] the servant of the Lord, [died there, in
the land of Moab, at the command of the Lord. He buried
him in the valley in the land of Moab, near Beth-peor, and
no one knows his burial place to his day:”
2. A. “… at the command of the Lord:”
B. When the Omnipresent takes the souls of the righteous,
it is in a spirit of serenity that he takes them.
C. There is an analogy: to what may the matter be compared?
D. To a reliable person who was in a town, with whom everyone
deposited their bailments for safe-keeping.
E. When one of them would come to retrieve his property, [the
reliable man] would produce and hand over the object, since he
knew precisely where it was.
F. And if [the owner] had occasion to send for a bailment with his
son or slave or agent, he would have to turn things topsy-turvy,
for he did not know where things were. [trans. Robert Hammer:
“But when the bailer had to send his son… to the bailee for his
deposit, he had to turn everything upside down, since he did not
know where it was.”]
G. Thus when the Omnipresent takes the souls of the righteous, it
is in a spirit of serenity that he takes them.
H. But when he takes the souls of the wicked, he hands them over
to evil messengers, merciless messengers, who are to drag away
those souls.
I. And so Scripture says, “Therefore a cruel angel shall
be sent against him” (Prov. 17:11).
J. “Their soul perishes in youth” (Job 36:14).
The exegetical parable is somewhat out of line with the exegetical
task. That is announced at 2.A-B, when God takes the souls, it is in
a transaction of serenity. There is no other participant in the trans-
action, that is, no other messenger for the bailment but God. The
parable focuses, D, on the bailee, with whom the bailment is left,
so too, E. Then the point should pertain to the bailee and his reli-
ability. But F shifts the ground to the character of the bailer, who
has left and now wishes to fetch the bailment—and not only to the
character of the bailer, but to the identity of the messenger. Now
the point is, the character of the messenger makes all the difference.
And that is how the parable is resolved: when God takes the souls,
it is in the spirit of serenity, but to take the souls of the wicked, he

hands the task over to cruel agents. The upshot is simple: the para-
ble is spun out of the requirements of the exegesis, I-J, and so far as
it has independent standing, it is to establish some lesson having to
do with the contrast between E and some unrealized counterpart,
e.g., an unreliable person, who did not know where things were.
CCCLVII:XVIII
1. A. [“There has never yet risen in Israel a prophet like Moses,
whom the Lord knew face to face; remember all the signs and
portents which the Lord sent him to show in Egypt to Pharaoh
and all his servants and the whole land; remember the strong
hand of Moses and the terrible deeds which he did in the sight
of all Israel” (Dt. 34:10-13).]
B. “There has never yet risen in Israel a prophet like Moses:”
C. In Israel none arose, but among the nations, one did arise.
D. Who is that? It is Balaam son of Beor.
2. A. But there is quite a difference between the proph-
ecy of Moses and the prophecy of Balaam.
B. Moses did not know with whom he was talking,
but Balaam knew with whom he was talking.
C. For it is said, “… the oracle of one who hears
the statements of God” (Num. 24:16).
D. Moses did not know when [God] would speak
with him, until he actually was spoken with, while
Balaam knew full well exactly when he would be spo-
ken with.
E. For it is said, “And knows the knowledge of the
Most High” (Num. 24:16).
F. Moses would speak with [God] only standing up,
as it is said, “And you, stand here with me” (Dt. 5:28).
G. But Balaam was spoken with when he had fallen,
as it is said, “Who sees the vision of the Almighty, having
fallen down with open eyes” (Num. 24:4).
H. To what is the matter comparable? To the case of the
king’s butcher, who knows precisely how much the king is
spending on his table.
The parable, H, supplies a simile to illustrate the contrast drawn at
F- G: Balaam is the compared to the king’s butcher. It does not strike
me as a powerfully illuminating parable.
202 41. narratives in sifré to deuteronomy
CHAPTER FORTY-ONE
NARRATIVES IN
SIFRÉ TO DEUTERONOMY
In the program of Sifré to Deuteronomy, as in that of Sifré to Num-

bers, the only narrative form of any consequence is the exegetical
parable. That is because, like Sifré to Numbers, Sifré to Deuteron-
omy systematically works from verse to verse, beginning to end,
commenting on aspects of interest to the exegetes. And since, to the
main purpose of the document, exegesis of verses is a means to an
end, the exegetical parable in Sifré to Deuteronomy mostly proves
particular to the exegetical problem at hand. Rarely does the simile
appear to have been adapted to serve the case; ordinarily it simply
translates, into king/prince/queen/ally-transactions, terms or rela-
tionships, the exact requirements of the exegesis itself. That fact
emerges in our detailed review of the data.
A second fact deserves attention. The Halakhic parable, which
performed valiantly in Sifra, occurs only rarely here and in the com-
panion Sifré to Numbers. Indeed, the entire exposition of the Hala-
khic chapters, Deuteronomy 12-26, omits all narrative and pseudo-
narrative writing. The parable in both Sifrés serves solely in Aggadic
contexts and, as is clear, only to clarify the meanings of statements
of Scripture. The Ma#aseh too plays a strikingly limited role, and it
furthermore loses the specificity of form and purpose that made a
mark in the Mishnah-Tosefta’s counterparts. So what we do find
should not obscure what we miss.
So much for the narrative and pseudo-narrative repertoire, what
of the document viewed whole? The exegetical enterprise of Sifré
to Deuteronomy proves purposive and focused, in a way in which,
in my reading of Sifré to Numbers, it does not. Specifically, out of
the episodic cases and examples set forth in the book of Deuteron-
omy, sages in Sifré to Deuteronomy seek generalizations and gov-
erning principles. What is truly particular to that document is its
systematic mode of methodical analysis, in which it does two things.
First, the document’s compilers take the details of cases and care-
41. narratives in sifré to deuteronomy 203
fully re-frame them into rules pertaining to all cases. The author-
ship therefore asks those questions of susceptibility-to-generalization
(“generalizability”) that first-class philosophical minds raise. And
second, they answer those questions by showing what details restrict
the prevailing law to the conditions of the case, and what details
exemplify the encompassing traits of the law overall. These are, af-
ter all, the two possibilities. The law is either limited to the case and
to all cases that replicate this one. Or the law derives from the prin-
ciples exemplified, in detail, in the case at hand. Essentially, as a
matter of both logic and topical program, our authorship has re-
read the legal portions of the book of Deuteronomy and turned
Scripture into what we now know is the orderly and encompassing
code supplied by the Mishnah. To state matters simply, this author-
ship “mishna-izes” Scripture in Scripture’s Halakhic contexts.
To this Halakhic project, with its thought-problems transcending
simple exposition, the authentic, successful narratives are absolute-
ly irrelevant, and we find only the same negligible proportion rela-
tive to the whole that we found in Mishnah-Tosefta, Sifré to Num-
bers and Sifra. What purpose is served, what task best performed,
by the authentic, successful narrative remains to be discovered in
documents that find that type of narrative useful.

That point is reinforced by a simple fact. All five authentic narra-
tives stand independent of their exegetical context, and, it goes with-
out saying, none intervenes in a Halakhic one.
1. XLIII:III.7-8 Rabban Gamaliel, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar b. Azariah, and
R. Aqiba were going toward Rome. They heard the sound of the city’s
traffic from as far away as Puteoli, a hundred and twenty mil away.
They began to cry, while R. Aqiba laughed. They said to him, “Aqiba,
why are we crying while you are laughing?” He said to them, “Why
are you crying?” They said to him, “Should we not cry, since gentiles,
idolators, sacrifice to their idols and bow down to icons, but dwell
securely in prosperity, serenely, while the house of the footstool of our
God has been put to the torch and left a lair for beasts of the field?”
He said to them, “That is precisely why I was laughing. If this is how
he has rewarded those who anger him, all the more so will he reward
those who do his will.” Another time they went up to Jerusalem and
go to Mount Scopus. They tore their garments. They came to the
mountain of the house of the temple and saw a fox go forth from the
house of the holy of holies. They began to cry, while R. Aqiba laughed.
Just as the punishment for idolatry has taken place, so surely

will God forgive Israel when it repents. That theological
conviction is not particular to the setting in which the story
finds its place, Dt. 11:13ff. The story is beautifully executed
for its balanced counterparts.
2. CCCV:III. 3. At that moment the Holy One, blessed be He, said to
the angel of death, “Go, bring me the soul of Moses.” He went and
stood before him and said to him, “Moses, give me your soul.” He
said to him, “In a place in which I am in session, you have no right to
stand, and yet you say to me, ‘Give me your soul’? He growled at him
and the other went forth in a huff. The angel of death went and brought
the tale back to the Omnipotent. Once again the Holy One, blessed
be He, said to the angel of death, “Go, bring me the soul of Moses.”
He went to where he was and looked for him but did not find him.
He went to the sea and said to it, “As to Moses, have you seen him?”
He went to the mountains and said to them, “As to Moses, have you
seen him?” He went to Gehenna and said to it, “As to Moses, have
you seen him?” They said to him, “Go to mortals.” He went to Israel
and said to them, “As to Moses, have you seen him?” They said to
him, “God knows his way. God has hidden him away for the life of
the world to come, and no creature knows where he is.”
There is no pretense at including in an exegetical setting the
authentic narrative supplied by the story of the death of
Moses. No verse of Deuteronomy figures. The compilation
involves Aaron, then Moses.
3. CCCVII:IV.1. Another comment concerning the verse, “The Rock—
his deeds are perfect. Yes, all his ways are just; a faithful God, never
false, true and upright is he:” When they arrested R. Haninah b.
Teradion, a decree against him was issued, that he be executed by
burning, along with his scroll. They told him, “A decree against you
has been issued, that you be executed by burning, along with your scroll.
He recited this verse: “The Rock—his deeds are perfect.” They in-
formed his wife, “A decree against your husband has been issued, that
he be executed by burning, along with his scroll, and against you that
you be put to death, and she recited this verse: ‘a faithful God, never
false, true and upright is he.’ They told his daughter, “A decree against
your father has been issued, that he be executed by burning, along
with his scroll, and against your mother, that she be executed, and
against you, that you ‘do work,’ and she recited this verse: ‘Great in
counsel and mighty in work, whose eyes are open’ (Jer. 32:19).” Said
Rabbi, “What great righteous people are these, for in their hour of
trouble they called forth three verses which justify God’s decree in a
way that none of the rest of the verses of Scripture do it.
Here is another free-standing story. It is attached to the cited

verse because that verse appears in the narrative, but the
climax stated by Rabbi does not focus on the base-verse at
all. Here, by contrast to No. 1, the affirmation of the divine
decree and its justice concerns the individual, not corporate
Israel, but the proposition is the same.
4. CCCXLIII:IV.1. Another teaching concerning the phrase, “He said,
‘The Lord came from Sinai’:” When the Omnipresent appeared to give
the Torah to Israel, it was not to Israel alone that he revealed himself
but to every nation. First of all he came to the children of Esau. He
said to them, “Will you accept the Torah?” They said to him, “What
is written in it?” He said to them, “‘You shall not murder’ (Ex. 20:13).”
They said to him, “The very being of ‘those men’ namely, us and of
their father is to murder, for it is said, ‘But the hands are the hands of
Esau”’(Gen. 27:22). ‘By your sword you shall live’ (Gen. 27:40).” So
he went to the children of Ammon and Moab and said to them, “Will
you accept the Torah?” … So he went to the children of Ishmael and
said to them, “Will you accept the Torah?” And so it went. He went
to every nation, asking them, “Will you accept the Torah?” When the
Holy One, blessed be He, saw that that is how things were, he gave
them to Israel.
The same fact recurs: the story is independent of its exegeti-
cal setting.
5. CCCLV:XV 2 “… may he dip his foot in oil:” This teaches that the
territory of Asher gushes oil like a spring. There is the story that the
people of Laodicea were short of oil. They appointed a deputy and
said to him, “Go and buy oil for us for ten thousand talents.” He went
to Tyre and said to them, “I need oil worth ten thousand talents.” When
he had finished the work on that tree, taking his utensils and going
along, the deputy said, “This man can’t have enough oil to fill my order
of ten thousand talents’ worth. I guess the Jews are just kidding around
with me.” When he came to his house, the farmer called his slave-girl
and said to her, “Come and wash our feet.” She filled a bowl with olive
oil and washed off their feet, this showing the sense of the verse, “…
may he dip his foot in oil.” He set bread before him and he ate, then
drank. After he had eaten and drunk, he went and measured out for
him oil to fill an order for ten thousand talents’ worth. … This serves
to illustrate the verse: “There is one who pretends to be rich but has
nothing, there is one who pretends to be poor and has much wealth”
(Prov. 13:7).
The story aims at Prov. 13:7 but is attached to the cited verse
of Scripture because it illustrates the abundance of oil to which
Scripture makes reference.
As in Sifra and Sifré to Numbers, so here, these rare, authentic

narratives have no bearing on the exegetical program of the com-
pilers. When document’s own framers found a need for narrative,
they preferred the exegetical parable to clarify their point, as we shall
now see.
II. The Mashal

In Sifré to Deuteronomy I find no Halakhic parables and forty-five
exegetical ones. Given the Halakhic heart of Deuteronomy, formed
by Chapters 12 through 26, and the systematic reading of those for-
midable chapters by Sifré to Deuteronomy’s exegetes, that complete
disinterest in the Halakhic parable is surprising, especially in con-
trast with the massive use of parables for exegetical purposes.
A. The Halakhic Parable: —
B. The Exegetical Parable
In this document the exegetical parable by its sheer predominance

enjoys a unique standing among narratives and pseudo-narratives.
What the documentary hypothesis needs to know about the exeget-
ical parable is, is it generated by the exegetical task, particular to
the documentary setting? Or do the exegetical parables, indepen-
dent of their setting but adapted to its requirements, give evidence
of deriving from a corpus of similes available for a variety of pur-
poses and suitable for adaptation in diverse contexts but particular
to none of those contexts?
To explain: in the context of the documentary hypothesis, the
answers to these question pertain to a considerable problem, fully
spelled out and requiring only the briefest of recapitulations. It is,
in the form of a question, do the exegetical parables respond to the
documentary program, even though they ignore the documentary
conventions of logic, topic, and rhetoric that otherwise prevail, or
are those parables adventitious, adapted from a free-standing cor-
pus of writing unaffected by documentary predilections? As before,
we shall see that many, though not all, of the parables respond to
the distinctive exegetical task at hand, and our friends, the king/
queen/prince/ally on their own stand for nothing. Their persons,
relationships, and transactions derive from the exegetical setting at
hand. Only in the intersection with a particular verse of Deuteron-

omy do they take on specificity and become cogent as parables. It is
a reciprocal process: the persons, relationships, and transactions
depicted in the realized parables track those of the verse subject to
clarification, and the parables reverse course and impart sense and
meaning to their context as well.
All of these allegations animate the summary-discussion that fol-
lows. As before, I underscore the parabolic material, the simile it-
self, which affords perspective on the classification of the parable:
particular to the exegetical task—or adapted thereto, as the case may
be.
It remains to note that there is, in addition, one parable that falls
into neither classification, treated in rubric C at the end.
1. I:IX.1. “And Dizahab” (Dt. 1:1): Since the place name means, “of
gold,” what he was saying to them was this: “Lo, everything you did
is forgiven. But the deed concerning the golden calf is worst of them
all.” R. Judah would say, “There is a parable. To what may the case
be compared? To one who made a lot of trouble for his fellow. In the
end he added yet another. He said to him, ‘Lo, everything you did is
forgiven. But this is the worst of them all.’ So said the Omnipresent
to Israel, ‘Lo, everything you did is forgiven. But the deed concerning
the golden calf is worst of them all.’”
The parable, underlined, replicates the lesson that follows,
and is shaped for that purpose. It is difficult to see any other,
and there are no marks of adaptation of a preexisting story
to the purpose at hand.
2. I:X.1. R. Simeon says, “There is a parable. To what may the case of
Israel’s making the calf of gold be compared? To one who extended
hospitality to sages and their disciples, and everyone praised him. Gen-
tiles came, and he extended hospitality to them. Muggers came and
he extended hospitality to them. People said, ‘That is so-and-so’s na-
ture—to extend hospitality indiscriminately to anyone at all.’ So did
Moses say to Israel, ‘Di zahab, meaning, enough gold, yields the sense,
There is enough gold for the tabernacle, enough gold also for the calf!’
The parable compares promiscuous hospitality, for the de-
serving and the undeserving, to the promiscuous use of gold.
It effectively serves the exegetical task articulated at the end.
Whether it is particular to that task is not self-evident, but
that it is shaped for it is clear.
3. III:I,1. “On the first day of the eleventh month of the fortieth year,
after the defeat of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon,
and the defeat at Edrei of Og, king of Bashan, who ruled in Ashtaroth,
Moses repeated to the Israelites all the commands that the Lord had
given him for them” (Dt. 1:3-4): The matter may be compared to the
case of a king who, with his troops, went out into the field. His troops
said to him, “Give us hot white bread.” He said to them, “I’ll provide
it.” Again his troops said to him, “Give us hot white bread.” His sec-
ond in command said to them, “It is because the king is able that he
can do it. Where do you think he got grindstones to grind the flour,
where do you think he got an oven out here in the field! But he did
provide! So you need not make demands any more.” So did Moses
say, “If I admonish Israel first, they will then accuse me, ‘It is because
he has not got the strength to bring us into the land and to overthrow
Sihon and Og before us that he is admonishing us as an excuse for
his own incapacities.’” But he did not do it that way. Rather, after he
had brought them into the Land and overthrown Sihon and Og be-
fore them, then and only then he admonished them. On that account
it is said, “... after the defeat of Sihon.”
Moses admonishes Israel only after God has established his
credentials. The parable is adapted to that purpose, but the
“where do you think he got grindstones” introduces an issue
that is resolved only by the language in square brackets. So
here is a parable that does not precisely match its case.
4. VIII:I. 1. “Go, enter the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to assign to them and to their offspring
after them” (Dt. 1:6-8): Why does Scripture then add, “to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob”? As to the matter of an oath taken to the patriarchs,
lo, Scripture in any event states, “The oaths proclaimed to the tribes”
(Hab. 3:9). Why then add here, “to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”? It is
so as to indicate that Abraham on his own would have been worthy
of gaining the land for Israel through his merit, so too Isaac, so too
Jacob. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who gave
his servant a field as a gift. He gave it to him just as is. The slave went
and improved the field, and he said, “What I have was handed over
to me only as is.” The servant then went and planted a vineyard and
said, “What I have was handed over to me only as is.” Each of the
patriarchs is mentioned individually, because, in like manner, each im-
proved the land on his own. So when the Holy One, blessed be He,
gave the land to our father Abraham, he gave it to him just as is, as
it is said, “Go, walk through the land, its length and breadth, for I
give it to you” (Gen. 13:17). Abraham went and improved it, as it is
said, “He planted a tamarisk in Beer Sheva” (Gen. 21:33). Isaac went
and improved it, as it is said, “Isaac sewed in that land and produced
in that year a hundredfold” (Gen. 26:12). Jacob went and improved
it, as it is said, “And he bought the parcel of ground” (Gen. 33:19).
The parable clearly responds to its exegetical task, which is
articulated at the end only after the parable has prepared the
way. No detail is superfluous to the exegetical work, so the
match is exact. We shall see cases in which details of the
parable are asymmetrical to the exegetical task and its reso-
lution, so the judgment is by no means impressionistic. Where
the match leaves nothing out, there the parable tracks the
exegetical assignment point by point.
5. XI:I. 1. “...May the Lord, the God of your fathers, increase your num-
bers a thousandfold and bless you as he promised you.—How can I
bear unaided the trouble of you, and the burden, and the bickering!
Pick from each of your tribes men who are wise, discerning, and ex-
perienced, and I will appoint them as your heads” (Dt. 1:9-13): They
said to him, “Our lord, Moses, You cannot bestow such a paltry blessing
on us. The Omnipresent promised Abraham, our father, ‘I shall cer-
tainly bless you, and I shall certainly multiply your seed as the stars of
the heaven and as the sand on the seashore’ (Gen. 22:17). That is many
times greater than a mere thousandfold. Accordingly, you set a limit
to the blessing that is coming to us.” The matter may be compared to
the case of a king who had great wealth. He had a young son and had
to go overseas. He said, “If I leave my wealth in the hands of my son,
he will go and squander it. Lo, I shall appoint a guardian for him until
he comes of age.” When the son came of age, he said to the guardian,
“Give me the silver and gold that my father left in your guardianship.”
The guardian gave him a share of what was coming, sufficient to pro-
vide for his needs. The son began to complain, saying to him, “Lo, all
the silver and gold that father left in your trust!” He said to him, “What-
ever I gave you I provided out of my own property alone. But as to
what your father left you, it is in safe-keeping.” So Moses said to Is-
rael, “‘May the Lord, the God of your fathers, increase your numbers
a thousandfold.’ That is what is coming on my account. ‘... and bless
you as he promised you...’ in such multitudes as the sand on the sea-
shore, the grass in the field, the fish in the sea, and the stars in the
heaven.”
The stages in the parable do not exactly match the exegeti-
cal context. The parable has the king entrust the funds to the
trustee lest the son squander the inheritance. That is the first
component. Then the son demands the whole, and the guard-
ian gave a share. That is the second component. When the
son complained, the guardian answered, what I gave you is
of my own funds, what your father left is in safe-keeping. That
is not prepared for by the opening component of the parable,
but it is made necessary by its exegetical context. So a free-
standing parable appears here to have been adapted for the
exegetical task. The king/trustee/spend-thrift, churlish son

represent a free-standing narrative, inviting exegetical tasks
beyond the present case.
6. XIX:II.1. “I said to you, ‘You have come to the hill country of the
Amorites which the Lord our God is giving to us. See, the Lord your
God has placed the land at your disposal. Go up, take possession, as
the Lord, the God of your fathers promised you. Fear not and be not
dismayed’” (Dt. 1:19-21): “You have come to the hill country of the
Amorites which the Lord our God is giving to us:” The matter may
be compared to the case of a king, who handed his son over to a teacher.
The teacher would take the boy about and show him, saying to him,
“All of these vineyards are yours, all of these olive groves are yours.”
When he got tired of showing him around, he said to him, “Every-
thing you see is yours.” So for all those forty years that the Israelites
were in the wilderness, Moses would say to him, “Lo, the Lord your
God is bringing you to a good land, a land of streams of water, of
fountains and depths, that spring forth in valleys and hills” (Dt. 8:7).
When the came to the land, he said to them, “You have come to the
hill country of the Amorites which the Lord our God is giving to us.”
The only point that the parable accommodates is the point
of the exegetical task: Moses generalizes on the whole.
7. ‘XXI:I.1. “I approved of the plan and so I selected twelve of your men,
one from each tribe. They made for the hill country, came to the wadi
Eshcol, and spied it out. They took some of the fruit of the land with
them and bright it down to us. And they gave us this report, ‘It is a
good land that the Lord our God is giving to us’” (Dt. 1:22-25): “I
approved of the plan,” but the Omnipresent did not. But if he approved
the plan, then why was it written along with the words of admonition?
The matter may be compared to the case of someone who said to his
fellow, “Sell me your ass.” The other said, “All right.” “Will you let
me try it out?” “All right. Come along, and I’ll show you how much
it can carry in the hills, how much it can carry in the valley.” When
the purchaser saw that there was nothing standing in the way, he said,
“Woe is me! It appears that the reason he is so obliging is to take away
my money.” That is why it is written, “I approved of the plan.”
I do not see how the parable resolves the tension: Moses
approved, God did not. Then who is the obliging vendor of
the ass, and who the purchaser? Moses surely is the vendor,
obliging as he was, and then God is the suspicious buyer, who
sees into the plot. What is needed here is some further de-
tail, some clarification of the outcome. A free-standing par-
able on the interplay of obliging vendor and suspicious buyer
can serve a variety of purposes, not only the one at hand.
But that is only a guess, in the face of a somewhat puzzling

parabolic case.
8. XXVI:III,1. “... at that time, saying:” The matter may be compared
to citizens of a city who wanted the king to make their city a colony.
Once he had two enemies, who fell at his hand. The citizens thought,
“Now is the time to ask the king to make our city a colony.” So Moses
wanted the Holy One, blessed be He, to let him enter the land. When
he saw that Sihon and Og had fallen before him, he said, “Lo, the
time is ripe for me to ask the Holy One, blessed be He, to let me enter
the land.” That is the sense of the statement, “...at that time.”
Here is a parable that exactly matches the exegetical task at
hand: the king who was in a victorious, generous mood is the
king from whom to ask a favor.
9. XXVIII:I,1. “Let me, I pray, cross over and see the good land on the
other side of the Jordan, that good hill country, and the Lebanon” (Dt.
4:23-29): Is it really possible that Moses should have beseeched from
the Omnipresent to enter the land? Has it not been stated, “For you
shall not cross this Jordan river” (2):27)? The matter may be compared
to a king who had two servants, and he made a decree that one of
them not drink wine for thirty days. The servant said, “Now that he
has made a decree in my regard not to drink wine for thirty days, I
shall not even taste it for an entire year, even for two years.” Why did
he do this? So as to treat as a bagatelle his master’s decree saying how
little it meant to him. The king went and he made a decree that the
other of them not drink wine for thirty days. He said, “It is not pos-
sible go without drinking wine even for a single hour.” Why did he
do this? So as to express his love for his master’s rulings. So too in the
case of Moses, he wanted to express his love for the rulings of the
Omnipresent and so pleaded with him to enter the land. That is why
it is said, ““Let me, I pray, cross over.”
It would be difficult to find a more precise amplification of
Moses’s message in the exegetical situation at hand than is
captured by the story of the two servants of the king. Here is
a fine example of a well-articulated, fully realized parable that
responds to the particulars of an exegetical challenge.
10. XXIX:IV,1. “‘Look at it well, for you shall not go across yonder Jor-
dan. Give Joshua his instructions and imbue him with strength and
courage, for he shall go across at the head of this people, and he shall
allot to them the land that you may only see.’ Meanwhile we stayed
on in the valley near Beth-peor” (Dt. 4:23-29): The matter may be com-
pared to the case of a king who made a decree that his son not enter
his bedroom. The son went into the gate of the palace, and the king
received him and spoke with him. He came into the entry of the re-
ception room, and the king welcomed him and spoke with him. But
when he came to enter the bed-chamber, he said to him, “From this
point onward, you are forbidden to enter.” So Moses said before the
Holy One, blessed be He, “All I want out of the land of Israel is only
the width of the Jordan River over there, an area of fifty cubits.” He
said to him, “Look at it well, for you shall not go across yonder Jor-
dan.”
Outside of the exegetical context articulated at “So Moses
said...” in response to Dt. 4:23f., the parable yields no obvi-
ous message and corresponds to no situation beyond the one
defined by Scripture. And that is so even though the parable
unfolds in a series of actions, went… received... spoke with
him...; these actions do not change the picture of a story
constructed to realize the very terms of the proposition at-
tached to the base-verse: “All I want...,” “You shall not
cross....”
11. XXXVI:IV.1. “... and on your gates” (Dt. 6:4-9): The mark that Isra-
elites are precious to God is that Scripture has encompassed them with
religious duties that sanctify them: phylacteries on head and arm,
mezuzot on their doors, show-fringes on their garments. The matter may
be compared to the case of a mortal king who said to his wife, “Now
go and put on all your ornaments, so that you’ll be desirable to me.”
So said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel, “My children, make
yourselves distinguished through religious duties, so that you’ll be
desirable to me.” And so Scripture says, “You are beautiful O my love
as Tirsah” (Song. 6:4).
The parable is truncated and goes no where on its own. But
in the context of the exegetical framework, where God tells
the Israelites that in donning their prayer apparel, they be-
come desirable to him, the parable takes on precise mean-
ing. It emerges then as a product of the exegetical process,
not deriving from a corpus of similes awaiting adaptation in
that process.
12. XXXVII:I.6. And so you find in the case of Sennacherib, when he
came to entice Israel, what did he say to them? R. Simeon b. Yohai
says, “That one was a fool, and he did not know how to entice people.
The matter may be compared to the case of someone who went to
propose to a woman. He said to her, ‘Your father is a king and I am
a king. Your father is rich and I am rich. Your father gives you meat
and fish to eat and vintage wine to drink, and I shall give you meat
and fish to eat and vintage wine to drink.’ That is not really much of
a come-on. What should he have said? ‘Your father is a commoner,
but I am a king. Your father is poor, but I am rich. Your father gives
you vegetables and pulse to eat, but I shall feed you meat and fish.
Your father gives you new wine to drink, but I shall give you vintage
wine. Your father takes you to the bathhouse by foot, but I shall take
you in a palanquin.’”
The parable makes its point with great clarity, in line with
Simeon b. Yohai’s observation, one has to know how to pro-
duce an effective enticement. But then the simile is particu-
lar to the issue and involves no very complex construction.
13. XXXVIII:I. 1. “For the land that you are about to enter and possess
is not like the land of Egypt from which you have come. There the
grain you sowed had to be watered by your own labors, like a veg-
etable garden; but the land you are about to cross into and possess, a
land of hills and valleys, soaks up its water from the rains of heaven.
It is a land which the Lord your God looks after, on which the Lord
your God always keeps his eye, from year’s beginning to year’s end”
(Dt. 11:10-12): The matter may be compared to the case of a king who
was on the way and saw a son of distinguished parents and handed a
slave over to him to serve him. Again he saw another son of distin-
guished parents, nicely garbed and scented, but hard at physical la-
bor, whom the king knew, whose parents he knew. He said, “I decree
that I will personally take care of him and provide his food. So all lands
were given servants to tend them: Egypt drinks from the Nile, Babylonia
from the two rivers. But the land of Israel is not that way. But people
sleep in bed, and the Omnipresent brings rain down for them.
God responds to Israel’s ancestry—Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob—by personally tending to their needs. What is inter-
esting is, the same narrative, providing a son of distinguished
parents with a servant appropriate to his status, unfolds with
reference to the following:
CXVI:V.1. “… lend him sufficient for whatever he needs:”
“Whatever he needs:” even a horse, even a slave. There is the
precedent [Ma#aseh] involving Hillel the Elder, who gave a poor
man, son of a good family, a horse with which to work, and a
slave to serve him.
All that shifts is the move from the king to Hillel the Elder;
otherwise the stories duplicate the main point. The parable
then strikes me as particular to its exegetical case.
14. XLIII:VIII.1. If you do this, then “the Lord’s anger will flare up against
you:” The matter may be compared to the case of a king who was send-
ing his son to a banquet. He sat down and instructed him, saying to
him, “My son, do not eat more than you need to. Do not drink more
than you need to. In that way you will come home clean.” The son
paid no attention to him. He ate more than he needed to, drank more
than he needed to, and he threw up and dirtied all of the other guests
They took him by his hands and legs and threw him out the back door
of the palace. So said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel, “I brought
you into a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey,
to eat its produce and be sated with its goodness, and to bless my name
on that account. “Since you did not endure in goodness, endure in pun-
ishment: ‘the Lord’s angerwill flare up against you.’”
The articulation of the meaning of the parable leaves no doubt
of the singularity of the parable for its task, especially the detail
that the disobedient son was expelled from the banquet by
the other guests, comparable to Israel’s being expelled from
the Land by the nations. But the guests, not the king, are the
actors, and that represents a shift from the exegetical setting.
15. XLIII:XV.1 Another matter concerning, “… and you will soon per-
ish from the good land that the Lord is assigning to you” (Dt. 11:13-
17): R. Joshua b. Qorhah says, “The matter may be compared to the
case of a robber who invaded the field of a householder. He cut down
his heap of grain, but the householder did not pay attention. He cut
down standing corn, and the householder did not pay attention. And
so matters proceeded until the robber had heaped up his basket and
gone his way.
16. XLIII:XVI.1. Another teaching concerning the verse, “… and you will
soon perish from the good land that the Lord is assigning to you” (Dt.
11:13-17): God says, “Even though I shall exile you from the land to
overseas, keep yourself distinguished from other nations through per-
forming the religious duties, so that when you return, performing the
religious duties will not prove new to you.” The matter may be com-
pared to the case of a mortal king who grew angry with his wife and
drove her back to the house of her father. He said to her, “Keep yourself
adorned with your jewelry, so that when you come back, they will not
prove new to you.” So said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel,
“My children, keep yourself distinguished from other nations through
performing the religious duties, so that when you return, performing
the religious duties will not prove new to you.”
The two parables address the base-verse each in its own
framework. The first, XLIII:XV.1, concerns not paying heed
to ominous events. The Israelites then paid no attention as
they were progressively penalized. But how the conclusion
matches (“until the robber... had gone his way”) is unclear
to me. The second, XLIII:XVI.1, by contrast, matches the
parable to the exegetical setting, and does so with precision.
It takes account of the Scriptural narrative, providing for the
return of the wife to the king, the people to the Land. So the
simile exactly matches and invokes the base-narrative, not only
the immediate situation and transaction. My sense is, the first
of the two parables is not particular to the setting, the sec-
ond is.
17. XLV:I.1. “Therefore impress these my words upon your very heart;
bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on
your forehead; and teach them to your children, reciting them when
you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and
when you get up, and inscribe them on the doorposts of your house
and on your gates, to the end that you and your children may endure
in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers to assign to them, as
long as there is a heaven over the earth” (Dt. 11:18-21): This use of
the word “impress,” which can be read to sound like “medicine, oint-
ment” indicates that words of Torah are compared to a life-giving
medicine. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who grew
angry with his son and gave him a severe blow, but then put a salve
on the wound and said to him, “My son, so long as this bandage is on
the wound, eat whatever you like, drink whatever you like, and wash
in either warm or old water, and nothing will do you injury. But if
you remove the bandage, the sore will immediately begin to produce
ulcers.” So the Holy One, blessed be he, said to Israel, “My children,
I have created in you an impulse to do evil, than which nothing is more
evil. “‘Sin couches at the door and to you is its desire’ (Gen. 4:7).”
“Keep yourselves occupied with teachings of the Torah, and sin will
not control you “But if you leave off studying words of the Torah, lo,
it will control you, as it is said, ‘ and to you is its desire’ (Gen. 4:7).
“All of its undertakings concern you. But if you want, you will control
it, as it is said, ‘But you may rule over it’ (Gen. 4:7).”
It would be difficult to find a parable more responsive to its
exegetical task than this one, each component of which
matches the base-verse that is amplified, Gen. 4:7.
18. XLVIII:I.3. R. Ishmael says, “‘Only watch out and keep your soul dili-
gently’ (Dt. 4:9)—“The matter may be compared to a mortal king who
caught a bird and handed it over to his servant, saying to him, ‘Keep
this bird for my son. If you lose it, do not think that you have lost a
bird worth a penny, but it is tantamount to your life that you will have
lost.’ So Scripture says, “For it is no vain thing for you, because of it
is your very life’ (Dt. 32:47). Something that you say is vain in fact is
your very life.”
The soul is like the bird, the Israelite is like the king’s ser-
vant, and the rest follows. The base-verse, “it is no vain thing”
triggers that detail of the parable, “Do not think…,” a mark
of the particularity of the parable to its exegetical task.
19. XLVIII:I.4. R. Simeon b. Yohai says, “The matter may be compared

to the case of two brothers who inherited money from their father. “One
of them converted it into ready cash and consumed it, and the other
converted it into ready cash and put it aside. As to the one of them
who converted it into ready cash and consumed it, he turned out to
have nothing in hand. But the one who converted it into ready cash
and put it aside got rich after a while. So disciples of sages learn two
or three things in a day, two or three chapters in a week, two or three
lections in a month. Such a one turns out to get rich after a while.
But the one who says, ‘Today I shall learn what I need, tomorrow I
shall learn what I need, today I shall review what I need, tomorrow I
shall review what I need, turns out to have nothing in hand.’ And con-
cerning him Scripture says, ‘A wise son gathers in summer, but a son
who does shamefully sleeps in harvest’ (Prov. 10:5)
The parable serves Prov. 10:5, not Dt. 4:9, but it serves that
verse very exactly, stressing the slow acquisition of learning/
wealth. So while redactionally out of phase with its context,
it is an exegetical parable in origin.
20. LIII:I.1. “See, this day I set before you blessing and curse: blessing, if
you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I enjoin upon
you this day; and curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the
Lord your God, but turn away from the path that I enjoin upon you
this day and follow other gods” (Dt. 11:26-30): Why is this passage
stated? The reason is that, since it is said, “Life and death I have placed
before you, a blessing and a curse” (Dt. 30:19), perhaps the Israelites
might say, “Since the Omnipresent has placed before us two ways, the
way of life and the way of death, let us go in whichever way we choose.”
Accordingly, Scripture says, “Choose life” (Dt. 30:19). The matter may
be compared to someone sitting at a crossroads. Before him were two
paths. One of them began in clear ground but ended in thorns. The
other began in thorns but ended in clear ground He would inform the
passersby, saying to them, “You see this path, which begins in clear
ground? For two or three steps you will be going in clear ground, and
in the end you will be walking in thorns. And you see this path, which
begins in thorns? For two or three steps you will be going in thorns,
but in the end you will be walking on clear ground. So did Moses say
to Israel, “You see how the wicked flourish in this world for two or
three days succeeding. But in the end they will have occasion for re-
gret.”
The base-verse stresses that Israel should choose the way of
life and avoid the way of death, and has no choice. But the
parable makes the point that while the wicked flourish in this
world, they perish later on. So the parable is not only not
particular to the exegetical task, but it ignores it.
21. LIII:I..3. R. Joshua b. Qorhah says, “The matter may be compared

to the case of a king who invited guests. His friend was seated among
them. The king indicated to him to take a fine helping, but the other
did not grasp it. Now when he saw that the friend did not grasp, he
took his hand and put it on the fine portion. So it is said, “O Lord,
the portion of my inheritance and of my cup, you maintain my lot”
(Ps. 16:5).
Here is a parable constructed out of the relationships and
transactions of the base-verse, Ps. 16:5.
22. CCCV:Il.3 The Lord said to Moses, ‘Take for yourself Joshua, son of
Nun’” (Num. 27:18): R. Nathan says, “Moses was distressed in his heart
that one of his sons did not stand forth as leader. Said to him the Holy
One, blessed be He, ‘Why are you distressed in your heart? Is it that
one of your sons has not stood forth? Now are not the sons of your
brother, Aaron, tantamount to your own sons. And so too the man
whom I am setting up over Israel will go and stand at the door of
Eleazar the priest, Aaron’s son. To what may this be compared? To a
mortal king who had a son who was not worthy of the throne. He took
the throne from him and gave it to the son of his ally. He said to him,
‘Even though I have assigned greatness to you, go and stand at my
son’s door. So said the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Even though I have
assigned greatness to you, go and stand at the door of Eleazar.’ That
is in line with this verse of Scripture: ‘And he will stand before Eleazar
the priest’ (Num. 27:21).”
Joshua had to show respect to Moses’s son, just as the king’s
successor had to pay respect to the hapless prince. The par-
able then corresponds exactly to the base-verse and translates
that verse into the transaction conveyed therein.
23. CCCVI:IV.1. Another interpretation of the verse, “Give ear, O heav-
ens, let me speak: “The matter may be compared to the case of a king
who handed his son over to a teacher to sit and take care of him. Said
that son, “My father was thinking that he has accomplished something
by handing me over to a pedagogue. But I’ll keep watch as he eats
and drinks and sleeps, and I’ll go my way and do what I need to.”
Said his father to him, “For my part I have handed you over to a
teacher only so that he will be one from whom you cannot escape.”
So did Moses say to the Israelites, “Perhaps you’re thinking of fleeing
from under the wings of God’s presence or leaving the earth.”
The prince is Israel, God is the king, but who is the peda-
gogue? It clearly is the heavens, always vigilant in watching
Israel. So the match is exact, as Moses makes it explicit, and
the exegetical parable does a fine job of articulating a mes-
sage implicit in the base-verse.
24. CCCVI:VI.1. Another teaching concerning the verse, “Give ear, O

heavens, let me speak:” R. Judah says, “The matter may be compared
to the case of a king who had two administrators in a town. He gave
over to them his property and handed his son to them and said to them,
‘So long as my son does what I want, pamper him and give him luxu-
ries and feed him and give him drink. ‘But when he does not do what
I want, let him not taste a thing of what belongs to me.’
The two administrators correspond to heaven and earth,
improving on the exegetical parable by bringing it still closer
to the details of the base-verse. That the parable depends on
its exegetical context is clear: without the cited verse, the
requirement of two administrators is unexplained. But with
it, the disobedience of the son is punished by both heaven
and earth.
25. CCCVI:VII.1. Another teaching concerning the verse, “Give ear, O
heavens, let me speak:” R. Nehemiah says, “The matter may be com-
pared to the case of a king who had a son. The son went bad. The
king began to complain against him to his brothers, began to complain
against him to his friends, began to complain against him to his neigh-
bors, began to complain against him to his relatives. The king did not
stop complaining against him until he said, “O heaven, O earth, to
whom shall I complain against you, besides these?” That is in line with
this verse: “Give ear, O heavens, let me speak; let the earth hear the
words I utter!”
The Mashal depends on the base-verse for intelligibility.
Without it, it has no narrative charge whatsoever. We have
no more than an inert simile, not a dynamic parable.
26. CCCVIII:II. 1. “Is corruption his? No, his children’s is the blemish.—
that crooked perverse generation—their baseness has played him false.
Do you thus requite the Lord, O dull and witless people? Is not he
the father who created you, fashioned you and made you endure!” (Dt.
32:4-6). In the name of Abba Hedores they have said, “The Israelites
violated every negative commandment in the Torah, and all this why
It was so as not to give an occasion to wicked people to say, ‘So long
as we sin against him, we are pained before him.’ To what is the matter
to be compared? To the case of someone who was going forth to be
crucified, with his father weeping for him and his mother throwing
herself before him, this one saying, ‘Woe is me,’ and that one saying,
‘Woe is me.’ So this pertains only to the one who is going forth to be
crucified and not to the parents, who cry ‘woe is me’.
The focus of the parable is to stress that the sinner alone is
punished, however much the parents may lament his fate.
They are unblemished. The blemish belongs to the sinner,
not to God. The sinner in the end does not blemish God (“so
long as we sin against him, we are pained before” = “we cause
pain to…”). If that reading serves, then we have an exegeti-
cal parable.
27. CCCVIII:III.1. “… that crooked perverse generation—their baseness
has played him false:” Said Moses to the Israelites, “You are a bunch
of crooks, you are a bunch of perverts. You are going only into the
fire.” To what may the matter be compared? To someone who had
in hand a crooked staff and he gave it to a craftsman to straighten it
out: “Straighten it out with fire, and if not, then flatten it with a plane,
and, if not, chisel it down with a chisel and throw it into the fire.”
Moses’s message to the Israelites is, they will be punished by
fire, and the parable spells out how the craftsman straight-
ens out the crooked staff by fire—an exegetical parable that
portrays a situation through an inert simile, not an unfold-
ing and dynamic narrative.
28. CCCIX:I.1. “Do you thus requite the Lord, O dull and witless people?
Is not he the father who created you, fashioned you and made you
endure!” (Dt. 32:4-6). Do you thus requite the Lord:” To what may
the matter be compared? To someone who went into the forum and
insulted a councilor. Those who heard said to him, “Idiot! Are you
going and insulting a councilor? What if he wants to beat you up or
to tear your garment or imprison you? Can you beat him?” And if it
were a centurion, a still more powerful figure, how much the more
so, and if he were a consul, greater than both, how much the more
so!
Israel had best not insult god, because he can pay them back.
The exegetical parable then recapitulates the relationship,
with the councilor, able to punish the insult, empowered to
respond appropriately.
29. CCCIX:II.1. Another interpretation of the phrase, “Do you thus re-
quite the Lord:” To what may the matter be compared? To someone
who went into the forum and insulted his father. Those who heard it
said to him, “Idiot! Whom are you standing and insulting? It is your
father. Listen: how much work has he done for you, how much effort
has he invested in you! If you have not honored him in the past, you
have to honor him now, so that he will not write over his entire estate
to others.” So did Moses say to the Israelites, “If you do not remem-
ber the miracles and acts of might which the Holy One, blessed be
He, did for you in Egypt, then at least remember how many good things
he is going to give you in the world to come.”
The exegetical parable tracks the two components of the
transaction, Israel insults the father, but the father has done
wonders for Israel, so it is a churlish act. A signal that the
parable responds to the exegesis of the base verse is the cor-
respondence between “if you have not honored him in the
past, honor him now so you will inherit…,” matched by “If
you do not remember the miracles… at least remember…
the world to come….”
30. CCCIX:V.1. “Is not he the father who has acquired another mean-
ing for the letters of the word created you:” Said Moses to the Israel-
ites, “You are precious to him, you are things he has acquired on his
own, not merely what he has inherited.” The matter may be compared
to the case of someone whose father left him as an inheritance ten fields.
The man went and bought a field with his own means, and that field
he loved more than all of the fields that his father had left him as an
inheritance. And so too, there is the case of someone whose father left
him as an inheritance ten palaces. The man went and bought a pal-
ace with his own means, and that palace he loved more than all of
the palaces that his father had left him as an inheritance. So did Moses
say to the Israelites, “You are precious to him, you are things he has
acquired on his own, not merely what he has inherited.”
The man valued what he got on his own more than what his
father gave him, a point made twice, corresponding to how
precious Israel is to God, who brought Israel into existence
and did not receive Israel by inheritance. The theology is odd,
but the parable is precise and matches the task assigned to it
in Moses’s saying.
31. CCCXII:I.1. “For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his own al-
lotment:” The matter may be compared to a king who had a field,
which he handed over to tenant-farmers. The tenant-farmers began
to steal the produce of the field that was owing to the king, so he took
it from them and handed it over to their children. The tenant farm-
ers’ children began to conduct themselves worse than the earlier ones.
He took it from their children and handed it over to the children of
the children. They began to conduct themselves even worse than the
earlier ones. He had a son. He said to them, “Get out of what is mine.
I don’t want you in it. Give me my portion, which I may get back.”
So when our father, Abraham, came into the world, chaff came forth
from him, Ishmael and all the children of Keturah. When Isaac came
into the world, chaff came forth from him, Esau and all the nobles of
Edom They began to conduct themselves worse than the earlier ones.
When Jacob came along, no chaff came forth from him. All the sons
that were born to him were proper people, as it is said, “And Jacob
was a perfect man, dwelling in tents” (Gen. 25:27).
The close match—the three generations, each worse than the

prior—and the “So when our father…” statement of the point
is violated with the third generation of Israel, namely, Jacob.
That should be worst of all, but is without chaff altogether.
So the parable is out of phase with its exegetical task. That
is underscored by the base-verse, “Jacob his own allotment,”
which the parable should realize, instead of reject. So the
parable cannot be called exegetical, though on the surface,
that is the intent.
32. CCCXIII:I.1. “He found him in a desert region, in an empty howling
waste. He engirded him, watched over him, guarded him as the pupil
of his eye. Like an eagle who rouses his nestlings, gliding down to his
young, so did he spread his wings and take him, bear him along on
his pinions; the Lord alone did guide him, no alien god at his side”
(Dt. 32:10-12). “He found him in a desert region:” This refers to
Abraham. The matter may be compared to the case of a king who went
with his legions into the wilderness. His legions deserted him in a dif-
ficult situation, a place in which were marauding bands and thugs, and
went their way. He appointed for himself a single hero, who said to
him, “My lord, king, do not be disheartened, and do not take fright
for any reason. By your life! I am not going to leave you before you
walk into your own palace and sleep in your own bed.”
Abraham is the counterpart to the hero, chosen by the king
to lead him home. Abraham then brings God to the palace.
“He found him in the desert region” comes to exegetical
fulfillment in the parable’s counterpart to Abraham, and the
parable is classified as exegetical.
33. CCCXXIII:III.3. R. Hanina of Tibeon says, “There is the compari-
son to one who said to his fellow, ‘I am going to sell you as a slave, to
be delivered at some time in the future.’ ‘God speaks: ‘But I for my
part am not like that. But I sell you and I forthwith hand you over.’”
Here we have a negative parable: to what the matter is not
comparable! God is not like the one who sells the fellow into
slavery at some indeterminate time; he does it right away. The
base verse is “… unless their rock had sold them, the Lord
had given them up,” and how that is served is unclear to me;
but the entire point of the parable is lost to me. All I can say
is, the parable is not exegetical in the conventional sense.
34. CCCXLIII:I.1. “He said, ‘The Lord came from Sinai; he shone upon
them from Seir. He appeared from Mount Paran and approached from
Ribeboth-kodesh, lightning flashing at them from his right, lover, in-
deed, of the people, their hallowed are all in your hand. They followed
in your steps, accepting your pronouncements, when Moses charged
us with the Torah as the heritage of the congregation of Jacob. Then
he became King in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people assembled,
the tribes of Israel together’” (Dt. 33:2-6). “He said, ‘The Lord came
from Sinai:” This indicates that, when Moses commenced, he did not
commence by dealing with what Israel needed first, before commenc-
ing with words of praise for the Omnipresent. The matter may be com-
pared to the case of a hired orator, who was standing on the platform
in court, to speak in behalf of a client. He did not commence by deal-
ing with the needs of that man first, before he commenced by prais-
ing the king: “Happy is the world because of his rule, happy is the world
because of his judgment, on us shines the sun, on us shines the moon.”
And others gave praise along with him. And then he opened up the
matter of the needs of the person who had hired him, and then at the
end, he concluded by praising the king once more. So too our lord,
Moses did not commence by dealing with the needs of Israel, before
he commenced by praising the Omnipresent …
The parable is constructed to correspond to the stages in
Moses’s address, item by item, and is the quintessential ex-
egetical parable.
35. CCCXLIII:IV.2 Another teaching concerning the phrase, “He said,
‘The Lord came from Sinai:’” The matter may be compared to the
case of a person who sent his ass and dog to the threshing floor and
loaded up a letekh of grain on his ass and three seahs of grain on his
dog. The ass went along, while the dog panted. He took a seah of grain
off the dog and put it on the ass, so with the second, so with the third.
Thus was Israel: they accepted the Torah, complete with all its sec-
ondary amplifications and minor details, even the seven religious du-
ties that the children of Noah could not uphold without breaking them
did the Israelites come along and accept.
The parable serves the authentic narrative of CCCXLIII:IV.1,
which explains why the nations rejected the Torah. They
could not bear its burdens. But Israel could and did. That is
the explicit meaning of the parable, which is then subordi-
nate in context to the narrative, and which has no meaning
outside of that narrative’s issue.
36. CCCXLIII:V.1. Another teaching concerning the phrase, “He said,
‘The Lord came from Sinai; he shone upon them from Seir’:” When
the Holy One, blessed be He, proceeds to exact punishment from Seir,
he is destined to shake the entire world with its inhabitants, just as he
shook it when he gave the Torah. The matter may be compared to
the case of a king who wanted to give a gift to one of his sons, and the
king was afraid on account of the consequent envy of his brothers and
allies, and on account of his relatives. What did the son do? He went
and dressed up and fixed his hair. The king said to him, “To you I
am giving a gift having made yourself worthy of it.” So when our fa-
ther, Abraham, came into the world, chaff came forth from him,
Ishmael and the sons of Keturah. They turned out worse than the first,
and when Isaac came along chaff came forth from him, Esau and all
the dukes of Edom, who turned out to be still worse than the earlier
ones But when Jacob came along, no chaff come forth from him, but
all his sons were born flawless, in line with this verse: “And Jacob was
a flawless man, dwelling in tents” (Gen. 25:27). Said to him the Holy
One, blessed be He, “To you I am going to give the Torah.”
Once more, the task of the parable is to explain why Israel.
The parable explains why Israel got the Torah, not why it is
punished first, and that is because it made itself worthy of
receiving the gift. Then the application of the parable reverts
to the progeny of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with Jacob the
perfect one. That is not an ideal setting for the realization of
the parable, since it answers the question, why Israel/Jacob,
not Isaac, not Abraham, and that is not the issue of “Why
did God reject the nations and give the Torah only to Israel?”
What we have then is an imperfect realization of the exegetical
parable.
37. CCCXLIII:III. 1 “… when Moses charged us with the Torah as the
heritage of the congregation of Jacob:” There is a parable. To what
may the matter be compared? To the case of a prince who was taken
overseas as a captive when he was a child. If he wanted to return, even
after a hundred years, he would not be ashamed to come back, for he
says, “It is to my heritage that I am coming home.” So a disciple of a
sage who separated from words of Torah and went off to other mat-
ters, if he wanted to come back, even after a hundred years, he would
not be ashamed to come back, for he says, “It is to my heritage that
I am coming home.”
The Torah is Israel’s heritage, so the cited verse. But here
what is at issue is a disciple of a sage who has left Torah-
study. He wishes to come back. That is his heritage. The
kidnapped prince then is modeled after the disciple, and the
parable responds to the exegetical task as devised by the
exegete who has imputed to the base-verse the stated mean-
ing.
38. CCCXLVII:I.1 “Then he became King in Jeshurun, when the heads
of the people assembled, the tribes of Israel together” (Dt. 33:2-6). “May
Reuben live and not die, though few be his numbers” (Dt. 33:6). And
this he said of Judah: Hear, O Lord, the voice of Judah and restore
him to his people. Though his own hands strive for him, help him
against his foes” (Dt. 33:7). “… the tribes of Israel together. May
Reuben live and not die:” What has one thing to do with the other
The matter may be compared to the case of a king who came to his
children from time to time. When he would leave his children, his
children and relatives would accompany him. He said to them, “My
children, perhaps you have need to say something, perhaps you have
something in mind? Tell me.” They said to him, “Father, we need
nothing, and we have nothing that we want, except for you to become
reconciled with our eldest brother.” So were it not for the other tribal
founders, the Omnipresent would not have become reconciled with
Reuben. That is why it is said: “… the tribes of Israel together. May
Reuben live and not die.”
The parable captures the point that the exegete (“So were it
not for the other…”) wishes to attach to the base verse. It is
particular to its exegetical task.
39. CCCXLIX:I.1. “And of Levi he said:” Why is this stated concerning
Levi in particular? Since Simeon and Levi both drank from a single
cup, as it is said, “Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their
wrath, for it was cruel; I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in
Israel” (Gen. 49:7). The matter may be compared to the case of two
who borrowed money from the king. One of them paid the king back
and then went and lent the king money. But as to the other, it was
not enough that he did not pay the king back, but he went and bor-
rowed more. So Simeon and Levi both borrowed at Shechem [by
committing murder taking and squandering some of the merit that their
ancestors and they had stored up], as the following verse says: “Two
of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took
his sword and came upon the city unaware and slew all the males”
(Gen. 34:25). In the wilderness Levi paid back what he had borrowed
[of the prior merit]: “Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp and
said, ‘Whoever is on the Lord’s side, let him come to me.’ And all the
sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him. And he said to them,
‘Thus says the Lord, God of Israel: Put on everyone his sword upon
his thigh....’ And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses”
(Ex. 32:26-28). Then at Shittim he went and lent to the Omnipresent:
“Phineas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned my wrath
away from the children of Israel, for he was very jealous for my sake
among them, so I did not consume the children of Israel in my jeal-
ousy” (Num. 25:11). As to Simeon, it was not enough that he did not
pay back [what he had borrowed at Shechem], but he went and bor-
rowed more: “Now the name of the man of Israel that was slain, who
was killed with the Midianite woman, was Zimri son of Salu, a prince
of a father’s house among the Simeonites” (Num. 25:14).
I cite the entire apodosis of the parable, “So Simeon and Levi
both borrowed…,” to show how carefully the parable tracks

the relationship and transaction that is subject to exegesis. It
would be difficult to find a parable that derives more deci-
sively from its exegetical task than the one before us here.
40. CCCLII:VI.4. Another teaching concerning the question, on what
account did Benjamin enjoy the merit of having the Presence of God
come to rest in his territory? The matter may be compared to the case
of a king who had many children. When they grew up, each one of
them went and found a place for himself. But the youngest of them
was especially beloved of his father. The king would eat and drink with
him, leaning on him when he went out and when he came in. So Ben-
jamin, who was righteous, was the youngest of the tribal ancestors, and
his father, Jacob, would eat and drink with him, leaning on him when
he went out and when he came in. Said the Holy One, blessed be He,
“In the place in which this righteous man laid his hands, I shall bring
my Presence to rest: ‘as he rests between his shoulders.’”
The case required by the cited verse is stated in abstract
language, king/prince, by the exegetical parable, which can
clarify only the case at hand or a comparable one with other
names but with no different relationship or transaction.
41. CCCLII:VII.1. And on what account did Benjamin enjoy the merit
of having the Presence of God come to rest in his territory? The matter
may be compared to the case of a king who from time to time came
to visit his children, and each one would say, “Let him abide with me.”
The youngest of them all said, “Is it possible that father will ever ne-
glect my elder brothers and abide with me? His face fell, and he was
disheartened The king said, “Have you seen my youngest son, look-
ing downcast and disheartened? Now the food and drink will come from
you others, but my lodging will be with him.” So the Holy One, blessed
be He, said, “The chosen house will be in the property of Benjamin,
but the offerings will derive from all of the tribes equally.”
What was stated of the foregoing applies here: the parable
responds to the case. The fact that two or more parables can
be invented for the same case does not change the fact that
the several parables track the case with great precision. Where
that is not so, we readily perceive it.
42. CCCLV:XVII.1. “O Jeshurun, there is none like God, riding through
the heavens to help you, through the skies in his majesty.”… through
the skies in his majesty:” All the Israelites gathered before Moses and
said to him, “Our lord, Moses, tell us: what is the measure of honor
paid to God on high?” He said to them, “On the basis of the lower
heavens you may know the measure of honor paid to God on high.”
There is a parable. To what may the matter be likened? It may be
compared to someone who said, “I want to witness the honor paid to

the king. They said to him, “Go to a town and you will see it.” He
went and saw a veil spread over the gate of the town, with precious
stones and pearls set in it, and he could not take his eyes off it, until
he stumbled.” They said to him, “If you could not take your eyes off
the veil spread over the gate of the town, with precious stones and pearls
set in it without stumbling, had you actually entered the town, how
much the more so!” On that account it is said, “… through the skies
in his majesty.”
The base-verse, “Through the skies in his majesty,” is what
is explained by the colloquy between Moses and the Israel-
ites. The point of the exegete is, what you can see merely
adumbrates the true glory, and that is the climax of the par-
able. In many ways this item embodies the traits of the ex-
egetical parable, fully realized.
43. CCCLVI:IV.2 “O happy Israel! Who is like you, a people delivered
by the Lord, your protecting shield, your sword triumphant? Your en-
emies shall come cringing before you and you shall tread on their
backs:” “O happy Israel:” All the Israelites gathered before Moses,
saying to him, “Our lord, Moses, tell us what good the Holy One,
blessed be He, is going to give us in the age to come.” He said to them,
“I do not know what to say to you? Happy are you for what is ready
for you.” The matter may be compared to the case of a man who
handed his son over to a teacher, who would take him about and show
things to him and say to him, “All these trees are yours, all these vines
are yours, all these olive trees are yours.” When he got tired of show-
ing him things, he said to him, “I do not know what [more] to say to
you? Happy are you for what is ready for you.” Thus said Moses to
Israel, “I do not know what to say to you? Happy are you for what is
ready for you: O how abundant is your goodness, which you have laid
up for those who fear you’ (Ps. 31:20).”
Here is a parable that intersects with, but does not track, the
exegetical problem. Moses does not show the people what is
coming to them, in the way in which the pedagogue does, so
the opening sequence of the parable has no counterpart in
the situation it is meant to illuminate. Absent a counterpart
to the parable’s “when he got tired of showing him things…,”
we have only an approximation of the exegetical task. It may
seem like a minor variation between the object of the para-
bolic simile and the parable, but we have seen so many in-
stances of a precise match that it is a striking difference none-
theless.
44. CCCLVII:XI. 2. “… at the command of the Lord:” When the Omni-

present takes the souls of the righteous, it is in a spirit of serenity that
he takes them. There is an analogy: to what may the matter be com-
pared? To a reliable person who was in a town, with whom everyone
deposited their bailments for safe-keeping. When one of them would
come to retrieve his property, the reliable man would produce and hand
over the object, since he knew precisely where it was. And if the owner
had occasion to send for a bailment with his son or slave or agent, he
would have to turn things topsy-turvy, for he did not know where things
were. Thus when the Omnipresent takes the souls of the righteous, it
is in a spirit of serenity that he takes them. But when he takes the souls
of the wicked, he hands them over to evil messengers, merciless mes-
sengers, who are to drag away those souls. And so Scripture says,
“Therefore a cruel angel shall be sent against him” (Prov. 17:11).
I have already explained why the parable does not track the
exegetical task defined by “When he takes the souls of the
righteous, it is in a spirit of serenity….” Here is a classic case
of an off-the-rack parable serving a specific exegetical task
only through adaptation, which is not successful.
45. CCCLVII:XVIII.1. “There has never yet risen in Israel a prophet like
Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face; remember all the signs and
portents which the Lord sent him to show in Egypt to Pharaoh and
all his servants and the whole land; remember the strong hand of Moses
and the terrible deeds which he did in the sight of all Israel” (Dt. 34:10-
13). “There has never yet risen in Israel a prophet like Moses:” In Is-
rael none arose, but among the nations, one did arise. Who is that? It
is Balaam son of Beor. But there is quite a difference between the proph-
ecy of Moses and the prophecy of Balaam. “of God” (Num. 24:16).
Moses did not know when God would speak with him, until he actu-
ally was spoken with, while Balaam knew full well exactly when he
would be spoken with. For it is said, “And knows the knowledge of
the Most High” (Num. 24:16). Moses would speak with God only stand-
ing up, as it is said, “And you, stand here with me” (Dt. 5:28). But
Balaam was spoken with when he had fallen, as it is said, “Who sees
the vision of the Almighty, having fallen down with open eyes” (Num.
24:4). To what is the matter comparable? To the case of the king’s
butcher, who knows precisely how much the king is spending on his
table.
The parable performs the generalized task of comparing
Moses to Balaam as prophets; the former knows the most
intimate details, the latter not. I do not see which of the
particular exercises of comparison is served by the simile,
which strikes me as bearing general utility.
We may now summarize the results of the foregoing exercise, fol-

lowing the pattern established in the prior summary-chapters:
Halakhic Parables of Sifré to Deuteronomy

Parable particular to its Halakhic setting: —
Parable not particular to its Halakhic setting: —
Exegetical Parables of Sifré to Deuteronomy
() = ambiguous case
Parable particular to its exegetical setting: 1, (2), 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
(14), (15), 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34,
35, (2)6), 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42,
Parable not particular to its exegetical setting: 3, 5, 7, 20, 31, 33, 43, 44,
45
We find, then, nine parables not generated by the particular exe-

getical task at hand, not systematically replicating the situation or
transaction predicated upon the base-verse and demanded by the
exegesis thereof. And there are thirty-six instances (counting three
ambiguous items) in which the parable is particular to its exegetical
task, tracking the case that is generalized by the simile, commonly
but not invariably narrative in execution.
C. The Non-Exegetical Parable
We find one parable that does not fit the categories employed to
this point, Halakhic or exegetical:
CCCVI:XXIV 1. Another teaching concerning the phrase, “May my dis-
course come down as the rain, my speech distill as the dew, like showers
on young growths, like droplets on the grass:” R. Meir would say, “One
should also collect teachings of the Torah in the form of encompassing
principles, for if you collect them solely as details, they will exhaust you
and in the end you will not know what to do anyhow. “The matter may
be compared to the case of someone who went to Caesarea and needed a
hundred or two hundred zuz for the trip. If he took the money as change,
the coins would tire him out and he would not know what to do. But if he
put them together and brought sela-coins with him, and then paid them
out one by one wherever he wanted, then he could manage. So too, some-
one who goes to Bet Ilias to the market and needed a hundred manehs or
even two myriads for the expense of the trip. If he took the money as selas,
the coins would tire him out and he would not know what to do. But if he
turned them into denars of gold and then paid them out in change as he
needed, he would be all right.”
The parable’s purpose is neither to clarify the cited verse nor

to illuminate a Halakhic norm. It is, rather, to set forth counsel
to disciples of sages: emphasize the governing principle, let
the details take care of themselves. The anomaly is marked,
also, by the failure to include instruction on how the parable
pertains, there being no reversion to the principle that is
exemplified in the pseudo-narrative.
I do not know what to make of this singleton, which is formally odd

as well. The “so too” clause duplicates and does not bring to reso-
lution the initial parable. I also do not know how to assess the rela-
tionship of the parable to the case to which it supplies a generaliz-
ing simile. The need to turn small change into coinage of higher
value and less weight surely serves a variety of situations, not only
the requirements of collecting and arranging Torah-teachings. So,
in all, I cannot classify the item.
The upshot is self-evident: to the compilers of Sifré to Deuteron-
omy, the exegetical parable presented a fine medium to advance the
work of clarifying the messages of the book of Deuteronomy, and
three-fourths of all the parables identified as such (“to what is the
matter likened?”) are devoted to that one task. If a sizable corpus
of parabolic narratives independent of a particular transaction or
situation circulated, we cannot identify much of its contents. The
parabolic conventions that transcend the particular exegetical cases
before us generally involve the king/prince/ally/queen, in various
commonplace relationships, but rarely can we reconstruct a consid-
erable narrative account of those relationships. Once we have our
king/prince/ally or queen, what happens to them or what they say
or do generally proves fragmentary and not very illuminating. The
lesson they embody turns out, even in the parables not particular
to the exegetical setting, to emerge primarily within the exegetical
setting for the purposes of which they have been adapted.
III. The Ma#aseh

The Ma#aseh in Sifré to Deuteronomy takes on traits unfamiliar in
its counterparts in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Sifra (not to mention
Sifré to Numbers!). In the Mishnah and the Tosefta, the marker,
Ma#aseh, signals a Halakhic precedent or case. Of the narratives and
pseudo-narratives of the Mishnah, 80% are Ma#asim, and of these,
most are Halakhic Ma#asim: cases or precedents. Given the charac-
ter of the Mishnah that is a predictable outcome. The Tosefta fol-

lows suit, with Ma#asim forming just under 80% of its narrative or
pseudo-narrative corpus. The majority of Sifra’s counterparts fol-
low suit, but the tiny corpus of Ma#asim encompasses incidents or
situations bearing no particular, Halakhic charge, e.g., Eliezer’s pre-
diction of the student’s imminent demise, and the crops in the time
of Simeon b. Shatah. In Sifré to Numbers I found not a single Hala-
khic Ma#aseh, and the matched triplet of Ma#asim that I did find pro-
duced a pattern—situation/transaction/outcome—that I could not
link to any exegetical problem or plan, other than that defined by
the narrative context. Here again, the marker, Ma#aseh, bears no fixed
signals as to the task or plan of the narrative that follows.
We shall now see the emergence of a type of Ma#aseh we have not
found in a prior document, the exegetical Ma#aseh, comparable to
the exegetical Mashal. By that characterization I mean, the focus of
the Ma#aseh is on the interpretation of a verse of Scripture, not on
the realization of a Halakhic norm, or on the provision of a case
for analysis. Most of the Ma#asim of Sifré to Deuteronomy are exe-
getical in the simple sense that they illustrate or clarify the meaning
of a verse of Scripture; they bear no autonomous standing outside
of that exegetical task. That is what I mean in comparing the exe-
getical Ma#aseh to the exegetical parable: the function is the same.
Since the document reached closure later than Mishnah-Tosef-
ta, it is reasonable to suppose that the Ma#aseh form as received has
been revised for the documentary purposes of the writers composi-
tors of Sifré to Deuteronomy. But that surmise raises more ques-
tions than it settles. For if the documentary program guided the
development of a received form for a new purpose, then why has
the documentary program not dictated the points at which the adapt-
ed form would make its appearance. Specifically, the Ma#aseh had
served Halakhic exposition and analysis in the Mishnah and Tosef-
ta and even in Sifra. Here the Halakhic form serves new, non-Hala-
khic purposes—but no longer serves in the Halakhic exposition of
Deuteronomy Chapters Twelve through Twenty-Six. So the utili-
zation of the Ma#aseh in Sifré to Deuteronomy does not augment or
expand the received usage, it rather rejects that familiar function
and invents a new one altogether. As the parable takes on specific-
ity and particularity as exegetical, so the marker, Ma#aseh, follows
suit as a medium of exegetical discourse.
1. XVI:II.1. “I charged your magistrates at that time as follows: ‘Hear

out your fellow men and decide justly between any man and a fellow
Israelite or a stranger. You shall not be partial in judgment. Hear out
low and high alike Fear no man, for judgment is God’s, And any matter
that is too difficult for you, you shall bring to me and I will hear it.’
Thus I instructed you, at that time, about the various things that you
should do” (Dt. 1:14-18): “... at that time, saying...:” Moses says to the
judges, “In the past you were subject to your own cognizance, but now,
lo, you are servants, subjugated to the public interest.”
There was the case involving [Ma#aseh] R. Yohanan b. Nuri and R. Eleazar
Hisma. Rabban Gamaliel put them in charge of the session, but the
disciples were not aware of them. At evening they went and took their
places by the disciples. Now it was Rabban Gamaliel’s custom, when
he would enter the session and say, “Ask,” it was an indication that
there was no supervisor present. But when he would enter and not say,
“Ask,” it was an indication that there was a supervisor there He came
in and found R. Yohanan b. Nuri and R. Eleazar Hisma in session by
the disciples. He said to him, “Yohanan b. Nuri and Eleazar Hisma,
you have treated the community shabbily, for you have not sought to
exercise authority over the community In the past you were subject
to your own cognizance, but now, lo, you are servants, subjugated to
the public interest.”
Here is a Torah-Ma#aseh, defined by its contents: the conven-
tions of the master-disciple circle. Like Meir’s Torah-parable,
cited earlier, it is distinguished not by its form but by its
context. This bears no counterpart among parables.
2. CXVI:V.1. “… lend him sufficient for whatever he needs:” “What-
ever he needs:” even a horse, even a slave. ‘
There is the precedent [Ma#aseh] involving Hillel the Elder, who gave a
poor man, son of a good family, a horse with which to work, and a
slave to serve him.
There is the further precedent [Ma#aseh] in Upper Galilee, in which they
served a guest a litra of meat every day.
Here is a standard exegesis, embodied in two concrete rul-
ings: an exegetical Ma#aseh. A simple exegetical parable go-
ing over the same ground is readily fabricated: there was a
king who saw a poor man… and gave him…. I do not know
how the exegetical parable differs from the exegetical Ma#aseh,
within the current model.
3. CCCV:II.1. M#SH B: Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai was riding on an
ass, and his disciples were following after him. He saw a young girl
gathering barley from underneath the hooves of the oxen of Arabs.
When she saw Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, she covered herself with
her hair and stood before him and said to him, “My lord, feed me.”
He said to her, “Whose daughter are you? She said to him, “The
daughter of Naqdimon b. Gurion am I.” She said to him, “My lord,
do you remember when you witnessed through your signature the
document of my marriage settlement?” Said Rabban Yohanan b.
Zakkai to his disciples, “I signed as witness the document of this girl’s
marriage settlement… My entire life I have sought the meaning of this
verse of Scripture, and now I have found it: ‘If you do not know, O
most beautiful among women, go out in the footsteps of the flock and
feed your kids beside the shepherds’ tents’ (Song 1:8). So long as the
Israelites carry out the will of the Omnipresent, no nation or kingdom
can rule them. But when the Israelites do not carry out the will of the
Omnipresent, he will hand them over into the power of a despicable
nation, not only into the power of a despicable nation, but even be-
neath the hooves of the beasts of a despicable nation.”
Here is an exegesis of Song 1:8, given narrative setting. But
this cannot be compared to an exegetical parable.
3. CCCXVI:I.3 “…he fed him honey from the crag:” Like the area
around Sikhni.
There was the case [Ma#aseh] , when R. Judah said to his son, “Go and
bring me figs from the jar.” He said to him, “Father, it is honey for
the figs have turned into honey.” He said to him, “Put your hand in
it and you’ll bring up figs. “… and oil from the flinty rock:” This re-
fers to the olives from Gischala. There was the case, [Ma#aseh] , when
R. Yosé said to his son in Sepphoris, “Go up and bring us olives from
the upper room.” He went and found the upper room flooded with
olive-oil.
The Ma#aseh serves the exegetical purpose of illustrating the
abundance of honey to which the cited verse refers. Like the
counterpart-cases showing the productivity of the Land when
not encumbered by Israel’s sinfulness, the cases form pseudo-
narratives of no particular weight.
5. CCCXVII:VI.1. Another comment concerning, “… with the very finest
wheat—and foaming grape-blood was your drink” (Dt. 32:13-14) In
time to come every grain of wheat is going to be the size of the two
kidneys of a big ox, the weight of four Sepphorean liters. And if you
find that surprising, look at turnip-heads.
There was the case [Ma#aseh] in which they weighed a turnip head at the
weight of thirty Sepphorean liters.
There was the case [Ma#aseh] in which a fox made a nest in the head of a
turnip
There was a case [Ma#aseh] in Shehin in the matter of a mustard stalk, which
has three twigs. One of them split off and it was used as the roofing
for the hut of a pottery. They opened it and found in it nine qabs of
mustard seeds
Said R. Simeon b. Halapta, “There was a cabbage stalk in my house, and

I would go up and down on it, as one goes up and down on a lad-
der.”
This is comparable to the foregoing. I cannot conceive how
these can have been reframed into parables, however con-
text-particular.
6. CCCXXII:V.1. “For they are a folk void of sense, lacking in all dis-
cernment:” “‘How could one have routed a thousand or two put ten
thousand to flight, unless their rock had sold them, the Lord had given
them up? For their rock is not like our rock.’”
There was the case [Ma#aseh] of the war in Judea, in which a decurion ran
after an Israelite on a horse to kill him, but he could not catch up with
him. Before he caught up with him, however, a snake came out and
bit him on his heal. He said, “Do not think that it is because we are
strong that they have been handed over to us. How could one have
routed a thousand or two put ten thousand to flight, unless their rock
had sold them, the Lord had given them up.’”
The Ma#aseh here functions like an exegetical parable; I see
no differences, except that here we are given a concrete in-
cident, and in a parable we should ask for an abstract tale
that captures the same transaction or relationship.
7. CCCXXIII:III.1. “… unless their rock had sold them, the Lord had
given them up:” “I am not the one who is going to give you up. Others
will give you up.”
There was a case [Ma#aseh] in which the flies were the ones to give them
up in Judah.
Here is an unrealized item similar to the foregoing.
8. CCCXXXV:II.1. “… Enjoin them upon your children, that they may
observe faithfully all the terms of this Torah:” He said to them, “I have
to be thankful to you for keeping the Torah after me, so you too must
be thankful to your children for keeping the Torah after you.” ‘
There was the case [Ma#aseh] when Our Rabbi came from Laodicea, and
R. Yosé b. R. Judah and R. Eleazar b. Judah came and went into
session in his presence. He said to them, “Draw near. As I have to be
thankful to you for keeping the Torah after me, so you too must be
thankful to your children for keeping the Torah after you. Now were
Moses not a great person, and had others not accepted the Torah from
him, it would have been vain. We—all the more so do we depend upon
your accepting and carrying out the Torah, thus keeping it alive!
Here we have a narrative that Ma#aseh that goes over the
ground of the exegesis.
What we find here, which I have not observed in the earlier docu-
ments, is the Ma#aseh devoted to a clearly-delineated exegetical pur-

pose. Functioning as does a parable but framed in one-time, con-
crete terms, the exegetical Ma#aseh illustrates a proposition generat-
ed by a verse of Scripture in the following entries:
Exegetical Ma#aseh : No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Halakhic Ma#aseh : —
Torah-Ma#aseh : No. 1
The upshot may be simply stated. In Sifré to Deuteronomy, the

Ma#aseh as defined by the Mishnah and the Tosefta, a marker bear-
ing Halakhic weight as authoritative precedent, gives way to a new
function, illustrative and exegetical, comparable to that of the Mashal.
The only important difference is, the Ma#aseh refers to a particular
person or a specific incident, while the Mashal is framed in abstract
terms. But in the document before us, that is the only difference I
discern, vastly outweighed by the shared task of exegesis in the sim-
plest sense: articulating in concrete and particular terms the mes-
sage that Scripture itself conveys.
IV. Not Classified: —

V. Sifré to Deuteronomy’s Narratives in Canonical Context
In proportion to the whole of Sifré to Deuteronomy, the narrative
and pseudo-narrative corpus proves negligible, just as in Sifra and
Sifré to Numbers.
metry of the canon? The answer, which is completely, definitively neg-
ative, emerges from the following reprise:
The Authentic Narrative: The five authentic narratives are para-
chuted down, not constructed in dialogue with their exegetical context. But
that formal, literary fact should not obscure the theological congruity of
the five items. No. 1, Aqiba and the masters contrasting the situation of
Rome with that of Jerusalem, reconfirms the hope for redemption, No. 2,
the death of Moses, recapitulates the Scriptural narrative. No. 3, the mar-
tyrdom of Haninah b. Teradion, his wife and their daughter, justify God’s
decree, a variation on No. 1, now for the individual Israelite, not for cor-
porate Israel. No. 4 justifies the divine decision to give the Torah to Israel,
not the nations. Only No. 5, with its illustration of Prov. 13:7, stands apart
from the theological program of the Aggadic documents viewed whole. Their
theological system and structure are cogent and focus on revealing God’s
justice, as I showed in Theology of the Oral Torah (Montreal and Kingston,
1999: McGill-Queens University Press). That is an odd singleton.

The Mashal:
The Halakhic Mashal: —
The Exegetical Mashal: Of the forty-five exegetical Meshalim, thirty-
six are particular to their context. The other nine in no way conflict with
the recurrent messages of the document.
The Ma#aseh: Apart from a singleton, the Ma#asim undertake exegeti-
cal tasks, comparable to those of the exegetical parable.
Not Classified:—
The answer is definitive: the narrative and pseudo-narrative corpus

in Sifré to Deuteronomy violates the established forms of the docu-
ment but adheres to its redactional program, the exegesis of narra-
tive or theological components of a scriptural book. That exegesis
is carried on within the established hermeneutics and in no way points
to doctrines or modes of thought at odds with those of main body
of compositions and composites in our document, defined at the
outset: verse by verse clarification of law or narrative or exhorta-
tion within a single coherent system of thought and theological con-
struction through Halakhic norms.
2. Does non-documentary writing exhibit readily-discernible patterns of form
and meaning as does documentary writing? If so, what are these patterns and
how are we to classify and to interpret them? The rules of composing an
autonomous, authentic, successful narrative cannot be reconstruct-
ed out of the bits and pieces before us; the corpus of such narra-
tives is simply too sparse to permit generalizing of traits of rhetoric,
logic, and topic. The one development of interest is the formation
of the exegetical parable and the adaptation of the Ma#aseh to func-
tion precisely as does the Mashal, the differences being not structur-
al or functional but merely adventitious.
siderations give way to writing utterly indifferent to its documentary venue? The
upshot is simply stated: the principal narrative and pseudo-narra-
tive component of Sifré to Deuteronomy is the exegetical Mashal,
matched by the exegetical Ma#aseh, and both clearly serve documen-
tary program, if not in a formidable way. With negligible exceptions,
the narrative writing in the document constitutes writing of, within
the framework of compiling, the document.
The compilers of Sifré to Deuteronomy set out to write up a sys-

tematic exegesis of the book of Deuteronomy, Aggadic (narrative,
exhortatory) and Halakhic portions alike, and at some few passag-
es, they found the exegetical Mashal and the exegetical Ma#aseh suit-
able to serve that purpose. What Sifré to Deuteronomy shows is when
that was likely to happen, which, systematically and not haphazardly,
was in response to the prophetic poetry of Moses’s final visions, dis-
proportionately in Parashat Ha’azinu and Parashat Vezot Habber-
akhah. That is to say, in this document in particular, the parable
formed a medium of theological recapitulation, in the full clarity of
human transactions, of the narratives, prophecies, and poetry of the
meeting with God in the here and now of Israel’s worldly condi-
tion. But for that purpose, the brief, constrained, stripped-down
parabolic narrative served only casually.
What next in the unfolding of documents in the sequence of clo-
sure? A major development in narrative writing, transcending the
limits of the Mashal altogether, specifically, the development of the
protracted story, and composites of such stories, awaited. The Mish-
nah, Tosefta, tractate Abot, Sifra, and the two Sifrés contain not a
single Rabbinic story, fully realized and successful, such as later
documents would set forth in abundance. That is because for the
tasks for which writing for the Mishnah, Tosefta, and the other Tan-
naite compilations was undertaken, such protracted and successful
stories served no documentary purpose subject to realization through
such stories and no other medium.
APPENDIX
INFORMATION WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE.

CLEMENS THOMA ON THE PARABLE
Clemens Thoma and Simon Lauer, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen. I.

Pesiqta deRav Kahana. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Parallelen, Kommentar, Texte
(Bern, Frankfurt am Main, New York, 1986: Peter Lang).
Clemens Thoma and Simon Lauer, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen. II.
Von der Erschaffung der Welt bis zum Tod Abrahams: Bereschit Rabba 1-
63. (Bern, Frankfurt am Main, New York, 1991: Peter Lang).
Clemens Thoma and Hanspeter Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen.

III. Von Isaak bis Zum Schilfmeer. Ber R 63-100, ShemR 1-22. (Bern,
Frankfurt am Main, New York, 1996: Peter Lang).
Clemens Thoma and Hanspeter Ernst, Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen.

IV. Vom Lied des Mose bis zum Bundesbuch: ShemR 23-30 . (Bern, Frank-
furt am Main, New York, 2000: Peter Lang).
The authors aim at a presentation of the Rabbinic parables in an

academic translation, together with parallels, text-critical, form-crit-
ical, historical, and theological commentary (I, p. 12): “Unser Fernziel
ist es, sämtliche rabbinischen Gleichnisse in einer wissenschaftlich
fundierten Übersetzung samt ihren Parallelen, mit text- und
formkritischem, philologischem, historischem und theologischem
Kommentar herauszugeben.” Without question, they have accom-
plished their goals and kept their promises; this is the definitive edi-
tion of the parables in the three documents they examine. What use
is to be made of the collection of data, other than ad hoc reference,
is less self-evident, and apart from useful facts, I do not see much to
be learned here: an exercise in empty erudition.
They promise the study of the Rabbinic parable, its meaning and
its expression from a literary and formal perspective. For each doc-
238 appendix
ument in order, the authors deal with the literary critical founda-
tions of Rabbinic parables, the classification of parables by theme
and topic, the foundations in the Hebrew Scriptures and Greek and
Oriental influences, the language of the document and the edition
that they have used, the antiquity of the parables in a given docu-
ment, the history of scholarship on the subject; then there is a trans-
lation, each item as it occurs and recurs, with the versions compared
and contrasted, parallels and textual comparisons laid out, then what
they call “Inhalt,” on the theme and meaning of the parable that is
under study. Then they set forth the Hebrew texts and a full range
of indices: text editions, translations, secondary literature; an index
of references to foreign words, biblical passages, ancient and Helle-
nistic literature, Rabbinic literature, authors, and Sachregister. I sim-
ply cannot imagine a more thorough presentation of the parables
in the documents that are treated; it is exemplary as an exercise of
industry.
But only for that. As to the interest for learning, apart from serv-
ing as a reference work in examining any given pericope, the col-
lection bears little value. First, the bibliographies of the four volumes
are amazing for what they do not know, and one wonders about
the state of the library at Lucerne University. I doubt that informed
scholarship can be conducted there. For Thoma and his co-work-
ers simply have not kept up with scholarship over the span of time
in which they did their work. But they assiduously cite in their bib-
liographies work with little or no bearing upon their topic—a very
political bibliography indeed!
Failure to engage with the state of learning is no insuperable flaw,
if the work presents its own theses. No one is required to take in
everyone else’s laundry. But Thoma and his co-workers do not
present a thesis about the Rabbinic parable, and I do not believe
they conceive one. To make this point concrete: what I do not dis-
cern is the proposition(s) that Thoma and his co-workers actually
propose to examine, the theory they investigate through the cases
at hand, the problem(s) they wish to solve.
Nonetheless, merely because the purpose and context of learn-
ing are left unarticulated, however, it does not mean there is none.
Thoma seems to have a notion that The Rabbinic Parable is a free-
standing literary entity, which surfaces hither and yon. They differ-
entiate one document from another only in the most formal sense,
but to no substantive purpose. From what Thoma and his co-work-
clemens thoma on the parable 239
ers do it is possible to intuit what they imagined they were doing:

the parable is to be studied in an effort to recover the original form
and its definitive meaning. Then collecting the diverse versions and
comparing one to another should yield knowledge that leads some-
where.
What Thoma and his colleagues achieve in this regard I really
cannot say. Is there some primary, original collection of parables,
upon which various documents draw? Do parables exist in the ab-
stract? Do they suppose that a common fund of parabolic narratives
circulated, to be drawn on here by Jesus, there by Rabbi X—knowl-
edge of which would clarify some profound question of Rabbinic
Judaism, or of earliest Christianity, or of the imaginative life of Ju-
daic antiquity—or what? I do not know. Thoma has constructed an
enterprise as though he imagined parables to derive from some Pla-
tonic Idea, so that collecting and comparing and contrasting all the
concrete versions will point us toward that perfect Idea and allow
us access to it. But all of this is surmise. In fact, Thoma and his col-
leagues excel only at hunting and gathering information, which, in
their hands, yields no insight and leads no where beyond itself.
But the question arises: have Thoma and his co-workers not con-
ducted their enterprise precisely as I should have advocated they do
it: document by document? For do they not present parables of
Pesiqta deRab Kahana and parables of Genesis Rabbah, each col-
lection on its own? Does this not yield precisely the data from which,
in my documentary hypothesis, I maintain yield decisive results,
incisive insights? Let me state bluntly: Thoma is utterly ignorant of
the documentary hypothesis, even while he has been guided by its
basic approach, which is, to describe each document in its own terms
and out of its own data, with full attention to the particularities that
register in the use of data common to two or more documents in
addition.
Matters are not even so simple. Blundering forward in a project
he does not fully grasp, when it comes to the work of the documen-
tary description of data, Thoma neither does nor fails to do the la-
bor. In collecting the data document by document, for Pesiqta de-
Rab Kahana and Genesis Rabbah and Exodus Rabbah, he has made
possible part of the documentary description of the three collections.
But he produces no systematic description of his findings. He sim-
ply does not write a conclusion, because he has drawn no conclu-
sions, e.g., for Pesiqta deRab Kahana, either on its own or in rela-
240 appendix
tionship to Genesis Rabbah let alone Exodus Rabbah. We do not

know more about Pesiqta deRab Kahana after reading his protracted
presentation of its parables than we did before. This is typical of the
level of European doctoral dissertations, but one should expect a
greater exercise of intelligence on the part of chaired university-pro-
fessors!
The data remain inert. That is because all documentary descrip-
tion requires an exercise of comparison and contrast, allowing for
perspective upon the document subject to description. But despite
his systematic, documentary reading of the parable in Pesiqta deR-
ab Kahana and then in Genesis Rabbah, I am unable to find in the
first three volumes, where that project is carried out, a single sen-
tence that says, the parable in the one compares or contrasts with the parable
in the other in the following way(s). He devotes two pages to the topic,
“Von der Pesiqta deRav Kahana zum Genesis-Midraschwerk,” (pp.
12-13, listed on the table of contents as p. 14). And here we have
random remarks, not a systematic comparison of the one and the
other.
Why divide parables between and among the documents in which
they occur, if there is nothing at stake in doing so? I find no char-
acterization of the documents, no reading of the results for Pesiqta
deRab Kahana in comparison with those for Genesis Rabbah. So
Thoma has given us a berakhah levatalah: a gift lacking all substance.
For he deals with three documents using the parable as the focus,
but he fails to ask documentary questions that he himself has made
it possible to answer! As I said, these possibilities begin with com-
parison and contrast between two kindred documents. His interest
on the mashal itself, its forms, types, and versions, as these are spread
across many documents, does not extend to the variety and diversi-
ty of parables as documentary indicators.
One may allege in his defense that he cannot do everything, and
he has done part of the work and left the rest for others. That de-
fense would bear plausibility had the comparison of documents never
been undertaken by anybody. But here Thoma’s political bibliog-
raphy exacts a heavy toll. He has not done his homework, and that
is why he has butchered the entire analytical enterprise. To state
the matter simply: he does not know the territory. Thoma’s bibli-
ography ignores the fact that in print long before Thoma finished
his work in 2000, or the work on Genesis Rabbah in sequence fol-
lowing Pesiqta deRab Kahana, is such a comparison of Midrash-
compilations, focused on specific texts, involving Genesis Rabbah

and Leviticus Rabbah, then Leviticus Rabbah, Pesiqta deRab Ka-
hana, and Pesiqta Rabbati.1
But there is more: the very selection of a starting point and a point
of continuation. He begins with Pesiqta deRab Kahana and takes
as his next document Genesis Rabbah. Two gross errors are involved.
Pesiqta deRab Kahana is secondary to Leviticus Rabbah. So he
should have started with Leviticus Rabbah and proceeded to the
document that intersects with it—the grounds for documentary com-
parison being particular and precise, therefore. Starting with the
secondary document, he might at least have proceeded backward,
to Leviticus Rabbah. And, moving onward, if he insisted on a me-
dieval compilation, he should have chosen Pesiqta Rabbati, which
intersects with Pesiqta deRab Kahana. So he began in medias res,
and then chose as his continuation-document a compilation with no
connection to the initial choice, neither fore nor aft. All informed
scholarship recognizes the connections between Leviticus Rabbah
and Pesiqta deRab Kahana, and between Pesiqta deRab Kahana
and Pesiqta Rabbati.
A comparably gross error is readily at hand. What Thoma has
done in his four volumes is like starting form-analysis with the Tosefta,
and proceeding to Sifré to Deuteronomy. But the Tosefta, like Pe-
siqta deRab Kahana in relationship to Leviticus Rabbah, is second-
ary: the Tosefta is number two, the Mishnah number one, in any
and every study of the documents conducted in the past half-centu-
ry. No scholar of any standing doubts that fact. Accordingly, Tho-
ma’s choice of Pesiqta deRab Kahana is equivalent to starting with
the Tosefta instead of with the Mishnah, and his choice of Genesis
Rabbah for a continuation-document is comparable to ignoring the
Mishnah altogether in Tosefta-form-analysis. Within the documen-
tary hypothesis it is, in a single word, little short of moronic! To state
the matter simply: every informed scholar knows that Pesiqta deR-
ab Kahana carries forward the work of Leviticus Rabbah—and not
Genesis Rabbah. Pesiqta deRab Kahana contains no fewer than five
complete pisqaot/parashiyyot that are shared with Leviticus Rab-
1 Comparative Midrash: The Plan and Program of Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah.
Atlanta, 1986: Scholars Press for Brown Judaic Studies; From Tradition to Imitation.
The Plan and Program of Pesiqta deRab Kahana and Pesiqta Rabbati. Atlanta, 1987: Scholars
Press for Brown Judaic Studies. [With a fresh translation of Pesiqta Rabbati Pisqaot
1-5, 15.]
242 appendix
bah, but not a single pisqa/parashah shared in its entirety with

Genesis Rabbah. It has already been shown that the shared pisqaot/
parashiyyot of Leviticus Rabbah and Pesiqta deRab Kahana are
primary to Leviticus Rabbah and secondary to Pesiqta deRab Ka-
hana—but Thoma does not know the book that proves that fact.
Then why omit Leviticus Rabbah and jump to Genesis Rabbah
Thoma does not say. I doubt the question occurred to him. But surely
there is a reason that compelled him to do this, not that. Nor does
he specify why he then leaps continents and centuries to a medi-
eval compilation, produced in a completely different literary and in-
tellectual framework. Working within the formative canon allows us
to set aside a variety of contextual problems that arise otherwise.
But Thoma does not address issues of context, whether literary,
whether documentary, whether cultural.
So while Thoma’s problem is The Parable, he has gone about his
inquiry by dealing with three documents, Pesiqta deRab Kahana,
Genesis Rabbah and Exodus Rabbah, and, as I say, I cannot find
where the results for one document are compared and contrasted
with those for another. Is that to maintain all is contrast, nothing
comparison? I do not know, and neither does Thoma. Perhaps the
comparison would yield an account of a shared universe of forms
and common, original versions or sources, an essentially uniform
corpus of writing and thought then scattered hither and yon. But
the problem of documentary description and differentiation has not
been addressed.
At stake are not untested theories, for I do not ask Thoma to
pursue lines of research others have ignored. My insistence on the
comparison of documents, not only bits and pieces of compositions
and composites contained therein as he does, derives from work al-
ready completed and in print even before his work was well under-
way. In 1986 I published the comparison of Genesis Rabbah and
Leviticus Rabbah, and in 1987, that of Pesiqta deRab Kahana and
Pesiqta Rabbati. His volume Two, on Genesis Rabbah, was pub-
lished in 1991; neither item surfaces in his bibliography in the later
volumes, down to 2000! What kind of scholarship is this?
What has Thoma missed? A concrete outcome of documentary
comparison and contrast, with special reference to literary data,
suggests from one case what was, and remains, possible in another.
The established case addresses the documentary comparison of the
Mishnah and the Tosefta with special reference to narratives. I cite
it only to indicate what Thoma might have accomplished had he

taken to heart results in print long before he completed his presen-
tation in the four volumes at hand.
Comparing the narratives of the Mishnah with those of the Tosef-
ta, in volume one of this study, I have established a simple fact. For
the narratives in the Mishnah and the Tosefta I have now proved
that with two exceptions in the Mishnah and not many more in the
Tosefta, all narratives and pseudo-narratives in the Mishnah and the
Tosefta adhere to the documentary requirements of the Mishnah
and/or of the Tosefta respectively. Given the highly formalized
character of the Mishnah, we must find plausible that the document
defines its preferences and uses for narratives as much as for all other
media of discourse. Given what we know about the Tosefta, we
cannot find astonishing that the document contains both Mishnah-
like materials and compositions that do not conform to Mishnaic
preferences on narrative form. That simple result of a systematic
survey makes possible further exercises of documentary comparison
and contrast in the use of narratives. In the present volume, I have
shown that “the” parable divides into two main types in the three
documents at hand, and of those types, the exegetical parable pre-
dominates in exegetical documents—a result that the documentary
hypothesis would have led us to anticipate, but that has now been
definitively established in the pages of this book. Had Thoma com-
pared his documents as to the use of parables in them, their func-
tions, types and forms, I do not know what he might have found
out. Neither does he. But it is now a fact, and I state with heavy
emphasis what I said in the prefaces of volume one and the present
volume and will repeat in volume three:
Narratives form part of the documentary self-definition of the Mishnah and
of the Tosefta. The fulcrum of interpretation and analysis, for narrative as much
as for other kinds of canonical writing in formative Judaism, is the document.
The narrative in the Mishnah and Tosefta does serve documen-
tary purposes and does not ignore or disrupt them. The genre, the
narrative, assumes a subordinated role within the programs of the
several Rabbinic documents. And with what consequence? Again
with emphasis:
It is therefore analytically meaningless to talk about “the Rabbinic narra-
tive” or “the Rabbinic parable” or “the Aggadah” or “the Rabbinic folktale”
or any comparable, generic category that ignores documentary boundaries. The
principal, and primary, analytical initiative commences with the document—
244 appendix
the traits of its narrative, parable, Aggadah, folktale, and other generic catego-
ries. We may then speak of the narrative or parable or ma#aseh in the Mish-
nah or the Tosefta or Sifra or one or another of the Talmuds, and only then ask
how the narrative or parable or ma#aseh as represented by the one document
compares, or contrasts, with that of another.
In that proposition I part company from all those who as a mat-
ter of premise and presupposition have treated the Rabbinic cor-
pus as uniform and consequently have asked about The Rabbinic
Story, or, as with Thoma, The Rabbinic Parable. They come up with
answers that claim to speak of everything but in fact represent only
some few things, indeed, the document where they originate but not
other documents (e.g., Lamentations Rabbah but not the Mishnah,
to take a self-evident case for the parable!). That process of com-
parison and contrast sheds light on the character of the several doc-
uments, their construction and larger context. And that is the heart
of the matter.
What of the unfortunate work before us? Future scholarship will
gladly acknowledge that Thoma and his co-workers have provided
preliminary studies by collecting a lot of data, even while they have
badly botched the job. That is by doing the right thing for the wrong
reason—or, more accurately, for no reason at all. It really does pay
to keep up with scholarship in one’s field.
index of subjects 245
INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Authentic narratives in Sifré to Numbers, 126–127

in Sifra, 58, 75 Heszer, Catherine, xii(n)7
in Sifré to Deuteronomy, 203–206
in Sifré to Numbers, 124–125, 143 Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (Neusner),
ix(n)2
Comparative Midrash: The Plan and Program Iyunim be"olamo haruhani shel sipur ha"agadah
of Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah (Segal), xi(n)7
(Neusner), 241n1
Composites, non-documentary, 12–13 Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Neus-
Compositions, non-documentary, 12–13 ner), 14
Judaism and Story: The Evidence of The Fa-
Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen. I-IV (Thoma, thers According to Rabbi Nathan (Neus-
Lauer, and Ernst), 237–244 ner), xiii(n)9
Documentary form history, of parables “Judaism beyond the texts,” 14
and precedents, 11
Leviticus Rabbah, 241, 242
Exegetical amplifications, 15–18 Listenwissenschaft, 3
Exegetical parables (Mashal) Literary criticism, xi–xii
in Sifra, 63–67 Logic of coherent discourse, as docu-
in Sifré to Deuteronomy, 202, 206– mentary trait, 1–3
227
in Sifré to Numbers, 122–123, 127– Ma#aseh. see precedent (Ma#aseh)
139, 142–143 The Making of the Mind of Judaism (Neus-
Exodus Rabbah, 240 ner), 2n1
Extra- and Non-Documentary Writing in the Mashal. see parable (Mashal)
Canon of Formative Judaism. III. Peri- Meir, Ofra, xi(n)7
patetic Parallels (Neusner), x(n)5 Mekhilta Attributed to R. Ishmael, ix(n)2
Extra-documentary writing, 13–15 Mishnah
ma#aseh’s pattern in, 9–10, 67
Form, Function, and Historical Significance of Mashal in, 58–59
the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin
(Heszer), xii(n)7 Narrative, recent studies of
Frenkel, Yonah, xi(n)7 Form, Function, and Historical Signifi-
From Tradition to Imitation. The Plan and cance of the Rabbinic Story in Yerushalmi
Program of Pesiqta deRab Kahana and Neziqin (Heszer), xii(n)7
Pesiqta Rabbati (Neusner), 241n1 Parables in Midrash. Narrative and Exe-
gesis in Rabbinic Literature (Stern), xi(n)7
Genesis Rabbah, 240, 242 Web of Life. Folklore and Midrash in
Gruenwald, Ithamar, 5n3, 8 Rabbinic Literature (Hasan-Rokem),
xii(n)7
Hademuyot hapoalot besipure hatalmud veha- Narratives
midrash (Meir), xi(n)7 objective definition and identifica-
Halakhic parables (Mashal) tion of, 10–12
in Sifra, 61–63 subordinated to documentary pur-
in Sifré to Deuteronomy, 202 poses, xii–xiii
246 index of subjects
teleological logic as defining trait, 1– Rabbinic Narrative: A Documentary Perspec-

3 tive. Volume One. Forms, Types, and
topical program of, xi Distributions of Narratives in the Mishnah,
see also pseudo-narratives Tractate Abot, and the Tosefta (Neus-
Neusner, Jacob, ix(n)1, ix(n)2, x(n)4, ner), ix(n)1
x(n)5, 2n1, 12n8, 13, 13n9, 14, 234, Rabbinic Writings
241n1 documentary programs dictate nar-
Non-documentary writing, defined, 12– rative choice, 123, 239
15 narratives and documentary bound-
aries, xi
Parable (Mashal) non-documentary writings in, 12–13
Die Gleichnisse der Rabbinen. I-IV (Tho- peripatetic passages in, x(n)5
ma, Lauer, and Ernst), 237–244 Ritual and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel
documentary history of, 11 (Gruenwald), 5n3, 8
in Mishnah, 58–59 Ritual conduct, presentations of, 6–9
in Sifra, 60
exegetical parables, 63–67 Scripture, and exegetical parables (Ma-
Halakhic parables, 61–63 shal) in Sifré to Numbers, 127, 139
in Sifré to Deuteronomy, 206, 228 Sifra
exegetical parables, 202, 206–227 authentic narrative in, 58, 75
non-exegetical parable, 228–229 documentary history of, 57
in Sifré to Numbers, 125–126, 139– exigetical parable (Mashal) in, 63–67
140
Halakhic parable (Mashal) in, 61–63
exegetical parables, 122–123, 127–
narratives subordinate to documen-
139, 142–143
tary program of, 73–76
Halakhic parables, 126–127
precedent (Ma#aseh) in, 67–71
Thoma on, 237–244
Sifré to Deuteronomy
in Tosefta, 59–60
Parables in Midrash. Narrative and Exegesis authentic narratives, 203–206
in Rabbinic Literature (Stern), xi(n)7 narratives adhere to redactional
Pesiqta deRab Kahana, 239–242 program of, 235–236
Pesiqta Rabbati, 241 parable (Mashal) in, 206, 228
Precedent (Ma#aseh) exegetical parables, 202, 206–227
exegetical, 230, 234 Halakhic parables, 202
in Mishnah, 9–10, 67 non-exegetical parable, 228–229
as pseudo-narrative, 6n5 precedent (Ma#aseh) in, 202, 229–
in Sifra, 68–71 234
in Sifré to Numbers, 140–141 topical program of, 202–203
in Tosefta, 67–68 Sifré to Numbers
The Presence of the Past, the Pastness of the authentic narrative in, 124–125, 143
Present. History, time, and Paradigm in narrative types in, 122–124
Rabbinic Judaism (Neusner), 13n9 narratives realize documentary pro-
Pseudo-narratives gram of, 141–143
“conversations,” in Rabbinic cano- parable (Mashal) in, 125–126, 139–
nical record, 6 140
defined, 5 exegetical parables in, 122–123,
documentary history of, 11 127–139, 142–143
ritual conduct, presentations of, 6– Halakhic parables in, 126–127
9 precedent (Ma#aseh) in, 140–141
types of, 5–6 topical program of, 122, 140
see also narratives Stern, David, xii(n)7
index of subjects 247
Sugyot bapoetikah shel sipure hazal (Meir), Thoma, Clemens, xii(n)7, 10n7, 237–
xi(n)7 244
Syllogistic (or propositional) logic of co- The Three Questions of Formative Judaism:
herence, in Rabbinic canon, defin- History, Literature, and Religion (Neus-
ed, 3–4 ner), 13
Tosefta
Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, parable (Mashal) in, 59–60
and Culture (Rubenstein), xi(n)7 precedents (Ma#aseh) in, 67–68
Teleological logic of coherence, in Rab-
binic canon Web of Life. Folklore and Midrash in Rabbinic
defined, 2–3 Literature (Hasan-Rokem), xii(n)7
as defining trait of narratives, 1 Why No Gospels in Talmudic Judaism? (Neus-
Texts without Boundaries (Neusner), x(n)4 ner), 12n8
The Theology of the Oral Torah. Revealing the Writing without Boundaries (Neusner), x(n)4
Justice of God (Neusner), 234
248 index of ancient sources
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
Bible 33:24-29 198

Daniel 33:26 189
3:16-18 45, 71 34:6 176
Deuteronomy 34:10-13 201, 227
1:1 147, 207 Exodus
1:2 85 4:14 26
1:3-4 148, 208 20:13 190, 205
1:9-13 149, 209 32:26-28 195
1:14-18 150, 231 Ezekiel
1:19-21 152, 210 21:36-37 182
1:22-25 152, 210 Genesis
3:23 114 1:6-8 149
3:26-28 115, 137 4:7 164, 215
4:9 165, 215 13:17 149, 208
4:23-29 154, 155, 211, 15:7 185
212 16:12 190
5:28 201, 227 18:2 159
6:4-9 156, 212 19:36 190
8:7 152, 210 21:33 149, 208
8:16 168 22:17 149, 209
11:10-12 213 25:26 192
11:13 165 25:27 184, 192, 220,
11:13-17 160, 162, 163, 223
214 26:12 149, 208
11:13ff. 204 27:22 190, 205
11:17 179 27:40 190, 205
11:18-21 163, 215 32:10-12 220
11:22-25 164 33:2-6 222
11:26-30 167, 216 33:19 149, 208
16:8 208 34:25 195, 224
18:1 103, 134 36:35 138
21:1-3 120 49:7 195, 224
28:12 179 49:9 16
30:19 167, 216 Habbakuk
31:7-8 173 3:9 149, 208
31:20 116 Hosea
32:4-6 181, 182, 219 1:9 107
32:10-12 185 1:10 107, 135
32:13-14 185, 186, 232 9:10 109
32:47 165, 215 11:1 174
32:51 115 13:16 107, 108, 135,
33:2-6 189, 194, 223 136
33:6 194, 223 14:1 107, 108, 136
33:7 194, 224 Isaiah
33:8-11 195 3:9 182
index of ancient sources 249
8:2 161 6:1-4 81

8:23 163 9:23 88, 129
43:18 59 10:29-36 85, 86, 88
43:19 59 11:1-3 89
44:22 114 11:1ff. 87, 128
49:8 95 11:5-6 90, 130
59:2 49 11:7-9 92
Jeremiah 11:11-15 93, 131
26:18 161 11:17 93, 131
29:11 168 12:1-16 95, 132
32:19 180, 204 14:29 85
52:11 93 14:44 86
Job 15:27-31 97, 132
20:27 178 15:37-41 97, 98
23:13 114, 136 16:38 102
36:14 200 22:7 119
Joshua 24:4 201, 227
5:12 91, 130 24:16 201, 227
Judges 25:11 195, 224
5:4 192 25:14 195, 224
1 Kings 26:51 112
19:19 44 27:12-23 113, 136
2 Kings 27:18 173, 217
18:32 157 27:21 116, 138, 173,
21:16 120 217
Lamentations 28:1-29:40 116, 138
2:20 53, 72 Proverbs
5:17-18 160 4:18 168
Leviticus 4:19 167
6:10 134 10:5 165, 216
11:2 21 13:7 198, 205
14:4 36 13:11 165
16:1-2 39 17:11 200, 227
18:28 41, 64 20:4 165
19:10-15 44, 69 24:20 167
21:1-5 42 24:30-31 166
21:9 106, 134, 135 25:21-22 164
21:10 106, 134, 135 Psalms
22:26-33 44 12:1 156
23:39-44 46, 70 16:5 168, 217
24:10-23 47 31:20 199, 226
25:35-38 49 32:1-2 115, 137
26:27-33 53 32:8 168
26:34-39 55 106:30-31 17
Malachi 119:164 156
2:6 175 129:3-4 52
Micah 135:4 184
5:14 190 138:4 190
Numbers Qohelet (Ecclesiastes)
1:51 160 4:1 167
2:2 47, 72 4:5 167
250 index of ancient sources
7:15 43, 69 XXIX:IV 155, 211

11:4 165 XXXVI:IV 156
Song of Songs XXXVII:I 157, 212
1:8 174, 232 XXXVIII:I 158, 159, 211,
6:4 156, 212 213
Zechariah XLIII:III 160, 205
8:4 161 XLIII:VIII 162, 213
XLIII:XV 162, 214
Rabbinic Literature XLIII:XVI 163, 214
Babylonian Talmud XLV:I 163, 215
Sanhedrin XLVIII:I 164, 215, 216
106B 108 LIII:I 167, 216, 217
Midrash CXVI:V 168, 213, 231
Sifra to Leviticus CCCV:I 173, 217, 231
III:VI 21, 61, 66 CCCV:II 174
LXVI:I 24, 61, 66 CCCV:III 175, 204
XCVIII:VI 26, 63, 66 CCCVI:IV 178, 217
XCVIII:VII 27, 63, 66 CCCVI:VI 178, 218
XCIX:I 28 CCCVI:VII 179, 218
XCIX:II 28, 64, 66 CCCVI:XXIV 179, 228
XCIX:IV 29 CCCVII:IV 180, 204
XCIX:VI 30, 68, 71 CCCVIII:II 181, 218
CXXV:III 32, 68 CCCIX:I 182, 219
CXXIV:I 33 CCCVIII:III 182, 219
CXXIV:II 33 CCCIX:II 183, 219
CXLVIII:I 36 CCCIX:V 183, 220
CLXXIV:II 39, 62, 66 CCCXII:I 184, 220
CCX:II 41, 64, 66 CCCXIII:I 185, 221
CCXI:I 42, 69, 70 CCCXVI:I 185, 232
CCXIII:I 43, 71, 73 CCCXVII:VI 186, 232
CCXIV:I 44, 69, 71 CCCXXII:V 186, 233
CCXXVII:I 44, 71 CCCXXIII:III 187, 221, 233
CCXXXVIII:I 46, 70, 71 CCCXXV:II 188, 233
CCXLII:I 47, 72 CCCXLIII:I 189, 221
CCLV:I 48, 62, 66 CCCXLIII:IV 190, 205, 222
CCLXI:I 49, 70, 71 CCCXLIII:V 192, 222
CCLXII:I 50, 64, 66 CCCXLIII:III 193, 223
CCLXIII:I 51, 65, 66 CCCXLIV:III 193
CCLXV:I 53, 66 CCCXLIX:I 194, 224
CCLXVII:II 53, 54, 72, 73 CCCXLVII:I 194, 223
CCLXVIII:II 55, 73 CCCLII:VI 196, 225
Sifré to Deuteronomy CCCLII:VII 196, 225
III:I 148, 207 CCCLV:XV 197, 205
VIII:I 148, 208 CCCLV:XVII 198, 225
XI:I 149, 209 CCCLVI:IV 199, 226
XVI:II 150, 231 CCCLVII:XI 200, 227
XIX:II 152, 210 CCCLVII:XVIII 201, 227
XXI:I 152, 210 Sifré to Numbers
XXVI:III 154, 211 LXXXII:I 85, 127
XXVIII:I 154 LXXXII:II 86, 128
I:IX 147, 207 LXXXIV:I 86, 128
index of ancient sources 251
LXXXIV:II 87, 128, 129 Sukkah

LXXXVI:I 89, 129 2:9 59
LXXXV:IV 89, 93, 129, 131 3:13 46, 70
LXXXIX:IV 90, 130 Yadayim
LXXXVII:II 90, 129 3:5 87
LXXXIX:V 92, 130 Yoma
XCI:II 93, 131 2:2 121
XCIII:I 93, 131 Tosefta
CIII:VI 95, 132 Baba Qamma
CV:I 95, 132 7:2 60
CXII:III 97, 132 7:3 59
CXV:V 97, 98, 124, 133 7:13 60
CXVII:I 102, 133 Berakhot
CXIX:II 103, 133 1:11 59
CXIX:III 103, 134 6:18 59
CXXXI:I 106, 134, 135 Hagigah
CXXXI:II 108, 110, 124, 2:4 60
140, 141 Kippurim (Yoma)
CXXXII:I 112, 126, 139 1:12 121
CXXXIV:VII 113, 114, 136 Niddah
CXXXV:I 114, 137 2:8 59
CXXXVII:I 115, 137 3:5 59
XXII:VI 81 Sanhedrin
CXLII:I 116, 138 1:2 59
CLIII:VI 118, 127 8:9 59
CLVII:I 119, 138 Sheqalim
CLXI:III 120 1:6 59
Mishnah Sotah
Keritot 11:4 60
1:7 32 15:7 59
2:4 32 Sukkah
Menahot 2:6 60
6:3 6 2:11 47, 70
Niddah Zabim
2:5 59 1:11 59
5:7 59 Zebahim
Sanhedrin 12:9 59
7:6 109

Jacob Neusner - Rabbinic Narrative_ A Documentary Perspective - Volume Two_ Forms, Types and Distribution of Narratives in Sifra, Sifre to Numbers, and Sifre to Deuteronomy ... (The Brill Reference Li

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jacob Neusner - Rabbinic Narrative_ A Documentary Perspective - Volume Two_ Forms, Types and Distribution of Narratives in Sifra, Sifre to Numbers, and Sifre to Deuteronomy ... (The Brill Reference Li

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RABBINIC NARRATIVE:

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

© Copyright 2003 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,

printed in the netherlands

b. The Exegetical Parable ............................................... 63

34. Sifré to Deuteronomy. Parashat Re"eh. 53-143 ..................... 167

Appendix: Information without Knowledge. Clemens Thoma

Index of Subjects .......................................................................... 245

Narratives constitute a coherent sector of Rabbinic documentary

1 Continuing Rabbinic Narrative: A Documentary Perspective. Volume One. Forms,

But when it comes to narrative writing, matters are not so clear.

4 Texts without Boundaries. Protocols of Non-Documentary Writing in the Rabbinic Canon,

7 One current instance of the aesthetic reading of Rabbinic narrative is Jef-

To be sure, a definition of “narrative” in contrast to all other kinds

gories. We may then speak of the narrative or parable or case/precedent (ma#aseh)

in abstraction from the documents, e.g., in a canonical framework: “the Rabbinic

1992: University of Chicago Press. Reprint: Binghamton, 2002: Global Publica-

As is always the case, I conduct my research in conversation with

In volume one, introduction and chapter one, I define the project

A narrative piece of writing in the Rabbinic corpus of late antiq-

Therein I discern four available logics of coherent discourse by

Atlanta, 1987: Scholars Press for Brown Judaic Studies.

2 I put “logic” in quotation-marks here because of the dubious standing of the

matter, as everyone recognizes. But then Aristotle produced natural philosophy

itly announcing the moral. So narrative sees cogency in the neces-

Let us return to the matter of verisimilitude as against authenticity:

sations and fabrications of “conversations” out of surmise or convention, such as

(2) presentations of ritual conduct in the Temple (and in the

a precedent, makes no difference in the contexts we survey, hence I avoid mak-

Brill. Brill Library of Formative Judaism series.

consideration within the definition of narrative as defined by the

What in documentary context do I wish to know about narratives

7 Obviously, a considerable range of questions bears on each pericope, and I

The answer is required to justify my classifying the composition

cate my views on the form-analytical data of a given composition.

Clearly, I have pressed the question of whether a piece of writing

8 I deal with an aspect of this larger problem in Why No Gospels in Talmudic

stories, e.g., lives of sages, on the one side,8 histories of Israel, on

Why does the status as to the documentary venue of narratives matter

Time, and Paradigm in Rabbinic Judaism. Bethesda, 1996: CDL Press.

by entire documents, systematic commentaries in the Rabbinic canon

12 Chicago, 1981: University of Chicago Press.

der a given narrative contains to justify linking it with other items

The two Sifrés contain a fair number of exegetical amplifications of

whole defined by a goal that imparts meaning to the antecedent

interpretation, C, [H], then a scriptural foundation for the besought

parallel to the parable in the concrete Halakhic issue in play. The

the Ma#aseh and the Halakhic parable then is to be located in the

creates a situation that is comparable: the Levitical standing of Aaron

The exegetical parable/simile, C-D, on its own bears no meaning:

E. “You have brought in before me unclean fire. I shall burn you

change hands at silver denars.” He entered the

what they are in the male, so the days of un-

L. “7. and that they declare clean in the

ing of a message affects its effectiveness. But the exegetical intent is

foot of whom a wart came up. The physician wanted

it is said, ‘There were twelve yokes before him,

5.E-H dramatize the exchange by the detail of E, and I is a dra-

obligation with it, he gave it to his fellow,

Halakhic purposes. What we have is an exegetical Ma#aseh compa-

shall be my people. I am the Lord your God, who brought you

the exposition. That the parable is integral to the composition and

G. The priest-prophet is Zechariah b.