¹ Even reading silently or in solitude involves an implicit kind of performance, as the reader “hears” speech in his or her mind and envisions certain elements of the “staging.” By some definitions, just as every text has an audience, every work also has some performative elements, some simply more explicitly than others.

² Webb, Ruth, Demons and Dancers: Performance in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009)Google Scholar, provides the most comprehensive and insightful overview of performance in the late ancient context. Also note Marciniak's, PrzemyslawGreek Drama in Byzantine Times (Scientific Papers of the University of Silesia in Katowice 2306; Katowice, Poland: University of Silesia Press, 2004)Google Scholar. For more on the Jewish encounter with theater, spectacle, and oratory, the most comprehensive analysis of rabbinic attitudes towards theater remains Zeev Weiss, “Games and Spectacles in Roman Palestine and Their Reflection in Talmudic Literature” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994) [Hebrew]; for an English summary, see his article “Adopting a Novelty: The Jews and the Roman Games in Palestine,” in The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research (ed. John H. Humphrey; Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 14, 31, 49; 3 vols.; vol. 1: Ann Arbor, Mich.; vols. 2–3: Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1995–2002) 2:23–49. See, too: Herr, Moshe D., “Synagogues and Theaters (Sermons and Satiric Plays),” in Knesset Ezra: Literature and Life in the Synagogue; Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer (ed. Elizur, Shulamit et al.; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1994) 105–19Google Scholar [Hebrew]; Jacobs, Martin, “Theatres and Performances as Reflected in the Talmud Yerushalmi,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture (ed. Schaefer, Peter [vol. 2 also ed. Catherine Hezser]; 3 vols.; TSAJ 71, 79, 93; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998–2002) 1:327–47Google Scholar; and Bohak, Gideon, “The Hellenization of Biblical History in Rabbinic Literature,” in Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, 3:3–16Google Scholar. Most recently, and addressing these published works, see Loren R. Spielman, “Sitting with Scorners: Jewish Attitudes toward Roman Spectacle Entertainment from the Herodian Period through the Muslim Conquest” (Ph.D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2010). Within the Christian context, beyond those works cited below, of particular importance is Leyerle, Blake, Theatrical Shows and Ascetic Lives: John Chrysostom's Attack on Spiritual Marriage (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ The topic of orality in rabbinic literature, particularly in the earlier body of works (ca. early 3^rd cent.), has received significant attention in the last decade, and many of the relevant studies attend specifically to the performative and rhetorical elements of these oral traditions. Of particular note are Jaffee, Martin S., Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE–400 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where the author emphasizes the importance of the chreia (anecdote) in rabbinic literature, using the Greco-Roman progymnasmata to inform his study; Hezser, Catherine, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (TSAJ 81; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001)Google Scholar; Fraade, Steven D., “Literary Composition and Oral Performance in Early Midrashim,” Oral Tradition 14 (1999) 33–51Google Scholar; idem, “Language Mix and Multilingualism in Ancient Palestine: Literary and Inscriptional Evidence,” Jewish Studies 48 (2012) 1*–40* (English section); and idem, “Concepts of Scripture in Rabbinic Judaism: Oral Torah and Written Torah,” in Jewish Concepts of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction (ed. Benjamin D. Sommer; New York: New York University Press, 2012) 31–46. All are rich and multifaceted studies that engage in the dynamics between text and orality both from within the textual sources themselves and with attentiveness to material culture and, perhaps to a lesser extent, more theoretical analyses. Serious interest in the oral and rhetorical elements of rabbinic literature dates back to the mid-20^th cent. and the works of such scholars as Saul Lieberman (author of, among many other works, Greek in Jewish Palestine / Hellenism in Jewish Palestine [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1994], a single-volume reprint of works originally printed in 1965 and 1962, respectively) and David Daube (author of, e.g., “Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric,” HUCA 22 [1949] 239–64). This, in turn, arose in part out of the interest of New Testament scholars in the Hellenistic nature of certain rhetorical elements of Christian writings, including Jesus's parables in the New Testament and the writings of early church fathers. The present study innovates in its approach to the Jewish material in its attention to liturgical poetry, a later body of writing than that treated by scholars of rabbinics in general and one that—unlike prose texts such as midrash (rabbinic exegesis of Scripture), Mishnah-Tosefta (early legal writings), and Targumim (Aramaic translations of the Bible), at least as we now possess them—retains a strong affinity for its lived, performative setting. That is, it is not clear that we can assume rabbinic and targumic sources now in our hands offer in any simple or linear way a clear sense of how they were experienced by listeners in antiquity. Liturgical poems, while also possessed of complicated questions of precise life setting, permit a more direct assumption of an audience's presence (their “gaze”) at the performance of a work at least very similar to the literary version now available. That said, the work done here anticipates the reconstruction of a kind of “rhetorical continuum” connecting works of different genres and even confessional backgrounds that nonetheless share essential rhetorical techniques.

⁴ The traditions themselves suggest this connection through the reading of the biblical book of Lamentations, a text the Ninth of Av and Holy Week have in common.

⁵ On performative elements in late ancient hymnography, note particularly the fine work on Romanos: Krueger, Derek, “The Liturgical Creation of a Christian Past: Identity and Community in Anaphoral Prayers,” in Alternatives to the Classical Past in Late Antiquity (ed. Kelly, Christopher, Flower, Richard, and Williams, Michael Stuart; vol. 1 of Unclassical Traditions; Cambridge Classical Journal Supplementary Volume 34; Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Philological Society, 2010) 58–71Google Scholar; idem, “Romanos the Melodist and the Christian Self in Early Byzantium,” in Plenary Papers (ed. Elizabeth Jeffreys; vol. 1 of Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies: London, 21–26 August 2006; Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2006) 247–66; and Frank, Georgia, “Romanos and the Night Vigil in the Sixth Century,” in Byzantine Christianity (ed. Krueger, Derek; vol. 3 of A People's History of Christianity; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006) 59–78Google Scholar. Within the Jewish context, see Lieber, Laura S., “The Rhetoric of Participation: The Experiential Elements of Early Hebrew Liturgical Poetry,” JR 90 (2010) 119–47Google Scholar. Specifically in regards to the Aramaic poems, see Laura Lieber, S., “Setting the Stage: The Theatricality of Jewish Aramaic Poetry from Late Antiquity,” JQR 104 (2014) 537–72Google Scholar.

⁶ The best treatment of gestures in both oratory and theater in antiquity is Aldrete, Gregory S., Gestures and Acclamations in Ancient Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

⁷ The question of the life setting of the various Aramaic poems remains unsettled. Michael Sokoloff and Joseph Yahalom state in the introduction to their critical edition of the relevant body of Aramaic poems that the works represent a vernacular, popular literature separate from liturgical ritual and conflicting with the sensibilities of the rabbinic sages (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry from Late Antiquity: Critical Edition with Introduction and Commentary [Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1999] 42). Kister, Menahem offers a somewhat more nuanced and open-ended view of this issue; see his detailed and insightful article “Jewish Aramaic Poems from Byzantine Palestine and Their Setting,” Tarbiz 76 (2007) 105–84Google Scholar [Hebrew], esp. 113–22. Ultimately, the interpretations offered here, while undoubtedly enriched by considerations of Sitz im Leben, are not nullified by the elements of uncertainty. The rhetorical techniques under discussion would have remained effective—if albeit to different and intriguing ends—whether the poems were presented in a liturgical, para-liturgical, or non-liturgical setting.

⁸ One significant element of performance is the physical stance of the performer in relation to the audience: did the performer face his listeners or did he face away from them? In a non- or para-liturgical setting, it seems highly plausible that the narrator faced his audience; we have some evidence as well that suggests that even in a liturgical setting—unlike in medieval and modern practice—liturgical functionaries may have faced the communities during certain parts of the liturgy while at other times, or in certain communities, the leader of the prayers may have faced the same direction as the community, either in front of the assembly or from a podium within their midst. Archaeological and textual evidence indicates that a variety of configurations were employed in late ancient Galilee (see Levine, Lee I., The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years [2nd ed.; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2005] 236–37, 338–39, and 376–77Google Scholar). As Levine notes, “Synagogue liturgy was not usually concentrated in one area of the main hall, but rather spread over several foci throughout the nave, each reserved for a specific mode of worship” (634).

⁹ Text is from Sokoloff and Yahalom, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry, 158–60; it is poem #21. The English translation of this text is provided by the present author.

¹⁰ The significance of ekphrasis for the study of late ancient poetry was first noted by Roberts, Michael in his The Jeweled Style: Poetry and Poetics in Late Antiquity (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989)Google Scholar. The “jeweling” of poetry usually refers to the mosaic-like way in which these works from late antiquity use quotations as a kind of aesthetic element. Yahalom, Joseph was among the first piyyut scholars to recognize the importance of Roberts's insights for the field of synagogue poetry; see his Poetry and Society in Jewish Galilee of Late Antiquity (Tel Aviv: United Kibbutz, 1999) 14–20Google Scholar [Hebrew]. See also Swartz, Michael D. and Yahalom, Joseph, Avodah: An Anthology of Ancient Poetry for Yom Kippur (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005) 11–15Google Scholar; and, more in-depth, Swartz, Michael D., “The Force and Function of Hebrew Poetry in Late Antiquity,” in Continuity and Renewal: Jews and Judaism in Byzantine-Christian Palestine (ed. Levine, Lee I.; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 2004) 452–62Google Scholar [Hebrew]. Most recently, see Rand, Michael, “Compositional Techniques in Qallirian Piyyutim for Rain and Dew,” in “From a Sacred Source”: Genizah Studies in Honour of Professor Stefan C. Reif (ed. Outhwaite, Ben and Bhayro, Siam; Cambridge Genizah Studies 1; Études sur le judaïsme médiéval 42; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 249–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ See Kennedy, George A., Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (SBLWGRW 10; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003)Google Scholar; and ΗΘΟΠΟΙΙΑ. La représentation de caractères entre fiction scolaire et réalité vivante à l’époque impériale et tardive (ed. Eugenio Amato and Jacques Schamp; Salerno: Helios, 2005).

¹² Mek., Shirta 2; Lam. Rab., petihta §25; see, too, the discussion in Fishbane, Michael, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) esp. 132–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ See Frank's discussion of Peter's unusually emotional expressions of grief in Romanos's kontakion “On Peter's Denial” in “Romanos and the Night Vigil,” 75; and also note Suter, Ann, “Male Lament in Greek Tragedy,” in Lament: Studies in the Ancient Mediterranean and Beyond (ed. eadem; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) 156–80Google Scholar.

¹⁴ As early as the Tosefta (pre-250 c.e.), we have evidence of kerchiefs being waved to cue an assembly to say “amen.” See t. Sukkah 4, 6 (ed. Saul Lieberman, 4:891–92), although the custom is located in an Alexandrian synagogue: “When one came to take hold of the Torah scroll [to read the Torah portion], he [the hazzan] would wave the kerchiefs and all the people would say ‘amen’ for each blessing.”

¹⁵ Of course, contemporary rhetoric and performance (from high theater to political stump speeches to stand-up comedy) is likewise governed by conventions that, while taken for granted and generally unnoticed by contemporary audiences, would, if viewed by outsiders, no doubt seem formulaic, artificial, or even strange. Of particular relevance, see William Worthen, B., Modern Drama and the Rhetoric of Theater (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992)Google Scholar. If such speaking were simply “natural,” courses in how to speak (whether on the stage or in a meeting) would not be necessary.

¹⁶ Sokoloff and Yahalom #22 (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry, 160–63). An English translation of this text is provided by the present author.

¹⁷ In the previous poem, each stich embedded one letter from the alphabet, hence twenty-two stichs overall. Here, there are twenty-four stichs because the penultimate stanza embeds only the letter shin while the final stanza embeds only tav. This is done for formal reasons, to balance the number of stanzas given to each “voice.”

¹⁸ On these two genres see Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East: Forms and Types of Literary Debates in Semitic and Related Literatures (ed. Gerrit Jan Reinink and Herman L. J. Vanstiphout; OLA 42; Louvain: Peeters, 1991); and Syriac Polemics: Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink (ed. Wout Jac. van Bekkum, Jan Willem Drijvers, and Alexander Cornelis Klugkist; OLA 170; Louvain: Peeters, 2007). Within the Hebrew poetic tradition in particular, see Hacohen's, Eden essay “Studies in the Dialogue Format of Early Palestinian Piyyutim and Their Sources, in Light of Purim Expansions,” Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature 20 (2006) 97–171Google Scholar [Hebrew].

¹⁹ See the discussion of claim-counterclaim rhetoric in Webb, Ruth, “Poetry and Rhetoric,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C.–A.D. 400 (ed. Porter, Stanley E.; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 339–69Google Scholar.

²⁰ Webb, “Poetry and Rhetoric,” 355.

²¹ Where the life setting of the Aramaic poems cannot be determined with precision, the poems by Qallir—like those of Romanos—were composed explicitly for inclusion in the liturgy and thus permit the assertion of a synagogue context. That said, the synagogue in antiquity served many functions, and much about the early liturgy remains unknown, so we cannot in truth determine much more about the Sitz im Leben of these poems than we can for the Aramaic works.

²² The Hebrew text used here is that of Goldschmidt, E. Daniel, The Order of Laments for the Ninth of Av: According to the Custom of Poland and Ashkenazi Congregations in the Land of Israel (Jerusalem: Rabbi Kook Institute, 1968) 1012Google Scholar [Hebrew]. The work is catalogued as 2108 à in Davidson, Israel, Thesaurus of Mediaeval Hebrew Poetry (4 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1924–1933)Google Scholar [Hebrew]. The English translation is original to the present author, although readers may also wish to consult the version (Hebrew and English) in Carmi, T., The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse (New York: Penguin Books, 1981) 224–26Google Scholar.

²³ The appeal of riddles was first and most clearly articulated by Aristotle. As Kathy Maxwell summarizes: “The riddle or enigma encourages the same sort of audience participation [as metaphor]. . . . ‘Riddles are pleasing for two reasons: they are metaphorical and they cause the audience to learn something’ (Rhet. 3.11.6). In order to succeed, the speaker's riddle must first ‘set up a certain expectation only to defeat it . . . whatever pleasure we take in this depends on our not seeing through the trick at once.’ The element of sudden recognition again plays a part in the figure's success.” (Hearing between the Lines: The Audience as Fellow-Worker in Luke-Acts and Its Literary Milieu [Library of New Testament Studies 425; T&T Clark Library of Biblical Studies; New York: T&T Clark, 2010] 63).

²⁴ “The ‘one’ was Abraham, / Who was one of the ‘three’ patriarchs. / The portion of the ‘twelve’—these, these are the tribes of Yah. / The ‘sixty’ were the multitudes (who left Egypt), and the ‘seventy-one’ the Sanhedrin of Yah” (stanza 4).

²⁵ Longinus, [Subl.], 15.2, states: “That phantasia means one thing in oratory and another in poetry you will yourself detect, and also that the object of the poetical form of it is to enthrall [κπληξις], and that of the prose form to present things vividly [νργεια], though both indeed aim at the emotional [τ παθητικν] and the excited [τ συγκεκινημνον].” A few sections later, Longinus continues: “What then is the use of visualization in oratory? It may be said generally to introduce a great deal of excitement and emotion [ναγνια καμπαθ] into one's speeches, but when combined with factual arguments it not only convinces the audience, it positively masters them” (15.9) (trans. W. Hamilton Fyfe; rev. Donald A. Russell; LCL 199:214–15 and 222–23).

²⁶ Webb, “Poetry and Rhetoric,” 345. As she writes, “So the judge must be made to feel not just that he is hearing the facts of the case, but that he can actually see the events playing out before his eyes. . . . Both [Quintillian and Longinus] supply a term that was missing from most of the discussions of ekphrasis in the Progymnasmata: the emotion which accompanies the mental image ‘placed before the eyes.’”

²⁷ A qerovah (pl. qerovot) is a Hebrew poem that embellishes the Amidah, the central prayer of the Jewish liturgy; this poem would have been recited in the course of the statutory prayers on the Ninth of Av. I rely here on the Hebrew edition published by Jefim Schirmann in The Battle between Behemoth and Leviathan According to an Ancient Hebrew Piyyut (PIASH 4.13; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1970) 327–69. Describing the piyyut from which it comes (Zekhor’ ekhah’ anu sefatenu; Davidson 108 ) as a whole, Schirmann writes, “We have here a combination of lyric, epic, dramatic and didactic elements, all of which underscore the vastness of the calamity that befell the nation. . . . There pass in succession before our eyes hundreds of lines of poetry steeped in blood and tears, and only after we have listened for a long time to words of woe and ire does a slight respite come” (330). The English translation provided here is by the present author. A translation of an abridged version of the poem can be found in Carmi, Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse, 227–32. On Qallir's qerovot for the Ninth of Av, see Goldschmidt, Order of Laments, 8.

²⁸ In addition to the article by Schirmann, see Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, 219–20. Job features only Leviathan and Behemoth; Ziz does not appear there but is found, by the rabbis, in Ps 50:11 (see, for example, b. B. Bat. 73b). The inclusion of Ziz here completes the sea-land-air triad of Genesis 1–2.

²⁹ As Fishbane notes, “The whole account is replete with the concrete verisimilitude of mythic discourse. . . . [It has] the quality of ‘real presence’” (Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, 219–20).

³⁰ For an example of comparative work done well, see Münz-Manor, Ophir, “Liturgical Poetry in the Late Antique Near East: A Comparative Approach,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 1 (2010) 336–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Krueger, “Liturgical Creation,” 58, 60.

³² Frank, “Romanos and the Night Vigil,” 76–78.

³³ As Margaret Alexiou notes, “In [this] single kontakion, Romanos has exploited all available forms: strophe-refrain, dialogue, and three-part form. Nor is his artistry ever static, developed for the sake of form alone. At every stage it reinforces the depth of insight with which Mary's gradual and painful realization that her son must be crucified is described. . . . This close integration of form and content, typical of the best of Romanos, is not an abstract convention, but a poetic response to the diversity of forms actually current in Greek liturgical singing of the time” (The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition [2nd ed. rev. Dimitrios Yatromanolakis and Panagiotis Roilos; Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002] 143–44).

³⁴ An approach to ancient hymnography through the lens of performance could easily widen to include Syriac poetry, as well. The present discussion is limited to Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek for reasons of space, but it is the present author's hope that this paper serves as an introduction to more comparative studies.

³⁵ The Greek consulted here is the standard critical edition, Sancti Romani Melodi cantica. Cantica genuina (ed. Paul Maas and C. A. Trypanis; Oxford: Clarendon, 1963): #19, 142–49 (“Mary at the Cross”) and #22, 164–71 (“The Victory of the Cross”). English translations of these works are readily available; the best is Lash, Ephrem, On the Life of Christ: Kontakia (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1995) 141–52Google Scholar (“Mary at the Cross”) and 153–64 (“Victory of the Cross”); see, too, Schork, R. J., Sacred Song from the Byzantine Pulpit: Romanos the Melodist (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1995) 106–14Google Scholar (“Mary at the Cross”) and 125–34 (“The Victory of the Cross”). Marjorie Carpenter, however, is the only scholar to have translated all of Romanos's “authentic” kontakia; for her editions of these poems, see her work On the Person of Christ (vol. 1 of Kontakia of Romanos: Byzantine Melodist; 2 vols.; Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri Press, 1970–1972) 196–203 (“Mary at the Cross”) and 230–38 (“Victory of the Cross”).

³⁶ Νικμαι, τέκνον, νικμαι τ πόθω.

³⁷ The juxtaposition of Mary's articulate anguish with Jesus's philosophical detachment creates a particularly poignant contrast if we imagine the physical staging of the encounter, with Jesus bearing the physical burden of the cross and Mary, burdened by emotions, at his side.

³⁸ Two shorter prooimia are also included: the second addresses Jesus as the one who defeated Death, while the third—only two lines long—calls on Adam to rejoice over the restoration of immortality. Prooimia were often added to preexisting works, so these three passages may or may not be original to Romanos.

³⁹ We can imagine Hades conveying that he is receiving news from the upper world, perhaps standing, hand to ear, pantomiming the revelation.

⁴⁰ For a rich and multifaceted treatment of the death of (personified) Death in this kontakion and beyond, see Frank, Georgia, “Death in the Flesh: Picturing Death's Body and Abode in Late Antiquity,” in Looking Beyond: Visions, Dreams and Insights in Medieval Art and History (ed. Hourihane, Colum; Occasional Papers from the Index of Christian Art 11; University Park, Penn.; Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010) 58–74Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Carpenter does, in fact, translate these lines as if they are only in the voice of Belial. See Carpenter, On the Person of Christ, 237.

⁴² Moore, Timothy J., The Theater of Plautus: Playing to the Audience (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1998) 1Google Scholar.

⁴³ Translation based on the critical edition of the Aramaic by Sokoloff and Yahalom, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry, 158–60. The incipit appears in the ms.

⁴⁴ The temple, or Jerusalem more generally.

⁴⁵ Lit., “resurrection, renewal of life.”

⁴⁶ Translation based on the critical edition of the Aramaic by Sokoloff and Yahalom, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry, 160–63.

⁴⁷ Following the emendation suggested by Yahalom and Sokoloff, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry, 168 (note to line 14). “Fruit” here refers to the boundary of the land of Israel (and, by extension, the now-lost pleasure of bringing firstfruits and agricultural tithes to the temple).

⁴⁸ Translation based on the critical edition of the Hebrew by Goldschmidt, Order of Laments, 101–2 (Davidson 2108 à).

⁴⁹ Of grief; that is, when Zion has paid her debt in full.

⁵⁰ (lit. “demon of demons”), perhaps an echo of (the Song of Songs).

⁵¹ Lit., “Get yourself up, Jeremiah! Why are you silent/inactive?”

⁵² , translated as “splendid one,” could also be “gazelle.”

⁵³ Translation based on the critical edition of the Hebrew by Schirmann in Behemoth and Leviathan, 350–53. This poem is the final unit of a lengthy qerovah, “Zekhor’ ekhah’ anu sefatenu” (Davidson 108 ).

⁵⁴ Song 6:8, “sixty queens and eighty concubines,” apparently here a reference to the sages or the righteous.

⁵⁵ Song 7:3; in b. Sotah 45a this verse is understood as describing the Sanhedrin, but here it describes the righteous.

⁵⁶ “Rock” () may here pun on “Creator, Fashioner” (from the root y-ts-r).

⁵⁷ Reading (the variant favored by Schirmann), rather than (in secret), although the latter preserves the wordplay on the root ‘-l-m.

⁵⁸ The poet plays here on the creation imagery of Genesis 1.

⁵⁹ Jer 17:8.

⁶⁰ Lev 11:3.

⁶¹ Lit., “the muscles of his belly.”

⁶² A rereading of Hab 2:17.

⁶³ This seems to describe God, but the following lines suggest it describes Leviathan instead.

⁶⁴ Job 41:22.

⁶⁵ “The white of teeth” comes from Gen 49:12. This describes the righteous who wait to feast on Leviathan. Their teeth, having never tasted impure food, are described as “white.”

⁶⁶ The image is of the ouroboros, the serpent swallowing its tail.

⁶⁷ Michael.

⁶⁸ The Hebrew says, literally, “they cause his boilings to boil” (Ezek 24:5); the image is of violent motion, like boiling water, as well as the heat of battle.

⁶⁹ That is, Leviathan (Job 41:14).

⁷⁰ Song 4:6.

⁷¹ See Isa 27:1.

⁷² Or: “wheels to the right.”