In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

b.Sot· ah 42b: “The children of Ammon came for the victory of Shobach.”1 It is written “Shobach” (2 Samuel 10:18); and it is written “Shophach ” (1 Chronicles 19:16). Rav and Samuel—2 One says: Shophach was his name. And why was his name called Shobach?—Because he was built like a dovecote [shobakh].3 And one says: His name was Shobach. And why was his name called Shophach?—Because whoever beheld him would be spilled out [nishpakh] before him like a bowl.4 The citation of this example in the Mishnah as one of Israel’s great military exploits might have been expected to inspire numerous midrashic expositions, and yet it has evinced little interest in rabbinic literature. The passage is structured as a pair of conventional name-etymologies, based on the orthographic discrepancies between Samuel and Chronicles.5 By enhancing the might and fearsomeness of David’s foe,6 both interpretations justify the episode’s inclusion in the Mishnah as an illustration of Israel’s ability to overcome large armies. However, there is no decisive reason to suppose that the dispute originated in connection with the Mishnah, rather than in the course of studying the Bible.7 A more elaborate discourse on this episode is found in Midrash on Psalms 3:4.8 The wording and structure there appear sufficiently dissimilar to indicate that the discourse derives from a source other than our talmudic passage:9 “Lord, how are they increased that trouble me! Many are they that rise up against me” (Psalm 3:2). Great [literally: many] in stature, great [literally: many] in Torah. “Shobach”—Why was his name called Shobach?—Because his stature was like this dovecote. “Shophach”—Why was his name called Shophach? Because he used to shed [shofekh] blood… “Great in Torah”—Doeg and Ahithophel… Say, indeed: “How are they increased that trouble me!” 89 19 : Shobach and Shophach The Midrash on Psalms passage appears to have been excerpted from the beginning of a proem, although its conclusion has not survived, nor does it lend itself to speculative reconstruction. The extant portion attests to a more refined creation than the Talmud’s bare exegetical dispute. It explicitly locates the nameetymologies within the context of David’s thanksgiving psalm and demonstrates a well-crafted literary symmetry. Notes 1 A pisqa from m. Sot· ah 8:1, describing the motivational speech delivered by the “priest anointed for war” as he encourages the army. 2 Cf. the reading from the ‘Ein ya‘aqov cited by Liss. It probably emanates from a misplaced marginal correction. 3 This image apparently indicates his immense size; see the midrashic sources cited below; Ginzberg, Legends, 4:93; Krauss, Talmudische, 1:46; 2:138; 2:525–26, n. 975. 4 This image is employed frequently in the Talmud to express terror. See, e.g., b.Shabbat 62b; b. Sukkah 36a; b. H· ullin 45b, 47b. 5 Margoliot sees this passage as yet another of Rav’s and Samuel’s controversies over the midrashic status of names in the book of Chronicles (50–51, 72). Elsewhere, he argues that the image of “spilling like a bowl” is distinctive of Rav (47). 6 In his commentary, Smith says that the biblical account itself is exaggerated and not quite credible (316). See also Curtis and Madsen, 240–41. 7 See Neusner, ed., 2:202. 8 Ed. Buber, 38; trans. Braude, 1:56. 9 However, the formulation might well have been influenced by our text. At any rate, Buber (n. 66) emphasizes correctly that the interpretation is not identical to it. The shophach/ shobach etymologies appear also in Midrash on Samuel 26:3 (ed. Buber, 126) in an exegetical passage attached to 2 Samuel 7:9 and built around the statement: “David had ten enemies , five in Israel and five among the nations of the world.” Midrash on Psalms is probably citing from Midrash on Samuel (or from its source). In Midrash on Samuel, the shophach etymology is worded “because his blood was spilled on the earth.” 90 19 : Shobach and Shophach ...

Share