¹ See Ps. 119.161.

² Concerning the identity of Simeon the Righteous, see the convincing article of G. F. Moore, in Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams, New York, 1927, pp. 348 ff.

³ G. F. Moore, op. cit., pp. 359 f.; S. Zeitlin, Second Jewish Commonwealth, Philadelphia, 1933, pp. 38–39; and also in Ner Ma'arabi, 1925, pp. 137–142; Henry Englander, The Men of the Great Synagogue, in Hebrew Union College Jubilee Volume, Cincinnati, 1925, pp. 145–161; cf. also Margolis-Marx, History of the Jewish People, Philadelphia, 1927, pp. 131–133.

⁴ See S. Zeitlin, op.cit.; and cf. also Menes, Abram, Die vorexilischen Gesetze Israels, Giessen, 1928, pp. 90Google Scholar ff.; and Finkelstein, The Pharisees, Philadelphia, 1938 (hereafter cited simply as Pharisees), pp. 576 ff.

⁵ See Pharisees, loc. cit., and below note 42.

⁶ It is probably inaccurate to describe Megillat Ta'anit, which was apparently composed during the first century (or at the latest the first half of the second century), as a Midrash. After that work, the oldest compilations are probably those incorporated in our halakic midrashim; concerning which see Albeck, Ch., Untersuchungen ueber die halakischen Midraschim, Berlin, 1927Google Scholar; cf. also my discussion of the Sifre in Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research, 1931–1932, p. 41.

⁷ In addition to the fragments used by I. Abrahams, in J. Q. R., X, 1897, pp. 41 ff.; W. Bacher, ibid., pp. 380 ff.; and J. Greenstone in ZfHB, XV, 1911, pp. 122 ff.; I have consulted the following fragments from the Adler collection in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 2840, 2841, 3214, 3222, 3762, and 3775, all of which contain the part of Passover Haggadah including M.

⁸ Heb. ’arami ’obed ’abi, which is interpreted by the Midrash as though it read 'arami 'ibed 'abi, “An Aramaean destroyed my father.” See below for the discussion of this difference between the received text and the interpretation.

⁹ See Deut. 26. 5a; Mishna Bikkurim 1.1. It is interesting to note that the Karaites also recite the biblical passage, Deut. 26. 5–8 in their Passover Haggadah, though they omit the Midrash (see Ha-Haggadah Shel Pesah ‘Im Targum ‘Arabi Ke-Minhag Ha-Karaim, Pressburg, 1879, p. 3).

¹⁰ See note 8.

¹¹ The passage “Compelled thereto by the word of God” is omitted in the version of the Haggadah found in the Code of Maimonides and in the ritual of the Yemenite Jews. It was probably also lacking in the text of the Haggadah used by R. Saadia Gaon (882–942 of our era) in composing his famous Seder R. Saadia, since he makes no comment on it. It is also lacking in the version preserved in the Genizah fragment described by I. Abrahams, in J. Q. R., X, 1897, p. 50, fragment no. IX; while the Ms. described by him (ibid., p. 45), as well as that described by J. Greenstone in ZfHB, XV, 1911, p. 123, read 'anush instead of 'anus, meaning, “made to suffer through the word of God.” Apparently those responsible for this usage had hesitated to delete the ancient passage, and yet felt the need of changing it somewhat so as to reconcile it to their sojourn in Egypt. A similar need apparently led the copyist of Cod. Adler 3222, in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (or the group which formulated the version it represents), to add an explanation of the words “compelled thereto by the word of God.” Unfortunately, the text is so mutilated that the explanation cannot be reconstructed. It is also to be noted that the phrase, “compelled thereto by the word of God,” does not occur in the comment of either the Sifre or the Midrash Ha-Gadol on Deut. 26. 5. With regard to the Sifre, it is possible that its compiler rejected the phrase as he rejected other parts of M, which seemed to him unsupported by Scripture (see below, Appendix II). The omission in the Midrash Ha-Gadol, which transcribes all the rest of M, indicates that, as might be expected, it follows the Yemenite ritual of the Haggadah (see Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research, 1931–1932, pp. 20 ff.).

¹² In Cod. Adler 3775, the passage, “This refers to the forcible separation from marital intercourse” is inserted in the comment on the words, “and our toil,” instead of on the words, “and our affliction,” taking the place of the phrase, “This refers to the children,” which is entirely omitted. In Cod. Adler 2841, there is a similar transposition, except that the words, “This refers to the children,” are retained so that the passage reads: “And our toil. This refers to the forcible separation from marital intercourse. This refers to the children, as it is said, ‘Every son etc.’” I. Abrahams cites a Genizah fragment, the reading of which corresponded to that of Cod. Adler 3775 (J. Q. R., loc. cit., p. 45).

¹³ Some texts add here, “Nor by the word,” referring to Alexandrian doctrine of the Logos (see e.g. I. Abrahams, Some Egyptian Fragments of the Passover Hagada, J. Q. R., X, 1897, p. 47; and Seder R. Saadia, in Frumkin, Seder R. Amram, Jerusalem, 1912, 108b).

¹⁴ The remainder of the passage is omitted according to the version of the Haggadah found in the Seder R. Saadia, the Code of Maimonides, and the ritual of the Yemenite Jews. The view that it is to be omitted is also cited in Shibbale Ha-Leket (ed. Buber, 97a). But it is found in all the other rites; I therefore cannot follow E. D. Goldschmidt, Die Pessach-Haggada, Berlin, 1937, p. 54, in rejecting it. It was doubtless omitted by some rabbis because they were offended by the emphatic denial of the angels, which is implied in it.

¹⁵ It is clear that it is only the words, “I am the Lord,” which justify the special interpretation put upon the biblical passage. In all the other phrases the personal pronoun is in no way emphasized. The commentators on the Haggadah have, of course, noticed this and remark that the compiler projects the emphasis on “I am the Lord,” into the other phrases.

¹⁶ The compiler obviously read the biblical text ubemar'eh gadol “and with a great Vision,” rather than ubemora’ gadol “And with great terribleness,” as the Massoretic Text has it. For the evidence that the former was the original reading, see notes 38, 39. The fact that the compiler read ubemar'eh gadol was specifically noted by Geiger, Urschrift, pp. 339 ff.; but his view was partially adumbrated by mediaeval writers. Isaac Abravanel in his commentary on the Haggadah, notes that the consonantal text of the biblical verse can still be read ubemar'eh, since it omits the vav which would naturally follow the mem, if the correct reading were ubemora'. The remark is repeated by Jacob Emden in his commentary on the Haggadah. Similarly, Mahzor Vitry, ed. Horowitz, p. 293, Siddur Rashi, ed. Buber, p. 193, Orhot Hayyim of R. Aaron Ha-Kohen of Lunel, 83b, and Kol Bo 51, remark that the words ubemora’ gadol are taken by the compiler of the Haggadah as the equivalent of ubemar'eh gadol.

¹⁷ Section II, 3, offers, as will be shown below, Appendix I, a reassurance to the Egyptian Jews that the discouragement of immigration to their country will not interfere with their numbers, which depend, after all, on the blessing of God and natural increase.

¹⁸ Excerpts from M are incorporated in Sifre Deut. 301, ed. Friedmann 128a, Finkelstein 319; in Mekilta on Deuteronomy, reproduced from the Midrash Ha-Gadol in Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffman, pp. 172–173; and in Sifre Numbers 115, ed. Friedmann 35b, Horowitz 128. It certainly provided the basis for the remark that no angel participated in the Exodus, cited in Mekilta Bo, chap. 7, Friedmann 7b, Horowitz-Rabin 23, Lauterbach I, 53; and ibid., chap. 13, Friedmann 13b, Horowitz-Rabin 43, Lauterbach I, 97. It is specifically cited in B. Yoma 74b. For the date of the tannaitic Midrashim, see Ch. Albeck, Untersuchungen ueber die halakischen Midraschim, p. 119 and Finkelstein, Proc. Am. Acad. of Jewish Research, 1931–1932, p. 41.

¹⁹ It is true that the Hellenist kingdoms of Syria and Egypt did not consider themselves identical with the older nations of those countries, but rather part of the Macedonian Empire, which had been divided. Nevertheless, under the stress of the bitter rivalry between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids for the control of Palestine, it is clear that a statement making Jacob an Aramaean would be definitely pro-Seleucid. For the identification of Laban with Syria, see e.g. Sanhedrin 105a, where Laban is identified with Beor the father of Balaam. Elsewhere, he is identified with Balaam himself and declared King of Aram. See Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, Index, s.v. Laban. The argument presented below remains in general equally valid if the first hypothesis be accepted; the date of M must simply be fixed, in that event, about 150 B.C. instead of between 240 and 220 B.C.

²⁰ The Rabbinic tradition recalls the fact that the authors of the Septuagint frequently changed their text out of deference to Egyptian sensitivity (see Megillah 9A; Masseket Soferim 1. 8, ed. Higger, p. 101). Similarly, mediaeval copyists and printers were careful to avoid the use of the word Romi for Rome where that might offend the rulers of contemporary Rome, and instead wrote 'aram or 'Edom and the words 'abodah zara “strange worship” are regularly replaced in current editions of the Talmud by 'akum “the worship of the stars and the planets,” so as to avoid giving offense to Christians. In each case, careful consideration of the passages would show that there was no allusion to contemporaries; but there was need of avoiding any possible imputation of giving offense.

²¹ For the reconstruction of the history given below, see Eduard Meyer, Ursprung und Anfaenge des Christentums, II, pp. 3 ff., 128–137; Tscherikower, Ha-Yehudim veha-Yevanim, pp. 95, 183; Z. S. Zeitlin, The History of the Second Jewish Commonwealth, Philadelphia, 1933, pp. 11–33; Marx-Margolis, History of the Jewish People, pp. 128–129; E. R. Bevan, The House of Seleucus, London, 1912, pp. 50 ff., 191–234; and Pierre Jouguet, Macedonian Imperialism and the Hellenization of the East, New York, 1938, pp. 189–192.

²² Abraham insists that Isaac marry a daughter of Aram, rather than one of those of Canaan (Gen. 24. 3 ff.); and similarly Jacob is sent to Aram to seek a wife (ibid., 27. 46; 28. 1 ff.), Elijah and Elisha have close relations with Aram (I Kings 19. 15; II Kings 5. 1 ff.; 8. 7 ff.), and it is well known that the prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah, as well as the others whose works have been preserved, were always pro-Babylonian and pro-Assyrian in their diplomacy, but definitely anti-Egyptian (see Pharisees, pp. 423 ff.).

²³ Lev. 18. 3.

²⁴ As indicated below, historians disagree regarding the precise status of Palestine between 301 and 281 B.C. We have no definite information as to whether it was under the control of the Seleucids or the Ptolemies during most of these two decades.

²⁵ Ha-Yehudim ve-ha-Yevanim, pp. 170 ff.

²⁶ Antiquities XII. 3. 3.

²⁷ See above, note 11. The Genizah fragments naturally represent the Egyptian ritual. That the Seder R. Saadia also represents that ritual is demonstrated by Professor Louis Ginzberg, in Geonica I, p. 167, note 1. It is well known that Maimonides composed his Code in Egypt, and that he followed the ritual of that country. The Yemenite Jews looked to the neighboring Jews of Egypt and especially to Maimonides for guidance in their worship. It must be noted, however, that there are a number of Genizah fragments containing the phrase, “compelled thereto, etc.” (See I. Abrahams, J. Q. R., X, 1897, pp. 45, 47, 48, and 49; W. Bacher, ibid., p. 380; and Cod. Adler, in Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 2840 and 3222.) Possibly these fragments represent the rituals of localities which had come under the influence of Jews of other countries.

²⁸ It is noteworthy that according to most texts M fails to cite any biblical verse in support of its singular statement. The only verse which is cited in any version is the irrelevant passage, Gen. 46. 3. The famous scholar, R. Elijah Gaon of Wilna, realizing the difficulty of finding some basis for the interpretation in Scripture, explains that Jacob was compelled to go to Egypt in the sense that he was destined to do so. He remarks in his commentary (Wilna, 1818), “The meaning is that he was compelled to go to Egypt because thus was it ordained for him that he should come to Egypt; and God brought it about that he should come to Egypt through a commandment; as our Sages say, ‘Jacob, our father, was fated to come to Egypt in iron chains, but his merit liberated him from them’ (Shabbat 89b). This is what the author of the Haggadah means by the remark, ‘compelled by the word’ — his merit caused him to come through the word, and not in chains.” Another commentator (Abraham Danzig, in his commentary, in the same edition) explains that Jacob was compelled to go to Egypt through the famine (Gen. 45. 11), which means, of course, that he was compelled by God. A later rabbinic Midrash, the author of which apparently forgot for the moment the explicit statement of M, maintains that Jacob came to Egypt of his own free will (see Mekilta, Beshallah, Proemium, ed. Friedmann 24b, Horowitz-Rabin 80, Lauterbach I, 181).

²⁹ For the rapid increase of the number of the Egyptian Jews during this period, see S. W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, I, 134 ff.; and III, 33. That many of the Jews who settled in Egypt were compelled to do so by the Egyptian government, is indicated in Josephus, Antiquities XII. 1. 1.

³⁰ The word mezuyyanim as used in this passage of M can only mean “distinguished” in the sense of “distinct.” Any attempt to give it an honorific meaning such as “noted” etc., is rendered futile by the fact that the comment is attached to the words, “And he became there a nation.” Siddur Rashi and Mahzor Vitry, doubtless reflecting the thoughts and circumstances of French Jews of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, explain that the Israelites in Egypt were “distinguished” by being gathered into one locality rather than scattered in many places. Shibbale ha-Leket, however, with far closer approach to the true meaning of M, maintains that the Israelites in Egypt were distinguished by their clothes and their customs. In support of this interpretation of M, Shibbale ha-Leket cites the famous passage of Vayyikra Rabbah, “The Israelites were redeemed from Egypt for four reasons: They had not changed (a) their names or (b) their language; (c) they had spoken no evil of one another; and (d) they had refrained from sexual impurity.” (Leviticus R. 32. 5.) This interpretation is, in general, also followed by Abravanel and R. Elijah of Gaon of Wilna. The tradition that the Hebrews in Egyp t did not “change their name, and did not change their language,” is recorded also in Mekilta Bo, chap. 5, Friedmann 5a, Horowitz-Rabin, p. 14, Lauterbach I, p. 34. These passages in the Rabbinic Midrashim are, of course, likewise intended as polemics against the assimilationist tendency of the contemporary Jews of Egypt and the other parts of the Diaspora.

³¹ The Septuagint to that passage, doubtless under the influence of contemporary exegesis, translates “And having sent an angel, He brought us forth from Egypt.” Rashi, attempting to reconcile the biblical passage with M, interprets mal'ak in Numbers 20. 16, as meaning a prophet, and makes the word refer to Moses. Targum Ps. Jonathan explicitly states, “And He sent one of his archangels and he brought us forth from Egypt.” Apparently with a similar view in mind, the Septuagint translators of Isaiah, rendered Isaiah 63. 8b–9 not as we have it, “so He was their Saviour. In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them”; but rather, “And He became their Saviour from all their affliction. Not a messenger (apparently punctuating zir instead of zar) nor an angel, but He Himself saved them.”

³² The denial that the angels participated in the Exodus is cited, with probable reference to the Passover Haggadah, in Yer. Sanhedrin 2. 1, 20a; ibid., Horayot 3. 2, 47a. Interestingly enough Mekilta insists that the destruction of the first-born did not occur through an angel (Mekilta Bo, chap. 7, Friedmann 7b, Horowitz-Rabin 23, Lauterbach 1, 53; see also parallel passage ibid., chap. 13, Friedmann 13b, Horowitz-Rabin 43, Lauterbach I, 97). The commentators on the Passover Haggadah were, of course, disturbed by the passage denying that the angels participated in the Exodus, in view of the statement in Numbers 20. 16, and especially in view of the fact that Moses was clearly the “messenger” of God at the Exodus. They offer various explanations of the difficulty. Abravanel insists that it only means that God redeemed the Israelites, but He made use of “different instruments,” in accomplishing His will; R. Yom Tob ben Abraham of Seville maintains that the redemption occurred without any intermediary, and he explains Numbers 20. 16, precisely as does the Septuagint. The same interpretation is cited also in Shibbale ha-Leket. With the various statements denying the use of angels as intermediaries, cf. also Sifre Deut. 325 (Fr. 139a), which comments on the verse, “To Me belongeth vengeance and recompense” (Deut. 32. 35), as follows: “I Myself will punish them; I will not punish them through an angel or an intermediary.”

³³ See excerpts from Seder R. Saadia, printed in Frunkin, Seder R. Amram, Jerusalem, 1912, p. 108b; Mahzor Vitry, p. 293; Siddur Rashi, p. 193; according to the rite of Yemen, the Haggadah according to the rite of Bagdad, edds. Calcutta, 1844, and 1889, and Bombay, 1887; and lastly in the appendix to E. D. Goldschmidt, Die Pessach-Haggada, p. 111. The passage is also cited in Midrash Ha-Gadol, on Exodus, 14. 25, ed. Hoffmann, p. 52. But, as Professor Louis Ginzberg surmised (Geonica, 1, p. 167, note 1, and more explicitly in Legends of the Jews, V. p. 433, note 213) this passage is not a genuine part of the Mekilta of R. Simeon. This can now be demonstrated by the fact that it is lacking in the Genizah fragments of the Mekilta of R. Simeon to the passage (see Jewish Studies in Memory of George Alexander Kohut, Hebrew section, p. 114). Nevertheless the ascription of the saying to R. Meir may be correct. At any rate it is certain that despite the authority of the Passover Haggadah and the Mekilta of R. Ishmael, many later scholars insisted that God descended to Egypt to redeem Israel, surrounded by hosts of angels. Indeed Shemot Rabbah explicitly states, in the comment on the verse, “For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians” (Exod. 12. 23), “Some say through an angel, and some say the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself” (Shemot Rabbah 17. 5).

³⁴ With one slight deviation (indicated in the next note) I have followed the text of the interpolation as found in the Passover Haggadah used in the ritual of Bagdad.

³⁵ Reading din hu, with the other texts, rather than dayyan hu (He is the Judge) with the ritual of Bagdad.

³⁶ See Pharisees, pp. 160 ff. The controversy is described in Acts 23. 8, as sectarian, dividing the Pharisees, who accepted the belief in angels, from the Sadducees, who rejected it. But as suggested in Pharisees, pp. 181 ff., the controversy is not mentioned by Josephus or the Rabbinic Sages, because there were a considerable number of Pharisees themselves who opposed the highly developed angelology of later times. Perhaps they found support for their views in M. Nevertheless, it remains true that the Pharisees as a body refused to deny the existence of personal angels; and certainly would not have sanctioned the formulation of a Passover service which implied such a denial.

³⁷ Leszynsky, Die Sadduzaeer, p. 62; Lauterbach, Hebrew Union College Annual, IV (1927), pp. 185 ff., and see Pharisees, pp. 118 ff.

³⁸ Geiger, Urschrift, pp. 339 ff.

³⁹ Similar renderings of ubemora' are found also in the Septuagint, Peshitta, and Targumim to Deut. 4. 34, and Jer. 32.21. It is also found in Peshitta and Targumim to Deut. 34. 12. The Vulgate which in all the passages cited follows the Massoretic readings, translates the phrase in Deut. 4. 34, horribiles visiones, combining both senses. Geiger's view gains curious support from Sifre Deut. 161, Friedmann 105b, Finkelstein 212, which reads, according to the best texts (Vatican Ms. and commentary of R. Hillel): “That he may learn to fear the Lord his God. This teaches us that the Vision leads to reading the Scripture; reading the Scripture leads to translation; translation leads to study of the Mishna; study of the Mishna leads to discussion; discussion leads to deeds; deeds lead to fear (of God).” In ed. pr. as well as in the texts of the Yalkut, and the Mss. of the British Museum and Oxford, the word she-ha-mar'eh “for the vision” has been altered to she-ha-mora' “for the fear,” which makes no sense whatever, since the series begins with “the fear” and ends with “the fear.” It seems clear that the later copyists, recoiling from the implication that God might appear in visible form, changed the original mar'eh into mora'. This renders it the more likely that a similar development occurred in the biblical texts.

It is interesting to note that the texts of the Sifre in which the reading mor'a has been substituted for mar'eh belong to the French group (see Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research, 1931–1932, pp. 7 ff.). And curiously enough, as we have seen (note 16), it is in the French school that we find the clearest anticipation of Geiger's theory that mora' was originally mar'eh.

It must further be noted that apparently the baraita in the Sifre, which is now associated as indicated with Deut. 17. 19, really is a comment on the similar verse, Deut. 14. 23, which remarks concerning the tithes and the pilgrimages, “that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always.” The author of the statement in the Sifre indicates the steps by which this fear of God is attained. The pilgrim comes to Jerusalem and sees the Vision of the Glory; this leads him to study, etc.; study leads to deeds; and deeds lead to the fear of God. Perhaps it was an early objection to the association of the Vision of God with the pilgrimage that caused the passage to be transferred in the first place to the verse about the King, where it was considered rather innocuous.

⁴⁰ It is probable that as with regard to the question of angels, so with regard to the issue of the appearance of God in visible form, the authority which attached to M as part of the Passover-Haggadah helped to preserve its view among patrician scholars. See Akiba, pp. 195–196; Pharisees, pp. 180 ff.

⁴¹ Concerning the two factions of the Pharisees, see Professor L. Ginzberg, Mekomah shel ha-halakah be-hokmat yisrael, p. 14. For their views on the issues presented in M, see Akiba, pp. 55, and Pharisees, pp. 118 ff., 160 ff.

⁴² He made these contributions either directly or through the Great Assembly. See further regarding this subject, J. Q. R., N. S., XVI, 1925–1926, pp. 41 ff.; and XXI, 1928–1929, p. 229, note 1; as well as Pharisees, pp. 578 ff. For his interest in the study of the Torah, and therefore possibly in the Midrashic form, see Abot 1. 3, and the explanation offered in Pharisees, p. 63.

⁴³ It is also possible that the author wishes to avoid the implication that work as such is degrading or an evil to be avoided. He hesitates, therefore, to interpret “our toil” literally; God, in his opinion, would not have been moved simply by seeing the people at labor.

⁴⁴ The first interpretation is found in Midrash Tannaim 34. 12, p. 228; the second is found there as an alternative interpretation, and in Sifre Deut. 357, 150b as the only interpretation. The statement of R. Joshua ben Levi that with each of the ten plagues the Egyptians suffered also from pestilence (Shemot Rabbah 10. 1) may be intended as an explanation of this passage. It may be that R. Joshua could only explain the reference to deber (murrain) as meaning “pestilence” rather than “murrain,” and that since it was mentioned so prominently in M, he presumed that it accompanied each of the ten plagues. This interpretation is supported by R. Aaron Ha-Kohen of Lunel (Orhot Hayyim, I, 83A), and the author of Kol Bo.

⁴⁵ It is particularly difficult to explain this passage in view of the fact that the verse cited in support of the interpretation that “arm” means “the sword,” does not contain the word “arm” but only the word “hand.” To overcome this difficulty several commentators indicate that the word on which the author relies to prove the interference of the “sword” in the Exodus, is Netuyah “outstretched,” which occurs in both verses.

⁴⁶ Pesikta of R. Kahana VII, ed. Buber, 65a; Pesikta Rabbati XVII, ed. Friedmann, 88a. This interpretation is that most generally accepted; see Orhot Hayyim, loc. cit.; Kol Bo, ad loc.; Shibbale Ha-Leket, ed. Buber, 97a; and M. Friedmann, Meir ‘Ayyin ‘al Seder ve-Hagaddah, 101.

⁴⁷ This interpretation is apparently put on the passage also by E. D. Goldschmidt in his Die Pessach-Haggada, p. 56, note 1.

⁴⁸ Preserved in Midrash Ha-Gadol, and printed therefrom in Midrash Tannaim 26. 5–8, pp. 172–173. For the patrician origin of the Mekilta on Deuteronomy see D. Hoffmann, Einleitung in die halachischen Midrashim, Berlin, 1887, pp. 72 ff., and also his introduction to the edition of the Midrash Tannaim.

⁴⁹ See Sifre Deut. 301, Friedmann 128a, Finkelstein 319. (a) The Sifre rejects the interpretation that ’arami ’obed ’abi, means that “the Aramaean sought to destroy my father.” Instead of that, it says, “This teaches us that our father Jacob went to Aram in order to be destroyed.” The following statement, “And therefore Laban is accounted as though he had destroyed him,” clearly contradicts the interpretation that Jacob came to Aram to be destroyed. For why should Laban be accounted guilty for something which he could not control, had it happened; and ultimately did not happen? It is clear that although all the texts have preserved both statements as one, they are really two distinct interpretations. According to the first, Jacob is called a “lost (or wandering) Aramaean,” because when he came to Aram, he seemed fated for destruction. According to the second, as in the Passover Haggadah, Laban is accounted as though he had destroyed him.

(b) The phrase, “this teaches us that Jacob did not go down to Egypt to settle there, but only to sojourn etc.,” is found in the French texts of the Sifre, but is omitted in all the better texts, showing as indicated in ed. Finkelstein, loc. cit., that it is not part of the Sifre.

(c) The remainder of the Midrash is summarized in the briefest manner.

⁵⁰ Sifre Numbers 115, Friedmann 35b, Horowitz 128.

⁵¹ Mekilta Jethro, Bahodesh, chap. 8, Friedmann 70b, Horowitz-Rabin 253, Lauterbach II, and parallel passage, Sanhedrin 86a; and Sifre Numbers 115, Friedmann 35b, Horowitz 128.

⁵² Sifra, Vayyikra, parasha 12. 10.