From Sermon to Commentary: Expounding the Bible in Talmudic Babylonia

30. Non-Babylonian Examples

Therapeutic Leaves y. Sheqalim 6:2 (50a):1 “And the leaf thereof for medicine [li-t’ruphah].” (Ezekiel 47:12). Rabbi Johanan says: For healing [qerapei/a].2 He sucks its leaf and his food is digested.3 Rav and Samuel— One says: To release the upper opening [lehatir peh].4 And one says: To release the lower opening. R’Haninah and R’Joshua ben Levi— One says: To release the mouth of barrenness.5 And one says: To release the mouth of the mutes. Ezekiel’s eschatological vision of the river issuing from the Jerusalem Temple was a popular one for rabbinic preachers,6 and midrashic embellishments of chapter 47 were incorporated into several midrashic compendia. In Song of Songs Rabbah 4:23,7 the midrash is attached to Song of Songs 4:15 “Thy plants [shelah·ayikh ] are an orchard of pomegranates”: The Holy One will one day make you like an orchard of pomegranates in the future times. What is this? This is the river, as it is written “And by the river upon the bank thereof … and the leaf thereof for medicine.” What is “for medicine”?—Rav and Samuel: One says … The concluding allusion to God’s releasing “the mouth of barrenness” might well indicate the homily’s origins as a petih· ta to a biblical episode that refers to miracles—in particular the cases of Sarah8 and Hannah.9 The opening section of Deuteronomy Rabbah attaches our passage to a yelammedenu proem that culminates in the opening words of Deuteronomy “These be the words which Moses spake.” The midrash observes that Moses’ earlier speech impediment was evidently cured when he received the Torah at Mount Sinai.10 Our exposition of Ezekiel 47:12 is cited in this context, with special emphasis 125 30 : Non-Babylonian Examples on the interpretation “to release the mouth of the mutes.” This is understood as stating that “whoever is mute and chews from it, his tongue is healed and is immediately polished with words of Torah.” In a reversal of the normal situation, the Babylonian Talmud also interprets this verse, but it ascribes the views of Rav and Samuel to different amora’im: b. Sanhedrin 100a and b.Menah· ot 98a: What is “the leaf thereof for medicine”? Rabbi Isaac Bar Abudimi and Rav H· isda— One says: To release the upper mouth; and one says: To release the lower mouth. It was stated: Hezekiah says: To release the mouth of the mutes; Bar Qappara says; To release the mouth of barrenness. Seven Days Esther Rabbah 2:5: “And when these days were expired, the king made a feast unto all the people that were present…seven days” (Esther 1:5). Rav and Samuel— One says: Seven excluding the one hundred and eighty. And [one] says:11 Seven including the one hundred and eighty. Esther 1:3–4 describes a great banquet for the Persian nobility that lasted one hundred and eighty days, after which verse 5 tells of a week-long feast for the entire citizenry of Shushan. The Bible’s explicit statement that the second banquet did not begin until after the days of the first had expired makes the contrary assertion very puzzling, to say the least.12 This passage thus replicates several features that we encountered in the RavSamuel disputes in the Babylonian Talmud: Of the two interpretations, one is contrary to any reasonable reading of the biblical text, while the other would have been redundantly self-evident had it not been juxtaposed with the former. Neither teaches any useful religious lesson, nor are they incorporated into any homiletical or rhetorical framework. The absence of any parallel versions of the dispute makes it impossible to reconstruct its evolution. “For It Is Great” Esther Rabbah 4:10: “[And when the king’s decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire,] for it is great” (Esther 1:20). Rav and Samuel— One says: This empire is too great for this crime.13 And one says: This crime is too great for this empire. 126 30 : Non-Babylonian Examples This dispute relates to a legitimately perceived exegetical ambiguity in the verse: What is the antecedent of the clause “for it is great”? Is Vashti’s insolence so grave that it cannot go unpunished, or is the kingdom so great that it cannot tolerate disobedience? From a strictly grammatical perspective, the feminine pronoun would...