The Unfolding Fate of Leviathan and Behemoth

from the Enochic to the Amoriac Literature:

midrashic perspectives
Reuven Kiperwasser
In this paper I wish to demonstrate how, in a process of transmission and transformation,
two amazing monsters from the book of Job, Leviathan and Behemoth, are given new
biographies. The first stage of their new biographies is found in the midrashic
interpretation of Job which harmonizes the differences between the mythological beasts
and adduces new material to fill in elements supposedly missing from the biblical
description. In the second stage, traditions regarding the sexual life of the beasts and
their role in the eschatological feast were removed from their exegetical context in Job,
taking the form of independent units which were incorporated into various
eschatological transcripts in Jewish writings of the Second Temple period ( See I Enoch
(60:7-8), Cf. IV Ezra 6:49-52, III Baruch 4:3-5). Then, in the third stage, rabbis in
Palestine received some Second Temple traditions and developed them further. In the
fourth stage, this tradition split into two, one branch reflecting the tradition of the Land
of Israel and the other that of Babylonia. Certain elements of the Palestinian biography
of the beasts were rejected in Babylonia because they contradicted common cultural
presuppositions.

In this presentation, I cannot devote attention to the role of L and B in the eschatological
banquet. I have written a separate study on this topic with my friend DS. But allow me
to briefly summarize our findings. In developing the role of Leviathan and Behemoth in
the eschatological feast, the eschatological scenario reflects the theatrical Hellenistic-
Greco-Roman culture in rabbinic literature from Palestine, whereas in the Babylonian
Talmud, the scenario reflects Iranian myth.

Now I shall introduce the midrashic perspectives on the intimate life of the beasts.
Leviathan and Behemoth are described at length in Job 40:15-24 and 41:1-8, 12-34 but
Page10

without any reference to their fate in the End of Days. In Job Behemoth is a land animal
which “eats grass like an ox” (40:15) and lives along the marshy banks of a river; the
strength of Behemoth is emphasized with reference to the iron of his limbs and his virile
tail/membrum which is “stiff like a cedar” (40:16-18). The description of Leviathan
emphasizes its impenetrable scaly skin (41:13, 15-17), terrible teeth (41:14), and the fire
which issues from his mouth (41:19-21); Leviathan is unconquerable by the weapons of
man (41:25-29) and only God can contemplate its capture.
After giving this detailed description, God explained to Job that the two mythological
monsters are beyond human power. Each of them is in splendid isolation in its own
domain, and serves no human purpose, that is, it is impossible to remove them from
their residence into the ordinary human world. Therefore these two mythological
monsters become the paradigm for the Creator - prisoners under their own greatness,
they cannot escape and cannot help or hurt humans. Like them, God too is a prisoner in
his world and he can only watch the sufferings of Job, but cannot help him. It seems that
the cold hopelessness of this situation as it appears in the book of Job was unacceptable
for post-biblical readers. We will see that in the texts produced by the early readers of
the book of Job monsters are transformed into food for a feast, an instrument of
punishment and objects of entertainment games in the arena of the eschatological era. It
would seem that these readers meant to say - in this common world we can use neither L
not B but in the future we will consume them in one of the appropriate ways!!
Thus, according to this approach, our mythological creatures became immortal, awaiting
the Eschaton and they also acquired a detailed biography in which some attention is paid
to their private life and about which I would like to talk in greater detail. But before we
proceed further let me summarize - the basis of the changeable fates of L and B in post-
biblical literature is an hypothetical midrash on the Book of Job, which was composed
taking into account the way these beasts are conceived in the book of Isaiah - creatures
that had been created at the very beginning of creation, or on its threshold, but after the
Chaos-campf are intended for the Eschaton . (handout)
‫ישעיהו פרק כז‬

ַ‫שָה וורָהוגדְּוהְלה וורָהעחז הְהְקה רָעל ללווי הְהְתָּןֹ נהְהְחשָ הְבלררָח וורָעל ללווי הְהְתָּןֹ נהְהְחשָ עערָקהְלתָּוןֹ ווהְהרָרג‬
ְ‫קדְּ י וק קְהְוק וברָחורבו רָההְק ה‬
ְ‫)אּ( רָביַּוםֹ רָההואּ י לופ ק‬
Page10

:ָ‫ ס)ב( רָביַּוםֹ רָההואּ שֲכשֲרםֹ שֲחשֲמר רָענו הְלה‬:ֹ‫שָר רָבהְיַּם‬

ֲ‫שֲאּתָּ רָהרָתלניןֹ עאּ ש‬
 Let us begin in diachronic fashion with:
1
I Enoch (60:7-8):
“On that day two monsters will be separated, a female monster named Leviathan, to
dwell in the abysses of the sea over the sources of the waters; and the male is named
Behemoth, who occupied with his breast a waste wilderness named
Deb/ndayn/Dundayin/Dunudayen, on the east of the garden where the elect and
righteous dwell“1

From these words it follows that in the imagination of the Enochic author, in the
beginning the monsters were one unit, but then they had to be separated. In the
beginning, so we may conclude, these beasts were marine/ aquatic creatures, and only
later one of them became a terrestrial animal. Interestingly, one of the monsters is
masculine and the other feminine. Did the author think that they were a harmonious pair
at some period during their separate existence? We don’t know, but this is doubtful,
when we take into account the fact that one is a being of an aquatic nature, and the other
is terrestrial. Rather, as Andrew Orlov suggested to me, it seems that they were once an
androgynous being, before their separation, and then, through the interpretation of the
verse from Psalm: And also Behemoth on a thousand hills (Ps 50:10), Behemoth received
a certain amount of land and Leviathan inherited the abysses of the sea, probably based
on the interpretation of: Praise the LORD from the earth, Sea monsters and all deeps;(Ps
148:7). Loneliness is prescribed for these creatures – each one of them representing a
different species, they cannot mate with each other and neither of them has a mate. The
beasts were separated with some higher purpose – which this author fails to explain, but
I guess, based on later texts, that they were kept as a food for the righteous in the
Eschaton. Now to the second text where this will become evident
2
IV Ezra 6:49-52:
“Then you kept in existence two living creatures; the name of one you called Behemoth
and the name of the other Leviathan. And you separated one from the other, for the
Page10

1
(The Old Testament Pseudoepigrapha, Volume I. Apocalyptic
 seventh part where the water had been gathered together could not hold them both. And
you gave Behemoth one of the parts which had been dried up on the third day, to live in
it, where there are a thousand mountains; but to Leviathan you gave the seventh part, the
watery part; and you have kept them to be eaten by whom you wish, and when you
wish”2
Here we again have a theme of two beings, who are destined to live in solitude. Again,
there is an allusion to the same verse from Psalms, this time explicitly. Here the
creatures are overtly waiting to be eaten in the Eschaton, in the meantime remaining
in solitude and idleness. Now to the third apocryphal text

Apoc. Bar. 29:4 (Syriac)

And Behemoth will reveal itself from its place, and Leviathan will come from the sea ,
the two great monsters which I created on the fifth day of creation and which I shall
have kept until that time. And they will be nourishment for all who are left.

This tradition adds nothing to the biographies of these beasts, except that it
agrees with the previous ones regarding the eternal existence of the pair
as separate monsters in various natural disasters, as well as on their role in
the sustenance of the people in the eschatological age. It does add an exegetical basis for
the claim that these beasts were created at the very beginning. They are identified with
taninim – aquatic creatures created in the 5th day.
The most ancient source of this tradition appear already in the Book of Jubilees 2:11
(Vanderkam 11):

On the fifth day He created the great sea monsters within the watery depths, for these were the first
fleshly beings made by his hands, all the fish that move about in the waters...

On the fifth day according to Gen 1:23 God created (1:23) the great sea monsters (1:21)
within the depths of the waters, for these were the first fleshly products of his hands: all
Page10

2
(The Old Testament Pseudoepigrapha, Volume I. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments,
ed. by J. H. Charlesworth, New York, Doubleday 1983, p. 536);
 aquatic beings (1:21), fish (1:28) birds (1:21) and all their kinds (1:21) (Brooke 41-42).
This tradition is probably the product of the nterpretative reading of the Gen in the light
of Job 40:19: He is the first of God's works; Only his Maker can draw the sword against him.
Combining his perception of Leviathan and the Lord Behemoth as prescribed in the
interpretation of the verse from Genesis, the author of Jubilees sees in it this creatures the first
fleshly product of the divine creation, as follows from the interpretation of this verse in the book
) of Job: . is the first of God's works
The traditions just surveyed are the traditions that had been formed in the Second
Temple period and where then inherited by the Rabbis.

Gen. Rabbah 7:43

And God created the great sea monsters ‫'ויבראּ אּלהיםֹ אּתָּ התָּניניםֹ וגַו‬,
(Tanninim - Gen. 1:21)
R. Phineas in the name of R. Idi: Tanninim is ֹ‫ר' פנחס משםֹ ר' אּידְּי תָּנינםֹ כתָּ' זה בהמותָּ ולויתָּן‬
written (without a second yod indicating the ָּ‫שאּיןֹ להםֹ בןֹ זוגַות‬,
plural)– this then refers to Behemoth and
Leviathan, which have no mates. Said R. '‫אּמר ריש לקיש בהמותָּ יש לו זוגַ ואּיןֹ לו תָּאּוה שנ‬
Šimon b. Laqiš: Behemoth has a mate, but (‫גַידְּי פחדְּיו יסורגַו )אּיוב מ יז‬.
does not lust, as it is written: “The sinews of
his thighs (testicles?) are knit together” (Job
40:17).

In Gen. Rabbah, the sage R. Phineas in the name of R. Idi suggests that, since tanninim
lacks a yud in its plural ending the taninim beast lacks something which R. Phineas
identified as a mate. Then, since the tanninim are aquatic creatures and Leviathan of Job
41 is also an aquatic creature, taninim is identified as Leviathan. Due to the proximity of
the L and B in the book of Job the tannin is also identified with the Behemoth, described
in Job 40:15ff as a terrestrial monster bearing some similarities to an ox. In this manner,
the exegetical imagination of the Genesis-midrashist harmonized the aquatic and dry-
Page10

3
Gen. Rabbah 7:4, ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 52.
land beasts. It seems that R. Šimon b. Laqiš agrees concerning Leviathan, but disagrees
concerning Behemoth (though this word stands also in a [pseudo-]plural form) – why
should we look for the dry land monster Behemoth in the word tanninim?
Rabbi Pinchas, like the authors of the apocryphal texts, believes that
these monsters have no mates - they are alone. He also believes that they were both of
an aquatic nature initially - because they were created on the 5th day of creation, when
sea animals were created, and that they are reptilian in nature - tanninim. He probably
also believes that the monsters cannot live in couples - each monster is one of a kind.
Unlike Rabbi Pinchas, R. Lakish believes that the latter is true only regarding
Leviathan, who is essentially a large fish without a mate. Regarding Behemoth, he
apparently believes that he is a healthy mammal -who could have offspring, but he has
no desire to reproduce. From this it follows that, theoretically, Behemot could have sex
either with individuals of its species, about which we know nothing, or with individuals
of other species. From such promiscuous behavior it is guarded by lack of sexual desire.
This information is derived from the interpretation of the verse from Job 40:16-18
(‫שילתָּי לעהְמךָּ הְחלציר רָכהְבהְקר קְיאּככל )טו‬
‫שָר הְע ל‬
ֲ‫להכנה הְנאּ ובכהמותָּ עאּ ש‬
‫שָלריכרי לבוטנו‬
‫אּנו לב ו‬
ְ‫כחו ובהְמותָּהְניו וו ק‬
ְ‫טז( להכנה הְנאּ ק‬:
(‫פץֹּ ז והְנבו וכמו אשֲרז לגיכדְּי פחדְּו רָפעחהְדְּיו י וש קְהְרגַו )יז‬
ְ‫י רָוח ק‬:
His strength is in his loins His might in the muscles of his belly
He makes his tail (?)) stand up like a cedar The sinews of his thighs (?) a knit together
Scholars find here references to the virility of the beast – with tail referring to the male
member and thigh to the testicles. However, we can see that R. Lakish’s interpretation is
not quite literal. The verse speaks about a certain amount of lust contained in the belly
of the monster, and about its genitals. The Exegete concludes that the monster, despite
being adequate male ‫ כוחו במתניו‬does not feel passion –‫ אונו בשרירי בטנו‬, given that it
lies between the muscles of his stomach and did not affect his reproductive organs,
whatever they were. Or maybe we canncan reconstruct the darshanic method on the
folowing data: the qetiv of the word ‫ פחדיו‬is without yod, therefore if the lack of youd
in taninnim is evident for the lack of mates, therefore the lack of youd in this word is
evident for the luck of the lust. A slightly different understanding of these verse we can
Page10

see in Aramaic Targum:

 Behold, now the beasts which I made as you,
it eats grass like an ox.
Behold, now Leviathan, whose strength is in
his loins, and whose power is in the navel of
his belly.
He bends his tail like a cedar, and the veins
of his testicles are entangled/ He bends with 2
his tail like a cedar, his membrum virile and
1
his testicles are entangled.
‫האּ כדְּוןֹ בעיראּ דְּי עבדְּיתָּ עמך חצראּ היך‬
‫תָּורי ייכול‬
‫האּ כדְּוןֹ לויתָּןֹ דְּחיליה בחרצוהי ותָּוקפיה‬
‫בפרתָּאּ דְּכריסיה׃‬
2
ּ‫ וזתָּניא‬1 ּ‫ דְּונביה היך אּרזא‬2 ‫ גַונביה‬1 ‫כאּיף‬
‫ דְּזנביה‬1 ‫וותָּנייאּ דְּפחדְּוהי משָתָּבשָיןֹ׃ כפיף‬
‫ גַידְּיה ושָעבזוהי‬2 ‫ גַבריה‬1 ּ‫דְּונביה היך אּרזא‬
ֹ‫ משָבשָין‬2 ֹ‫משָבשָבין‬

It is strange that the Targum reads Behemoth as plural of behema though the description
implies an individual animal. Even more – the translator of 40:16 designates the beast in
question Leviathan – and it is difficult to decide whether this is a mistake (since one of
the manuscripts omits it) or whether it refers to the similarity in the nature of the two
creatures. I wish to suggest that the Targum’s approach is a reflection of the Second
Temple traditions we saw above - despite the presence of reproductive organs on the
body of the mythical monster, as the verse explicitly states, his testicles play no role in
procreation. Furthermore, despite the tremendous size of Behemoth’s organ. in
proportion to the body of the beast the smallness of its organ makes the comparison to a
cedar appear as an absurd joke. Maybe it was understood as evidence for the weakness
of the monster’s virility. The lack of a parallel description of the reproductive organs in
the depiction of the Leviathan in the Book of Job allowed the Palestinian sages to
conclude that Leviathan is completely devoid of any sex. From this Palestinian tradition
we now move on to the BT
5

Translation4 BT Baba Bathra 74b-75a (Ms Hamburg

165)
Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: All that ‫אּמ' רב יהודְּה אּמ' רב כל מה שבראּ הקב'ה בעולםֹ זכר‬
Page10

4
The translation is according to the translation of the Soncino Press edition (1935, pp. 296-299),
with some minor changes.
 the Holy One, blessed be He, created in his ‫ונקבה בראּםֹ ואּף לויתָּןֹ זכר ונקבה בראּםֹ <אּתָּ לויתָּןֹ נחש‬
world He created male and female; 5 ּ‫בריח ולויתָּןֹ נחש עקלתָּוןֹ זכר ונקיב' בראּםֹ< ואּלמלא‬
<Leviathan the slant serpent and Leviathan ?‫ מה עשה הקב'ה‬.ֹ‫נזקקיןֹ זה לזה מחריביןֹ אּתָּ כל העולם‬
the tortuous serpent )Is 27:1) He created male '‫סרס אּתָּ הזכר והרגַ אּתָּ הנקבה ומלחה לעתָּידְּ לבאּ שנ‬
and female;> and had they mated with one .ֹ‫והרגַ אּתָּ התָּניןֹ אּשר בים‬
another they would have destroyed the
whole world. What [then] did the Holy One,
blessed be He, do? He castrated the male
and killed the female preserving it in salt
for the righteous in the world to come; for
it is written: And He will slay the dragon
that is in the sea (Isaiah 27:3).
… …
And also Behemoth on a thousand hills (Ps
50:10) were created male and female, and
had they mated with one another they would ' ּ‫ זכר ונקבה בראּםֹ ואּלמלא‬-'‫ואּף בהמותָּ בהררי אּלף‬
have destroyed the whole world. What did the ‫ מה עשה‬.‫נזקקיןֹ זה לזה מחריביןֹ אּתָּ העולםֹ כולו‬
Holy One, blessed be He, do? He castrated ‫הקב'ה? סרס אּתָּ הזכר וצנןֹ אּתָּ הנקבה >ושמרה‬
the male and cooled the female <and ‫לצדְּיקיםֹ לעתָּידְּ לבואּ < שנ' הנה נאּ כחו במתָּניו ואּונו‬
preserved it for the righteous for the world to ‫בשרירי בטנו הנה נאּ כחו במתָּניו זה זכר ואּונו בשרירי‬

come>6; for it is written: His strength is in his ‫בטנו זו הנקבה‬

loins
(Job 40:16) - this refers to the male; His
might in the muscles of his belly (Job
40:16) - this refers to the female.

Absolutely novel is the point of view of BT - both creatures were originally a pair, but the
wise intervention of the Creator prevented the continuation of their species – by the
Page10

5
The emendation according to BB 74b Vatican 115 and the editio princips, but probably it is
taken by the copyist from the previous fragment.
6
Only in Pesaro (1511).
castration of the male or the assassination of the problematic spouse. Therefore,
Leviathan, being a giant fish, is represented as male and female. 7 The female Leviathan is
kept salted for the righteous like pickled herring; the sterilized male Leviathan is kept
alive for the Eschaton. As for Behemoth, after killing the female, the male is kept alive
and sterilized for the feast of the righteous. This tradition is quite different from the
Palestinian one mainly in the fact that it sees in the abovementioned verses of Job, an
indication not only of the presence of a male equipped with masculinity, but also of
females, whose sexual organs are hidden in the depths of their body. It is easy to see that
this is a more artificial interpretation of the verse. Why should the Babylonian interpreter
prefer this approach? One may assume that, this interpretation stems from the repeated
declaration in BT that God cannot afford to create a creature that is devoid of a mate: All
that the Holy One, blessed be He, created in his world He created male and female ( BB ..) .

Now, when performing the act of reverse engineering, we should ask how these two
strange creatures received this kind of unfolding fate. By reverse engineering I mean a
scientific custom according to which people can learn about many things simply by
taking them apart and putting them back together again. That, in a nutshell, is the
concept behind reverse-engineering—breaking something down in order to understand
it, and then build a copy or improve it.

So the book of Job brought together two huge creatures from the time frame of the
Urzeit and made them visible. Then second Temple readers extended the idea of these
monsters and understood that two monstrous creatures of the book of Job are immortal
and awaiting the Eschaton. Exegetical traditions on the original aquatic nature of the
two monsters, coupled with the allusion to verses from the Psalms about the greatness of
the land-living Behemoth resulted in a representation, in which these two chapters from
the book of Job were read comparatively. This is how the concept of two huge creatures
that emerged simultaneously in the water, had been separated, but are similar one to the
other, came into being. Commentators were surprised by the asymmetry in the
7
According to the first Talmudic tradition, it seems that the female Leviathan would be eaten, but then it
Page10

remains unanswered what should be done with the male Leviathan. It is probable that the intention of the
Babylonian editor is that in the End of the Days: God shall kill him and then there will be available at the
feast both salted and freshly-slaughtered Leviathan flesh.
description of the bodies of these monsters in the book of Job, and have solved this
problem by assuming that it reflects a specific anatomical or physiological reality:
Being equally deprived of the possibility to procreate, they are flawed to a certain
degrees. The Creator determines their disabilities. Thus the tradition of two lonely
beings deprived of opportunities for procreation, waiting for their eschatological role in
remote places was born and it existed in the Land of Israel from the time of the book of
Enoch to the era of the amoraim. However after passing through the theological filters
of the Babylonian sages, this tradition was rejected, transformed and replaced by
another.

Page10