¹ The standard (albeit dated) works on rabbinic theology of Moore, George Foot (Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar]) and Schechter, Solomon (Aspects of Rabbinic Theology [New York: Schocken, 1961]Google Scholar) hardly mention myth, although Schechter sometimes designates as “mystical” or as a “legend” what would now be classified as mythic (Aspects, 128–35), and Moore cites a few relevant sources without designating them as mythic (Judaism, 266–69). Urbach, Efraim E. (The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979] 193Google Scholar) recognized that certain sages transmitted “mythological teachings concerning the creation of the world” and “introduced remnants” of ancient biblical myths (pp. 194, 230; compare pp. 171, 198, 201 n. 175). Urbach nevertheless consistently balked at accepting myth as any kind of living force in amoraic thought: “the Amoraim absorbed remnants of the myths about the creation of man that were current in their neighborhood, voided them of their mythological content, and superimposed upon them the principles of their faith” (ibid., 230; my emphasis; compare 166, 228). In an extensive discussion of Torah, Urbach (ibid., 198–99, 287) notes sources of a mythic character, but does not pursue the matter in depth. See also Louis Ginzberg (On Jewish Law and Lore [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1955] 63) on “mythological elements” in rabbinic literature: “The hostility of the Jew to myth was continuously on the increase, and that which was objectionable to Israel in Biblical times became still more so in the rabbinic period. We shall not err greatly if we maintain, therefore, that they are faded fragments of very old myths.” Baer, Yitzhak (Yisra˒el Ba˓amim [Jerusalem: Bialik, 1955] 103–12Google Scholar) argues that rabbinic halakha was of “mythic-magical” character. In his voluminous writings, Jacob Neusner also employs the term “myth” periodically (although not consistently). (See, for example, Torah: From Scroll to Symbol in Formative Judaism [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988] 118Google Scholar.) Raphael Patai, finally, has written extensively on biblical and rabbinic myth from a folkloristic and anthropological perspective. (See Man and Temple [New York: Ktav, 1947]Google Scholar and Hamayim [Tel Aviv: Devir, 1936].)

² Scholem, Gershom (On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism [New York: Schocken, 1969] 88Google Scholar) wrote: “Judaism strove to open up a region, that of monotheistic revelation, from which mythology would be excluded. … the tendency of the classical Jewish tradition to liquidate myth as a central spiritual power is not diminished by such quasi-mythical vestiges transformed into metaphors.” He wrote again (On the Kabbalah, 94–95): “For what in rabbinical Judaism, separated the Law from myth? The answer is clear: the disassociation of the Law from cosmic events.” On Scholem's position, see Idel, Moshe, Kabbala: New Perspectives (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988) 156–57Google Scholar; and idem, “Rabbinism versus Kabbalism: On G. Scholem's Phenomenology of Judaism,” Modern Judaism 11 (1991) 281–97. Actually Scholem uses “myth” in a loose fashion. When he denies that the rabbis thought in mythic terms, he usually refers to myths of theomachy or theogony, or to the hieros gamos (“sacred marriage”). Scholem generally plays off kabbalah against medieval Jewish rationalist philosophy, which he sometimes calls “medieval Rabbinical Judaism” (Scholem, On the Kabbalah, 88) or “Rabbinical tradition” (p. 90), and which was indeed antimythological.

³ Idel, Kabbala, 170–72.

⁴ See, for example, Fishbane, Michael, “‘The Holy One Sits and Roars’: Mythopoesis and the Midrashic Imagination,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 1 (1991) 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Wolfson, Elliot R., “Images of God's Feet: Some Observations on the Divine Body in Judaism,” in Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard, ed., Jews and Judaism from an Embodied Perspective (Albany: SUNY Press, 1992) 143–80Google Scholar. See also the numerous rabbinic traditions cited in Levenson, Jon, Sinai and Zion (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985)Google Scholar. Liebes, Yehuda (Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism [trans. Stein, Batya; Albany: SUNY Press, 1993] 1–92Google Scholar) argues that the rabbinic conception of God is mythic.

⁵ By “rabbinic literature” I mean “classical rabbinic literature,” which includes the Talmuds and amoraic midrashic compilations but not medieval midrashim.

⁶ See Dan, Joseph, Hasipur Ha˒ivri Bimei Habeinayim (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974) 21Google Scholar, 135–36 (although Dan tends to attribute the resurgence of myth in these texts to external influences). And see Scholem, Gershom, Origins of the Kabbalah (1962; reprinted; ed. Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi; trans. Arkush, Allan; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1987) 17Google Scholar.

⁷ My selections come from the standard edition of the Tanḥuma, the Tanḥuma nidpas. Tanḥuma—Yelammedenu collections include the standard edition of the Tanḥuma, the recension of the Tanḥuma published by Buber, Solomon, Midrash Tanḥuma ˓al Ḥamisha Ḥumshe Torah (Vilna: Romm, 1885)Google Scholar (based on MS Oxford Neubauer 154), Pesiqta Rabbati, Deuteronomy Rabba, Numbers Rabba 15–23 and Exodus Rabba 15–52. Efraim E. Urbach and others proposed that these compilations drew from an earlier source, but copyists/editors treated the texts freely—adding, subtracting, and changing at will. That is, Tanḥuma traditions represent a genre rather than a specific document. See Urbach, Efraim E., “Tanḥuma-Yelammedenu Fragments,” Qobeṣ˓al yad 16 (1966) 3Google Scholar [Hebrew]; and Milikowsky, Chaim, “The Status Quaestionis of Research in Rabbinic Literature,” JJS 39 (1988) 209–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the dating, see Strack, Hermann L. and Stemberger, Günter, eds., Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 326–28Google Scholar, 332–33; and Kensky, Allan, Midrash Tanḥuma Shmot: A Critical Edition of Midrash Tanḥuma Shmot (Standard Edition) through Beshallaḥ (Ph.D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1991) 27–28Google Scholar [Hebrew]. The communis opinio believes the genre developed in Palestine in the seventh and following centuries. On the dating of Pirqe de-Rabbi Eli˓ezer, see Friedlander's, Gerald introduction to his translation, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (New York: Harmon, 1965) liii–livGoogle Scholar.

⁸ See the superb studies of Elbaum, Yaakov, “On the Character of the Late Midrashic Literature,” Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (4 vols.; Jerusalem: World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1986) 3. 57–62Google Scholar [Hebrew]; idem, “From Sermon to Story: The Transformation of the Akedah,” Prooftexts 6 (1986) 97–117; idem, “Rhetoric, Motif and Subject-Matter—Toward an Analysis of Narrative Technique in Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Folklore 13/14 (1991–92) 99–126 [Hebrew]; and Meir, Ofra, “Hasipur Hadarshani Bemidrash Qadum Ume˒uḥar,” Sinai 86 (1980) 246–66Google Scholar. Other valuable studies include Cohen, Norman J., “Structure and Editing in the Homiletic Midrashim,” AJS Review 6 (1981) 5–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Milikowsky, Chaim, “Jacob's Punishment—A Study in the Redactional Process of Midrash Tanḥuma,” Bar-Ilan University Year Book 18/19 (1981) 144–49Google Scholar [Hebrew]; Fraenkel, Jonah, “Remarkable Phenomena in the Text-History of the Aggadic Stories,” Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies (4 vols.; Jerusalem: World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1981) 3. 67–69Google Scholar [Hebrew]; Shinan, Avigdor, “Aggadic Motifs between Midrash and Story,” Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature 5 (1984) 211–20Google Scholar [Hebrew]. See also the erudite comparison of Tanḥuma and earlier rabbinic traditions of the Israelites hearing the divine voice at Sinai in Chernus, Ira, Mysticism in Rabbinic Judaism (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1982) 58–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar (although Chernus proposes a very early date for the Tanḥuma materials). See also the, iscussion of the Tanḥuma and its relationship to its sources in Kensky, Midrash Tanḥuma, 46–76.

⁹ The development of narrative may, of course, have been influenced by outside cultures. See Dan, Hasipur Ha˓ivri, 135–36.

¹⁰ Rogerson, John W.(Myth in Old Testament Interpretation [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971])Google Scholar thus writes an entire book surveying theories of myth as applied to the Bible. Kirk, Geoffrey Stephen (Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures [London: Cambridge University Press, 1970] 8–31Google Scholar) surveys general theories of myth. Strenski, Ivan (Four Theories of Myth in Twentieth-Century History: Cassirer, Eliade, Levi-Strauss and Malinowski [Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1987] 1–12Google Scholar and 194–99) concludes that myth is used in so many ways that it is “everything and nothing.” Given this scholarly morass one might well say—to paraphrase what Kugel, James (“Two Introductions to Midrash,” Prooftexts 3 [1983] 144Google Scholar) has written about midrash—that since many other studies have not defined myth adequately, there is little purpose in not defining it again.

¹¹ Mircea Eliade championed this view. See his Myth and Reality (New York: Harper & Row, 1975) 5–6Google Scholar; and idem, The Sacred and the Profane (New York: Harper & Row, 1961) 95–99. For similar approaches, see Otzen, Benedikt, Gottlieb, Hans, and Jeppesen, Knud, Myths in the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1980)Google Scholar; Bolle, Kees, “Myth,” Encyclopedia of Religion 10 (1987) 261–62Google Scholar; Childs, Brevard, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1960)Google Scholar.

¹² Midrash Tanḥuma (ed. Singermann, Felix; Berlin: Lamm, 1926) 444Google Scholar; Buber, Midrash Tanḥuma, 78. On Tanḥuma manuscripts see below n. 26. There are no significant manuscript variants in this case. See also the preceding traditions in the Tanḥuma: “Solomon was wise, and knew the ultimate foundation (והחשם) of the world. “From where? From Zion, perfect (ללבס) in beauty God appeared” (Ps 50:2). From Zion the whole earth was founded (ללבחש[). Why was it called the ‘foundation stone’ (היחש ]בא)? From it the world was founded (החשה).”

¹³ b. Yoma 54b.

¹⁴ Job 38:38.

¹⁵ Ps 50:2.

¹⁶ m. Yoma 5.2.

¹⁷ t. Yoma 2.14.

¹⁸ On the variants and their implications, see Lieberman, Saul, Tosefta Kifshuta: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta (8 vols.; Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1955–88) 5. 772–73Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Ps 50:1–2.

²⁰ See Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, 36–47; Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 115–22.

²¹ The Talmud presents the sages as disputing with R. Eliezer. See, however, the tradition immediately following in b. Yoma 54b and Tosafot, ibid., s.v. ˒elu. This tradition suggests that the sages considered Zion both the center and the point at which creation began.

²² m. Yoma 5.2; t. Yoma 2.14; y. Yoma 5.4, 42c.

²³ The foundation stone traditions do not express the idea of geographic center as such, but rather the motif of the temple as a fulcrum or “center” of order against chaos, and the idea of the beginning point of creation. See also m. Kelim 1.6–9 which lists ten concentric spheres of increasing holiness, from the land of Israel to Jerusalem, the temple courtyards, and ultimately the Holy of Holies. This geographic scheme essentially duplicates that of the Tanḥuma.

²⁴ Compare Pirqe de-Rabbi Eli˓ezer §35 (Warsaw: Bomberg, 1852Google Scholar) 82b (= Yalqut Shimoni [Jerusalem: Hateḥiya, 1960] §120 to Gen 28:18): “therefore it is called the ‘foundation stone,’ for there is the navel of the earth, and from there the whole world spread forth, and upon it the sanctuary stands.” And see Midrash Hashem Beḥokhma Yasad Areṣ (B) in Jellinek, Adolph, Beit Hamidrash (6 vols.; Jerusalem: n.p., 1938) 5. 63Google Scholar.

²⁵ For other examples of highly developed temple myths in late midrashim, see Tanḥuma Tetṣave §13, 296 (Buber, Midrash Tanḥuma §10, 102–3) and compare the earlier parallels in y. Pe˒a 7.4, 20a and b. Ketub. 111b–112a; Tanḥuma Pequdei §3, 344–45; Buber, Midrash Tanḥuma, Aḥrei §4, 59–61; and Teruma §8, 94 (“Before the temple was built the world stood on a throne of two legs, but when the temple was built the world was founded and stood firmly”); Pirqei de-Rabbi Eli˓ezer § 10 (“he [the fish] showed Jonah the foundation stone fixed in the Deeps below the Sanctuary of God”); the Yelammedenu fragment published by Jellinek, Beit Hamidrash, 6. 88–89; and Jellinek, “Midrash Tadshei,” in idem, Beit Hamidrash, 3. 164–67.

²⁶ Manuscripts and early printings of the Tanḥuma are described in Buber's introduction to his Midrash Tanḥuma, 117–62, and Kensky, Midrash Tanḥuma, 1. 97–148. Seven of the twelve primary MSS lack this section: Oxford 156 and 2491, Columbia X893M5843, JTS Rab 1670 (MIC 4938), JTS 1669 (MIC 4915), Sassoon 641 (= JTS, Boesky Family Collection 48), Vatican 44 (see Buber, Midrash Tanḥuma, 159). I have been unable to check MS Parma 261 and MS Rome Angelica or. 61 (A.3.2) (although according to Abraham Epstein, Miqadmoniot Hayehudim [Jerusalem: n.p., 1965] 172, this manuscript is identical to the printed version). I have noted the significant textual variants from MSS Oxford 153 and 2337, and Cambridge 1212, as well as the first printed edition, Constantinople 1521, and the third edition, Mantua 1563.

²⁷ Prov 8:30.

²⁸ So MS Cambridge 1212, MSS Oxford 153 and 2337 and the first edition, Constantinople, 1521. Printed versions beginning with Mantua 1563 read “She was the handmaiden” (ח]םןא), adopting the regular feminine for Torah.

²⁹ Prov 8:30.

³⁰ Gen. R. 1.1 in Theodor, Julius and Albeck, Hanoch, eds., Midrash Bereshit Rabba (1903–29; reprinted; 3 vols.; Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965) 1. 1Google Scholar.

³¹ Lev R. 35.4. The text is from Midrash Vayiqra Rabba (ed. Margoliot, Mordechai; 5 vols.; Jerusalem: n.p., 1953–60) 821–22Google Scholar.

³² Lev 26:3.

³³ Jer 33:25.

³⁴ Ibid. In context, Jeremiah means: “As surely as I have established my covenant with day and night—the laws of heaven and earth—so I will never reject the offspring of Jacob and my servant David.” The midrash turns the verse on its head: God only created the world for the sake of the Torah, his covenant with his people.

³⁵ Jer 31:35. That is, God made the moon and stars with the “laws,” the Torah.

³⁶ So MSS Oxford 153 and 2337 and first edition. Ms Cambridge 1212 reads “stopped up” (םחס). This may be influenced by Gen. R. 31.12 in Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 285: “The mighty ones (םיךוכי]) were putting their feet on the Deep and stopping it up (וחוא םימחוס)” to prevent the floodwaters from destroying the earth. In Pesiqta Rabbati ([1880; reprinted; ed. Meir Ish-Shalom Tel-Aviv: n.p., 1963] 194b) Leviathan “returns his fins to their place and stops up the Deep.”

³⁷ Prov 8:29.

³⁸ Jer 5:22. The midrash equates קח with law/Torah: by means of the law God made the sand a boundary to the sea. (The contextual translation is “limit”: the sand is the limit of the sea for all time.)

³⁹ Jer 5:22.

⁴⁰ שנט. So read MSS Cambridge 1212, Oxford 153 and 2337 and the first several printings, as well as the citations in ibn al-Nakawa, Israel, Menorat Hama˒or (ed. Enelow, Hyman Gerson; 4 vols.; New York: Bloch, 1929) 3. 205Google Scholar and Aboab, Isaac, Menorat Hama˒or (ed. Ḥorev, Yehudah; Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1961) 494Google Scholar. Later printed versions have “sealed off” as in the previous clause.

⁴¹ Prov 8:27. The midrash takes “he fixed” (וקחב) as “with his law (וקח)”: God encircled the Deep with his Law.

⁴² Prov 8:27.

⁴³ Jer 31:35.

⁴⁴ Mantua and subsequent printed versions add, “as it says, ‘Recite it day and night (Josh 1:8).’”

⁴⁵ Ps 1:2–3.

⁴⁶ So read MSS and first editions. Later versions read “who observe the Torah” (הרוח ירסוש).

⁴⁷ Exod 24:8.

⁴⁸ I Sam 2:8.

⁴⁹ Ps 75:4.

⁵⁰ Exod 20:2.

⁵¹ So MSS. The first edition and printed version has “the Torah is founded,” an obvious error, MSS Oxford 153 and 2337 read חתמשח.

⁵² Song R. 7.1. Parallels include: Song R. 9.1; Gen. R. 66.2 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 745–46); “Ruth R. 1” (ed. Lerner, Myron B.; 3 vols.; Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1971) 2. 4–5Google Scholar. Compare Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 9.1 (ed. Mandelbaum, Bernard; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1987) 147Google Scholar; b. Šabbat 88a; b. ˓Aboda Zar. 3a. The numerous parallels show that this conception was commonplace and held great appeal.

⁵³ I Sam 2:8.

⁵⁴ The Tanḥuma provides a somewhat expanded version of the Resh Laqish's statement.

⁵⁵ Gen 1:31.

⁵⁶ b. Šabbat 88a, according to MS Munich 95.

⁵⁷ Ps 75:4.

⁵⁸ See Idel, Kabbalah, 170–72, who cites several of these sources.

⁵⁹ As a reflex of this conception, we find that the Torah was the purpose of creation: “R. Banaiah says: the world and the fullness thereof were created only for the sake of Torah, as it says, ‘God in his wisdom founded the earth (Prov 3:19)’” (Gen. R. 1.4 [Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 7]; 1.10 [Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 9] and parallels), y. Pe˓ca 1.1, 16a emphsizes the motif with due hyperbole: “R. Berechia and R. Hiyya of Kefar Tehumin: One said, ‘Even the whole world is not worth even one word of Torah,’ and one said, ‘Even all the commandments of Torah are not worth even one word of Torah.’”

⁶⁰ Meir (“Hasipur Hadarshani,” 260) calls the genre of the Tanḥuma material “the homiletical story” to reflect both its homiletical-exegetical and narrative character. She points to the “expansion of the narrative fabric” and the “replacement of short, fragmentary stories and the awareness of the verses of the biblical story with a unified and expanded composition.” See her analysis of a paradigmatic Tanḥuma passage (ibid., 256–66). See also Elbaum, “From Sermon to Story,” 105–9.

⁶¹ Compare Fishbane, “The Holy One Sits and Roars,” 11.

⁶² In Prov 8:29, God “assigned the sea its limits, so that its waters never transgress his command.” See also Ps 104:7–9; Job 26:12;1 Enoch 69.17–19; b. Ḥag. 12a. In Mekhilta de- Rabbi Yishma˒el. ba-Ḥodesh §6 (ed. Lauterbach, Jacob Z.; 3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1933) 2. 240Google Scholar and Gen. R. 23.7 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 2. 228–29) the sea rises and floods the earth at God's command. In later midrashim the sea rebels against God and attempts to break out of its confinement. See the following note.

⁶³ Gen. R. 33.1 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 300); Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 9.1 (Mandelbaum, ed., 147); Lev. R. 27.1 (Margoliot, Midrash Vayiqra Rabba, 615). See the discussion of Pirqe de-Rabbi Eli˓ezer §5 below and the tradition of God kicking and killing the Prince of the Sea in b. B. Batra 74b, also cited below. If this reflects the origin of the “crushing” image—a notion of God physically restraining the rebellious sea—this is a mythic theomachy. Since in Job 9:8 God “trod on the back of the sea,” the motif is undoubtedly ancient. Ultimately it can be traced back to remnants of theomachies between God and primordial monsters such as Rahab, as evident from the b. B. Batra 74b; see Ps 74:13–14; 89:10; compare Gen. R. 5.2 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 33). Midrash Tehilim 93.5 (ed. Buber, Solomon; Jerusalem: Romm, 1976) 415Google Scholar contains a related “crushing” motif. To create space for the earth God had to restrict the waters, so he “crushed them down and the air came out of them,” thus diminishing their size. (Compare Gen. R. 5.2 [Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 33].) In Pesiqta R., 194b: “were it not that he [Leviathan] lies upon the Deep and crushes it, it would rise and destroy the entire earth by flooding it.”

⁶⁴ Ps 24:1 reads, “He founded it [the earth] upon the ocean.” Job 38:4–6 has, “When I laid the earth's foundations. … Onto what were its bases sunk?” Prov 8:25–26 says, “Before the mountains were sunk, before the hills I was born, he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first clumps of clay,” suggesting that mountains were first sunk into the oceans, and the earth founded upon them (compare Ps 136:6). Job 26:7 reads, “He it is who stretched out Zaphon (=heaven; compare Isa 14:13; Ps 48:3) over chaos.” See also Ps 19:1, 104:2; Isa 40:22, 44:24.

⁶⁵ Thus Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 28:30 reads: “The foundation stone with which the Master of the World sealed the mouth of the Depth at the beginning.”

⁶⁶ See y. Sanh 17.2, 29a: “When David began to dig the foundations of the temple, he dug down fifteen hundred cubits but did not find the Depth. Finally he found a shard (ץיצע) and tried to lift it. It said to him, ‘you cannot.’ He said to it, ‘Why?’ It said, ‘Because I crush down Deep here.’ He said to it, ‘From when were you here?’ It said to him, ‘From when the All Merciful made his voice heard from Sinai, “I am the Lord your God” (Exod 20:2). Then the earth shook and sank, and I was placed here to press down the Depth.’ Even so he did not listen to it. As soon as he lifted it the Depth rose and tried to flood the earth.” This tradition nicely illustrates the coexistence of myths of the temple and the Torah by integrating the two conceptions. In this temple myth—the temple, the axis mundi, sits above the primordial Depth and prevents it from flooding the world. Yet the shard claims to have occupied its place since the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, not from the moment of creation. It suppressed the forces of chaos only when the Torah was given, for the Torah signals the “creation” of the ordered cosmos. The hybrid conception results from combination of motifs of both temple and Torah myths.

⁶⁷ I have borrowed this felicitous term from Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 103.

⁶⁸ Sefer Yeṣira 1.13; and see Midrash Aleph Bet 2.2 (ed. Sawyer, Deborah F.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993) 36Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ The Tanḥuma—Yelammedenu fragments published by Urbach (“Tauḥnma-Yelammedenu Fragments,” 20–21) contain a tradition related to this mystical conception of the letters of Sefer Yeṣira. At the outset of creation, God said to the preexistent Torah, “‘I need workers.’ The Torah said to him, ‘I am providing you twenty-two workers’—and they are the twenty-two letters of the alphabet that are in the Torah.”

⁷⁰ See 135–36.

⁷¹ The immediately preceding section of the Tanḥuma, which I have not cited, is also highly mythic, so the composition is even more extensive.

⁷² I have used Gerald Friedlander's translation (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, 27–30) and introduced minor modifications based on the manuscripts where noted. (I have also replaced Friedlander's archaic biblical translations with contemporary language.) Friedlander based his translation on “a valuable unedited MS belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna” (p. xiv) and various other manuscripts and Geniza fragments. Chaim Horowitz prepared a critical edition of the Pirqe de-Rabbi Eli˒ezer, but died before completing his work. He Copied manuscript variants in the margins and between the lines of his copy of the Venice 1544 edition. Makor bought the manuscript and published it in a facsimile edition (Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer: A Critical Edition, Codex C. M. Horowitz [Jerusalem: Makor, 1972]Google Scholar). Michael Higger published the variants from the three main manuscripts Horowitz used in “Pirke Rabbi Eli˓ezer,” Ḥorev 8 (1944) 82–120Google Scholar in a more congenial format. A description of a few of the manuscripts appears in the introduction to Friedlander's translation.

⁷³ Gen 1:9.

⁷⁴ Gen. R. 5.4 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 34).

⁷⁵ Gen 1:9.

⁷⁶ Horowitz (Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, 28) has a slightly different version: “on the ends of the earth the mountains and hills arose, and they were scattered over the surface of the earth, and many pools (םינוע) were formed, and the inner parts of the earth rose up, and the waters were rolled together and gathered in the pools, as il is said. …”

⁷⁷ Gen 1:10.

⁷⁸ b. B. Batra 74b.

⁷⁹ Job 26:12.

⁸⁰ b. Ḥag. 12a.

⁸¹ Nah 1:4. Compare Gen. R. 5.8, “‘I am El Shaddai’ (Gen 17:1). I said to the world ‘Enough’ and to the land ‘Enough.’ Because had I not said to the world ‘Enough’ and to the land ‘Enough’ they would continue spreading out until now.”

⁸² Gen. R. 5.2 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 33).

⁸³ Job 9:8.

⁸⁴ Lev. R. 35.4 (Margoliot, Midrash Vayiqra Rabba, 822).

⁸⁵ Horowitz (Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, 28) reads “fence” (דדנ) as in the preceding parable.

⁸⁶ Prov 8:29.

⁸⁷ Jer 5:22.

⁸⁸ Ibid.

⁸⁹ y. Ḥag. 2.1, 77a.

⁹⁰ Horowitz (Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, 28) reads “on the surface of the sea.”

⁹¹ Ps 136:6.

⁹² Ibid.

⁹³ Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shim˓on bar Yoḥai (ed. Epstein, Jacob Nahum and Melamed, Ezra Zion; Jerusalem: Mekiṣe Nirdamim, 1955) 102Google Scholar. This portion of the manuscript (Adler 3308) is missing and has been reconstructed from Midrash ha-Gadol.

⁹⁴ Ps 136:6.

⁹⁵ So Horowitz's marginal note (Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, 29) from MS Parma, De Rossi 563. Friedlander's version (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, 28–29) is difficult: “Garden of Eden because thence were planted upon the face of all the earth all kinds of trees yielding fruit according to their kind, and all kinds of herbs and grass thereof, and in them (was seed), as it is said. … ” Horowitz provides another version in the marginal notes (p. 28). Yét another version is found in MS Parma, De Rossi 566 (bottom left of p. 28).

⁹⁶ Gen 1:11.

⁹⁷ Lev. R. 11.1 (Margoliot, Midrash Vayiqra Rabba, 219–20).

⁹⁸ Friedlander omits “and.”

⁹⁹ Ps 23:5.

¹⁰⁰ Prov 9:2.

¹⁰¹ Gen 1:11.

¹⁰² Gen. R. 13.17 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 125–26).

¹⁰³ Horowitz (Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, 28) reads “land of Israel.”

¹⁰⁴ y. Ber. 1.1, 2c.

¹⁰⁵ b. Šabbat 39a.

¹⁰⁶ b. Ta˓anit 25b.

¹⁰⁷ Gen 2:6.

¹⁰⁸ Ps 42:8.

¹⁰⁹ Gen. R. 13.4 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 115–16).

¹¹⁰ Jer 10:13.

¹¹¹ Ps 42:8.

¹¹² Ps 42:8.

¹¹³ Gen. R. 13.11 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 120).

¹¹⁴ Ps 135:7.

¹¹⁵ Ibid.

¹¹⁶ b. Ta˓anit 8b.

¹¹⁷ So read MSS. Printed texts read דקםי.

¹¹⁸ Ps 65:10.

¹¹⁹ חךכועם or חךכעחם Friedlander translates “fruitful” here and in. [N].

¹²⁰ y. Ta˓anit 2.3, 64b.

¹²¹ Friedlander translates “fructifying rain.”

¹²² Isa 45:8.

¹²³ Gen. R. 13:13 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 122).

¹²⁴ Deut 28:12.

¹²⁵ Isa 62:5.

¹²⁶ Isa 55:10. The final two verses do not appear in Friedlander's translation, for they are lacking in his manuscript. But they do appear in some manuscripts. See Horowitz's marginal glosses (Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, 31).

¹²⁷ On Pirqe de-Rabbi Eli˓ez.er's revision of rabbinic motifs see Elbaum, “Rhetoric, Motif and Subject-Matter,” and Heinemann, Joseph, Aggadot Vetoldotehem (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974) 181–99Google Scholar.

¹²⁸ See the commentary of the R. David Luria (printed in the standard editions of Pirqe de-Rabbi Eli˓ezer) who struggles with this issue.

¹²⁹ See Elbaum, “On the Character of the Late Midrashic Literature,” 59; Meir, “Hasipur Hadarshani,” 260–61; and Kensky, Midrash Tanḥuma, 30.

¹³⁰ Compare the obedience of the waters in Gen. R. 5.3 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 33). Ginzberg, Louis (Legends of the Jews [7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909–38] 5. 26Google Scholar) notes that “the eagerness of the waters to obey God's command is. … a protest against the mythological account of the rebellion of the waters.”

¹³¹ See Heinemann, Aggadot Vetoldotehem, 182–83, for another example.

¹³² See above, 137–40 for the full source.

¹³³ b. Sukk. 53a–b and y. Sanh. 17.2, 29a; b. B. Batra 74b; Gen. R. 33.1 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 299–300); Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 9.1 (Mandelbaum, ed., 147). The idea, of course, is an extension of the biblical motif, as the prooftext demonstrates.

¹³⁴ See too b. Ḥag. 12b: “R. Yose said. … ‘On what does the earth stand? On the pillars, as it is said, “Who shakes the earth from its place, till its pillars shake (Job 9:6).” The pillars stand on the water, as it is said, “To him that spread forth the earth above the waters” (Ps 136:6).’” And see Ginzberg, Legends, 5. 27.

¹³⁵ b. Ta˓anit 10a: “The whole earth is watered from the draining of Eden as it is said, ‘And a river issues from Eden (Gen 2:10).’” This too emerges directly from the Bible.

¹³⁶ On the rabbinic conception of rain and water, see the excellent studies of Raphael Patai, Hamayim; idem, Man and Temple: Ancient Jewish Myth and Ritual (2d ed.; New York: Ktav, 1967) 59–66; and idem, “The ‘Control of Rain’ in Ancient Palestine,” HUCA 14 (1939) 251–86.

¹³⁷ The difference between fifty and sixty years is trivial. Rabbinic sources themselves are not consistent.

¹³⁸ On Pirqe de-Rabbi Eli˓ezer's tendency to repeat the same tradition while attempting to treat comprehensively one subject, see Elbaum, “Rhetoric, Motif and Subject-Matter,” 103, 106–7.

¹³⁹ In Gen. R. 13.11 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 120), Resh Laqish disputes with R. Yoḥanan, who expresses the opposite opinion: that the clouds receive water from above.

¹⁴⁰ See, for example, Amos 4:7, b. Ta˓anit 6b.

¹⁴¹ See Gen. R. 20.7 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 190–91); y. Ber. 9.2, 14a; and b. Ta˓anit 6b. On related expressions see the notes of Samuel Pozńariski and Jacob Nahum Epstein, “Zu dem Ausdruck הלזעב ץרא Jes 6 24” ZAW 33 (1913) 81–83.

¹⁴² b. Ta˓anit 6b.

¹⁴³ See too y. Ta˓anit 1.2, 64b; y. Ber. 9.2, 14a.

¹⁴⁴ See too Sifre Deut. §306 (ed. Finkelstein, L.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1983) 331Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁵ Note the striking similes in [E] and in [C].

¹⁴⁶ See n. 129.

¹⁴⁷ See sections [B], [C], [H2], [12], and [M]. Of course, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eli˓ezer may be citing lost sources verbatim, but that is pure speculation.

¹⁴⁸ See the literature cited in n. 8, especially Meir, “Hasipur Hadarshani,” 260; and Elbaum, “From Sermon to Story,” 109: “The literature of the Tanḥuma represents a step, albeit a hesitant and not very successful one, towards the creation of a new type of midrashic literature–an aggadic literature of narrative freed from homily. … the fact that their work was less than successful cannot blind literary historians from recognizing a revolutionary development in the history of a literature when it actually took place.” Elbaum's comparison of the Tanḥuma versions of the Akedah midrashim beautifully illustrates this “step.” I would say the same of the transformations of mythic traditions in the Tanḥuma and Pirqe de-Rabbi Eli˓ezer, which was an important, if not “revolutionary,” development in the history of Jewish myth.

¹⁴⁹ Compare Fishbane, “The Holy One Sits and Roars,” 13–20, who illustrates the “striking variation on our topos of divine lamentation (with tears) and earth tremors and therewith a transition to its hypostatic form in the mystical mythology of the kabbalah,” and concludes “with one more point that serves to link the mythopoesis of classical Midrash with its cogeners in later mystical sources.”