¹ Scholem, Gershom G., Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (2d ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965) 14–19Google Scholar.

² See Morray-Jones, C. R. A., “Paradise Revisited (2 Cor 12:1–12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul's Apostolate, Part 1: The Jewish Sources,” HTR 86 (1993) 177–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ See Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 16.

⁴ Ephraim E. Urbach, “Ha-Masorot al Torat ha-Sod bi-Tequfat ha-Tannaʼim,” in idem, R. J. Zvi Werblowsky, and Chaim Wirszubski, eds., Studies in Mysticism and Religion Presented to Gershom G. Scholem on His Seventieth Birthday by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967) 1–28 [Hebrew].

⁵ Schäfer, Peter, “New Testament and Hekhalot Literature: The Journey into Heaven in Paul and in Merkabah Mysticism,” JJS 35 (1984) 19–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Rowland, Christopher, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1982) 306–40Google Scholar.

⁷ Halperin, David J., The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature (AOS 62; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1980)Google Scholar. Note, however, that Halperin is unable to suggest what is in fact the precise meaning of the original story (see pp. 90–91). See also Halperin, David J., The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel's Vision (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 16; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1988) 33Google Scholar.

⁸ Notable among these are Gruenwald, Ithamar (Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism [AGJU 14; Leiden: Brill, 1980])Google Scholar, who follows Scholem closely, and Liebes, Yehuda (The Sin of Elisha, the Four Who Entered Paradise and the Nature of Talmudic Mysticism [2d ed.; Jerusalem: ha-Universitah ha-Ivrit bi-Yerushalyim, 1990Google Scholar] [Hebrew]), who accepts Scholem's basic premise that pardes designates an ascent to heaven, but develops his own direction in the interpretation of the story. Yonah Frankel elaborates upon Urbach's thesis, while retaining Urbach's basic understanding that this parable refers to the study of the merkabah. Frankel's interpretation of the pardes parable, which differs from Urbach's, has been delivered orally (Institute of Jewish Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 5 December 1994), but has not yet been published.

⁹ Morray-Jones, “Paradise Revisited, Part 1,” 177–217; and idem, “Paradise Revisited (2 Cor 12:1–12: The Jewish Mystical Background to Paul's Apostolate, Part 2: Paul's Heavenly Ascent and its Significance,” HTR 86 (1993) 265–92.

¹⁰ A detailed survey of the versions and their differences can be found in Halperin, The Merkabah, 86–87.

¹¹ Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 52–53.

¹² Urbach, “Ha-Masorot al Torot ha-Sod,” 12–13. Concerning the story of R. Eleʿazar b. Arakh, Urbach unequivocally accepted the Tosefta as the primary version (see pp. 2–11).

¹³ Halperin, The Merkabah, 65.

¹⁴ For a critique of Halperin's views of transmission and tradition history, see Neusner, Jacob, The Peripatetic Saying: The Problem of the Thrice-Told Tale in Talmudic Literature (Brown Judaic Studies 89; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 172–75Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Translation of textual version of Parma de Rossi MS 138.

¹⁶ See Urbach, Ephraim E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (trans. Abrahams, Israel; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975) 1. 193Google Scholar. See further Lifshitz, Berechiyahu, “Expounding the Works of Creation,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 3 (1983–84) 514Google Scholar [Hebrew].

¹⁷ This is Urbach's understanding (The Sages, 1. 193), following the common interpretation of this mishnah. In my article, “Is Maʿaseh Bereshit Part of Ancient Jewish Mysticism?” Journal of Jewish Thought (forthcoming), I have suggested that the four things relate to the vision of the heavenly chariot (maʿaseh merkabah) and not to the works of creation. The total prohibition seems to conflict with limited permission given to engage in the study of the merkabah; my interpretation that these four things are related only to the vision and not to study diminishes the problem.

¹⁸ As Urbach suggests (ibid.).

¹⁹ I follow the London manuscript of the Tosefta in omitting the names of the four at this point. See discussion below (n. 53).

²⁰ t. Ḥag. 2.9.

²¹ Note also the discussion at the end of the first chapter of Ḥagiga in the Mishnah and Tosefta. This discussion focuses on the relation of the written Torah to the teachings of the sages. Here too, issues of authority can be discerned. The end of the first chapter of the mishnah and the beginning of the second chapter form one ancient unit, as has been demonstrated by Epstein, J. N., Introduction to Tannaitic Literature (Jerusalem: Magnes and Tel Aviv: Devir, 1957) 46–47Google Scholar [Hebrew].

²² Halperin, The Merkabah, 68.

²³ Regardless of what the four things may have meant in the Mishnah, the Tosefta seems to relate them to maʿaseh bereshit. See n. 18. One may argue that some sense of “what is above and what is below” is echoed in the expression “ascended and descended in peace,” which is employed within the mystical collection. This may maintain some contact between the formula and the context of maʿaseh merkabah. Judging by the quotation in the seventh unit of the “mystical collection,” however, the primary sense given to the four things seems to be related to maʿaseh bereshit. Given its interpretation of this passage, the Tosefta remains true to the order of the mishnah in its discussion—first maʿaseh merkabah and then maʿaseh bereshit.

²⁴ The content of the four things is reflected in his speculation. Ben Zoma looks at the waters above and below—that is, what is above and what is below. He also seems to be looking at what was at the beginning of the world—thus, what was before.

²⁵ Urbach thus suggests (“Ha-Masorot al Torat ha-Sod,” 3 n. 4) that some of its appearances are secondary.

²⁶ See Halperin, The Merkabah, 84–85.

²⁷ In the sixth unit, the Erfurt manuscript reads וכחסמ, rather than הפוצ, thus limiting the range of verbs employed in this part of the Tosefta's discussion. The essential point, however, remains the same.

²⁸ It should be noted that none of these terms are technical mystical terms. The various forms express the same meaning, that of looking, but the particular verbs employed lack any specifically mystical coloring in texts other than the pardes story. The mystical flavor thus emerges from the context and pattern of the story, but not from the choice of the particular verbs.

²⁹ While the tone of the mishnah is more austere and seems to discourage the study of merkabah, it appears that the Tosefta goes out of its way to praise someone who expounds the merkabah well. Despite this difference in tone, the basic terminology is identical. Moreover, R. Eleʿazar b. Arakh is praised precisely for adhering to the restrictions of the mishnah. This is the essential point of the story and what binds it to the mishnah.

³⁰ This is the direction in which the Palestinian Talmud pushes this derashah, even though it may not be the sense of the original derashah in the Tosefta. See y. Ḥag. 2.1, 77c, and see further Lieberman, Saul, Tosefta ki-feshuṭah: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta, vol. 5: Order Moʿed (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962) 1296Google Scholar.

³¹ This association may also be witnessed in the sixth unit, where Ben Zoma is looking, although at the same time he is reflecting exegetically upon Gen 1:2.

³² Goldberg, Arnold has gone as far as to suggest (“Der Vortrag des Maʿasse Merkawa: Eine Vermutung zur frühen Merkawamystik,” Judaica 29 [1973] 9–12Google Scholar) that there is before us a ritualized form of an initiation ceremony into the secrets of the merkabah by the teacher to his student.

³³ See also Neusner, Jacob, Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions concerning Yoḥanan ben Zakkai (Studia post-Biblica 16; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 299Google Scholar.

³⁴ See Rowland, The Open Heaven, 283.

³⁵ See Lieberman, Saul, “How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?” in Altmann, Alexander, ed., Biblical and Other Studies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963) 135–39Google Scholar; Urbach, The Sages, 1. 189–91.

³⁶ This point has already been noted by Yehuda Liebes, The Sin of Elisha, 117–19.

³⁷ The scholar most sensitive to this question is Rowland; see his discussion in The Open Heaven, 300. He assumes that there is a natural move from the one to the other. This assumption, however, is not justified by texts, as much as it is part of his intuitive understanding of these texts and the situation they portray. Moreover, one would imagine R. Eleʿazar b. Arakh to be the subject of such a vision, rather than R. Yoḥanan b. Zakkai.

³⁸ We do find many instances in which the derashah is indeed contained in the unquoted portion of the verse. In this instance, however, there is a convincing and brilliant derashah in the earlier part of the verse, so that we need not concentrate our exegetical efforts on the latter part.

³⁹ Frankel has already noted this interpretation of the verse in his lecture, see n. 8 above.

⁴⁰ Cant. R. 1.4.

⁴¹ This seems to me the most likely way of understanding his claim that he is not greater than his fellows, which seems to contradict the latter part of his statement, where we learn that he is indeed greater than them in deeds. This greatness is self-acquired through his deeds, it seems, rather than inherited. This is precisely the manner in which ʿEd. 5.7, which R. Akiba quotes, uses this statement. Note that being brought near to the sages in the original quote has been changed here to being brought close to God.

⁴² See Lev. R. 16.4. See Dan, Joseph, “The Chambers of the Chariot,” Tarbiẓ 47 (1977–78) 49–55Google Scholar [Hebrew].

⁴³ Both readings seem to me more adequate than the one offered by Rowland (The Open Heaven, 340), where the verse is addressed by others to R. Akiba, who serves them as a model.

⁴⁴ This version is recorded in all Tosefta manuscripts except for the Erfurt manuscript and in the Babylonian Talmud, with the exception of the Göttingen manuscript (Halperin, The Merkabah, 87).

⁴⁵ This version is attested by the Erfurt manuscript and the Palestinian Talmud.

⁴⁶ For Schäfer (“New Testament and Hekhalot Literature,” 25–26), this version is later and reflects esoteric terminology.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 24–25. Morray-Jones has attempted (“Paradise Revisited, Part 1,” 201) to downplay the difference. One has to go a long way, however, in accepting Scholem's approach in order to accept his neat solution.

⁴⁸ b. Ḥag. 14b.

⁴⁹ See, for example, the story of the sages who stayed awake all night in Bnei Brak, told at the beginning of the Passover Haggadah.

⁵⁰ Halperin, The Merkabah, 90.

⁵¹ The translation is based on ibid.; Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmaʾel Pisḥa 1 (eds. Hayyim S. Horovits and Yisrael A. Rabin; 1928–31; 2d ed.; Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann, 1960) 4.

⁵² On the centrality of this tension to the very nature of biblical prophecy, see Muffs, Yochanan, Love and Joy: Law, Language, and Religion in Ancient Israel (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992) 9–48Google Scholar.

⁵³ Urbach's analysis (“Ha-Masorot al Torat ha-Sod,” 12) relies on the London manuscript and the Palestinian Talmud's omission of the names of the four from the opening statement. This seems to be the preferred reading, which is in turn confirmed by the conformity of this passage to the patterns of enumeration and typology in rabbinic literature in general.

⁵⁴ Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmaʾel Pisḥa 18 (ed. Lanterbach, Jacob; 3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961) 1. 166–67Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Towner, W. Sibley, The Rabbinic “Enumeration of Scriptural Examples” (Studia post-Biblia 22; Leiden: Brill, 1973)Google Scholar, has noted the important hermeneutic function of the enumeration lists in the Mekhilta.

⁵⁶ It is interesting to note that the four sons passage, in the Passover Haggada, has been interpreted in light of the pardes story. See the commentary of the fourteenth-century exegete Rashbaẓ (Duran Shimʿon b. Ẓemaḥ), quoted in Haggada Shleima (Menaḥem M. Kasher; Jerusalem: 1961) 20 [Hebrew].

⁵⁷ m. ʾAbot 5.10–14.

⁵⁸ The Palestinian Talmud reverses the fates of Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma. This is reflected also in the London manuscript of the Tosefta, which follows the order of calamities as in the Tosefta, however, and not the order of sages in the Palestinian Talmud. This may indicate the London manuscript's attempt to adjust the Tosefta's version to that of the Palestinian Talmud.

⁵⁹ We should also remember the tradition concerning Ben Azzai's martyrdom, which obviously conflicts with the pardes story and which may have affected the parallel traditions concerning their respective fates. See Lam. R. 2.2.4. Rowland has attempted (The Open Heaven, 321–23) to read the version of Ben Azzai's fate found in the pardes story in light of this tradition. The recognition of the typological, rather than historical, nature of this source is the key to the reconciliation of the conflicts concerning Ben Azzai's fate. This is obviously part of my assessment of this source as a literary creation, as I shall suggest below.

⁶⁰ I know of no other such combination of genres in one rabbinic text. This combination may be an ad hoc creation of the editor in the service of the message of the collection as a whole.

⁶¹ Urbach, “Ha-Masorot al Torat ha-Sod,” 13–14.

⁶² This premise was elaborated as part of my doctoral dissertation, “God and Israel as Father and Son in Tannaitic Literature” (Ph.D. diss. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1986) 78–84Google Scholar [Hebrew].

⁶³ An example may be found in the use of parables in Seder Eliyahu (Tanna debe Eliyyahu: The Lore of the School of Elijah [trans. Braude, William G. and Kapstein, Israel J.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1981])Google Scholar. Due to the unique nature of this work—which is likely the work of one author and which bears unique stylistic features—its parables often tend to deviate from conventions of usage found in most of rabbinic literature.

⁶⁴ A classic example is found in Henry A. Fischel's interpretation of the story in Rabbinic Literature and Greco-Roman Philosophy: A Study of Epicurea and Rhetorica in Early Midrashic Writings (Studia post-Biblica 21; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 1–34Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmaʾel Shirta 2 (Horovits and Rabin, 125).

⁶⁶ Lev. R. 4.5.

⁶⁷ Gen. R. 9.9.

⁶⁸ A very borderline case may be found in Cant. R. 6.3. See also Exod. R. 30.1.

⁶⁹ I shall not go to great lengths here in documenting this function of the orchard parables. The transformations of types of both testing situations and ways in which the orchard parables serve to reflect binary oppositions of good and bad behavior make for an interesting study but are outside the scope of this article. Even many parables that upon first reading do not seem to express this idea of orchard as testing ground do in fact make use of this motif in some altered form. For some further examples of this theme, see Gen. R. 61.2; Cant. R. 6.3; Deut. R. 7.4.

⁷⁰ Exod. R. 2.2; translation from Midrash Rabbah: Exodus (trans. Lehrman, S. M.; eds. Freedmann, H. and Simon, Maurice; London and New York: Soncino, 1983) 48Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Tanḥuma (Buber ed.) Shemot 10.

⁷² Midrash Prov. 16.11.

⁷³ Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliʿezer 44; translation from Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (trans. Friedlander, Gerald; New York: Sepher-Hermon, 1981) 348Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Ibid. See also the parallel parable in Pesikta R. Zakḥor 12. The parable there, however, omits any reference to the king himself and concentrates only upon the orchard and the dog.

⁷⁵ Mekhilta de-Rabi Shimʿon b. Yoḥai (eds. Epstein, Naḥum Y. and Melamed, Ezra T.; Jerusalem: Mekitse Nirdamim, 1955) 2Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ A further instance of the use of an orchard to express wealth can be found in Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 25. See also Midrash Prov. 9.12, where fields and orchards, together with gold and silver, are used to describe the rich man's wealth.

⁷⁷ See Lev. R. 23.3; Cant. R. 6.2.3; 7.2.3. See further Cant. R. 7.14; Exod. R. 30.1; Deut. R. 6.2; Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 26; and b. Soṭa 10a.

⁷⁸ Gen. R. 54.6.

⁷⁹ On the question of this numeric significance, see Halperin, The Merkabah, 21, as well as the literature he cites.

⁸⁰ b. Ḥag. 14b. In y. Ḥag. 77b the opening phrase is slightly longer: “Three lectured their Torah before their master.”

⁸¹ Cant. R. 1.2.3; see also Midrash Ps. 1.18.

⁸² See above nn. 5 and 6.

⁸³ We do find looking as leading to death in the case of looking at the king. See Gen. R. 65.10. To the extent that the pardes parable refers to the context of merkabah, which would be the equivalent of looking at the king, then the metaphor makes sense.

⁸⁴ I could argue, as I do below, that looking leads to entry, which in turn leads to eating the fruit. Yet, unless we refer back to Genesis 3, even the eating of fruit does not produce such terrible results. The unique nature of the action described is therefore obvious, regardless of what preceded it.

⁸⁵ A further question is also resolved by the parable. Tension exists between the opening line, which indicates that entry into the garden is the problem, and the description of looking as the source of the problem. The parable harmonizes this difficulty by implying that looking leads to entry, and thus the two forms of expression pertain to the same sequence of events. Uncontrolled looking leads to entry into the garden without permission. Controlled looking leads to the king's invitation to enter his chambers.

⁸⁶ Another possibility would be to understand R. Akiba as an alternative to other sages, who might have occupied a place of importance in mystical writings. I see this possibility as less likely, in view of the fact that both our passage and the hekhalot literature recognize R. Akiba as a mystical hero.

⁸⁷ The fate of Ben Zoma presents a possible discrepancy within the “mystical collection” itself. The understanding that he went mad, found in the third unit, seems to contradict the understanding that he died, found in the sixth unit. This, however, depends not only on the interpretation of two ambiguous expressions in each of these passages, but also upon ascertaining what exactly happened to Ben Zoma, a matter which the different traditions dispute. See above n. 58. Of course, this discrepancy may have led to the crossing of traditions, attributing to one sage the fate of the others and thus interchanging their fates. Concerning the death of Ben Azzai, the passage may contradict other traditions that report he died a martyr's death. See above n. 59.

⁸⁸ Morray-Jones, “Paradise Revisited, Part 1,” 195.

⁸⁹ The implied methodological assumption here is that anonymity precedes naming, and that therefore an anonymous statement probably antedates a similar statement that is attributed to known sages. This assumption is spelled out in the work of Rowland (The Open Heaven, 314). Once the literary pattern of the typological list is recognized, this methodological assumption loses its basis.

⁹⁰ Avot de-Rabbi Natan (A) 40; translation from The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (trans. Goldin, Judah; New Haven: Yale, 1955) 167Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Ibid., (B) 46; translation from The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi Nathan) version B (trans. Saldarini, Anthony J.; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 290CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹² Avot de-Rabbi Natan A 24, B 35. See Finkelstein, Louis, Introduction to the Treatises Abot and Abot of Rabbi Nathan (New York: Bet ha-midrash le-rabanim ba-Amerikah, 1950) 74–81Google Scholar [Hebrew]. Finkelstein believes that this part of Avot de-Rabbi Natan is organized around the sages who entered pardes. If this is the early logic of arrangement of the tractate, we have here further evidence that the author of Avot de-Rabbi Natan did not know of the pardes incident, since Elisha b. Abuyah receives a place of honor in the arrangement. This, of course, would undermine the basis of Finkelstein's argument. Finkelstein also claims that in the earliest arrangement of Avot de-Rabbi Natan, the teachings of Elisha b. Abuyah were set forth first, and only as a consequence of the pardes story did he lose this place of priority.

⁹³ The common answer is that the traditions preserved here go back to the period before his apostasy; it is, however, a contrived answer. Why then have other editors not chosen also to incorporate statements of Elisha b. Abuyah? I assume that his inclusion in the list of sages in m. ʾAvot 4 occurred before his fame as an archvillain spread. His inclusion in this context is further indication that in the tannaitic period he was still considered a legitimate sage. This chapter commemorates the rabbis listed in it; not only the teaching—which tends to be repetitive—but the very act of naming and mentioning the individual tradents is important. Elisha b. Abuyah's inclusion in this context is a sign that the editor of this chapter was unaware of the traditions describing his wickedness.

⁹⁴ This is also the only case where the proof text brought in the pardes passage accords with other known interpretations of the verse. Concerning the other three sages, I found no relationship between the application of the proof texts and other known usages of those texts. The meaning of these verses is created within the local context and does not rely on known midrashic traditions.

⁹⁵ Gen. R. 62.2.

⁹⁶ Sifra Lev. Nedaba 2.12, my translation. We cannot rely too heavily on this attribution, as it is absent in parallel versions of this source. See Sifre Num. 101.

⁹⁷ Sifre Deut. 32.

⁹⁸ t. Ber. 3.4; translation from Neusner, Jacob, The Tosefta (6 vols.; New York: Ktav, 1977–86) 1. 12–13Google Scholar. See further Avot de-Rabbi Natan (B) 33 for a related saying, or another version of the same saying. Isaac Hirsch Weiss (Dor Dor ve-Dorshav: Divre ha-Yamim la-Torah She-be-ʿal Peh im Korot Sofreha u-Sefareha [5 vols.; Vienna: Pressburg, 1871–91] 2. 125) sees this statement as directed against Ben Azzai and Elisha b. Abuyah. This recognition of the relationship between these sayings and the pardes incident is significant. Rather than finding in these passages references to a concrete historical event we discover the raw material for the invention of the tale of that event.

⁹⁹ This is true only if Neusner's translation captures the correct relationship of ףונ and המכח.

¹⁰⁰ Avot de-Rabbi Natan (B) 33; translation from Saldarini, Fathers, 195.

¹⁰¹ See Fischel, Rabbinic Literature, 74–78. The hekhalot traditions have in fact directly elaborated upon this tradition in light of their particular understanding. See Schäfer, Peter, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 2; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1981) §335Google Scholar.

¹⁰² Indication of the dependence of the pardes story upon this parable may also be found in that both parables in the fifth unit refer to what a “man” must do—precisely the same term as in Ben Zoma's statement. Note also that speaking in terms of an unnamed “man” who controls his looking once more removes R. Akiba from the area of looking. It is not said expressly that R. Akiba looked; rather, this was implied by the reference to a “man.”

¹⁰³ See Bacher, Wilhelm, Die Agada der Tannaiten, vol. 1: Von Hillel bis Akiba. Von 30 vor bis 135 nach der gew. Zeitrechnung (Strassburg: Trubner, 1903) 430Google Scholar. One should note, however, that the consequences of such actions, if they are only moral transgressions, may be radical. Does this indicate that already for Ben Zoma the vineyard is no mere vineyard?

¹⁰⁴ This is also made explicit in the Palestinian Talmud's version of the parable, which mentions touching. This version may misunderstand the central importance of looking, yet it indicates an understanding that looking is only the first link in a series of forbidden actions. See y. Ḥag. 2.1, 77c.

¹⁰⁵ Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 16.

¹⁰⁶ See in particular the methodological reflections on this question in Gruenwald, Ithamar, “Methodological Problems in Researching Rabbinic Mysticism,” in Gafni, Isaiah, et al. , eds., Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period: Studies in Honor of Shmuel Safrai (Jerusalem: Yad Yitsḥak ben Zvi, 1993) 307–8Google Scholar [Hebrew].

¹⁰⁷ See above p. 88 above.

¹⁰⁸ I wish to thank Ithamar Gruenwald for engaging me in a conversation that led me to this last point.

¹⁰⁹ Deut. R. 7.4.

¹¹⁰ See b. Ḥag. 15a–b; y. Ḥag. 77b–c. See further Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot, 33.

¹¹¹ Avot de-Rabbi Natan (A) 24; translation from Goldin, Fathers, 104.

¹¹² Ibid. (B) 1; translation from Saldarini, Fathers, 29.

¹¹³ Ibid. (A) 24.

¹¹⁴ We have already noted the great care this editor takes in the introduction of his material.

¹¹⁵ Ibid. (A) 28.

¹¹⁶ Rather than see the editor of the Tosefta as adding this word in order to form a bridge to the sixth unit, as Halperin (The Merkabah, 95) has suggested, I see in the appearance of this term in the Tosefta a trace of the original parable, which we can find elsewhere.

¹¹⁷ The attribution of the Avot de-Rabbi Natan parable to R. Yehudah would fit well with my suggestion that the “mystical collection” is a creation of the school of R. Akiba (see p. 124 below). The only named authority in the whole collection is R. Yose b. Yehudah. Was it this sage who employed a parable created by his father to put our source together? Later in this article I shall argue otherwise.

¹¹⁸ This parable may serve as a transition point between the discussion of maʿaseh merkabah and the discussion of maʿaseh bereshit. The text may also allude to traditions that view the act of creation as involving forces of fire and snow. See Gen. R. 10.3. We do not find this tradition in tannaitic sources, however, and its context suggests that the parable was understood in connection with maʿaseh merkabah, which in turn raises the problem that the parable seems to be out of place.

¹¹⁹ Morray-Jones, “Paradise Revisited, Part One,” 200.

¹²⁰ Halperin, The Merkabah, 182–84.

¹²¹ See t. Ber. 4.16; b. Sanh. 17b.

¹²² See also the similar stories told of the two rabbis in b. Ketub. 62b.

¹²³ See Morray-Jones's observation, “Paradise Revisited, Part One,” 188 n. 32; and Halperin, The Merkabah, 139. On the significance of tradition lists in polemical contexts, see also Rowland, The Open Heaven, 309.

¹²⁴ See Alon Goshen Gottstein, “Rabbi Eleʿazar b. Arakh: Symbol and Reality,” in Gafni, Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period, 173–97.

¹²⁵ See y. Ḥag. 2.1., 77a.

¹²⁶ Avot de-Rabbi Natan (B) 29; translation from Saldarini, Fathers, 168.

¹²⁷ y. Soṭa 9.17, 24c. See further Avot de-Rabbi Natan A 6 (Goldin, 41); Goshen Gottstein, “Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh,” 177–81.

¹²⁸ Gen R. 4.7.

¹²⁹ This would still leave the question of why these stories are told regarding Ben Zoma, and not Elisha b. Abuyah. The ending of R. Yehoshua's statement, “Ben Zoma is outside,” is reminiscent of the Babylonian Talmud's presentation of Elisha b. Abuyah as the one who is “outside.” This emerges from the constant use of the verb nefak (“go out”), and various combinations of it, in the highly elaborate literary creation concerning Elisha b. Abuyah found in b. Ḥag. 15a–b. The two stories can be harmonized to some extent: the passage may intend not only to show the problematics of relations between students and teachers, but also to show an aspect of derangement in Ben Zoma's behavior. If that is the case, the choice of Ben Zoma becomes more obvious, since one story leads to another. Finally, the fact that “cut the plants” probably does not mean anything outside the parabolic context may be the text's reason for not referring to Elisha b. Abuyah. It is easier to create links within the “mystical collection” concerning facts that can be comprehended. The metaphor of cutting the plants does not lend itself to any particular association. We thus may conclude that the fact that such a story is not told of the archvillain, but of Ben Zoma, further testifies to the fact that the Tosefta did not entertain a negative view of the person of Elisha b. Abuyah, and therefore did not need to adumbrate such a view with additional material.

¹³⁰ This may also be true of a certain passage in the Babylonian Talmud; see Raphael Rabinowitz, Dikdukei Sofrim on Moʿed Kaṭan 20a (15 vols.; Monachii: Roesl/Huber, 1867–86) 8. 66. See also David Halivni, Sources and Traditions: A Source Critical Commentary on the Talmud (Jerusalem: Bet ha-midrash le-rabanim be-Amerikah be-Siyuʾa keren Mosheh Vortsvayler, 1975) 555. If indeed he were a child murderer, as some later traditions would have it (see y. Ḥag. 77b), it would be hard to retain such an appellation concerning him unless we simply ascribed it to scribal error.

¹³¹ As already noted, these sources are concentrated in y. Ḥag. 15a–b and y. Ḥag. 77b–c.

¹³² In fact, we may have here a further criterion for establishing the superior reading of the London manuscript. The Vienna manuscript mentions Elisha b. Abuyah in the body of the passage, but uses aḥer in the opening line, which is clearly a sign of a later addition. See Urbach, “Ha-Masorot al Torat ha-Sod,” 12.

¹³³ Note how b. Ber. 57b quotes Avot de-Rabbi Natan tradition of three students.

¹³⁴ On this, see Ithamar Gruenwald, “Methodological Problems in Researching Rabbinic Mysticism.”

¹³⁵ Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 14–19; Schäfer, “The New Testament and Hekhalot Literature,” 19–35.

¹³⁶ Morray-Jones, “Paradise Revisited, Part One,” 200.

¹³⁷ Ibid.

¹³⁸ See Schäfer, Synopse, §338; see also §671 in MS. Oxford 1531 (Michael 9) and MSS. Munich 22 and 40.

¹³⁹ More precisely, the combination of language of ascent and descent along with the context of pardes is not found within the hekhalot literature. See Schäfer, “New Testament and Helakhot Literature,” 26. Despite Schäfer's claim, there is one context in which this combination does appear. See idem, Synopse, §597. In view of the fact that the speaker is Elisha b. Abuyah, however, it seems reasonable to assume that this passage is indirectly indebted to the pardes episode.

¹⁴⁰ Schäfer, Synopse, §§344–48, 671–74.