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

b.Sot· ah 46b–47a: “And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.” (2 Kings 2:24) Rav and Samuel— One says: A miracle. And one says: A miracle inside a miracle.1 The one who says: A miracle—there had been a wood, but there had not been bears. The one who says: A miracle within a miracle—There had been neither a wood nor bears. And let it be that there had been bears but there had not been a wood! —Because2 they were frightened.3 The aggadic tradition cited here is not attested elsewhere in classical rabbinic literature . It could be a fairly conventional attempt to magnify the divine assistance that was extended to biblical heroes and apply it to a situation that is already miraculous in its character. The Talmud introduces the story of Elishah and the bears in connection with an extensive sugya about the importance of escorting guests and travelers. Other than the fact that it deals with the same biblical episode, there is no indication either that Rav’s and Samuel’s dispute relates to that theme or that it originated as part of such a discourse. Notes 1 The expression “a miracle inside a miracle” is used in several places in connection with the Egyptian plague of hail, where fire was contained within the ice. See Pesikta de-rav kahana 1:3 (Mandelbaum, 6; Braude and Kapstein, 10); Song of Songs Rabbah 3:20 (ed. Dunsky , 97); Tanh· uma,Va’era 14. In that instance, the image of one miracle inside another is intended quite literally. In other examples, however, it is used in a more general manner in order to show that the miracle was performed in a way that was more wondrous than was strictly necessary to get the job done—thereby enhancing God’s omnipotence. 91 20 : Elishah and the Children Thus, in b. Shabbat 97a, the idiom is used to describe how Aaron’s rod swallowed up those of the Egyptian magicians. Rashi explains that this refers to Exodus 7:12, where “Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods”—i.e., the achievement was especially wondrous because it occurred while it was in the form of a rod, not that of a serpent. In b. Pesah· im 117a–b, the expression appears in a legend (expanding on Daniel 3) about how God agreed to have Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah rescued from the fiery furnace through the agency of Gabriel in his capacity as Prince of Fire, rather than by the Prince of Hail, in order to produce a “miracle within a miracle.” In b. H· ullin 127a, it is used to describe how the residents of Va‘ad illegally cross-bred a snake and a toad, resulting in a dangerous ‘arod. According to Rashi, this was perceived as a double miracle because (1) the two parents were biologically incompatible; and (2) the offspring bore no resemblance to either parent. In Tanh· uma Beshallah· 24, in a yelammedenu proem for Exodus 15:1, this expression is used to characterize the sweetening of the waters of Marah: “He puts something injurious inside something that is injurious in order to produce a miracle inside a miracle.” Note, however, that in the analogous examples adduced in that passage (Isaiah’s curing of Hezekiah with a plaster of figs in Isaiah 38:21; Elishah’s sweetening of the waters in 2 Kings 2:21—immediately preceding the episode of the bears!) the equivalent expression is simply “in order to produce a miracle.” Out of all these instances, Margoliot (73) singles out the one in b. H· ullin in which the expression is ascribed to Rav; he cites this as evidence that in our current sugya as well, Rav was the one who spoke of “a miracle inside a miracle.” 2 Cf. Liss, 2:294, nn. 5–6. 3 See Rashi and Maharsha. 92 20 : Elishah and the Children ...

Share