¹ For this use of the term “legend,” see Delehaye, Hippolyte, The Legends of the Saints (New York: Fordham University, 1962) 7.Google Scholar

² The problem of the historicity of legends is the central concern of Delehaye's Legends. Another example of this question in Christian literature centers on a midrash on Mic 5:1 and the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem. See the judicious discussion in Brown, Raymond E., The Birth of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1979) 513–16.Google Scholar

³ For the use of fixed formulas see Lord, Albert, Singer of Tales (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1960) chaps. 3–4Google Scholar. On the development of legend in rabbinic literature see Heinemann, Joseph, Aggadah and its Development (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Keter, 1974)Google Scholar, and the many pioneering works of Jacob Neusner.

⁴ While I fully recognize that editors rework stories for their own theological, historical, and other motives, the reworking in no way negates the fact that the version of the story they edited may be from the earliest part of the chain of transmission. The only accurate method, then, for reliably dating a given version of a legend is to fix its place within its own transmission history irrespective of the collection in which it is preserved.

⁵ For the latter see Lieberman, Saul, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America [= JTSA] 1962) 83–99Google Scholar. Gerhardsson, Birger (Memory and Manuscript; Oral Traditions and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity [trans. Eric J. Sharpe; Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1964])Google Scholar deals primarily with halachic transmission. When he deals with aggada (145–48) he qualifies his work with the admission, “If we overlook the somewhat freer treatment which the haggadic material receives in principle …” It is my contention that consideration of the somewhat freer treatment is essential in understanding the transmission of aggada. See Finkelstein, Louis, “The Transmission of Early Rabbinic Tradition,” HUCA 16 (1941) 115–35Google Scholar. Regarding the liberties taken in aggadic transmission it should be noted that scribes also embellished aggadot as they copied, often introducing into a manuscript long addenda of their own favorite stories and midrashim.

⁶ This problem can be observed in the relationship of Mekilta dRabbi Yišmʿel and the Mekilta dRabbi Šimʿon b. Yoḥai. On halachic matters each more or less follows the methods and conclusions of the school in which it was produced (see the discussion by Moshe David Herr, “Midreshei Halacha,” EncJud 11, 1522–23). Yet, there is a tremendous proportion of aggadic material in common. Louis Finkelstein (“Studies in the Tannaitic Midrashim” PAAJR [1935] 206–88) attempts to prove that these two texts had a common written source for the aggada. His 1941 study (see n. 5) clearly considers the probability of the oral transmission of such sources.

⁷ For assignment of dates to collections, see, e.g.: Zunz, Leopold, HaDerašot Be Yisrael (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1946)Google Scholar, or Strack, Hermann, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Philadelphia: JPSA, 1931).Google Scholar

⁸ The historicity of a story which evolves from Scripture is impugned from the outset. Whether the method described above may be used to date historical incidents reported in the aggada depends entirely upon acceptance or rejection of what Jacob Neusner describes as “the false presumption that nearly all sources, appearing in any sort of document, early, late, or medieval, contain accurate historical information about the men and events of which they speak” (From Politics to Piety [Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1973] 6). The attempt to apply the oral-transmission-history method of literary criticism to the dating of historical events and the application of the kernel-of-history method to literary motifs found in the aggada is the source of the conflict between Neusner and Heinemann spelled out in the latter's Aggadah, 39–47.Google Scholar

⁹ For the term “moteme,” see Fischel, Henry, “Studies in Cynicism and the Ancient Near East: The Transformation of Chria,” in Erwin R. Goodenough Memorial Volume, NumenSup 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1968) 385.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Josephus Bell. 6.3.3 §§197–212 (LCL 3. Thackeray 433–37). My student, Gladys Schwarz, first called my attention to this passage in connection with the rabbinic texts that follow.

¹¹ Thackeray notes: “Josephus strangely ignores the parallel incident at the siege of Samaria, recorded in 2 Kings vi.28f. Cf. Deut. xxviii.57 and Baruch ii.2f.” (Ibid., 434 n.). In the German edition of Josephus (De Bello Judaico II 2 [München: Kösel, 1969] 169 n. 80), Otto Michel and Otto Bauernfeind add Lev 26:29; Jer 19:9; and Lam 4:10 to the list of parallels. (My thanks to Prof. Shaye J. D. Cohen for this latter reference.)Google Scholar

¹² 2 Kgs 6:25–29 (RSV).

¹³ Deut 28:52–57 (RSV).

¹⁴ Neusner, Jacob (A Life of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai [Leiden: Brill, 1962] 139Google Scholar n. 1) recognized the connection of this tale with the other rabbinic parallels discussed below. He did not, however, connect the citation of Deut 28:56 to those parallels. In his later discussion of the stories (Development of a Legend [Leiden: Brill, 1970] 235–39), Neusner does not mention this version at all. This story is also found in Midr.Hagadol to Deut 28:56. All translations of rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic are my own.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The reading here is difficult, for it is a third person singular masculine, and the manuscript variants also demand a translation in the masculine gender. Yet, the subsequent events of plot and citation of Scripture indicate that it was Martha who should have removed her shoes. As to the action itself, I would conjecture that when Martha realized that even the common man's barley flour was unavailable she followed appropriate rabbinic behavior during a famine (cf. m.Taʿan. 1:6).

¹⁶ Rashi's commentary (b.Giṭ. 56a) informs us just what was the piece which clung to Martha's foot. Rashi either connects the story with the account in 2 Kgs 6:25 where dove's dung is sold for food, or he recognizes the story to be a version of the tale recounted in the Mekilta (see below) where the woman forages for barley in horse dung.

¹⁷ E.g., Sipre Deut # 281 (Finkelstein, 298), b.Ketub. 104a, b.Yoma 18a, m.Yebam. 6:4, and b. Yebam. 61a.

¹⁸ See, e.g., the similar stories about the sisters of Lazarus in John 11, and the discussion in Brown, Raymond E., The Gospel According to John (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966) 432–33.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Miriam daughter of Boethus: Lam.Rab. 1:47; Miriam daughter of Naqdimon: Lam.Rab, 1:48, Pesiq.R. 29/30 (Friedman, 140a); Miriam daughter of Šimʿon: y.Ketub. 5:13 (30c); daughter of Naqdimon: t.Ketub. 5:9 (Lieberman, 74), Sipre Deut #305 (Finkelstein, 325), b.Ketub. 66a, ʾAbot R.Nat. A.17 (Schechter, 65). See below for further discussion of sources and parallels.

²⁰ The term is defined by Clifford, Richard (The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament [Cambridge: Harvard University, 1972] 131 n. 37):Google Scholar

Translatio is a useful Latin ecclesiastical term which … describes the transference of the relics of a saint either from their original place of burial into an altar tomb or from one shrine to another. Both the original and the new shrine can sometimes be the repository of the same sacred tradition. Clifford goes on to point out, “For a brief introduction to the development of legends of Christian saints, and the transfer of the same motif from saint to saint and from place to place, see H. Delehaye, The Legends of the Saints …” The use of the term translatio in this fashion seems to originate with Clifford.

²¹ Naqdimon is one of the three rich men in Jerusalem during the siege and is mentioned on the same page of b.Giṭ.56a. He is featured as a contributor to RYbZ's academy in ʾAbot R. Nat. A.6, ʾAbot R. Nat. B.13 (Schechter, 31).

²² In other versions of the story RYbZ is replaced by other characters. See below for further discussion.

²³ Yerushalmi II is the second of two stories consecutively recited in y.Ketub. 5:13 (30b-c). Yerushalmi I is the first of those stories. Cf. LamRab. 1:47–48.

²⁴ t.Ketub. 5:9–10 (Lieberman, 74). Cf. Pesiq.R.29/30 (Friedmann, 140a), Yal. Šimʿoni Cant #982.

²⁵ is most probably spices, since the text deals with food stuffs. Cf. Pesiq.R. which reads (lit. for a purse of spices for her food). It is possible to translate the phrase as referring to perfume.

²⁶ See below.

²⁷ For Sipre, see below. The version of Yerushalmi II is also found in Lam.Rab. 1:47. See the explanation of this story offered in Finkelstein, Louis, Introduction to the Treatises Abot and Abot Rabbi Nathan (in Hebrew; New York: JTSA, 1950) 113Google Scholar, and in Lieberman, Saul, Texts and Studies (New York: KTAV, 1974) 52Google Scholar. The medieval Pesiq.R. reports that her hair fell out from starvation! Prof. Shaye J. D. Cohen called my attention to Lam.R. 2:10 (end) and b. Yoma 69a where the moteme of being tied to the tail of a horse may also be found.

²⁸ See Bacher, Wilhem, ʿarkay Midraš Tannaim (in Hebrew; Tel Aviv: Carmiel, 1923) s. v. hykš.Google Scholar

²⁹ This presumes the Mishnaic exegesis took place before the change in name from Martha to the names adduced in Yerushalmi II and Tosepta. For more discussion on this instance of awaiting levirate marriage see Lieberman, Saul, Tosefta Ki-fshutah VI, Nashim (New York: JTSA, 1967) 270, and Sipra ʾemor (Weiss, 95a).Google Scholar

³⁰ The Tosepta reads Lʿazar, a common Palestinian abbreviation of the name ʾelʿazar. See Epstein, Jacob Nahum, Mabo LaNusaḥh Hamišna (in Hebrew; 2d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964) 1266–67. So too, the Tosepta reads brʾ ( = brby, “son of Rabbi”) instead of the simple br (son). The difference here must be attributed to the absence of a scribal apostrophe.Google Scholar

³¹ See Finkelstein, Introduction to Abot, 113, who follows Bacher, Wilhelm, Aggadot Hatannaim (4 vols; Tel Aviv: Devir, 1922) 2. 33 n. 2. See too, Neusner, A Life, 139–41, and Development, 238.Google Scholar

³² Other explanations are, of course, possible. The simplest would be to attribute the Cant 1:8 verse to a different version of the story entirely and explain the presence of both verses in Yerushalmi I as an instance of scribal leveling. But, the existence of two distinct stories about a woman foraging which recount the same motemes of name, locale, and wealth based on two separate verses of Scripture, strikes me as most unlikely. A more pressing question is explaining the moteme of following the animals. It could have been introduced as a folk-moteme which epitomized the sorry state of the people in the most graphic way possible. If so, the citation of Cant 1:8 would be only natural. The other possibility would be the introduction of the verse into the story first, and embellishment of the verse into new story line would follow. This method of illuminating the details of one instance of Scripture (in this case Deut 28:56) by citing another verse from elsewhere in the Bible (here, Cant 1:8) is one of the oldest methods of rabbinic exegesis. See “The 32 hermeneutic rules of R. Eliezer ben Jose Hagelili,” rule 17 (cited in Strack, Introduction, 97), and a general discussion of the phenomenon in Heinemann, Isaak, Darkei Haggada (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1970) 23–24.Google Scholar

³³ The place name is uncertain. See the variants in the apparatus of Mekilta (Horowitz-Rabin, 203) and the note in Mekilta (Lauterbach 2, 193).

³⁴ This phrase is quite common in the b.Talmud. See, for example, Ber.61b, Yoma 19a, Taʿan.23a, Meg.24b.

³⁵ Mekilta Baḥodeš 1 (Horowitz-Rabin, 203–204, Lauterbach 2, 193–95).

³⁶ The locale, like the names of the characters in this cycle of stories, changes from version to version. In addition the Maʿn Yehuda (see above n. 33), Jerusalem and Akko are possible settings for the story.

³⁷ Sipre Deut #305 (Finkelstein, 325). Cf. ʾAbot R. Nat.A. 17 b.Ketub. 66b-67a, Yal. Šimʿoni Deut # 941, Yal. Šimʿoni Cant # 982, Exempla of the Rabbis # 135 (Gaster). These parallels are later developments of the Sipre Deut story, as already noted by Neusner, Development, 238.

³⁸ See above n. 27.

³⁹ For the various names of the girl see n. 19.

⁴⁰ The moteme of wealth has, like the motemes of name, locale, and sage involved, varied in detail. In some versions her wealth is represented by the amount of her food allowance (t.Ketub,, y.Ketub., Lam.Rab., Pesiq.R.), here by the amount of her marriage contract and in b.Giṭṭin by the type of food she eats (i.e., fine flour). Both of the earliest versions, Josephus and b.Giṭṭin, also see fit to state explicitly that she was rich.

⁴¹ For midrash as a genre, see Bloch, Renée, “Midrash,” DBSup (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1957) 5Google Scholar. 1263–81. An earlier and much briefer version of this paper was presented at the Society for Biblical Literature, Hudson-Delaware Region Annual Spring Meeting in May 1981. My thanks to Prof. Shaye J. D. Cohen for discussing a draft of this article with me.

Meir, Ofra, “The Story As a Hermeneutic Device,” ASJReview 7–8 (1982–1983) 231–62, arrived after this article was at press. While it illuminates many points above, it does not affect the substance of the thesis.Google Scholar