-
22. King and Commoner
- Wilfrid Laurier University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
b.Git· t· in 68b: Rav and Samuel— One says: He was a king and a commoner. And one says: He was a king and a commoner and a king. I discussed this passage in detail in my Babylonian Esther Midrash.1 Following is a summary of the main arguments presented there: The most complete version of the story about Solomon’s fall from power is a dictum ascribed to Resh Laqish in b. Sanhedrin 20b, which adduces various verses in order to trace the diminishing of his dominion, from ruling “over the upper realms,” and concluding: In the end he ruled only over his staff, as it says: “and this was my portion of all my labor” (Ecclesiastes 2:10)2… Did he return or did he not return?3 Rav and Samuel— One says: He returned, and one says He did not return. The one who says that he did not return—He was a king and a commoner. The one who says that he did return—He was a king and a commoner and a king. The Sanhedrin passage is being utilized by the redactor of the Git· t· in passage . A similar tradition is brought in the Palestinian midrashic collections Song of Songs Rabbah (1:1:10) and Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1:1:12: “I Kohelet was king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastes 1:12)— He saw three worlds in his days and in his life. R’ Judan4 and Rabbi H· oniah5— R’ Judan said: He was a king and a commoner and a king; a wise man and a fool and a wise man; a rich man and a poor man and a rich man. What is the reason?—“All things have I seen in the days of my vanity” (Ecclesiastes 7:15). A person never relates his distress until the time of his relief, after he has been restored to his wealth. 95 22 : King and Commoner And R’H· oniah said: He was a commoner and a king and a commoner; a fool and a wise man and a fool; a poor man and a rich man and a poor man. And what is the reason?—“I Kohelet was king over Israel in Jerusalem.” The b. Git· t· in passage was compiled from several discrete traditions about Solomon that developed independently in connection with various biblical verses from Ecclesiastes (notably: 1:12; 2:7; 7:15) and Song of Songs (3:7). Such narrative traditions could have evolved either in connection with the individual verses or as parts of proems introducing the biblical books that were ascribed to Solomon. The sophisticated combining of the different elements— especially those about the dethroning of Solomon and the Ashmedai story— displays signs of late and developed editorial activity. The Talmud seems justified in identifying the Rav-Samuel disputes in b. Git· t· in and b. Sanhedrin as two formulations of the selfsame positions. How these two versions arose is not quite clear. In spite of its successful joining together of so many traditions pertaining to the rise and fall of King Solomon, the b. Git· t· in passage lacks the literary coherence that was evident in its Ecclesiastes Rabbah and Song of Songs Rabbah counterparts . The Rav and Samuel unit cannot really be viewed in isolation, since it presupposes other narrative traditions about Solomon’s fall from greatness.6 Even after we have filled in the necessary background and proof texts, the dispute relates only to the narrative, but does not utilize the midrashic details for any rhetorical or homiletical purpose. Notes 1 Eliezer Segal, Babylonian Esther Midrash, 1:149–56. 2 See previous section. 3 That is, to the throne. 4 Presumably the fourth-century Palestinian sage; see Albeck, Mavo la-talmudim, 332. 5 The identity is unclear. It is improbable that the reference would be to the first-generation amora R’ H· oniah of Divrat H· awran (see Albeck, Mavo la-talmudim, 164–65). 6 Cf. Margoliot, 54–55, 67; and my discussion of b.Rosh Hashanah 21b, above. 96 22 : King and Commoner ...