THE DIALOGICAL BEAST

THE IDENTIFICATION OF ROME WITH THE PIG IN EARLY RABBINIC

LITERATURE

By Misgav Har-Peled

A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the

requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Baltimore, Maryland
March, 2013

© 2013 Misgav Har-Peled

All Rights Reserved
 Abstracts
The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the logic behind the identification

of Rome with the pig in rabbinic literature. This identification is observed in the light of

the broad context of the discourse concerning the pig and the avoidance of pork in

rabbinic literature. Following this, we address the possible link of the rabbinic

identification with porcine simile in Roman political discourse. We also identify the role

of the pig in the legend of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the midrsh concerning

Jacob and Esau in Genesis Rabbah, and the midrash concerning forbidden animals in

Leviticus Rabbah chapter 13 as well some in other midrashim. It is proposed that by

identifying Rome with the pig, the sages made the avoidance of pork a locus o f resistance

to the Empire, which was first pagan and later Christian. By making the pig a symbol of

dialogical relations with the other in time, the avoidance of pork was inscribed in history

as embodying past, present, and future relations between Jacob and Esau, between Jews

and Romans, and between Judaism and Christianity.

Advisors:

David Nirenberg (University of Chicago)

Gabriel Spiegel (Johns Hopkins University)

ii
 Acknowledgements
I was lucky to have two remarkable supervisors: Professor David Nirenberg (The

University of Chicago), and Professor Gabrielle M. Spiegel (Johns Hopkins University).

David Nirenberg made me cross an ocean, not just geographically but also intellectually,

making my sojourn at Johns Hopkins University a determining experience. Gabrielle M.

Spiegel took me under her wing after David Nirenberg moved to the University of

Chicago. She became one of my most critical readers, as she was severe and extensive in

her critique while extremely kind and cordial.

My parents, Michal and Nehemiah, encouraged me to finish my PhD long before

I started it, and were extremely helpful when pockets were empty and doubts abundant.

Also, thanks to my brother Sariel - with no further excuses, with all the excuses. Thanks

to my sister Lily, for her warm hospitality during my sojourns in California, much

encouragement, and help with the Shakespearian language. Thanks to Ann Greenberg for

being extremely thorough in the cyclical editing process.

Luz del Rocio Bermudez H., a true intimate colleague of love, wisdom and

patience, helped this research become a collective adventure. Thanks to Luz, I came to

know the warm generosity of Nati, Carmen, Francisco, Paco, Ana, Armando, Monica and

Victor. Most significantly, Maya joined Luz and I halfway along this journey, a happy

reminder of the possibility of enjoying dialogics - of being with others in life.

All I know is theirs; all errors, mine.

iii
 A note on Style
Unless otherwise noted, translations from Greek and Roman sources are from the Loeb

Classical Library (LCL) edition. Biblical citations are from New Revised Standard

Version (NRSV).

Abbreviations
Rabbinic Texts
Abrevations of mishanaic and talmudic tractates generally follow those of H. L. Strack
and G. Stemberger in Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Edinburgh: Clark, 1991,
374-376.

ARN Abot de-Rabbi Nathan, Text A or B

B. Bavli = Bablylonian Talmud
CantR Song of Songs Rabbah
DeutR Deutronomy Rabbah
DEZ Derekh Eretz Zutta
EcclR Ecclesiastes Rabbah
ExodR Exodus Rabbah
EsthR Esther Rabbah
GenR Genesis Rabbah
LamR Lamentations Rabbah
LevR Leviticus Rabbah; M. = M. Margulies, Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah, 5 vols.,
Jerusalem, 1953-60.
M. Mishnah
Mek Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael; L = J. Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de Rabbi
Ishamael, 3 vols. Philadelphia, 1933-35.
MHG Midrash ha-Gadol
MidAgada Midrash Agada, ed. Buber, Vienna, 1894.
MidrPss Midrash on Psalms; B. = S. Buber, Midrash Tehillim, Vilna, 1892; repr.
Jerusalem, 1966.
MidProv Midrash on Proverbs; B. = S. Buber, Midrasch Mischle, Wilna, 1893; repr.
Jerusalem, 1965.
Midr Tann Midrash Tannaim; H. = D. Hoffmann, Midrasch Tannaim zum
Deutronomium, Berlin, 1908-09.
MRS Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai; E.-M. = J. N. Epstein & E. Z. Melamed,
Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai, Jerusalem, 1965.
NumR Numbers Rabbah
LamR Lamentations Rabbah; B. = S. Buber, Midrasch Echa Rabbati, Wilna,
1899; repr. Hildesheim, 1967.

iv
PesR. Pesikta Rabbati; F. = M. Friedmann, Pesikta Rabbati, Vienna, 1880.
PRE Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer; L. = D. Luria, Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer, Warsaw,
1852; repr. Jerusalem, 1960.
PRK Pesikta de Rab Kahana = B. Mandelbaum, Pesiqta de Rav Kahana:
According to an Oxford Manuscript with Variations….With Commentary
and Introduction, 2 vols. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962.
RuthR Ruth Rabbah
Sifre Deut Sifre to Deuteronomy
Sifre Num Sifre to Numbers
SongR Song of Songs Rabbah
SZ Sifre Zuttah; H. = H. S. Horowitz, Sifre Zuttah, 2nd ed. Jerusalem, 1966.
T. Tosefta
Tan. Tanḥuma
TanB Tanḥuma Buber.
Y. Yerushalmi (Palestinian Talmud)
YalShim Yalkut Shimoni

Primary Literature
ANF Ante Nicene Fathers. The Early Church Fathers, 38 vols., ed. A. Roberts
and J. Donaldson. Edinburgh: T. & T. 1885-1887.
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt.
CCSL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina
GLAJJ Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols.
Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-1984.
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
HTR Harvard Theological Review
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JQR The Jewish Quarterly Review
LCL Loeb Classical Library
PG Patrologia Graeca. 161 vols., ed. J. P. Migne. Paris, 1857-1966.
NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
PNF A Select Library of the Nivene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church. First and second series, tr. P. Schaff and H. Wace. Buggalo and
New York (Reprint: Grand Rapids, MI, 1980-1991.)
PL Patrologia Latina, 221 vols, ed. J. P. Migne, Paris, 1844-1855;1862-1865.
REJ Revue des Études Juives
SC Sources Chrétiennes

v
 Table of Contents
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
A note on style iv
Abbreviations iv
Table of Contents vi
List of Illustrations viii

Introduction 1

1. The Nature of the Pig 19

Omnivorous Animal 21
Excrement and Dirt 22
Sexual Lust 24
Harmfulness 25
Injurious Voice 27
Uselessness and Idleness 27
Diseases 28
Drunkenness 30
Hypocrisy 31
Discussion 31

2. The Prohibited Animal 33

Prohibition of Breeding 33
Feeding and Commerce 38
Pig Hide 40
Purity and Classification 40
The Sages’ Refusal to Explain the Avoidance of Pork 48
Discussion 54

3. Boundary Keeping 61
Persecutions 61
Forbidden Sexual Relations with Non-Jews 65
Apostasy 76
Epikorusiut and the Pig 81
Elisha ben Abuya, Aḥer 85
Proselytes 90
Conclussion 93

4. The Pig and the Destruction of the Temple 95

August 70 CE 95
The Pig and the Profanation of the Temple Prior to 70 CE 97
The Legends of Destruction 101
The Pig’s Head 101
The Exchange of Lambs for Pigs 106
The Sprinkling of Pig’s Blood 111

vi
 Discussion 113

5. The Boar Emble m of the Legion X Fretensis and Aeneas’ Sow 117
The Boar Emblem 117
Aelia Capitolina 121
The Sculpture of the Sow 122

6. The Diocletian Legend in Genesis Rabbah 132

Dicletian the Swineherd 132
Diocletian the Hunter 140
The Ruler as a Boar-Hunter 144
The Midrashic Context of the Rabbinic Legend 149

7. Leviticus Rabbah 158

Leviticus Rabbah 13.2 158
Leviticus Rabbah 13.3 165
Leviticus Rabbah 13.4 168
Leviticus Rabbah 13.5 169
Discussion 176

8. The Boar out of the Wood 183

Sifri Numbers 316-317 185
Bavli Pesaḥim 18b 188
Bereshit Rabbati of Moses ha-Darshan 193
Discussion 195
Christian Reading of Psalms 80 (79):14 199
Conclusion 202

9. Why is it called ḥazir? 205

Ecclesiastes Rabbah 206
Hamidrash HaGadol 210
Discussion 211
Conclusion 218

10. The End of the Pig 221

Esther Rabbah 221
Discussion 227

Discussion and Conclusion 231

Bibliography 258

Vita 285

vii
List of Illustrations
Figures

1. Cysticercosis Muscle of a Pig. The Several Vesicular Ovoid Nodules,

Whitish-Yellow and Smaller than a Green Pea, are Larvae of Taenia
solium. (Gil J. Infante and J. Costa Durão, A Colour Atlas of Meat
Inspection (London: Wolfe, 1990), 66, fig. 104). 30

2. The Porcine Greco-Roman Discursive Sphere with the Rabbinic

topoi (framed). 32
3. Classification of beasts in Leviticus 11 according to Sifra Shemini 4.1. 43

4. The Three Parallel Domains of Classification According to Jacob Milgrom.

(Jacob Milgrom. “Ethics and Ritual: The Foundations of the Biblical
Dietary Laws,” in Religion and Law: Biblical, Jewish, and Islamic
Perspectives, ed. E. B. Firmage (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989),
179,181). 57

5. Legion X Fretensis' standards on Aelia Capitolina’s coin, Elagabal (218-

222 CE). A. topped with eagle, B. topped with boar. (Yaakov Meshorer,
The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1989), 118). 96

6. Suovetaurilia Sacrifice to Mars on Arch of Titus (c. 81 CE). 96

7. Illustration of the Troops. Arch of Constantine (dedicated in 315 CE). 96

8. Standard with a boar on a Roman bas-relief, Narbonne, France. Photo by

the author. Narbonne, Musée Lapidaire, 737. 118

9. Two Brick Stamp Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis from Jerusalem,

68-132 CE. (Dan Barag, “Brick Stamp-Impressions of the Legio X
Fretensis,” Bonner Jahrbücher 167 (1967): 255). 119
10. A Roman Coin Found in Jerusalem with a Secondary Mint of the Symbols
of the Legion X Fretensis. (Félicien De Saulcy, “Lettre à M. Léon Renier
sur une monnaie antique contremarquée en judée,” Revue archéologique
20 (1869): 252). 120
11. Aelia Cpitolina, Coin of Herennius Etruscus (250-251 CE). Boar running;
legionary eagle on its back, with vexillum topped by star. Meshorer,
Yaakov. The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina, (Jerusalem: Israel Museum,
1989), 114. 122
12. The Plan of Aelia Capitolina (cf. Yaron Z. Eliav). (Yaron Z. Eliav, “The
Urban Layout of Aelia Capitolina: A New View from the Perspective of
the Temple Mount,” in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New

viii
 Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, ed. Peter Sch fer
(T bingen: Mohr, 2003), 277, map 2). 123
13. Legion X Fretensis in Judea (Cf. Dabrow 1993). (Edward Dabrowa, Legio
X Fretensis: a prosopographical study of its officers (I-III c. A.D.)
(Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1993), 6). 125

14. Rome, 2nd century marble sculpture of sow with piglets. Rome, Vattican
Museum (sala degli Animali, inv. 176). (Frederick Cameron Sillar, Ruth
Mary Meyler, and Oliver Holt. The Symbolic Pig: An Anthology of Pigs in
Literature and Art (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1961), pl. 7). 127
15. Ara Pacis: Relief of Aeneas sacrificing to the Penates.
<http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/italy/rome/arapacis/0083.jpg>
Consulted October 07, 2012. 128
16. The Belvedere Altar. A. Aeneas and the Laurantine sow. B. Augustus and
the Vicomagistri. Belvedere Altar, Vatican, Rome (DAIR 1511). (Lowell
Edmunds, “Epic and Myth” in A Companion to Ancient Epic, ed. John
Miles Foley (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), 31-44). 128
17. Vespasian, Denarius, minted 77-78 CE. Laureate head right / Aneas’ sow
with piglets. 129
18. Antonine copy of the Hadrianic 'Aeneid' medallion, reverse design. Source:
bronze cast from original held in the Cabinet des Medailles, Bibliothèque
Nationale, Paris. Actual size: 3.5 cm diameter (approx.). (Michael R.
Jenkins, “The 'Aeneid' medallion - a narrative interpretation,” The
Numismatic Chronicle 148 (1988): 148-152, pl. 12/3-4).

19. Bronze Medallion of Antionius Pius (Reign 138-161 CE). (Andreas

Alföldi, Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
1965), plate VI). 130
20. Hadrianic Boar Hunt Relief, Arch of Constantine, Rome. (Jones Mark
Wilson, “Genesis and Mimesis: The Design of the Arch of Constantine in
Rome,” The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 59, no. 1
(2000): 54, fig. 64). 147
21. Alexander the Great Hunting a Wild Boar. 1st century. Sardonyx; cameo.
The Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg. 148
22. The three-four model in Leviticus Rabbah 13. 178
23. Hypothetical reconstruction of the midrashic process of identification of
Rome with the pig. 237
24. The Discursive spheres of Israel and the Pig in Rabbinic literature. 239

ix
Tables
1. The pig and the destruction or profanation of the Temple. 116

2. The Four Kingdoms in Leviticus Rabbah 13.5. 170

3. Structure and message of Leviticus Rabbah 13.2-5. 177

4. Structure and content of Psalm 80 184

5. The reading of Deuteronomy 32: 13-14 in Sifre 316-317. 195

6. The interpretation of Psalm 104: 20-22 in Bereshit Rabbati. 204

7. Psalm 80:14 and the association of the pig with Rome. 214

8. Different answers to the question, “Why is it called ḥazir”? 217

9. The pig in the historical model of the midrashic discursive sphere. 247

x
 Introduction

The prohibition of pork is the Jewish food avoidance par excellence, one of the

strongest markers of Jewish identity in the eyes of Jews and non-Jews alike. Many

scholars have tried to explain the origin and raison d'être of this biblical avoidance.

Likewise modern research has placed much attention on the Christian association of the

Jews with the animal they disdain, the pig. In 1974, art historian Isaiah Sachar published

a monograph on the European image of the Judensau, the Jews’ sow, which depicted a

group of rabbis with a sow, riding it, sucking its tits, licking its anus, and eating its

excrement. 1 Twenty years later, ethnologist Claudine Fabre-Vassas published the book

The Singular Beast: Jews, Christians, and the Pig (1994). In this fascinating book, based

on her fieldwork in the French East Pyrenees and material from throughout Europe, the

author demonstrates the rich association of the Jew with the pig in European folklore. 2 As

does much research on anti-Judaism, both scholars ignore the Jewish side of the story.

Were the Jews just figures of thought? Were they passive and not active actors? Were

they solely victims of Christian hate discourse? Can we assume that Jews were not aware

of the degrading association of them with the pig? Did they not react to this insulting

association of them with the impure animal? Can we assume that the Christian

association of the Jews with the pig has nothing to do with Jewish discourse concerning

the pig? This asymmetric history where the Jewish voice is absent is quite problematic,

not only because it renders the Jews into non-historical persons, and hence lacking

1
Isaiah Shachar, The Judensau: A Medieval Anti-Jewish Motif and Its History (London: Warburg
Institute, 1974).
2
Claudine Fabre-Vassas, The Singular Beast: Jews, Christians, and the Pig (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1997) [Original title: La bête singulière. Les Juifs, les chrétiens et le cochon (Paris:
Gallimard, 1994)].

1
responsibility, but also because it ignores the dialogical nature of Jewish-Christian

relations, relations that have never been simple, almost never symmetrical, and rarely

unidirectional.

In fact, if the Christians associated the Jews with the pig at least since the High

Middle Ages, already by the end of antiquity, rabbinic literature identified the Roman

Empire with the pig, and since the Christianization of the Roman Empire, sages have

identified the pig with Christianity. 3 Was there no link between the Christian and the

Jewish identification? If there was a link, what was its nature? To answer these questions,

we must observe discourses concerning the pig, the avoidance of pork, and the other

religion, both in Judaism and Christianity in the longue durée (long term). The dialogical

history of the interrelations between the two around the pig should not only seek direct

polemics, but also seek the meta-dimensions of the theological, anthropological, and

moral issues at stake. In other words, the dialogical history should ask to what extent the

logic of each side was constructed vis-à-vis the logic of other, and in what ways

differences between the different religions were constructed. Notions emphasizing the

negation of the other, such as polemics, anti-Judaism, racism, etc., are problematic for

they often assume a “pure” existence of self/group. However, no self/group/identity

exists in a vacuum. Like language, culture is highly dialogic. Therefore, otherness is not a

secondary dimension of human experience, but rather a primordial one. Negation of the

other is just one manifestation of the triangulation of identities, where the location of one

3
In fact, both Sachar and Fabre-Vassas demonstrated that the association of the Jews with the
abominable pig in Europe had its roots in Christian writings from Late Antiquity, hence from the same
period as classical rabbinic literature.

2
entity is understood by its real or imagined location in a network of entities. 4 In this play

of triangulation, similarities, distinctions, and negations together create rather complex

relations. By focusing our analysis on the negative/violent dimension of intergroup

relations, we risk ignoring the broad span of configurations of identities. One can

compare the researcher who focuses on the negation of the other, and hence focuses on

the violent nature of the relations, to a geologist who analyzes earthquakes while ignoring

plate tectonics. Just as earthquakes are a consequence of movement of plates along a

common rift, so the negation of the other between human groups which are dialogically

connected is a part of their mutual construction of identity along the same frontier. This is

the case of Judaism and Christianity, whose grids of alterity in diverse ways encompass

each other.

In this dissertation, I hope to contribute to the dialogical history of Jewish-

Christian relations over the longue durée. However, for practical reasons, the actual work

focuses on the identification of Rome with the pig in early rabbinical literature. Hence,

the work mainly covers: the Mishnah and Tosefta from the Tannitic period (50-200 CE);

the Midrash Sifre from the Amoraic period (200-400 CE); and Midrash Genesis Rabbah,

Midrash Leviticus Rabbah, the two talmudim, the Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud)

Talmud, and the Bavli (Babylonian) Talmud, all from the post-Amoraic period (400-700

CE). In some cases, material from later midrashim is discussed (900-1300 CE). The main

period addressed in this work is Late Antiquity (2th - 7th cent.), a period corresponding to

the formative stages of Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism. Due to the limited scope of

this dissertation, the Christian discourse concerning the pig and avoidance of pork will

4
On the concept of triangulation, see: Jean-Loup Amselle, ranchements anthropo ogie de
uni ersa it des cu tures (Paris: Flammarion, 2001). Ibid. “Métissage, branchement et triangulation des
cultures,” Revue germanique internationale 21 (2004): 41-51.

3
briefly be addressed in those cases in which rabbinic literature seems to be polemical or

in which the church fathers refer to rabbinic literature. However, several elements

contributing to the understanding of rabbinic discourse concerning the pig and the

identification of Rome with the pig in its Jewish-Christian dialogic context will be

provided, mainly in the final discussion. In order to fill the gap, detailed analysis of the

Christian discourse on the pig and the avoidance of pork in the patristic era will be

necessary.

The Current State of Research

Unlike the great body of literature on the biblical prohibition of pork, relatively

little attention has been paid to the avoidance of pork in rabbinic literature in general and

the identification of Rome with the pig in particular. 5 Jacob Neusner, in Judaism and

Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel, and the Initial

Confrontation (1987), analyzed the identification of Rome both with the fourth kingdom

and the pig in Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 13, explaining this identification as being a

polemic with Christianity. 6 In 1986, Mireille Hadas-Lebel dedicated an article to the

identification of Rome with the fourth kingdom of the book of Da niel and with the pig;

this was further developed in her book Jerusalem Against Rome (2005, a translation of

Jérusalem contre Rome, 2003).7 Her main interest was to reconstruct the history of the

5
The entry “ḥazir ‫ ”חזיר‬in the Tamudic Encycopedia, like any encyclopedical entry, is far from
complete. Encyclopedia talmudit, vol. 13 (Jerusalem: Talmudic Encyclopedia Institute, 1977), 443-446
(Hebrew).
6
Jacob Neusner, Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel, and the
Initial Confrontation (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1987), 102.
7
Mireille Hadas-Lebel, “Rome ‘Quatrième Empire’ et le symbole du porc,” dans e enica t
udaica ommage Va entin i iprowet y, éd. André Caquot, Mireille Hadas-Lebel et. J. Riaud
(Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 297-312. Ibid. Jerusalem Against Rome, trans. Robyn Fréchet (Leuven: Peeters,
2005) [original title: Jérusalem contre Rome (Paris: Cerf, 2003)], 413-416.

4
creation of this identification. She did not analyze the midrashim in depth or try to

analyze the inner logic of the midrashic construction or locate it in its larger context of

Roman or Christian discourses. David Kraemer, in Jewish Eating and Identity through

the Ages (2007), briefly explains why the pig became the food avoidance par excellence

in Judaism, but does not analyze in detail the relevant rabbinic texts. 8 In 2010, Jordon D.

Rosenblum published the article, “Why Do You Refuse to Eat Pork? Jews, Food, and

Identity in Roman Palestine.” 9 His main point is that the sages identified Rome with the

pig following the metonymic logic of “you are what you (do and do not) eat.” Aside from

this idea, Rosenblum’s discussion does not add much to Hadas-Lebel’s work (which he

seems not to be aware of). Since the nineteenth century, five explanations have been

given in the literature for the identification of Rome with the pig; these have to do with: 1)

The god Mars, 2) The boar emblem of the Legion X Fretensis, 3) The erection of a

sculpture of a sow in Jerusalem, 4) The Roman myth of Aeneas, and 5) A metonymic

identification of the Romans with their meat.

1. The God Mars

Abraham Epstein (1885) proposed that the equation ‘Rome = Esau = Pig’ had its

origin in the Roman cult of the war-god Mars, who, in his view, was portrayed as a pig.

According to Epstein, the Syrians called Mars “Ḥaziran,” derived from ḥa ir (pig).

Because Mars gave his name to the red planet (Mahadim in Hebrew), his redness was

8
David Kraemer, Jewish Eating and Identity through the Ages (New York and London: Routledge,
2007), 30-33.
9
Jordon D. Rosenblum, “Why Do You Refuse to Eat Pork? Jews, Food, and Identity in Roman
Palestine,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 100, no. 1 (2010): 95-110. See also his Food and Identity in Early
Rabbinic Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 48-51, which is based on his PhD
dissertation:‘They Sit Apart at Mea s’ ar y Rabbinic Commensa ity Regu ations and Identity
Construction. PhD dissertation (Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University, 2008).

5
linked to Esau-Edom, both of whom had red hair. 10 This interpretation is far from

convincing, and will not be discussed here. 11

2. The Boar Emble m of the Legion X Fretensis

Theodore Reinach suggested (1903) that the sages identified Rome with the pig

because the boar was the emblem of the Legion X Fretensis, which participated in the

conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE and was stationed in the city ruins after the Great

Revolt.12

3. The Erection of a Sculpture of a Sow in Jerusalem

Samuel Krauss (1914) proposed that “there is reason to believe that this

[symbolization of Rome as a pig in rabbinic literature] came into prominence only since

10
Abraham Epstein, “The Beasts of the Four Kingdoms,” Bet Talmud 4 (1885): 177 (Hebrew). Ibid.,
Mi-Qadmoniot ha-Yehudim, 2 vols (Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1965 (Vienna, 1887)), 33 (Hebrew).
Epstein is followed by Jay Braverman, erome’s Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish
and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of
America, 1978), 79.
11
For criticism of this explanation, see: Jane Barr, “Review of Braverman, Jay. Jerome’s Commentary
on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, Washington,
The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1978,” Journal of Biblical Literature 100, no. 2 (1981): 288.
Gershon D. Cohen called it “farfetched,” see: Gershon D. Cohen. “Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval
Thought,” in Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press, 1967), 21, note 7.
12
Théodore Reinach, “Mon nom est Légion,” Revue des études juives 47 (1903): 172-178. Louis
Ginzberg writes, for example, “The designation of Esau (=Rome) as “swine” is very common in rabbinic
literature, and occurs in so old a source as Enoch 89. 12. Originally it was not intended as an expression of
contempt, but was coined with reference to the standard of the Roman legion stationed in Palestine, which
had as its emblem a boar, a wild swine, and hence the designation of Rome as ‫‘ חזיר מיער‬the boar out of the
wood’.” Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. V (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of
America, 1947), 294, note 162. Isaac Heinemann, The Methods of the Aggadah (Darkhe ha-agadah)
(Jerusalem: Magness, 1949), 32 (Hebrew). Samuel Krauss, Paras VeRomi BaTalmud UbaMidrashim
(Persia and Rome in the Talmud and Midrashim) (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Cook, 1948), 100-105; 177-
178 (Hebrew). Irit Aminoff, The Figure of Esau and the Kingdom of Edom in Palestinian Midrashic-
Talmudic Literature in the Tannaic and Amoraic Periods. PhD dissertation (Melbourne: Melbourne
University, 1981), 258-265 (“Chapter 4: The Swine.”). Louis H. Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation of the
Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 323. Ibid., Remember Amalek: Vengeance, Zealotry,
and Group Destruction in the Bible According to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus (Cincinnati, OH:
Hebrew Union College Press, 2004), 67. Daphne Barak-Erez, Outlawed Pigs: Law, Religion, and Culture
in Israel (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2007), 20. Samuel Tobias Lachs, A Rabbinic
commentary on the New Testament: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav; New
York: Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 1987), 139. For criticism of this identification, see: Hadas -
Lebel, Jerusalem Against Rome, 104.

6
the time of Hadrian and the fall of Betar (135 CE) since, in order to insult the Jews, the

image of a pig was attached to the southern gate of Jerusalem which had been

transformed into the Roman colony, Aelia Capitolina.” 13

4. The Roman Myth of Aeneas

Moshe David Herr (1970) proposed that the rabbinical identification of Rome

with the pig was linked to the sow and her thirty piglets. According to Virigil’s Aeneid,

this was the sign given Aeneas as to where the city of Lavinium, the mother city of Rome,

should be founded, and hence the sow with piglets became a symbol of Rome. 14

5. A Metonymic Identification of the Romans with their Meat

David Kraemer (2007) proposed that the sages identified the Romans with the pig

because of the importance of pork in the Roman diet. 15 Likewise, Rosenblum proposed

that “if to be Roman meant, in some sense, to eat pork, then the pig makes a seemingly

logical symbol for Rome: after all, ‘‘you are what you eat.’’ 16

My approach

While each of the explanations that have been given for the identification of

Rome with the pig may be worthy, it seems reductionist to attempt to explain the

Rabbinic identification of Rome with the pig by a single cause. If the pig had rich,

diverse meanings in rabbinic literature as well in the Greco-Roman world, we can assume

13
Samuel Krauss, Monumenta Talmudica, vol. 5, Geschichte, 1. Teil: Griechen und Rimer (Wien:
Orion, 1914), 15. Cited in: Braverman, erome’s Commentary on Danie , 94. Mireille Hadas-Lebel argues
against the idea that: “after 135, there was little contact between the Jewish populations and the Xth
Fretensis quartering at Aelia Capitolina where the Jews were forbidden the right to stay.” Hadas -Lebel,
Jerusalem Against Rome, 518.
14
Moshe David Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature Its Image and Conception, PhD Dissertation
(Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1970), 128, note 99.
15
Kraemer, Jewish Eating, 31.
16
Rosenblum, “Why,” 107-108.

7
that the identification of Rome with the pig will correspond to this complexity, that it will

function at diverse levels and with diverse meanings. Current research suffers from what

Marc Bloch called historians’ “obsession with origins,” 17 an “obsession” which shifts us

from the question of the logic behind the identification. Hence, to seek to understand the

identification of Rome with the pig, I will analyze it in the broader context of discourse

concerning the pig in rabbinic literature. Due to the semi-oral nature of Rabbinic

literature, it is very hard to date the different texts within it; therefore I will not analyze

the rabbinic discourse in a supposed chronological order. However, in the discussion, I

will propose some historical observations on the evaluation of rabbinic porcine discourse

over time, from the Mishnah to the medieval midrashim. Before going on to Chapter

One, I will briefly summarize the place of the pig in the Hebrew Bible.

The Pig in the Hebrew Bible

The Hebrew word ḥa ir, which means both pig and wild boar,18 is mentioned in

the Hebrew Bible only seven times (Deut. 14:8; Lev. 11:7; Is. 65:4; 66:3; Ps. 80:14; Prov.

11:22). 19 Consumption of pork is prohibited in Leviticus 14 and Deuteronomy 11,

priestly sources which probably date from the end of Iron Age, but may reflect an earlier

tradition:

Leviticus 11 Deuteronomy 14
3 You shall not eat any abhorrent thing.
2: From among all the land animals, these 4: These are the animals you may eat:
are the creatures that you may eat.

17
Marc Bloch, The Historian's Craft (New York: Knopf, 1953), 24.
18
Likewise, Aramaic and Arabic do not distinguish between the domestic and the wild animal.
19
Compare this to other animals, such as the dog, which is mentioned thirty-two times, the goat
seventy-four times, and the sheep one hundred and seven times.

8

3: Any animal that has divided hoofs and is
cloven-footed and chews the cud — such
you may eat.
4: But among those that chew the cud or
have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the
following: the camel, for even though it
chews the cud, it does not have divided
hoofs; it is unclean for you. 5: The rock-
badger, for even though it chews the cud, it
does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean
for you. 6: The hare, for even though it
chews the cud, it does not have divided
hoofs; it is unclean for you.
7: The pig, for even though it has divided
hoofs and is cloven-footed, it does not chew
the cud; it is unclean for you.
8: Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their
carcasses you shall not touch; they are
unclean for you.
the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5: the deer,
the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat,
the ibex, the antelope, and the
mountain-sheep.
6: Any animal that divides the hoof and
has the hoof cloven in two, and chews
the cud, among the animals, you may
eat.
7: Yet of those that chew the cud or
have the hoof cloven you shall not eat
these: the camel, the hare, and the rock-
badger, because they chew the cud but
do not divide the hoof; they are unclean
for you.
8: And the pig, because it divides the
hoof but does not chew the cud, is
unclean for you.
You shall not eat their meat, and you
shall not touch their carcasses.

The prohibition of touching the dead body of impure animals seems to reinforce
20
the prohibition of consumption. Curiously, the Hebrew Bible does not give a

theological explanation for food avoidance, but does clearly link it to purity as a state of

separateness, as summarized in Leviticus 20:24: 21

I am the Lord your God; I have separated you from the peoples. You shall therefore make
a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and
the clean; you shall not bring abomination on yourselves by animal or by bird or by
anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean.
You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from the other
peoples to be mine (Lev. 20:24-27).

20
As Walter Houston notes, this ban “is intended as a kind of ‘hedging of the law’; in order to remove
even the temptation of eating the flesh of these animals, or the possibility of doing so accidentally, it is
forbidden even to touch their bodies.” Walter Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean
Animals in Biblical Law, JSOTSupSer, 140 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 40. Jacob Milgrom. Leviticus 1-16.
The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 655.
21
Ibid., 54.

9
 This logic of purity and separateness does not, however, explain the reason for the

criteria given for the purity or impurity of each particular animal. In any case, the pig is

explained as an anomaly of a purity classification system: it holds the first mark of purity

but not the second. In this sense, it can be understood as a symbol of impurity, hybridism,

and the transgression of category boundaries. Third Isaiah (c. late sixth century - mid fifth

century BCE), 22 rebukes the presence of a foreign cult in the Temple. In this passage, the

blood of the pig symbolizes the profanation of the Temple (Isaiah 66:3): “[He] who

presented a cereal offering [would now present] the blood of a swine.” 23 Isaiah 66:17

declares that “those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following

the one in the centre, eating the flesh of pigs, vermin, and rodents, shall come to an end

together, says the Lord.” Likewise, Isaiah 65:4 condemns the ones “who sit inside tombs,

and spend the night in secret places; who eat swine’s flesh, with broth of abominable

things in their vessels.” In Psalms 80:14, the wild pig ( ‫ )חזיר מיער‬symbolized the

destruction of the Temple: “(13) Why hast thou broken down its walls, so that all who

pass along the way pluck its fruit? (14) The boar from the forest (ya’ar) ravages it, and

the beasts of the field feed on it.” 24 The pig, as a thing out of place, is also found in the

book of Proverbs (tenth to sixth centuries BCE), 25 which says “Like a gold ring in the

snout of a pig is a beautiful woman bereft of sense” (Prov. 11:22). 26

22
On the date of Third Isaiah, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56-66: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible, vol. 19b (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 42-54.
23
Jack Murad Sasson, “Isaiah 66:3-4a,” Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 200.
24
Arthur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 546.
25
Proverbs is a collection of texts produced probably over the course of a very long period (10 th to 6th
cent. BCE) which was edited in its final form perhaps as late as the third century BCE: Leo G. Perdue,
Proverbs (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2000).
26
The saying as Tova L. Forti notes is “a moral statement about the advantage of intellect over beauty,”
Tova L. Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 52.

10
 In all of these passages, the pig is mentioned in a negative context, standing for a

thing “out of place.” In Leviticus and Numbers, the pig is an anomaly of the classification

system; in Isaiah, it is a forbidden food (eaten in an impure place, the tomb) or

inappropriate sacrifice. In Psalms, the pig is the animal that penetrates and destroys the

vineyard (Temple). In Proverbs, the pig is a vulgar creature. Hence, the pig in the Hebrew

Bible is above all an impure animal, its consumption is forbidden, and its general

symbolism makes it stand for an anomaly, whether ontological, cultic, or moral.27

Romanization and Pork Consumption

David Kraemer notes that the “major development in Jewish eating practices

between the Bible and the rabbis is the emergence of pork as a uniquely abhorred

substance” by the early first century CE, 28 which he explains through the central role of

pork in the Greco-Roman diet, which made pork a marker of difference in daily life:

(…) When the common Palestinian Jew viewed the common gentile eating meat at her or
his table – in the first century BCE or the first century CE – that meat was far more likely
to be pork than anything else. In other words, of all the species marked as off limits by
the Torah’s legislation, the only one concerning which this would make a difference on a
regular basis was the pig. The rest were primarily of academic interest, the pig was a
presence and potentially a temptation. But it was also, crucially, their meat – ubiquitously
so. And thus, it was taboo – because the Torah outlawed it, taboo because it was so
readily associated with “the other.” It emerged as the abhorred symbol par excellence
because it was available to serve in that capacity. No other species on the Torah’s list
could do the same.
(…) Palestine, in the second century BCE, saw rising numbers of Hellenized soldiers,
traders and other residents within its territories. Notably, pork was a mainstay of the
Hellenistic – and later, Roman – diet. By contrast, in the centuries before the Hellenistic
conquest, local peoples in Palestine rarely consumed pork (…) What this means is that in
the Hellenistic period, for the first time, Jews observing the Torah’s prohibitions would
have had increasing opportunity to witness their neighbors regularly consuming a

27
Except for Psalms and Proverbs, the pig is mentioned mainly as a concrete animal and not as a
metaphor or symbol.
28
Kraemer, Jewish Eating, 30.

11
 particular prohibited flesh: pork. As this awareness grew, pork could grow into a
symbol – it could be viewed more and more prominently as the food of the other. 29

According to Baruch Rozen, the Roman occupation was a turning point in the

importance of pig breeding in Palestine, as witnessed by the increase percentage of pig

bones in archeological excavations in layers from the Roman period to the Arab conquest

in the seventh century. 30 The neo-Platonist Porphyry, in his Against the Christians,

argues against the story of the Gaderian pigs (Mt. 8:28-34; Mark 5:12-17; Luke 8:27-37)

- that it is not possible that Jesus had drowned so many pigs in the sea of Galilee, for

“how could there be so large a swineherd grazing in Judea, animals most unclean and

from the beginning hated by the Jews?” 31 However, even this polemical argument takes

for granted that pigs were raised in the Holy Land. In fact, the sages of the Talmud even

imagined that the emperor Diocletian was a swineherd in the city of Tiberias, on the

shore of the sea of Galilee.32

29
Ibid.
30
Baruch Rozen, “Swine Breeding in Eretz Israel after the Roman Period,“ Cathedra 78 (1995): 25-42
(Hebrew). See also: Shimon Dar, “Food and Archeology in Romano-Byzantine Palestine,” in Food in
Antiquity, ed. John Wilkins, David Harvey & Mike Dobson (Exeter, UK: University of Exeter Press, 1995),
328. Magen Broshi, “The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period.” Cathedra 43 (1987): 15-32 (Hebrew).
Ibid., “The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period: Introductory Notes,” in Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls
(London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 121-43 [originally published in: The Israel Museum Journal 5
(1986): 41-56]. For a detailed discussion of pork consumption in a Roman site, see for example the Roman
legionary fortress of el-Lejjun (Jordan): Michael Toplyn, “Livestock and Limitanei: The Zooarchaeological
Evidence,” in The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980 -
1989, ed. S. Thomas Parker (Washington (D.C.): Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2006),
484-486.
31
Porphyry, Against the Christians, fr. 177 (apud Apokritikos 3.4). Robert M. Berchman, Porphyry
against the Christians, Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic tradition, v. 1 (Leiden: Brill,
2005), 200. A later scholiast (in the margin of the Manuscript) argues that the Jews raised pigs and sold the
meat to Roman solders and thus broke the law. Consequently, the Savior vindicated the law by letting the
demons go into the pigs. See Apocr. 3.4 (Blondel), discussed in John Granger Cook, The Interpretation of
the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 178.
32
Rosenblum, “Why, ” 96.

12
 In Rome, even more than in Greece, 33 pork was a popular, inexpensive meat; it

was the meat par excellence.34 Pig breeding was so widespread in Rome that Varro (d. 27

BCE) asked the rhetorical question: “Who of our people cultivates a farm without

keeping swine?” 35 Polybius notes that “the number of swine slaughtered in Italy for

private consumption as well as to feed the army is very large,” 36 mentioning herds of

thousands of pigs, 37 while Pliny the Elder (d. 79 CE) notes that “no other animal

produces so much material for cooking: the pig has about fifty different flavors.” 38 In

Roman Italy, all parts of the pig were consumed, as pork, ham, sausage, or lard. 39 Pork

was an important component in the diet of the Roman soldier, especially during a

campaign. 40 Pork was supplied in large quantities to the city of Rome, where a public

33
Plutarch, Life of Cato the Younger 46.3. Emily Gowers, The Loaded Table: Representations of Food
in Roman Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 69.
34
Jacques André, L'alimentation et la cuisine à Rome (Paris: Klincksieck, 1961), 139-41. Eugenia
Salza Prina Ricotti, “Alimentazione, cibi, tavola e cucine nel l’età imperiale,” in L’A iment ione ne mondo
antico (Roma: Instituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1987), 90-94.
35
Varro, On Agriculture 2.4.3.
36
Polybius, The Histories 2.15.2.
37
Polybius, The Histories 12.3.8-4.14.
38
Pliny, Natural History 8. 209. The following is an idea found in a satire of Petronius (Sat. Trim, 69.):
serving a meal in which everything was made of pork, the host explains: “my cook prepared all this from
pork. There is none more valuable than he. If you wish, he’ll prepare you a fish from a pig’s womb, a
wood pigeon from bacon, a turtle-dove from ham, and a chicken from pork loin …” Patrick Faas, Around
the Roman Table: Food and Feasting in Ancient Rome (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994),
255.
39
“The haute cuisine of Imperial Rome presents an astonishing array of recipes based on the pig; there
is scarcely any part of the carcass that did not provide the basis for some gourmand’s delight…Pliny alone
mentions fifty such recipes“ K. D. White, Roman Farming (New York: Cornell University Press, 1970),
231.
40
“The Roman military ate pork in a number of forms: cooked, roasted or boiled, made into sausages
(ifarcimina), ham (perna) or bacon (lardum/laridum). […] Smoked or salted pork was particularly
important during a campaign. Indeed, from the quartermaster’s, if not the soldier’s, point of view, salt pork
has always been a favorite food for campaigning because it is cheap and long-lasting.” Jonathan P. Roth,
The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C. – A.D. 235) (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 1999), 29-30.
Hadrian, if we have to believe the Historia Augusta (late 4th century): “led a soldier’s life among the
maniples, and […] cheerfully ate out of doors such camp-fare as bacon, cheese and vinegar.” Historia
Augusta¸ Hadrian 10.2

13
system of pork distribution existed. 41 Authors from the imperial period presented pork

consumption as part of the ideal Roman diet, that of early Roman times, which they

contrasted to the “corrupted” diet of their own days. 42 Juvenal, in Satire Eleven, praises

the old practice of consuming homemade bacon: “For feast days, in olden times, they

would keep a side of dried pork, hanging from an open rack, or put before the relations a

flitch of birthday bacon, with the addition of some fresh meat, if there happened to be a

sacrifice to supply it.” 43 This humble diet is contrasted with that of his own day,

characterized by a “magnificent feast of hares and sow's paunches, of boars and

antelopes,”44 or that of Satire One:

(…) lordly patron will be devouring the choicest products of wood and sea, lying alone
upon an empty couch; for off those huge and splendid antique dinner-tables he will
consume a whole patrimony at a single meal. Ere long no parasites will be left! Who can
bear to see luxury so mean? What a huge gullet to have a whole boar----an animal created
for conviviality----served up to it! 45

It seems that pork consumption was subject to sumptuary laws, as Pliny the Elder

(d. 79 CE) notes:

Nor does any animal supply a larger number of materials for an eatin g-house: they have
almost fifty flavors, whereas all other meats have one each. Hence pages of sumptuary
laws, and the prohibition of hog’s paunches, sweetbreads, testicles, matrix and cheeks for
banquets, although nevertheless no dinner of the pantomime writer Publius after he had
obtained his freedom is recorded that did not include paunch - he actually got from this

41
Peter Garnsey, “Mass Diet and Nutrition in the City of Rome,” Cities, Peasants and Food in
Classical Antiquity: Essays in Social and Economic History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1998), 226-252, especialy pp. 242- 245.
42
On this theme in the satire of Plautus, see: J. C. B. Lowe, “Cooks in Plautus,” Classical Antiquity 4,
no. 1 (1985): 77. “The Roman stereotype of the humble peasant with his flitch of salted bacon assumed that,
once a year at least, the fatted animal would be killed, perhaps at a festival or wedding which coincided
with the start of winter. This, incidentally, helps to explain the particular connections between pigs and the
Saturnalia (along with their anthropomorphic features).” See also Nicholas Purcell, “The Roman Villa and
the Landscape of Production” in Urban Society in Roman Italy, ed. T. Cornell and K. Lomas, 151-179
(New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), 155-59. Ibid. “The Way We Used to Eat: Diet, Community, and
History at Rome,” American Journal of Philology 124, no. 3 (2003): 329-358.
43
Juvenal, Satiries 11. Likewise, Varro “contrasts modern luxury with the opprobrium attached in the
old days to a peasant who bought bacon at the market instead of producing it on his own plot.” Gowers,
The Loaded Table, 72.
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid.

14
 the nickname of Pig’s Paunch. But also wild boar has been a popular luxury. As far as
Cato the Censor we find his speeches denouncing boar meat bacon. Nevertheless a boar
used to be cut up into three parts and the middle part served at table, under the name of
boar loin. Publius Servilius Rullus, father of the Rullus who brought in the land
settlement act during Cicero’s consulship, first served a boar whole at his banquets - so
recent is the origin of what is now an everyday affair; and this occurrence has been noted
by historians, presumably for the improvement of the manners of the present day, when it
is the fashion for two or three boars to be devoured at one time not even as a whole
dinner but as the first course. 46

Likewise, after bringing the menu of a banquet for a pontiff, Macrobius mentions

the reproach made in 161 BCE by a certain C. Titius to the people gathered to receive the

Fannia sumptuary law.47 This reproach was made to them because they ate the dish called

“Trojan pig” (porcus troianus), a pig that “was stuffed with other animals that were

closed inside the same manner that the Trojan horse was filled with warriors.” 48 If this

critique of luxury by the regimen in imperial Rome involves that of pork, consuming it

confirms and reinforces the role of pork consumption as part of Roman identity.

If the Empire incorporated the food of the different cultures under its control,

creating a kind of cosmopolitan diet, while at the same time making the Roman diet the

unified diet of the empire,49 was pork in the diet an important part of Romanization? In

46
Pliny, Natural History 8. 127-128. As Emily Gowers notes, “It is not known which sumptuary laws
contained the restrictions on pig-meat mentioned by Pliny.” Gowers, The Loaded Table, 70.
47
Vincent J. Rosivach, “Lex Fannina Sumptuaria of 161 BC,” The Classical Journal 102, no. 1 (2006):
1-15.
48
Macrobius, Satires 3.16.14. Cited by Ilaria Gozzini Giacosa. The Taste of Ancient Rome (Chicago
and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1992), 98. Also see the description of Petronius, Cena
Trimalchionis (The Banquet of Trimalchio). An idea of this dish is also given by Apicius´ (4th/5th cent. CE)
recipe of stuffed piglet: “Suckling pig with two types of stuffing: Clean it, gut it from the throat, truss [the
feet] to the neck. Before cooking it, open the ear under the skin. Fill the ox bladder with Terentian stuffing,
and attach a bird’s quill at the neck of the bladder: through this squeeze as much [stuffing] into the ear as it
will hold. Then plug the hole with paper and close with fibulas, and prepare another stuffing. Make it thus:
Grind pepper, lovage, oregano, a bit of silphium root; moisten with garum; add cooked brains, raw eggs,
cooked spelt, cooking broth, small birds if available, pine nuts, peppercorns. Mix with grum. Stuff the pig,
plug with paper, and close with fibulas. Place in the oven. When it is cooked, spread with oil, and serve.”
Apicius 367. Cited in Giacosa, The Taste of Ancient Rome, 97.
49
Oddone Longo, “La nourriture des autres,” in istoire de ’a imentation, dir. Jean-Louis Flandrin et
Massimo Montanari (Paris: Fayard, 1996), 274.

15
other words, if “the Roman polity was more inclusive than the Greek, built to expand,” 50

was this true also of the Roman diet, and pork consumption in particular? Was

consuming pork sine qua non for becoming a true Roman? Louis H. Feldman notes that

“the abstinence from their national dish [pork] must have struck the Roman nationalists

much as a deliberate abstention from roast beef would have affected an English citizen in

our day who believes that patriotism and roast beef are somehow connected.” 51 As noted

above, Rosenblum goes one step further: “By refusing to eat pig, Jews are never able to

ingest Romanness and thus can never truly become Roman.” 52 This is an essentialist and

simplistic conception of Roman identity. While “Roman nationalists” such as Juvenal or

Tacitus would probably agree with Rosenblum, this does not change the fact that the

paths of Romanization were diverse, including with respect to diet. 53 However, the idea

that pork consumption became common after the Roman conquest must be nuanced.

Many groups, beside Jews in the Roman Levant, abstained from pork: Phoenicians,

Syrians, Arabs, Egyptian priests, Samaritans, and some Jewish Christians. Therefore,

either pork consumption was not part of the traditional diet in these particular cultures, or

it had a marginal place in it, and it is not clear to what extent these groups maintained

their preference for meats other than pork. 54 In fact, as the zoo-archeologist Justin Lev

50
Peter Garnsey, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1999), 80. Ze’ev Safrai, “Pigs,” The Economy of Roman Palestine (London and New
York: Routledge, 1994), 172-173.
51
Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 167.
52
Rosenblum, Why,” 96.
53
On the diverse opinions of Greco-Roman authors on Jewish avoidance of pork see: Louis H.
Feldman, “The Attack on the Jewish Dietary Laws,” Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1993), 167-170. Peter Sch fer, “Abstinence from Pork”, Judeophobia. Attitudes
toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1997), 66-81.
54
As Leonard V. Rutgers notes, the presence of pig bones in a house in Shephoris (Dioceasria) does
not necessarily testify that its occupants were Christians. Leonard V. Rutgers, “Some Reflections on the
Archeological Finds from the Domestic Quarter on the Acropolis of Sephoris,” in Religious and Ethnic
Communites in Later Roman Palestine, ed. Hayim Lapin (Bethesda, MD: Univeristy Press of Maryland,
1998), 191. Regarding ethnic diversity in Roman Palestine: Glen W. Bowersock. “The Greek Moses:

16
Tov proposes, the real impact of Romanization on the diet in Palestine seems not so much

to be regarding pork consumption, but rather regarding fish consumption:

Foodways, as much as any other cultural habit, have as much the power to unite as to
divide. What this survey of bone data most clearly suggests is that, contrary to much
wishful thinking on the part of archaeologists working in a variety of periods, ethnic and
religious groups are difficult to separate by dietary traditions. Pigs are universally rare in
the Near East, while fish, starting in the Roman period, are universally abundant. In
searching for the evidence that can be used to separate the ancient populations of
Palestine, we have overlooked the evidence that the external influences of Rome and the
desire of many to imitate Roman culture to an extent unified these ethnic and religious
groups. Perhaps both the pig and the fish bone evidence are significant and
complementary. While the general lack of pig bones may indicate the maintenance of a
traditional Near Eastern, if not specifically Jewish, diet on the one hand, the popularity of
fish indicates that Jews and others were able to emulate Roman culture without
sacrificing their own. With the advent of the Roman-era, fish consumption rises in
importance at both civilian and military sites (Kreuz 1995:80). Acculturation is not the
same phenomenon as assimilation, and in late antique Palestine it appears from dietary
evidence that many people adopted those foreign practices which did not conflict with
their own traditions, thus undergoing dietary acculturation but not assimilation. 55

Taking into account the many paths of acculturation and the wide range of

assimilation, it is possible that for some (both Jews and non-Jews), not eating pork was

an obstacle to fully becoming part of the Empire, while for others (both Jews and non

Jews), this was not at all the case. However, it is reasonable to assume that Romanization

roused the tension around Jewish avoidance of pork and that it influenced the vivacity of

the rabbinic association of Rome with the pig.

Confustion of Ethnic and Cultural Components in Later Roman and Early Byzantine Palestine,” Ibid., 31-
48.
55
Justin Lev-Tov, “‘Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed…?’ A Dietary Perspective on
Hellenistic and Roman Influence in Palestine,” in eichen aus Text und Stein Studien auf dem Weg u
einer Arch o ogie des euen Testaments, ed. S. Alkier and J. Zangenberg (Tübingen: Francke, 2003), 21.

17
The Plan of the Dissertation

This dissertation will discuss the rabbinic discourse concerning the pig and

avoidance of pork (chapters 1-3) before turning to the role of porcine symbols in the

confrontation between Jews and Romans in the first and second centuries (ch. 4-5), and

then analyze the midrashic identification of Rome with the pig (chapters 6-10). Chapter

One deals with diverse topoi that define the nature of the pig in rabbinic literature.

Chapter Two analyzes legal aspects concerning the pig and the sages’ refusal to explain

the avoidance of pork. Chapter Three deals with the pig as a frontier marker involving

persecutions, sexual relations, apostasy, and proselytes. Chapter Four shifts the

discussion to the role of the pig in the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE

and in the legends concerning this destruction. Chapter Five deals with the link between

the rabbinical identification of Rome with the pig and the boar emblem of the Legion X

Fretensis, its representation on the coins of Aelia Capitolina, and the statue of the sow

near the Jaffa Gate. Chapter Six addresses the rabbinical legend according to which

emperor Diocletian was a swineherd, which is analyzed in the light of Roman legend

regarding Diocletian as a boar hunter and the midrashic context of this legend in midrash

Genesis Rabbah. Chapter Seven is dedicated to the discourse on eating in midrash

Leviticus Rabbah 13. Chapter Eight discusses the interpretation of Psalms 80:14 (“The

wild boar out of the wood doth root it up, and the wild beasts of the field devour it”) by

the sages as well as by the Church Fathers. Chapter Nine deals with the midrash on the

name of the pig, and Chapter Ten addresses why the sages rarely use the simile of the

killing of the pig.

18
 Chapter 1
The Nature of the Pig
What was the nature of the pig for the sages of the Talmudim and midrashim?

Before we proceed to discuss the diverse porcine topoi in rabbinical literature (omnivores,

excrement and dirt, sexual lust, harmfulness, injurious voice, uselessness and idleness,

diseases, drunkenness, hypocrisy) let us observe the diverse observations that the sages

made concerning the biology and realia of the pig: the domesticated pig and the wild boar,

although similar to each other, are considered to be diverse-kinds;56 pregnancy of the sow

lasts sixty days;57 a sow becomes smaller as her litter grows;58 the pig is one of three

animals whose strength increases with age; 59 the pig has “sixty-hundred thousand

56
“R. Judah said, “A female mule which craved a male [mule] – “they do not mate with it either [one]
of the horses or of the asses, but only [one] of the male mules. The ox and the wild ass, the hog and the
wild boar, even though they are similar to one another, they are [considered] diverse-kinds [when they mate]
with one another.” T. Kilayim 1.8. Translation by Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta, vol. I, Zeraim (The Order of
Agriculture) (New York: Ktab, 1977), 250, with a slight alteration.
‫ שור ושור הבר] חמור וחמור הבר‬.‫ פרדה שתב עה זכר אין מרביעין עליה לא מן הסוס ולא מן החמור אלא מן הפרד‬:‫[ר' יודא אמר‬
. ‫חזיר וחזיר הבר אע"פ שדומין זה לזה כלאים זה בזה‬
57
T. Bekhorot 1.9-110 (cf. B. Berakhot 8a. GenRab 20.4.) “[Even though they said] A small clean
beast gives birth at five months. A large clean beast gives birth at nine months. A large unclean beast gives
birth at twelve months, the dog at fifty days, the cat at fifty-two, the pig at sixty days, the fox and all
creeping things at six months; the wolf, the lion, the bear, the panther, the leopard, the elephant, the baboon,
and the ape at three years, and the snake at seven years.” Translation by Neusner, The Tosefta, vol. V,
Qedoshim, 164. The period of sixty days is given by Aristotle, History of Animals 8.6 and Pliny, Natural
History 8.77.207.
58
LamR 1.51: “My children are desolate, for the enemy has prevailed” (Lamentations 1:16): R. Aibu
said, “It is like the tuber of a cabbage. As the cabbage increases in size, the tuber shrinks.” R. Judah b. R.
Simon said, “It is like a sow that shrinks as the litter grows.” Translation by Jacob Neusner, Theological
Commentary to the Midrash: Lamentations Rabbati (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2001),
172.
‫ ר' יהודה‬,‫ כהדא אפתא דקרא דכמה דההיא רבייא היא קטנא‬:‫ ר' איבו אמר‬- )‫ טז‬,‫“היו בני ]בניה[ שוממים כי גבר אויב” (איכה א‬
.‫ כהדא חזירתא דכמה דבניה רביין היא קטנא‬:‫בר' סימון אמר‬
59
B. Avodah Zarah 30b. My translation. “Rav Safra said in the name of R. Yehoshua of the South:
There are three types of venom: that of a young [one] sinks, that of a young [one] penetrates, and that of an
old [one] floats. To say that the older [one] grows the weaker it becomes? And it was taught in a Braisa:
three as they age their strength increases. These are they: the fish, the snake, and the pig. Its strength
increases, [but] its venom weakens.”
‫ דכמה‬,‫ למימרא‬.‫ ושל זקן צף‬,‫ של בינוני מפעפע‬,‫ של בחור שוקע‬:‫ שלשה מיני ארס הן‬:‫אמר רב ספרא משום ר' יהושע דרומא‬
,‫ וחזיר! כח אוסופי הוא דקא מוסיף‬,‫ נחש‬,‫ דג‬:‫ אלו הן‬,‫ שלשה כל זמן שמזקינין גבורה מתוספת בהן‬:‫דקשיש כחוש חיליה? והתניא‬
.‫זיהריה קליש‬
And b. Sabbath 77b.

19
(600,000) cards [folders/membranes]” in its stomach; 60 pig’s intestines are similar to

those of human beings; 61 and each seven years the field mouse is transformed into a

boar.62 Mishnah Bechoroth 4.4, referring to the physician Todos, mentions that a cow or a

sow does not leave Alexandria unless it is castrated,63 probably so that other breeders will

not be able to breed the Alexandrian race.64 As we will later see, the midrashim play with

60
B. Beḥorot 57b. “Pigs in our places have sixty-hundred thousand (600,000) cards
[folders/membranes] in their stomachs.” ‫ חזירין שבמקומנו יש להם ששים רבוא קלפים בבית המסס שלו‬.
61
. Ta’anit 21b. Translation by A. Steinsaltz, The Talmud, The Steinsaltz Edition, vol. XIV, Tractate
Ta’anit, part II (New York: Random House, 1995), 98-99
62
Y. Shabbat 1:3, 3b. “Once in seven years God changes his world: the chameleon becomes a great
serpent, the head-louse after seven years becomes a scorpion, the horse worm becomes a human worm, the
ox worm is changed into another species of vermin, the male hyena becomes female, the field-mouse
becomes a wild boar, the fish vertebra turns into a centipede and the human vertebra turns into a serpent
(…)” Translation by A Rabbinic Anthology, ed. Claude Goldsmid Montefiore and Herbert Loewe (New
York: Schocken, 1974), 662.
‫ אחת לשבע שנים הקב"ה מחלף את עולמו קמקמה מיתעביד חו רב פדה חד אפר מיתעביד שר‬:‫רבי יוסי בי רבי בון בשם רב זביד‬
‫מימיתה דרישא מתעביד עקרב ודמניא שממי תולעתא דסוסיא מתעבדא אורעי ודתורתא דברי צבוע הזכר נעשה נקבה עכברא דטורא‬
…‫מתעביד חזיר בר שיזרתא דנונא מיתעביד נדל ודבר נשא חיוי‬
63
Columella notes an operation is which is “performed with the knife on the wombs of the females to
make them suppurate and close up as a result of scarring over, so that they cannot breed.” Columella, On
Agriculture 7.9.5.
64
M. eḥorot 4.4. “If one that was not a [properly qualified] expert beheld the firstling, and it was
slaughtered at his word, it must be buried, and [this examiner] must pay compensation from his own
possessions. If [an unqualified person] gave a legal decision, declaring the guilty exempt or declaring the
innocent culpable, or declaring the clean unclean, or declaring the unclean clean, what he has done can not
be undone, but he must compensate [the wronged litigant] from his own means. But if an [authorized]
expert approved by the court [to act as judge gave a wrongful decision], he is exempt from having to make
restitution. It happened once that a cow had its womb removed, and R. Tarfon declared the carcass trefah
and fed it to the dogs; and when the matter came before the Sages they declared it permitted. Todos the
physician said, No cow or sow leaves Alexandria before they cut out its womb so that it can not bear
offspring. R. Tarfon said, ‘Gone is thine ass, Tarfon! R. Akiba said to him, ‘R. Tarfon, tho u art exempt, for
thou art an expert [qualified] by the court, and every expert [authorized] by the court is exempt from having
to make restitution.’” Translation by Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth, vol. V. Order Kodashim. (New York:
Judaica Press, 1964), 259-260.
‫ טמא את‬,‫ דן את הדין זיכה את החייב וחייב את הזכאי‬.‫מי שאינו מומחה וראה את הבכור ונשחט על פיו הרי זה יקבר וישלם מביתו‬
‫ מעשה בפרה שנטלה האם שלה‬.‫ ואם היה מומחה לבית דין פטור מלשלם‬.‫ מה שעשה עשוי וישלם מביתו‬,‫הטהור וטהר את הטמא‬
‫ אין פרה וחזירה יוצאה מלאכסנדריא עד שהם‬:‫ אמר תודוס הרופא‬.‫והאכילה רבי טרפון לכלבים ובא מעשה לפני חכמים והתירוה‬
‫ שאתה‬,‫ רבי טרפון פטור אתה‬:‫ אמר לו רבי עקיבא‬.‫ הלכה חמורך טרפון‬:‫ אמר רבי טרפון‬.‫חותכין את האם שלה בשביל שלא תלד‬
.‫מומחה לבית דין וכל המומחה לבית דין פטור מלשלם‬
And see also: . eḥorot 28b; B. Sanhedrin 33a; 93a. Psikta Zutara (Lekach Tov), Genesis 45.19. Sechel
Tov (Buber), Genesis 45.19. The Bavli (Sanhdrin 93a) asks what Daniel was doing when his friends
Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were in the furnace (Daniel 3): “And where did Daniel go [that he was
absent when this incident occurred]? Rav said: [He was sent by Nebuchadnezzar] to dig a great river in
Tiberias. And Shmuel says: [He was sent] to import aspasta seed [to Babylon]. And R. Yochanan says: [He
was sent] to import Alexandrian hogs [to Babylon to be bred there]. [The Gemara asks:] Is that so? But it
was taught in a Mishnah: Todos the Physician said: No cow or sow leaves Egyptian Alexandria without
their cutting out her womb so that she not bear young. [The Gemara aswers:] [Daniel] brought young ones
[out of Egypt] without their knowledge [of his intended purpose].”

20
the root H.Z.R (‫ר‬.‫ז‬.‫ )ח‬of the word for pig, ḥazir (‫ )חזיר‬to insist on its nature of return,

while the later medieval Psikta Zutara explains the name of the pig, in that it “turns all its

body, and does not turn its neck.” 65

Omnivorous Animal

The pig is an omnivorous animal that puts whatever it finds in its mouth: 66 it is

even an eater of corpses. According to Mishnah Ohalot 18.8, a Jew that enters to live in

house in Eretz Israel that previously belonged to a goy should examine it for buried

aborted babies because of corpse impurity, since according to the sages, the Goyim are

suspected to be buried in their houses.67 The school of Hillel states that “wherever a pig

or a rat can get into no examination is required,” probably because it was considered that

where a pig or a stoat can enter they took out or ate any buried body:

What [parts about a dwelling] have to be examined? The deep drains and the foul water.
The School of Shammai says, also the manure heaps and loose earth. And the School of
Hillel says, wherever a pig or a stoat can get into no examination is required. 68

‫ לאתויי חזירי‬:‫ ורבי יוחנן אמר‬.‫ לאתויי ביזרא דאספסתא‬:‫ ושמואל אמר‬.‫ למיכרא נהרא רבא בטבריא‬:‫ודניאל להיכן אזל? אמר רב‬
,‫ אין פרה וחזירה יוצא מאלכסנדריא של מצרים שאין חותכין האם שלה‬:‫ תודוס הרופא אמר‬,‫ איני? והתניא‬.‫דאלכסנדריא של מצרים‬
.‫ בלא דעתייהו‬,‫בשביל שלא תלד! זוטרי אייתי‬
65
Psikta Zutra, Leviticus Shemini 29b.
.‫ שמחזר כל גופו ואינו מחזר צוארו‬.‫ואת החזיר‬
66
Ecclesiastes Zuta 1 (ed. Buber).
.‫בן שנים ושלש שנים בולש (כנסין) [כוכין] כחזיר וכל מה שהוא מוצא נותן לתוך פיו‬
Compare to Aristophanes’s saying: “What is the pig’s favorite weakness?” “Anything you give them.”
Aristophanes, The Acharians 795. See also: Aristotle, History of Animals 8.6.15-22.595A.
67
For Gentile impurity and corpse impurity, see: Christine Elizabeth Hayes, Gentile Impurities and
Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002), 202.
68
M. Ohalot 18.8 (And B. Pesachim 9a). Mishnayoth, vol I. Order Taharoth (New York: Judaica,
1964), 291.
:‫ אף האשפתות ועפר התיחוח ובית הלל אומרים‬:‫ בית שמאי אומרים‬.‫את מה הם בודקים? את הביבים העמוקים ואת המים הסרוחים‬
.‫כל מקום שהחזיר והחולדה יכולים להלך בו אינו צריך בדיקה‬

21
Excrement and Dirt

Few rabbinic texts refer to the well known topos in the Greco-Roman world of the

pig’s love for excrement and dirt: 69 a Bavli’s proverb says: “Give a pig the heart of pal m

and he will do its deeds (burrow in the waste).”70 According to Ecclesiastes Rabbah, “at

two and three [years old, the child] is like a pig, sticking his hands in the gutters.”71 In

other versions, the reason the child is compared to a pig is that he rolls in waste heaps and

excrement, 72 or because he looks in niches like a pig, putting whatever he finds in its

mouth. 73 According to Tanḥuma, the drunkard is like the pig, “wallowing about in urine

and other things [sexual relations/excrement?].” 74 A famous Talmudic saying states that

“a pig is a moving toilet.” 75

The Yerusalmi states that one should remove himself at least four cubits from pig

dung before reciting the prayer of Sema:

Rabbi Yose bar Hanina said: One removes himself four cubits from animal dung. Rebbi
Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, if it is soft, but only from donkeys. Rebbi Hiyya bar Abba

69
See: Cristiano Grottanelli, “Avoiding pork: Egyptians and Jews in Greek and Latin texts,” in Food
and Identity in the Ancient World, ed. C. Grottanelli and L. Milano (Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N., 2004), 74-77.
70
YalShim 968.
71
“R. Samuel b. R. Isaac taught in the name of R. Samuel b. Eleazar: The seven ‘ anities’ mentioned
by Koheleth correspond to the seven worlds which a man beholds. At a year old he is like a king seated in a
canopied litter, fondled and kissed by all. At two and three he is like a pig, sticking his hands in the gutters.
At ten he skips like a kid. At twenty he is like neighing horse, adoring his person and longing for a wife.
Having married, he is like an ass. When he has begotten children, he grows brazen like a dog to supply
their food and wants. When he has become old, he is [bent] like an ape. What has just been said holds good
only of the ignorant; but of those versed in the Torah it is written, Now king David was old (1 Kings 1:1) –
although he was ‘old’, he was still a ‘king’.” EcclR 1.1
72
Tan Pekudei 3 (and minor tractate semachot 1.3)
.‫ כך שוגש בצואה כשהוא קטן בן שנתים‬,‫עולם שני דומה לחזיר שהוא שוגש באשפתות‬
73
Ecclesiastes Zuta 1 (ed. Buber).
74
Tan oaḥ 13. (and YalShim, oaḥ 61). ‫כחזיר מתלכלך במי רגלים ובדבר אחר‬
75
As for example in Yerushalmi (Berakhot 2.4.3.3) which deals with the question as to whether one
may pray in a bathouse which is not in use: “Rabbi Jermiah asked before Rabbi Zeïra: If it was used as bath
house in summer but not in the rainy season, what is the rule? He said to him, a bath house even if it is not
in use, a toilet even if it does not contain excrement. Mar Uqba said: a pig is a moving toilet.” Y. Berakhot
2:3, 4c. Translation by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, The Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot (Berlin and New
York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 187. And: b. Berakhot 26a.
‫ מרחץ ואע"פ שאינה מרחצת‬:‫ היתה מרחץ מרחצת בימו' החמה ואינ' מרחצת בימות הגשמי'? א"ל‬:‫ר' ירמיה בעא קומוי ר' זעירא‬
.‫ מר עוקב' אמ' אהן חזיר' בית כסא מטולטל‬.‫ובית הכסא אע"פ שאין בו צואה‬

22
 said, if it arrived from a trip. Levi said, one removes himself four cubits from the
excrement of a pig. And it was stated: One removes himself four cubits from the
excrement of a pig, four cubits from the excrement of a marten, four cubits from the
excrement of chickens. Rebi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: Only from
red76 one.77

Bavli Nida 58b notes that in a city in which there are pigs, a woman should not

fear that a bloodstain on her cloths is from her menstruation, and hence that she is impure:

Rav Ashi said: In a city, in which there are pigs, we are not concerned about [blood]
stains. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: And this city Dedokart [a city in Mesopotamia]
is like a city in which there are pigs. 78

76
Some commentators prefer to understand “Edomite.”
77
Y. Berakhot 3:5, 6d. Translation by Guggenheimer, The Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot, 314.
‫ רבי חייא בר‬.‫ ברכים ובלבד בשל חמור‬:‫ רבי שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר‬.‫ מרחיקין מגללי בהמה ארבע אמות‬:‫רבי יוסי בר חנינא אמר‬
‫ כן מרחיקין מצואת חזיר ארבע אמות ומצואת הנמייה‬:‫ ותני‬.‫ מרחיקין מצואת חזיר ארבע אמות‬:‫ לוי אמר‬.‫ בבא מן הדרך‬:‫אבא אמר‬
.‫ארבע אמות ומצואת התרנגולין [אדומים] ארבע אמות‬
Bavli Berakhot 25a: “It has been stated: a putrid odor that has a tangible source. Rabbi Huna said: [one]
distances himself four cubits and recites the Shema. And Rabbi Chisda said: distance four cubits from the
place where the odor has dissipated, and recite the Shema. It was taught in a Baraisa in accordance with
Rabbi Chisda: A man will not recite the Shema opposite human excrement, nor opposite dog excrement,
nor opposite pig excrement, nor opposite chicken excrement, nor opposite a trash heap whose odor is putrid.
But if [one of the above] was a place ten spans [tefyachim] higher or ten palms lower, [one should] sit
alongside [that place] and recite the Shema and if not he distances within eyesight, and so it for prayer. A
putrid odor that has a tangible source, one distances four cubits from the place of the smell and recites the
Shema. Rava said: the law is not in accord with this [aforementioned] Baraisa, but with this [other] Baraisa:
a man will not recite the Shema opposite human excrement, nor opposite pig excrement, nor opposite dog
excrement, when one placed hides in them [for tanning].[…] It was stated: passing excrement. Abaye said:
it is permitted to recite the Shema. Rava said: it is forbidden to recite the Shema. Abaye said: From where
do I say this? As we learned in a Mishnah: if an impure [person] is standing under a tree and a pure [person]
passes [underneath that tree], [the latter] is impure. If a pure [person] is standing under a tree and an impure
[person] passes [underneath], [the former, remains] pure. And if [the impure man stops and] stands [under
the tree, the other person is] impure. And so in the case with contaminated stone [with leprosy]. Rava could
tell you [that] there the matter is dependent on [the] permanence as it is written: “He shall dwell in isolation;
his dwelling shall be outside the camp (Lev.13:66)”. Here, the Merciful One said, “And your camp shall be
holy” (Deut. 23:51), and this there is not [the case]. Rav Pappa said: The mouth of a pig is like passing
excrement. [This is] obvious. [This teaching] is not necessary even though [the pig] has [just] emerged
from a river.”
‫ מרחיק ארבע אמות ממקום‬:‫ מרחיק ארבע אמות וקורא קריאת שמע; ורב חסדא אמר‬:‫רב הונא אמר‬. ‫ ריח רע שיש לו עיקר‬:‫אתמר‬
,‫ לא כנגד צואת אדם ולא כנגד צואת כלבים‬,‫ לא יקרא אדם קריאת שמע‬:‫ תניא כותיה דרב חסדא‬.‫ וקורא קריאת שמע‬,‫שפסק הריח‬
‫ ולא כנגד צואת אשפה שריחה רע; ואם היה מקום גבוה עשרה טפחים או נמוך‬,‫ ולא כנגד צואת תרנגולים‬,‫ולא כנגד צואת חזירים‬
‫ מרחיק ארבע‬- ‫ ריח רע שיש לו עיקר‬.‫ מרחיק מלא עיניו; וכן לתפלה‬- ‫ ואם לאו‬,‫ יושב בצדו וקורא קריאת שמע‬- ‫עשרה טפחים‬
‫ לא יקרא‬:‫ לית הלכתא כי הא מתניתא (בכל הני שמעתתא) אלא כי הא דתניא‬,‫ אמר רבא‬.‫ וקורא קריאת שמע‬,‫אמות ממקום הריח‬
:‫ בעו מיניה מרב ששת‬.‫אדם קריאת שמע לא כנגד צואת אדם ולא כנגד צואת חזירים ולא כנגד צואת כלבים בזמן שנתן עורות לתוכן‬
- ‫ אבל בקריאת שמע‬,‫ בדברי תורה‬- ‫ והני מילי‬.‫ דהני גנו והני גרסי‬,‫ אתו חזו הני ציפי דבי רב‬:‫ריח רע שאין לו עיקר מהו? אמר להו‬
‫ מותר לקרות קריאת שמע; רבא‬:‫ צואה עוברת; אביי אמר‬,‫ אתמר‬.‫ לא‬- ‫ אבל דידיה‬,‫לא; ודברי תורה נמי לא אמרן אלא דחבריה‬
‫ טהור עומד תחת‬,‫ טמא‬- ‫ הטמא עומד תחת האילן והטהור עובר‬: ‫ מנא אמינא לה ? דתנן‬:‫ אמר אביי‬.‫ אסור לקרות קריאת שמע‬:‫אמר‬
‫ "בדד ישב‬: ‫ דכתיב‬,‫ בקביעותא תליא מילתא‬- ‫ התם‬:‫ ורבא אמר לך‬.‫ טמא; וכן באבן המנוגעת‬- ‫ ואם עמד‬,‫ טהור‬- ‫האילן וטמא עובר‬
‫ פי חזיר‬:‫ אמר רב פפא‬.‫ והא ליכא‬:‫ אמר רחמנא‬,)‫ טו‬,‫ "והיה מחניך קדוש" (דברים כג‬:‫ הכא‬,)‫ מו‬,‫מחוץ למחנה מושבו" (ויקרא יג‬
! ‫ פשיטא‬.‫כצואה עוברת דמי‬
78
B. Nida 58b.

23
 The reasoning seems to be that the pig dirties its environment with drops of

bloods coming out of his mouth. A city of pigs stands for a filthy city, and hence a city

that is considered impure, such as Dedokart, is “like” a city of pigs.

This rabbinical disgust for the dirty pig became famous due to the 12th century

Rabbi, doctor, and philosopher Maimonides’ explanation of avoidance of pork:

I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothin g
among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork and
fat. But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture
than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal
reason why the Law forbids swine’s flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits
and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how
emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the
field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such sight in towns. But if it were
allowed to eat swine’s flesh, the streets and houses would be dirtier than any cesspool, as
may be seen at present in the country of the Franks. A saying of our Sages declares: “The
mouth of a pig is like passing excrement" (B. Berakhot 25a)” 79

This explanation suggests that we differentiate between the sages who refuse to

directly explain the reason d’être of the avoidance of pork and medieval rabbis who

attempt to give a few rational explanations for this. In early rabbinic literature, the pig’s

dirtiness does not explain the avoidance of pork, but rather indirectly reinforces its

meaning by insisting on the repugnant nature of the animal.

Sexual Lust

The pig is associated in several texts with negative sexuality. Bavli Avoda Zara

states that a man should not look at a male pig and a sow while they procreate:

Nor upon the colorful clothing of a woman. Nor shall one gaze upon a he-donkey, nor
upon a she donkey, nor upon a pig, nor upon a sow, nor upon birds, at the time they mate
with one another. 80

.‫ כעיר שיש בה חזירים דמיא‬- ‫ והא דדוקרת‬:‫ אמר ר" נ בר יצחק‬.‫ אין חוששין לכתמים‬- ‫ עיר שיש בה חזירים‬:‫אמר רב אשי‬
79
Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, trans. M. Friedlander (London: Geroge Routledge,
1919), 370-71.
80
B. Avodah Zara 20b.

24
 Another link between the pig and sexuality is found in Bavli Moed Katan, where

the pig is the instrument of punishment for having forbidden sexual relations:

Rafram b. Papa said, It is taught in the Ebel Rabbathi: “A mourner is forbidden to use the
[conjugal] couch during his [seven] days of mourning;” and it happened [once] with one
who used his [conjugal] couch during the [seven] days of his mourning that a swine
hauled away his carcass. 81

Likewise, the later Midrash on Proverbs interprets the pig as representing a

prostitute in Proverbs 11:22: “Gold ring in a pig's snout, a beautiful woman of errant

sense”:

“Gold ring in a pig's snout, a beautiful woman of errant sense,” (Proverbs 11:22) - If he
put all the gold in a pig’s snout and it [the pig] goes and makes it dirty in the mud it does
not corrupt it [the gold]. Likewise a Ta mid Ḥaḥam [Torah’s scholar] that goes to a
prostitute and has sexual intercourse with her, did not corrupt his Torah. And it is true,
for concerning it was said: “Gold ring in a pig's snout.” 82

Harmfulness

The Hebrew Bibe describes the pig as a harmful animal: In Psalms 80:14, the wild

pig (‫ )חזיר מיער‬symbolized the destruction of Israel/the Temple: “(13) Why hast thou

broken down its walls, so that all who pass along the way pluck its fruit? (14) The boar

]‫ י( שלא יסתכל אדם באשה נאה ואפילו פנויה באשת איש ואפי' מכוערת ולא בבגדי צבע [של‬,‫" ונשמרת מכל דבר רע” (דברים כג‬
.‫ ולא בחמור ולא בחמורה ולא בחזיר ולא בחזירה ולא בעופות בזמן שנזקקין זה לזה‬,‫אשה‬
Also Midr Tann, Deutronomy 23.10.
‫ "כי תצא מח' על אי' ונשמ' מכל דבר רע" ואם‬:'‫ כת‬:‫ אמר ר' יוסי ביר' חנינה‬.‫ במלחמה חובה הכת' מדבר‬- "‫"כי תצא מחנה איביך‬
‫ אם בקשת להשתמר מכל דבר רע‬- "‫ "ונשמרת מכל דבר רע‬.‫אינו יוצא אינו נשמר אלא מכאן שאין השטן מקטרג אלא בשעת סכנה‬
‫אל תסתכל באשה נאה ואפלו פנויה באשת איש ואפלו מכוערה ולא בבגדי צבע אשה ולא בחמור ולא בחמורה ולא בחזיר ולא‬
.‫בחזירה ולא בעופות בשעה שמזדקקין זה לזה מפני שמלאך עומד מלמעלן ומלמטן וחרבו שלופה בידו‬
81
B. Moed Katan 24a.
‫ ושמטו חזירים‬,‫ ומעשה באחד ששימש מטתו בימי אבלו‬.‫ אבל אסור לשמש מטתו בימי אבלו‬:‫ תנא באבל רבתי‬, ‫אמר רפרם בר פפא‬
.‫את גוייתו‬
82
MidProv 11, 62-64. My translation.
‫ כך‬.‫ אינו סורחו‬,‫ אם נותן את כל זהב באף חזיר והוא הולך ומלכלכו בטיט‬.)‫ כב‬:‫נזם זהב באף חזיר אשה יפה וסרת טעם (משלי יא‬
‫ לכך נאמר נזם זהב באף חזיר [אשה‬,‫ הוי אומר הין‬.‫אם הלך תלמיד חכמ' אצל אשה זונה ועושה צורכה עמה אינו מקלקל את תורתו‬
.)‫ כב‬:‫יפה וסרת טעם] (משלי יא‬
Midrash Mishle: A Critical Edition based on Vatican MS. Ebre. 44, ed. Burton I. Visotzky (New York: The
Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1990), 91-92 (Hebrew).

25
from the forest (ya’ar) ravages it, and the beasts of the field feed on it.” 83 As we will later

see, in several midrashim this phrase refers to the oppression of Israel by the Romans,

who, like “the boar of the forests kills people and injures folk and smites men.” 84 The

boar is an evil beast, which one has to eradicate. Referring to Leviticus 26:6, “I will give

you peace in the land, after I will cause evil beasts to cease from the land,” the midrash

notes that “evil beasts can refer only to the boar, for it is said, “The wild boar out of the

wood doth root it up, and the wild beasts of the field devour it” (Ps. 80:14).” 85 The

damage caused by pigs led to legal problems. The Tosefta notes that one has to pay the

full payment for the damage caused by a pig that ate pieces of meat. 86 In the discussion

on tzerorot laws concerning the damage done indirectly by an animal which, while

walking, splashes stones or earth which damage things in its way, it is noted that - for “a

pig which was rooting around and did damage with its snout – [the owner] pays the full

value of the damages it has caused.” 87

The danger of the pig is also magical. According to Bavli Pesaḥim, a man should

not pass between two pigs or a pig between two men: “Our Rabbis taught: There are three

who must not pass between [two men], nor may [others] pass between them, viz.: a dog, a

palm tree, and a woman. Some say: a swine too; some say, a snake too.” The Talmud also

provides the remedy for such a transgression: “Said, R. Papa: Let them commence [a
83
Weiser, The Psalms, 546.
84
ARN A 34. Translation by Goldin, The Fathers, 138.
.‫ ומלקה בני אדם‬,‫ ומזיק את הבהמות‬,‫מה חזיר מיער הורג נפשות‬
85
Translation by William G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, vol. 2 (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1959), 293.
,‫ ואין חיה רעה אלא חזיר‬,)‫ ו‬,‫ שם‬,‫ אימתי יהיה כן? " והשבתי חיה רעה מן הארץ" (שם‬.)‫ ו‬,‫" ונתתי שלום בארץ" (ויקרא כו‬
)‫ יד‬,‫ " יכרסמנה חזיר מיער" ( תהלים פ‬:‫שנאמר‬
86
T. Baba Kama 1.8.
87
T. Baba Kama 1.8. B. Baba Kama 17b. See: Amitai Salomon, “Din Tzerorot veMekorotav, (The
Law of Tzerorot and its Origin),” Petuhi Hotam 3 (2008): 110-145 (Hebrew). Avishalom Westreich,
“Gibuso ePituho she din t erorot bedibrei haTana’aim, bedibrei haAmora’aim ubata mudim (The
Formation and Development of Tzerorot Law in the Saying of the Tannaits, Amoraics and the Talmuds,”
Sidra 19 (2004): 77-100 (Hebrew).

26
verse] with el [God] and end with el. Others say: Let them commence [a Scriptural

passage] with lo [not] and finish with lo.88

Injurious voice

A later midrash notes, “Three voices are hard to humans: the voice of adolescent;

the voice of mice; the voice of pigs. And there are who say also the voice of thunder and

the voice of donkeys.” 89 It is also possible that in some versions of the legend of the

destruction of the Temple, the pig is said to cause the destruction by its screaming. 90

Uselessness and Idleness

The uselessness of the pig is a common Greco-Roman topos,91 which goes hand

in hand with the idea that the pig is an idle animal which is only good after its death. This

is an idea found in an Aesopian story incorporated in midrash Esther Rabbah (which will

be discussed in detail in chapter ten). According to this story, a man that had a filly, a

she–ass, and a sow gave the sow more to eat than he gave to the working animals, but

finally this worked against the sow´s interest, for after being fattened it was butchered.

Observing this, the she-ass barely ate. However, “her mother told her: “my daughter, it is

not the food that is the cause, but the idleness.”92 A similar observation on the use lessness

88
B. Peshim 111a. Translation by Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonain Talmud, Pesahim
(London: The Soncino Press, 1967), with slight alteration.
‫ ואי‬.‫ אף הנחש‬:‫ ויש אומרים‬,‫ אף החזיר‬:‫ ויש אומרים‬.‫ והאשה‬,‫ הכלב והדקל‬:‫ ואלו הן‬,‫ שלשה אין ממצעין ולא מתמצעין‬:‫תנו רבנן‬
.‫ נפתח בלא ונפסיק בלא‬:‫ אי נמי‬.‫ נפתח באל ונפסיק באל‬:‫ממצעין מאי תקנתיה? אמר רב פפא‬
89
Otzar haMidrashim, ed. J. D. Eiesenstein (New York: Eiesenstein, 1915), 168 (hupat Eliyau).
.‫ וי"א אף קול רעמים וקול חמורים‬,‫(ע"ה) שלשה קולות קשין על בני אדם קול נערים קול עכברים קול חזירים‬
90
See: Saul Liberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta, vol. 9,
Second Augmented Edition (New Yotk: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992), 185 (Hebrew). And Ibid.
Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature (Meḥ arim be-Torat rets- i ra e ) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991),
488-490 (Hebrew).
91
See for example Ovid, Fasti 1. 349-362; 1.655; Metamorphoses 15.111-121.
92
Esther Rabbah 7.10.
. ‫ בתי לא המאכל גורם אלא הבטלה גורמת‬:‫אמרה לה אמה‬

27
of the pig is found in Midrash Zuta’s comment that while the sheep is sheered and grows

wool, the pig is not sheered and does not grow wool:

A man should not say: I reduce my goods if I will give [alms] to the poor. [Rather] a man
should observe that what does not diminish does not increase. The hair of the head and
beard which are cut always grow, and the eyebrows are not cut ever and never grow. And
indeed Israel was compared to a sheep that is sheered and grows wool, while the pig is
not sheered and does not grow [wool].” 93

Diseases

Bavli, Ta’anit explicitly notes the danger of contagion between pigs and humans:

They said to Rav Yehudah: “There is pestilence among the pigs.” He decreed a fast. Shall
we say [that] Rav Yehudah maintains [that] an epidemic that is spread among one species
will spread among all the species? No. Pigs are different, because their intestines are
similar to those of human beings. 94

It is not clear what sort of epidemic the Talmud associates with pigs and humans.

However, in some rabbinic sources we find the link between the pig and leprosy. 95 Bavli

Kidushin 49b notes: “Ten measures of disease [nèga’im] descended to the world. Pigs

took nine, [and the rest of the world took one].” 96 The word nèga’im (pl.), nèga’ (sing.) is

one of the words for ‘leprosy” and other skin diseases in rabbinical texts. The saying can

be understood to mean that the pig suffers from leprosy more than any other creature of

the world, that it is the leprous animal par excellence. In Bavli Sabbath, another

connection seems to be made between pork and leprosy:

93
Midrash Zuta, Song of Songs (ed. Buber) 1.15. My translation.
‫ שער הראש והזקן שהן מסתפרין‬:‫ יסתכל אדם כל מה שאינו מחסר אינו מוסיף‬.‫ מחסר אני מנכסי אם אתן לעניים‬:‫לא יאמר אדם‬
‫ והן נמשלו ישראל לרחל שגוזזים אותה והיא מגדלת צמר בכל שנה‬,‫ והגבינים אינם מסתפרים לעולם ואינם מגדלין‬,‫לעולם מגדלין‬
.‫ החזיר אינו נגזז ואינו מוסיף‬,‫ושנה‬
94
B. Ta’anit 21b.
,‫ נימא קסבר רב יהודה מכה משולחת ממין אחד משולחת מכל המינין? לא‬.‫ גזר תעניתא‬.‫ איכא מותנא בחזירי‬:‫אמרו ליה לרב יהודה‬
.‫ דדמיין מעייהו לבני אינשי‬,‫שאני חזירי‬
95
The link between leprosy and pigs is also found in Egyptian and Greco-Roman sources. See
Grottanelli, “Avoiding Pork,” 70-74 and Youri Volokhine‘s forthcoming book: Le porc en Egypte: Mythes
et histoire à ’origine des interdis a imentaires.
96
B. Kiddushin 49b. '‫ ט' נטלו חזירים כו‬,‫עשרה קבים נגעים ירדו לעולם‬

28
 Rav and Shmuel both say: One who undergoes the procedure [of blood letting] should eat
something [first] and then leave [the house]. For if he does not eat anything [before
leaving, he exposes himself to a host of dangers:] if he meets up with a corpse, his face
will turn green. If he meets up with a murderer, he will die. If he meets up with “that
other thing,” [which Rashi identifies as a pig] it is harmful with regard to “that other
thing” [Rashi: i.e. leprosy]. 97

The eleventh century commentator Rashi based his reading of ‘another thing’

[davar haḥer] as first meaning once pig and then leprosy on Kidusin 49b (“Ten measures

of disease [nega’im] descended to the world. Pigs took nine, [and the rest of the world

took one]).” Similarly, he understood a story in Bavli, Ketubot:

Ameimar, Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi were [once] sitting by the entrance to King Izgur’s
palace. The king’s steward passed by [carrying the king’s food]. Rav Ashi saw that Mar
Zutra’s face became pale. He took [some of the food] with his finger [and] placed it into
[Mar Zutra’s] mouth. [The steward] said to [Rav Ashi], “You ruined the king’s meal!”
[They] said to him, “Why did you do thus?” [Rav Ashi] said to them, “Whoever prepared
[food] in this manner disqualifies the king’s food.” They said to him, “Why?” [Rav Ashi]
said to them, “I saw another thing [(Rashi) leprous pig meat] 98 [in the dish].” They
inspected [the dish] and did not find [any leprous meat. Rav Ashi] took [the chef’s finger
[and] placed it on [one particular peace] of the meat, [and] said to them, “Did you inspect
here?” They inspected [that piece of meat and miraculously] they found [it to be leprous].
The Rabbis said to [Rav Ashi] “What is the reason you relied on a miracle?” He said to
them, “I saw a spirit of leprosy sprouting on him.” 99

We may conclude that the alleged connection between the “leprous” pig meat, i.e.

meat suffering from Taenia solium custicercus, and leprosy, which is known to us from the

Middle Ages, also existed in early rabbinic literature (as in Greco-Roman literature).

Leprosy however must not be understood as only referring to Hansen’s disease, but rather

to a great number of skin diseases that cause scales and measles.

97
B. Sabath 129a. Translation by Schottenstein Talmud (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1990–2005),
with slight alteration.
, ‫ ירקא אפיה‬- ‫ אי פגע בשכבא‬,‫ דאי לא טעים מידי‬,‫ ליטעום מידי והדר ליפוק‬- ‫ האי מאן דעביד מילתא‬:‫רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו‬
.‫ קשה לדבר אחר‬- ‫ אי פגע בדבר אחר‬,‫ מית‬- ‫אי פגע במאן דקטל נפשא‬
98
Rashi: ‫ ובלשון לעז קורין לו שורשמי"ן‬,‫בשר של חזיר מצורע‬
99
B. Ketubot 61a. Translation by Schottenstein Talmud, with sligth alteration.
‫ חזייה רב אשי למר זוטרא דחוור‬,‫ חליף ואזיל אטורנגא דמלכא‬,‫אמימר ומר זוטרא ורב אשי הוו קא יתבי אפיתחא דבי אזגור מלכא‬
,‫ מאן דעביד הכי‬:‫ אמאי תיעביד הכי? אמר להו‬:‫ אמרו ליה‬.‫ אפסדת לסעודתא דמלכא‬: ‫ א"ל‬.‫ שקל באצבעתיה אנח ליה בפומיה‬,‫אפיה‬
‫ הכא‬:‫ אמר להו‬.‫ שקל אצבעתיה אנח עליה‬.‫ בדקו ולא אשכחו‬.‫ דבר אחר חזאי ביה‬:‫ אמר להו‬. ‫ אמאי‬:‫ אמרו ליה‬.‫פסיל למאכל דמלכא‬
.‫ חזאי רוח צרעת דקא פרחה עילויה‬:‫ אמר להו‬.‫ מ"ט סמכת אניסא‬:‫ אמרו ליה רבנן‬.‫ בדקו אשכחו‬.‫מי בדקיתו‬

29
 Fig. 1: Cysticercosis muscle of a Pig. The several vesicular ovoid nodules, whitish-
yellow and smaller than a green pea, are larvae of Taenia solium.

Interestingly, despite the negative nature of the pig, Bavli Shabbat 110b provides

a remedy for a disease called Yerakon (probably jaundice):100 take a “speckled another

thing (da har aḥer = pig), tear it open and apply it to the sick heart.” 101

Drunkenness

Referring to Noah’s drunkenness after the flood, during which his pudenda was

exposed to his younger son Ham (Gn 9:21-28), the sages compare one of the stages of

drunkenness to the behavior of pig:

Our teachers of blessed memory stated: While Noah was planting the vineyard; Satan
appeared before him and asked: “What are you planting?” He answered: “A vineyard.”
“What is it?” inquired Satan. “Its fruits are sweet, whether moist or dry,” he answered,
“and from them one produces a wine that causes the heart of man to rejoice, as it is
written: “And wine doth make glad the heart of man (Ps. 104:15).” Satan suggested:
“Come, let us be partners in the vineyard.” And Noah replied: “Certainly.”
What did Satan do? First, he obtained a lamb and slaughtered it beneath the vineyard.
Then, he took a lion and slaughtered it there, and after that he obtained a pig and an ape
and slaughtered them in the same place. Their blood seeped into the earth, watering the
vineyard. He did this to demonstrate to Noah that before drinking wine man is as
innocent as a sheep: “Like a sheep that before her shearers is dumb (Is. 53:7).” But after
he drinks a moderate amount of wine he believes himself to be as strong as a lion,
boasting that no one in all the world is his equal. When he drinks more than he should, he
behaves like a pig, wallowing about in urine and performing other base acts. After he
becomes completely intoxicated, he behaves like an ape, dancing about, laughing

100
Fred Rosner, “Yerakon in the Bible, and Talmud: Jaundice or anemia,” The American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 25, no. 6 (1972): 626-628.
101
B. Shabbat 110b.
.‫ ולותביה אליביה‬,‫ליתי דבר אחר חוטרנא וליקרעיה‬

30
 hysterically, prattling foolishly, and is completely unaware of what he is doing. All this
happened to the righteous Noah. If the righteous Noah, whom the Holy One, blessed be
He, praised, could behave in such a fashion, how much more so could any other man! 102

Hypocrisy

In Leviticus Rabbah 13 (and Genesis Rabbah 65.1), it is argued that the Roman

Empire/Esau is compared to a pig because the empire in its hypocrisy pretends to be pure:

“Just as the swine when reclining puts forth its hooves as if to say: See that I am

clean.”103

Discussion

We have reviewed some of the topoi concerning pigs found in the rabbinic

literature: omnivores, excrement and dirt, sexual lust, harmfulness, injurious voice,

uselessness and idleness, diseases, drunkenness, and hypocrisy. To these, we must of

course add impurity, which is the most present and will be at the heart of our discussion

later on. All these topoi are found in Greco-Roman literature, 104 but many other topoi

found in these texts are absent in rabbinic literature: criminality, tyranny, injustice, death,

102
Tan, oaḥ 13. (and YalShim, oaḥ 61). Translation by Samuel A. Berman, Midrash Tanhuma-
Yelammedenu: An English Translation of Genesis and Exodus from the Printed Version of Tanhuma-
Yelammedenu with an Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (Hoboken, NJ: KTAV, 1995), 66-67
‫ מה טיבו? פירותיו מתוקים בין לחים בין‬:‫ א"ל‬.‫ כרם‬:‫ מה אתה נוטע? א"ל‬:‫ א"ל‬,‫ כשבא נח ליטע כרם בא שטן ועמד לפניו‬:‫ארז"ל‬
: ‫ א"ל‬,‫ בא ונשתתף שנינו בכרם זה‬:‫ א"ל שטן‬.)‫ " ויין ישמח לבב אנוש" ( תהלים קד‬:‫יבשים ועושין מהן יין המשמח לבבות דכתיב‬
‫ ואח"כ הביא קוף והרגו תחת‬,‫ ואח"כ הביא חזיר והרגו‬,‫ אח"כ הביא ארי והרגו‬,‫ מה עשה שטן? הביא כבש והרגו תחת הגפן‬.‫לחיי‬
‫ רמז לו שקודם שישתה אדם מן היין הרי הוא תם ככבש זו שאינה יודעת כלום‬,‫הכרם והטיפו דמן באותו הכרם והשקוהו מדמיהן‬
‫ כיון ששתה יותר מדאי נעשה‬,‫ שתה כהוגן הרי הוא גבור כארי ואומר אין כמותו בעולם‬,)‫ ז‬,‫" וכרחל לפני גוזזיה נאלמה" ( ישעיה נג‬
,‫כחזיר מתלכלך במי רגלים ובדבר אחר נשתכר נעשה כקוף עומד ומרקד ומשחק ומוציא לפני הכל נבלות הפה ואינו יודע מה יעשה‬
.‫ שאר בני אדם על אחת כמה וכמה‬,‫ מה נח הצדיק שהקב"ה פירש שבחו כך‬.‫וכל זה אירע לנח הצדיק‬
For this story in the context of the rabbinic folktale, see: Eli Yassif, The Hebrew Folktale: History, Genre,
Meaning (Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Press, 1999), 82.
103
LevR 5.4. (and GenR, Toledoth 64.1). Translation by J. Israelstam and Judah J. Slotki, Midrash
Rabbah, Leviticus (London; New York: Soncino Press, 1939), 174.
104
Grottinelli is wrong when stating that aside from the topos of the filthiness of the pig, other Greco-
Roman topoi concerning the pig are not found in Talmudic literature. See Grottanelli, “Avoiding Pork,”
78.

31
being nothing but meat, earthiness, fecundity, gluttony, excrement-eating, cannibalism,

courage, ferocity, and stupidity. However, the rabbinic portrait of the pig more or less

resembles the main traits of this animal in Greco-Roman discourse, as for example in the

anonymous Latin Treatise of Physiognomy (4th cent. CE?), where the pig is portrayed as

violent, ignorant, filthy, voracious, foulmouthed, insatiable, unclean, irascible, a drunkard

and a criminal [fig. 2]. 105

sky

Improper meat for

philosophers Pig sacrifice
Enemy of the The courageous
divinty Boar

Negative Positive
Stupidty Impurity Strong meat
Boar sterility
Flthiness Fecundity
Criminality
Gluttony Rich as the soil
Downcast eyes
excrement Plowing animal
Lust Rooting
Death animal
Leprosy
Earth

Fig. 2: The Porcine Greco-Roman Discursive Sphere

(Rabbinical Literature’s themes in boxes).

Two characteristics of the rabbinic porcine discourse distinguish it from Greco-

Roman discourse: first, it does not give any positive place to the pig, and secondly it

tends to refer to the domestic animal and the savage one in the same terms, associating

both animals together, which is manifested by calling both ḥa ir. As we will later see,

this negative nature of the pig reinforces the meaning of the avoidance of pork as well of

its eaters.

105
Treatise of Physiognomy (De Physiognomonia Liber) 14, 17, 18, 48, 51, 194. Anonyme Latin,
Traité de physiognomonie, trad. Jacques André (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1981), 61, 64, 66, 88-89, 90,
127.

32
 Chapter 2
The Prohibited Animal
For the sages, the pig was above all a prohibited animal that raised diverse legal

issues. While Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus 11 prohibit only its consumption and the

touching of its carcass, the Sages also discuss a variety of other possible prohibitions:

breeding, feeding, commerce, or using pig hide. After discussing these cases, I will

address the Sages’ understandings of the biblical prohibition of pork and their refusal to

explain the grounds for this prohibition.

Prohibition of Breeding

One of the manifestations of the repulsion the sages held for the pig is the

Mishnaic’s law that “no one may raise swine in any place”. 106 Likewise, Avot deRabbi

Nathan (version A), speaking about the ritual laws concerning Jerusalem, notes that

“neither geese nor chickens may be raised there, nor needless to say, pigs.” 107 In the

Tosefta, Rabbi Eleazar is quoted saying, “One who raises dogs is like one who raises

pigs.” 108 The context of the mentioned curse is given in the Bavli: 109 the civil war

106
M. baba Kamma 7.7. “They may not raise small cattle in the Land of Israel, but they may rear them
in Syria or in the wilderness in the Land of Israel. They may not raise fowls in Jerusalem because of the
sacrifices; nor may priests [rear them] in the Land of Israel because of [the laws regarding Levitically
prepared] clean foods. And no one may raise swine in any place. A man may not rear a dog unless it is tied
on a chain. They may not set snares for doves unless they are thirty ris from an inhabited place.”
Translation by Blackman, Mishnayoth, vol. IV, 62.
‫ אין מגדלין תרנגולים בירושלם מפני הקדשים‬.‫אין מגדלין בהמה דקה בארץ ישראל אבל מגדלין בס וריא ובמדברות שבארץ ישראל‬
‫ אין‬.‫ לא יגדל אדם את הכלב אלא אם כן היה קשור בשלשלת‬.‫ אין מגדלין חזירים בכל מקום‬.‫ולא כהנים בארץ ישראל מפני הטהרות‬
:‫פורסין נישבים ליונים אלא אם כן היה רחוק מן הישוב שלשים ריס‬
107
ARN A 35. Translation by Goldin, The Fathers, 144. ‫ ואין צריך לומר‬.‫ואין מגדלין בה אווזין ותרנגולין‬
‫חזירים‬
108
T. Baba Batra (ed. Liberman) 8.17.
.‫ המגדל כלבים כמגדל חזירים‬:‫ר ליעזר אומר‬
See also the discussion of Rabi Eleazar in Tosefta Yevamot 3.3: “They asked R. Eleazar, “A mamzer – may
he inherit?” He said to them: “May he perform halisah?” “May he perform halisah?” He said to them,
“May he inherit?” “May he inherit?” He said to them, “May one plaster his house?” [ “May one plaster his
house?”] He said to them, “May one plaster his grave?” “May one plaster his grave?” He said to them,
“May one raise dogs?” “May one raise dogs?” He said to them, “May one raise pigs?” “May one raise

33
between the brothers Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II at the end of the Hasmonean dynasty.

According to the story (discussed in detail in chapter four), during the siege of Jerusalem

each day the besieged lowered dinars over the wall in a box, and the besiegers raised up

to them sacrificial animals for the daily offering (the tamid). However, one day,

following the advice of an old man who was knowledgeable about Greek wisdom, the

besiegers replaced the pure sacrificial animals with a pig. When the pig thrust its paws

against the wall, the city fell. Hence, “at that time did they declare: “Cursed be the man

who will rear pigs! And cursed be the man who will teach his son Greek wisdom. 110 Here,

pig breeders are analogous to assimilated Jews who blur the boundary between Jews and

non-Jews and finally became traitors. The sages’ disdain for pig breeding is also

pigs?” He said, “May one raise roosters?” “May one raise roosters?” He said to them, “May one raise small
cattle?” “May one raise small cattle?” He said to them, “May one save the shepherd from the wolf?” “May
one save the shepherd from the wolf?” He said to them, “It seems you have asked me only concerning the
lamb?”And as regards the lamb, “May one save [it]?” He said to them, “It seems you have asked only about
the shepherd.” So-and-so, what is he as to [does he enter] the world to come? So and so, what is he as to the
world to come?” He said to them, “It seems that you have asked only about so-and-so.” “And so-and-so,
what is he [=his status] as the world to come?” R. Eleazar was not putting them off, but he never said
anything which he had not heard.” Translation by Jacob Neusner, Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and
the Man, Part 1, The Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 178.
:‫ מהו לסוד את ביתו? אמר להם‬:‫ מהו לירש? אמרו‬:‫ מהו לחלוץ? ומהו לחלוץ? א"ל‬:‫ ממזר מהו לירש? אמר להם‬:‫שאלו את ר" א‬
‫ מהו לגדל חזירים? מהו לגדל חזירים? אמר‬: ‫ מהו לגדל כלבים? א"ל‬:‫ מהו לסוד את ביתו? אמרו לו‬:‫מהו לסוד את קברו? אמר להם‬
‫ מה להציל את‬:‫ מהו לגדל בהמה דקה? מהו לגדל בהמה דקה? אמר להם‬:‫ מהו לגדל תרנגולים? מהו לגדל תרנגולים? א"ל‬:‫להם‬
:‫ דומה שלא שאלתם אלא על הכבשה ואת הכבשה מהו להציל? אמר להן‬:‫הרועה מיד הזאב? להציל את הרועה מיד הזאב? א"ל‬
] ‫ דומה שלא שאלתם אלא על פלוני ופלוני‬:‫דומה שלא שאלתם אלא על הרועה פלוני מהו לעוה"ב ופלוני מהו לעוה"ב? אמר להם‬
.‫מהו לעוה"ב] ולא שהיה ר"א מפליגן אלא שלא אמר דבר שלא שמע מימיו‬
109
B. Baba Kamma 72b; Menahot 49b; Sota 49b. The three versions are identical, but in the Sota 49b
version the place of Aristobolus and Horkanus is reversed.
110
B. Menahot 49b.
‫ בכל יום ויום היו משלשלין דינרים בקופה ומעלין‬.‫ היה הורקנוס מבחוץ ואריסטובלוס מבפנים‬,‫כשצרו מלכי בית חשמונאי זה על זה‬
‫ "כל זמן שעוסקים בעבודה אין נמסרין‬:‫ אמר להן‬,‫ לעז להם בחכמת יוונית‬,‫ היה שם זקן אחד שהיה מכיר בחכמת יוונית‬.‫להן תמידים‬
.‫ נזדעזעה א" י ארבע מאות פרסה‬.‫ נעץ צפרניו‬,‫ כיון שהגיע לחצי חומה‬,‫ למחר שלשלו להם דינרים בקופה והעלו להם חזיר‬."‫בידכם‬
.‫ וארור אדם שילמד לבנו חכמת יוונית‬,‫ "ארור אדם שיגדל חזירים‬:‫אותה שעה אמרו‬
The Yerushalmi (Ta’anit 4.68; Berachot 4.7) tells two analogous episodes from the time of Greece and
Rome. Bavli Baba Kama (83a) after discussing the studying of Greek refers to Rabbi Eleazar’s saying: “It
was taught in [another] Beraitah: R’ Elieser the Great says: One who raises dogs is like one who raises pigs.
[the Gemara asks:] Regarding what [matter] is this relevant? To implicate him, [the one who raises dogs,]
in the [Rabbis’ imprecation,] “Cursed be [the man who raises swine].”
.‫ למאי נפקא מינה? למיקם עליה בארור‬.‫ המגדל כלבים כמגדל חזירים‬:‫תניא רבי אליעזר הגדול אומר‬

34
manifested in a story told by the Yerusalmi of how a non-Jewish noble woman told a

rabbi that his face is radiant like that of a pig breeder:

When Rabbi Yona drank four cups during the night of Pesach, he held his head until
Pentecost. Rabbi Yuda son of Rabbi Elai, drank four cups in the night of Pesach, and held
his head until Sukkot! A Matrona saw his face glowing. She said to him: Old man, old
man, one out of three things is in you: Either you are wine drinker, or a usurer or a pig
farmer. He answered her: May the spirit leave this woman! None of these three things is
in me but my learning as is written: “the wisdom of man makes his face shine.” (Eccl.
8:1) 111.112

Why does the face of wine drinker, or a usurer or a pig farmer shine? Rashi

explains that the three faces shine of happiness for they gain a lot without effort. 113 In

rabbinic and Greco-Roman sources, we find the link of the pig to drunkenness, 114 and

also to richness, 115 which might explain the analogy the story creates between a wine

drinker, a usurer, and a pig farmer. What is important to our subject here is that the pig

breeder is presented as the opposite of the Talmudic scholar.116 In another version of the

story, the reason for the shining visage of the sage is very different from Torah learning

(here b. Berakhot 55a):

111
Eccl. 8:1. “Who is like the wise man? And who knows the interpretation of a thing? Wisdom makes
one's face shine, and the hardness of one's countenance is changed.”
.‫ וְּע ֹז ָפנָיו י ְּשֻׁ נֶא‬,‫פֵשֶ ר דָ בָר; ָחכְּמַ ת ָאדָ ם תָ אִ יר ָפנָיו‬, ַ‫ ּומִ י יֹודֵ ע‬,‫ ְּכ ֶה ָח ָכם‬,‫מִ י‬
112
Y. Pesaḥim 10:1, 37c (and: y. Shabbat 8:1, 11a; y. Shekalim 3:2, 47c). Translation by Daniel Stökl
Ben Ezra, “Parody and Polemics on Pentecost: Talmud Yerushalmi. Pesahim on Acts 2?” in Jewish and
Christian Liturgy and Worship: New Insights into Its History and Interaction , ed. Albert Gerhards and
Clemens Leonhard (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 287.
‫ ר' יודה בי ר' אלעי שתי ארבעתי כסוי דלילי פיסחא וחזיק‬.‫דרבי יונה שתי ארבעתי כסוי דלילי פסחא וחזיק רישיה עד עצרתא‬
‫ סבא סבא חדא מהני תלת מילין אית בך או דשתויי חמרא את או דמלוי‬:‫ חמיתיה חדא מטרוניתא אפוי נהירין אמרה‬.‫רישיה עד חגא‬
‫ תיפח רוחא דההיא איתתא דחדא מאלין תלת מילייא לית בי אלא אולפני שכיח לי דהכין‬:‫ אמר לה‬.‫ברבית את או דמגדל חזירי את‬
".‫ "חכמת אדם תאיר פניו‬:‫כתיב‬
113
Rashi: "‫ בלא טורח ושמחים בחלקם‬,‫"שכרם מרובה‬
114
Tan, oaḥ 13 (and a Shim, oaḥ 61).
115
“None richer than a swine.” B. Sabbath 155b.
116
Midrash Samuel (ed. Buber) 16, notes the analogy of the effect of wine drinking and Torah studying:
“Like this vine [=Torah] that as much one eats and drinks from it he has a beaming face, hence “the
wisdom of man makes his face shine.” (Eccl. 8:1) - [this is] when he has been asked and responds, “and the
hardness of one's countenance is changed.” (Eccl. 8:1) – when he has been asked but does not response.”
My translation.
‫ בשעה שהוא נשאל‬- )‫ א‬,‫ כך "חכמת אדם תאיר פניו" (קהלת ח‬,‫מה הגפן הזה כל שהוא אוכל ממנה ושותה מיינה פניו מצהילות‬
.‫ בשעה שהוא נשאל ואינו משיב‬- )‫ שם‬,‫ "ועוז פניו ישנה" (שם‬,‫ומשיב‬

35
 (…) a certain noblewoman said to R’ Yehudah the son of R’ Il’ai, “Your [radiant] face
resembles [that of] pig breeders and usurers.” He said to her, “Faith! Both of these
[occupations] are prohibited to me. Rather, there are twenty-four privies between my
lodging and the house of study. [And] when I go [from one location to the other] I check
myself in all of them.”117
In this version, the sage’s face shines because he is relieved after using the toilet.

Perhaps this is because in contrast to breeders of pigs (an animal whose mouth was

considered by the sages to be a walking toilet) or usurers, the sage does not accumulate

impurity but to the contrary eliminates it. Indeed, what the midrash seems to reproach

pigs breeders for is excess. In Koelet (Ecclesiastes) Rabbah Zuta, Rabbi Hunah notes on

Ecclesiastes 6:11: “The more words, the more vanity, [so how is one the better?]” - “like

117
B. Berakhot 55a (and: b. Nedarim 49b; PesR 14; Tan Ḥukkot 191; YalShim 977).
‫ ולולבי‬,‫ ועלי גפנים‬,‫ האוכל עלי קנים‬:‫ עשרה דברים מביאין את האדם לידי תחתוניות‬,‫והמאריך בבית הכסא מעליותא הוא? והתניא‬
‫ והמקנח בצרור‬,‫ והמקנח בסיד ובחרסית‬,‫ והשותה שמרי יין‬,‫ ודג מליח שאינו מבושל כל צרכו‬,‫ ושדרו של דג‬,‫ ומוריגי בהמה‬,‫גפנים‬
‫ כי‬.‫ דמאריך ולא תלי‬- ‫ הא‬,‫ דמאריך ותלי‬- ‫ הא‬,‫ לא קשיא‬- !‫ אף התולה עצמו בבית הכסא יותר מדאי‬:‫ ויש אומרים‬,‫שקנח בו חברו‬
‫ הימנותא! לדידי‬:‫ אמר לה‬- .‫ פניך דומים למגדלי חזירים ולמלוי ברבית‬:‫הא דאמרה ליה ההיא מטרוניתא לרבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי‬
.‫ דכי אזילנא בדיקנא נפשאי בכולהו‬,‫ עשרים וארבעה בית הכסא איכא מאושפיזאי לבי מדרשא‬,‫תרוייהו אסירן; אלא‬
In Bavli Nedarim 49b, a version of this story the one that says Rabbi Yehudah’s face resembled that of pig
breeders is a Sadducee: “[A certain Sadducee once said to R’ Yehudah, “Your face seems to be [the fac e of]
either usurers or pig farmers.” [R’ Yehudah] replied to [the Sadducee], “By the oath used among, Jews,
both of those [occupations] are prohibited [to me and are not the reason for my glow.] Rather, I have
twenty-four lavatories between my house and study hall, and each and every hour I enter each and every
one of them. [This explains my shining face.”]
‫ אלא עשרים וארבעה‬,‫ ביהודאי תרוייהו אסירן‬:‫ פניך דומין אי כמלוי רבית אי כמגדלי חזירין! א"ל‬:‫אמר לי' ההוא צדוקי לרבי יהודה‬
.‫ וכל שעה ושעה אני נכנס לכל אחד ואחד‬,‫בית הכסא אית לי מן ביתא עד בי מדרשא‬
And Tanḥuma (ed. Buber) 19 “A certain gentile saw R. Judah b. R. Il’ay with his shining. He said: Now
one of three things is the matter with the man: Either he is lending at interest, or he is raising swine, or he is
drinking wine. [When] R. Judah b. Il’ay heard his remark, he said to him: May the breath of that man blow
out [of him], for none of them applies to me. I am not lending at interest, because it is written:’ “You shall
not lend to your brother at interest” (Dt. 23:20). Moreover, I am not raising swine, because a child of Israel
is forbidden to rear swine, since we are taught there (cf. Bavli, Qidushin 82b) ‘No one may raise swine in
any place’. Nor am I sotted with wine, because the four Paschal cups which I drink at Passover has my
head tied in knots from Passover to Pentecost. R. Mani had his head tied in knots from Passover to the feast
of Tabernacles. [The gentile] said to him: Then for what reason is your face shining? He said to him: It is
the study of Torah that makes my face shine for me. It is written: ‘A person’s wisdom lights up his face’
(Eccl. 8:1).”
‫ או מגדל‬,‫ או מוזיף בריביתא‬,‫ הדין גברא חדא מן תלת מילין אית ביה‬:‫ אמר‬.‫גוי אחד ראה את ר' יודה ב"ר אלעאי דהוי אפוי נהירין‬
‫ לא מוזיף‬,‫ דכל חדא מנהון לית בי‬,‫ תיפח רוחיה דההוא גברא‬:‫ א" ל‬,‫ שמע קליה ר' יהודה ב"ר אלעאי‬.‫ או חמר הוא שותה‬,‫חזירים‬
,‫ דתנינן תמן‬,‫ דאסיר לבר ישראל למרבי חזירים‬,‫ ולא מרבה חזירים אנא‬,)‫ כ‬,‫ “לא תשיך לאחיך” (דברים כג‬:‫ דכתיב‬,‫בריביתא אנא‬
'‫ ר‬.‫ חזיק ראשי מן פסחא לעצרתא‬,‫ דארבעת כסי דפסחא דאנא שתי בפסחא‬,‫ ולא שקויי דחמר אנא‬,‫לא יגדל אדם חזירים בכל מקום‬
‫ "חכמת אדם תאיר‬:‫ דכתיב‬,‫ אורייתא היא דמנהרא לי אפוי‬:‫ ועל מה אפך נהירין? א"ל‬:‫ אמר ליה‬.‫מני חזיק ראשיה מפסחא לחגא‬
".‫פניו‬
And PesR 14; YalShim 977.

36
the breeders of monkeys, cats and pigs.” 118 It seems that pigs stand for vanity not jus t

because they are impure but also because they are prolific animals, and hence

demonstrate vain excess.

We find the contrast “pig breeder - Talmudic scholar” also in a legend (discussed

in detail in chapter six) concerning the emperor Diocletian. According to the legend the

young Diocletian was a swineherd in Tiberias. Whenever he came near Rabbi’s school,

the young students would come out and beat him up. When he became emperor, he tried

to take vengeance on the sages, but miracles protected them. Diocletian criticized the

sages, saying that they disdained the king because they knew that God performs miracles

on their behalf. To this, the sages answered: “Diocletian who was a swineherd we did

indeed disdain, but to Diocletian the king we are enslaved.” 119 Another foreign ruler

whom the sages compare to a swineherd is Pharaoh. In a parable in Exodus Rabbah (also

discussed in detail in chapter six), Pharaoh is compared to a swineherd who found an

ewe-lamb (=Israel), and kept it among his pigs. The owner (God) asked for his ewe-lamb

(Israel) but in the face of the swineherd’s refusal, acquired it only after a serious of

sanctions. 120 Hence, Israel is the lamb, the non-Jews (Egyptians) are pigs; the foreign

ruler (Pharaoh) is a swineherd, while the ruler of Israel, God, is the ultimate shepherd.

The swineherd is the opposite social pole of the King, hence referring to a king as a

swineherd is degrading. Yalkut Shimoni tells a story about the Persian King who

dreamed that the Romans captured him and forced him to feed pigs:

118
Koelet Rabbah Zuta 6.11."‫אמ' רב הונא כגון מגדלי קופות וחתולים וחזירים "כי יש דברים הרבה מרבים הבל‬.”
See: Reuven Kipperwasser, Midrashim on Kohelet; Studies in their Redaction and Formation, PhD Thesis
(Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2005), 54.
119
GenR Toledoth 63.8.7. and Y. Terumot 8:11, 46c. My translation.
.‫ ברם לדיקליטיינוס מלכא אנן משועבדים‬,‫ לדיקליטיינוס רעי חזירין אקילינן‬:'‫אמרין לי‬
120
ExR 20.

37
 The Emperor [of Rome] said to R. Joshua b. R. Hananyah: You [Jews] profess to be very
clever. Tell me what I shall see in my dream. He said to him: You will see the Persians
coming and taking you captive and making you grind date-stones in a golden mill. He
thought about it all day, and in the night he saw it in his dream. King Shapor [I, the
Persian king] once said to Samuel: You [Jews] profess to be very clever. Tell me what I
shall see in my dream. He said to him: You will see the Romans coming and taking you
captive and making you feed pigs with a golden crook. He thought about it the whole day
and in the night saw it in a dream. 121

Feeding and Commerce

Contrary to the texts that forbid pig breeding, other texts deal with questions of

feeding or selling pigs (theoretically but likely also practically). Bavli Shabbath notes that

one should feed a dog on the Sabbath but not a pig. The logic seems to be explained later

by the observation that “there is no poorer than a dog, and richer than the pig.” The

question is how long the animal will not suffer without being fed. The Braitah seemed to

assume that the dog digests quickly and thus has to be feed even on the Sabbath, while

the pig digests slowly,122 and thus should not be fed. 123

121
YalkShim Daniel 1060. My translation.
‫ חזית בחלמך דאתו פרסאי ושבו לך וטחנו‬:‫ אמריתו חכמינן טובא אימא לי מה חזינא בחלמאי? א"ל‬:‫א"ל קיסר לר' יהושע בן חנניה‬
‫ שבור מלכא לשמואל אמריתו חכמינן טובא אימא לי מה חזינא בחלמאי? אמר‬:‫ אמר ליה‬.‫ הרהר וחזא‬.‫בך קשיתא בריחיא דדהבא‬
.‫ הרהר וחזא‬,‫ חזית בחילמך דאתו רומאי ושבו לך ורעו בך חזירי בחוטרא דדהבא‬:‫ליה‬
Compare to Bavli Berakhot 56a: “The Emperor [of Rome] said to R. Joshua b. R. Hananyah: You [Jews]
profess to be very clever. Tell me what I shall see in my dream. He said to him: You will see the Persians
making you do forced labor, and despoiling you and making you feed unclean animals with a golden crook.
He thought about it all day, and in the night he saw it in his dream. King Shapor [I] once said to Samuel:
You [Jews] profess to be very clever. Tell me what I shall see in my dream. He said to him: You will see
the Romans coming and taking you captive and making you grind date-stones in a golden mill. He thought
about it the whole day and in the night saw it in a dream.”
‫ חזית דמשחרי לך פרסאי וגרבי‬:‫אמריתו דחכמיתו טובא אימא לי מאי חזינא בחלמאי? אמר ליה‬: ‫אמר ליה קיסר לר' יהושע ברחנינא‬
‫ אמריתו דחכמיתו טובא אימא‬:‫ אמר ליה שבור מלכא לשמואל‬.‫ הרהר כוליה יומא ולאורתא חזא‬.‫בך ורעיי בך שקצי בחוטרא דדהבא‬
.‫ הרהר כוליה יומא ולאורתא חזא‬.‫ חזית דאתו רומאי ושבו לך וטחני בך קשייתא ברחייא דדהבא‬:‫לי מאי חזינא בחלמאי? אמר ליה‬
Becoming a swineherd as sign of humiliation/”fall” is found in the New Testament’s parable of the
Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32).
122
For a similar distinction between the digestive systems of the dog and that of the pig in Greek
thought, see: Christophe Lafon, “Un organisme interne semblable au chaudron du sacrifice,” La sacrifice
antique: vestiges procédures et stratégies, Sous la direction de Véronique Mehl et Pierre Brulé (Renne:
Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2008), 155-166.
123
B. Sabbath 155b. “Even as it was taught: Food may be placed before a dog but not before a swine.
And what is the difference between them? You are responsible for the food of the one, but you are not
responsible for the food of the other. […] R. Jonah lectured at the entrance to the Nasi's academy: What is

38
 While pig breeding is clearly forbidden, under some circumstances a Jew can sell

pigs. For example, according to the Bavli, Baba Kama, a proselyte who inherited pigs, is

not obliged to sell them all immediately, but may sell them off little by little. 124 However,

Mishnah Ukatzin states that the carcass of a pig, camel, hare, and rabbit could be sold to a

non-Jew anywhere. 125 Tosefta Avodah Zara states that one can sell pigs to a tagar

because there is no danger that he will sacrifice them to idolatry:

And of all of them, he would sell them a bundle. And how much is a bundle? R. Judah b.
Peterah says, “In the case of frankincense, it is no less than three by number.” One sells
[the stated substances] to a tagar [merchant], but does not sell to a householder [M.
Avodah Zara 1.5A]. But if the tagar [merchant] was suspect [of idolatrous practices], it is
prohibited to sell [them] to him. One sells them pigs and does not scruple that he might
offer them up to an idol. One sells him wine and does not scruple that he might offer it as
a libation to an idol. But if he explicitly stated to him [that his intent was to make use of
what he was buying for idolatry], it is prohibited to sell him even water, even salt [M.
Avodah Zara 1.5f]. 126

As Emmanuel Friedheim notes, the tagar is probably a Syrian or Arab nomad

merchant, for whom pork and wine are forbidden and thus there is no risk that he will use

them for idolatry.127

meant by the verse, “The righteous knoweth the cause of the poor”? The Holy One, blessed be He,
knoweth that a dog's food is scanty, therefore He makes him retain his food in his stomach for three days.
As we learnt: How long shall the food remain in its stomach and yet defile? In the case of a dog, three full
days of twenty-four hours; while in the case of birds or fish, as long as it would take for it [the food] to fall
into the fire and be burnt. R. Hamnuna said: This proves that it is the proper thing to throw raw meat to a
dog. And how much? Said R. Mari: Measure its ear and the stick [straight] after! But that is only in the
fields but not in town, because it will come to follow him. R. Papa said: None are poorer than a dog and
none richer than a swine.”
.‫ אין מזונותיו עליך‬- ‫ מזונותיו עליך וזה‬- ‫ ומה הפרש בין זה לזה? זה‬.‫ ואין נותנין מזונות לפני חזיר‬,‫ נותנין מזונות לפני כלב‬:‫כדתניא‬
‫ " ידע צדיק דין דלים" (משלי כט)? יודע הקדוש ברוך הוא בכלב שמזונותיו‬:‫ מאי דכתיב‬:‫) דרש רבי יונה אפיתחא דבי נשיאה‬...(
,‫ שלשה ימים מעת לעת‬- ‫ בכלב‬,‫ כמה תשהה אכילתו במעיו ויהא טמא‬:‫ כדתנן‬.‫ לפיכך שוהה אכילתו במעיו שלשה ימים‬,‫מועטין‬
‫ אמר רב‬- ?‫ וכמה‬.‫ אורח ארעא למשדא אומצא לכלבא‬:‫ שמע מינה‬:‫ אמר רב המנונא‬.‫ כדי שתפול לאור ותשרף‬- ‫ובעופות ובדגים‬
‫ ולית‬,‫ לית דעניא מכלבא‬:‫ אמר רב פפא‬.‫ דאתי למסרך‬, ‫ לא‬- ‫ אבל במתא‬,‫ בדברא‬- ‫ הני מילי‬.‫ וחוטרא אבתריה‬,‫ משח אודניה‬:‫מרי‬
.‫דעתיר מחזירא‬
124
B. Baba Kama 80a.
125
M. Ukatzin 3:3.
126
T. Avodah Zara (ed. Zurkmendel) 1.21.
‫ מוכר לתגר ואין מוכר‬.‫ בלבונה אין פחות משלשת מנין‬:‫מכולן היה מוכר להן חבילה וכמה היא חבילה? ר' יהודה בן פתירה אומר‬
‫ מוכר לו יין ואינו חושש‬,‫ מוכר לו חזירים ואינו חושש שמא מזבחן לעבודה זרה‬.‫ ואם היה תגר חשוד אסור למכור לו‬,‫לבעל הבית‬
.‫ ואם פירש לו אפילו מים או מלח אסור למכור לו‬,‫שמא מנסכו לעבודה זרה‬
127
Emmanuel Friedheim, “The Travelling Merchant and Arabian-Syrian Pagan Rituals Mentioned in
the Tosefta.” Tarbiz 69, no. 2 (2000): 170 (Hebrew). And Ibid. Rabbinisme et Paganisme en Palestine

39
Pig Hide

Mishnah Ḥu in 9:1 states that in general the hide of an animal is not subject to the

rules of food impurity, but rather to those of carcass impurity. Mishanh Ḥu in 9:2 lists

some animals whose hides follow the rules of flesh in all respects. R. Johanan holds that

for eating pigskin one never can be prosecuted, while R. Shimeon ben Laqish holds that

eating pigskin, not yet transformed into leather, is as punishable as eating pork. 128

Purity and Classification

How did the sages understand the prohibition of pork in Deuteronomy 14:8 and

Leviticus 11:7? The early midrash Sifra questions the logic of the biblical classification

system concerning the pig in diverse places. Sifra Shemini 2.4 asks how one knows on

the basis of the four anomalous animals mentioned in Leviticus (camel, rock badger, hare,

and pig) that one may not eat other impure animals?

“….Which you may eat among all the beasts” (Lev. 11:1): […] I know only that the
prohibition of eating an unclean beast is subject to a positive commandment [“which you
may eat,” meaning the others may not be eaten; eat these only]. How do I know that
unclean beasts are subject also to a negative commandment? Scripture says, “The
camel…the rock badger…the hare…the pig…of their flesh you shall not eat.” I know that
is the case only for these that have been specified alone. How do I know that is the case
for other unclean domesticated beasts? It is accessible through a logical argument: If
these, which possess some of the indicators of cleanness, lo, they are subject to a negative
commandment against eating them, those that lack any of the indicators of cleanness
surely should be subject to a negative commandment against eating them. Thus the rule
governing the camel, rock badger, hare, and pig derives from Scripture, and the rule

romaine: étude historique des Realia talmudiques (Ier-IVème siècles) (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006), 250-
262. The avoidance of pork in ancient Syria is mentioned by Syrian avoidance of pork by Epictetus,
Porphyry and Damascius. The avoidance of pork in proto Islamic Arabia is mentioned by: Solinus, The
Wonders of the World (De mirabilibus mundi) 33.2.4; Pliny, Natural History 8.78.213; Jerome (d. 420 CE),
Against Jovinian 2 (NPNF2-06); Hermias Sozomen (c. 440 CE), Church History 6.38 (PG 67.1412C;
NPNF 2, 375).
128
M. Ḥu in 9.2.
‫ אף עור חזיר הבר ועור חטוטרת של גמל הרכה ועור הראש‬:‫ רבי יוסי אומר‬.‫ עור האדם ועור חזיר של ישוב‬:‫אלו שעורותיהן כבשרן‬
:‫ רבי יהודה אומר‬.‫של עגל הרך ועור הפרסות ועור בית הבושת ועור השליל ועור שתחת האליה ועור האנקה והכח והלטאה והחומט‬
‫ שמנה שרצים יש להן‬:‫ רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר‬.‫הלטאה כחולדה וכולן שעיבדן או ש הילך בהן כדי עבודה טהורין חוץ מעור האדם‬
:‫עורות‬
And b. Ḥu in 122a; b. Shabbat 14b; y. Pesahim 7:11, 35a; y. Shabbat 14:1, 14b.

40
 governing other unclean beasts from an argument a fortiori. The affirmative
commandment affecting them derives from Scripture, the negative one from an argument
a fortiori.129

The pig is understood here as a generic symbol for impure animals. While it is

doubtful that this was the intention of the biblical text itself, it probably reflects the

special importance of the avoidance of pork in the rabbinic period. We find a similar

legal discussion in Sifra Shemini 4.1, which deals with the prohibition of touching the

carcass of an animal (Leviticus 11:24-28).130 The midrash starts by questioning whether

the law covers all animals:

“And by these you shall become unclean” (Lev. 11:24): Might one suppose that “these”
refers to all the categories stated in context [so that the rules that follow pertain through,
and not only to carrion of beasts]? And what are the categories stated in context?
Domesticated beasts, wild beasts, birds, fish and locusts.

In order to eliminate this possibility by reducing the span of the law, proof texts

are taken from Leviticus 11:26 (the word “animal” excludes fish, “parts the hoof”

excludes locusts and fowl, and “cloven-footed” eliminates birds):

Might one suppose that a limb cut from a living creature should impart uncleanness in the
case of all of them? Scripture says, “animal.” I may then eliminate fish that live in the
ocean, which are not susceptible to uncleanness, but I shall not eliminate locusts. To the
contrary, Scripture says, “Every animal which parts [the hoof]…” I shall then eliminate
locusts, to the species of which uncleanness does not apply, but I shall not eliminate fowl,
to species of which uncleanness does apply. To the contrary, Scripture says, “[Every
animal which parts] the hoof…” Then perhaps I should eliminate unclean birds but not
eliminate clean birds? It is a matter of logic. If a beast, which cannot impart uncleanness

129
Sifra 2.4. Translation by Jacob Neusner, Sifra: An Analytical Translation, vol. 2 (Atlanta, GA:
Scholars Press, 1988), 155-156.
‫ "אותה תאכלו" אותה באכילה ואין בהמה טמאה‬:‫ לרבות את השיליא יכול אפילו יצאת מקצתה ת"ל‬- "‫"בבהמה אותה תאכלו‬
‫" אין לי אלא אילו‬,‫ " הגמל והארנבת והשפן והחזיר מבשרם לא תאכלו‬:‫ בלא תעשה מנין? ת"ל‬,‫ (ב) אין לי אלא בעשה‬.‫באכילה‬
‫ ושאין בהם סימני טהרה‬,‫ שאר בהמה טמאה מנין ודין הוא ומה אילו שיש בהם סימני טהרה הרי זה בלא תעשה על אכילתן‬,‫בלבד‬
‫ נמצא מצות‬,‫ נמצאו הגמל והארנבת והשפן והחזיר מן הכתוב ושאר בהמה טמאה מקל וחומר‬,‫אינו דין שיהו בלא תעשה על אכילתם‬
.‫עשה שלהם מן הכתוב ומצות לא תעשה שלהם מקל וחומר‬
130
“24: And by these you shall become unclean: whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until
the evening, 25: and whoever carries any part of their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until
the evening. 26: Every animal which parts the hoof but is not cloven-footed, or does not chew the cud, is
unclean to you. Everyone who touches them shall be unclean. 27: And all that go on their paws among the
animals that go on all fours are unclean to you; whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the
evening, 28: and he who carries their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening; they
are unclean to you.” (Lev. 11: 24-28).

41
 to clothing when a bit of it is in the gullet, produces a limb from the living creature which
does impart such uncleanness, a bird, which does impart uncleanness to clothing when a
bit of it is in the gullet, surely should yield a limb from the living creature which does
impart such uncleanness! To the contrary, Scripture says, “But is not cloven-footed.”
[That eliminates all birds.]131

After explaining that Leviticus 11:26 reduces the law to only four footed animals,

it is explained how the same phrase covers all the possible cases among those animals:

I know then that the law applies only to clean beasts. How do I know that it applies to
unclean beasts as well? Scripture says, “Every animal” (Lev. 11:26) and as to a beast that
is clean? Scripture says, “Every animal which parts...” (Ibid.) And as to a beast that is
unclean? Scripture says, “…the hoof.” (Ibid.) And as to those that have cloven hoofs?
Scripture says, “Cloven-footed.” (Ibid.) And those that do not have cloven hoofs?
Scripture says, “But is not cloven-footed.” And as to those that chew the cud among
domesticated beasts? Scripture says, “Or does not chew the cud.” Now is there not the
case of the pig, which parts the hoof and is cloven-footed? Is it possible that the limb cut
from a living creature in that case should not impart uncleanness? Scripture says, “Does
not chew the cud, is unclean to you.”132

If it is prohibited to touch the carcass of pig, 133 this prohibition is taken to its

extreme by being inscribed in the discussion of eating a limb cut from a living creature. It

is clear that what is at stake is not the real possibility but a theoretical one. In any case,

the classification system is described as perfect, for it covers all imaginable possi bilities.

131
Sifra 4.1. Translation by Neusner, Sifra, vol 2, 171-172.
‫ יכול לכל האמור בענין ומה אמור בענין בהמה וחיה ועופות ודגים וחגבים יכול יהיו אבר מן החי מטמא בכולם‬- "‫" ולאלה תטמאו‬
‫" אוציא את החגבים שאין‬. ‫ " מפרסת‬:‫" אוציא את הדגים הגדילים בים שאין מקבלים טומאה ולא אוציא החגבים? ת"ל‬. ‫ "בהמה‬:‫ת"ל‬
‫ ודין‬,‫" אוציא את העוף הטמא ולא אוציא את העוף הטהור‬. ‫ "פרסה‬:‫למינן טומאה ולא אוציא את העופות שיש למינן טומאה? ת"ל‬
‫ עוף שמטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה אינו דין שיהא‬,‫הוא ומה אם בהמה שאינה מטמאה בגדים אבית הבליעה אבר מן החי ממנה מטמא‬
?‫אבר מן החי מטמא‬
132
Sifra 4.1. Translation by Neusner, Sifra, vol 2, 171-172.
?‫ חיה טמאה מנין‬,‫ מפרסת‬:‫ חיה טהורה מנין? ת"ל‬,‫ לכל הבהמה‬:‫" אין לי אלא בהמה טהורה בהמה טמאה מנין? ת"ל‬. ‫ "שסע‬:‫ת"ל‬
‫ "מעלת‬:‫" מעלת גרה בבהמה מנין? ת"ל‬.‫ "איננה שוסעת‬:‫" לאין שיסועים מנין? ת"ל‬. ‫ "ושסע‬:‫ לשיסועים מנין? ת"ל‬.‫ פרסה‬:‫ת"ל‬
: ‫ יכול לא יהא אבר מן החי מטמא הימינו? ת"ל‬,‫" והלא חזיר מפריס ומשוסע‬. ‫ "איננה מעלה‬:‫" לשאין מעלה גרה מנין? ת"ל‬.‫גרה‬
". ‫"גרה איננה מעלה טמא הוא‬
133
The Mishnah, Okazin 3.3 notes that the pig is polluted in any case, whether contact with it was
intentional or random: “The carcass of an unclean beast anywhere, and the carcass of a clean bird in
villages, need intention, but [being already unclean] they do not require to be rendered susceptive to
uncleanness. The carcass of a clean beast in any place, and the carcass of a clean bird and fat in the markets
do not need either intention or to be made susceptive to uncleanness. R. Simon says, Also, [the carcass of]
the camel, or the hare, or the cony, or the pig [- these do not need intention].”
‫ נבלת בהמה טהורה בכ" מ ונבלת‬.‫נבלת בהמה טמאה בכל מקום ונבלת העוף הטהור בכפרים צריכין מחשבה ואינן צריכין הכשר‬
:‫ אף הגמל והארנבת והשפן והחזיר‬:‫ רש"א‬.‫העוף הטהור והחלב בשווקים אינן צריכין מחשבה ולא הכשר‬
And Midrash Tana’aim to Deutronomy 14.7; b. eḥorot 10a.

42
The textual inquiry by a series of distinctions repeats and reinforce the original

distinction of the classification system in general and that of the pig in particular (fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Classification of beasts in Leviticus 11 according to Sifra Shemini 4.1.

We find the pig as a locus of distinction also in Bavli Ḥu in 59a:

And Rav Chisda said: [If] one was traveling on the road and he found an animal whose
mouth was mutilated, [so that he cannot determine whether it had upper front teeth] he
may examine its hooves [and thereby determine its status:] If its hooves are split [then] it
is definitely pure, and if [they are] not [split then] it is definitely non kosher; [but he may
rely on this method only] provided that he can identify a pig. Did you not say [that] there
is the pig, [which represents an exception to your rule that any animal with split hooves is
kosher? Perhaps, then] there is also some other species [of animal of which we are
unaware] that resembles a pig [in that it has split hooves yet is nonkosher. How can
anyone who does not see an animal’s mouth assume, simply because it has split hooves
and is not a pig, that it is kosher species? It should not enter your mind [that there is any
such species.] For it was taught in a Braitah in the academy of R’ Yishmael: [Scripture
states: But this is what you shall not eat …] The pig, for it has a split hoof [and its hoof is
completely separated, but it does not bring up its cud.] The ruler of his universe knows
that there is no creature that has a split hoof yet is impure [on account of not bringing up
its cud] except for the pig. Therefore scripture specifies regarding [the pig that] it [has a
split hoof but does not bring up its cud.] 134

134
B. Ḥu in 59a.
‫ בידוע שאין לה שינים‬,‫ כל בהמה שמעלת גרה‬,)‫ "כל בהמה מפרסת פרסה וגו'" (ויקרא י"א‬:‫ אלו הן סימני בהמה‬,‫ תנו רבנן‬.'‫גמ‬
‫ והרי בן גמל דניבי נמי‬.‫ וטמא! גמל ניבי אית ליה‬- ‫ ואין לו שינים למעלה‬,‫ וכללא הוא? והרי גמל דמעלה גרה הוא‬.‫ וטהורה‬- ‫למעלה‬
‫ שינים מי כתיבי באורייתא ? אלא הכי‬,‫ וטמאין! ועוד‬- ‫ ויש להן שינים למעלה‬,‫ הרי שפן וארנבת דמעלת גרה הן‬,‫לית ליה ! ותו‬
‫ וליבדוק בפרסותיה! כגון שהיו‬.‫ ומפרסת פרסה וטהורה‬,‫ בידוע שהיא מעלת גרה‬- ‫ כל בהמה שאין לה שינים למעלה‬:‫קאמר‬
‫ אם אין לה‬,‫ בודק בפיה‬- ‫ היה מהלך במדבר ומצא בהמה שפרסותיה חתוכות‬:‫ וכדרב חסדא; דאמר רב חסדא‬,‫פרסותיה חתוכות‬
‫ ובלבד שיכיר בן‬:‫ גמל? ניבי אית ליה ! אלא‬.‫ ובלבד שיכיר גמל‬,‫ בידוע שהיא טמאה‬- ‫ אם לאו‬,‫ בידוע שהיא טהורה‬- ‫שינים למעלה‬
‫ "ואת הגמל כי‬:‫ דתני דבי ר' ישמעאל‬,]‫ לאו אמר ת איכא בן גמל? איכא נמי מינא אחרינא דדמי לבן גמל! לא ס"ד [סלקא דעתך‬,‫גמל‬
‫ ואמר רב‬.‫ לפיכך פרט בו הכתוב הוא‬,‫ שליט בעולמו יודע שאין לך דבר מעלה גרה וטמא אלא גמל‬,)‫מעלה גרה הוא" (ויקרא יא‬
‫ בידוע‬- ‫ אם לאו‬,‫ בידוע שהיא טהורה‬- ‫ אם פרסותיה סדוקות‬,‫ בודק בפרסותיה‬,‫ היה מהלך בדרך ומצא בהמה שפיה גמום‬:‫חסדא‬

43
 Also here we find the idea of the uniqueness of the pig, as well of his classificatory

ambiguity. These aspects are at the heart of Sifra Shemini 2.5, which asks why the four

anomalous animals (the camel, hare, rock badger, and pig) are prohibited both in

Deuteronomy 14 and in Leviticus 11:

“…the camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof is unclean to you. And
the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.
And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you” (Lev.
11: 5)
What is the point of Scripture here?
If it is only to provide Scripture with a complete account, lo, it is written, “The camel, the
hare, and the daman - for although they bring up the cud, they have no true hoofs - they
are unclean for you; [also the swine - for although it has true hoofs, it does not bring up
the cud - is unclean for you. You shall not eat of their flesh or touch their carcasses]” (Dt.
14: 7-8). What then is encompassed in the statement above? The included items we have
already listed. “…the camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof is
unclean to you” (Lev. 11: 5): What is the point of Scripture here? One might have
thought that that beast should be permitted if it displays a single validating trait. And the
opposite of that proposition is a matter of logic: If the pig, which has a cloven hoof, is
unclean, the camel, which does not have a cloven hoof, surely should be unclean! If that
were so, I should reply, “What is it that causes the prohibition of the pig?” It is the matter
of its not chewing the cud. Then that same matter should render the camel permitted!
Accordingly, Scripture says, “…the camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the
hoof is unclean to you” (Lev. 11: 5): Let the rule be given for the camel, and an argument
a fortiori for the pig will follow: If the camel, which chews the cud, is unclean, the pig,

'‫ דתנא דבי ר‬,[‫ לאו אמרת איכא חזיר? איכא נמי מינא אחרינא דדמיא לחזיר! לא ס"ד [סלקא דעתך‬.‫ ובלבד שיכיר חזיר‬,‫שהיא טמאה‬
‫ לפיכך‬,‫ שליט בעולמו יודע שאין לך דבר שמפריס פרסה וטמא אלא חזיר‬,)‫ " ואת החזיר כי מפריס פרסה הוא" (ויקרא יא‬:‫ישמעאל‬
‫ בודק בבשרה; אם מהלך‬,‫ ומצא בהמה שפיה גמום ופרסותיה חתוכות‬,‫ היה מהלך במדבר‬:‫ ואמר רב חסדא‬."‫ "הוא‬:‫פרט בו הכתוב‬
‫ לאו אמרת איכא ערוד? איכא נמי מינא אחר ינא‬.‫ ובלבד שיכיר ערוד‬,‫ בידוע שהיא טמאה‬- ‫ ואם לאו‬,‫ בידוע שהיא טהורה‬- ‫שתי וערב‬
.‫ בכנפי העוקץ‬:‫ והיכא בודק? אמר אביי ואיתימא רב חסדא‬.‫דדמיא לערוד! גמירי דליכא‬
According to Genesis Rabbah, in order to avoid uttering an unclean expression, God enumerated the
positive sign of the pig before its negative one: “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee…and of the
beasts that are not clean, etc.” (Gn. 7:2). R. Judan in R. Johanan’s name, R. Berekiah in R. Leazar’s name,
and R. Jacob in R. Joshua’s name said: We find that the Holy One, blessed be He, employed a
circumlocution of three words in order to avoid uttering an unclean [indelicate] expression: It is not written,
‘And of the unclean beasts,’ but…That are not clean. R. Judan said; Even when [Scripture] comes to
enumerate the signs of unclean animals, it commences first with the signs of cleanness [which they possess]:
it is not written, ‘The camel, because he parteth not the hoof, ‘but, Because he cheweth the cud but parteth
not the hoof (Lev. 11: 4); The rock-badger, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof (ib. 5);
“The hare, because he cheweth the cud but parterth not the hoof” (ib. 6); “The swine, because he parteth the
hoof, and is cloven-footed, but cheweth not the cud” (ib. 7).” GenR 32.4. Translation by Freedman,
Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, vol. I, 251.
‫ מצינו‬:‫ ור' יעקב דכפר חנין בשם ר' יהושע בן לוי‬,‫ ר' יודן בשם ר' יוחנן ור' ברכיה בשם רבי אליעזר‬,'"‫"מכל הבהמה הטהורה וגו‬
‫ "מכל הבהמה הטהורה תקח לך שבעה‬:‫ הה"ד‬,‫ כדי שלא להוציא דבר טומאה מתוך פיו‬,‫שעיקם הקב"ה שתים ושלש תיבות בתורה‬
‫ אף כשבא‬:‫ א"ר יודן ב"ר מנשה‬.‫ אלא אשר לא טהורה היא‬,‫ ומן הבהמה הטמאה אין כתיב כאן‬,)‫ ב‬,‫שבעה איש ואשתו" (בראשית ז‬
‫ "כי‬:‫ אלא‬,‫ אין כתיב כאן‬- ‫ את הגמל כי לא מפריס פרסה‬:‫ לא פתח להם אלא בסימני בהמה טהורה‬,‫לומר להם סימני בהמה טמאה‬
‫ “כי מעלה גרה” (ויקרא יא) ואת החזיר כי איננו‬:‫ אלא‬,‫ אין כתיב כאן‬- ‫ את השפן כי איננו מפריס פרסה‬.)‫מעלה גרה" (ויקרא יא‬
". ‫ "כי מפריס פרסה הוא‬:‫ אלא‬,‫ אין כתיב כאן‬- ‫מעלה גרה‬

44
 which does not chew the cud, surely should be unclean. If that were the case, then I
should reply, What is it that causes the prohibition of the camel? It is the matter of the
hoof. Then the same matter should render the pig permitted! Accordingly, Scripture says,
“And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven footed but does not chew the cud”
(Lev. 11:5). 135

The repetition of the law is understood here as provided in order to avoid any

misunderstanding which will follow just one sign of purity. The emblematic status of the

pig makes it a token of impurity: the Mishnah for example discusses whether a sacrificial

animal is blemished if it has its mouth 136 or tail like that of a pig is blemished. 137

Likewise, the Mishnah forbids taking a vow of eating pork (because one has to take a

vow on something which is not inherently forbidden). 138 Similarly, if a man conditioned

135
Sifra Shemini 2.5. Translation by Neunser, Sifra, vol 2, 160.
‫ואת הגמל כי מעלה גרה הוא ואת השפן כי מעלה גרה הוא ואת הארנבת כי מעלה גרה הוא מה ת" ל אם לתיקון המקרא הרי כבר‬
‫ (ו) ואת הגמל כי מעלה גרה הוא שיכול‬.‫נאמר הגמל והארנבת והשפן כי מעלה גרה המה ולמה באו לרבות את הריבויים שאמרנו‬
‫יתירינו סימן אחד ודין הוא ומה אם חזיר שמפריס פרסה טמא גמל שאין מפריס פרסה אינו דין שיהא טמא אילו כן הייתי אומר מי‬
‫ כי מעלת גרה היא יאמר בגמל וקל וחומר לחזיר ומה גמל שמעלה גרה טמא‬,‫ ואת הגמל‬:‫ ת"ל‬,‫אוסר את החזיר גרה היא תתיר גמל‬
‫ ואת‬:‫ והיא תתיר את החזיר ת"ל‬,‫ (ז) אילו כן הייתי אומר מי אוסר את הגמל פרסה‬.‫חזיר שאינו מעלה גרה אינו דין שיהא טמא‬
.‫החזיר כי מפריס פרסה ולא גרה טמא הוא‬
Also Bavli eḥorot 6b: “[The Gemara returns to its discussion at the top of this amud: ] But now [that you
have explained that the two times the term “camel” is stated in Scripture is for expositional purposes, when
it states:] hyrax, hyrax; hare, hare; pig, pig;[two times each,] are they coming for these [types of
expositions?] Indeed, not!] Rather, [they are repeated] for [the reason] that was taught in a Baratia: [why as
the enumeration of those that are kosher and nonkosher] repeated regarding the animal [species,] for [t he
addition of ] the shesuah, [which was not mentioned the first time.] And regarding the birds [the
enumeration is repeated] for the Raah. [If so,] camel, camel also comes for this [reason, and not for the
purpose of the expositions cited above!-?- The Gemara answers:] Wherever it is possible to expound [the
verse] we expound.”
- ‫ ובעופות‬,‫ מפני השסועה‬- ‫ למה נשנו? בבהמה‬:‫ חזיר חזיר להני הוא דאתו? אלא לכדתניא‬,‫ ארנבת ארנבת‬,‫אלא מעתה שפן שפן‬
.‫ גמל גמל נמי להכי הוא דאתא כל היכא דאיכא למידרש דרשינן‬,‫מפני הראה‬
136
M. eḥorot 6.8: “If a bone of its foreleg or a bone of its hindleg be fractured, even if it be not
evident [when the beast stands up, but is manifest when it walks, this is deemed a blemish]. These [two]
blemishes Ila recounted in Jabneh, and the Sages concurred. And, further, he added three [other blemishes],
[but the Sages] said to him, We have not heard [any tradition] about these [that they should be considered
blemishes, namely], if its eye-ball be round like that of person, or if its mouth be like that of a pig, or if the
greater parts of its fore-tongue had been removed; but the court [that succeeded] after them said that these
[three, also] were blemishes.” Translation by Philip Blackman, Mishnayot, vol V. Order Kodashim (New
York: Judaica, 1964), 271-272.
‫נשבר עצם ידו ועצם רגלו אף על פי שאינו ניכר מומין אלו מנה אילא ביבנה והודו לו חכמים ועוד שלשה הוסיף אמרו לו לא שמענו‬
‫את אלו את שגלגל עינו עגול כשל אדם ופיו דומה לשל חזיר ושניטל רוב המדבר של לשונו ובית דין של אחריהן אמרו הרי אלו‬
.‫מומין‬
And: Tosefta (ed. Zukermendel) 4.11; B. Bechoort 3b; 40a.
137
M. Bechorot 6.9. B. eḥorot 50b.
:‫ זנב הגדי שהיא דומה לשל חזיר ושאין בה שלש חוליות הרי זה מום‬:‫רבי חנניא בן גמליאל אומר‬
138
M. Nedarim 2.1: “[And these are declarations that leave the vower] permitted: “Ḥulin which I eat of
yours,” “Like pork,” “like an idol,” “like skins perforated at the heart,”, “like neveolos and tereifos,” “Like

45
the validity of a get, a divorce document, on the wife eating pork, then the get is valid and

the condition annulled, for the husband does not really intend to this condition for he

knew that it is forbidden. 139 Being a token of impurity, the pig serves the sages to discuss

hypothetical cases. Bavli Ḥu in, for example, while discussing whether a fetus of impure

animal in the uterus of pure animal is pure or not, asks if “the pig within the womb of a

sow should not be unclean.”? 140 Likewise, in Bavli Bechorot, the sages asked what is the

rule in a case where a pig follows a ewe and suckles from her? Is this the ewe's first

offspring, born in the form of a pig, and so subject to the laws of the firstborn (forbidden

for non-priests to eat) or is this a real piglet, born to a sow, but since its own mother

shekatizm and remasim,” “Like Aaron’s challahm” or “like [Aaron’s] terumah,” – [In all these cases, the
vower is] permitted [to eat his fellow’s food].”
.‫מותר‬-- ‫ כחלת אהרון וכתרומתו‬,‫ כרמשים‬,‫ כשקצים‬,‫ כטריפות‬,‫כנבילות‬, ‫ כעבודה זרה‬,‫ כבשר חזיר‬,‫ חולין שאוכל לך‬:‫אלו מותרין‬
Also see the discussion of B. Nedarim 14a.
139
M. Nedarim 2.1; T. Ketubot (ed. Liberman) 7.2; T. Nedarim (ed. Liberman) 7.2; Y. Nedarim 2:41,
37a; B. Nedarim 14a. B. Gitin 84b-85a states: “According to Abaye, the “general rule” of R. Yehudah
comes [to include] a condition that she eat pig meat,” what is [the law; i.e. is the condition binding?] Abaye
responds: This is identical [to the case of R. Yehudah ben Teima, and the condition is void.] Rava
responded: It is possible [for her] to eat pig [meat] and be lashed [as a punishment. Therefore, the condition
is binding.] According to Abaye, the “general rule” [of R. Yehudah coms] to include [a condition that she
eat] pig meat [as non-binding]. According to Rava, [R. Yehudah’s statement void of stipulations,] “such as
this” [comes] to exclude [a condition that she eat] pig meat.”
- ‫ כלל‬,‫ לאביי‬.‫ אפשר דאכלה ולקיא‬:‫ היא היא; רבא אמר‬:‫ מהו? אמר אביי‬,‫ הרי זה גיטיך ע"מ שתאכלי בשר חזיר‬:‫איבעיא להו‬
‫ ואם‬,‫ הרי זה גט‬- ‫ נתקיים התנאי‬,‫ הרי זה גיטך ע"מ שתבעלי לפלוני‬:‫ מיתיבי‬.‫ למעוטי בשר חזיר‬- ‫ כזה‬,‫לאתויי בשר חזיר; לרבא‬
,‫ אין חוששין שמא נבעלה להן; ואיל ו על מנת שתבעלי לאבא ולאביך לא קתני‬- ‫ על מנת שלא תבעלי לאבא ולאביך‬,‫ אינו גט‬- ‫לאו‬
‫ אלא‬,‫ נמי אפשר דמשחדא ביה בממונא‬- ‫ פלוני‬,‫ אפשר דאכלה ולקיא‬- ‫ בשלמא בשר חזיר‬:‫ לרבא קשיא! אמר לך רבא‬,‫לאביי ניחא‬
‫ למעוטי‬- ‫ כזה‬,‫ לאתויי אבא ואביך‬- ‫ כלל‬,‫ לרבא‬.‫ אבא ואביך מי עבדי איסורא‬,‫אבא ואביך בדידה קיימא? נהי דאיהי עבדא איסורא‬
.‫ למעוטי פלוני‬- ‫ כזה‬,‫ לאתויי בשר חזיר‬- ‫בשר חזיר; לאביי כלל‬
140
B. Ḥu in 70b.
:‫ ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר‬.‫בהמה שמת עוברה בתוך מעיה והושיט הרועה את ידו ונגע בו בין בבהמה טמאה בין בבהמה טהורה טהור‬
‫ קל וחומר אם הועילה אמו להתירו באכילה לא תועיל לו‬:‫ מאי טעמא? דתנא קמא אמר רב חסדא‬.‫בטמאה טמא ובטהורה טהור‬
‫לטהוריה מידי נבלה אשכחן בהמה טהורה בהמה טמאה מנלן אמר קרא וכי ימות מן הבהמה זו בהמה טמאה אשר היא לכם לאכלה זו‬
‫בהמה טהורה איתקש בהמה טמאה לבהמה טהורה מה בהמה טהורה עוברה טהור אף בהמה טמאה עוברה טהור ור' יוסי הגלילי מאי‬
‫טעמא? אמר ר' יצחק דאמר קרא וכל הולך על כפיו בכל החיה ההולכת וגו' מהלכי כפים בחיה טמאתי לך אלא מעתה קלוט במעי‬
‫פרה ליטמא דמהלכי כפים בחיה הוא מהלכי כפים במהלכי ארבע והאי מהלכי ארבע במהלכי שמנה הוא פרה במעי גמל לא תטמא‬
‫דמהלכי שמנה במהלכי ארבע הוא הולך וכל הולך לרבות פרה במעי גמל קלוט במעי קלוטה ליטמא דמהלכי ארבע במהלכי ארבע‬
.‫ חזיר במעי חזירתא לא ליטמא דמהלכי שמנה במהלכי שמנה הוא‬:‫ מתקיף לה רב אחדבוי בר אמי‬.‫הוא להכי אהני ק"ו דרב חסדא‬
Also Y. Terumot 8:1, 45c. “Abba bar Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Johanan: He who slaughters an
animal and found in it a pig may eat it. Rabbi Jonah said, it is forbidden to eat, what is the reason? An
animal “inside an animal you may eat.” (Lev. 11:3). You should not eat a bird inside an animal and not an
abomination inside an animal.” Translation by Guggenheimer, The Jerusalem Talmud,, Zeraïm, 267.
‫ אסור באכילה מה טעמא בהמה‬:‫ רבי יונה אמר‬.‫ השוחט בהמה ומצא בה חזיר מותר באכילה‬:‫אבא בר רב הונא בשם רבי יוחנן‬
.‫בבהמה תאכלו ולא עוף בבהמה תאכלו ולא שקץ באכילה ולא סוף דבר פישפש אלא כל דבר שנפשו של אדם חתה ממנו‬

46
abandoned him he follows the ewe and has adopted her as his mother? 141 The emblematic

status of the avoidance of pork makes it fit for discussing exceptional situations where

consuming is permitted: Bavli, Ḥu in for example notes that even impure animals were

permitted to the Israelites during the conquest of the promised land, “as it written: “And

houses full of all good things […you will eat]” (Deut. 6:11) and Rabbi Yirmiyah bar

Abba said in the name of Rav: [this refers to] bacon.” 142 Likewise Bavli Pesaḥim states

an opinion that it is permitted to eat a kosher animal that was roasted together with a pig:

Rabh said: “(Ritually) slaughtered fat meat, if roasted together with lean meat of carrion,
must not be eaten, because one draws the juice of the other.” Levi, however, said “Even
slaughtered lean meat roasted together with fat meat of carrion may be eaten, because it
only draws the odor of the fat meat, and that does not interfere with it.” Levi acted in
accordance with his decision in the house of the Exilarch, where a goat and “another
thing” [a pig] were roasted together. 143

To the prohibitions concerning pig mentioned thus far, we should add a few other

laws: The Tosefta forbids shearing pig hair on the Sabbath, noting that “there are those
144
who make a distinction in the case of a pig between its snout and the rest of its body,”

141
B. eḥorot 24a.
‫ "עד‬:‫ ואסור באכילה‬,‫ פטורה מן הבכורה‬- ‫ ראה חזיר שכרוך אחר רחל‬:]‫ארבב"ח [אמר רבה בר בר חנה] אר"י [אמר רבי יהודה‬
‫ אי‬,‫ כרבנן! ותו‬- ‫ ואסור באכילה‬,]‫ פטור מן הבכורה כמאן? כרשב"ג [כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל‬.)'‫יבא ויורה צדק לכם" (הושע י‬
‫ אי‬,‫ מספקא ליה אי הלכה כרשב"ג אי כרבנן‬: ‫כרבנן מאי " עד יבא ויורה צדק לכם"? עד שיודע לך דבר מיבעי ליה ! וכי תימא‬
‫ כל מקום ששנה רשב" ג‬:‫ מי מספקא ליה? והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן‬,‫מספקא ליה – אמאי פטורה מן הבכורה? ותו‬
‫ אי‬:‫ מיהו מספקא ליה‬,‫ חוץ מערב וצידן וראיה אחרונה! לעולם פשיטא ליה הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל‬,‫במשנתינו הלכה כמותו‬
‫ ולמילקי עליה משום אותו‬,‫ עד דאשמעינן חזיר – לישמעינן טלה‬,‫ אי הכי‬.‫סבר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל יולדת מרחמת או אינה מרחמת‬
, ‫ לא‬- ‫ דלא מינה‬,‫ דמינה‬- ‫ הוה אמינא אם תמצא לומר דסבר יולדת מרחמא‬,‫ דאי אשמעינן טלה‬,‫ואת בנו! חזיר איצטריכא ליה‬
.‫ (דמרחמת) ואפילו דלאו מינה נמי דאיכא למימר דלמא מרחמא‬,‫אשמעינן חזיר‬
142
B. Ḥu in 17a.
.‫ כתלי דחזירי‬:‫ ואמר ר' ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב‬,)'‫"ובתים מלאים כל טוב" (דברים ו‬
143
B. Pesahim 76b.
‫ אפילו בשר שחוטה כחוש‬:‫ ולוי אמר‬.‫ מפטמי מהדדי‬- ‫ מאי טעמא‬.‫ אסור‬- ‫ בשר שחוטה שמן שצלאו עם בשר נבילה כחוש‬:‫אמר רב‬
‫ בגדי‬:‫ עביד לוי עובדא בי ריש גלותא‬.‫ וריחא לאו מילתא היא‬,‫ ריחא בעלמא הוא‬- ‫ מאי טעמא‬.‫ מותר‬- ‫שצלאו עם בשר נבילה שמן‬
.‫ודבר אחר‬
144
T. Sabbath (ed. Liberman) 8.1. “He who shears a domesticated beast, a wild beast, fowl, even a
hide, so much as a double-sit’s measure - Lo, he is liable. There are those who make a distinction in the
case of a pig between its snout and the rest of its body.”
.‫הגוזז מן הבהמה מן החיה ומן העופות אפי' מן השלח מלוא הסיט כפול הרי זה חייב יש חולקין בחזיר בין חטרתו לשאר גופו‬
T. Sabbath 9.2 (ed. Liberman): “He who takes out two hairs of horse’s tail or a cow’s tail, lo, this one is
liable, because he makes them into hunting nets. He who takes out two stiff bristles of a pig, lo, this one is
liable. R. Shimon b. Elieazar says, “Even one.” There are those who make a distinction in the case of a pig
between its snout and the rest of its body.” Translation by Neusner, Tosefta, Moed, 25, 30.

47
or that it is lawful on the Sabbath to take food out to feed an animal, “as much as a pig’s

mouthful,” which is equal to one pit. 145 Likewise, the sages forbid eating cheese made by

a non-Jew inter alia because he may add to it pig fat, 146 or salkundris salt because the

non-Jew may add to it or coat its surface with pig fat. 147

The Sages’ Refusal to Explain the Avoidance of Pork

The singling out of the avoidance of pork for the sages might seem problematic:

from a pure halachic point of view, all food avoidances have the same status, and eating

pork is one of the minor offenses, for which one only receives lashes. 148 Placing

importance on the avoidance of pork might put other food avoidances in the shadows.

Hence, the later midrash Numbers Rabbah notes that the avoidance of pork is a symbol of

all other food avoidances:

An analogous instance [of the singling out of one item from among a number]: “Eating
swine’s flesh, and the detestable thing, and the mouse” (Is. 56:17). In what way is the
prohibition of the swine stricter than that of other unclean beasts, or that of the mouse
than that of other creeping things? Truly, not at all; but the swine was mentioned, and the

‫ אפי' אחד יש שחולקין בחזיר בין חטרתו לשאר גופו‬:'‫ ר' שמעון בן לעזר אומ‬.‫המוציא שני זפין מן הקשה שבחזיר הרי זה חייב‬
145
T. Sabbath (ed. Liberman) 8.31; Y. Sabbath 8:2, 11b; B. Sabbath 90b.
146
B. Avoda Zara 35b.
.‫ מפני שמחליקין פניה בשומן חזיר‬:‫מלכיא משמיה דרב אדא בר אהבה אמר‬
147
Y. Avoda Zara 2:9, 42a.
‫ עבדו של מומחה כמומחה ומלח סלוקנרית אית תניי תני שחורה אסורה ולבנה מותרת אית תניי תני לבנה‬:‫רבי יסא בשם רבי יוחנן‬
‫ רבי‬.‫אסורה ושחורה מותרת מאן דמר שחורה אסורה שנותן לתוכה שרץ שחור ומאן דמר לבנה אסורה שנותן לתוכה שרץ לבן‬
‫ שכן חד הוה לנא והיה נותן לתוכה שומן של‬:‫ אמר רבי חנניה‬.‫ זו וזו אסורה‬:‫חנניה בן גמליאל אמר משום רבי יהודה בן גמליאל‬
‫חזיר הן סככות הן פרעות הן רפפות הן רעלות הן איסטגיות הן ספיות הן כוסות הן גומות היא מקום תחת הכוסות היא מקום הנחת‬
.‫חתיכות הן זיתי קלוסקא הן זיתים מגולגלין והשלוחין אסורין‬
B. Avoda Zara 39b.
‫ מלח‬:‫ תנו רבנן‬.‫ מלח שכל סלקונדרי רומי אוכלין אותה‬:‫ מאי מלח סלקונדרית? אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל‬.‫ומלח סלקונדרית‬
‫ שחורה מותרת; רבי יהודה בן גמליאל‬,‫ לבנה אסורה‬:‫ דברי רבי מאיר; רבי יהודה אומר‬,‫ לבנה מותרת‬,‫ שחורה אסורה‬- ‫סלקונדרית‬
‫ קירבי דגים‬,‫ לדברי האומר לבנה אסורה‬:‫ אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן‬.‫ זו וזו אסורה‬:‫משום רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר‬
‫ זה‬,‫ קירבי דגים שחורים טמאים מעורבין בה; לדברי האומר זו וזו אסורה‬,‫לבנים טמאים מעורבין בה; לדברי האומר שחורה אסורה‬
.‫ שהיה מחליק פניה בשומן חזיר‬,‫ זקן אחד היה בשכונתנו‬:‫ אמר רבי אבהו משום רבי חנינא בן גמליאל‬.‫וזה מעורבין בה‬
148
B. Gitin 84b-85a. See also the comment of Yehuda Halevi in the eleventh century in The Kuzari
3.49.

48
 same applies to all other unclean cattle and unclean beasts; the mouse was specified and
the same applies to all creeping things in the world. 149

Although it is hard to evaluate the scope of non-Jewish criticism of the Jewish

avoidance of pork, it is clear that of all Jewish food avoidances, that of the pig received

the greatest attention from non-Jews. While Greco-Roman opinions concerning the

Jewish avoidance of pork diverged, ranging from strong hostility (as in the case of

Roman authors such as Juvenal, Petronius, or Tacitus) to a positive opinion (for example:

Plutarch or Julian the Apostate),150 Christian authors are strongly hostile to the avoidance

of pork. 151 Thus, it seems that with the rise of Christianity, the avoidance of pork beca me

increasingly problematic, for Christians as well as for Jews.

Whether in their real or imagined encounters with Greeks and Romans, Jews had

to answer the question, “Why do you not eat pork?” In Jewish Hellenistic literature Philo

answers Emperor Caligula (38/39 CE), 152 Josephus Apion (1st cent. CE), 153 the elder

Eleazar King Antiochus (2 and 4 Books of Maccabees, 2nd cent. BCE and 1st cent. CE).

Interestingly, there are no parallel early rabbinic answers. In fact, the sages consciously

refused to answer the question according to a famous Tana’itic midrash in Sifra,

Qedoshim 9.13:

“You shall keep my ordinances“ (Lev. 18:4): This refers to matters that are written in the
Torah. But if they had not been written in the Torah, it would have been entirely logical
to write them, for example, rules governing thievery, fornication, idolatry, blasphemy,
murder, examples of rules that, had they not been written in the Torah, would have been
logical to include them. Then there are those concerning which the impulse to do evil

149
NumR 12. Translation by Jusah J. Slotkin, Midrash Rabbah: Numbers (London; New York:
Soncino, 1983), 462-463, with slight alteration.
‫ "אוכלי בשר החזיר והשקץ והעכבר" ( ישעיה סו) ומה איסור גדול יש להחזיר מן שאר בהמות טמאות ולעכבר משאר‬:‫ודכותה‬
.‫שרצים ? אלא חשב חזיר והוא הדין לכל הבהמות וחיות טמאות ומנה לעכבר וה"ה לכל השרצים שבעולם‬
150
Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 167-170. Schäfer, Judeophobia, 66-81.
151
See for example: Novatian, On the Jewish Meats; Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 2.15.4;
Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 16.
152
Philo, The Embassy to Gaius 363-364.
153
Josepus, Against Apion 2. 137.

49
 raises doubt, the nations of the world, idolaters, raise doubt, for instance, the prohibition
against pork, wearing mixed species, the rite of removing the shoe in the case of the
deceased childless brother’s widow, the purification-rite for the person afflicted with the
skin ailment, the goat that is sent forth - cases in which the impulse to do evil raises doubt,
the nations of world, idolaters, raise doubt. In this regard, Scriptures says, “I the Lord
have made these ordinances, and you have no right to raise doubts concerning them.”154

The Sifra interprets here Leviticus 18:1-5:

“The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2: Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: I am
the Lord your God. 3: You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived,
and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You
shall not follow their statutes (‫)ובחקתיהם‬. 4: My ordinances (‫ )משפטי‬you shall observe and
my statutes (‫ )חקתי‬you shall keep, following them: I am the Lord your God. 5: You shall
keep my statutes (‫ )חקתי‬and my ordinances (‫ ;)משפטי‬by doing so one shall live: I am the
Lord.”155

The Sifra distinguish between two types of commandments: ordinances (‫משפטים‬

mishpatim) which are universal and “natural”, and statutes (‫ חקים‬huqqim) which, like the

commandment to avoid pork, are particular and apparently arbitrary. As David Novak

notes regarding the latter, “precisely because they have neither universal nor historical

reasons, because their sole authority is God’s mysterious will, they are able to function as

active reminders that Israel is totally defined by the covenant, whereas God participates

in the covenant but is not defined by it.” 156 Hence, the sages appear to accept at least i n

some sense the critique of some non-Jews such as the Roman physician Galen who wrote

that “it is his [Moses´] method in his books to write without offering proofs, saying, ‘God

154
Sifra, Qedoshim 9.13. Translation by Neusner, Sifra, vol. 3, 79, with slight alteration.
‫ הגזלות והעריות וע"א וקללת השם‬:‫ בדין היה לכתבן כגון‬,‫ אלה הדברים הכתובים בתורה שאלו לא נכתבו‬- "‫"את משפטי תעשו‬
‫ ואלו שיצר הרע משיב עליהם ואומות העולם ע"א משיבין עליהם כגון אכילת חזיר‬,‫ושפיכת דמים שאלו לא נכתבו בדין היה לכתבן‬
‫ולבישת כלאים וחליצה יבמה וטהרת המצורע שעיר המשתלח שיצר הרע משיב עליהן ואומות העולם ע"א משיבין עליהן תלמוד‬
.‫לומר אני ה' חקקתי' אין את רשאי להשיב עליהם‬
155
Lev. 18: 1-5.
;‫וְָּאמַ ְּרתָ אֲ ֵלהֶם; אֲ נִי י ְּהוָה אֱֹלהֵיכֶם׃ כְּמַ עֲשֵ ה אֶ ֶרץ־ ִמ ְּצ ַרי ִם אֲשֶ ר י ְּשַ בְּתֶם־בָּה ֹלא ַתעֲשּו‬, ‫ַוי ְּדַ בֵר י ְּהוָה אֶל־מ ֹשֶ ה לֵאמ ֹר׃ דַ בֵר אֶל־ ְּבנֵי י ִשְּ ָראֵל‬
;‫ ּו ְּבחֻׁקֹתֵיהֶם ֹלא תֵ לֵכּו׃ אֶ ת־מִשְּ ָפטַי ַתעֲשּו וְּאֶת־חֻׁקֹתַי תִשְּ מְּרּו ָל ֶלכֶת ָבהֶם‬,‫ּוכְּמַ עֲשֵ ה אֶ ֶרץ־ ְּכנַעַן אֲשֶ ר אֲ נִי מֵ בִיא אֶ תְּ כֶם שָ מָ ה ֹלא תַ עֲשּו‬
‫ אֲשֶ ר יַעֲשֶ ה אֹתָ ם הָָאדָם ָוחַי ָבהֶם; אֲ נִי י ְּהוָה׃‬,‫אֲ נִי י ְּהוָה אֱֹלהֵיכֶם׃ ּושְּ מַ ְּרתֶם אֶ ת־חֻׁקֹתַי ְּואֶת־מִשְּ ָפטַי‬
156
David Novak, The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People (Cambridge; New York;
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 251-52.

50
commanded, God spoke.” 157 In early rabbinical literature it is exactly the arbitrary nature

of avoidance of pork that renders it a powerful symbol of separateness, chosenness, and

holiness, which are concieved dialogically vis-à-vis God and non-Jews. This

characteristic of the Jewish avoidance of pork might be better understood in light of

Edmund Leach’s discussion of food avoidance. As Leach notes, “the edible part of the

environment usually falls into three main categories:”

11. Edible substances that are recognized as food and consumed as part of the normal
diet.
12. Edible substances that are recognized as possible food, but that are prohibited or else
allowed to be eaten only under special (ritual) conditions. These are substances which
are consciously tabooed.
13. Edible substances that by culture and language are not recognized as food at all.
These substances are unconsciously tabooed.158

The Jewish avoidance of pork is of the second category, for as Leach notes, it “is

a ritual matter and explicit. It says, in effect, “pork is a food, but Jews must not eat it.” 159

The sages are conscious of this dimension. They do not present avoidance of pork as

natural, or give it rational explanations as some Greco-Roman (and later medieval)

authors might. As Claudine Fabre-Vassas observes, following Mary Douglas, “if

forbidden foods manifest the categories of a culture, they also necessarily demonstrate

the indigenous distinctions between societies. They are only fully affirmed, and can only

be understood, in the context of this confrontation.” 160 The sages admit the inter-cultural

confrontation around the avoidance of pork, for which “the impulse to do evil raises

157
Richard Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), 11 (from
an Arabic version of Galen’s ippocrates’ Anatomy).
158
Edmund Leach, “Anthropological Aspects of Languague: Animal Categories and Verbal Abuse.”
New Directions in the Study of Language, ed. E. H. Lenneberg (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1964), 31
159
Ibid., 32.
160
Fabre-Vassas, The Singular Beast, 6. Also: Claudine Vassas, “Questions anthropologiques autour
de l’interdit du porc dans le judaïsme et de son élection par le christianisme,” dans De la domestication au
tabou : le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 1, éd. B.
Lion et C. Michel (Paris: De Boccad, 2006), 229.

51
doubt, the nations of the world and idolaters raise doubt,” or the Bavli put it: “Satan and

the nations of the world.”161 This dialogical dimension, which as we have seen above, is

at the heart of Leviticus 18:1-5, is also found in Leviticus 20:22-26:

22: You shall keep all my statutes (‫ חקים‬ḥu im), and all my laws (‫ משפטים‬mishpatim) and
observe them, so that the land to which I bring you to settle in may not vomit you out. 23:
You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out before you. Because
they did all these things, I abhorred them. 24: But I have said to you: You shall inher it
their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey. I am
the Lord your God; I have separated you from the peoples. 25: You shall therefore make
a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unc lean bird and
the clean; you shall not bring abomination on yourselves by animal or by bird or by
anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean. 26:
You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and I have separated you from the other
peoples to be mine. 162

The interpretation in Sifra Qedoshim of this paragraph inscribes in it, inter alia,

the avoidance of pork:

“I am the Lord your God who has separated you from the peoples [‫( ”]העמים‬Lev. 20:24):
“see how vast is the difference between you and the nations [‫“ !]אומות‬One of them fixes
up his wife and hands her over to someone else [for sexual relations], a man fixes up
himself and gives himself to someone else [for sexual relations].” “You shall therefore
make a distinction between the clean beast and the unclean”: Scripture should say,
“between a cow and an ass.” For has the matter at hand not already been spelled out?
Why therefore does it say, “You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean
beast and the unclean” (Lev. 20:25)? The sense is, between what is clean for you and
what is unclean for you, specifically, between the one the greater part of the gullet of
which has been cut and the one only half of which has been cut. And what is the
difference between the greater part and half? A hair’s breadth. “…and between the
unclean bird and the clean; you shall not make yourselves abominable by beast or by bird
or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold
unclean” (Lev. 20:25): that is, to subject such to a prohibition. “You shall be holy to me,

161
B.Yoma 67b: “such commandments to which Satan objects, and the nations of the world, object,”
(“‫ ;)”ואומות העולם משיבים עליהן דברים שהשטן‬YalShim, Ahri mot 587: Satan, the impulse do evil and the
nations of the world (“ ‫ ;)”דברים שהשטן ויצר הרע משיבין עליהם ואומות העולם‬Tan, Mishpatim 7 : “the impulse to
do evil raises doubt, the nations of the world raise doubt,” ( “ ‫דברים שיצר הרע משיב עליהן ואו"ה משיבין עליהן‬
‫)“תשובה‬. On the impulse to do evil (Yetzer Hara), see: Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Yetzer Hara in Amoraic
Literature: A Reevaluation,” Tarbiz 77 (2008): 1-38 (Hebrew). Ibid., Demonic Desires: Yetzer Hara and
the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).
162
Lev. 20:22-26.
‫אֲשֶ ר אֲ נִי מֵ בִיא אֶ תְּ כֶם שָ מָ ה לָשֶ בֶת בָּה׃ וְֹּלא תֵ ְּלכּו‬, ‫ָָארץ‬ ֶ ‫ ַועֲשִיתֶם אֹתָם; וְֹּלא־תָ קִיא אֶתְּ כֶם ה‬,‫ּושְּ מַ ְּרתֶם אֶ ת־כָל־חֻׁקֹתַי ְּואֶת־כָל־מִשְּ ָפטַי‬
‫ וַאֲ נִי אֶתְּ נֶנָה ָלכֶם ל ֶָרשֶת‬,‫ִירשּו אֶת־ַאדְּ מָ תָם‬ ְּ ‫ אַ תֶם ת‬,‫וָָאקֻׁ ץ בָם וָא ֹמַ ר ָלכֶם‬, ‫אֲשֶ ר־אֲ נִי מְּשַ ֵל ַח מִ ְּפנֵיכֶם; כִי אֶ ת־כָל־אֵ לֶה ָעשּו‬, ‫ְּבחֻׁק ֹת הַּגֹוי‬
‫ ּובֵין־הָעֹוף‬,‫ אֲשֶ ר־הִבְּדַ ְּלתִי אֶתְּ כֶם מִ ן־ ָה ַעמִים ְּו ִהבְּדַ לְּתֶ ם בֵין־ ַה ְּבהֵמָ ה ַהטְּה ָֹרה ַל ְּטמֵ ָאה‬,‫ אֶ ֶרץ זָבַת ָחלָב ּודְּ בָש; אֲ נִי י ְּהוָה אֱֹלהֵיכֶם‬,‫א ֹתָ ּה‬
‫ כִי‬,‫ אֲשֶ ר־ ִהבְּדַ לְּתִ י ָלכֶם ְּלטַמֵ א׃ ִו ְּהי ִיתֶ ם לִי קְּ ד ֹשִים‬,‫ ּובְּכ ֹל אֲשֶ ר תִ ְּרמ ֹש הָאֲ דָ מָ ה‬,‫ַהטָמֵ א ַלטָה ֹר ; וְֹּלא־תְּשַ קְּ צּו אֶ ת־נַפְּשֹתֵיכֶם בַ ְּבהֵמָ ה ּובָעֹוף‬
‫קָ דֹוש אֲ נִי י ְּהוָה; וַָאבְּדִל אֶ תְּ כֶם מִן־ ָה ַעמִי ם ִל ְּהיֹות לִי׃‬

52
 for I the Lord am holy”: “Just as I am holy, so you be holy,” “Just as I am separate, so
you be separate,” “…and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine”
(Lev. 20:26): If you are separated from the nations, lo, you are for my Name, and if not,
lo, you belong to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylonia, and his associates.” R. Eleazar b.
Azariah says, “How do we know that someone should not say, ‘I do not want to wear
mixed fibers, I don’t want to eat pork, I don’t want to have incestuous sexual relations.
Rather: I do want [to wear mixed fibers, I do want to eat pork, I do want to have
incestuous relations.] But what can I do? For my father in heaven has made a decree for
me!’ So Scriptures says, ‘and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be
mine.’ (Lev. 20:26) So one will turn out to keep far from transgression and accept upon
himself the rule of Heaven.” 163

As Gherhard Bodendorfer notes, “this explanation of the commandment is very

significant as it makes the biblical text [Lev. 20:22-26] topical in a most drastic way. It is

put down to the unconditional divine will and on the next level is connected to

sanctification.” 164 An analogy is created between three distinctions: Jewish morality a nd

non-Jews’ moral deviance (itself present as lack of separateness in sexual morality);

Judaism’s distinction between pure and impure foods; and God’s separateness and

Israel’s separateness.

Some midrashim soften the idea of the arbitrariness of the divine commandment:

God in his compassion, for each thing which He prohibited, He authorized another

163
Sifra, Qedoshim 10.11. Translation by Neusner, Sifra, vol. 3, 137, with slight alteration.
‫ באומות אדם מקשט את אשתו ומוסרה לאחר אדם‬,‫"אני ה' אלהיכם אשר הבדלתי אתכם מן העמים" ראו כמה ביניכם ולאומות‬
,‫" צריך לומר בין פרה לחמור והלא כבר מפורשים הם‬,‫ (יט) "והבדלתם מן הבהמה הטהורה לטמאה‬.‫מקשט את עצמו ונמסר לאחר‬
‫ בין שנשחט רובו של קנה בין שנשחט חציו‬,‫אם כן למה נאמר “ והבדלתם מן הבהמה הטהורה לטמאה” בין טהורה לך לטמאה לך‬
‫ ולא תשקצו את נפשותיכם בבהמה ובעוף ובכל אשר תרמוש‬,‫ (כ) “ובין העוף הטמא לטהור‬.‫וכמה הוא בין רובו לחציו מלא שיער‬
‫" כשם שאני קדוש כך אתם (קדושים) היו‬,'‫ (כא) " והייתם לי קדושים כי קדוש אני ה‬.‫האדמה הבדלתי אתכם” לטמא לאסור‬
‫" אם מובדלים אתם מן העמים הרי אתם‬.‫ (כב) " ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי‬.‫ כשם שאני פרוש כך אתם היו פרושים‬,‫קדושים‬
‫ מנין שלא יאמר אדם אי איפשי ללבוש שעטנז‬:‫ ר' אלעזר בן עזריה אומר‬.‫לשמי ואם לאו הרי אתם של נבוכדנצר מלך בבל וחביריו‬
‫ ואבדיל אתכם מן‬:‫ ת"ל‬.‫ אבל איפשי מה אעשה ואבי שבשמים גזר עלי כך‬,‫ אי איפשי לבוא על הערוה‬,‫אי אפשי לאכול בשר חזיר‬
“.‫ נמצא פורש מן העבירה ומקבל עליו מלכות שמים‬.‫העמים להיות לי‬
And also: YalShim, Qedoshim 626.
164
Gherhard Bodendorfer, “‫אני יהוה‬: God’s Self-Introdution Formula in Leviticus in Midrash Sifra,” in
Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, ed. Rolf Rendtorff, Robert A. Kugler, and Bartel S. Smith
(Leiden: Brill, 2003), 417.

53
similar thing; while God forbid pork, He permitted brains or the tongue of a fish called

shibuta, which tastes similar to the pig (here Bavli Ḥulin 109b’s version): 165

Yalta said to Rav Nachman, [her husband:] “Now, [let us see,] whatever the Merciful
One forbade us, He permitted us something corresponding. He forbade us blood, [but]
permitted us liver, [He forbade relations with a niddah, [but permitted relations with a
woman who has discharged] ‘blood of purity’; [He forbade eating the] cheilev of a
domestic animal, [but permitted] cheilev of an undomesticated animal; [He forbade] pork,
[but permitted] the brains of a shibuta. [He forbade] girusa, [but permitted] fish tongue;
[He forbade relations with] a married woman, [but permitted relations with] a divorced
[woman] while her husband is alive; [He forbade relations with] one’s brother’s wife,
[but permitted] a yevamah; [He forbade relations] with a Cuthian, [but permitted] ‘the
beautiful captive.’ I wish to eat meat in milk. Rav Nahman said to the cooks: Cook her
the udder. 166

Yalta, the wife of Rav Nachman, the daughter of Resh Galuta, who was known

for her wittiness and eruditeness, gives a list of permitted things which are substitute for a

forbidden thing. As Eliezer Diamond notes, Yalta argues that the Torah “regulates

pleasure but does not forbid it.” 167

Discussion

For the sages, the prohibition of pork is a practical legal question that is more

extensive than the simple prohibition of its consumption. May a Jew breed pigs? May a

Jew feed pigs or trade them? And, if yes, under what conditions? The sages, however, do

not only ask practical questions concerning the pig, but use its emblematic status to

discuss exceptional or hypothetical situations: Can a Jew eat pork during war? Can he eat

165
For the identification of the Shibuta, see: Zohar Amar and Ari. Z. Zivotofsky, “Identification of the
Shibuta Fish,” HaMa'ayan 45, no. 3 (2005): 41-46 (Hebrew). And: Ari Z. Zivotofsky and Zohar Amar.
“Identifying the Ancient Shibuta Fish,” Environmental Biology of Fishes 75, no. 3 (2006): 361-363. In
August 2005, the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post published that the fish indentified as the Shibuta
had recently been smuggled from Iran to Israel for the purpose of breeding. Judy Siegel. “Kosher 'pork of
the sea' makes aliya from Iran,” Jerusalem Post (Friday, August 19, 2005), 6.
166
B. Ḥu in 109b. Translation by Schottenstein Talmud.
- ‫ חלב בהמה‬,‫ דם טוהר‬- ‫ נדה‬,‫ שרא לן כבדא‬- ‫ אסר לן דמא‬,‫ כל דאסר לן רחמנא שרא לן כוותיה‬,‫ מכדי‬:‫אמרה ליה ילתא לרב נחמן‬
.‫ יפת תאר‬- ‫ כותית‬,‫ יבמה‬- ‫ אשת אח‬,‫ גרושה בחיי בעלה‬- ‫ אשת איש‬,‫ לישנא דכוורא‬- ‫ גירותא‬,‫ מוחא דשיבוטא‬- ‫ חזיר‬,‫חלב חיה‬
. ‫ זויקו לה כחלי‬:‫בעינן למיכל בשרא בחלבא ! אמר להו רב נחמן לטבחי‬
167
Eliezer Diamond, Holy Men and Hunger Artists: Fasting and Asceticism in Rabbinic Culture
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 130.

54
meat that was cooked near pork? Is a pig in a uterus of a pure animal pure or impure? etc.

If for some issues such as selling pigs, the sages seem to demonstrate some openness to

the possibility of proximity between pigs and Jews, most of their discussion insists upon

increasing the distance between Jews and the abominable animal, which became a strong

boundary marker with non-Jews. This tendency is clearly observed in the sages’ ban on

pig breeding which is linked to the ban on learning Greek wisdom: both learning the

other’s wisdom and eating the other’s meat became a symbol of impurity. The inner

classification anomaly of the pig (being pure and impure) came to stand for anomal ous

relations between Jews and non-Jews: the inner negative mixing of categories became

exterior negative mixing of categories. In other words, the sages follow and enlarge the

biblical tendency to link the inner legal distinction of classification between pure and

impure animals to the distinction between Jews and non-Jews.

This classificatory discrimination is repeated by legal speculations as well as by

respect for the avoidance of pork itself. To distinguish and be distinguished became the

leitmotiv of the religious system: one who discriminates between pure and impure

animals, pure and impure foods, and pure and impure humans will be distinguished from

the impure and will be holy. Not eating pork is an active way of affirming a categorical

world order: it is a locus of repetition and at the same time of eternal distinction, a minor

distinction but at the same time a very concrete one which embodied the larger distinction

between God and the world, that of the process of Creation (heaven and earth, light and

darkness, etc.), as well as of his chosen people and the nations. As Walter Houston notes,

the discrimination between clean and unclean flesh is part of Jewish national and

religious identity, for “it defines and protects equally their ‘vertical’ relationship to God

55
and their ‘horizontal’ difference from all other peoples.” 168 For the sages, avoidance of

pork “vertically” marks their unique relations with God, while it “horizontally” marks

their separateness from the rest of humanity.

Jacob Milgrom, following Mary Douglas, 169 argues that the tripartite biblical

animal classification between pure-sacrificed, pure-edible, and impure animals is parallel

to the biblical classification of humanity priests, Israel and non-Jews, as well as the

classification of space into: Sanctuary, Land of Israel, and Earth (fig. 4).170 If we refer to

this basic unified-analogical conception of humanity, animality, and space, the pig is part

of the outermost sphere.

168
Houston, Purity and Monotheism, 260.
169
Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York:
Praeger, 1966). Ibid. “Impurity of Land Animals,” Purity and Holiness. The Heritage of Leviticus, ed. M. J.
M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz, 24-45 (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 2000).
170
Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 (New York: The Anchor Bible, 1991), 718-725. Ibid., Leviticus 17-
22, (New York: The Anchor Bible, 2000), 1718. Milgrom interprets the dietary laws as an “ethical system.”
Jacob Milgrom. “The Biblical Diet Laws as an Ethical System,” Interpretation 17 (1963): 288-301
(reprinted in Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, 105-106. Leiden: Brill, 1983). For criticism of
this idea, see: Houston, Purity and Monotheism), 76-78.

56
 Fig. 4: The three parallel domains of classification according to Jacob Milgrom.

In light of this categorical order, perhaps it is not surprising that some non-Jews

saw Judaism as misanthropic, for it introduced a strong distance between Israel and the
171
rest of humanity, especially with respect to customs such as the prohibition of pork

which create a real culinary difference and made eating together problematic. The

Hellenistic tradition viewed misanthropy as the opposite of hospitality, a crucial element

171
As Jean Bottéro remarks, Judaism “volontairement constitué comme isolé et fermé. Il y avait là le
germe d’une opposition, où d’Israël au reste des hommes ou du reste des hommes à Israël. Mais cet
isolement, ce sentiment de l’altérité, comme disent les philosophes, se tenait toujours sur le seul plan de la
culture.” Jean Bottéro, “L’homme et l’autre dans la pensée babylonienne et la pensée israélite,” in Hommes
et bêtes, Entretien sur le racisme, ed. Léon Poliakov (Paris; La Haye: Mouton, 1975), 112. Although Jean
Bottéro’s generalization is problematic, it is valuable at least with respect to the way many Jews and non-
Jews viewed Judaism.

57
 172
of which was the sacrifice of an animal and partaking of its meat with the guest. Hence,

the refusal of Jews (or some Jews) to eat non-Jewish food (especially meat), could be

understood as implying that the Jews also do not invite foreigners to eat their food, and
173
therefore that they are misanthropes. For example, the Roman historian Tacitus writes

that “Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and always ready to show compassion,
174
but toward every other people they feel only hate and enmity.” He especially targeted

Judaism’s separateness:

They sit apart at meals, and they sleep apart, and although as a race, they are prone to lust;
they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; yet among themselves nothing is
unlawful. They adopted circumcision to distinguish themselves from other peoples by
this difference. Those who are converted to their ways follow the same practice, and the
earliest lesson they receive is to despise the gods, to disown their country, and to regard
175
their parents, children, and brothers as of little account.

Such accusations were repeated by the sophist Philostratus, in the early third

century:

(…) the Jews have long been in revolt not only against the Romans, but against humanity;
and a race that has made its own a life apart and irreconcilable, that cannot share with the
rest of mankind in the pleasures of the table nor join in their libations or prayers or
sacrifices, are separated from ourselves by a greater gulf than divides us from Susa or
Bactra or the more distant Indies. 176

172
From the Greek perspective, perhaps the pig was not the most valuable offering to a host, but it was
probably the most common animal to sacrifice and eat with a guest. The refusal of the Jews to “partake” of
the pig strongly contrasts with one of the emblematic scenes of hospitality in Greek culture - that of
Odysseus’ swineherd, Eumaeus, who immolates pigs for his master who is disguised as a stranger (Odyssey
10.407-44; 14.80-109). In the Odyssey, this scene of sacrificing and partaking of the pig are the antipode of
the pretenders’ swinish, misanthropic behavior: they eat without sacrificing, they insult the stranger
(Odysseus), giving him the worst parts of the meat.
173
Katell Berthelot, Phi anthrôpia udaica e d bat autour de a “misanthropie” des ois juives dans
’Antiquit (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 90. According to Berthelot, the accusation of misanthropy against the
Jews is often linked to “une perception négative des lois alimentaires juives, qui découle de l’observation
de leurs conséquences sur la convivialité entre Juifs et non-Juifs.” Ibid. 83.
174
Tacitus, Histories 5.5.
175
Tacitus, Histories 5.5.
176
Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana, 33. See: Berthelot, Philanthrôpia Judaica, 153-156.
Simmilar accusation can be found in Rutilius Namatianus, A Voyage Home to Gaul, 382-398.

58
 While the sages were aware of this common accusation of misanthropy against

the Jews by Greco-Roman authors, 177 they did not seek to deny Jewish separateness but

rather to glorify it. Hence, in the face of the accusation that Jews do not marr y non-Jews,

the sages insist on the prohibition of sexual relations with non-Jewish women, which

came to stand for idolatry. Refusing sexual relations with non-Jewish women came to

represent the moral superiority of the Jews, their control of their desires. As seen above,

Sifra Qedoshim (10.11) contrasts the sexual deviance of the non-Jews with Jewish

morality, emphasizing food avoidances. It also contrasts non-Jews´ sexual proximity

with the Jewish keeping of purity laws. Hence, food purity serves as an a fortiori

argument: while the Goyim do not maintain separateness concerning sex, the Jews even

keep the separateness of food avoidances which are of minor importance. Another

message here is that the Jews must distinguish between themselves and non-Jews as

much as they distinguish between clean animals (which are analogous to Jews) and

impure ones (which are analogous to non-Jews). As the Sifra states, Jewish social

exclusion is parallel to that of God: “You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy, just

as I am holy, so you be holy, j ust as I am separate, so you be separate.” (Lev. 20:26).” 178

Hence the Sifra placed the avoidance of pork and forbidden sexual relations together, one

after the other, in the list of commandments concerning which “someone should not say,

‘I do not want to wear mixed fibers, I don’t want to eat pork, I don’t want to have

incestuous sexual relations. Rather: I do want. But what can I do? For my father in

heaven has made a decree for me!’ 179

177
See: Moshe David Herr, “Persecutions and Martyrdom in Hadrian’s Days,” Scripta
Hierosolymitana 23 (1972): 85-125. Herr, Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature, 33.
178
Ibid.
179
Ibid.

59
 The sages refuse to enter into dialogue regarding the sense of the avoidance of

pork with non-Jews in the Greco-Roman manner. Their argument about the arbitrary

nature of food avoidance is part of their declaration of uniqueness and hence holiness.

This refusal to dialogue is highly dialogic for it inscribes the avoidance of pork in a deep

tension with the customs of the other, and hence reinforces its power as a boundary

marker. The vivacity of the boundary is not due to its being an impenetrable fixed

obstacle, but rather a dynamic one, a mediatory zone, part of a field of tensions.

60
 Chapter 3
Boundary Keeping
In chapter two, we observed the extent to which the sages´ analyzed the avoidance

of pork in relation to non-Jews. Now we will observe how pork was used to maintain

boundaries around Jewishness. We will focus on four liminal situations: persecutions,

forbidden sex with non-Jews, apostasy, and proselytes.

Persecutions

Contrary to the common modern impression that Jews throughout history have

been persecuted by being forced to eat pork, the early rabbinic texts are almost silent

concerning cases of this sort. The topic of persecution by Antiochus in the Books of

Maccabees, in which pork plays an important role, and in which the king forces the Jews

to sacrifice pigs and eat their flesh, are absent from early rabbinic literature. In the

Mishnah, the Talmud, and the Midrashim, we do not hear of the sacrifice of the pig in the

Temple, or of forcing the Jews to eat pork; we hear nothing about the martyrs who prefer

death to eating the forbidden meat. Nor do we find in the rabbinic literature stories such

as the one that Philo of Alexandria tells about forcing Jewish women to eat pork in the

Alexandrian riots of 38 CE.180 Furthermore, although in the early rabbinical literature we

do not find martyrdom stories about not eating pork, we do find stories about trickery or

deception on the theme. One example is the story about Rabbi Meir who pretended to eat

pork, expressing the tactic of deceit:

They (…) engraved R. Meir's likeness on the gates of Rome and proclaimed that anyone
seeing a person resembling it should bring him there. One day [some Romans] saw him
and ran after him, so he ran away from them and entered a harlot's house. Others say he
happened just then to see food cooked by heathens and he dipped in one finger and then

180
Philo, Flaccus 96.

61
 sucked the other. Others again say that Elijah the Prophet appeared to them as a harlot
who embraced him. God forbid, said they, were this R. Meir, he would not have acted
thus! [and they left him]. He then arose and ran away and came to Babylon. Some say it
was because of that incident that he ran to Babylon; others say because of the incident
about Beruria. 181

Rabbi Meir’s conduct is very different from that of Old Eleazar in 2 and 4

Maccabees, who refused to pretend to eat pork to save his life. 182 It also differs from the

actions of the mother and her seven sons, who refused even to touch pig’s meat. 183 While

the martyrdom story of Eleazar came to glorify martyrdom as resistance, the story about

Rabbi Meir prefers what Daniel Boyarin calls “the trickster option.” 184 Another rabbinic

legend in the later midrash Numbers Rabbah tells about a Jewish innkeeper who

181
B. Avoda Zara 18b.
‫ רהט‬,‫ רהט אבתריה‬,‫ יומא חדא חזיוהי‬.‫ כל דחזי לפרצופא הדין לייתיה‬:‫ אמרי‬,‫אתו חקקו לדמותיה דר' מאיר אפיתחא דרומי‬
,‫ אתא אליהו אדמי להו כזונה‬:‫ איכא דאמרי‬.‫ טמש בהא ומתק בהא‬,‫ בשולי עובדי כוכבים חזא‬:‫ איכא דאמרי‬.‫ על לבי זונות‬,‫מקמייהו‬
:‫ ואיכא דאמרי‬,‫ מהאי מעשה‬:‫ איכא דאמרי‬.‫ קם ערק אתא לבבל‬.‫ אי ר' מאיר הוה לא הוה עביד הכי‬,‫ חס ושלום‬:‫ אמרי‬,‫כרכתיה‬
.‫ממעשה דברוריא‬
Compare to Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.12.1: “R. Meir was being sought by the [Roman] Government. He fled
and passed by the store of some Romans. He found them sitting and eating from that species [swine’s flesh].
When they saw him they said, ‘Is it he or not? Since it may be he, let us call him over to us; if he comes
and eats with us [it cannot be he].’ He dipped one finger in the swine’s blood and placed another finger in
his mouth, dipping one finger and sucking the other. They said one to the other, ‘If he were R. Meir, he
would not have done so.’ They let him go and he fled. The text was therefore applied to him, The
excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom preseveth the life of him that hath it.” EcclR 7.12.1. Translation by
A. Cohen, Midrash Rabbah, vol. VIII, Ruth and Ecclesiastes (London: Soncino Press, 1939), 194.
‫ הוא הוא‬:‫ חמון ית יה אמרין‬.‫ ואשכח יתהון יתיבין אכלון מן ההוא מינא‬.‫ וערק עבר על חנותא דארמיין‬.‫ר' מאיר הוה מתבעי למלכותא‬
‫ ויהב אצבעותיה‬,‫ והוה צבע חדא אצבעותיה בדמה דחזיר‬.‫ אין אתי אכיל עמן‬:‫ אנן כרזין ליה‬,‫ אם הוא הוא‬:‫לית הוא הוא? אמרין‬
‫ "ויתרון דעת‬:‫ וקרא עליה‬,‫ שבקוניה וערק‬.‫ דין לדין אילו הוה ר' מאיר לא הוה עביד כן‬:‫ אמרין‬.‫ טמש הא ומתק הא‬,‫אוחרי בפומיה‬
."‫החכמה תחיה בעליה‬
Maimonides, in The Epistle on Martyrdom (wr. c. 1165) relates another version of the story: “It is common
knowledge that in the course of a persecution during which Jewish sages were executed, Rabbi Meir was
arrested. Some who knew him said: “You are Meir, aren’t you?” and he replied: “I am not.” Pointing to
ham, they ordered: “Eat this if you are not Jewish.” He responded: “I shall readily eat it,” and he pretended
he was eating, but did not in fact. In the view of this modest person who knows the true meaning of Torah,
Rabbi Meir is undoubtedly a gentile, for so his responsum rules: He who acts openly as a gentile, although
secretly he behave like is a Jew, is a gentile, since according to him worship of God is open, and he hides it,
as Rabbi Meir did.” Translation by Abraham S. Halkin and David Hartman, Epistles of Maimonides: Crisis
and Leadership (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993), 20.
182
2 Macc. 6; 4 Macc. 1.
183
2 Macc. 7.
184
Daniel Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Meaning of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1999), 73.

62
pretended to be a non-Jew. To non-Jews he served pork, but to the Jews, whom he

recognized because they washed their hands before the meal, he served kosher meat: 185

’And he [Balaam] took up his parable’ (Numbers 24:3). Halachah: if a man has eaten
without previously washing his hands, does he incur a penalty? Our Rabbis have taught:
Washing the hands before a meal is optional; after the meal it is obligatory. An incident is
related that during the period of religious persecution a certain Israelite shopkeeper used
to cook ritually clean meat as well as the flesh of swine and sell them, so that it might not
be suspected that he was a Jew. His practice was that if anyone came into his shop [to eat]
and did not wash his hands, he would know that he was an idolater and would place
before him the flesh of swine, but if a man washed his hands and recited the blessing he
would know that he was an Israelite and would give him clean meat to eat. Once a Jew
came in to eat and did not wash his hands, so he thought that he was an idolater and
placed swine’s flesh before him. The man ate and did not say the Grace after Meals.
When he came to settle the account with him for the bread and the meat the shopkeeper
said to him: ‘I have a claim on you for such-and-such a sum on account of the meat you
have eaten, for each piece coasts ten manehs.’ Said the other: ‘Yesterday I got it for eight
and today you want to take ten from me, do you?’ The shopkeeper answered him: ’The
piece you have eaten is from the swine.’ When he told him this his hair stood on end, and
he fell into a great fright and said to him under his breath: ’I am a Jew and you have
given me swine’s flesh!’ Said the shopkeeper to him: ‘A plague on you! When I saw that
you ate without washing your hands and without a blessing I thought you were an
idolater!’ Hence the Sages have taught: The [neglect of the] water before the meal killed
the soul. 186

T he eating of pork is the consequence of non-fulfillment of a minor

commandment: the washing of the hands before the meal. 187 This is parallel to the

transgression of another minor commandment: the second washing of the hands that leads

185
B. Holin 106a; Yoma 83b; Y. Hala 2:1, 58c. NumR 10.21; Tan, Balak 24.
186
NumR, Balak 20.21. Translation by Judah Slotki, Midrash Numbers Rabbah, vol. II (London and
Bourmemouth: Soncino Press, 1939), 817-818.
,‫ רשות‬- ‫ נטילת ידים לפני המזון‬:‫ שנו רבותינו‬.‫ הלכה מי שאכל ולא נטל ידיו מה יהא? חייב‬:)3 ,‫ כד‬,‫"וישא משלו ויאמר" (במדבר‬
‫ מעשה בשעת הגזירה בחנוני אחד מישראל שהיה מבשל בשר טהור ובשר חזיר ומוכר שלא ירגשו בו שהוא‬.‫ חובה‬- ‫לאחר המזון‬
‫ כל מי שנכנס לחנות שלו ולא נטל ידיו יודע שהוא עובד כוכבים ונותן לפניו בשר חזיר וכל מי שנטל ידיו‬:‫יהודי וכן היה מנהגו‬
‫ נכנס יהודי לאכול שם ולא נטל ידיו והיה סבור שהוא עובד כוכבים נתן‬,‫ פעם אחת‬.‫ומברך יודע שהוא ישראל ומאכילו בשר טהור‬
‫ יש לי עליך כך וכך מן הבשר שהאכלת‬:‫ בא לעשות עמו חשבון על הפת ועל הבשר אמר לו‬.‫לפניו בשר חזיר אכל ולא בירך‬
‫ "זו שאכלת של חזיר‬:‫ אמר לו‬."‫ "אתמול אכלתי אותה בח' והיום אתה רוצה ליטול ממני עשרה‬:‫ אמר לו‬.‫שחתיכה עולה עשרה מנה‬
,‫ " תיפח רוחך‬:‫ אמר לו‬."‫ " יהודי אני ונתת לי בשר חזיר‬:‫ כיון שאמר לו כך עמדו שערותיו נבהל ונחפז אמר לו בצנעה‬."‫היא‬
‫ האכילו בשר‬- ‫ מים ראשונים‬:‫ מיכן שנו חכמים‬."‫ הייתי סבור שאתה עובד כוכבים‬,‫שכשראיתי שאכלת בלא נטילת ידים ובלא ברכה‬
.‫ הרגו את הנפש‬- ‫ אחרונים‬,‫חזיר‬
187
On hand purity see: Avrham Aderet, “Tumat Yadaim (Impurity of the Hands),” in From Destruction
to Restoration: The Mode of Yavneh in Re-Establishment of the Jewish People (Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
1990), 210-231 (Hebrew). Chaim Milikowsky “Reflections on Hand-Washing, Hand-Purity and Holy
Scripture in Rabbinic Literature,” in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus, ed. M. J. H. M.
Poorthuis and J. Schwartz (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 2000), 149-162.

63
to a murder. 188 After telling a story concerning a man who, because he did not wash his

hands after the meal, killed his wife, the midrash resumes:

For this reason the Holy One, blessed be He, exhorted Israel to be careful even in regard
to a trifling precept; as it says, For it is no vain thing for you; because it is your life (Deut.
32:47), which implies that even a precept which you consider to be vain and trifling
contains the reward of like and length of days. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to
Israel: ‘If you observe My commandments I shall cast down your enemies before you’; as

188
The two episodes detailed in Numbers Rabbah allude to Yerusalmi and Bavli, while Bavli Yoma
83b relates the story concerning the second washing of the hands. Y. Berakhot 8:2, 12a. “[washing both
before and after the meal is compulsory in accordance with the following:] Said R. Jacob bar Idi, “On
account of [neglect of] the first [washing before the meal], they came to eat swine’s meat. And on account
of [neglect of] the second [washing after the meal], three persons were killed.” Translation by Tzvee
Zahavy, Talmud Yerushalmi, Berakhot (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989), 286. Y. Hala 2:1,
58c.
.‫ על הראשונים נאכל בשר חזיר ועל השניים יצאת אשה מביתה ויש אומרים שנהרגו עליה שלש נפשות‬:‫אמר רבי יעקב בר אידי‬
B. Ḥu in 106a.
- ‫ ראשונים‬:‫ אחרונים הוציאו את האשה מבעלה; כי אתא רבין אמר‬,‫ האכילו בשר חזיר‬- ‫ מים הראשונים‬:‫כי אתא רב דימי אמר‬
. ‫ אתא רבין – קטלה‬,‫ אפקה‬- ‫ אתא רב דימי‬:‫ וסימניך‬,‫ הרגו את הנפש; אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק‬- ‫ אחרונים‬,‫האכילו בשר נבלה‬
B. Yoma 83b. “Also, R. Meir and R. Judah and R. Jose were on a journey together. (R. Meir always paid
close attention to people's names, whereas R. Judah and R. Jose paid no such attention to them). Once as
they came to a certain place, they looked for a lodging, and as they were given it, they said to him [the
innkeeper]: What is your name? — He replied: Kidor. Then he [R. Meir] said: There from it is evident that
he is a wicked man, for it is said: For a generation [ki-dor] very forward are they. R. Judah and R. Jose
entrusted their purses to him; R. Meir did not entrust his purse to him, but went and placed it on the grave
of that man's father. Thereupon the man had a vision in his dream [saying]: Go, take the purse lying at the
head of this man! In the morning he [the innkeeper] told them [the Rabbis] about it, saying: This is what
appeared to me in my dream. They replied to him: There is no substance in the dream of the Sabbath night.
R. Meir went, waited there all day, and then took the purse with him. In the morning they [the Rabbis] said
to him, ‘Give us our purses’. He said: There never was such a thing! R. Meir then said to them: Why don't
you pay attention to people's names? They said: Why have you not told this [before]. Sir He answered:
consider this but a suspicion. I would not consider that a definite presumption! Thereupon they took him
[the host] into a shop [and gave him wine to drink]. Then they saw lentils on his moustache. They went to
his wife and gave her that as a sign, and thus obtained their purses and took them back. Whereupon he went
and killed his wife. It is with regard to this that it was taught: [Failure to observe the custom of] the first
water caused one to eat the meat of pig, [failure to use] the second water slew a person. At the end they, too,
paid close attention to people's names. And when they called to a house whose [owner's] name was Balah,
they would not enter, saying: He seems to be a wicked man, as it is written: Then said I of her that was
[balah] worn out by adulteries.”
‫ כי מטו‬.‫ רבי מאיר הוה דייק בשמא רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי לא הוו דייקו בשמא‬,‫רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה ורבי יוסי הוו קא אזלי באורחא‬
‫ "כי דור‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ שמע מינה אדם רשע הוא‬:‫ אמר‬- .‫ כידור‬:‫ אמר להו‬- ?‫ מה שמך‬:‫ אמרו לו‬.‫ יהבו להו‬,‫לההוא דוכתא בעו אושפיזא‬
‫ אזל אותביה בי קיבריה‬.‫ רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי אשלימו ליה כיסייהו רבי מאיר לא אשלים ליה כיסיה‬.)‫תהפכת המה" (דברים לב‬
‫ חלמא‬:‫ הכי אתחזי ל י בחלמאי! אמרי ליה‬:‫ למחר אמר להו‬.‫ תא שקיל כיסא דמנח ארישא דההוא גברא‬:‫דאבוה אתחזי ליה בחלמיה‬
‫ לא היו דברים‬:‫ הב לן כיסן! אמר להו‬:‫ למחר אמרו לו‬.‫ ונטריה כולי יומא ואייתיה‬,‫ אזל רבי מאיר‬.‫דבי שמשי לית בהו ממשא‬
,‫ אימר דאמרי אנא חששא‬:‫ אמאי לא אמרת לן מר? אמר להו‬:‫ אמאי לא דייקיתו בשמא? אמרו ליה‬:‫ אמר להו רבי מאיר‬.‫מעולם‬
‫ אזל איהו‬.‫ ושקלוהו לכיסייהו ואייתו‬,‫ אזלו ויהבו סימנא לדביתהו‬,‫ חזו טלפחי אשפמיה‬,‫אחזוקי מי אמרי? משכוהו ועיילוהו לחנותא‬
‫ כי מטו‬,‫ ולבסוף הוו דייקי בשמא‬.‫ מים אחרונים הרגו את הנפש‬,‫ מים ראשונים האכילו בשר חזיר‬:)‫ היינו (דתנן‬.‫וקטליה לאיתתיה‬
‫ "אחרי‬:‫ "ואמר לבלה נאפים")יחזקאל כג) כמו‬:‫ דכתיב‬,‫ שמע מינה רשע הוא‬:‫ אמרי‬.‫ לא עיילו לגביה‬- ‫לההוא ביתא דשמיה בלה‬
.‫ זקנה בנאופים‬:‫ כלומר‬,)‫בלתי היתה לי עדנה" (בראשית יח‬

64
 it says, “Oh that My people would hearken unto Me a little…I would subdue their
enemies.” (Ps. 81:14f). 189

The avoidance of pork is portrayed as a minor commandment that has a major

importance: its keeping brings life; its transgression, death. Interestingly, the personal

reward (long life) is paralleled here to the freedom of Israel from outside oppression. It is

not the Jewish innkeeper who served pork who is criticized, but rather the Jew who does

not wash his hands before eating. It seems than that the focus of the story is not Roman

oppression, but rather the failure of some Jews to keep the law and thus cause the

subjection of Israel to foreign rule. The message is that the real field of action for a Jew is

not the fight against the foreign oppressor but that of fulfilling the Divine law.

Forbidden Sexual Relations with non-Jews

In the Greco-Roman world eating and sex were associated (mainly negatively, but

not exclusively so) with the pig. 190 Hence, for example women´s genitals were called pig

in Greek and Latin. 191 Likewise, in rabbinic literature the term da ar aḥer (another thing)

designated the pig as well as the female sex. Both eating and sex, as much as they are

fundamental to human survival, are sources of anxiety and phobias, subject to strong

prohibitions, and therefore particularly apt to serve as boundary markers between groups.

It is not surprising than that we find the pig in the sages’ discussions of forbidden sexual

relations with non-Jews.

189
NumR, Balak 20.21.
,(‫ מז‬,‫ “כי לא דבר רק הוא מכם כי הוא חייכם" (דברים לב‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫לכך הזהיר הקדוש ברוך הוא את ישראל אפלו במצוה קלה‬
‫ אני‬,‫ אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל אם שמרתם מצוותי‬.‫ בה חיים ואריכות ימים‬,‫אפלו דבר מצוה שאתה רואה אותה רקה וקלה‬
.)‫ יד טו‬,‫" ( תהלים פא‬.‫ כמעט אויביהם אכניע‬,‫ "לו עמי שמע לי‬: ‫ שנאמר‬,‫מפיל שונאיכם לפניכם‬
190
Michel Briand, “Grec κάπρος: du (porc) au sanglier,”dans Les Zoonymes : Actes du colloque
international tenu à Nice les 23-25 Janvier 1997 (Nice: Publications de la Faculté des Lettres, Arts et
Sciences humaines de Nice, 1997), 99-100.
191
Mark Golden, “Male Chauvinists and Pigs.” Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views 32, no. 7
(1988): 1-12.

65
 The sages extended the earlier connection of impurity with non-Jews (goyim) to

the idea that Goyim are intrinsically impure. One of the reasons for Goyim impurity is

their diet, as bavli Shabbath 145b notes: “Why are idolaters impure (‫ ?)מזוהמים‬Because

they eat abominable (‫ )שקצים‬and creeping things (‫)רמשים‬.”192 Indeed, as will be seen, the

sages linked the eating of forbidden food on the one hand, and having forbidden sexual

relations with non-Jews on the other, with states of impurity. As in the two stories

concerning Rabbi Akiba’s master, Rabbi Joshua in Avot deRabbi Natan (version B):

A story is told of Rabbi Joshua that he went to ransom a woman taken captive. And when
he returned, he went (into the pool) and bathed. He said to this his disciples: Comrades,
what did you say about me? They said to him: Rabbi, what we said about you was: We
have no one in Israel like you. What (laws of) uncleanness and cleanness are there current
in Israel which did not come from your mouth. He said to them: And afterwards, what did
you say about me? They said to him: We said: When you were among the unclean,
uncircumcised Gentiles, you were like one who eats pork, and when you came back
among (the people of) Israel, you said: I will go (to the pool) and bathe and become like
them, clean. He said to them: I swear that you were exactly right. About you it is said:
“And judge everyone with the scale weighted in his favour.” (m. Avot 1.6). 193

The mere being in a non-Jewish environment is compared to the state of impurity

involving eating pork. The following episode of the midrash associates this state of

impurity to the impurity of non-Jewish women:

A story is told about a woman in Ashkelon [a non-Jewish city]. None the likes of Eve
was more beautiful than she. Rabbi Joshua went to talk with her. When he reached her
door, he removed his (outer) garment and phylacteries. When he entered, he locked the
door behind him and when he came out, he went (into the pool) and bathed. He said to his
disciples: Comrades, what did you say about me? They replied: Rabbi, what we said
about you was: We have no one in Israel like you. What (laws of) uncleanness are there

192
B. Shabbath 145b. "‫ "מפני מה עובדי כוכבים מזוהמי' מפני שאוכלין שקצי' ורמשים‬As Christine Hayes notes,
“the verifiably ancient desire to prohibit intermarriage and ultimately apostasy is the rationale for a rabbinic
decree of Gentile impurity, not the other way around.” Christine Hayes, “Intermarriage and Impurity in
Ancient Jewish Sources,” HTR 92, no. 1 (1999): 36.
193
ARN B 19. Translation by Anthony, J. Saldarini, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de
Rabbi Nathan version B) (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 126-127.
‫ חברינו מה הייתם אומרים עלי? אמרו‬:‫מעשה ברבי יהושע שהלך לחזור את (הישיבה) [השבויה] וכשבא ירד וטבל אמ' לתלמידיו‬
‫ ובסוף‬:‫ אמ' להם‬.‫ רבי מה היינו אומ' עליך ? אין לנו בישראל כמוך; איזו היא טמאה וטהרה הנהגת בישראל שלא מפיך היא יוצא‬:‫לו‬
‫ היינו אומרין עליך כשהייתה (בזו) [בין] הגוים הטמאים ערלים הייתה כאוכל בשר חזיר‬:‫מה הייתם אומר' עלי? אמרו לו‬
‫ עליכם‬,‫ כך וכך לא הטיתם ימין ושמאל‬:‫ אמ' להם‬.‫וכשנכנסתה וכשבאתה לבין ישראל אמרת ארד ואטבול ואהיה כמותם טהור‬
.‫ הוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות‬:‫נאמר‬

66
 in Israel which did not come from your mouth. He said to them: And afterwards, what did
you say about me? They said to him: We said (You are removing your garment and
phylacteries) so that nothing clean will enter into something unclean, or so that no one
will recognize that you are a Jew. And when I entered and locked the door behind us,
what did you say about me? They replied: We said that while the door is open,
permission is given for one about to go out and for one about to enter to enter. You said: I
will lock the door behind us until I have discussed all my business with her. And when I
came out and went (into the pool) to bathe, what did you say about me? They replied: We
said: Perhaps when she was talking with you, a drop of spittle sprayed from her mouth
onto you and you said: I will go (to the pool) to bathe and I will be like them, clean. He
said to them: In this you were exactly right. About you it is said; “And judge everyone
with the scale weighted in his favour” (m. Avot 1.6). 194

The two stories seem to explain Rabbi Joshua ben Perahyah’s saying in Misnah

Avot (1.6), “Appoint for yourself a teacher, acquire for yourself a fellow [haver], and

judge everyone with the scale weighted in his favour.” 195 The irony of course is that

“everyone” in the stories in Avot deRabbi Natan concerns only the sage and not the non-

Jew, who is portrayed as impure, and suspect of sexual corruption. For the sages, the

gentile is like a zab (impure man due to abnormal seminal discharge), who defiles

through spit, urine, and indirect contact. This explains the risk of impurity by the non-

Jewish woman’s spittle. Indirectly, between the two episodes, a parallel is created

between eating forbidden food and having forbidden sexual relations, eating pork and

eating saliva. To this anxiety of eating impure food in the context of intimacy with a non

Jew we can add the discussion in Bavli Megilla 13a concerning Queen Esther’s diet in

the Persian king palace:

194
ARN B 19. Translation by Saldarini, The Fathers, 126-127.
‫ והלך ר' יהושע לדבר עמה וכיון שהגיע אצל פתחה הגביה‬.‫מעשה באשה אחת שהיתה נאה באשקלון ולא היה במין חוה נאה ממנה‬
:‫ חברינו מה הייתם אומ' עלי? אמרו לו‬:‫ אמ' לתלמידיו‬.‫את כליו וחלץ את תפיליו וכשנכנס נעל הדלת בינו לבינה וכשיצא ירד וטבל‬
‫ ובסוף מה‬:‫ אמ' להם‬.‫רבי מה היינו אומ' עליך? אין לנו בישראל כמוך; אי זו טומאה וטהרה הנהגת בישראל שלא מפיך היא יוצא‬
‫ היינו אומ' עליך שלא יכנס דבר של‬:‫הייתם אומ' עלי כשהגבהתי את כלי? וכשחלצתי את תפלי מה הייתם אומרים עלי? אמרו לו‬
:‫ וכנשכנסתי ונעלתי את הדלת ביני לבינה מה הייתם אומ' עלי? אמרו לו‬.‫טהרה לתוך טמאה או שמא לא יכיר(ו)ך אדם שאת יהודי‬
‫ ולנכנס – נכנס; אמרת(י) אנעול את הדלת ביני לבינה עד‬,‫ ליוצא – יוצא‬:‫היינו אומ' עליך שכל זמן שהדלת פתוחה הרשות נתונה‬
‫ היינו אומ' עליך שמא ממשיחה עמך נתזה צנורה של‬:‫ וכשיצאתי וירדתי וטבלתי מה הייתם אומ' עלי? אמרו לו‬.‫שאדבר לה כל צרכי‬
‫ הוי דן את כל‬:'‫ עליכם נאמ‬,‫ כך וכל לא הטיתם ימין ושמאל‬:‫ אמ' להם‬.‫רוק מפיה עליך ואמרת ארד ואטבול ואהיה כמותם טהור‬
.‫האדם לכך זכות‬
195
M. Avot 1.6. ‫ וקנה לך חבר; והוי דן את כל האדם לכף זכות‬,‫ עשה לך רב‬,‫יהושוע בן פרחיה אומר‬

67
 [The girl pleased him [the king] and won his favor, and he quickly provided her with her
cosmetic treatments and her portion of food, and with seven chosen maids from the king's
palace,] and advanced her [and her maids to the best place in the harem].” (Esther 2:9) -
Rav says that he fed her Jewish food. And Samuel says that he fed here with pork chops.
And Rabbi Yohanan says [that he fed her] seeds, as it was written: “So the guard
continued to withdraw their royal rations [and the wine they were to drink,] and gave
them seeds.” (Daniel 1:16). 196

Rav and Rabbi Yohanan think Esther did eat pure food, while according to

Samuel, she failed to keep the kashrut laws in the King’s palace. 197 Queen Esther’s

porcine diet is contrasted to the exemplary behavior of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and

Azariah, who refused to eat the royal rations of food in the Book of Daniel. 198

An even more virulent critique of mixed marriage is found in Genesis Rabbah

65.1; while commenting on Esau´s marriage with Hittite women, Esau is described as a

pig (Genesis 26:34):

And when Esau was forty years old, he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the
Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon [the Hittite, 35: and they were a source of
grief to Isaac and Rebekah] (Gn. 26:34). It is written, “The swine out of the wood doth
ravage it, [that which moveth in the field feedeth on it]” (Ps. 80: 14). R. Phinehas and R.
Helkiah in R. Simon’s name said: Of all the prophets, only two, Moses and Asaph,
exposed it: Asaph: “The boar [swine] out of the wood doth ravage it.” While Moses said:
“And the swine, because he parteth the hoof” (Dt. 14:8). Why does he compare it [the
Roman State] to a swine? For this reason: when the swine is lying down it puts out its
hoofs, as if to say, ‘I am clean’; so does this wicked State rob and oppress, yet pretend to
be executing justice. So for forty years Esau used to ensnare married women and violate
them, yet when he attained forthy years he compared himself to his father, saying, ‘As

196
B. Megilla 13a. My translation.
:‫ ורבי יוחנן אמר‬.‫ שהאכילה קדלי דחזירי‬:‫ ושמואל אמר‬.‫ שהאכילה מאכל יהודי‬:‫ ט) – אמר רב‬,‫" וישנה ואת נערותיה וגו'" (אסתר ב‬
(‫ טז‬,‫ ונותן להם זרעונים” (דניאל א‬...‫ “ויהי המלצר נושא את פת בגם‬:‫ וכן הוא אומר‬,‫זרעונים‬
See also: YalShim, Esther 1053.
197
For traditional views on the question, see: Sara Weinstein, “Aaron Arend, A Critical – Annotated
Edition of Elef HaMagen,” Pathways Through Aggadah IV-V (2001-2002): 317-321 (Hebrew).
198
Daniel asks that they not be fed this food, but the palace master feared for the children’s health.
Daniel proposed that the palace master make a test and feed the children only seeds for ten days to see if it
affected their health. After eating seeds and drinking water for ten days “to these four young men God gave
knowledge and skill in every aspect of literature and wisdom; Daniel also had insight into all visions and
dreams.” (Dan 1:17). The abstention from non-Jewish foods, a topos almost absent from the Hebrew Bible,
is repeated in a few Jewish texts of the Hellenistic period; see: David Moshe Freidenreich, Foreign Food: A
Comparatively-Enriched Analysis of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Law (PhD Dissertation, New York:
Columbia University, 2006), 58-95. Kraemer, Jewish Eating, 25-38. Nathan MacDonald, “Food and drink
in Tobit and other ‘Diaspora novellas’,” in Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach
(London and New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 165-178.

68
 my father was forty years old when he married, so I will marry at the age of forty.’ Hence
it is written, “And when Esau was forty years old, he took to wife, etc.”199

While in this midrash, the context of the identification of Rome with Esau and the

pig is commonly commented upon, the connection between Esau, the pig, and his

marriage to foreign wives is ignored. The hypocrisy of the pig, which pretends to be pure

while being impure, which in the midrash is related to the Roman Empire, also relates to

Esau’s marriage. Clearly, the midrash made Esau a violator who pretends to be an honest

man by marriage, but taking in consideration the negative view of the sages regarding

Esau´s marriages with the Hittites wives, 200 which the Bible condemns (Gn. 26:35), it

seems that the midrash hints that Esau is a pig inter alia due to his marriage with non-

Jewish women.

The Amoraic midrash (5/6th cent.?)201 Pesikta de Rab Kahana (and Avot deRabbi

Nathan, version A) relates three successive stories about Jewish men in captivity who

refuse to have sexual relations with non-Jewish women, after a short paragraph about the

inclination to evil (Yetzer hara) and the inclination to good (Yetzer haTov), the latter of

which is compared to a ruler in a prison:

When a man, his imagination heated, proceeds to commit an act of unchastity, all the
parts of his body obey him. But when he sets out to fulfill a religious obligation, all the
parts of his body protest from deep within him because the Inclination to evil in his
innermost being is king over the two hundred and forty-eight parts that make up a man;
the Inclination to good, however, may be likened to a king who is shut up in a prison, as
is said “For out of prison he comes forth to rule” (Eccles. 4:14) that is, the Inclination to
good [finally comes out in a man and ruled his conduct]. 202

199
GenR, Toledoth 64.1. Translation by H. Freedman, Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, vol. II (London and
Bournemouth: Soncino Press, 1951), 580.
200
Aminoff, The Figure, 85-91.
201
On the dating of Pesikta de Rab Kahana, see: H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the
Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh: Clark, 1991), 295-297.
202
PRK, Annex 3. Translation by W. G. Braude and I. J. Kapstein, Pesikta deRab Kahana: R.
Kahana's Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1975), 475.

69
 The sinner is ruled by the inclination to evil, but the just man is freed by the

inclination to good and becomes a king. As will later be seen, the dialectic “to be ruled/to

rule” is at the heart of the episodes that follow. The first story the midrash relates is

about Joseph and Potiphar’s wife:

Another comment: The words “For out of prison he came forth to rule” (Eccles. 4:14)
apply to Joseph, of whom it is said “Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph” (Gen. 41:14).
Of the righteous Joseph - concerning the time when Potiphar’s wife said to him, “Lie
with me,” and he refused: “He refused, and said unto his master’s wife…’How can I do
this great wickedness?’” (Gen. 39:8,9) - the following is told: When she threatened “I
shall shut you up in prison,” he replied, “The Lord looseth prisoners” (Ps 146:7). When
she threatened, “I shall put out your eyes,” he replied, “The Lord openeth the eyes of the
blind” (Ps. 146:8). When she threatened, “I shall make a humpback out of you,” he
replied, “The Lord raiseth up them that are bowed down (ibid.). When she threatened, “I
will make you into a stranger - banish you,” he replied, “The Lord preserveth the
strangers” (Ps. 146:9). 203

Although here food is not mentioned, in the medieval Midrash Tanḥuma Joseph’s

refusal of Potiphar ’s wife is presented as a refusal to eat pork: 204

“Why will you not listen to me? She pleaded. “Since I am the wife of another man, no
one will know that there is anything between us.” He replied: “Your virgins are forbidden
to us, how much more so is the wife of a man,” as it is said: “Neither shall thou make
marriages with them (Deut. 7:3).” That is why he would not listen to her.
R. Judah the son of Nahman explained: This may be compared to an idolater who tells an
Israelite: “I have some delicious food for you.” “What kind of food do you have?” he
asks. “The meat of a pig,” he replies. Whereupon the Israelite retorts: “You fool! If the
flesh of a pure animal that you kill is forbidden to us, how much more so is the flesh of a

‫ הולך לדבר מצוה כל איבריו מתענין לו מפני שיצר‬,‫ובזמן שאדם הוא מתחמם את עצמו והולך לדבר עבירה כל איבריו נשמעין לו‬
‫ "כי מבית יצא‬:'‫ שנ‬,'‫הרע שבמעיו הוא מלך על רמ"ח איברי' שיש באדם ויצר הטוב אינו דומה אלא למי שהוא חבוש בבית האסורי‬
.‫ זה יצר הטוב‬,)‫ יד‬:‫למלוך" (קהלת ד‬
203
PRK, Annex 3.
‫ אמרו על יוסף‬.)‫ יד‬,‫ " וישלח פרעה ויקרא אל יוסף" (בראשית מא‬:‫ דכתי' ביה‬,‫ זה יוסף‬- "‫ "כי מבית האסורי' יצא למלוך‬:‫ד"א‬
‫ " וימאן ויאמר אל אשת אדוניו איך אעשה הרעה הגדולה‬:'‫ שנ‬,‫ שכבה עמי והוא מיאן‬:‫ בשעה שאמרה לו אשת פוטיפרע‬:‫הצדיק‬
‫ אני אנקר‬:‫ אמ' לו‬.)‫ ז‬,‫ " י" י מתיר אסורי' " ( תהלים קמו‬:‫ אמר לה‬.'‫ אני אחבשך בבית האסורי‬:‫ אמרה לו‬,)‫ ט‬:‫הזאת" (בראשית לט‬
.)‫ " י" י זוקף כפופי' " ( תהלים קמ"ו‬:‫ אמ' לה‬.‫ אני אכופף את קומתך‬: ‫ א"ל‬.)‫ ח‬,‫ " י" י פוקח עורים" ( תהלים קמו‬:‫ אמי לה‬.‫את עיניך‬
.)‫ ט‬,‫ " י" י שומר את גרי' " ( תהלים קמ"ו‬:‫ אמ' לה‬.‫ אני אעשה אותך ארמי‬:‫א"ל‬
204
In the a Hellenistic-Jewish version of the story Testimony of Joseph 6:1-5 one of the ways
Potiphar’s wife tries to seduce Joseph is by serving him enchanted food. See: M. Braun, “Biblical Legend
in Jewish-Hellenistic Literature with Special Reference to the Treatment of the Potiphar Story in the
Testament of Joseph,” in History and Romance in Graeco- Oriental Literature (Oxford: Blackwell, 1938),
44-104. Devora Matza, “The Story of Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife,” in Studies in Jewish Narrative:
Ma’aseh Sippur, ed. Avidov Lipsker and Rella Kushelevsky (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2006),
249-50 (Hebrew). The connotation between forbidden food and sex with non-Jewish women is found also
in Joseph and Aseneth, See: Gideon Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis
(Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996), 55-58.

70
 pig.” Similarly, Joseph told her: “If your virgins are forbidden to us, how much more so
another man’s wife.” 205

The second story the Pesikta de Rab Kahana relates concerns Rabbi Zadok in

Roman captivity:

And do not be astonished at Joseph. Witness R. Zadok who showed even greater restraint
when he was taken as captive to Rome where a prominent noblewoman [matrona]
purchased him [in the slave market] and sent a beautiful maidservant to tempt him to lie
with her. When he saw the maidservant, he fixed his eyes upon the wall and sat silent and
motionless all night. In the morning the maidservant went and complained to her mistress,
saying, “I would rather die than be given to this man [and be rebuffed by him].” When
the noblewoman asked R. Zadok: “Why did you not do with this woman what men
generally seek to do?” he replied: “I am of a family from which High Priests are chosen,
and I thought: Shall such as I lie with such as she and multiply bastards in Israel?”
At once the noblewoman gave orders that R. Zadok be freed with great honor. 206

What is at stake in this story is the purity of noble blood. The story that follows

concerning Rabbi Akiba‘s refusal to have sex with non-Jewish women takes a more

extreme tone:

And do not be astonished at R. Zadok. Witness R. Akiba who showed even greater
restraint than he. When R. Akiba went to Rome, it was slanderously said of him before a
certain general [that he enjoyed the company of loose women]. Thereupon the general
sent two very beautiful women to him. These were bathed, anointed, and adorned like
brides for their grooms. All night, they kept thrusting themselves at R. Akiba, one saying,
“Turn to me,” and the other saying, “Turn to me.” Sitting between them, he spat in
disgust at both.
In the morning the women went off and complained to the general, saying to him, “We
would rather die than be given to this man [and be rebuffed by him].” Whereupon the
general asked R. Akiba: “Why did you not do with these women what men generally seek
to do? Are they not beautiful? Are they not human beings like yourself? Did not He who

205
MidTan, Vayshev 8. Translation by Berman, Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, 240-241.
‫ ביותר שאת‬,‫ השתא הפנויות שלכם אסורות לנו‬:‫ אמר לה‬.‫ אין אדם יודע בנו‬,‫ למה אין אתה שומע לי? הלא אשת איש אני‬:‫אמרה לו‬
‫ "משל לעכו"ם שאמר‬:‫ אמר רבי יהודה בר נחמן‬.‫ ואעפ"כ לא שמע אליה‬.)‫ ג‬,‫ "לא תתחתן בם" (דברים ז‬:‫אשת איש שנאמר‬
‫ אפי' שחוטה שלכם בבהמה טהורה אסורה לנו‬,‫ "ריקה‬:‫ א"ל‬.‫ בשר חזיר‬:‫ מהו? א"ל‬:‫ א"ל‬,"‫ " יש לי מאכל יפה להאכילך‬:‫לישראל‬
."‫ " אפי' פנויות שלכם אסורות לנו כ"ש אשת איש‬:‫ וכך אמר לה יוסף‬."‫וכ"ש [וכל שכן] בשר חזיר‬
The association of sex, forbidden food, and idolatry is also known from other midrashim. For the the me of
food, sex, and idolatry in a Christian context, see: Stephen C. Barton, “Food Rules, Sex Rules and the
Prohibition of Idolatry. What’s the Connection?,” in Idolatry: False Worship in the Bible, Early Judaism
and Christianity (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 141-162. Michael Satlow, Tasting the Dish:
Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).
206
PRK, Annex 3.
‫ כיון שראה אותה‬,‫ נטלתו מטרונית גדולה א' ושיגרה לו שפחה א' יפה‬,‫ שהרי ר' צדוק גדול ממנו כשנשבה לרומי‬,‫ואל תתמה על יוסף‬
‫ שיווה לי המות‬:‫ אמ' לה‬,‫ לשחרית הלכה והקבילה פני גבירתה‬.)‫נתן עיניו בכותל והיה יושב ושותק כל ה' ( בשולי הגליון כל הלילה‬
‫ ממשפחת כהנים‬:‫ מפני מה לא עשית עם אשה זו כדרך שעושין ב"א (בשולי הגליון בני אדם)? אמ' לה‬:‫ אמ' לו‬.‫מי שנתנני לאיש הזה‬
.‫ מיד פטרתו בכבוד גדול‬.]‫גדולי' אני ואמרתי שמא אבא עליה והרבתי ממזרי' ביש' [בישראל‬

71
 created you create them? R. Akiba replied: “What could I do? The odor of their bodies, as
foul as the stench of carrion or of swine overcame me.” 207

Adiel Schremer, referring to the version of the story in Avot deRabbi Nathan, sees

in it an inner humanistic critique. According to his interpretation, the Roman general’s

reproach to Rabbi Akiba (“Are they not human beings like yourself? Did not He who

created you create them?”) alludes to Rabbi Akiba’s statement in the Mishnah Avot (3.14)

- “beloved is man, for he was created in the image [of God].” 208 This might be the case at

some level, but as Sacha Stern notes, “this edifying story is clearly perspective and

designed for emulation.” 209 Indeed, the Pesikta de Rab Kahana summarizes the three

stories about Rabbi Akiba, ending with:

Of men [such as Joseph, R. Zadok, R. Akiba], and their like, Scripture says, “Bless the
Lord, ye messengers of His, ye mighty in strength, that fulfill His word.” (Ps. 103:20). 210

207
PRK, Annex 3.
,‫ ושגר לו ב' נשים יפות מאד‬,'‫ כי כשהלך ר" ע לרומי ניכלו קורצין לפני הגמון א‬,‫ שהרי ר' עקיב' גדול ממנו‬,‫ואל תתמה על ר' צדוק‬
‫ והיה יושב‬,‫ חזור אצלי‬:‫ חזור אצלי וזאת אומרת‬:‫ זאת אומרת‬,‫רחצום וסכום וגם קשטום ככלות לחתני' והיו מתנפלות עליו כל הלילה‬
‫ א"ל אותו הגמון‬.‫ שיווה לנו המות מי שנתננו לאיש הזה‬:‫ לשחרית הלכו והקבילו פני אותו הגמון ואמרו לו‬.‫ביניהן ומרקק להם‬
‫ למה לא עשית עם הנשים הללו כדרך שב" א ( בשולי הגליון כתוב שבני אדם) עושין? לא יפות הן? לא בנות ב"א (בשולי‬:‫לר"ע‬
.‫הגליון בני אדם) הן כמותך? לא מי שברא אותך ברא אותו? א"ל ומה אעשה ודבר ריחן בא עלי כבשר נבלות ובשר חזיר‬
Compare to ARN A 16. “And do not be astonished at Rabbi Zadok, for lo, there was (the case of) Rabbi
Akiba, greater than he. When he went to Rome, he was slandered before a certain hegemon. He sent two
beautiful women to him. They were bathed and anointed and outfitted like brides. And all night they kept
thrusting themselves at him, this one saying “Turn to me,” and that one saying “Turn to me.” But he sat
there in disgust and would not turn to them. In the morning they went off and a complained to the hegemon
and said to him: “We would rather die than be given to this man!” The hegemon sent for him and asked:
“Now why didst thou not do with these women as men generally do with women? Are they not beautiful?
Are they not human beings like thyself? Did not He who created thee create them?”“What could I do?”
Rabbi Akiba answered: “I was overcome by their breath because of flesh of carrion, terefah, and creeping
things they ate! [in Oxford manuscript: and Pig’ meat]” Translation by Goldin, The Fathers, 84.
‫ואל תתמה על רבי צדוק שהרי רבי עקיבא גדול ממנו כשהלך לרומי אוכילו קורצא אצל הגמון אחד ושגר לו שתי נשים יפות רחצום‬
‫ והיו מתנפלות עליו כל הלילה זאת אומרת חזור אצלי וזאת אומרת חזור אצלי והיה יושב ביניהם‬.‫וסכום וקשטום ככלות לחתנים‬
‫ שלח וקרא לו א" ל‬.‫ [לשחרית] הלכו להן והקבילו פני ההגמו ן ואמרו לו שוה לנו המות משתתננו לאיש הזה‬.‫ומרקק ולא פנה אליהן‬
‫ לא יפות המה לא בנות אדם כמותך הן מי שברא אותך לא ברא‬.‫ומפני מה לא עשית עם הנשים הללו כדרך שבני אדם עושים לנשים‬
.]‫ אמר לו מה אעשה ריחן בא עלי מבשר נבלות וטרפות ושרצים [בכי"א מבשר נבילות וטריפות ומבשר חזיר‬.‫אותן‬
208
Adiel Schremer, “Other Brothers,” Reshit 1 (2009): 183, note 39 (Hebrew).
209
Stern, Jewish Identity, 58, note 57. For the broader link of this story to Rabbi Akiba and the Greco-
Roman world see David Stern, “The Captive Woman: Hellenization, Greco-Roman Erotic Narrative, and
Rabbinic Literature,” Poetics Today 19, no. 1 (1998): 115.
210
PRK Annex 3. .)‫ כ‬:‫ "ברכו י" י מלאכיו גבורי כח עושי דברו וגו' " ( תהלים קג‬:'‫ועליהן ועל כיוצא בהן נא‬

72
 Rabbi Akiba’s answer to the Roman general: “What could I do (‫?”)ומה אעשה‬

recalls the Sifra’s rule that a man should not say that he do not want to eat pork, or

incestuous relations, etc., but should say: “ ut what can I do (‫ ? )מה אעשה‬For my father in

heaven has made a decree for me!” 211 Hence, what seems to be part of the humoristic tur n

in Rabbi Akiba’s answer is that instead of answering with the obliged nature of God’s

rule, he answers with a physical repulsion. In a sense, the story asks to glorify the notion

that the subjection to God´s commandments should become second nature. Thus, if the

Sifra argues that the Jews should not intellectualize the commandments but rather simply

obey them, 212 the story concerning Rabbi Akiba argues that a Jew should interiorize and

naturalize the commandments.

The smell of the non-Jewish women is for Rabbi Akiba as repulsive as the “stench

of carrion” or, in Avot deRabbi Nathan, that of “flesh of carrion, terefah (the flesh of a

torn animal), and creeping things.” While Avot deRabbi Nathan explains this smell of the

non-Jewish women as the result of what “they ate,” the Psikta states that their bodies had

the smell “as of carrion or of swine.”213 Aside from these differences, in both versions,

the non-Jewish women are repulsive as are their impure foods. As Sacha Stern notes,

revulsion “goes well beyond the level of the mind: the entire body can be shaken with

revulsion, typically with a nauseous tremor or with actual nausea. It must be stressed that

nausea itself does not merely ‘represent’ or indicate mental revulsion, but is itself a

bodily form of rejection and revulsion. The same may well apply to spitting: thus, R.

211
Sifra, Qedoshim 10.11.
212
The story concerning Rabbi Akiba and the critique of the Roman General could be seen as echoing
Sifra, Qedoshim 9.13, saying that to the commandments “concerning which the impulse to do evil [‫]יצר הרע‬
raises doubt, the nations of the world, idolaters, raise doubt, for instance, the prohibition against pork,
wearing mixed species […]”. In this regard Scriptures says, “I the Lord have made these ordinances, and
you have no right to raise doubts concerning them.” Sifra, Qedoshim 9.13. Translation by Neusner, Sifra,
vol. 3, 79, with slight alteration.
213
PRK, Annex 3.

73
Akiba spat in the presence of repulsive non-Jewish female captives. But the midrash also

refers to other forms of bodily revulsion: when the Jew discovered that he had

accidentally eaten pork, ‘his hair stood up - he was agitated and in a flurry.’ 214 Whatever

its form, the whole person is mobilized in the experience of revulsion; it acquires thereby

tremendous potency.” 215 As noted by P. Rozin et al., disgust “becomes the means by

which culture can internalise rejection of an offensive object, behavior, or thought. (…)

The process of socialization in any culture involves acquisition of many values. It is more

efficient to have these values internalized than to have to ensure compliance by policing

compliance with a rule or law. Disgust accomplishes much of this internalization of

negative values. A good way to prevent traffic with something is to make it an elicitor of

disgust.” 216 However, the repulsion one feels to the other’s forbidden diet might be

merely a consequence of cultural difference, not necessarily a rejection of the other. 217

Visigothic law (7th cent. Spain), for example, recognized such physical repulsion when it

214
B. Holin 106a; Yoma 83b; Y. Hala 2:1, 58c; NumR 10.21; Tan, Balak 24.
215
Stern, Jewish Identity, 61-62.
216
P. Rozin and J. Haidt, C. McCauley, and S. Imada, “Disgust: Preadaptation and the Cultural
Evolution of a Food-Based Emotion.” in Food Preferences and taste, ed. H. MacBeth (Providence:
Berghahn Books, 1997), 77. Or, as notes anthropologist David Le Breton, “Le dégoût est essentiellement
une menace réelle ou symbolique pour le sentiment d’identité. Danger pour soi, pour l’entre-soi, il instaure
les frontières symbolique qui permettent de se poser de manière cohérente à l’intérieur de l’ambig ité
essentielle du monde. Inassimilable à soi, principe de destruction d’une identité personnelle ou collective
toujours précaire, il est irréversible, altérite absolue, sans appel. C’est pourquoi le dégout est aussi un
sentiment moral provoquant une répulsion envers un individu, un groupe ou une situation (...) Le dégout est
une « réaction de défense », la mise à distance sans rémission d’un danger (Kolani, 1997, 27). Son
paradoxe, s’il est partagé par les membres d’un même groupe, est de fonder le lien social sur une séparation
radicale, de se rassembler contre l’abjection, et simultanément de se démarquer des autres qui en apprécient
l’objet ou y prêtent moins d’attention. Il n’est pas anomalie au sein du système culturel, il s’inscrit dans un
ordre global ou tout se tient plus ou moins, il n’est pas une fantaisie individuelle ou collective mais un
principe culturel appliqué à un objet ou à une situation. Le dégoutant recouvre le hors-champ du pensable.”
David Le Breton, La saveur du monde: une anthropologie des sens (Paris: Métailié, 2006), 389.
217
For the disgust pork evokes for many Jews and Muslims in contemporary Europe, see for exemple:
Andrew Buckser, “Keeping Kosher: Eating and Social Identity among the Jews of Denmark,” Ethnology
38, no. 3 (1999): 191-209. Mohammed Hocine Benkheïra, “Tabou du porc et identité en Islam,” dans
Histoire et identités alimentaires en Europe, dir. Martin Bruegel et Bruno Laurioux (Paris: Hachette, 2002),
37.

74
 218
exempted baptized Jews from eating pork because of the disgust it provoked in them.

However, the story about Rabbi Akiba does not seek to neutralize this “natural” disgust,

but rather to mobilize it in order to reinforce the boundary between Jews and non-Jews.

The disgust felt by Rabbi Akiba is not just a manifestation of “proto racism,” 219

but also a resistance to oppression. The refusal of the prisoner to have sex according to

the will of his Roman jailor mani fests his moral supremacy and moral freedom, in the

spirit of the introduction to the three stories in which Rabbi Akiba’s episode ended: “the

Inclination to good, (…) may be likened to a king who is shut up in a prison, as is said

“For out of prison he comes forth to rule” (Eccles. 4:14).220 Hence, the resistance is

transferred from the political (Rome-Israel) to the interior (the inclination to evil-the

inclination to good), and finally the first is subjected to the last. To be free is to be

subjected to Gods’ commandments; to rule means to refuse the rule of the inclination to

evil, not that of foreign power. The difference between Israel and Rome parallel s the

difference between the person who accepts the kingdom of God and the one who does not,

as well as the difference between the inclination to do good and the inclination to do evil,

218
Oath of the baptized Jews to the Visigoth king Recceswinth (640-672 CE): “We shall truly hold and
sincerely embrace all the usages of the holy Christian religion, in holidays, marriage, and food, as well as in
all its observances, without any reservation of an opposition or of a device of falsity by which we should do
again what we undertake to repudiate or execute only exiguously or insincerely what we promise to do.
Concerning pork, we promise to observe this, that if we could not possibly take it according to custom, at
least we shall take the food cooked with pork without loathing and horror [fastidio et orrore].” And
likewise King Erwig (680-687 CE): “As for the foods, however, namely, the meat of pork alone, we decree
out of a discerning rather than negligent piety, that if anyone of them should absolutely abhor the eating of
pork and if perchance they should avoid it out of fastidious nature and not condemn it - be discriminating
according to that perverse custom, and particularly if they are considered to be similar to the Christians in
other actions and they are not wanting in their commitment to Christianity and in their wish to act in any
way in the Christian manner, such as those who are found to be faithful in all the other ways of life shall
not be held punishable by the law’s sanction as mentioned above for this rejection of pork alone.”Amnon
Linder, The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages (Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1997), 280, 297.
219
For the term “proto racism,” see: Benjamin Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity
(Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2004).
220
PRK, Annex 3. Translation by Braude and Kapstein. Pesikta deRab Kahana, 475.
.‫ זה יצר הטוב‬,)‫ יד‬:‫ "כי מבית יצא למלוך" (קהלת ד‬:'‫ שנ‬,'‫ויצר הטוב אינו דומה אלא למי שהוא חבוש בבית האסורי‬

75
and the difference between to rule and to be ruled – a series of oppositions linked to the

difference between not eating pork (self-control) and eating pork (lack of self control).

Apostasy

For the sages, eating pork is the transgression par excellence of food purity laws

and of the law in general.221 Rabbi Akiba compares for example one who wanted to sin

but did not to one who wanted to eat pork but ate lamb, and the one who wanted to sin

and indeed sinned to the one who wanted to eat pork and indeed ate it:

The woman who took a vow to be a Nazir – her husband annulled the vow for her, but
she did not know that her husband had annulled the vow, she went around drinking wine
and contracting corpse-uncleanness – lo, this one receives forty flogging. When R. Akiba
would reach this matter, he would cry. Saying, “Now if someone who intended to take up
in his hand pig-meat and took up in his hand lamb-meat who ate it has to effect
atonement, he who intends to take up in his hand pig-meat and who actually does take up
in his hand pig-meat – how much the more so that requires atonement and
forgiveness!” 222

The woman did not know that her vow was annulled and hence she is like the one

that sinned with intention. To this, the second case applies, as Rabbi Akiba says: the one

that “intends to take up in his hand pig-meat and who actually does take up in his hand

pig-meat.” In several places, the one who eats pork became a token for a transgressor of

221
A later legend in Midrash Hagadah (Buber) Exodus 20.7 tells of a couple who ate pork on Yom
Kippur, the day of Atonement.
‫ ומעשה באדם אחד שנכנס לעיר בערב שבת ולא היה‬.‫" שלא תנהוג עצמך כאלו חסיד אתה ואין אתה חסיד‬.'‫"לא תשא את שם וגו‬
‫ וראהו אותו‬,‫ וראה גר אחד יושב בבית הכנסת ומתעטף בציצית והיו תפילין קשורין בראשו‬,‫ והיה לו כיס מלאה פשוטים‬,‫מכיר אדם‬
‫ אמר לו לא היו דברים‬,‫ לאחר השבת ביקש ממנו‬,‫ ופקד לו את כיסו‬,‫ לפי שראה מצות הללו‬,]‫האדם והיה סבור כאלו אדם גדול [הוא‬
,‫ אלא שראיתי בו המצות הללו‬,‫מעולם התחיל להצטער ואמר רבון העולמים גלוי וידוע לפניך שלא מסרתי לו המעות שלי בפקדון‬
‫ ואם אמרה לך באיזה סימן אמור לה‬,‫בלילה בא אליהו הנביא אליו בחלום ואמר לו למחר לך אצל אשתו ותאמר לה תן לי כיסי‬
, ‫ למחר השכים זה האיש לפני אשתו של גזלן‬,‫ ובליל יום הכיפורים בשר חזיר‬,‫בסימן שאכלה היא ובעלה בליל ראשון של פסח חמץ‬
‫ וכך וכך‬,‫ אמרה לו בא בעל הכיס ונטל את הכיס‬,‫ בא הגזלן אצל אשתו שאל לה את הכיס‬,‫ ונתנה לו הכיס‬,‫ומסר לה הסימנים הללו‬
:‫ וכן עונשן של עושי כך‬,‫ אמר לה אחר שנתפרסם הדבר נחזור למעשינו הרעים‬,‫מסר לי סימנים‬
222
T. Nazir (Liberman) 3.14.
‫האשה שנדר ה בנזיר היפר לה בעלה והיא לא ידעה שהיפר לה בעלה היתה שותה יין ומיטמאה למתים הרי זו סופגת את הארבעים‬
‫ אם מי שנתכוון לעלות בידו בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר טלה ואכלו צריך כפרה‬:'‫וכשהיה ר' עקיבא מגיע לדבר הזה היה בוכה ואמ‬
.‫המתכוין לעלות בידו בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר חזיר על אחת כמה וכמה צריך כפרה וסליחה‬
And: Sifri Numbers 153; 154; Evel Rabbati 6.1; Y. Nazir 4:3, 53b; B. Nazir 23a; B. Kidushin 71b; YalShim,
Vayikra 479.

76
the law. Mishnah, Shevi'it 8.10 states that the one who eats from the bread of Samaritans

(Kutim) is like one who eats pork:223

If one has smeared a hide with oil of Sabbatical Year produce, R. Eliezer says, it must be
burned; but the Sages say, He must consume of equal value. They stated before R. Akiba
that R. Eliezer used to say, if one smeared a hide with oil of Sabbatical Year produce it
must be burnt. He replied to them, ‘Be silent! I will not state to you what R. Eliezer says
regarding this.’
And they stated further before him, ‘R. Eliezer used to say, He that eats of the bread of
Samaritans is as one who eats the flesh of swine’. He replied to them, ‘Be silent! I will
not state to you what R. Elizer says regarding this’. 224

Eliezer ben Hurcanus (1st-2nd century) was a student of Rabbi Yochanan ben

Zakai, but contrary to his master, who was inclined towards the extremist line of Beith

Samai, Rabbi Eliezer was more inclined toward the moderate school of Beith Hillel.

Hence, Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion here goes hand in hand with the hard line view

concerning separation between Jews and non-Jews.225 It seems that Rabbi Akiba rejected

his master´s thought that Samaritan food is not forbidden. However, there is an inner

problem in the mishnah’s text: what is the link between the first and second saying of

Rabbi Eleazar: the one that deals with oil of the sabbatical year and the one that deals

with Samaritan bread? A possible solution is that the second saying deals with the

Sabbatical year. The Samaritans should respect the Sabbatical year but do not do so, and

hence their fruits are forbidden. 226 If this is the case, Rabbi Eleazar states that the one

who eats the Samaritans’ bread during the Sabbatical year is like the one that eats pork. 227

223
M. Sheviit 8.10. y. Sheviit 8: 48, 37d. YalShim, II Kings 234. Tan, Vayeshev 2.
224
M. Sheviit 8:9-10. Translation by Blackman, Mishnayoth, vol. 1, 276-277.
‫ אומר היה רבי‬:‫ אמרו לפני רבי עקיבא‬.‫ יאכל כנגדו‬:‫ ידלק וחכמים אומרים‬:‫ רבי אליעזר אומר‬. ‫[ט] עור שסכו בשמן של שביעית‬
:‫ [י] ועוד אמרו לפניו‬:‫ שתוקו לא אומר לכם מה שרבי אליעזר אומר בו‬:‫ אמר להם‬.‫ עור שסכו בשמן של שביעית ידלק‬:‫אליעזר‬
:‫ ש תוקו לא אומר לכם מה שרבי אליעזר אומר בו‬:‫ אמר להם‬.‫ האוכל פת כותים כאוכל בשר חזיר‬:‫אומר היה רבי אליעזר‬
225
Neusner, Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus, 18-45.
226
Ze'ev Safrai, “The Exemption of the Territory of Caesarea from the Commandments Relating to the
Land,” Sinai 96, no. 5-6 (1985): 223 (Hebrew).
227
The later Pirke deRabbi Eliezer, chapter 36, provides the historical context of the ban on Samaritan
bread, which is understood as ban on Samaritan meat: “What did Ezra and Zerubavel ben Shaltiel and
Yehoshua ben Yohtzadak then do in response (to the Samaritan attack on building the Temple)? They

77
The idea that one who transgresses the Sabbatical year is like one who eats pork is also

found in an obscure story in Tosefta Ahilot:228

Testified Judah ben Jacob of Bet Guvrin and Jacob b. Isaac of Bet Gufnin concerning
Qisri ]Caesarea[ that they possessed it from ancient times and declared it free without a
vote. Said R. Hanin, “That year was the seventh year, and gentiles went to their circuses
and left the market full of fruits, and Israelites came and swiped them, and when they
came back, they said, ‘Come, let us go to sages, lest they permit them pigs also.’ 229

The story may be set during the patriarchate of Yehudah Ha-Nasi, called Rabbi,

during the latter quarter of the 2 nd century CE, when he and his court released Caesarea

from the condition of impurity decreed earlier upon the land of the Gentiles.230 The stor y

gathered all of Israel into the Courtyard of the Temple, and they brought 300 Kohanim and 300 shofars and
300 Torah scrolls and they were blowing the shofars and the Levites were chanting, and they
excommunicated the Samaritans with the secret of the explicit name of God, with the script that is inscribed
in the Tablets, and with the excommunication of the heavenly court and of the earthly court, that no perso n
should ever eat the bread of Samaritans. As a result of this, it is said that whoever eats from the slaughtered
meat of a Samaritan is as if he ate from the meat of a pig. And [they further decreed that] a person should
not convert a Samaritan, and that they have no portion in the Resurrection of the Dead, as it is stated: “It is
not for you, but for us [to build God's house] (Ezra 4:3) – you have no portion with us not in this world or
in the next. And they sent this excommunication to all of Israel, and they heaped excommunication upon
excommunication, and even Cyrus the King decreed upon them an eternal excommunication.”
‫מה עשה עזרא וזרובבל בן שאלתיאל ויהושע בן יהוצדק קבצו כל ישראל אל היכל ה’ והביאו שלש מאות כהנים ושלש מאות‬
‫שופורות ושלש מאות ספרי תו רות והיו תוקעים בהם והלויים משוררין ומזמרין ומנדין את הכותיים בסוד שם המפורש בכתב הנכתב‬
‫על הלוחות ובחרם בית דין העליון ובחרם בית דין התחתון שלא יאכל אדם פת כותיים עד עולם מכאן אמרו כל האוכל בשר‬
‫ שנ’ לא לכם ולנו לא בעה”ז‬,‫ ואל יתגייר אדם כותי ישראל ואין להם חלק בתחיית המתים‬, ‫משחיטת כותי כאילו אוכל בשר חזיר‬
…‫ והמלך כורש קבע עליהם חרם עולם‬,‫ ועוד הוסיפו עליהם חרם על חרם‬,‫ולא בעה”ב… ושלחו החרם אצל ישראל‬
And also: y. Shevhit 8:4, 37d. Tan Vayesev 2. YalShim, Kings 234.
228
The tractus intially deals with Ohalot: the uncleanness imparted to persons and objects by reason of
their location within the tent of a corpse, which is to say, under the same roof as a corpse (Num. 19:14 -19)
229
T. Ahilot 18. 15 (ed. Zukermandel, 617). Translation by Neusenr, The Tosefta, vol. VI, Tohorot ,
132.
‫ אמר ר' חנן‬.‫העיד ר' יהודה בן יעקב מבית גוברין ויעקב ברבי יצחק מבית גופנין על קיסרי שהחזיקו בה מעולם והתירוה שלא במנין‬
‫ בואו נלך אצל‬:‫ בחזירתן אמרו‬.‫אותה שנה שביעית היתה והלכו גויים לקרקסיאות שלהן והניחו שוק מלא פירות ובאו ישראל ובזזום‬
:‫חכמים שמא התירו להן חזירים‬
230
For the story in the context of the history of the Jews in Caesarea, see: Irving M. Levey, “Caesarea
and the Jews,” in The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima, vol. I. Studies in the History of Caesarea
Maritima, ed. Charles T. Fritsch, (Missoula, MN: Scholars Press for the American School of Oriental
Research, 1975), 44. It is not clear based on what prooftext A. Büchler and Lee I. Levin date the episode to
61/62 CE, Sabbatical year. A. Büchler, “Der Patriarch R. Jehuda I. und die Griechisch-Römischen Städte
Palästinas,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 13, no. 4 (1901): 688. English translation: A. Büchler,“The
Patriarch R. Judah I and the Graeco Roman Cities of Palestine,” in Studies in Jewish history: the Adolph
Büchler memorial volume, ed. Israel Brodie and Joseph Rabinowitz (London: Oxford University Press,
1956), 184-185. Lee I. Levine, Caesarea Under Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 30. Ze’ev Weiss’
interpretation that “the story of stealing the fruits in Caesarea, during the first century, where it is
mentioned that the “pagans had gone and plundered it,” may indicate that the Jews did not attend games
and spectacles at that time,” taking into cosideration that the legendary nature of the story is farfetched.
Ze'ev Weiss, “The Jews and the Games in Roman Caesarea,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After

78
of R. Hanin (late 2nd cent.?)231 addressed how Caesarea came to be declared permitted i n

a sabbatical year.232 Hence, the story puts in the mouth of the non-Jewish residents of

Caesarea the rabbinical idea that one who does not respect the sabbatical year is like one

who eats pork. 233

Eating pork was already associated by the Tannaitic period with apostasy, as

Tosefta Horayot testifies when it enumerates it as one of the actions of apostasy:

One who eats abomination – behold, this one is an apostate [‫]משומד‬. [This also applies to]
the one who ate carrion and/or terefah, abominations or creeping things; the one who eats
pork or drinks libation wine, the one who desecrates the Sabbath; the one who stretches
his foreskin [in order to conceal his circumcision]. R. Yosi b. R. Yehudah says: “Also the
one who wears garments of mixed species.” R. Simon b. Elazar says: “Also the one who
does something [prohibited] that his impulse does not desire.” 234

Two Millennia, ed. Avner Raban, Kenneth G. Holum, and Jodi Magnes, Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research. no. 308: 108 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 445.
231
Ze'ev Safrai, “The Exemption of the Territory of Caesarea from the Commandments Relating to the
Land,” Sinai 96, no. 5-6 (1985): 219 (Hebrew).
232
R. Abbahu, who lived in Caesarea, relates how the non-Jews mocked the sabbatical year (LamR.
17). See: Weiss, “The Jews and the Games,” 446.
233
Ephrat Habas, “The Halachic Status of Caesarea as Reflected in the Talmudic Literature,” in
Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia, ed. Avner Raban, Kenneth G Holum, and Jodi
Magnes (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 462.
234
T. Horayot 1:5 (ed. Zukermandel, 474)
‫האוכל שקצים הרי זה משומד אכל נבילות וטריפות שקצים ורמשים האוכל בשר חזיר והשותה יין נסך והמחלל את השבת והמשוך‬
:‫ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומ' אף הלבוש כלאים ר' שמעון בן אלעז' אומ' אף העושה דבר שאין היצר תאב לו‬
Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 30. See also Bavli Horayoth 11a. In the sixteenth century, Gdaliah ibn
Yahia’s Sefer Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah told the story of an apostate who ate pork in front of his rabbi:
“With the rabbi standing before him, he killed a pig, cut it up, cooked it and ate it. When he finished eating,
he asked his teacher how many condemnable offenses he had committed, to which Rabbi Moses replied,
“Four.” Abner said that he wished to dispute his teacher and claim that there were really five. The rabbi
stared angrily at him and silenced him – for he still retained some fear of his teacher. Finally his teacher
asked him who it was that had led him to his apostasy. [Abner] said that he had once heard it explained that
all the commandments and everything in the world was contained within Parashat ha’a inu (the thirty-
second chapter of Deuteronomy), and that in order to disprove this idea, he became a different person
(nehefakti le-ish aḥer). The rabbi answered, “I still say this is true. Ask whatever you want.” The man was
very surprised and said to him, “OK. tell me if you can find my name written there.” The
RaMBaN….immediately walked himself to a corner of the room and prayed, and into his mouth came
Deuternomy 32: 26: “I said I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to
cease from among men.” – for the man who was Rabbi Abner is contained within the [combination of the]
third letter of each [Hebrew] word. When the man heard this, he became sad, and asked his rabbi if there
was a remedy for his affliction. The rabbi said, “You heard the words of the verse!” and went on his way.
Immediately, and without uttering a word, the man boarded a ship. He went where the wind would take him,
and nothing was ever heard of him again.” Gdaliah ibn Yahia, Sefer Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah (Chain of
Tradition) (Venice, 1585. Reprint: Jerusalem: Otza’at HaDorot HaRishonim veKorotam, 1972), 56a.
Translation by Mark Barry Ross, “Kabbalistic Tocinofobia: Américo Castro, Limpieza de Sangre, and the

79
 It seems that because eating pork is understood as apostasy, Bavli Sanhedrin 26b

states that the pork eater is incompetent as a witnesses:

R. Nahman said: those who eat of another thing [pork] 235 are incompetent as witnesses.
Provided, however, that they accept it publicly, but not if they accept it in private. And
even if publicly [accepted], the law is applicable only if, when it was possible for them to
obtain it privately they yet degraded themselves by open acceptance. But where [private
receipt] is impossible, it [public acceptance] is vitally necessary. 236

What is at stake here is not so much the eating of “another thing,” but if this was

done in public. Eating pork was one of the laws of the Torah about which the Mishnah

argues: “every law of the Torah, if a man is commanded: 'Transgress and suffer not death'

he may transgress and not suffer death, excepting idolatry, incest [and adultery], and

murder” (Sanhedrin 74a). This law, however, was limited: “When R. Dimi came, he said

in R. Yohanan’s name: If there is a royal decree [forbidding the practice of Judaism], one

must incur martyrdom rather than transgress even a minor precept. When Rabin came, he

said in R. Yohanan’s name: Even without a royal decree it was only permitted in private;

but in public one must be martyred even for a minor precept rather than violate it.” ( B.

Sanhedrin 74a). Therefore, while eating pork is a minor precept that one can transgress

(at least in private) and not die, if it is a part of an idolatrous sacrifice or a form of

persecution, one should die rather than transgress the law. If a person prefers to transgress

the law in public he is a heretic.

Inner Meaning of Jewish Dietary Laws,” in Fear and its Representations in the Middle Ages and
Renaissance, ed. Anne Scott and Cynthia Kosso (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002), 173-174.
235
Rashi thoght that “those who eat of another thing,” are those who received alms from the Goyim.
:‫ מקבלי צדקה מן הנכרים דהוי חילול השם מחמת ממון והוה ליה כרשע דחמס‬- ‫אוכלי דבר אחר‬
236
B. Sanhedrin 26b.
‫ ובפרהסיא נמי לא אמרן אלא דאפשר ליה‬.‫ לא‬- ‫ אבל בצינעה‬,‫ בפרהסיא‬- ‫ הני מילי‬.‫ א וכלי דבר אחר פסולין לעדות‬:‫אמר רב נחמן‬
.‫ חיותיה הוא‬- ‫ אבל לא אפשר ליה‬,‫ וקא מבזי נפשיה בפרהסיא‬,‫לאיתזוני בצינעה‬

80
Epikorsiut and the Pig

The word epikorus became in rabbinic literature a generic word to designate the

heretic, while the word epikorsiut designated heresy. 237 Epicurus (d. 270 BCE) held a n

ethical theory of eudemonistic hedonism, advocating tranquility, ataraxia, as the goal of

life, or telos. This has two aspects: “First, it is identified as the absence of pain – where

pain is understood to be not only physical pain but also the mental pains of anxiety,

distress, or worry. Second, it is identified as pleasure or at least as a certain kind of

pleasure.”238 Because hoggishness was seen as a pursuit of pleasure, it was maliciously

associated with Epicureanism. 239 Clement of Alexandria writes for example: “Epicurus,

in placing happiness in not being hungry, or thirsty, or cold, uttered that godlike word,

saying impiously that he would thereby vie even with Father Jove; teaching, as it were,

that the life of pigs devouring rubbish and not of rational philosophers, was supremely

happy.” 240 The pig, after being associated with the Epicureans by their adversaries, was

237
Joseph Geiger, “To the History of the Term Apikoros,” Tarbiz 42 (1972-73): 499-500 (Hebrew).
Saul Lieberman, “How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?” in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 130. Jenny R. Labendz, “’Know What to Answer the
Epicurean’ - A Diachronic Study of the Apiqoros in Rabbinic Literature.” Hebrew Union College Annual
74 (2003): 175-214. Hans-Jürgen Becker, “Epikureer im Talmud Yerushalmi,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi
and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol 1, ed. Peter Sch fer (T bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 379-421.
238
James Warren, Epicure and Democritean Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002),
3.
239
Timon, Fr. 51 Diels. Cicero, Against Piso 16.37. Plutarch, That Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant
Life Impossible 7 (Moralia 1091C). Horace, Epistle 1.4.15-16; 2.2.72-75. See: Jacques Boulogne,
P utarque dans e miroir d’Épicure. Ana yse d’une critique syst matique de ’ picurisme (Villeneuve
d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 2003), 141-143. A silver cup from Boscoreale, near Pompeii
(c. 30 CE), represents skeletal figures belonging to various philosophical schools. On one side of the cup, a
pair of philosophers is depicted: to the left is the Stoic Zeno; to the right is Epicurus. “The latter figure is
not only intent on the meal in the pit at the centre of the picture (above which is written an Epicurean tag:
‘pleasure is the telos’), but he is also indentified as a hedonist by the presence of the pot-bellied pig
jumping up to smell the cooking.” Warren, Epicure, 131.
240
Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies (Stromata) 2.21 (ANF). Likewise, Isidore of Seville (6th cent.
CE): “The Epicureans are so called from a certain philosopher Epicurus, a lover of vanity, not of wisdom,
whom the philosophers themselves named ‘the pig,’ wallowing in carnal filth, as it were, and asserting that
bodily pleasure is the highest good.” Isidore of Seville, Etymology 8.6.15. The Etymologies of Isidore of
Seville, trans. Stephen A. Barney (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 179. For another

81
associated by Christianity with the heretics (sometimes described as Epicureans).241 In

Christianity, the identification of the heretic with the pig is mainly based on 2 Peter

2:22:“’The dog returns to its vomit’ and ‘The pig, once washed, wallows in mud.’” (wr.

ca. 130 CE ?).242 The image of the pig returning to the mud after the bath is from a

known saying attributed to Heraclitus. The two parallel proverbs summarizing a

paragraph (2 Pe 2:1-22) deal with the “false prophets/teachers” (2:1), who are compared

to dogs and pigs.243 Hoggishness is a movement towards the earthly, the bodily desires,

toward animality. This downward movement is the opposite of the upward movement of

salvation: the turning to Christ, from the body to the spirit, from the earth to heaven, from

animality to the divine. Because conversion is understood (literally) as an act of turning

in Christianity, the image of the heretic is as one who takes a negative turn: hence the

simile of the pig returning to the mud. As great as is the salvation, so great is the fall. 244

patristic mention of Epicurus as a pig, see: M. Di Marco, “Riflessi della polemica antiepicurea nei Silli di
Timone II: Epicuro, Il porco e l’insaziable ventre,” Elenchos 4 (1983): 60, note 3.
241
As Pierre Courcelle notes: “le porc et son bourbier, après avoir désigné Épicure et ses disciples, ont
été considérés comme désignant les hérétiques.” Pierre Courcelle, “Le thème littéraire du bourbier dans la
littérature latine,” Comptes rendus de ’Acad mie des Inscriptions et e les-Lettres (avril-juin 1973):
281. R. Jungkurtz, “Fathers, Heretics, and Epicureans,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 17 (1966): 3-
10.
242
Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the the New Testament, The Anchor Bible Reference
Library (New York et al.: Doubleday, 1997), 767.
243
The “false teachers” which “follow the polluting desires of the flesh” (2:10) are compared to
“beasts without reason, creatures of instinct for capture and destruction” (10:12). They are doggish and
hoggish, filthy and impure: “17. These men are springs without water, mists driven by storms; for them
gloomy darkness is kept. 18. They mouth empty boasts; they entice with debauchery and desires of the
flesh those who but recently fled from the company of those who live in error. 19. They promise them
freedom, but are themselves slaves of destruction. For people are slaves to that which masters them. 20. For
if they, who fled the pollution of the world by acknowledging our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, again are
entangled in evil company and are mastered by it, this last state is worse than the first. 21. Far better for
them that they should never have acknowledged the way of righteousness, than acknowledging it, to turn
away from the holy rule given them. 22. For them the proverb has proved true: “The dog returns to its
vomit” and “The pig, once washed, wallows in mud.” (2 Pe 2:17-22). See: Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter,
Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, vol. 37C (New York et
al.: The Anchor Bible, 1993), 217.
244
For example, the Armenian Bishop Movsēs of Siwinik‘ (d. 731 CE) writes:“Wherefore, you, high
priests and heads of the Church: Rejoice with ecstasy and shake with fear and much trembling, lest you
who are elevated heads and knowledgeable about heaven should become like swine that crawl on earth and
wallow in ashes, thinking only of the earthly.” Movsēs Bishop of Siwinik, “Hymn to St. Gregory the

82
Hence, 2 Pe 2:22 was mainly understood to refer to heretics.245 Were also the minim,

epikorsim, or mesumadim of rabbinic heresiology associated with the pig?

Tosefta Avoda Zara contrasts the scholars of Torah, who are likened to a lawful

sacrificial animal, with those who do not learn Torah, who are likened to impure animals

such as the camel and the pig:

R’ Shimon ben Yochai says: one does not say, “examine that camel that it might have a
deformity” or examine that pig that it might have a deformity”; just pure [temimim] are
checked ´(for deformities). And who is this? This is a Torah scholar who forsakes the
Torah. Regarding him scripture says: “What is crooked cannot be made straight,” (Eccl.
1:15) and “The wicked borrow and do not repay” (Ps. 37:21). And Rabbi Yehuda says on
him He says: “Like a bird wandering from its nest,[so is a man who wanders from his
place.] (Proverbs 27:8). And: What wrong did you forefathers find in me,[that they
distanced themselves from me.] (Jeremiah 2:5). 246

The pig is inherently impure, unfit for sacrifice, and hence one does not look to

see whether it had defects as with pure animals which are fit to sacrifice. Similarly, only a

person who was initially straight can be said to have become “crooked (‫)מעוות‬.” Hence, as

a pure animal that has a defect, the Talmud scholar acts impurely. What is implicit is that

by acting so, he is even worse than the camel and the pig, which in their natures are

impure, for he is acting against his own nature. In a similar manner, chapter six of

Illuminator,” hymn 52 [Part II], In Abraham Terian, Patriotism and Piety in Armenian Christianity: The
Early Panegyrics on Saint Gregory (New Rochelle, NY: Avant, 2005), 149.
245
“Le porc et son bourbier, après avoir désigné Épicure et ses disciples, ont été considérés comme
désignant les hérétiques.” Courcelle, “Le thème littéraire,” 281. See Robert M. Grant, Early Christians and
Animals (London and New York: Routledge, 1999), 6-7. Terrance Callan, “Comparison of Humans to
Animals in 2 Peter 2,10-22,” Biblica 90 (2009): 101-113. For the Middle Ages see: Jacques Voisenet,
Bestiaire chrétien. L'imaginaire animale des auteurs du Haut Moyen Age (Toulouse: Presses universitaire
du Mirail, 1994), 219. See for example Hilary of Potiers, On Matthew 6.1. Hilaire de Poitiers, Sur
Matthieu, vol 1, trans, Jean Doignon, SC 254 (Paris: Cerf, 1978), 170-171
246
T. Avoda Zara 1.8.
?‫ אין מבקרין אלא תמימים ואי זה‬.‫ בקרו חזיר זה שמא יש בו מום‬,‫ אין אומ' בקרו גמל זה שמא יש בו מום‬:'‫ר' שמעון בן יוחיי אומ‬
‫ עליו הוא‬:'‫" ר' יהודה אומ‬.‫ "מעות לא יוכל לתקון" ואומ' "לוה רשע ולא ישלם‬:'‫זה זה תלמיד חכם שפרש מן התורה ועל זה נאמ‬
."'‫אומ'? "כצפור נודדת מקינה" ואו' "מה מצאו אבותיכם בי עול וגו‬
And b. Hagigah 9B; EcclR 1.5.2. In both places, the midrash is told in the context of prohibited sexual
relations with a married woman.

83
Mishnah Avot (Pirke Avot), which is a later addition to the Mishnah, compares one who

does not learn Torah to a pig:

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Every day a heavenly voice goes forth from Mount Horev
[Mount Sinai] proclaiming and saying: ‘Woe to mankind for their disdain of the Torah!’
For he who does not occupy himself with the Torah is called “rebuked [nazuf ‫]נזוף‬,” as it
is written: “As a golden ring in the snout of a swine, so is a fair woman without discretion.
(Prov. 11:22)” And it says: “And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was
the writing of God, graven upon the tablets.” (Ex. 32:16) Read not “graven” (harut), but
“freedom” (herut); for no man is free but he who occupies himself with the study of
Torah, and he who devotes himself regularly to the study of Torah shall be exalted, as it
is written: “And from Mattanah [=gift] to Nahaliel [=inheritance of God]; and from
Nahaliel [=inheritance of God] to Bamoth [heights].” (Num 21:19). 247

The midrash reads the word “censured (‫ ”)נזוף‬as notrikon (acronym) of “As a ring

of gold in a swine’s snout (‫)נזם זהב באף חזיר‬.” It seems also that being “rebuked ‫”נזוף‬

means here losing one´s freedom, as the animal that is controlled by its nose-ring. 248 This

idea that the one who does not learn Torah is not a free man is followed by the idea of the

second part of the midrash that only the one who learns Torah is free. While in the

Mishnah the one who deviates from the study of Torah (= gold) is indirectly compared to

a pig, 249 in Kala Rabati’s version of the same midrash he is fully a pig:

247
M. Avot 6.2. Translation by Pinhas Kehati, The mishnah, vol. 4, Seder Nezikin (Jerusalem: Eliner,
1987), 195. Also: Seder Eliyahu Zuttah 17.5 (ed. Friedmann (Ish-Shalom)).
‫ שכל מי‬,‫ אוי להם לבריות מעלבונה של תורה‬:‫ בכל יום ויום בת קול יוצאת מהר חורב ומכרזת ואומרת‬:‫אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי‬
‫ והלוחות מעשה אלהים המה והמכתב‬:‫" ואומר‬.‫ "נזם זהב באף חזיר אשה יפה וסרת טעם‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫שאינו עוסק בתורה נקרא נזוף‬
‫ שאין לך בן חורין אלא מי שעוסק בתלמוד תורה וכל מי שעוסק‬,‫ אל תקרא חרות אלא חירות‬.‫מכתב אלהים הוא חרות על הלוחות‬
:)‫ יט‬,‫ במדבר כא‬:( "‫ "וממתנה נחליאל ומנחליאל במות‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫בתורה תדיר הרי זה מתעלה‬
248
The midrash seems to play with the proximity of the word “rebuked (‫ ”)נזוף‬to “nose-ring (‫)נזם‬.
249
We find a similar idea in midrash Tanḥuma : “If a man makes a vow involving human life, as it is
said, “the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise” (Prov. 11). If a man is just,
even though he is just and does not study the Torah, he has nothing. Rather, the fruit of the just is the tree
of life, meaning that since he is a Torah scholar he learns how to deal with human life; as it is said, wise is
he who deals with human life. If he knows how to deal with vows regarding human life he learned it from
the Torah, and if he has no learning he has nothing. Thus it was with Jephthah the Gileadite, who because
he was not a Torah scholar, lost his daughter when he was fighting Ammonites, in the hour when he made
the vow: “…if thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into my hands, then it shall be, that
whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house shall surely be the Lord’s and I will offer it up for a
burnt offering” (Judges 11:30-31). In that hour the Lord was angry with him and he said, if a dog or a pig
or a camel comes out of his house he would offer it up as a sacrifice to me? So he provided his daughter.
Why? So that all who make vows will study the laws of pledge and oaths, and will not act mistakenly when
they make vows.” Tan Behukotai 5. Translation by Shulamit Valler, “The Story of Jephtah’s Daughter in

84
 For whoever is not constant in the study of the Torah is termed “rebuked [nazuf ‫ ”;]נזוף‬as
it is stated, “As a ring of gold in a swine’s snout”- gold refers to the Torah, for so it states,
“And I put a ring upon thy nose,” (Prov. 11:22); and it also declar es, “As a ring of gold in
a swine’s snout” : this refers to one who studies the Torah at [irregular] intervals. The
Holy One, blessed be He, says: “Of what [use] is this before swine, seeing that My Torah
is beautiful and I have given it [to man] to meditate thereon, but he does not meditate on
it until he forgets it.’ 250

This midrash is similar to Sifre’s note that, “At the time that Torah comes from

his mouth he [the priest=Israel] is like an angel; when [it does] not, he is like a beast and

an animal that knows not its creator.” 251 In these texts, animalization is not turned

outward (toward non-Jews) but inward (to Jews); the pig is the one who is going astray

from the world of Torah. In fact, the heretic par excellence in the Rabbinic tradition,

Elisha ben Abuya, known as Aḥer (Other), was perhaps associated through this very nick-

name with the pig.

Elisha ben Abuya, Aḥer

According to the Babylonian Talmud, it is a prostitute who named Elisha ben

Abuya Aḥer (Another): “He went and found a prostitute and asked for her. She said to

him: Are you not Elisha ben Abuya? When he tore a radish (or turnip) out of the ground

the Midrash,” in A Feminist Companion to Judges, ed. Athalya Brenner (Sheffield: Sheffield academic
Press, 1999), 54-55.
‫ שמתוך שהוא בן תורה הוא‬,‫ זה התורה‬,)‫" זש"ה "פרי צדיק עץ חיים [ולוקח נפשות חכם]" (משלי יא ל‬.'‫ד"א "איש כי יפליא וגו‬
‫ אימתי‬,‫ מפני שלא היה בן תורה איבד את בתו‬,‫" וכן אתה מוצא ביפתח הגלעדי‬, ‫ "לוקח נפשות חכם‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫לומד היאך לוקח נפשות‬
‫ באותה שעה כעס עליו‬,)‫לא‬- ‫ ל‬,‫ והיה היוצא וגו'" (שופטים יא‬,'‫ "וידר יפתח נדר לה‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫בשעה שנלחם עם בני עמון ונדר‬
",‫ " והנה בתו יוצאת לקראתו‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ זימן לו הקב"ה בתו‬,‫ אילו יצא מביתו כלב או חזיר או גמל יקריב לפני‬:‫ אמר הקב"ה‬,‫הקב"ה‬
.‫כ"כ למה כדי שילמדו כל הנודרים הלכות נדרים וקונמות שלא לנהוג טעות בנדרים‬
250
Kala Rabati 54b (ed. Higger). Translation by A. Cohen, The Minor Tractates of the Talmud:
Massektoth Ketannoth, vol. II (London: Soncino Press, 1966), 502.
‫ "ואתן‬:‫ וכן הוא אומר‬,‫” זהב זו תורה‬. ‫ “נזם זהב באף חזיר אשה יפה וסרת טעם‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ נזוף‬:‫שכל מי שאינו עוסק בתורה נקרא‬
‫ שהרי תורתי יפה אני‬,‫ למה זו לפני חזיר‬:‫ אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא‬.‫" זה שקרא לפרקים‬,‫ "נזם זהב באף חזיר‬:‫" ואומר‬,‫נזם על אפך‬
;‫ והוא אינו הוגה עד שמשכחה‬,‫נתתיה להגותה‬
251
For a reading of the universalistic trends of this text, see: Marc Hirshman, “Rabbinic Universalism
in the Second and Third Centuries.” HTR 93 (2000): 101-105.

85
on the Shabbat and gave it to her, she said: ‘He is another [aḥer hu].’”252 The change

within the Sage is so great, that even the prostitute is astonished. The

otherness/strangeness became his name, his essence. The name Aḥer (another), recalls the

expression for the pig in rabbinic literature: Davhar Aḥer (Another thing). Both bynames

are used in order to avoid pronouncing the abominable min: word which designs heretic

but also species and kind. The Yerushalmi (Hagiga 2.1) answer the question “Why did all

this happen to him?” in three episodes. The first is as follows:

Once Elisha was sitting and studying in the plain of Gennesaret, and he saw a man climb
to the top of a palm tree, take a mother bird with her young, and descend safely. The
following day he saw another man climbing to the top of the palm tree; he took the young
birds but released the mother. When he descended a snake bit him and he died. Elisha
thought, “It is written, ‘you shall let the mother go, but the young shall you take to
yourself; that if may go well with you, and that you may live long (Deut. 22:6f). 253 Where
is the welfare of this man, and where his length days? 254

The second episode explains Aḥer’s heresy by his reaction to the martyrdom of

Rabbi Judah the Baker in the times of Hadrian’s persecutions: 255

(…) he saw the tongue of Rabbi Judah the Baker, dripping blood, in the mouth of a dog.
He said, “This is the Torah, and this its reward! This is the tongue that was bringing forth
the words of the Torah as befits them. This is the tongue that labored in the Torah all its

252
B. Hagigah 15a. Different explanations are given to Aḥer´s name in the Bavli Hagiga 15b: “Why
was he called Aḥer ? [Because] Greek songs were always on his lips”. His hellenophilia is thus the origin
of his name. See: Nurit Be’eri, Went Forth into Evil Courses: Elisha Ben Abuya – A’her (Tel-Aviv:
Miskal –Yedioth Ahronoth Books and Chemed Books, 2007) (Hebrew).
253
‘[If you chance to come upon a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs,
you shall not take the mother with the young;] ‘you shall let the mother go, but the young shall you take to
yourself; that if may go well with you, and that you may live long (Deut. 22:6f).
254
Y. Hagiga 2:1, 77b. Translation by Jacob Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, vol. 20,
Hagiaga nad Moed Qatan (Chicago and London: The Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1982), 48-49.
‫וכל דא מן הן אתת ליה ? אלא פעם אחת היה יושב ושונה בבקעת גיניסר וראה אדם אחד עלה לראש הדקל ונטל אם על הבנים וירד‬
.)‫ ז‬,‫ למחר ראה אדם אחר כתיב "שלח תשלח את האם ואת הבנים תיקח לך למען ייטב לך והארכת ימים ” (דברים כב‬,‫משם בשלום‬
? ‫איכן היא טובתו של זה ?איכן היא אריכות ימיו של זה‬
The Talmud suggests that his doubts will not let him to go astray if he knew the explanation of
Deuteronomy 22:6: “He did not know that R. Jacob had explained it before him: “That it may go well with
you” in the World to Come which is wholly good, “And that you live long,” in the time which is wholly
long.” Y. Hagiga 2:1, 77b.
.‫ לעתיד שכולו ארוך‬- "‫ לעולם הבא שכולו טוב“ והארכת ימים‬- "‫למען ייטב לך‬: “‫ולא היה יודע שדרשה רבי עקיבא לפנים ממנו‬
255
On the martyrdom of Rabbi Judah the Baker, see: Herr, “Persecutions and Martyrdom,” 114, note
103.

86
 days. This is the Torah, and this its reward! It seems as though there is no reward [for
righteousness] and no resurrection of the dead.” 256

According to Bavli Hullin 142a, Elisah-Aḥer saw the tongue of R. Huzpit, the

Interpreter, cast in a rubbish heap, 257 while according to Bavli Kiddushin 39b, he saw it

dragged by a pig:

Now what happened with Aḥer ? Some say, he saw something of this nature. Others say,
he saw the tongue of Ḥutzpit the translator being dragged by davhar aḥer [another thing
= a pig]. He said: “The mouth that uttered pearls now licks the dirt?” He went out and
sinned. 258

The words of Elisha- Aḥer in front of the tongue dragged by the pig recall the

words of Jesus in the sermon on the mountain:”Do not give what is holy to the dogs, or

throw your pearls before the swines, so that they will not trample on them with their feet,

and turn around and tear you apart.” (Mt. 7:6). In both cases, pearls stand for Torah (or

Holy things). Matthew’s parable refers to a thing out of place; the “holy” and “pearls”

represent something valuable, which contrasts with ignoble, impure animals such as dogs

and pigs. The pig trampling the pearls refers to the pig’s destructive nature as well to the

Greco-Roman idea that the pig reverses the “normal” hierarchy of values, it detests

marjoram but delights in the mud. 259 In the Christian exegetical tradition, Matthew 7:6

256
Y. Hagiga 2:1, 77b.
‫ זו תורה וזו שכרה !?זהו הלשון שהיה מוציא‬:‫ אמר‬,‫ ע" י שראה לשונו של רבי יהודה הנחתום נתון בפי הכלב שותת דם‬:‫ויש אומרים‬
! ‫דברי תורה כתקנן !? זה הוא הלשון שהיה יגיע בתורה כל ימיו !? זו תורה וזו שכרה !? דומה שאין מתן שכר ואין תחיית המתים‬
257
B. Holin 142a.
‫ פה‬:‫ אמר‬,‫ דהוה מוטלת באשפה‬,‫ לישנא דרבי חוצפית המתורגמן חזא‬:‫ ואיכא דאמרי‬, ‫ כי האי מעשה חזא‬:‫מאי חזא? איכא דאמרי‬
?‫שהפיק מרגליות ילחוך עפר‬
258
B. Kidushin 39b.
‫ פה‬:‫ אמר‬,‫ לישנא דחוצפית המתורגמן חזא דהוה גריר ליה דבר אחר‬:‫ כי האי גוונא חזא; ואיכא דאמרי‬:‫ואחר מאי הוא? איכא דאמרי‬
.‫שהפיק מרגליות ילחך עפר? נפק חטא‬
Also Hagadot Hatalmud 56a (Kiddushin) = 135c/d (Ḥu in): “He saw the tongue of a great man being
dragged by a pig.”
259
As for example Lucretius, in On the Nature of Things writes: “Pigs detest oil of marjoram and fear/
all kinds of ointments, for to the bristly pig/ What seems to us refreshing is rank poison./ But on the other
hand, what is to us/ Most loathsome filth, why, pigs delight in it/ And love to roll their bodies in the mud.”
Lucretius, On the Nature of the Things 6.973-978; Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, trans. Ronald
Melville (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 208.

87
was often understood as referring to heretics.260 In the Talmud, the image of the pig tha t

dirties the pearls with mud refers to a world turned upside down: a strong image of

injustice.

The third possible reason the Yerushalmi gives might be also related to the pig:

“But some say that when his mother was pregnant with him, she passed by temples of

Idolatry, and smelled from that kind (Veheriha meoto ha-min).261 And that odor pierced

her body like the poison of a snake.” 262 Rather than thinking that what Elisha-Aḥer’s

mother smelled was incense, it seems more probable that “that kind” refers to sacrificial

meat, perhaps pork (as in the expression “another thing”). Whatever the case, this episode

may become clearer by observing the case mentioned in Bavli Yoma 82a of a pregnant

woman who during the fast of Yom Kippur smelled sacrificial meat or pork and wanted

to eat it:

The Rabbis taught in a Baraita: [If] A pregnant woman smelled sacrificial meat or pork
[and craved it], we stick a pindle into the soup [in which the prohibited food was cooked]
and place it on her mouth. If she feels relieved, fine; But if not, we feed her the soup itself.
If she feels relieved, fine; But if not, we feed her the very fat [ of the prohibited food,] for
there is nothing that stands in the way of saving a life, other than [the cardinal sins of]
Idol worship, illicit relations, or murder. 263

In the continuation of the discussion, the Bavli relates the following two episodes:

260
The Alexandrian gnostic Basilides (c. 130-140 CE) goes far as to say in his gospel: “We (…) are
the human beings, but all the others are pigs and dogs. And because of this he [sc. Jesus] said, ‘Do not
throw the pearls before the pigs, nor give the holy to the dogs.” Epiphanius, Pan 24.5.2. Cited by Hans
Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon
on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49) (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995), 498.
261
Jacob Neusner translates “smelled their particular kind of incenses.” Jacob Neusner, Hagigah and
Moed Qatan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 49.
262
Y. Hagiga 2:1, 77b.
‫ אמו כשהייתה מעוברת בו הייתה עוברת על בתי עבודה זרה והריחה מאותו המין והיה אותו הריח מפעפע בגופה‬:‫ויש אומרים‬
.‫כאירסה של חכינה‬
263
B. Yomah 82a.
‫ ואם‬,‫ מוטב‬- ‫ אם נתיישבה דעתה‬.‫ ומניחין לה על פיה‬,‫ תוחבין לה כוש ברוטב‬- ‫ עוברה שהריחה בשר קודש או בשר חזיר‬:‫תנו רבנן‬
‫ שאין לך דבר שעומד בפני‬,‫ מאכילין אותה שומן עצמו‬- ‫ ואם לאו‬,‫ מוטב‬- ‫ ואם נתיישבה דעתה‬,‫ מאכילין אותה רוטב עצמה‬- ‫לאו‬
.‫פקוח נפש חוץ מעבודה זרה וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים‬

88
 There was a certain pregnant woman who smelled food [and craved it on Yom Kippur.]
They came before Rebbi [and asked him what to do.] [Rebbi] said to them: whisper to her
that it is Yom Kippur. They whispered [it] to her, and she accepted the whisper. [Rebbi]
applied the [following] verse to [the fetus]: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you
etc [before you left the womb I sanctified you]. (Jeremiah 1:5). From her issued R’
Yochanan.
There was [another] pregnant woman who smelled food [and craved it on Yom Kippur].
They came before R’ Chanina [and asked him what to do.] He said to them: Whisper to
her [that it is Yom Kippur.] [They whispered it to her,] but she did not accept the whisper;
[R’ Chanina] applied the [following] verse to [the fetus]: The wicked are estranged, from
the womb. [And indeed,] Shabasi, 264 the hoarder of produce, issued from her. 265
Two contradictory cases are exposed here: the pregnant woman who does not eat

the forbidden meat and the one that does; the one that begot a just man and the one that

begot a wicked man. It seems that the story of Elisa/Aḥer’s mother refers to the second

case. Indeed, according to Ruth Rabbah and Ecclesiastes Rabbah, Aḥer’s mother did not

just smell the forbidden meat but also ate it. 266 The forbidden meat of a pagan sacrifice is

described as having a magical quality - as having the power to alter the nature of the fetus

and hence influence the nature of the adult, as in the case of Elisha’s heresy.

The apostasy of Elisha-Aḥer is indirectly associated with what might stand for

the pig. Perhaps this hints at an equation: Elisha ben Abuya = Aḥer (Another) = Davar

Aḥer (Another thing) = Min (Apostate) = pig. This porcine connection to Aḥer might also

be associated with the supposed epicurean element of his heresy, mainly his negation of

divine providence. This is perhaps the subject of a midrash in Bavli Berakhot 43b were

heresy seems to be associated with the pig:

264
Shabsai was a well-known market manipuator who engineered price increases in produce by
hoarding large supplies. He then took advantage of the poor by selling the produce at the inflated prices
(see b. Baba Batra 90b).
265
B. Yoma 83a. Translation by Schottenstein Talmud.
‫ קרי עליה "בטרם‬.‫ לחושו לה ואילחישא‬.‫ זילו לחושו לה דיומא דכיפורי הוא‬:‫ אמר להו‬,‫ההיא עוברה דארחא אתו לקמיה דרבי‬
‫ ולא‬,‫ לחושו לה‬:‫ אמר להו‬,‫ אתו לקמיה דרבי חנינא‬,‫ ההיא עוברה דארחא‬.‫ נפק מינה רבי יוחנן‬.(‫אצרך בבטן ידעתיך וגו'" ) ירמיהו א‬
.‫ נפק מיניה שבתאי אצר פירי‬,(‫ "זרו רשעים מרחם" ( תהלים נח‬:‫ קרי עליה‬.‫אילחישא‬
266
RuthR 6.
‫ והיה מפעפע בכריסה כריסה‬,‫ והריחה ונתנו לה מאותה המין ואכלה‬,‫ על ידי שהיתה אמו מעוברת בו ועברה על בתי ע"ז‬:'‫ויש אומ‬
.‫של חכינא‬
EcclRab 7.1.
‫ויש אומרים על ידי שכשהיתה אמו מעוברת בו עברה על בתי עבודת כוכבים והריחה ונתנו לה מאותו המין ואכלה והיה מפעפע‬
.‫בכריסה כאריסה של חכינה‬

89
 R. Zutra b. Tobiah said in the name of Rab: Whence do we learn that a blessing should be
said over sweet odors? Because it says, “Let every soul praise the lord.”(Ps. 150:6) What
is that which gives enjoyment to the soul and not to the body? – you must say this is a
fragrant smell. Rabbi Zutra b. Tobiah further said in the name of Rab; The young men of
Israel are destined to emit a sweet fragrance like Lebanon, as it says: “ His branches shall
spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive tree, and his fragrance as Lebanon.” (Hosea
14:6) R. Zutra b. Tobiah further said in the name of Rab: What is the meaning of the
verse: He hath made everything beautiful in its time [He has also set eternity in the hearts
of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.]? (Eccl. 3:11)
It teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, made every man’s trade seem fine in his own
eyes. R. Papa said: This agrees with the popular saying: Hang the heart of a palm tree on
a pig, and it will do the usual things with it [take it to the dung heap]. 267

Why does the text, after praising the Torah learners, turn to Ecclesiastes 3:11 and

finally to the proverb concerning the pig? It seems that the students of Torah are

contrasted with those who, like the pig, take a good thing and make it filthy. Who are

those persons? It is hard to know. But the continuation of Ecclesiastes 3:11 may propose

that they are the ones that doubt God’s deeds, for: “He has also set eternity in the hearts

of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.”

Proselytes

To cease eating pork was one of the markers of the process of conversion to

Judaism, at least according to Juvenal’s Fourteenth satire (wr. c. 90 – 127 CE), which

describe the children of god-fearers who convert to Judaism: 268

267
B. Berakoth 43b. Transltion by Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim
(London: The Soncino Press, 1967): 190.
‫ איזהו דבר שהנשמה‬,)‫ "כל הנשמה תהלל יה" ( תהלים קנ‬:‫ שנאמר‬- ‫ מנין שמברכין על הריח‬:‫אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב‬
‫ עתידים בחורי ישראל שיתנו ריח טוב‬:‫ ואמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב‬.‫ הוי אומר זה הריח‬- ?‫נהנית ממנו ואין הגוף נהנה ממנו‬
‫ "את‬:‫ מאי דכתיב‬,‫ ואמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב‬.)‫ " ילכו יונקותיו ויהי כזית הודו וריח לו כלבנון" (הושע יד‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫כלבנון‬
:‫ היינו דאמרי אינשי‬,‫ אמר רב פפא‬.‫ שכל אחד ואחד יפה לו הקדוש ברוך הוא אומנתו בפניו‬,‫הכל עשה יפה בעתו" (קהלת ג)? מלמד‬
‫ והוא את שלו יעשה‬,‫ ואיהו דידיה עביד [ תלה לו קור (=הלב הרך והלבן של דקל הכרוב)] לחזיר‬- ‫תלה ליה קורא לדבר אחר‬
.]‫[= ינבור באשפה‬
And YalShim Ecclesiastes 968.
‫ היינו‬:‫ אמר רב פפא‬,‫ שכל אחד ייפה לו הקב"ה אומנותו בפניו‬:‫ אמר מר זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב מלמד‬,"‫"את הכל עשה יפה בעתו‬
.‫ תלא ליה קורא לדבר אחר והוא דידיה עביד‬:‫דאמרי אינשי‬
268
See: E. Courtney, A Commentary on the Sattires of Juvenal (London: Athlone, 1980), 561-562.

90
 Some who have had a father who reveres the Sabbath,
worship nothing but the clouds, and the divinity of the heavens,
and see no difference between eating swine’s flesh,
from which their father abstained, and eating that of human beings; and in time they take
to circumcision.
Having been wont to flout the laws of Rome,
they learn and practice and revere the Jewish law,
and all that Moses handed down in his secret tome,
forbidding to point out the way to any not worshipping the same rites,
and conducting none but the circumcised to the desired fountain.
For all of which the father was to blame, who gave up every seventh day to idleness,
keeping it apart from all the concerns of life. 269

Juvenal distinguishes two stages of Jewishness: in the first stage the Sabbath is

kept, and the “heavenly god” is worshiped and pork is avoided; in the second stage comes

circumcision. Like Juvenal, the rabbis refer to avoidance of pork as a sign of conversion.

Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael (4-5th century) states that one should not mention to the convert

his past porcine diet:

“And a Stranger Shalt Thou Not Vex, Neither Shalt Thou Oppress Him; for Ye Were
Strangers in the Land of Egypt.” (Ex. 22:20). You shall not vex him – with words.
Neither shall you oppress him – in money matters. You should not say unto him: But
yesterday you were worshiping “Bel, bowing (kores ‫ )קורס‬Nebo,” (cf. Is 46:16) 270 and
unti now swine’s f esh has stic ing out from between your teeth, and now you dare to
stand up and to speak against me!271 And how do we know that if you vex him he can
also vex you? It is said: “And a stranger shalt thou not vex, neither shalt thou oppress him;
for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Ex. 22:20) In connection with this passage R.
Nathan used to say: Do not reproach your fellow man with a fault which is also your
own.272

269
Juvenal, Satire 14.96-106.
270
Jacob Z. Lauterbach [Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael, vol. 3 (Philadephia: The Jewish Publiciton Society
of America, 1935), 137] and Jacob Neusner [The Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael: An Analytical
Translation, 2 vols. Vol. 2 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1988), 210.] translate this phrase as
refering to three gods: Bel, Kores, and Nebo. This seems a mistake for the phrase is a pharprase of Isaiah
46:1: “Bel has bowed down, Nebo stoops over; Their images are consigned to the beasts and the cattle. The
things that you carry are burdensome, A load for the weary beast.” See: Rosenblum, Food, 56, note 82.
271
Saul Liberman suggests that in the convert’s voice can be heard the voice of the pig, see: Liberman,
Tosefta Ki-Fshutah, vol. 9, 185. And Ibid. Studies, 488-490.
272
Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Tractate Nezikin, 18.95.1 (ed. Lauterbach). Translation by Jacob Z.
Lauterbach, Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael, vol. 3 (Philadephia: The Jewish Publicaton Society of America,
1935), 137-138. Italics mine.
‫ כ) לא תוננו בדברים ולא תלחצנו בממון לא תאמר לו אמש‬,‫" וגר לא תונה ולא תלחצנו כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים" (שמו ת כב‬
‫ עד עכשיו הרי חזירים נוצר מבין שיניך ואתה עומד ומדבר כנגדי ומנין שאם הוניתו אף הוא יכול‬,‫ה יית עובד לבל קורס נבו‬
.‫להונתך שנאמר וגר לא תונה ולא תלחצנו כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים מכאן היה רבי נתן אומר מום שבך אל תאמרהו לחברך‬

91
 Bel and Nebo are both Babylonian deities mentioned in Isaiah 46:1 (“Bel boweth

down, Nebo stoopeth ‫ ק ֵֹרס נְּבֹו‬,‫ )”כָרַ ע בֵל‬and their cult was popular in Syria.273 Interestingl y,

in Bavli Sanhedrin we find Isaiah 46:1 as the proof text that one may mock idolatry:

R. Nahman said: All scoffing is forbidden, excepting scoffing at idols, which is permitted,
as it is written, Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth … they stoop, they bow down together;
they could not deliver the burden. 274

Hence, Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael excludes the Gerim from the mockery of idolatry.

The midrash plays with the double sense of the word Ger ‫גר‬: a proselyte and a stranger.

Hence, a Jew should not mention to a proselyte (ger) his foreign origin nor his past non-

Jewish diet, because the Jews themselves were strangers (gerim) in Egypt. We find a link

between the proselyte and the pig also in Bavli Baba Kama 80a, where it is stated that “a

proselyte to whom dogs and pigs fell in his inheritance, we do not obligate him to sell

[them all] immediately. Rather he may sell [them off] little by little.” 275

For others variants of the text, see the online critical edition of the Mekhilta of Bar Ilan University, The
Primary Textual Witnesses to Tannaitic Literature, <http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/tannaim/mekhilta/> Consulted
February 5, 2012.
Also: Minor treatises, Gerim 4.1 ( ‫ ואתה עומד‬,‫ ועד עכשיו חזיר בין שיניך‬,‫ אמש היית עובד את הבל ואת הנבו‬,‫אל תאמר לו‬
.‫)ומדבר עמי‬. TanB, Vayera 14; 32 ( ‫)ואם היה בן גרים לא יאמר לו זכור מעשה אבותיך שהרי החזיר נשוך בין שניהם‬.
Leqah Tob, Exodus 22.20 ( ‫ עד‬,‫ עכשיו הוגה טעמי תורה‬,‫שלא תאמר לו הפה שהיה אוכל נבלות וטרפות שקצים ורמשים‬
‫)עכשיו היו חזירין נושרין מבין שיניך ועובד היית לכל‬. YalShim, Mishpatim 349 (‫אם היה גר ובא ללמוד תורה לא יאמר לו פה‬
‫)שאכל נבלות וטרפות שקצים ורמשים יבא ללמוד תורה שיצאה מפי השכינה‬. MidAgada, Exodus 22.20 ( ‫שאם יאמר לו כמה‬
‫ כמה נשיקות יש לך בע"ז‬,‫)בשר חזיר בבטנך‬.
273
See the chapter “The Cult of Nebo and Bel,” in H. J. W. Drijvers, Cults and Beliefs at Edessa
(Leiden: Brill, 1980), 40-75. Bel was one of the gods of Palmyra, see: Ted Kaizer, The Religious Life of
Palmyra: A Study of the Social Patterns of Worship in the Roman Period (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag,
2002), 67. In the Greco-Roman period Bel was sometimes identfied with Zeus and Nebo with
Hermes/Mercur. The bavli Avodah Zarah 11b mentiones the famous temple of Bel in Babylon and the
temple of Nebo in Chursi. See: Jacob Martin, “Pagan tempel in Pal stina – rabbinische aussagen im
vergleich mit arch ologischen funden,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman culture [2] II, ed.
Peter Sch fer and Catherine Hezser (T bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 148.
274
B. Sanhedrin 63b and b. Megilah 25b.
275
B. Baba Kama 80a. .‫ אלא מוכר על יד על יד‬,‫ אין מחייבין אותו למכור מיד‬,‫וכן גר שנפלו לו כלבים וחזירים בירושתו‬
T. Baba Kama 8.14 (ed. Liberman) does not mention the man as a proselyte: “[if] a person has received an
inheritance of pigs or dogs, they do not require him to sell all of them at once. But he goes along to sell
them little by little.”

92
Conclussion

Eating pork is associated by the sages with non-Jews, persecutions, impurity of

non-Jews, forbidden sexual relations with non-Jewish women, eating Samaritan bread or

forbidden fruits during the sabbatical year, and heresy. The eater of pork is impure, a

defiled person. A Jew who eats pork is a transgressor of the law; if he eats it intentionally

he is a heretic. Eating pork, literally or metaphorically, stands for transgression of the law,

and the “eater of pork” is synonymous with an heretic.

If the non-Jews are eaters of pork (aside from exceptional cases such as that of the

tagar), then for the Jews pork-eating can serve as a sign of alterity or otherness. This

sense is manifested in the Rabbinic hyponym to the pig: davar aḥer = another thing. This

expression not only manifests the will to not utter the impure (a kind of reverse of the

prohibition to utter the tetragrammaton, Yahweh ‫)יהוה‬, but also to mark it as an outsider

element, its deep otherness. Furthermore, Aḥer is not just the “other,” but also the name

of the heretic par excellence: Elisah ben Abuya, whose heresy as we have seen was

perhaps associated with the pig/pork eating. The heretic is like the pig, because like the

pig he is half pure - half impure. His alterity lies in his proximity, his monstrous status

due to his hybridity. Becoming “other” is becoming a pork eater, as becoming Israel

means to cease to eat pork. 276 As we have seen, eating pork is a sign of heresy already in

Tannaitic sources (20-200 CE), but this seems to be even more developed in later sources.

If the creation of heresiologies and orthodoxies of both Christianity and Rabbinic

276
The “pork eaters” stand for hertics who follow a forigien cult Isaiah 66:17: “those who sanctify and
purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the centre, eating the flesh of pigs, vermin,
and rodents, shall come to an end together, says the Lord.” This phrase however is not linked to heretics in
rabbinical literature, but rather, as we will later see, to punishment of the non-Jews, especially Rome in the
messianic era.

93
Judaism were not without connection, 277 then we may ask (and will later try to answer)

to what extent the Christian denouncement of avoidance of pork as heretical influenced

the sages’ marking of eating pork as a sign of heresy? For now, we can simply observe

that contrary to Christianity, in rabbinic discourse on heresy we do not find a strong use

of porcine similes. What seems to be the main difference between Christian similes and

the rabbinic similes of the heretic is that, in the first, the pig stands more for a negative

return while in the second it seems rather to signify transgression of the law. Because

separation and distinction is so central to Judaism, the hoggishness of the heretic seems to

lie mainly in his failure to respect the boundary: a failure symbolized and embodied by

the eating of the forbidden meat. To the contrary, in Christianity, because of the centrality

of positive mediation between categories (transfiguration, transubstantiation, conversion)

the heretic is portrayed as the one who fails to convert, or more specifically, as a person

who undergoes a negative conversion; the heretic is the pig that after washing in the river

returns to the mud. In other words, in rabbinic thinking the pig is a locus of distinction

between two categories, while in Christianity, as Jonathan Boyarin notes, following the

work of Claudine Fabre-Vassas, the pig is the locus of passage, poros. 278 From this

comes the basic difference of eating and not eating pork in the two religions’ orthodoxies

and heresies. However, as we have seen, in rabbinic porcine discourse on heretics, we

find some points of possible convergence with the Christian discourse on heretics as

hoggish and the philosophical tradition which portrays the “heretics among the

philosophers,” the Epicureans (and perhaps also the sophists) in similar terms.

277
See: Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2004).
278
Jonathan Boyarin, “Le porc en dieu Pôros.” Penser/Rêver 7 (2005): 151-176. I thank Jonathan
Boyarin for allowing me to read the Englsih version “The Pig as Poros: On the Uses (and Loss) of a
Swinish Symbolic Mediator,” (April 2005), unpublished paper.

94
 Chapter 4
The Pig and the Destruction of the Temple
August 70 CE

In August 70 CE, after a four-month siege, on the 9th of Ab in the year 3830

according to the Jewish calendar, Roman soldiers stormed the Temple Mount. 279 The ne xt

day, according to Josephus, while: “the sanctuary itself and all around it were in flames,

[the Romans] carried their standards into the temple court and, setting them up opposite

the eastern gate, they sacrificed to them, and with rousing acclamation hailed Titus as

imperator.” 280 The emblems worshiped probably included those of the Legion X Fretensis ,

which included the boar [fig. 5].281 Whatever the sacrifice, it might have resembled tha t

of the suovetaurilia sacrifice to Mars, the god of war, of a pig (sus), a ram (ovis) and a

bull (taurus), as depicted on the Arch of Titus in Rome or the Arch of Constantine [fig. 6-

7].

279
For the 9th of Ab as the date of the Destruction, see: Yuval Shahar, “Rabbi Akiba and the
Destruction of the Temple: the Establishment of the Fast Days,” Zion 68, no. 2 (2003): 153-159 (Hebrew).
280
Josephus, Jewish War 6.6.1. By doing so, the Romans transgressed several Jewish prohibitions: that
of non-Jews entering the Temple, that of making an image of a being (aniconism), and idolatry. Josephus
tells us how pious Jews destroyed a statue of an eagle that Herod erected in one of the entrances to the
Temple (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.33.2-4), and of the violent reaction of the Jews when the Roman
governor Pilate (26-36 CE) ordered Roman legionary standards with the imperial emblems to be taken into
Jerusalem (Josephus, Jewish War 2.10). This was detestable idolatry to the Jews, as the Qumran scroll
Pesher on Habakkuk (1QaHab 6:1-5) describes: “the Kittim [the Romans], and they increase their wealth
with all their booty/ like the fish of the sea. And when it says ‘Therefore he sacrifices to his net/ and burns
incense to his seine [Habakkuk 1:16],’ the interpretation of it is that they/ sacrifice to their standards, and
their military arms are/ the objects of their reverence…” Hanan Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Hasmonaean State (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K: Eerdmans; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2008),
174.
281
K. M. T. Atkinson, “The Historical Setting of the Habbakuk Commentary,” Journal of Semitic
Studies 4 (1959): 238-263. Helmut Schwier, Tempe und Tempe erst rung ntersuchungen u den
theo ogischen und ideo ogischen a toren im ersten disch-r mischen rieg (66-74 n. Chr.) (Freiburg:
Schweiz: Universit tsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 1989), 315 (non vidit). Brian J. Incigneri, The Gospel to the
Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 192.

95
 Fig. 5: Legion X Fretensis' standards on Aelia Capitolina’s coin, Elagabalus
(218-222 CE). A. topped with eagle, B. topped with boar.

Fig. 6: Suovetaurilia sacrifice to Mars on Arch of Titus (c. 81 CE).

Fig. 7: Illustration of the Troops. Arch of Constantine (dedicated in 315 CE).

96
If this was the case, the abominable animal was present in the destruction of the Temple

as an image (on the Legion’s standard, as well on the shields and helmets of its soldiers)

and in flesh and blood as a sacrificial animal. In any case, we find the pig in several

legends concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple: Avot de Rabi Nathan,

Yerushalmi, Bavli, Targum of Lamentations, Targum Sheni to Esther, and the Judeo-

Persian Apocalypse. In order to better understand the formation of these legends, before

adressing them we will identify the role of the pig in Jewish traditions concerning the

profanation or destruction of the Temple prior to 70 CE.

4.2. The Pig and the Profanation of the Temple Prior to 70 CE

Third Isaiah (Is. 66:3, (c. late sixth century - mid fifth century BCE), rebukes a

foreign cult in the Temple:

He who slaughtered an ox (would now) slay a man,

Who sacrificed a lamb (would now) break a dog’s neck,
Who presented cereal offering (would now present) the blood of a swine
Who burnt commemorative incense (would now) worship an idol. 282

The prophet rebukes cultish observance without a pure heart (which is

metaphorically described as a foreign/impure cult) or the replacement of the pure cult

with idolatry. Here, pig blood symbolized the profanation of the Temple in a scheme of

282
Sasson, “Isaiah 66:3-4a,” 200. For a comparison of pork in Isaiah 66:3 and in 1 and 2 Maccabees,
see Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish, “Pig Use and Abuse in the Ancient Levant: Ethnoreligious Boundary-
Building with Swine,” in Ancestors for the Pigs: Pigs in Prehistory, ed. Sarah M. Nelson, MASCA
Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, vol. 15 (Philadelphia, PA: Museum Applied Science Center
for Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 1998), 131.

97
pollution-purification. 283 In Psalms 80:14, dated by some to Eighth Century BCE, 284 the

boar ravaging the vineyard symbolized the foreigners destroying Israel or the Temple:

13 Why hast thou broken down its walls,

so that all who pass along the way
pluck its fruit?
14 The boar from the forest ravages it,
and the beasts of the field feed on it.
15 Return to us, O God Sabbath!
Look down from heaven, and see,
And visit this vine,
The sapling which thy right hand planted… 285

The penetration of the boar and other savage animals into the holy space

symbolizes destruction and defilement. 286 This description of the destruction of the

vineyard (Israel/the Temple) by the boar may perhaps represent the Assyrians, and, as we

will see, was understood in rabbinic literature as standing for Rome. 287 The pig plays a

central role in some versions of the history of the profanation of the Temple by the

283
Sasson, “Isaiah 66:3-4a,” 200. The “abomination” (sikutz), the sacrilege, is answered by a
punishment: “Just as they have chosen their ways and take pleasure in their abomination [ubesikutzeyhem];
so will I choose to mock them, to bring on them the very thing they dread. (Is. 66:4)”
284
As Craig C. Broyles notes, “Ps. 80 has been variously considered to reflect every national crisis
from the Tenth Century division of the kingdom to the time of Maccabees. The most plausible conjectures
locate the psalm either in 732-722 BC when the northern tribes were under threat (…) or in the time of
Josiah and his reform.” Craig C. Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A Form-
Critical and Theological Study (Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1989), 161.
285
Weiser, The Psalms, 546.
286
The topos of the penetration of the animal into the holy or urban space as a sign of destruction
appeared in many biblical texts: Isaiah (5:18; 7.25;13:20-23; 27:10; 32:14; 34:11,14-15), Jeremiah (9:10;
10:22; 12:8-10; 15:3; 49:33;50:39; 51:27,37), Ezekiel (14:15,21; 25:5; 31:13), Tsefania (1:6,14,15),
Pssalms (80:14), Lamentations (4:18). For medieval use of this topos, see: Penny J. Cole, “‘O God, The
Heathens Have Come into Your Inheritance’ (PS.78.1) - the Theme of Religious Pollution in Crusade
Documents, 1095-1188,” in Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria, ed. Maya Shatzmiller
(Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1993), 84-111. Misgav Har-Peled, “Animalité, pureté et croisade. Étude
sur la transformation des églises en étables par les Musulmans durant les croisades, XIIe -XIIIe
siècles,” Cahiers de civilisation Médiévale 52 (2009): 113-136. The Roman historian Dio Cassius
describing the result of the revolt of Bar-Kockva uses also the metaphor of the penetration of savage
animals in the holy place: “The whole of Judea was almost like a desert, as had been predicted before the
war. For the tomb of Solomon, which they highly revere, collapsed by itself and many wolves and hyenas
entered their cities and howled.” Dio Cassius, Roman History 69.14.
287
David Bryan, Cosmos, Chaos and the Kosher Mentality (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1995), 116-117. Several scholars prefer to read ya’ar as ye’or (‘ayin suspensum), seeing in the boar the
invasion of Pharaoh Nechoin 609 BCE from the land of the Nile (=ye’or) during the reign of Josiah (641 -
609 BCE). See: G. J. Botterweck, “‫ חזיר‬chazîr,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. IV
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 296.

98
Seleucid King Antiochus IV, in 167 BCE. According to 2 Maccabees (6:5), “The altar

was filled with abominable sacrifices which the Law prohibited,” while 1 Maccabees tell

how the King seeks to force the Jews to “sacrifice pigs and other clean animals” in the

Temple (1:47), and how the abomination of abominations was placed on the altar (1:51).

It is probable that the Greek words used in 1 Maccabees for the “abomination of

desolation” are a translation of the Hebrew shikutz meshomem (‫ )שִקּוץ מְּשֹמֵם‬used in the

Book of Daniel to describe the same event. According to the book of Daniel, the daily

offering in the Temple, the tamid, was replaced by the. 288 But what was the nature of the

latter? Was it a statue of an idol (a god) or of the king? Was it an altar dedicated to

foreign gods or a kind of sacrifice? All these possibilities have been raised by scholars. J.

Lust and O. Keel suggest that the shikutz meshomem in the book of Daniel and in 1

Maccabees was an altar dedicated to an idol or, more likely, the sacrifice itself: a pig. 289

According to Keel, the expression shomem (‫ )שֹמֵם‬or meshomem (‫ )מְּשֹמֵם‬stands for King

Antiochus, who ordered the shikutz (‫)שִקּוץ‬. 290 The idea that the “Abomination of

desolation” was the sacrifice of a pig is supported by later authors Diodorus of Sicily and

Josephus Flavius. According to Diodorus (d. c. 30 BCE), Antiochus IV Epiphanes

sacrificed a “great sow” before the image of Moses that he found in the temple and the

open-air altar of the god, “and poured its blood over them.” 291According to Josephus

288
The tamid is a technical abbreviation for the olat tamid the “daily/constant holocaust, or “constant
whole burnt-offering.” This offering was made twice daily, in the morning and in the evening. It consisted
of a lamb, fine flour, oil and wine (Ex 29:38-42). Johan Lust, “Cult and Sacrifice in Daniel: The Tamid and
the Abomination of Desolation,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John Joseph
Collins, Peter W. Flint and Cameron VanEpps (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 672.
289
Lust, “Cult and Sacrifice in Daniel.”
290
Othmar Keel, “Die kultischen Massnamen Antiochus’ IV. Religionsverfolgung und/oder
reformversuch?” in Hellenismus und Judentum: vier Studien zu Daniel 7 und zur Religionsnot unter
Antiochus IV, Hellenismus und Judentum, ed. Othmar Keel und Urs Staub (Freiburg Schweiz:
Universitätsverl; G ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 103-112.
291
Diodorus of Sicily, The Library of History 34-35.1:3f.

99
(probably based on Diodurus), 292 “The king also built a pagan altar upon the temple-altar,

and slaughtered swine thereon.” 293 One may conclude that in the ancient sources Daniel

and 1 and 2 Maccabees, the tamid is replaced by the sikutz haMeshukatz, the abomination

of desolation. In later sources such as Diodorus and Josephus, the tamid is replaced by a

pig sacrifice. Hence, whatever the exact meaning of the term “abomination of desolation

(shikutz meshomem),” it is clear that at the end of the first century BCE and the beginning

of the first fentury CE, there was a tradition that the climax of the profanation of the

Temple was a sacrifice of a pig or a sow on the holy altar by Antiochus himself. We find

here a binary opposition: the sacrifice of the tamid versus the sacrifice of the pig, purity

versus impurity, Jew versus Greek.

To the sources mentioned above we may add 1 Enoch, probably written in the

early Hasmonean period (140 to 137 BCE), in which impure animals stand for the

enemies of Israel, while pure animals stand for Israel. The sheep is the main symbol of

Israel, while the boar symbolizes Esau or his descendants: the Edomites or the

Amalekites. 294 For example, the destruction of the First Temple (587/586 BCE) is

described in the following manner:

And the lions and tigers ate and devoured the greater part of those sheep [Israel], and the
wild boars [the Edomites] ate along with them; and they burned that tower and
demolished that house. And I became exceedingly sorrowful over that tower because that
house of the sheep was demolished, and afterwards I was unable to see if those sheep
entered that house. 295

We can assume that the image of the boar as the destructor of the Temple was

well established before 70 CE, inscribed in a narrative of pollution and purification,

292
Schäfer, Judeophobia, 66.
293
Josephus, Jewish Antiquites 12.253.
294
A. Patrick Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 32.
Bryan, Cosmos, 115-18.
295
1 Enoch 89.66-67. Translation by R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch Translated from Professor
Di mann’s thiopic Text (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1893), 245.

100
bondage and redemption. This image creates a contradiction between the lamb/sheep -

symbol of Israel, and the boar - symbol of its enemy; between the pure sacrifice (tamid)

and the impure (sikutz) abominable sacrifice. We can presume that this tradition

influenced the post 70 CE legends of destruction.

The Legends of Destruction

We may observe three different versions of the legends of destruction: 1) The

throwing by a war machine of a pig’s head into the Temple (Avot deRabbi Nathan,

Origen, Jerome), 2) The replacing of sacrificial animals with a pig (Bavli, Yerusalmi, and

the Jewish-Persian Apocalypse of Daniel), and 3) the sprinkling of pig’s blood during the

destruction of the First Temple (Targum of Lamentations, Targum Sheni to Esther, and

Jewish-Persian Apocalypse of Daniel).

The Pig’s Head

Although a post Talmudic compilation, Avot de Rabi Nathan seems to tell an

ancient version of the legend of destruction. 296 In version A (4), the legend of destruction

is part of the narrative of the running away of Raban Yohanan ben Zackkai from the

besieged Jerusalem, which may be understood as the foundation myth of Rabbinical

Judaism. The legend begins with the coming of Vespasian to Jerusalem and its

inhabitants´ refusal of his peace proposal:

Now when Vespasian came to destroy Jerusalem, he said [to the inhabitants of the city,],
“Idiots! Why do you want to destroy this city and burn the house of the sanctuary? For
what do I want of you, except that you send me a bow or an arrow [as marks of
submission to my rule], and I shall go on my way.” They said to him, “Just as we sallied

296
Menahem Kister, “Legends of the Destruction of the Second Temple in Avot De-Rabbi Nathan,”
Tarbiz 67, no. 4 (1998): 483-530 (Hebrew).

101
 out against the first two who came before you and killed them, so shall we sally out and
kill you.”297

Those who are guilty of the destruction of the city are the city’s extremist

inhabitants. This is even more strongly emphasized by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai,

opponent of the Zealots:

When Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai heard, he proclaimed to the men of Jerusalem, saying
to them, “My sons, why do you want to destroy this city and burn the house of the
sanctuary? For what does he want of you, except that you send him a bow or an arrow,
and he will go on his way.”
They said to him, “Just as we sailed out against the first two who came before him and
killed them, so shall we sally out and kill him.” Vespasian had stationed men near the
walls of the city, and whatever they heard, they would write on an arrow and shoot out
over the wall. [They reported] that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was a loyalist of
Caesar’s. 298

The pragmatic Sage, after a third vain attempt to change the opinion of the city´s

inhabitants, runs away from the besieged city:

After Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai had spoken to them one day, a second, and a third,
and the people did not accept his counsel, he sent and called his disciples, R. Eliezer and
R. Joshua, saying to them, “My sons, go and get me out of here. Make me an ark and I
shall go to sleep in it.”
R. Eliezer took the head and R. Joshua the feet, and toward sunset they carried him unt il
they came to the gates of Jerusalem. The gate keepers said to them, “Who is this?” They
said to him, “It is a corpse. Do you not know that a corpse is not kept overnight in
Jerusalem?” They said to them, “If it is a corpse, take him out,” so they took h im out and
brought him out at sunset, until they came to Vespasian. 299

The escape from the city is followed by the dramatic interview with Vespasian:

297
ARN A 4.
‫ שוטים מפני מה אתם מבקשים להחריב את העיר הזאת ואתם מבקשים לשרוף‬:‫וכשבא אספסיינוס להחריב את ירושלים אמר להם‬
‫ כשם שיצאנו על שנים‬:‫ אמרו לו‬.‫את בית המקדש וכי מה אני מבקש מכם? אלא שתשגרו לי קשת אחת או חץ אחת ואלך לי מכם‬
. ‫ראשונים שהם לפניך והרגנום כך נצא לפניך ונהרגך‬
298
Ibid.
‫ בני מפני מה אתם מחריבין את העיר הזאת ואתם מבקשים‬:‫כיון ששמע רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שלח וקרא לאנשי ירושלים ואמר להם‬
‫ כשם שיצאנו‬:‫ אמרו לו‬.‫לשרוף את בית המקדש וכי מהו מבקש מכם? הא אינו מבקש מכם אלא קשת אחת או חץ אחת וילך לו מכם‬
‫ היו לאספסיינוס אנשים שרויין כנגד חומותיה של ירושלים וכל דבר ודבר שהיו‬.‫על שנים שלפניו והרגנום כך נצא עליו ונהרגהו‬
.‫שומעין היו כותבין על החצי וזורקין חוץ לחומה לומר שרבן יוחנן בן זכאי מאוהבי קיסר הוא‬
299
Ibid.
‫וכיון שאמר להם רבן יוחנן בן זכאי יום אחד ושנים ושלשה ולא קבלו ממנו שלח וקרא לתלמידיו לרבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע אמר‬
‫ רבי אליעזר אחז בראשו רבי יהושע אחז ברגליו והיו מוליכין אותו עד‬.‫ בני עמדו והוציאוני מכאן עשו לי ארון ואישן בתוכו‬:‫להם‬
‫ מת הוא וכי אין אתם יודעין שאין‬:‫ מי הוא זה? אמרו להן‬:‫ אמרו להם השוערים‬.‫שקיעת החמה עד שהגיעו אצל שערי ירושלים‬
‫ והוציאוהו והיו מוליכין אותו (עד שקיעת החמה) עד שהגיעו אצל‬.‫ אם מת הוא הוציאוהו‬:‫מלינים את המת בירושלים? אמרו להן‬
.‫אספסיינוס‬

102
 They opened the ark and he stood before him. He said to him,” “Are you Rabban
Yohanan ben Zakkai? Indicate what I should give you.” He said to him, “I ask from you
only Yavneh, to which I shall go, and where I shall teach my disciples, establish a prayer
[house], and carry out all of the religious duties.” He said to him, “Go and do whatever
you want.” He said to him, “Would you mind if I said something to you? [He said to him,
“Go ahead.”] He said to him, “Lo, you are going to be made sovereign.” He said to him,
“How do you know?” He said to him, “It is a tradition of ours that the house of the
sanctuary will be given over not into the power of a commoner but of a king, for it is said,
“And he shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and Lebanon [which refers to
the Temple] shall fall by a mighty one (Is. 10:34).” People say that not a day, two or three
passed before a delegation came to him from his city indicating that the [former] Caesar
had died and they had voted for him to ascend the throne. 300

As Shaye J. D. Cohen notes, when Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai quoted before

Vespessian from Isaiah 10:34: “And the Lebanon [= the Temple constructed from the

cedars of Lebanon] shall fall by a majestic one [=Vespessian],” he “neglected to inform

the Romans that the next verse of the prophecy begins with the messianic prediction, “A

shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse.” Had Vespasian known the Bible of the

Jews, he might not have received the rabbi so kindly.” 301 The prophecy of the destruction

is but the first part of the script, hinting to its second part: the redemp tion. The ascent of

Vespasian to the throne of the emperor and that of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai to the

head of the house of study of Yavne, is followed by the destruction of the Temple with

the pig:

They brought him a catapult and drew it up against the wall of Jerusalem. They brought
him cedar beams and put them into the catapult, and he struck them against the wall until
a breach had been made in it. They brought the head of a pig and put it into the catapult
and tossed it toward the limbs that were on the Temple altar. At that moment Jerusalem
was captured. 302

300
Ibid.
‫ איני מבקש ממך אלא יבנה שאלך ואשנה‬:‫ אמר לו‬.‫ אתה הוא רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שאל מה אתן לך‬:‫ אמר לו‬.‫פתחו הארון ועמד לפניו‬
‫ רצונך שאומר לפניך‬:‫ אמר לו‬.‫ לך וכל מה שאתה רוצה לעשות עשה‬:‫ אמר לו‬.‫בה לתלמידי ואקבע בה תפלה ואעשה בה כל מצות‬
‫ כך מסור לנו שאין בית המקדש נמסר‬:‫] מנין אתה יודע? אמר לו‬:‫ [ א" ל‬.‫ הרי את עומד במלכות‬:‫ אמר לו‬.‫ אמור‬:‫ אמר לו‬.‫דבר אחד‬
‫ לא היה יום אחד שנים‬:‫ אמרו‬.)‫ לד‬,‫ "ונקף סבכי היער בברזל והלבנון באדיר יפול" ( ישעיה י‬:‫ביד הדיוט אלא ביד מלך שנאמר‬
.‫ושלשה ימים עד שבא אליו דיופלא מעירו שמת קיסר ונמנו עליו לעמוד במלכות‬
301
Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Louisville and London: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2006), 24.
302
ARN A 4.

103
Another version is found in Avot deRabbi Nathan: 303

When Vespasian surrounded Jerusalem […] They brought him planks of wood and he
made them into something like a masbih [covered with branches? shielded?], like a kind
of klunos [bridle?]. He made them into two pegusot [catapults?] and they kept firing
(projectiles) against the wall until it was breeched. He made an arch of zir [ballista?] and
put a pig’s head in it. They kept shooting and hitting with the machine [ballista?] and
they kept moving down (the length of the wall) until (the head) landed on the entrails that
were on the altar and defiled it.” 304

The machine made of cedar beams that Vespasian used seems to correspond to the

first part of the prophecy of Isaiah (10:34), which Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai cites: “He

will hack down the thickets of the forest )‫ ( סבכי היער‬with an axe and the Lebanon [cedar

‫ ]ארז‬shall fall by a majestic one[.” As in the pre - 70 CE tradition concerning the

profanation of the Temple, in Avot deRabbi Nathan, the pig stands for the highest

profanation of the Temple, and as in the tradition concerning the sacrifice of a pig/sow on

the Temple’s altar by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the times of the Maccabees, we find

here the description of the pig touching the sacrifice on the altar; the ending of the tamid

with the pig. As in Psalm 80, the profanation by the pig is inscribed in a scenario of

profanation-purification, destruction-redemption. The creation of the center in Yavne

(‫ )יבנה‬is the diametrical response to the destruction of Jerusalem (‫)חורבן‬. 305 Rabban

‫ הביאו לו נסרים של ארז ונתן לתוך קשת של זירים והיה מכה בהן על‬.‫הביאו לו קשת של זירים ותיפ"א כנגד החומה של ירושלים‬
‫ באותה‬.‫ הביאו ראש חזיר ונתנו לתוך קשת של זירים והיה משליך אותו כלפי אברים שע"ג המזבח‬.‫החומה עד שפרץ בה פירצה‬
‫שעה נלכדה ירושלים‬
303
Wiesenberg, “Related Prohibitions.”
304
ARN B 7.
‫] הביאו לו נסרין שלעץ עשאן כמסביך במין כלונוס עשאו שתי פגושות והיו מזרקים‬...[ ‫”וכשבא אספ(י)סינוס (ו)הקיף על ירושלם‬
‫בהן לחומה עד שניפרצה עשה לו קשת של זיר ונתן בתוכה ראש חזיר והיו מפקיעין במיכני' ויורדין עד שעלתה ו ישבה על האברים‬
”.‫שעל גבי המזביח וטימ<א>אתו‬
The text includes several unclear technical words. For the different possible interpretations and text
variations, see: Kister, “Legends of the Destruction,” 483-530 (Hebrew). Anat Yisraeli-Taran, The Legends
of the Destruction (Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1997), 90-94 (Hebrew). My translation follows
Kister’s explanations.
305
It is probably significant that the place chosen to be the new center of Judaism, Yavne, means to
build. However, it seems that this play on words is not implict in the sages’ writing. For the meaning of
Yavne in Rabbinic Literature, see: B. Z. Rosenfeld, “The Changing Significance of the Name ‘Yavne’ in
Rabbinic Tradition,” in Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period: Studies in

104
Yohanan ben Zakkai is compared to Eli the high priest, and hence the house of study of

Yavne is implicitly compared to the Tabernacle, hinting that Yavne is a kind of substitute

for the destroyed Temple, as the sages replaced the Temple’s priests:

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was in session and with trembling was looking outward, in
the way that Eli had sat and waited: “Lo, Eli sat upon his seat by the wayside watching,
for his heart trembled for the ark of God (1 Sam. 4:13). When Rabban Yohanan ben
Zakkai heard that Jerusalem had been destroyed and the house of the sanctuary burned in
flames, he tore his garments, and his disciple tore their garments, and they wept and cried
and mourned. 306

As Menahem Kister notes, the story of the destruction of the Temple with the pig

probably expressed an ancient tradition, as evidenced by the fact that the Church fathers

Origen (c. 185 – c. 254 CE) and Ambrose (c. 339 – 397 CE) mentioned it. Origen, in his

Commentary on Matthew, notes that the Jews think that “the abomination of desolation”

(Matthew 24:15; Daniel 12:11) concerns “the last plot of the Romans, or the pig head that

was launched to the Temple, or the emblems that Pilatus brought into the Temple.” 307

The first event, the “last plot of the Romans,” probably refers to the foundation of Aelia

Capitolina (c. 130 CE); the launching of the pig’s head may refer to the destruction of 70

CE; while the third may refer to the events during the government of Pontius Pilate in

Judea (26-36/19-37 CE?).308 Interestingly, according to Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306-373

CE), “some say that the sign of its [Jerusalem´s] destruction was the pig’s head which the

Honor of Shmuel Safrai, ed. Isaiah Gafni, Aharon Oppenheimer and Menahem Stern (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak
Ben-Zvi, 1993), 149-164.
306
Translation by Jacob Neusner, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Atlanta, GA: Scholars
Press, 1955), 42-43, with slight alteration.
‫ " והנה עלי יושב על הכסא יד דרך מצפה כי היה‬:‫והיה רבן יוחנן בן זכאי יושב ומצפה וחרד כדרך שהיה עלי יושב ומצפה שנאמר‬
‫ כיון ששמע רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שהחריב את ירושלים ושרף את בית המקדש באש‬.)‫לבו חרד על ארון האלהים" (שמואל א' ד' י"ג‬
:‫קרע בגדיו וקרעו תלמידיו את בגדיהם והיו בוכין וצועקין וסופדין‬
307
Origenes Werke, XII, Origenes Matthäuserklärung: Fragmente und Indices, III, ed. Erich
Klostermann (Berlin: Akademie Verl, 1968 (1943)), 194. Cited in: Kister, “Legends of the Destruction,”
502 .
308
For the dates Pontius Pilate’s office, see: Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary, vol. 1b,
Judean War 2, trans. Steve Mason (Boston: Brill, 2008), 139. Josephus, Jewish Wars 2.169-174;
Antiquities 18.55-59.

105
Romans gave Pilate to carry into the interior of the temple to place there.” 309 Ambrose

writes, in his commentary on Luke 21:20 (“When you see Jerusalem surrounded by an

army”), “Indeed Jerusalem was besieged and was taken by storm by a Roman army:

concerning which the Jews thought that the “abomination of desolation” was

accomplished, because the Romans threw a pig’s head into the Temple to mock the ritual

observance of the Jews.” 310 These Christian authors testified that the legend in Avot

deRabbi Nathan dates at least to the beginning of the third century and that, at least by

Christians, it was associated with the “abomination of desolation.”

The Exchange of Lambs for Pigs

The Yerusalmi (Ta’anit 4:5, 68c; Berakhot 4:1, 7b) tells two analogous episodes

from the time of Greece and Rome:

‘And the tamid (the daily whole offering) was canceled (Mishnah Ta’anit 4.6).’
Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: In the days of the Kingdom of
Greece, [the besieged in Jerusalem daily] lowered over the walls two baskets of go ld and
obtained in exchange two lambs (required for the Tamid offering). Once they lowered
over the walls two baskets of gold [of pigs – Vatican Manuscript, fol. 66] and obtained in
exchange two goat kids (which are unfit to sacrifice). At that time, the Holy One blessed
be He enlightened their eyes and they discovered two duly examined lambs in the
Chamber of Sacrificial Lambs. At that time did it happen that, as reported by R. Judah.
Abba, the offering of the Tamid was delayed till the fourth hour.”

309
Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron 17.12. Translation by C. McCarthy, Saint
phrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron. An ng ish Trans ation of Chester eatty Syriac MS 709
with Indtroduction and Notes, JSSt Supplement 2 (Manchester: Oxford University Press on behalf of the
University of Manchester, 1993), 276-277. Ephrém de Nisibe, Commentaire de l' Evangile concordant ou
Diatesseron, trad. Louis Leloir, SC 121 (Paris: Cerf, 1966), 322-232. See: Phil J. Botha, “The Relevance of
the Book of Daniel for Fourth-Century Christianity According to the Commentary Ascribed to Ephrem the
Syrian,” in Die Geschichte Der Daniel-Auslegung in Judentum, Christentum Und Islam: Studien Zur
Kommentierung Des Danielbuches in Literatur Und Kunst, ed. Katharina Bracht and David S. Du Toit
(Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2007), 118.
310
Ambrose, Commentary on Luke 10.15. “Cum uideritiscircumdari ab exercitu Hierusalem. Vere
Hierusalem ab exercitu obessa est et expugnata Romano, unde et Iudaei putauerunt tunc factam
abominationem desolationis, eo quod caput porci in templum iccerint illudentes Romani Iudaeicae ritum
observantiae.” Ambroise de Milan, Traité sur l`Evangile de S. Luc, trad. Gabriel Tissot, SC 45 (Paris: du
Cerf, 1976), 162.

106
 R. Levi said: also in the days of this Wicked Kingdom (Rome), the besieged in Jerusalem
likewise lowered daily over the walls two baskets of gold and obtained in exchange two
lambs. In the end they lowered over the walls a basket of gold and obtained in exchange
two pigs. Hardly half way up, the pig thrust its paws against the wall. A tremor shook the
wall, and the pig leapt 40 parasangs from the Land of Israel. At that time, on account of
our sins (avonot), the Tamid ceased and the temple was destroyed. 311

The Talmud explains the Mishnah Ta’anit 4.6 which states a list of events that are

believed to have happened on the 17th of Tammuz and on the 9th of Av. The text of the

first episode is somewhat distorted, but it seems that in the original text, in the first

episode as well as in the second, the besiegers replaced the lambs for the daily offering

(tamid) with an animal unfit for sacrifice (goat kids/pigs), but miraculously the besieged

found two lambs in the Temple, so that continual sacrifice did not cease. This miracle of

the lambs, reminiscent of the oil jar of Hanukah, is contrasted with the second episode in

which the exchange of the lambs for the pigs ended the daily offering (tamid) and the

coincided with the destruction of the Temple. Thus, if in the first episode the Greeks sent

two kid goats, which were unsuitable for sacrifice, in the second episode the Romans sent

pigs, not only unsuitable, but impure animals. It seems, then, that the Maccabean motive

for replacing the tamid with the pig is here transferred to the Roman period, as is also the

case in the Bavli version of the legend.

311
. Ta’anit 4:5, 68c. My translation. For textual variants see Wilk, “When Hyrcanus was Besieging
Aristobulus,” 103.
,‫ בימי מלכות יון היו משלשלין להם שתי קופות של זהב והיו מעלין שני כבשים‬:‫ רבי סימון בשם רבי יהושע בן לוי‬.‫ובשל התמיד‬
‫ באותה השעה האיר הקב" ה‬.‫] והעלו להן שני גדיים‬66 ‫ דף‬,‫פעם אחת שילשלו להם שתי קופות של זהב [חזירים – כך בכ" י וטיקן‬
.‫ על אותה השעה העיד רבי יהודה בן אבא על תמיד של שחר שקרב בארבע שעות‬.‫את עיניהם ומצאו שני טלאים בלישכת הטלאים‬
‫ ובסוף שילשלו להן‬.‫ אף בימי מלכות הרשעה הזאת היו משלשלין להן שתי קופות של זהב והי ו מעלין להן שני גדיים‬:‫ואמר רבי לוי‬
.‫ לא הספיקו להגיע למחצית החומה עד שנעץ החזיר וקפץ מארץ ישראל ארבעים פרסה‬.‫שתי קופות של זהב והעלו להם שני חזירים‬
.‫באותה השעה גרמו העוונות ובטל התמיד וחרב הבית‬

107
 The Bavli (Baba Kamma 72b; Menahot 49b; Sota 49b) locates the second episode

mentioned in the Yerusalmi in the civil war between the brothers Hyrcanus II and

Aristobulus II at the end of the Hasmoneans dynasty (here b. Menahot 49b):312

When the Hasmonean kings were laying siege to each other, Hyrcanus [II] was outside
and Aristobulus [II] inside. Day after day, they [the besieged] lowered over the walls
dinars in a box, and they [the besiegers] raise them temidim [sacrificial animals for the
offering of the Tamid]. There was an old man who was knowledgeable in Greek wisdom
[language]. He told them [the besiegers] in Greek wisdom [in Greek language]: as long as
they [the besieged] went on working [sacrificing], they would not be delivered to you.”
Next day, when they lowered them the dinars in the box, they sent up to them a pig [in
return]. Half way up, it thrust its paws against the wall. The land of Israel trembled for
four hundred parsot. At that time did they declare: “Cursed be the man who will rear pigs!
And cursed be the man who will teach his son Greek wisdom [the Greek language]. 313

Although the Mishnah dated the ban of learning Greek and breeding pigs to the

Polmus of Titus (meaning to the Great Revolt of 66-73 CE, or perhaps to Polmus Kitos

{Quintus}, 314 the general of Trajan who oppressed the Jewish Diaspora revolt in 117 CE),

this did not prevent the Bavli from setting it in the time of Hyrcanus’ siege of his brother

Aristobulus in Jerusalem in 65 BCE. The transfer of what had been told in the Yerusalmi

about the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE to the end of the

Hasmonean period and the beginning of the Roman occupation might be significant. This

might be a typical Talmudic process, whereby different historical events are mixed

together.315 There was also a deeper link between the two events for the Babylonian sages:

312
The three versions are identical, but in the Sota 49b version, the places of Aristobolus and Horkanus
are reversed. For the Historical background of the siege and additional bibliography see: Eyal Regev, “How
Did the Temple Mount Fall to Pompey?” The Journal of Jewish Studies 48, no. 2 (1997): 276-289.
313
B. Menahot 49b.
‫ בכל יום ויום היו משלשלין דינרים בקופה ומעלין‬.‫ היה הורקנוס מבחוץ ואריסטובלוס מבפנים‬,‫כשצרו מלכי בית חשמונאי זה על זה‬
‫ "כל זמן שעוסקים בעבודה אין נמסרין‬:‫ אמר להן‬,‫ לעז להם בחכמת יוונית‬,‫ היה שם זקן אחד שהיה מכיר בחכמת יוונית‬.‫להן תמידים‬
.‫ נזדעזעה א" י ארבע מאות פרסה‬.‫ נעץ צפרניו‬,‫ כיון שהגיע לחצי חומה‬,‫ למחר שלשלו להם דינרים בקופה והעלו להם חזיר‬."‫בידכם‬
."‫ וארור אדם שילמד לבנו חכמת יוונית‬,‫ "ארור אדם שיגדל חזירים‬:‫אותה שעה אמרו‬
314
Regarding the Cambridge and Parma manuscripts, see: Lieberman, Studies, 225, note 6. For
criticism of this identification, see: David Rokeah. “Polmus shel Kitos–LeBirura shel Bayia Philologit-
Historit,” in Meridot ha-Yehudim bi-yeme Trayanus, 115-117 li-sefirat ha-Notsrim, ed. David Rokeah
(Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1978), 172-173 (Hebrew).
315
In fact, the prohibition of the teaching of Greek wisdom is mentioned by the Rabbinic corpus in
three different episodes: Polmus Kitus (M. Sota 9.14; Sifri Devarim 34), the civil war between Horkonus

108
the siege of 65 BCE was the climax of the quarrel between the two sons of Alexander

Jannaeus and Alexandra Salome over their inheritance. Hyrcanus with his allies Aretas

III, the king of the Nabateans, and Antipater the Idumean tried to take back the kingship

and the title of the great priest that his brother took from him just four years earlier. The

siege lasted a long time, and both sides asked the Roman general Pompeius in S yria to

intervene in their favor. Finally, in 63 BCE, Pompe y conquered the city and desecrated

the Temple by entering the Holy of Holies. This event officially marks the end of

Hasmonean rule and the subjection of Judea to Rome. In this sense, for the Babylonian

sages, the events which brought Pompeius to conquer Jerusalem foreshadowed the siege

of Jerusalem by Titus.

The Talmudic legends do not seek to clarify history, but to pass along a message.

In tractate Menahot, the legend places the bringing of the Omer offering over a long

distance from Jerusalem in a particular historical context; 316 in the two others tracts, it

was used to clarify the logic of two Mishnaic prohibitions: in Baba Kamma (72b) the ban

on breeding of pigs, and in Sota (49b) the ban on Greek wisdom. Both prohibitions are

bound together in Menahot.317 Whether it was the pig’s legs striking the wall or its cry

which caused an earthquake that destroyed the land of Israel,318 the destruction was not

and Aristobulus (B. Sota 9b), and after the Great Revolt in 66AD (Y Sabath 1.4.3c). See: I. Lee Levine,
Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), note 34.
316
The ‘Omer to be offered on the second day of Passover was normally collected from the
neighorhood of Jerusalem. The story is told in the gemarah to explain in which context it was brought from
Gaggoth Serfin, far away from Jerusalem (m. Menahot 10. 2).
317
Joshua Efron, “The Psalms of Solomon, The Hasmonean Decline and Christianity,” in Studies on
the Hasmonean Period (Leiden: Brill, 1987 (1980)), 230.
318
Jordan D. Rosenblum, (“Why,” 103) notes that pigs were used as weapons in war, citing Adrienne
Mayor, Greek Fire, Poison Arrows, and Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient
World (Woodstock: Overlook Duckworth, 2003), 200-203, which mentions several texts speaking of the
use of pigs to terrorize war elephants, but just one episode concerning siege warfare. It seems that the pig in
the story has nothing to do with real military practices, nor with any siege machine (As Jacques André
notes: “Aucun nom de la truie ne semble avoir, comme au Moyen Age en français, par une substitution du

109
possible without the treachery of the old man “who was knowledgeable in Greek

wisdom”, and who gave the besiegers the advice on how to impede the Temple

sacrifices. 319 The legend here creates a parallel between the breeding of the impure

animal and the raising of one’s son in the light of the foreign wisdom, that is, between

pigs and Hellenized Jews. The Babylonian legend strengthens the ideal of the cultural

seclusion of the Jews from Hellenistic culture, and emphasizes the danger of blurring the

boundaries between the two. The legend is a transformation of a story told by Josephus in

Jewish Antiquities:

While the priests and Aristobulus were besieged, there happened to come round the
festival called Phaska [Pessah], at which it is our custom to offer numerous sacrifices to
God. But as Aristobulus and those with him lacked victims, they asked their countryman
to furnish them with these, and take as much money for the victims as they wished. And
when these others demanded that they pay a thousand drachmas for each animal they
wished to get, Aristobulus and the priests willingly accepted this price and gave them the
money, which they let down from the walls by a rope. Their countrymen, however, after
receiving the money did not deliver the victims, but went to such lengths of villainy that
they violated their pledges and acted impiously toward God by not furnishing the
sacrificial victims to those who were in need of them. But the priests, on suffering this
breach of faith, prayed to God to exact satisfaction on their behalf from their countrymen;
and He did not delay their punishment, but sent a mighty and violent wind to destroy the
crops of the entire country, so that people at that time had to pay eleven drachmas for a
modius of wheat. 320

Both Josephus (1st century) and the Bavli (edited 5th-6th centuries) give the same

historical context for the episode, but they express two different conceptions as to the

reasons for the Destruction of the Temple: in Josephus it is because of the wickedness of

the besiegers and the brothers’ hate; in the Bavli, it is the disloyalty of one of the

besiegers and the wickedness of strangers.

porc au bélier, désigné des machines de guerre, un bélier ou une catapulte qui lançait des pierres.” Jacques
André, “La part des suidés dans le vocabulaire grec et latin,” Anthropozoologica 15 (1991): 21.
319
On the use of Greek in Second Temple Jerusalem, see: Levine, Judaism and Hellenism, 33-95.
320
Josephus, Jewish Antiquity 14.25-28.

110
The Sprinkling of Pig Blood

This version of the legend of destruction transfers the pig episode to the

destruction of the first Temple by Nebuchadnezzar. Targum of Lamentations, version of

Lamentations 2:9: “Her gates have sunk into the ground; he has ruined and broken her

bars,” reads: “Her gates have sunk into the earth because they slaughtered a pig and

brought its blood over them. He has destroyed and shattered her doorposts.” 321 The

Targum Sheni to Esther 1:3 (4th-10th century CE?) reads similarly:

Then came the Chaldean armies, who brought with them 360 camels loaded with iron
axes, but the outer gates of the Temple swallowed them up. Nevertheless, they did not
want to open until Parnatos [prnitus] came and slaughtered a swine, sprinkling its blood
upon the Temple, thus defiling it. After being defiled, it opened itself, and the wicked
Nebuchadnezzar entered the Temple (…). 322

According to F. Perles, “prnitus” refers to Fronto Haterius, the commander of the

legions from Alexandria that besieged the Temple Mount in 70 CE.323 This detail ma y

indicate that the original story was indeed about the Roman destruction of the Temple. 324

In the later Jewish-Persian Apocalypse of Daniel (Ma‘aseh Danī’e ) (a unique

manuscript, c. 1600), we find a mixture of the second and third versions of the legend of

destruction:325

321
See: Christian M. Brady, The Rabbinic Targum of Lamentations: Vindicating God (Leiden: Brill,
2003), 45.
‫טמעו בארעא תרעהא על די נכסו חזירא ואובילו מן דמיה עלויהון‬
In Lamentations Rabbah (17a and 74b), the wall of the city sunk after the Babylonians measured the city
wall, see: Shaye H. D. Cohen. “The Destruction: From Scripture to Midrash,” Prooftexts 2 (1982): 21.
322
Targum Sheni to Esther 1:3.
‫] עד דאתא פרנטוס ונכס חזירא וזרק‬...[ ‫וכד חזא פתחא דבית מקדשא דעמא מסאבא קיימין לקיבליה סתם נפשיה ולא צבא למפתחא‬
.‫ מן בתר דאסתאב פתח נפישה ועל נבוכדנצר רשיעא לבית מקדשא‬.‫מן דמיה על בית מקדשא וסאיב יתיה‬
323
F. Perles, “Nachlese zum neuhebr ischen und aram ischen W rterbuch,” in Festschrift Adolf
Schwarz zum siebzigsten Geburtstage, 15. Juli 1916, ed. Samuel Krauss and Victor Aptowitzer, 293-310
(Berlin: R. L wit, 1917), 305. Manuscripts read: Parnesos, Partanos, Parsutnos, Peranetos. See: Bernard
Grossfeld, The Two Targums of Esther, The Aramaic Bible, 18 (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1991),
119, note iiiii.
324
Rosenblum, “Why,” 106.

111
 Now they (i.e., Israel) possessed two commandments, which while they were observing
them, no enemy could achieve victory against them. One of them was sacrifice, and the
other circumcision, and they did not maintain (the observance) of any other
commandment. Every day they would put a dirham for this sacrifice in a basket and
lower it from the wall with a rope into the camp of Nebuchadnezzar in order to purchase
a lamb for this sacrifice. Now one day an Israelite youth was on the wall of Jerusalem,
and so they asked him: ‘This lamb which you have been purchasing from us – what do
you do with it?’ The youth answered [them]: ‘We offer it as an offering.’ Then they
stopped selling them any more lambs and devised a stratagem: instead of a lamb they
placed a pig in the basket and sent it to the wall. As soon as [the basket] had reached the
top of the wall, they shot arrows at the pig, the blood spewed onto the wall, and the wall
cracked open. That day was the ninth of the month Av. Nebūzarādan realized that the
Lord was handing them over into his control.
He entered Jerusalem and proceeded directly to the Temple. Zedekiah, the king
of Judah, fled and the officers of Nebuchadnezzar chased after him (and captured him).
When they saw King Zedekiah, they said: ‘These eyes of yours are handsome!’ Then the
order was given to kill two of his sons before his eyes, and afterwards they blinded his
eyes. Then ebū arādan s aughtered a pig within the Temp e of the Lord.
Nebuchadnezzar himself did not come to Jerusalem – he remained in Riblah – but he had
dispatched Nebūzarādan to Jerusalem in order to gain profit through these deeds. 326

325
Dan Shapira notes that his part of the text seems to be a kind of a paraphrase of Targum Sheni to
Esther 1:3 which the author adds to the Talmudic legend. Dan Shapira, “Qīṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl – ’o Ma‘aseh
Danī’el – be-farsit-yehudit: Ha-ḥibbur we-targumo,” Sefunot 7 (1999): 339 (Hebrew).
326
The Jewish-Persian Apocalypse of Daniel (Ma‘aseh Danī’e 4. Translation by Dan Shapira from
the Hebrew translation (cited below) of the original Judeo-Persian text by John C. Reeves (available on
line: <http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/people/jcreeves/maaseh%20daniel.pdf> consulted 17 Janaury 2012.
‫ ולא קיימו שום מצוה‬,‫ והאחת מילה‬,‫ האחת – קרבן‬,‫ אבל בידיהם היו שתי מצוות אשר בעשותן לא ישיג האויב נצחון עליהם‬.6
‫ درهم] בשביל הקרבן הזה והיו מורידים מהחומה בחבל למחנה נבוכדנצר והיו‬,Dirham[ ‫ וכל היום היו שמים בסל דירהם‬.‫אחרת‬
‫ מה אתם‬,‫ "הטלה הזה אשר אתם קונים מאתנו‬:‫ יום אחד היה נער ישראלי על חומת ירושלים ושאלו ממנו‬.‫קונים טלה לשם הקרבו‬
‫ וחיבלו תחבולה ובמקום טלה שמו בסל חזיר‬,‫ אז הם לא מכרו עוד טלה‬."‫ "אנו מקריבים קרבן‬:‫עושים בו?" אמר [להם] הנער‬
‫ והיום היה תשעה לחודש‬.‫ ירו חצים בחזיר והדם נזל על החומה והחומה נבקעה‬,‫ כאשר הגיע [הסל] לראש החומה‬.‫ושלחו לחומה‬
‫ מלך יהודה ברח ושרי נבוכדנצר דלקו‬.‫ הוא נכנס לירושלם והגיע במישרין לבית המקדש‬.‫ וידע נבוזרדן שימסור אותם ה' בידו‬,‫אב‬
‫ אז ציווה להרוג לעיניו את שני בניו ואחרי כן סמאו את‬."‫ "העינים האלה שלך יפות הן‬:‫ אמרו‬,‫ כאשר ראו את המלך צדקיה‬.‫אחריו‬
‫ ושלח את נבורזראדן לירושלם כדי לבצע את‬,‫ ישב ברבלה‬,‫ ונבוכדנצר עצמו לא בא לירושלם‬.'‫ ונבוזראדן הרג חזיר בבית ה‬.‫עיניו‬
.‫המעשים האלה‬
Shapira, “Qīṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl,” 154. Wiesenberg’s English translation (“Related Prohibitions,” 228) seems to
follow both the Hebrew translation of M. Caplan, published in Jellinek (Bet Ha Midrash, V (Vienne, 1873),
117-130) and M. Zotenberg’s German translation. Caplan’s Hebrew translation, however, is a translation of
the German translation, See: J. Darmesteter, “L'Apocalypse persane de Daniel,” dans Mélanges Renier;
recueil de travaux pub. par l'École pratique des hautes études (Section des sciences historiques et
philologiques) en mémoire de son président Léon Renier (Paris: École pratique des hautes, 1887), 407, note
1. For the Judeo-Persian text, see: Hermann Zotenberg, “Geschichte Daniels: ein apokryph,” Archiv für
wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testamentes 1 (1867-69): 385-427. Jes Peter Asmussen and H.
Dadkhan, “En jødisk-persisk Daniel apocalypse, en oversšttelse af en apokryf Daniel tekst (A Jewish-
Persian Daniel apocalypse, a translation of an apocryphal Daniel text),” Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift (1998):
199-215. While it probably has no direct connection to the destruction legends, the Persian general that
conquered Jerusalem in the seventh century perhaps was a man named Farrokhan, nicknamed Shahrbaraz,
the wild boar. Theophilus of Edessa in the eighth century explains this nickname: “[Khursau said]: “I am
ready to exact vengeance on the Romans. Which of you distinguished generals and nobles of the Persians is
ready to serve my purpose?” Thereupon Romizan, a powerful diligent man, with considerable experience in
combat, said in reply: “I am ready to accomplish your purpose; I will have the strength to do battle with
Romans. I flinch from nothing; I show no compassion nor pity nor remorse for any man; I know no

112
Discussion

Does the role of the pig in the legends of destruction echo the sacrifice of a pig on

the Temple Mount by the Roman soldiers? Perhaps, but not necessarily. As Anat

Yisraeli-Taran notes, the pig is “fit” for symbolizing the destruction-profanation of the

Temple because it was a strong symbol both of impurity and Rome, and because it was
327
the emblem of the Legion X Fratensis. However as we have seen, the

profanation/destruction of the Temple by a pig, and especially the idea of the replacement

of the tamid with the pig, is a literary topos found in earlier Jewish texts, such as the book

of Isaiah and Psalms, or in the memory of the Maccabean revolt [table 1]. It seems, then,

that early rabbinical texts transferred this topos to the Roman’s conquests of Jerusalem by

Pompeius in 63 BCE and especially to that of 70 CE, while in later sources it is traced to

the destruction of the first Temple by the Babylonians in 586 BCE. The first version

provided a violent image of penetration and profanation; the second version stressed the

danger of relations between insiders (Jews) and outsiders (Romans), as well as the

replacement of the tamid with the abominable animal; the third version stressed the

magical nature of the event. The first version seems to be the most ancient, perhaps from

the Tannaitic period, for the throwing of the pig’s head into the Temple is mentioned by

Origen, who died in 254 CE. The second version, which first appears in the Yerusalmi, of

the replacement of the sacrificial animals with the pig, appears to be dated to the

reverence nor regret for the aged or the young.” When he heard his words, Khursau rejoiced greatly and
said: “No longer will you be called Romizan, but rather Shahrbaraz, that is, the wild boar!” Theophilus of
Edessa, Chronicle, 1234 (8th century CE). Translation by Robert G. Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa's
Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam (Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press, 2011), 56-57.
327
Yisraeli-Taran, The Legends of the Destruction, 85-86.

113
Ammoraic period, while the third version, which concerns the First Temple, is post-

Amoraic.

In the porcine legends of destruction, the abominable animal has magical qualities:

its contact with the wall or the altar causes destruction. 328 The pig’s killing/body/blood

serves as the anti-thesis of the normal-pure sacrifice. In the same way the tamid sacrifice

has the power to defend the city, the “sacrifice” of the pig has the power to destroy it.

This magical dimension comes to emphasize the unnatural character of the event, and

hence its being the fruit of divine intervention.

The profanation of the Temple by pigs has a long history, from the Bible to the

Maccabean era, to post 70 CE, to the Middle Ages, to the modern era, moving from the

profanation of the Jewish temple to profanation of the Muslim mosques built on the

Temple Mount. Already in the seventh century, the Bishop of Bagratunis, Sebeos, in his

History (wr. 660s), tells a legend of how, after the Muslims built the mosque on the

Temple Mount, three Jews slaughtered two pigs and put them in the mosque, plotting that

the fault would fall on the Christians. 329 In the era of the Crusades, Arab historian Yaqut

328
Kister, “Legends of the Destruction,” 503.
329
Sebeos, History 31. “Now I shall speak about the plot of the Jewish rebels, who, finding support
from the Hagarenes for a short time, planned to [re]build the temple of Solomon. Locating the place called
the holy of holies, they constructed [the temple with a pedestal, to serve as their place of prayer. But the
Ishmaelites envied [the Jews], expelled them from the place, and named the same building their own place
of prayer. [The Jews] built a temple for their worship elsewhere. It was then that they came up with an evil
plan: they wanted to fill Jerusalem with blood from end to end, and to exterminate all the Christians of
Jerusalem. Now it happened that there was a certain grandee Ishmaelite who went to worship in their
private place of prayer. He encountered three of the principal Jewish men, who had just slaughtered two
pigs and taken and put them [in the Muslim] place of prayer. Blood was running down the walls and on the
floor of the building. As soon as the man saw them, he stopped and said something or other to them. They
replied and departed. The man at once went inside to pray. He saw the wicked [sight], and quickly turned to
catch the men. When he was unable to find them, he was silent and went to his place. Then many [Muslims]
entered the place and saw the evil, and they spread a lament throughout the city. The Jews told the prince
that the Christians had desecrated their place of prayer. The prince issued an order and all the Christians
were gathered together. Just as they wanted to put them to the sword, the man came and addressed them:
"Why shed so much blood in vain? Order all the Jews to assemble and I shall point out the guilty ones". As
soon as they were all assembled and [the man] walked among them, he recognized the three men whom he
had previously encountered. Seizing them, [the Arabs] tried them with great severity until they disclosed

114
(1179-1229) wrote that the Franks transformed the Mosque of Omar and Al Aksa into a

pigpen, while Abu Shama (1203-1267) reports that the El-Aksa, and especially its mihrab,

were full of piglets. 330 More recently, in 1997, two Israeli far-right activists, Avigdor

Eskin and Damian Pakovitch, were arrested for planning to throw a pig’s head by a

catapult into the Temple Mount/al-Haram el-Sharif. 331 One may wonder how much this

plan was influenced by the rabbinic legend of the pig’s head that the Romans threw into

the Temple. Whatever the case, these examples demonstrate the vitality of images or acts

of profanation in narratives of purification. In the case of the rabbinic tradition, the

profanation of the Temple by the pig marks the ever continuing situation of the Temple

being impure, where the Jews are under the yoke of Rome, a profane world which is to be

purified in messianic times.

the plot. And because their prince was among the Jews present, he ordered [The subject probably is the
Arab, not Jewish, prince] that six of the principals involved in the plot be killed. He permitted the other
[Jews] to return to their places.” Translation by Robert Bedrosian, Sebeos' History (New York: Sources of
the Armenian Tradition, 1985), 131-133. Cyril Mango, “The Temple Mount AD 614-638,” in Bayt al-
Maqdis: 'Abd al-Malik's Jerusalem, ed. Julian Raby and Jeremy Johns (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1992), 1-16.
330
Yaqut al-Hamawi, Dictionary of Countries ( itab Mu’gam a -Buldan), 4; Abu Shama, The Book of
the Two Gardens on the History of the Two Reigns (Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi akhbar al-dawlatayn), see: Har-
Peled, “Animalité, pureté et croisade,” 132
331
Ha’aretz 25 December 1997.

115
Source Date Actor Destruction/ The action with the pig
Profanation
of the
Temple
1st 2nd tamid Sac Other
rific
e
Jewish- Ms. c. Nebūzarādan ▲ ▲ ▲
Persian 1600 under the orders
Apocalypse of of
Daniel Nebuchadnezzar
Targum Sheni 4th-10th Parnatos ▲ Sprinkling of blood
to Esther 1:3 cent.? Nebuchadnezzar upon the Temple
Targum of Nebuchadnezzar ▲ Sprinkling pig’s
Lamentations blood on the city
3.2.9 gates
Avot deRabbi Vespasian ▲ ▲ The pig touches the
Nathan wall and the altar
Bavli 6th -7th The Romans ? ▲ the pig thrusts its
cent. (war between paws against the wall
Hyrcanus and (Siege of 65 BCE)
Aristobulus)
Yerusalmi 5th -6th Greeks The besiegers put
cent. pigs in the basket but
two lambs were
found
Romans ▲ ▲ the pig thrust its paws
against the wall
Ambrose d. 397 Romans ▲ Pig’s head
Commentary
on Luke
Ephrem the 306-373 Romans ▲ Pilate carries the
Syrian pig’s head into the
temple
Origen c. 185– Romans ▲ Pig head
Commentary c. 254
on Matthew
Daniel 2nd cent. [Greeks] ▲ ? The abomination of
BCE desolation was a
sacrifice of a pig?
Psalms 80:14 ? “The boar from the
forest ravages it”
Isaiah 66:3 5th cent Offering of pig blood
BCE
Table 1: The pig and the destruction or profanation of the Temple.

116
 Chapter 5
The Boar Emblem of the Legion X Fretensis and Aeneas’ Sow
In the current chapter, we will discuss three explanations which have been

provided for the identification of Rome with the pig: 1) the boar emblem of the Legion X

Fretensis, 2) the erection of a sculpture of a sow in Aelia Capitolina, and 3) the myth of

Rome’s founding as told in Virgil’s Aeneid. First, we will discuss the recurrent

explanation following Theodore Reinach’s idea (1903) that the Rabbis identified Rome

with the pig because the boar was the emblem of the Legion X Fretensis.332

The Boar Emblem

The legion derived its appellation Fretensis from Fretum (Siculum), where it had

distinguished itself in the naval battle fought between Agrippa and Sextus Pompeius in

36 BCE. This explains the special link of the legion to Neptune and its symbols of the

galley and the dolphin. In 1869, Félicien de Saulcy suggested that the boar became the

Legion X Fretensis’s emblem with the intention of annoying the Jews.333 As Dan Bara g

notes “this theory has been rejected because three other legions ( Legio I Italica, II

Adiutrix, and 20th Valeria Victrix) had the same symbol, but never had any connection

332
Reinach, “Mon nom est Légion,” 172-178. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 294, note 162.
Heinemann, The Methods of the Aggadah, 32. Krauss, Paras VeRomi, 100-105; 177-178. Aminoff, The
Figure, 258-265. Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible, 323. Feldman, Remember Amalek, 67.
Barak-Erez, Outlawed Pigs, 20. Lachs, A Rabbinic commentary, 139. Against this identification, see:
Hadas-Lebel, Jerusalem Against Rome, 518. See also: “Swine” Jewish Encyclopedia. Wilk, “When
Hyrcanus was Besieging Aristobulus,” 104.
333
De Saulcy, “Lettre,“ 259. Félicien de Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, description des
monnaies autonomes et impériales de la Palestine et de l'Arabie Pétrée... (Paris : J. Rothschild, 1874), 90.
Followed by P. Germer-Durand, “Aelia Capitolina,” Revue biblique 1 (1892): 384. Cagnat rejects this
argument, noting that the boar was the sign of other legions which had no connection to the war with the
Jews, K. M. R. Cagnat, “L’armée romaine au siège de Jérusalem,” Revue des études juives 22 (1891):
xlii. E. Michon, “Mélanges, III, Note sur une inscription de Ba’albek et sur des tuiles de la légion Xa
Fretensis,” Revue Biblique 9 (1900): 95-105.

117
with the Jews.”334 The boar emblem manifested the strong long-standing identification of

the warrior with the boar in the Greco-Roman world, and especially in the Germanic

world (Fig. 8).335

Fig. 8: Standard with a boar on a Roman bas-relief, Narbonne, France. 336

The legion X Fretensis arrived in Judea in the spring of 66 CE. After assembling

the Roman troops in Ptolemais, in 67 CE the legion took part in the war in Galilee, at the

siege of Jotapata. After spending the winter in Caesarea Maritima, the legion participated

in the conquest of Tiberias, Tarichease, and Gamla, spending the winter of 68 CE in

Scythopolis. In 69 CE, after Vespasian ordered his son Titus to conquer Jerusalem, the

legion X Fretensis moved to Jerusalem via Jericho. First camping on the Mount of Olives,

Titus then moved the legion to the northern part of the city. Our unique source for the

history of the siege, Josephus, does not relate the exact role of the legion in the conquest

of the city, but it is probable that its troops took part in the conquest of the Temple Mount.

334
Barag, “Countermarks,” 118.
335
For a general survey of boar emblems, see: Bernard Marillier, Le sang ier h ra dique (Le Coudray-
Macouard: Cheminements, 2003).
336
See: Émile Espérandieu, Recueil général des bas-reliefs de la Gaule romaine, tome 1 (Paris: Impr.
Nationale, 1907), 444. [“Sanglier entre deux casques gaulois pourvus de cornes et de jugulaires; à droite,
deux bouclier d’amazone superpose, recouvrant deux lances.”].

118
After the fall of Jerusalem, Judaea received the status of a senatorial province and the

legate of the X Fretensis held the office of governor, until the time of Trajan, when the

legate was subordinated to the governor of Judea. 337 After capturing the fortresses of

Herodium, Machaerus, and Masada in 73 CE, the legion was stationed in Jerusalem until

the end of the third century when it was transferred to Aelia (modern Aqaba/Eilat) on the

shore of the Red Sea. 338 Tiles and brick-stamps with the legion X fretensis’s boar emblem

were discovered in Jerusalem and its vicinity (fig. 9) 339 and on countermarks (secondar y

mints on coins) (fig. 10). 340

Fig. 9: Two Brick Stamp Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis from Jerusalem,
68-132 CE.

337
Dabrowa, Legio X Fretensis,15-16.
338
Josephus, Jewish War 7.1-2: “Caesar ordered the whole city and the temple to be razed to the
ground, leaving only the loftiest of the towers, Pasael, Hippicus, and Mariamme, and the portion of the wall
enclosing the city on the west: the latter as encampment for the garrison that was the remains (…) As the
local garrison Caesar decided to leave the tenth legion, along with some squadrons of cavalry and
companies of infantry (…).”
339
Barag, “Brick.” Approximately two kilometers west of Jerusalem (Binyanei Ha'uma/Seikh Bader),
a tile kilnworks was found with some tiles with the boar emblem. B. Arubas and H. Goldfus, “The
Kilnworks of the Tenth Legion Fretensis,” in The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent
Archaeological Research, ed. John H Humphrey (Ann Arbor, MI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1995),
273. H. Goldfus and B. Arubas, “The Kilnworks of the Tenth Legion at the Jerusalem Convention Center,”
Qadmoniot 122, no. 2 (2002): 111-119 (Hebrew).
340
Dan Barag, “The Countermarks of the Legio Decima Fretensis (Preliminary Report),” The Patterns
of Monetary development in Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity. Proceedings of the International
Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem 27-31 December 1963, ed. Arie Kindler (Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1967),
117-125, plates IX-XI. Kenneth K. A. L nnqvist, “New Vistas on the Countermarked Coins of the Roman
Prefects of Judaea,” Israel Numismatic Journal 12 (1992): 56-70. Countermarks of the boar emblem also
appear on a coin of a Palestinian Judaea Capta of Titus and of Vespasian Barag,”Countermarks,” 120. A.
Spijkerman, “Some Rare Jewish Coins,” Liber Annuus 13 (1962/3): 315, fig. 56.

119
 Fig. 10: A Roman Coin Found in Jerusalem with a Secondary Mint of the Symbols of the
Legion X Fretensis.

Whatever the exact location of the Legion X Fretensis camp in Jerusalem, 341 it is

clear that its mere presence in the holy city was a scandal for the Jews, as demonstrated,

for example, by the Jerusalem Talmud’s prayer to the ninth of ‘Av, the day of

lamentation of the destruction of the Temple: “Have mercy, Lord our God, out of your

bountiful mercy and true loving-kindness, upon us, and upon your nation Israel, and upon

the city Jerusalem, and upon Zion your honored dwelling, and upon the city of mourning,

ruin, destruction, and desolation, which has been given over into the hands of strangers,

which the wicked devastated, foreign legions inherited, and idolaters desecrated.”342

341
Scholars disagree as to the location of the tenth legion camp in the city; some propose it was on the
southwestern hill of the city; others in the area of the Holy Sepulcher, the city citadel (Jaffa gate), south of
the Temple Mount; and some even claim that it was on the Temple Mount itself. For a general review of
the various opinions, see: Yoram Tsafrir, “The Topography and Archaeology of Aelia Capitolina, “The
History of Jerusalem. The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE), ed. Yoram Tsafrir and Smuel Safrai
(Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1999), 125 (Hebrew). Eilat Mazar, “The Camp of the Tenth Roman Legion
at the Foot of the South-West Corner of the Temple Mount Enclosure Wall in Jerusalem,” in New Studies
on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference December 23 rd 1999, ed. A. Faust and E. Baruch
(Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, 1999), 52-67 (Hebrew).
G. D. Stiebel, “The Whereabouts of the Xth Legion and the Boundaries of Aelia Capitolina,” in New
Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference December 23 rd 1999, ed. A. Faust and E.
Baruch (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, 1999), 68-103
(Hebrew). See also: Jodi Magness, “In the footsteps of the Tenth Roman Legion in Judea,” The First
Jewish Revolt: Archeology, History, and Ideology, ed. Andrea M. Berlin and Andrew J. Overman (London
and New York: Routledge, 2002), 189-212. Dan Barag, “Brick.”
342
Y. Berakhot 4:3, 8a. Italics mine. Translation by Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, vol. 1,
Berakhot, 174.

120
Aelia Capitolina

Approximately sixty years after the destruction of the Jewish city by Titus,

Emperor Hadrian founded the Roman colony of Aelia Capitolina on its ruins. The new

colony was named after the second name of the emperor Hadrian (Aelius) and the

supreme deity in the Roman pantheon (Capitoline Jupiter). The founding of the new city

was probably one of the reasons for the Bar Kochba revolt (132-135 CE), at least if we

believe Dio Cassius, who notes that “the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races

should be settled in their city and foreign rites planted there.” 343 The city, for two

centuries until its Christianization in the fourth century, was a typical oriental pagan

Roman colony. As a veteran colony, the military cult was one of Aelia Capitolina’s

principal cults; one of these cults to the Legion X Fretensis’ signboards included the boar

emblem, 344 which was minted on the city´s coins (fig. 11).345

‫רחם ה' אלהינו ברחמיך הרבי' ובחסדיך הנאמני' עלינו ועל עמך ישר' ועל ירושלם עירך ועל ציון משכן כבודך ועל העיר האבילה‬
‫והחריבה וההרוסה והשוממה הנתונה ביד זרים הרמוסה ביד עריצים ויירשוה לגיונות ויחללוה עובדי פסילים ולישר' עמך נתתה‬
‫נחלה ולזרע ישורון ירושה הורשתה כי באש היצתה ובאש אתיה עתיד לבנותה כאמור ואני אהיה לה נאם ה' חומת אש סביב ולכבוד‬
.'‫אהיה בתוכ‬
See: Isaiah, M. Gafni, “Jerusalem in Rabbinic Literature,” in The History of Jerusalem. The Roman and
Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE), ed. Yoram Tsafrir and Smuel Safrai (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1999),
35-60 (Hebrew).
343
Cassius Dio, Roman History 69.12.1. Hanan Eshel, “Aelia Capitolina. Jerusalem no more.” Biblical
Archaeological Review 23, no. 6 (1997): 46-48.
344
Nicole Belayche, “’Dimenticare... Gerusalemme’: les paganismes à Aelia Capitolina du IIe au IVe
siècle de notre ère,” Revue des Études Juives 158, no. 3-4 (1999): 302.
345
Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem): Antonius Pius (138-161 CE), Elagbal (218-222 CE), (250-251 CE).
Caesarea: Herennius Etruscus, (249-251 CE), A boar walking to the right surmounted by two vexilla, coin
number 186. In Leo Kadman, The Coins of Caesarea Maritima (Tel-Aviv: Schoken; Jerusalem:
Publications of the Israel Numismatic Soceity, 1957), 69, 210, plate XV. As Yaakov Meshorer notes, “it
seems that Hadrian gave great prominence to the symbols of the legions on the coins of Aelia Capitolina in
order to emphasize that the colony was founded after a military victory.” Yaakov Meshorer, “An
Unpublished Coin of Aelia Capitolina,” Israel Exploration Journal 13 (1963): 60. Nichole Belayche writes:
“Le fait que la colonie tout juste naissante ait été confonté à la seconde révolte juive a dû contrivuer à
renforcer les symboles légionaires sur les monnaies hadrianiennes, histoire d’insister sur la victoire de
135.“ Belayche, “Dimenticare...,” 304.

121
Fig. 11: Aelia Cpitolina, Coin of Herennius Aelia Cpitolina, Coin of Herennius Etruscus (250-251
CE). Boar running; legionary eagle on its back, with vexillum topped by star.346

The Sculpture of the Sow

In the Chronicon of Eusebius (c. 311 CE), which came to us in its Latin

translation by Jerome (c. 380 CE), it is written for the year 136 CE: “Aelia founded by

Aelius Hadrian; on the front [in fronte] of that gate, by which we go out to Bethlehem, a

sow was sculpted in marble [sus sculptus in marmore], denoting that the Jews were

subject to Roman authority. Some believe it was constructed by Titus Aelius, the son of

Vespasian.” 347 The statue mentioned was erected in front of the western gate of the city,

346
As Kadman notes, the image of “the boar of the Decima Fretensis surmounted by eagle and
vexillum, occurs also on coins of Neapolis Samaria and Ptolemais-Acre, minted under Trebonianus Gallus
[Emperor 251-253 CE]; but on these coins the military symbol is associated with the figure of Poseidon and
– in the case of Neapolis – of Mount Gerizim.” Kadman, The Coins of Aelia Capitolina, 57.
347
“Aelia ab Aelio Hadriano condita, et in fronte ejus portae, qua Bethleem egredimur, Sus sculptus in
marmore, significans Romanae potestati subjacere Judaeos. Nonnulli a Tito Aelio filio Vespasiani
exstructam arbitrantur.” Jerome (Eusebius), Chronicle, 20. Repeated later on by Prosper of Aquitaine (d.
455 CE; PL 51, Col. 0560D.) and Cassiodorus (d. c. 585 CE; PL 69, Col.1232D), and in the middle ages
by Freculphus (Frechulf) of Lisieux, Chronicle 2.12 (written around the 820s in France; PL 106, col.
1160D). Interestingly, since the end of the sixteenth century, some explained the medieval image of the
Judensau, which shows Jews riding a sow, eating its excrement, breast-feeding from it, and kissing it, as
originating from the sow sculpture Hadrianus, allegedly erected in Jerusalem. Shachar, The Judensau, 12-
13.

122
the modern Jaffa Gate, between the city Forum and perhaps the camp of the Legion X

Fretensis (fig. 12). 348

Fig. 12: The Plan of Aelia Capitolina (cf. Yaron Z. Eliav).

Contrary to the Chronicon, K. M. R. Cagnat and Yoram Tsafrir believed that the

sculpture was not erected to humiliate the Jews, but to commemorate the contribution of

the Legion X Fretensis to the construction of the gate. 349 Whether or not the erection of

the statue was motivated by the intention to humiliate the Jews, in later periods it was so

conceived by Christian authors. Indeed, it seems probable that the pig, regardless of

348
Belayche, “Dimenticare...,’” 303.
349
Tsafrir, “The Topography and Archaeology of Aelia Capitolina,” 125. Also: Frederic W. Madden,
History of Jewish Coinage, and of Money in the Old and New Testament: With 254 Woodcuts, and a Plate
of Alphabets (London: Quaritch, 1864), 211.

123
whether it was a priori used against the Jews, could be seen in the eyes of the Jews and

Romans as insulting the Jews in the context of the conflict between the two. Samuel

Krauss goes as far as to propose that “there is reason to believe that” the symbolization of

Rome as a pig in rabbinic literature “came into prominence only since the time of

Hadrian and the fall of Betar (135 CE), since, in order to insult the Jews, the image of a

pig was attached on the South gate of Jerusalem which had been transformed into the

Roman colony, Aelia Capitolina.” 350 Mireille Hadas-Lebel argues that the link between

the sculpture of the sow at the Jaffa gate and the identification of Rome with the pig is

doubtful since, “after 135, there was little contact between the Jewish populations and the

Legion X Fretensis quartering at Aelia Capitolina where the Jews were forbidden the

right to stay.” 351 This is indeed true on some level, but we know that the legion was not

only active in the vicinity of Jerusalem (fig. 13), and that furthermore, the ban on Jewish

presence in the holy city was not fully respected and was exaggerated by Christian

authors for polemical reasons.352

350
Krauss, Monumenta Talmudica, 15. Cited in: Braverman, erome’s Commentary on Danie , 94.
351
Hadas-Lebel, Jerusalem Against Rome, 518. On the ban of Jews from the city, see: R. Harris,
“Hadrian’s Decree of Expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem,” Harvard Theological Review 19 (1926): 199-
206.
352
S. Safrai, “The Holy Congregation in Jerusalem,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 23 (1972): 62-78.
Belayche, “Dimenticare...,” 294. G nter Stemberger, Jews and Christians in the Holy Land: Palestine in
the Fourth Century (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 40-43. For the patristic discourse concerning the
destruction of Jerusalem, see: M. C. Paczkowski, “Gerusalemme negli scrittori cristiani del II-III secolo,”
Liber Annus Studii Biblici Franciscani 45 (1995): 165-174.

124
 Fig. 13: Legion X Fretensis in Judea (Cf. Dabrow 1993).

The idea that the sculpture was of the legion X Fretensis’ emblem is itself

problematic. If this was the case, why does the Chronicon say that the sculpture was of a

sow (sus) and not of a boar (aper)? Because Rome itself was evoked in the official image

that Aelia Capitolina gave to itself, one can wonder if the marble statue that was erected

125
at the Jaffa gate (hence near the Forum of the city) was not that of the boar of the Legion

X Fretensis but of Aeneas’ sow, one of Rome’s symbols.353

According to Virgil’s Aeneid (wr. 29-19 BCE), after the fall of Troy Aeneas and

his companions left the ruined city, looking for a place to found a new home. After seven

years of hardship along the Mediterranean, Aeneas finally founded the city of Lavinium,

the parent city of Alba Longa and Rome. According to the poem, Helenus prophesized to

Aeneas that he should build his new city where he finds an albino sow with thirty

piglets: 354

When, under pressure, you come to streams of a well-hidden river,

Under the bankside’s oak-shrub brush you’ll find an immense sow
Lying sprawled on the soil, on her side – an albino, with thirty
Newborn piglets, albino themselves, at her teats in a cluster.
This is the seat for you future state and your refuge from troubles. 355

Aneas’s sow became a symbol of Rome, and hence, as Andreas Alföldi notes in

early times, “it even seems that the statue of the sow with her piglets was erected in all

the forums of the new colonies of Rome which had a Latin status.” 356 It is not clear

whether sculptures of Aeneas’ sow were erected in Roman colonies in later periods, but

353
This was proposed by Cesare Baronius in his Annales Ecclesiastici (1588-1607). Cesare Baronio,
Annales ecclesiastici Caesaris Baronii, vol. 2 (Barri-Ducis: Guerin, 1864), 229 (“sixti annus 6-Christi
137”).
354
For the different configurations of this tradition see : Jacques Poucet, “Le motif de la truie romaine
aux trente gorets,” Folia Electronica Classica (Louvain-la-Neuve) 7 (janvier-juin 2004),
<http://bcs.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fe/07/TRUIE/Gesine23.htm >. Consulted April 18, 2012. Joël Thomas, “La truie
blanche et les trente gorets dans l’Énéide de Virgile,” dans Mythologies du Porc. Actes du Colloque de
Saint Antoine ’Abbaye (4-5 avril 1998), texte réunis par Philippe Zalter, 51-72 (Grenoble: Jérôme Million,
1999). Joël Thomas, “Le boeuf, la truie et la louve: les animaux-totems et les voyageurs dans le mythe des
origines de Rome,” dans Bouleversants voyages. Itinéraires et transformations, éd. P. Carmignani
(Perpignan: Presses universitaires de Perpignan, 2000), 67-84.
355
Virgil, Aeneid 3.387-393 (and also 8.42-46; 8.80-85). Translation by Frederick Ahl and Elaine
Fantham, Virgil, Aeneid (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 66.
356
Alföldi, Early Rome and the Latins, 272. Varro (116-24 BCE) notes that in his time there were
bronze images of Aneas’ sow in public spaces in the city of Lavinium: “It is recorded that the most ancient
portent of this kind is the sow of Aeneas at Lavinium, which bore thirty white pigs; and the portent was
fulfilled in that thirty years later the people of Lavinium founded the town of Alba. Traces of this sow and
her pigs are to be seen even to this day; there are bronze images of them standing in public spaces even
now, and the body of the sow is exhibited by the priests, having been kept in brine, according their account.”
Varro, On Agriculture 2.4.17.

126
the theme received special importance in the political propaganda of the Imperial period

(fig. 14).

Fig.14: Rome, 2nd century marble sculpture of a sow with piglets.

In the time of Augustus, the scene of the sacrifice of the Laurentine sow appears

on the Ara Pacis, which the Roman Senate erected in 9 BCE to celebrate Augustus’

triumph in Spain and Gaul several years earlier (fig. 15). Around the corner from the

scene of Aeneas sacrificing the sow, Augustus and his family are depicted. Hence, a

symbolic association is made between Aeneas and Augustus, which portrays the latter as

the new founder of Rome. The scene of the sacrifice of the white sow is exhibited also on

the Belvedere Altar that commemorates Augustus’ reorganization of the cult of the Lares

compitales (fig. 16). 357 Augustus´ propaganda portrayed Aeneas as the founder of Alba

Longa and of the Julian line. Hence, Augustus’ filial piety originates from Aeneas. 358 Just

357
P. Zanker, “Die Larenaltar im Belvedere des Vatikans,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archaologischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung 76 (1969): 205-218.
358
Jane DeRose Evans, The Art of Persuasion: Political Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus (Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992), 43-45.

127
as Aeneas was the founder of Rome, so was Augustus portrayed as the re-founder of

Rome after a series of civil wars.359

Fig. 15: Ara Pacis: Relief of Aeneas sacrificing to the Penates.

A. B.

Fig. 16: The Belvedere Altar. A. Aeneas and the Laurentine sow. B. Augustus and the
Vicomagistri.

Contrary to the the Julio-Claudian dynasty which preceeded it, the Flavian

dynasty founded by Vespasian did not lay claim to any divine lineage in general, or to

Aeneas in particular. However, like their predecessors, they use the image of Aeneas’

359
Ibid., 46

128
sow in their propaganda: the white sow with her piglets appeared on Titus and

Vespasian’s coins (fig. 17), 360 and on medallions which Marcus Aurelius, Hadrian, and

Antoninus Pius’ minted with the nine hundredth anniversary of Rome in mind (figs. 18-

19).361

Fig. 17: Vespasian, Denarius, minted 77-78 CE.

Laureate head right / Aneas’ sow with piglets.

Fig. 18: Antonine copy of the Hadrianic 'Aeneid' medallion, reverse design.

360
For propaganda on Vespasian coins see: Barbara Levick, “Propaganda and the Imperial Coinage,”
Antichton 16 (1982): 104-116.
361
Alföldi, Early Rome and the Latins, 273, pl. IV-VII. Stefan Weinstock, “Pax and the 'Ara Pacis',”
Journal of Roman Studies 50 (1960): 44-58.

129
 Fig. 19: Bronze Medallion of Antoninus Pius (Reign 138-161 CE).

As in the case of Augustus, the association of the emperor with Aeneas sacrificing

the sow came to represent the emperor as a new founder of Rome. 362 Herr seems to go

too far when he proposes that the pig that the sages identified with Rome is really Aeneas’

symbol of Rome. We can at least remark that if the Romans inscribed the pig (and its

sacrifice) in one of their foundation myths, the Jews inscribed the pig in their destruction

myth. While Aeneas’ sow symbolized fortune for the Romans, for the sages the boar

symbolized both current Roman fortune and future misfortune in the messianic era, when

God would punish Rome.

The problem with the above explanations of the identification of the pig with

Rome is that we do not find any echoes of them in rabbinic sources. The Midrashim and

the Talmudim do not even mention the Legion X Fretensis, its boar emblems, the statue

of a sow at the Jaffa Gate, or Aeneas’ sow. If the boar emblem was ”an insult thrown in

the face of the Jewish nation,” 363 as Félicien de Saulcy proposed, we do not find any

evidence of this in Jewish sources. The silence of the Rabbinic sources make it difficult

362
Francois Philippe Gourdain noted in 1787 that the representation of this theme on Vespasian’ coins
(and on later coins) “is not made with the intention of offending the Jews.” Francois Philippe Gourdain,
“Translation of a Dissertation on Satyrical Medals addressed to the Society by Pere Francois Philippe
Gourdain,” Archaeologia, or, Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, vol. IX (London: The Society of
Antiquaries of London, 1789), 61-81. Frederic W. Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, 212, note 4.
363
“[u]ne insulte jetée à la face de la nation juive,” De Saulcy, “Lettre,” 259.

130
to argue that the identification of Rome with the pig is a direct reaction to Rome’s

porcine symbols. Rather than asking to which particular porcine Roman symbols the

sages react, I propose that we ask to what Roman porcine discourse the sages react. In

other words, what was the political meaning the Romans gave to the pig or the boar, and

how did the sages react to this? We will respond to this question in the following chapter.

131
 Chapter 6
The Diocletian Legend in Genesis Rabbah
Diocletian the Swineherd

According to a legend in the Jerusalem Talmud, and a more elaborated version in

the 4/5th century Genesis Rabbah (below), Emperor Diocletian in his youth was a

swineherd: 364

The emperor Diocletian was a swineherd in Tiberias. Whenever he came near Rabbi’s
school, the children would come out and beat him up.
Later he became king. He went and stayed at Paneas, [Caesarea Philippi, currently
Banias] and sent letters to Tiberias just before the eve of the Sabbath, saying: “I
command the Rabbis of the Jews to appear before me on the first morning of the week
[Sunday morning].” He instructed the messenger and told him: “You will not give them
the message until just before the sunset in the Sabbath evening.” R. Samuel b. Nahman
went down to bathe. He saw Rabbi standing before the House of Study with his face pale.
He told him: why is your face all pale? He [Rabbi] told him: “So and so, letters were sent
to me from Diokletianus the King.” He [R. Samuel b. Nahman] told him: “Come to bathe,
that our creator performs miracles for you.” He [Rabbi] went in to bathe, and came
Argantin [a sort of spirit] jesting and dancing before him. Rabbi wished to scold him. R.
Samuel b. Nahman said to him [to Rabbi]: “Leave him alone, for sometimes he makes
miracles appear.” He told him [R. Samuel b. Nahman to Argantin]: ‘Your master is in
distress, yet you giggle?’ He [Argantin] told them: “Go, eat and make a good Sabbath, for
your Creator performs miracles and I will set you in the first morning of the week in the
place you desire.”
At the end of the Sabbath, after the Service, he [Argantin] took them and set them before
the gate of Paneas. They [Diocletian´s servants] entered and told him [Diocletian]: “Lo,
they are standing before the gate.” He said: “close the gate.” He [Argantin] took them and
set them on the wall of the city. They [Diocletian´s servants] entered and told him
[Diocletian]. He said: “I command that the baths be heated for three days, then let them
go and bathe therein and then appear before me.” They went and heated the baths for
three days, and Argantin entered and poured [cold water] before them, and they entered
and bathed and they came before him. He [Diocletian] told them: “Because you know
that your God performs miracles on your behalf, you disdain the king.” They [the Rabbis]
told him: “Diocletian that was a swineherd we did indeed disdain, but to Diocletian the
king we are enslaved.” He told them: “Even so, you will not disdain the humblest Roman
or the meanest servant [Guliar]”365

364
I thank Hakim Salem for sharing with me his reading of the story.
365
GeR Toledoth 63.8.7. My translation.
‫ לבתר יומין איתעביד‬,‫דקלייטינוס מלכא הוה רעי חזירין בהדא טבריה וכיון דהוה מטי סדריה דרבי הווי מינוקא נפקין ומחיין ליה‬
‫ אנא יהיב קילוון דיהוון רברבני דיהודאי קיימין‬:‫ אמר‬.‫ ושלח כתבים לטבריא מפני רמשא דערובתה‬,‫מלך נחת ויתיב ליה בהדא פנייס‬
‫ נחת רבי שמואל בר נחמן‬.‫ לא תתן יתהון להון אלא עם מטעמי יומא דערובתא‬:‫ אמר ליה‬.‫ פקדיה לשליחא‬,‫קודמי בצפרא דחד בשבא‬
‫ כן וכן אשתדר לי כתבין מן‬:‫ למה פניך חולניות? אמר‬:‫ חמתי לרבי דהוה קאים קומי סדרא רבה ראה פניו חולניות אמר לו‬,‫למיסחי‬
‫ עלון למסחי ואתא הדין ארגיניטון מגחיך ומרקד קדמיהון ובא זה ארגיניטון‬,‫ איתא סחי דברייך עביד לנא נסין‬:‫ אמר ליה‬.‫מלכותא‬
:‫ אמר ליה‬.‫ רבי שבקיה דזמנין על נסין הוא מתחמא‬:‫ אמר ליה רבי שמואל בר נחמן‬.‫ בעא רבי דיזעוף ביה‬,‫מגחיך ומרקד למולם‬

132
 Scholars have long searched for the historical background of this story. Heinrich

Graetz (1885) imagined that “the emperor was secretly informed that the Patriarch and

his companions made merry over his obscure parentage and his surname Aper (Boar),

concerning which the emperor was especially sensitive.” 366 Yitzhak Baer saw in this

story proof that Diocletian persecuted not just the Christians but also the Jews, an opinion

that was rejected by others. 367 A. Marmostein proposed that the story originally was

about Galerius, Diocletian’s adopted son, with whom he shared the rule of the East in 293

CE. He noted that Galerius, according to some Roman sources, was a shepherd in his

youth, and because he ruled the East the sages in Eretz Israel would have known this.

This biographical detail was incorporated into the story, but later generations attributed it

to Diocletian who was better known to them. Hence, the word “Guliar” in the response of

Diocletian is a later transformation of the original name ‘Galerius’. Thus, according to

Marmostein, it was Galerius who told the sages: ‘ en so, you wi not disdain the

‫ אזלון ואכלון ושתון ועבדון שבא טבא דמריכון עביד לכון נסין ואנא מקים לכון‬:‫מריך בעקא ואת קאים גחיך ומרקד? אמר להון‬
.‫ הא קיימין קדם פיילי‬:‫ עלון ואמרין ליה‬.‫ באפוקי שבתא בתר סידרא נסבון ואקימון קדם פיילי דפנייס‬.‫קודמוי בצפרא דחד בשבתא‬
‫ אמר אנא קלוון אנא דיתזון בי בני תלתא יומי ויעלון‬:‫ עלון ואמרין ליה‬.‫ סגרון פיילי נסבוהון ועקמון על מטכסא דמדינתא‬:‫אמר‬
‫ בגין‬:‫ אמר להון‬.‫ויסחון ויאתין לגבאי אזלון ואתזון בי בני תלתא יומין ואעל חד ארגיניטון ומוזגה קדמיהון ועלו וסחון ואתון לגביה‬
‫ ברם לדיקליטיינוס מלכא‬,‫ לדיקליטיינוס רעי חזירין אקילינן‬:'‫ אמרין לי‬.‫דאתון ידעין דאלהיכו ן עביד לכון נסין אתון מקילין למלכא‬
.‫ אפילו כן לא תבזון לא ברומי זעיר ולא בגולייר זעיר‬:‫ אמר להון‬.‫אנן משועבדים‬
Compare to Yerusalemi, Terumot 8:11, 46b-c:
.‫ איתעביד מלך נחת לפמייס שלח כתבין בתר רבנין תיהוון גביי במפקי שובתא מיד‬.‫כולא דיקלוט חזירא מחוניה טליי דר' יודה נשייא‬
‫ לא תתן להון כתבין אלא בערובתא עם מטמעי שמש' ואתא שליחא גבהון בערובתא עם מטמעי שמשא והוה רבי‬:‫אמר ליה לשלוחיא‬
‫ אמר ליה‬.‫יודן נשייא ור' שמואל בר נחמן נחתין למיסחוי בדימוסין דטיבריא אתא אנגיטריס גבהון ובעא רבי יודן נשייא למינזף ביה‬
‫ סחון דברייכון עביד‬:‫ אמר לון‬.‫ מה רבנין עבדין? תנון לי' עובדא‬:‫ אמר לון‬.‫ ארפי ליה לניסיון הוא מיתחמי‬:‫רבי שמואל בר נחמן‬
‫ לא ייחמון אפיי עד דאינון סחיין הוה ההיא ביבני אזייה‬:‫ אמר‬.‫ הא רבנין לבר‬:‫ אמר ליה‬.‫ במפקי שובתא טען יתהון ואעיל יתהון‬. ‫ניסין‬
‫ בגין דברייכון עביד לכון ניסין אתון מבזין‬:‫ אמר לון‬.‫שבעה יומין ושבעה לילוון נפק ואנצח קדמיהון ועללון וקמון ליה קדמיהון‬
.‫ לא ברומי זעיר ולא בחבר זעיר‬,‫ לא מכסי‬,‫ ואפילו כן‬.‫ דיקלוט חזירא בזינן דיקליטיאנוס מלכא לא בזינן‬:‫מלכותא? אמרין ליה‬
366
Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, vol. II (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of
America, 1956 [1893]), 533. Günter Stemberger mentions the link between the two stories, but does not
explain it. Günter Stemberger, “Die beurteilung Roms in der rabbinischen literatur,“ ANRW II. 19, no. 2
(1979): 379.
367
Yitzhak Baer, “Israel, the Christian Church and the Roman Empire from the time of Septimius
Severus to the Edict of Toleration of A.D. 313,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 7 (1961): 127. A contrary opinion:
Saul Lieberman, “The Persecutions of the Jewish Religion,” in Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume on
the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, vol. 3, ed. Saul Lieberman and Arthur Hyman (Jerusalem:
American Academy for Jewish Research, 1974), 241. Mordechai Alfredo Rabello, “On the Relations
between Diocletian and the Jews,” Journal of Jewish Studies 35 (1984): 147-167.

133
humblest Roman or the meanest Galerius.”368 For Zvi-Uri Ma’aoz, “Diocletian was in the

Levant in 290 CE and traveled as far south as Tyre. Paneas was in the hinterland of the

Phoenician coastal cities and on the main route to Damascus.(…) It is, therefore, highly

likely that during his stay at Paneas, Diocletian summoned the leaders of the Jewish

community, who were located only about 65 km away, in Tiberias.” 369 However,

evidence of this is insufficient. In any case, the story tells us more about the way the

sages understood history than about a real historical event. The sages, more than writing

history, are telling a story: “While the historical documents serve to describe events, the

stories serve to clarify, resolve, and teach a lesson o n “morals.”370 This story is indeed a

significant historical document, not about a doubtful historical event, but rather about the

way in which relations between Rome and the Jews were understood by the sages. Freed

from the burden of positive historicism, we may turn again to the story itself. 371 The

story may be divided into three parts: I. Introduction, II. Tiberias, and III. Paneas, while

each scene may be divided into two sub-scenes. The Introduction explains the motive for

Diocletian’s hostility to the sages: revenge for the bad treatment he received from

Rabbi´s peoples when he was a humble man, a swineherd. Now that he is the Emperor,

368
A. Marmorstein, “Dioclétien à la lumière de la littérature rabbinique,” Revue des études juive 98
(1934): 24.
369
Zvi Uri Ma’oz, “The Civil Reform of Diocletian in the Southern Levant,” Scripta Classica
Israelica 25 (2006): 109.
370
Eliezer Marcus, The Confrontation Between Jews and Non-Jews in Folktales of the Jews of Islamic
Countries, vol 2 (Ph.D. thesis, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1977), xliv (Hebrew).
371
The talmudic legend is not different in its nature from any other legend, for example from this late
Jewish legend: A swineherd is badly treated by the Jews. When he becomes king, he asks for the Jews to be
exterminated. A Jewish sage asked him what is the diffrence between two words “klia ‫( ”כליה‬anhilation)
and “Klia ‫( "קליה‬roasting( [both words without punctuation marks might be read in the same way]. The
king did not know the answer. The sage told him, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs
18:21). The king repented and became a friend of the Jews. Israel Folktale Archives named in honor of Dov
Noy at the University of Haifa [no.18949. Collected by: Yifrah Habib; told by: Hasher ben Harush
(Marocco), 1993].

134
he is the one that orders.372 He orders his messengers, and he orders the sages. Diocletian

knows that the Jews are prohibited from travel on the Sabbath, so he orders that they

receive his command a short time before the beginning of the Sabbath (an hour before

Friday sunset). Diocletian puts the sages in a dilemma: to respect “the queen, the

Sabbath,” or the King’s order? Should they respect the divine commandment - “you shall

keep my Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God (Leviticus 19:3),” or the imperial order? The

Tiberias episode is divided into two scenes. In the first, we see Rabbi Shmuel ben

Nahman on his way to bathe before Sabbath. But the idyl is broken with the meeting with

Rabbi Judah, the patriarch, standing in front of the house of study (Beith ha-Midrash), his

“face all pale.” Out of his kingdom - the space of learning, hopeless and in need of advice,

Rabbi the patriarch (Nasi) seeks advice in the street. It is Rabbi Shmuel and not the

Patriarch who has advice: “Come to bathe, that our creator perform miracles for you.”

One must continue in the routine of preparations for the Sabbath, as if it is a normal

Friday; in other words, they should observe the divine commandment and not the

imperial one. The second scene occurs in the bathouse, 373 a Roman institution, a place of

blurred frontiers, of mixing: non-Jews and Jews, rich and poor, the intimate body and

public nudity. 374 In this ambiguous place, the reversal of hierarchy between Rabbi

Shmuel ben Nahman and Rabbi became accentuated.

372
The text uses the term ‘Ana i ion’, which stands for the Greek εκελέυον - “I ordered”. Yaron Tzvi
Eliav, Introduction to the Research of the Jewish Daily life in the Roman Bath-Houses in Eretz Israel:
History, Halacha and Talmudic Realia (M.A. Thesis, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1993), 80
(Hebrew).
373
As Marc G. Hirschman notes, in the Yerusalmi five stories are told which happen in Tiberias’s bath
house. Marc G. Hirschman, “Stories of the bath-house of Tiberias.” Idan 11 (1988): 119 (Hebrew).
374
Joshua Levinson, “Enchanting Rabbis: Contest Narratives between Rabbis and Magicians in
Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity.” Tarbiz 75 (2006): 295-328 (Hebrew).

135
 At the heart of this legend is the belief in miracles. Three times it is said in

Tiberias that one must believe in miracles, and three miracles take place: the demon

“jumped” with the sages from Tiberias to Panias, he set them on the wall of the city, and

he poured cold water to cool the sages’ bodies in the boiling bath. Diocletian recognized

this: “Because you know that your God performs miracles on your behalf, you disdain the

king.”

A tension is created in the legend between past and present, the eve of Sabbath

and its end, between two options, two cities: Tiberias, a mainly Jewish city which is t he

seat of the Sanhedrin [the court of 70 sages], in the Province of Palestina, and Panias,

which lies 65km to the north, a pagan city, in Syria-Phoenice Province. 375 The

contradictions between the two cities are emphasized by the symmetry the legend creates

between them:

Tiberias
- Three times the belief in miracles is
expressed.
- The sages bathe in the bathhouse to
honor the Sabbath.
- The demon giggles and dances in the
bath.
- Rabbi Shmuel ben Nahman: ‘Leave him
alone, for sometimes for miracles he [the
demon] appeared.’
Panias
- Three miracles happen.
- The sages bathe in boiled water.
- The demon poured cold water on the
sages.
- Diocletian: ‘Even so, you will not
disdain the humblest Roman or the
meanest servant [Guliar]”

This is the symmetry of Providence: measure for measure, “with whatever

measure you measure others you yourself are measured” (m. Sota 1.6; b. Sanhedrin 100a),

or “he who took the trouble to prepare on the eve of the Sabbath [Friday] will eat on the

375
For the city of Panias, see: John F. Wilson, Banias: The Story of Caesarea Philippi, Lost City of
Pan (London: I.B. Tauris, 2004).

136
Sabbath” (b. Avodah Zarah 3a). 376 The Jews are persecuted for their poor treatment of a

non-Jew, a swineherd; the punishment is according to the measure of the crime. 377 By the

same token, God’s help corresponds to the measure of the Sages´ belief in miracles and in

their guarding of the Lord´s commandment - the keeping of the Sabbath.

The story, however, does not only concern the relations with Roman power. In

fact, in the story, two circles of power exist: an external circle between Israel and Rome -

between the Nasi and the Emperor, and an internal conflict between the Nasi and a Sage.

As Origen (c. 185–254 CE) noted, the Nasi was like the king of the Jews.378 Because

Rabbi did not prevent his people from respecting a non-Jew; he put all the sages, if not all

Israel, in danger. The violation of the equilibrium between Jews and non-Jews finally

causes the breach of equilibrium between the Nasi and a sage. In the moment of crisis,

the one who leads is Rabbi Shmuel ben Nahman and not Rabbi the Nasi. In times of crisis,

the sages have no other option than to rely on God’s rescue, on miracles. In this sense, the

sages and the Nasi are equal before their creator. As Ofra Meir notes, this divine

intervention is at once a salvation and a rebuke; indeed the demon ( Argantin) saves the

sages from Diocletian, but the sages are rebuked for needing the help of a demon. 379

The dictatorship of Diocletian is contrasted with the collective decision-making of

the Jewish patriarch, Rabbi Yeuda Hanasi, and the others sages. While Diocletian sent

376
See: Isabel A. Massey, “Measure for Measure,” in Interpreting the Sermon on the Mount in the
Light of Jewish Tradition as Evidenced in the Palestinians Targums of the Pentateuch: Selected Themes
(Lewiston: Mellen, 1991), 74-89.
377
Saul Lieberman noted that the story in fact justifies Diocletian, when the rabbis themselves admit
that they despised the Swineherd Diocletian. See: Saul Lieberman, Studies in Palestinian Talmudic
Literature, ed. David Rosenthal (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991), 378 (Hebrew).
378
Origen, Epist. Ad. Africanum 20.14.
379
Ofra Meir, The Acting Characters in the Stories of the Talmud and the Midrash (A Sample) (PhD
Thesis, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1977), 186 (Hebrew). See also: Ofra Meir, Questions about Life:
Selected Stories from Bereshit Rabba (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2000), 110 (Hebrew).

137
messengers with his orders, Rabbi the Nasi left the house of study to seek advice. The

opposition between the emperor and the patriarch may serve internal Jewish polemics

regarding the status of the patriarch, for example, regarding the question of who had the

authority to appoint judges, the sages or the patriarch. 380 In the story, the contrast

between Diocletian and the Patriarch is clear: the latter is a first among equals (primus

inter pares) who takes the advice and criticism of his peers: the relation between the

patriarch and the sages is not like the relation between Caesar and his citizens.

The moral of the story is that one should not despise the lowly; in the Jerusalem

Talmud version, “not in a little (simple) Roman, and not in little haver.” The word haver

has several meanings, but it seems that here, it means a pupil. The moral thus refers to

both external and internal social circles; one should not despise the minor Goy (non-Jew)

nor the minor pupil of the house of learning. Marmorstein relates the story’s moral to

Bavli, Pesahhim 113a: “Our Rabbis said: three things one does not envy [despise]: a

small foreigner, a small serpent and a small pupil.” 381 This suggestion might have bee n

more convincing if Marmorstein had cited the following sentence which explains the

meaning of the saying: “What is its reason? For it rules after his master.” 382 We have here

the implicit explanation of the explicit logic of the moral of the Diocletian legend; one

must respect the minor or powerless person for he might become important and take

revenge. The moral in Genesis Rabbah’s version: “you will not disdain the humblest

Roman or the meanest Guliar,” repeats this idea. The word Guliar comes from the Latin

380
See: Alon Gedaliah. “Inner Tensions: The Patriarchate and Sanhedrin,” in The Jews in their Land in
the Talmudic Age (70-640 C.E. (Cambridge, MA. and London: Harvard University Press, 1989), 308-322.
381
B. Pesahhim 113a (".‫ ואלו הן נכרי קטן ונחש קטן ותלמיד קטן‬,‫)" תנו רבנן ג' אין מתקנאין בהן‬. See: Marmorstein,
“Dioclétien,” 22.
382
".‫ דמלכותייהו אחורי אודניהו קאי‬, ‫ " מ"ט‬As Rashi explains: “they [a small foreigner, a small serpent, and a
small pupil] will grow, and their terror will grow, and they will revenge you.”

138
word galiarius, soldiers serving in the army, and in the sages’ literature it indicates a

simple man. 383 The use of this word here may be understood in two senses: 1) one should

not disdain a simple man, or 2) an allusion to Diocletian’s humble origin. 384 Diocletian

was the first emperor with a full Greek name: Dioclês.385 When he ascended to power, he

Latinized his name to Diocletianus (Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus). Diocletian

was from the lower classes (a slave’s son, according to one tradition), virum obscurissime

natum (Eutropius 9.19.2), but became Emperor. As a “self-made man,” his ascent raises

the question of election. As we will see, a Roman legend explains Diocletian’s rise to

power as a fulfillment of a prophecy - that is to say, the wish of the gods. In the Talmudic

legend as well, the question of election is central; even the lesser might become the king.

But in the sages’ story, his lesser origin testifies to the lesser value of Roman power. The

sages´ answer to Diocletian is equivocal (in the Jerusalem Talmud): “We despised

Diocles the swineherd; we did not despise Diocletianus the king,” playing with the name

change of the emperor from Dioclês to Diokletianus, from swineherd to emperor, from

Greek to Roman.

383
Joseph Tabory, “The Poems of the Seventh Chapter of Esther Rabba and Midrash Abba Gurion,”
Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature 16 (1997): 11 (Hebrew).
384
For Christian allusions to Diocletian´s humble origin, see: William Seston, Dioclétien et la
tétrarchie (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1946), 42.
385
Derived from the Greek díos kletos ("sky-called").

139
Diocletian the Hunter

Gbyaliah ibn Yahia, a Jewish historian of the sixteenth century, proposed that the

rabbinical legend concerning Diocletian is connected to a Roman legend:

The chronicles say that when he [Diocletian] was a young man and humiliated [humble],
he went to eat. When the house keepers asked him to pay, he answered that when he
becomes Caesar he will pay his debt. An old woman [that was present there] told him that
when he has killed a certain pig he will became Caesar. He went and killed many pigs.
Eventually he went to Rome and joined one of the parties of warriors, and he killed one
of the ministers of the opposite party, who in the language of Rome was called pig [Aper].
By this act he became finally emperor. And necessarily this [story] hints to Midrash
Rabbot [Rabbah] with the phrase: “And the first came forth ruddy” (Gn 15:24), that he
[Diocletian] was swine herder, etc.386

Diocletian was probably born in 243 CE at Salona [Dalmatia], 387 to a lower-class

family (the humiliores), and joined the army at an early age. In 283, after a long military

career as the commander of the Emperor´s bodyguard, the protectors, he accompanied

the Emperor Carus in the war against the Sassanid Empire. During the campaign, the

Emperor died, and his son Numerian was declared Emperor. While the army was moving

toward the west back to the frontier of the Empire, Lucius Aper, the Praetorian prefect

and father-in-law of Numerian, claimed that due to illness, the Emperor would have to

travel in a closed wagon. When the soldiers smelled a foul odor rising from the

Emperor’s wagon, they opened it and found in it the Emperor’s body. Diocletian took

advantage of the opportunity, blaming Lucius Aper for the death of the emperor, and

executed him with his own hands in front of the army, who declared him Emperor on

386
Gdaliah ibn Yahia, Sefer Soshelet ha-Kabala, Venice, 1585 (Jerusalem: Hadorot HaHronim
VeKorotam, 1962), 150 (Hebrew). My translation.
‫ואומרים הקרוניקי שבהיותו בחור ואיש נבזה הלך לאכול אצל בעל הבית כששאל ממנו פרעון האוכל השיב כשיהיה קיסר יפרענו‬
‫ לבסוף הלך לרומה ונכנס בחלק אחד מהלוחמים שהיו‬:‫ותאמר לו אשה זקנה שכשיהרוג חזיר אחד יהיה קיסר והלך והרג הרבה‬
‫בתוכה והרג מהם אחד מהשרים שהיה בחלק המנ גד לו ובלשון רומה היה נקרא השר ההוא חזיר ועל הדבר הזה הוקם על לבסוף‬
.‫נעשה קיסר ואומר מדרש רבות פסוק ויצא ראשון אדמוני שהיה רועה חזירים ול"ד רומז לזה‬
387
Stephen Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery (New York: Methuen, 1985), 22.

140
November 20, 284 CE. The Historia Augusta (late 4th cent.)388 retells “an incident whic h

he [Diocletian] regarded as an omen of his future rule,” allegedly reported by Diocletian

to the grand-father of the factious author of the book, Flavius Vopiscus:

“When Diocletian” )…( “while still serving in a minor post, was stopping at a certain
tavern in the land of the Tungri in Gaul389 and was making up his daily reckoning with a
woman, who was a Druidess, she said to him, ‘Diocletian, you are far too greedy (avarus)
and far too stingy (parcus),’ to which Diocletian replied, it is said, not in earnest, but only
in jest, ‘I shall be generous enough when I become emperor.’ At this the Druidess said, so
he related, ‘Do not jest, Diocletian, for you will become emperor when you have slain a
Boar (aper).’
Now Diocletian always had in his mind a desire to rule, as Maximian 390 knew and my
grandfather also, to whom he himself told these words of the Druidess. Then, however,
reticent, as was his wont, he laughed and said nothing. Nevertheless, in hunting,
whenever there was opportunity, he always killed the boars with his very own hand. In
fact, when Aurelian received the imperial power, then Probus, then Tacitus, and then
Carus himself, Diocletian remarked, “I am always killing boars, but the other man enjoys
the meat.”
It is now well known and a common story that when he had killed Aper, the prefect of the
guard, he declared, it is said, “At last I have killed my fated Boar.” My grandfather also
used to say that Diocletian himself declared that he had no other reason for killing him
with his own hand than to fulfill the Druidess’ prophecy and to ensure his own rule. For
he would not have wished to become known for such cruelty, especially in the first few
days of his power, if Fate had not impelled him to this brutal act of murder. 391

This is a story in three acts: I. the prophecy of ruling, II. the hunt (striving for

power), and III. fulfillment of the prophecy (ascension to power). The story starts with a

dispute over the quantity of payment between young Diocletian and a woman, a Druidess.

The woman teases him that he is stingy: “Diocletian, you are far too greedy (avarus) and

far too stingy (parcus).” Diocletian jokingly answers that when he becomes Caesar he

will be generous. Diocletian’s joke creates a contradiction between the young

soldier/officer, serving in a frontier post on the border of the empire, and the emperor in

388
Ronald Syme, “The Composition of the Historia Augusta,” in Historia Augusta Papers (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1983), 12-29.
389
Modern Tongres in eastern Belgium.
390
The Roman Emperor (together with Diocletian) from March 286 to 305. Maximian was the ruler of
the West, while Diocletian was the ruler of the East.
391
Historiae Augustae, Carus et Carinus et Numerianus, 14-15. Translation by David Magie, The
Scriptores Historiae Augustae, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1922), 437-439.

141
Rome; between the concrete present and a far-off, impossible future. Nonetheless, the

joke exposed Diocletian’s concealed motivations for power, to become Caesar. The

Druidess, in her prophetic power, well understands that behind the cynical remark there is

a grain of truth, and answers Diocletian enigmatically: “Do not jest, Diocletian, for you

will become emperor when you have slain a Boar (aper).” Is the prophecy uttered

seriously, taking into account its context? What is the connection between killing the pig

and ruling? The status of the prophecy is ambiguous - serious and ridiculous at the same

time. The story moves constantly between the humorous and the serious, the low and the

high, through a series of witty sayings: “Diocletian, you are far too greedy (avarus) and

far too stingy (parcus)… ‘I shall be generous enough when I become emperor… Do not

jest, Diocletian, for you will become emperor when you have slain a Boar (aper)…I am

always killing boars, but the other man enjoys the meat…At last I have killed my fated

Boar.” The laughter conceals the bare truth at the same time that it exposes it: Diocletian

says he will be generous when he becomes emperor “not in earnest, but only in jest”. The

Druidess turns the amusing to serious: “Do not jest, Diocletian, for you will become

emperor when you have slain a Boar (aper).” When Diocletian tells the prophecy later on,

he laughs. This is a laugh of embarrassment in the face of the risk that his lust for power

will be exposed, a laugh of disguise that gives the listener the impression that for

Diocletian, the prophecy is nothing more than an amusing anecdote. Diocletian laughs,

but while going to hunt, he “always killed the boars with his very own hand.” Diocletian

laughs a third time when he says, ”I am always killing boars, but the other man enjoys the

meat.” This is a real expression of Diocletian’s frustration, that he remains a servant of a

succession of emperors. This recalls the statement of Eumaeus, the old swineherd of

142
Ulysses in the Odyssey, who refers to the pigs eaten by Penelope’s suitors: “We have had

trouble enough this long time feeding pigs, while others reap the fruit of our labour.” 392

The play of exposure-concealment ends with the fourth and final joke, the grotesque

jesting of the executor: “At last I have killed my fated Boar (aper).”393

We may understand the dialogue in the following way: the Druidess argues that

Diocletian behaves like a pig. Diocletian answers that he will cease his hoggish behavior

when he becomes emperor. The Druidess says that in order to become Caesar, he has to

stop being hoggish, to kill the boar. Following Plato, we may distinguish between the

domestic pig (sus) - a symbol of the negative passions - and the savage pig, the boar,

which is the symbol of ardor and courage of the thumos.394 Diocletian must cease being

the domestic pig, and become the savage animal, master of himself. Diocletian must pass

from pettiness to greatness, from servitude to lordship.

The object of the story is to justify Diocletian’s rule in general, particularly the

murder of Aper, where he acted as prosecutor, judge and executor, killing with his own

hands: “Diocletian himself declared that he had no other reason for killing him with his

own hands than to fulfill the Druidess’ prophecy and to ensure his own rule, for he would

not have wished to become known for such cruelty, especially in the first few days of his

power, if Fate had not impelled him to this brutal act of murder.” 395 More than bei ng

critical, the story shows a Diocletian full of wisdom and virtue, a man whom the gods had

392
Homer, Odyssey 15: 415.
393
The joke of the porcine name of Aper recalls Cicero´s jokes on the name Verres: Cicero, Against
Verres 2.4.95; 2.2.77. Plutarch, Lifes, Cicero 7. 6. See: Brian A. Krostenko, Cicero, Catullus, and the
Language of Social Performance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 161.
394
Frère, Le bestiaire de Platon, 53-54.
395
Historiae Augustae, Carus et Carinus et Numerianus, 14-15.

143
marked among men to avenge the murder of an emperor beloved by all. 396 The story

binds together the entertaining with the serious, telling of the rise of a simple man from

servant to master, from the inn in a remote border post to Caesar’s palace. The story’s

apparent lack of seriousness should not hide the fact that “The ‘hidden meaning’ is not

truly unconscious at all, but rather represents a layer which is neither quite admitted nor

quite repressed – the sphere of innuendo, the winking of an eye, and ‘you know what I

mean.’” 397 In this legend, the ascent of Diocletian to power is complex: a mixture of

ambitiousness, courage, and luck, and above all, the predestination of fortuna. Cruelty is

justified as being part of the edict of fortune. This justification of power is that of “might

is always right” or la raison de plus fort. This concept is manifest in the hunting of the

boar, in the image of the ruler as hunter, and more particularly as a boar-hunter.

The Ruler as a Boar-Hunter

In Greece and Rome, the wild boar, as with many other savage animals (such as

the bear, the lion, or the eagle) symbolizes power and sovereignty. The Latin poets use

the following adjectives to describe the boar: “acer, ferox, ferus, frendens, fulmineus,

rabidus, saevus, spumans, torvus, violentus,”398 the very characteristics the upper class

Roman generally chose for himself, as testified by names of important Roman families. 399

396
Seston, Dioclétien, 48. “montre un Dioclétien plein de sagesse et de vertu, que les dieux ont désigné
avant les hommes pour venger le meurtre d’un empereur aimé de tous.”
397
Theodor, W. Adorno, The Stars Down to Earth and Other Essays on the Irrational in Culture
(London and New York: Routledge, 1994), 54.
398
Michel Pastoureau, “La chasse au sanglier: histoire d'une dévalorisation (IVe-XIVe siècle),” dans
La Chasse au Moyen Age: Société, traités, symboles, éd. Michel Pastoureau, Paravicini Bagliani, Agostino
& den Abeele van Baudouin (Firenze: SISMEL-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2000), 9. And also: J. Aymard,
Essai sur les chasses romaines des origines à la fin des Antonins (Paris: De Broccard, 1951), 324.
399
In Europe until the end of the Middle Ages, the boar and the bear competed to be the King of the
animals, see: Michel Pastoureau, “Quel est le roi des animaux?” dans Le Monde animal et ses
représentations au Moyen-âge (XIe-XVe siècles): actes du XVe congrès de la Société des historiens
médiévistes de l'enseignement supérieur public, Toulouse, 25-26 mai 1984 (Toulouse: Université de
Toulouse-Le Mirail, Service des publications, 1985), 133-142.

144
Boar hunting was second in importance after lion hunting, but due to a lack of lions it

was the most practiced. 400 The killing of the boar in a face-to-face battle expresses “the

ability of the hunter and his courage, in one word, his Virtus.”401 The bravery of the boar

- his anger - was what the warrior had to imitate on the battle-field.402 Vegetius (4 t h

century) noted that “boar-hunters may usefully be joined to the military. This is a matter

on which the safety of the entire State depends, that recruits be levied who are

outstanding both in physique and moral quality.” 403 Boar images were on Greek a nd

Roman helmets and shields, as well as on the emblems of several Roman Legions.

The hunting of the wild boar expresses the victory of man over animal, the

courage of the hunter over the savagery of the animal. However, during the hunt, the

boundary between the hunted and the hunter, between the biped human animal and the

four footed animal, becomes blurred. The hunter must sharpen his animal sensation to

track the animal, to catch up with it, and to confront it in a face to face battle. This

proximity with the beast is dangerous, not just because of the risk of deadly injury, but

also because of the risk of savage animalization, that the hunter will become confused

with the hunted. The hunter might become a wild animal, a predator, a wild boar. Killing

the boar is the moment when the hunter proves his superiority over the animal. The
400
Aymard. Essai, 328. As Michel Pastoureau notes: “Les Romains aiment chasser le sanglier. Il s’agit
d’un gibier noble, d’une bête redoutable dont on admire la force et le courage. Pour les chasseurs c’est un
adversaire extrêmement dangereux qui se bat jusqu’au bout et meurt sans fuir ni renoncer. Par là même,
c’est un adversaire respecté er recherché. D’autant que la chasse au sanglier, qui se pratique le plus souvent
à pied, se termine en général par un combat au corps à corps, face contre face, souffle contre souffle. Le
travail de rabattage se fait avec des chiens et des filets, mais c’est un homme seul qui supporte le dernier
assaut de la bête furieuse : ne craignant ni ses coups, ni ses cris, ni son odeur épouvantable, il tente de
l’achever à l’épieu ou au couteau, en frappant à la gorge ou bien entre les yeux. Etre vainqueur d’un
sanglier est toujours un exploit. Rares sont ceux qui y parviennent sans être blessé par les défenses ou par
les soies hérissées de l’animal.” Pastoureau, “La chasse,” 8.
401
“l’habilité de veneur et son courage, en un mot sa Virtus [sert] à caractériser la performance
sportive constituée par la mise à mort du sanglier.” Aymard, Essai, 319.
402
Plutarch, Gryllos 388.
403
Vegetius, Epitome of Military Science 1. Translation by N. P. Milner, Vegetius, Epitome of Military
Science (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993), 7-8.

145
victory of man over the wild animal is the victory of rationality over irrationality. In the

words of Ovid, the feral, uncontrolled instinct, the irrational power of the boar, is what

brings him to his death; encircled by dogs and man, the boar charges the hunter, running

directly into his spear:

The hunted boar displays his anger with his hairy bristles.
He rushes vigorously unto fixed, wounding steel.
Checked by a spear thrust through his guts, he dies. 404

The animal´s power, contrary to that of the hero, is uncontrollable, arbitrary, and

irrational. The man who kills the wild boar appropriates the force of the animal, while at

the same time proving his superiority over it. 405 Only those who have enough power can

rule and protect society from the uncontrolled violence of the wild animal. This is the

logic of the plus forte. Killing the wild animal not only meant the promise of superiority

of man above animal, that of culture over nature, but also of the elite over the plebeians.

Controlling the animal is controlling society. Killing the animal is the manifestation of

the ruler´s power over human life, his capacity and duty to protect the citizens from

outside danger.

The image of the ruler as hunter was common in the Ancient Near East, in Persia,

and in Hellenistic Greece,406 and from the first century CE on was adopted by the Roma n

404
[Pseudo] Ovid, Halieutica, vv. 60-62. Latin text: The Halieutica ascribed to Ovid, ed. J. A.
Richmond (London: Athlone Press, 1962), 18. Translation by Peter Toohey, Melancholy, Love, and Time:
Boundaries of the Self in Ancient Literature (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004), 236.
405
“In Greek thought, with its emphasis on reason (logos) as the distinguishing characteristic of the
Greek-speaking adult male citizen, force (bia) was thought to be a necessary component of the relationship
between rational beings and those with whom one could not reason, including slaves, barbarians and
children as well as animals (…)” Thomas Wiedemann, Emperors and Gladiators (London: Routledge,
1992), 62.
406
J. K. Anderson, Hunting in the Ancient World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 57-
82.

146
emperors. 407 A relief from the period of Hadrian’s rule, later placed on the Arch of

Constantine in Rome (dedicated in 315 CE), is a visual manifestation of the imperial

propaganda of hunting. The emperor Hadrian is portrayed on his horse, followed by two

other riders, chasing a wild boar. He is in a position of spearing the boar with a javelin

(now destroyed). As Steven Tuck noted, “This is predator-control hunting showing

Hadrian bringing the benefits of his rule to the Roman world by removing dangerous
408
animals and thus ensuring peace and stability.” By this discourse the Emperor
409
identified itself with Alexander the Great, Conqueror of the World.

Fig. 20: Hadrianic Boar Hunt Relief, Arch of Constantine, Rome. 410

407
Steven L. Tuck, “The Origins of Roman Imperial Hunting Imagery: Domitian and the Redefinition
of Virtus under the Principate,” Greece and Rome 52, no. 2 (2005): 221-245. The description of Herod by
Josephus in The Jewish Wars (c. 80-100 CE) might serve as an example of this conception of the ruler as
hunter and warrior bound together: “Herod’s genius was matched by his physical constitution. Always
foremost in the chase, in which he distinguished himself above all by his skill in horsemanship, he on one
occasion brought down forty wild beasts in a single day; for the country breeds boars and, in greater
abundance, stags and wild asses. As a fighter, he was irresistible; at practice spectators were often struck
with astonishment at the precision with which he threw the javelin, the unerring aim with which he bent the
bow. But besides these pre-eminent gifts of soul and body, he was blessed by good fortune; he rarely met
with a reverse in war, and, when he did, this was due not to his own fault, but either to treachery or the
recklessness of his troops.” Josephus, The Jewish War 1.13.429-430.
408
Tuck, “The Origins,” 238.
409
Ibid., 243. On the “Roman Alexander complex,” see: Diana Spencer, The Roman Alexander:
Reading a Cultural Myth (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2002), Ch. 5.
410
Jones Mark Wilson, “Genesis and Mimesis: The Design of the Arch of Constantine in Rome,” The
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 59, no. 1 (2000): 54, fig. 64.

147
 Fig. 21: Alexander the Great Hunting a Wild Boar. 1st century CE. Sardonyx; cameo
The Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg.

The political discourse of the hunter was also an important aspect of the Roman

games since the first century CE. The celebration began in the morning with the

venationes: hunting and killing of dozens if not hundreds of savage animals, including

boars.411 The “noon break” was dedicated to the execution of criminals or war prisoners,

and the afternoon to munera: gladiators combating each other or savage animals,

including boars. The games reaffirmed the social order: in the arena, the struggle between

the uncontrolled forces (criminals, enemies, savage animals) was presented. The

ritualized killing of these beings brought back the rule of order, demonstrating the might

of imperial rule.

411
Boars took part in these festivites in large numbers: the Historia Augusta says that during the games
of Septimus, one hundred and fifty boars were killed, and that during the games of the emperor Probus in
the Circus Maximus in 281 CE, one hundred boars were killed. Historia Augusta, Gordiani Tres 3, 6.7;
Probus 19. See: Wiedemann, Emperors and Gladiators, 61.

148
 The story of Diocletian in the Historia Augustae demonstrates this boarish

metaphor of power.412 Diocletian is not just portrayed as a bold hunter; his hunting skills

demonstrate his qualities as emperor. At the same time, the story demonstrates the

tension between the boar-hunter metaphor and the transformation of the hunted boar into

a man. This is not, however, a critique of the ideal of the hunter; rather, the narrative

conforms to this ideal in a grotesque way.

The Rabbinic legend express a totally different conception of power than that of

the imperial legend of the Historia Augusta; the people of Israel must subjugate

themselves to Roman rule, and not profit from even a temporary, isolated moment of

superiority, even if it is to a lower-ranking Roman. At the same time, the legend subverts

the foreign rule: the emperor was originally just a swineherd, 413 but if Rome is identified

with the pig, is he not a swineherd also in the present? As the later Midrash on Psalms

stated:

“The boar out of the wood doth ravage it, and that which moveth in the field feedeth on it”
(Ps. 80:14): “The boar out of the wood” - refers to the emperor [of Rome], while “that
which moveth in the field” - refers to his generals in the field. 414

The Midrashic Context of the Rabbinic Legend

To better understand how the midrashic legend relates to the imperial discourse,

we must analyze its broader midrashic context. The story in Genesis Rabbah is part of a

412
As François Pachoud notes, boar hunting is related to several emperors and those who have been
destined to be emperors: Histoire auguste. Tome V, 1ère partie, Vies d'Aurélien, Tacite, texte établi, traduit
et commenté par François Paschoud (Paris: Les belles lettres, 1996), 378.
413
Likewise, in Coptic hagiography, Diocletian was a goatherder in Egypt: Leary O. De Lacy. The
Saints of Egypt (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1937), 17-18; The Book of the Saints of the Ethiopian Church, vol. Mas aram mt h d r
(September 8-December 6), trans. E.A. Wallis Budge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928), 39,
chapter XI. “Maskaram.”
414
The Midrash on Psalms 80:14.6. Translation by Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, 51.

149
midrash on the birth of the twins Esau and Jacob. According to the biblical story, Jacob,

the younger son, stole by cunning the right of primogeniture from his elder brother, Esau.

This myth tells the origin of two neighboring nations: Esau is the father of the people of

Edom, and Jacob is the father of Israel. The book of Genesis tells us how in the womb of

their mother, Rebecca, the two brothers (the two nations) “struggled together within her”

(Gn 25:22). Their destiny was proclaimed by God himself before their birth: “And the

Lord said unto her, two nations are in thy womb, and two nations shall be separated from

thy bowels; and the one nation shall be stronger than the other nation; and the elder shall

serve the younger.” (Gn 25:23). Esau was the first of the twins to be born, but was

immediately followed by his usurper brother, who, in the process of emerging from his

mother’s womb, latched onto his brother’s heel. Was this a first attempt to take his older

brother’s birthright? Indeed, this act gave him his name: Jacob (‫ =יעקב‬a’aqo ): “the one

that is holding the heel” (Aqev=‫)עקב‬. The second time that Jacob attempted to take his

brother’s birthright was when Esau returned from hunting. Exhausted, Esau asks to eat

from a lentil stew that Jacob has cooked. Jacob asks him to sell him his birthright in

exchange for the stew: “And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit

shall this birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he swore unto

him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob” (Gn 25: 31-33). The third and final episode of

the “fight” for the birthright is the blessing from the father. When the blind father, Isaac,

asks to bless Esau, he sends Esau to hunt for him. Encouraged by his mother to profit

from the absence of Esau, Jacob represents himself to his father disguised as his brother.

Five times the father suspects that this is not Esau, but finally he gives his blessing to

Jacob believing that he is Esau. The elder brother returning from the hunt discovers the

150
plot, but the benediction cannot be taken back. Robbed of his birthright, Esau desires to

murder Jacob (Gn 27).

In Genesis Rabbah, the legend of Diocletian comes after an interpretation of the

first part of Genesis 25:25 telling of Esau´s birth: “And the first came forth ruddy”:

“Ruddy.” R. Abba b. Kahana said: Altogether a shedder of blood. And when Samuel saw
that David was ruddy, as it is written, “And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was
ruddy” (1 Sam. 16:12), he was smitten with fear, thinking he too might be a murderer.
But the Holy One, blessed be He, reassured him that he was “Withal of beautiful eyes”
(ib.) [which meant] Esau slew by his own judgment, whereas he [David] would slay only
on the sentence of the Sanhedrin . 415

The midrash contrasts not Esau and Jacob, but Esau and David. The interpretive

question is the resemblance between the redness of Esau and David; if having red hair

(‫ )אדמוני‬is a sign of being a blood shedder (‫)שופך דמים‬, how does one explain that David

was red haired? At a more profound level, the question is: if sovereignty is negative

because it involves shedding blood, what is the difference between the ideal Jewish

kingship and the Roman kingship, between legitimate and illegitimate blood

shedding ?416 The answer is that the bad regime (the Roman) sheds blood according to its

own judgment, and not according to the law, while the good regime (King David) killed

according to the judgment of the court of seventy sages, the Sanhedrin, the only one that

can judge to death. 417 Here, the midrash tells the story that “the emperor Diocletian was

[originally] a swineherd…” But why? How does the story illustrate the midrashic idea?

This would be evident if the midrash told us how Diocletian killed Aper not according to

the judgment of a court (the Roman Senate) but on his own judgment, where he was the

415
GenR Toledoth 63.8. Translation by Freedman, Midrash Rabbah, vol. II, Genesis , 563-564.
,‫ כאלו שופך דמים‬:‫ אמר רבי אבא בר כהנא‬- )‫ כה‬,‫[ "אדמוני" (בראשית כה‬...] )‫ כה‬,‫ "ויצא הראשון אדמוני" (בראשית כה‬:‫ד"א‬
,‫ נתיירא ואמר אף זה שופך דמים כעשו‬- )‫ טז‬,‫ " וישלח ויביאהו והוא אדמוני" (שמואל א‬:‫וכיון שראה שמואל את דוד אדמוני דכתיב‬
.‫ אבל זה מדעת סנהדרין הוא הורג‬,‫ עשו מדעת עצמו הוא הורג‬,)‫ טז‬,‫ "עם יפה עינים" (שמואל א‬:‫אמר לו הקב"ה‬
416
Irit Aminoff proposes that the Midrash originly was about Herod, see: Aminoff, The Figure, 226.
417
For the rabbinical anology of “eyes = Sanhedrin,” see: Aminoff, The Figure, 231.

151
prosecutor, the judge, and the executioner at the same time. Instead, the midrash tells a

strange story about Diocletian the swineherd, a story which apparently has no relation to

killing. We can presume that the story of Diocletian’s rise to power (as told by the

Historia Augusta) is implicit in the midrash. It is thus enough to mention Diocletian, in

this midrashic context, who is clearly an example of a king who kills without justice.

Nevertheless, the image of the Emperor in the story as the one who is right demonstrates

another voice in the midrash that holds a milder vision of Roman rule. If, in the midrash,

Esau (Rome) is a “blood shedder” by nature (red haired), in the Diocletian legend the

hostility of the Emperor to the Jews does not result from his nature, but from the Jew’s

own deeds - their poor treatment of Diocletian in his youth. Roman violence is

conditioned by the deeds of the Jews.418

After the story on Diocletian, Genesis Rabbah interprets the second part of the

sentence of Genesis 25:25:

“[And the first came forth ruddy,] all over (kullo ‫ )כלו‬like a hairy mantle [aderet ‫”]אדרת‬
(Gn. 25:25). Hanina b. Isaac said: Every one (kullo ‫[ (כולו‬of his descendants] is eligible
for a toga.419

The midrash interprets the word aderet [mantle] as the Roman toga: any one of

Esau´s offspring (the Romans) may become an emperor. If the legend ended with

Diocletian saying to the sages, “Even so, you will not disdain the humblest Roman or the

meanest servant [Guliar],” the midrash reverses the sense of the phrase, or at least

confirms it ironically, that indeed any one of the Romans might become emperor, perhaps

alluding to the lower origin of Diocletian himself.

418
An idea that we observe in ARN A 34.19.
419
GenR 63.25.
. ‫ כולו ראוי לאדרת‬:‫ אמר רבי חנינה‬- )‫ כה‬,‫"כלו כאדרת שער" (בראשית כה‬

152
 The midrash not only rejects Rome and its political system, but also comforts the

Jews that Rome will fall:

The Rabbis of the South in T. Alexandri’s name, and Rahabah in the name of R. Abba b.
Kahana, said: He came out destined to be altogether scattered like the chaff in the
threshing-floor, as it is written, “Then was the iron…broken in pieces together, and
became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors” (Daniel 2:35). R. Hanina b. Isaac
said: Why will they become like chaff (idre) of the summer threshing floors? Because
they attacked the noble ones (addirim).420

Roman power, represented by the mantle (aderet ‫)אדרת‬, is associated with chaff

(idre ‫)אדרי‬. Its destiny is to be burned in the threshing floor, a punishment for its action

against the noble ones (addirim ‫)אדירים‬, the Jews.421 In other words, the success of the

Roman Empire will also be the reason for its fall, when it will be punished for its

treatment of the Jews. The midrash continues:

“And they called his name Esau” (Gn 25:25). It is for naught (shav ‫ )שוא‬that I created him
in My universe. R. Isaac said: [God declared]: ‘Ye have given a name to your sow; then I
too will name My firstborn,’ as it says, “Thus saith the Lord: Israel is My son, My
firstborn” (Ex 4:22). 422

According to the common reading, the midrash is playing with the proximity in

sound between the name Esau (‫ )עשו‬and the word naught (shav ‫)שוא‬. The porcine vanity

of Esau’s (Rome’s) claim of being the primogeniture is contrasted with Exodus 4:22:

“Thus saith the Lord: Israel is My son, My firstborn.” 423 Two principal problems are

raised by this midrash: 1) The idea that the creation of Esau was for naught contradicts

the rabbinic idea that nothing is in vain in God’s creation. 2) If R. Isaac’s saying refers to

420
GenR 63.25.
,‫ יצא כולו מפוזר ומפורד כאדרת לזרותו כמוץ וכקש מאדרא‬:‫ אמר‬,‫רבנן דרומאי בשם ר' אלכסנדרי ורחבה בשם ר' אבא בר כהנא‬
‫ מי גרם להם‬:‫ רבי חנינא בר יצחק אמר‬.)‫ " באדין דקו כחדא פרזלא וגו'" (דניאל ב) " והוו כעור מן אידרי קיט" (שם שם‬:‫הה"ד‬
.‫להעשות "כעור מן אדרי קיט"? על שפשטו ידיהם באדירים‬
421
See Aminoff, The Figure, 187-188.
422
GenR 63.25.
‫ "כה‬:‫ אף אנא קורא לבני בכורי שם‬,‫ אתון קריתון לחזירתכון שם‬:‫ אמר ר' יצחק‬.‫ הא שוא שבראתי בעולמי‬- "‫"ויקראו שמו עשו‬
.)‫ כב‬,‫אמר ה' בני בכורי ישראל" (שמות ד‬
423
For the problem with this reading, see: Ronald N. Brown, “Midrashim as oral traditions,” HUCA
47 (1976): 188, note 32.

153
Esau, the text should not refer to a sow (‫ )חזירתכון‬but to the masculine form (‫)חזירכון‬. 424

Samuel Krauss proposed that the use of the word sow stems from Rome’s generally being

described in the feminine (Roma ‫)רומא‬,425 while Moshe David Herr, proposed that it is

hinting at Aeneas’ sow, one of the symbols of Rome. 426 However, as Ronald N. Brown

proposed, it seems that we have here a midrash about a name that used the Greek

language - that the sages read in the name of Esau (Ησαύ) the Greek word for a sow

(συός sus),427 hence: “and they called his name Esau” (Gn 25:25) - the sow which I

created in my world. Rabbi Isaac said, “Ye have given a name to your sow, etc.” 428

The Esau-Jacob conflict in the Bible is the conflict between the hunter and the

shepherd.429 From the Rabbinical point of view, Esau the hunter is cruel, a shedder of

blood, while Jacob/Israel the shepherd is merciful. The first is identified with a

devastating, savage, impure animal, the pig/boar; the second with a domestic, pure animal,

the lamb. In the Midrashic legend, Esau=Diocletian became a swineherd and not a boar

424
The masculine form (‫ )לחזירכון‬is found in the manuscripts Vatican 30 and Oxford 2335, but this
form appears to be a later correction.
425
Krauss, Paras VeRomi, 103-105.
426
Herr, Roman Rule, 128.
427
For midrashim on a name which uses Greek ) see: Fraenkel, Darkhei ha-Agadah ve-ha-Midrash,
vol. I, 115-118.
428
See Ronald N. Brown’s article (“Midrashim,” 188-189) and his PhD dissertation: The Enjoyment of
Midrash: The Use of the Pun in Genesis Rabba (Ph.D. Thesis, Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College,
1980), 441-446. See also the discussion in Aminoff, The Figure, 12-15. A less likely possibility is that here
the feminine form of the word pig replaces the masculine form. If this is the case, one may wonder if this is
a hint to Diocletian´s statement when he executed Aper, “At last I have killed my fated Boar.” What seems
even more probable is an illusion to the Midrash that explains the nomination of Rome = pig, in Leviticus
Rabbah: “And why it [Rome] is called ‘ḥa ir’ [swine or boar]? – Because it will yet restore (hazar) the
crown to its [rightful] owner. This is indicated by what is written, “And saviors shall co me up on Mount
Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s” (Obadiah 21).” LevR 13.5.
Translation by Israelstam and Slotki, Midrash Rabbah, vol. 4. Leviticus, 176.
'‫ "ועלו מושיעי ם בהר ציון לשפוט את הר עשו והיתה לה‬:‫ הדא הוא דכתיב‬,‫ולמה נקרא שמה חזיר? שמחזרת עטרה לבעליה‬
.)‫המלוכה" (עובדיה‬
If this assumption is true, the Midrash played twice with the idea that the Roman claim of superiority over
Israel is vain: first in the Midrash of the name of Esau = shaw (naught), and second with the Midrash: ḥa ir
(pig) = hazar (return).
429
Jesse Rainbow, “Sarah Saw a Hunter: The Venatic Motif in "Genesis Rabbah" 53:11,” in Midrash
and the Exegetical Mind: Proceedings of the 2008 and 2009 SBL Midrash Sessions, ed. Lieve M. Teugels
and Rivka Ulmer (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010), 155-179.

154
hunter. Perhaps the midrash tries to reduce the Emperor´s honor by mentioning his

simple origin. However, it seems significant that the rabbinic legend does not create the

opposition hunter-shepherd. Diocletian is not depicted here in a negative light; he is not a

“blood shedder.” He is not a hunter but a herder, not an arbitrary ruler but a logical one.

This is a more softened, compromising depiction of Roman power. However, Diocletian

is not depicted as a perfect or ideal shepherd, he is ultimately a swineherd. As the pig is

half pure, half impure, Roman rule pretends to be a shepherd while being a swineherd, a

dichotomy that we find in midrash Exodus Rabbah (20) where another enemy of Israel is

a swineherd:

Concerning, “When Pharaoh had let the people go,” (Ex. 13:17) scripture says: “A whip
for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, [and a rod for the back of fools].” (Prov. 26:3) […]
“A bridle for the donkey,” (Ibid.) is a parable of Pharaoh. This may be compared to a
swineherd who found a ewe-lamb and kept it among his swine. When its owner
demanded its return, he replied: ‘I have no ewe-lamb.’ The owner then made inquiries as
to where he watered his flocks. When he was told, he stopped the waters up, and again
sent word to the shepherd: ‘Restore my ewe-lamb.’ Again the reply was: ‘I have no ewe-
lamb.’ The owner then inquired [of his friends]: ’Tell me where he stalls his beasts.’
When they told him, he destroyed the swineherd’s folds and then sent word again:
‘Restore my ewe-lamb.’ Once more the reply was: ‘I have no ewe-lamb.’ The owner then
said: Tell me where his beasts actually feed.’ When they told him, he burnt all the grass
there, and again sent word: ‘Restore my ewe-lamb.’ The replay again was: ‘I have no
ewe-lamb.’ He then asked: ‘Let me know which school his son attends.’ He then went
and seized the child, and once again sent word: ‘Restore my ewe-lamb.’ The replay now
was: ‘Here is your ewe-lamb.’ He took it away and then seized the swineherd also, as he
had done to his son. The swineherd protested: ‘Since the lamb is no longer in my
possession, why do you seize me? What have I of yours still?’ the reply was: ‘I claim
from you all that she had given birth to, and also the value of the fleece which you have
sheared all the time she was in your hands.’ He then began to cry: ‘Would that I had not
given her back at all; for then people would say: “The very fact that he refuses to give it
up, [in spite of intimidation], proves that the man is only seeking an opportunity to slay
him.” ‘This king, [the owner], is the kings of kings, The Holy One, blessed be he – the
ewe-lamb is Israel; the swineherd is Pharaoh. 430

430
ExodR 20.1. My translation.
?‫ למה" ד‬.‫ משל פרעה‬,)‫] "ומתג לחמור"(משלי כו‬...[ ,)‫ "שוט לסוס ומתג לחמור" (משלי כו‬:‫"ויהי בשלח פרעה" זה שאמר הכתוב‬
‫ אמר‬.‫ אין לך אצלי רחל‬:‫ א"ל‬.‫ תן לי רחלי‬:‫ שלח בעלה אצלו ואמר‬.‫לרועה אחד שהיה רועה חזירים מצא רחל אחת משכה ביניהן‬
‫ אמר‬.‫ אין לך בידי רחל‬:‫ א"ל‬.‫ שלח לי רחלי‬: ‫ א"ל‬.‫ הודיעו לי מהיכן הוא משקה בהמותיו הלכו והודיעוהו וסתם את המעיינות‬:‫הבעל‬
.‫ אין לך בידי רחל‬:‫ אמר‬.‫ שלח לי רחלי‬:‫ א"ל‬.‫ הודיעו לי מהיכן הוא מרביץ את בהמותיו הלכו והודיעוהו והרס את הצריפין‬:‫הבעל‬
:‫ אמר‬.‫ אין לך בידי רחל‬:‫ אמר‬.‫ שלח לי רחלי‬:‫ א"ל‬.‫ הודיעו לי היכן הוא רועה הלכו ומודיעו לו ושרף את כל העשב שהיה לו‬:‫אמר‬
‫ היה מנהיג והולך ואח" כ‬.‫ הרי רחלך‬:‫ א"ל‬.‫ שלח לי רחלי‬:‫ א"ל‬.‫הודיעו לי היכן בנו הולך ללמוד באסכולי והלך ולקח בנו תחת ידו‬

155
 Israel is the ewe-lamb, the Egyptians pigs; against Pharaoh (the swineherd) stands

God, the ultimate shepherd. Likewise, in the rabbinic equation: ‘Esau=Edom=Rome=Pig’

the association: ‘Jacob=Israel=Lamb’ is implicit. As in the midrash about Egypt, in the

midrashic legend about Diocletian, the non-Jewish ruler is a swineherd, while the ruler of

Israel is a shepherd. In this context of Exodus, one recalls Moses, a shepherd who became

a prophet. In his Life of Moses, Philo of Alexandria provides an idealistic explanation:

After the marriage, Moses took charge of the sheep and tended them, thus receiving his
first lesson in command of others; for the shepherd’s business is a training-ground and a
preliminary exercise in kingship for one who is destined to command the herd of
mankind, the most civilized of herds, just as also hunting is for warlike natures, since
those who are trained to generalship practice themselves first in the chase. And thus
unreasoning animals are made to subserve as material wherewith to gain practice in
government in the emergencies of both peace and war; for the chase of wild animals is a
drilling-ground for the general in fighting the enemy, and the care and supervision of
tame animals is a schooling for the king in dealing with his subjects, and therefore kings
are called “shepherds of their people,” not as a term of reproach but as the highest honour.
And my opinion, based not on the opinions of the multitude but on my own inquiry into
the truth of the matter, is that the only perfect king (let him laugh who will) is one who is
skilled in the knowledge of shepherding, one who has been trained by management of the
inferior creatures to manage the superior. For initiation in the lesser mysteries must
precede initiation in the greater. 431

Philo follows a philosophical tradition which goes back to Plato, Xenophon, and

Aristotle and describes the good king as one who takes care of his people, like the

shepherd cares for his herd. 432 The same is found in the biblical ideal manifested in the

figure of Moses and King David.433 The sages thus follow a general idea of the Greco -

‫ שאני מבקש ממך כל מה שילדה וגזותיה‬:‫ א"ל‬.‫ עכשיו אין רחלך בידי למה אתה חובשני מה יש לך בידי עוד‬:‫ א"ל‬.‫חבשו אצל בנו‬
.‫ ולואי לא נתתיה והיו בני אדם אומרים עמד בדבריו ולא שלחה לו והוא שבקש להרגו‬:‫ התחיל צווח ואומר‬.‫כל הימים שהיתה אצלך‬
.‫ רועה חזירים זה פרעה‬,‫ רחל אלו ישראל‬,‫כך המלך זה ממ" ה ]מלך מלכי המלכים[ הקב"ה‬
431
Philo of Alexandria, Moses I (De Vita Mosis), lines 60-62.
432
Philo of Alexandria, Writings, vol. I. The historical Writings, the Apological Writings, tr. and ed.
Suzanne Daniel-Nataf (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1986), 224, note 69 (Hebrew).
433
On the image of King David as a shepherd, see: Yair Zakovitech, David: From Shepherd to
Messiah (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak ben Zvi, 1995), 167 (Hebrew).

156
Roman world, which contrasts the hunter (boarish) political imperial ideal of power with

that of the shepherd.434

The direct connection between the Historia Augustae legend of Diocletian and the

rabbinical one proposed by Gdaliah ibn Yahia in the sixteenth century remains

speculative. However, comparing one with the other, a more profound connection arises -

the confrontation of two contradictory political discourses. The sages, rejecting the

politics of raw power, reject the boarish/boar hunter metaphor of the ruler. Rather, they

inverse the Roman identification with the boar from a sign of legitimacy to a sign of

illegitimacy. The sages did not resist in the enemy’s (boarish) terms of hunting but by

longing for a future where the boar (ḥa ir) will return the rule to Israel. This messianic

projection avoids the politics of force - which lead to a direct violent confrontation with

the Roman Empire, and advocates the politics of subjection to non-Jewish rule. However,

the rabbinic resistance to the Empire does not just represent a passive messianic solution;

by equating the impure, non-kosher animal par excellence with the Empire, the avoidance

of pork became an act of a total resistance, here and now. Even a daily act of eating

became an act of resistance to the omnivore-homogenized politics of Imperial

universalism. Not partaking of pork meant not partaking of the Empire.

434
For Judaism´s hostility to hunting, see: Paul A. Kay and Bob Chodos, “Man the Hunter? Hunting,
Ecology, and Gender in Judaism,” Ecotheology 11 (2006): 494-509. Rainbow, “Sarah Saw a Hunter.”

157
 Chapter 7
Leviticus Rabbah 13
Chapter thirteen of midrash Leviticus Rabbah,435 edited in Palestine/Eretz Israel in

the 4th-6th century, includes a compilation of diverse midrashim concerning the pig.

Because most of the chapter (13.2-5) is dedicated to the interpretation of the purity laws

concerning four legged animals in Leviticus 11:1-8,436 we will discuss all its parts and not

just its statements regarding the pig. 437

Leviticus Rabbah 13.2

The first section (13.2) opens with the question of election (of Israel, generation

of the wilderness, Mount Moriah (the Temple Mount), Jerusalem, Mount Sinai, and the

Land of Israel), referring to Habakkuk 3:6: “He stood and measured the earth; he looked

and shook [yatar=released] the nations; then the eternal mountains were scattered as the

everlasting hills sank low. His ways were as of old:”438

R. Simeon b. Yohai began: “He stood and measured the earth; he looked and shook
[yatar ‫= יתר‬released] the nations; (Hab. 3:6). “The Holy One, blessed be he, took the

435
The text use here follows Mordechai Margaliot’s edition (1956–8; Reprint. New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary, 1993). See also the Bar Ilan University’s online edition of Leviticus Rabbah:
<http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/midrash/VR/outfiles/OUT13-02.htm>. Consulted May 16, 2012.
436
Leviticus 11:1-8: “1: The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them: 2 Speak to the people of
Israel, saying: From among all the land animals, these are the creatures that you may eat. 3 Any animal that
has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed and chews the cud--such you may eat. 4 But among those that chew
the cud or have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the following: the camel, for even though it chews the cud,
it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. 5 The rock badger, for even though it chews the cud, it
does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. 6 The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not
have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you. 7 The pig, for even though it has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed,
it does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you
shall not touch; they are unclean for you.”
ֶ ‫ מִ כָל־ ַה ְּבהֵמָ ה אֲשֶ ר עַל־ה‬,‫דַ בְּרּו אֶל־ ְּבנֵי י ִשְּ ָראֵל לֵאמֹר ; ז ֹאת ַה ַחי ָה אֲשֶ ר ת ֹאכְּלּו‬2 ‫ַוי ְּדַ בֵר י ְּהוָה אֶל־מ ֹשֶ ה וְּאֶל־ַאהֲר ֹן לֵאמ ֹר אֲ ֵלהֶם׃‬
‫ָָארץ׃‬
;‫ ּומִ מַ פ ְִּריסֵי ַהפ ְַּרסָה‬,‫ מִ מַ ֲעלֵי ַהּגֵרָ ה‬,‫אַ ְך אֶ ת־זֶה ֹלא ת ֹאכְּלּו‬4 ‫ מַ ֲעלַת ּג ֵָרה ַב ְּבהֵמָ ה; אֹתָ ּה ת ֹא ֵכלּו׃‬,‫ וְּש ֹ ַסעַת שֶ סַע פ ְָּרסֹת‬,‫כ ֹל מַ פ ְֶּרסֶת פ ְַּרסָה‬3
‫ ּופ ְַּרסָה ֹלא יַפ ְִּריס; טָמֵ א הּוא ָלכֶם׃‬, ‫ כִי־מַ ֲעלֵה ג ֵָרה הּוא‬,‫וְּאֶ ת־הַשָ פָן‬5 ‫ טָמֵ א הּוא ָלכֶם׃‬,‫ ּופ ְַּרסָה אֵינֶנּו מַ פ ְִּריס‬,‫אֶ ת־ ַהּגָמָל כִי־ ַמ ֲעלֵה ג ֵָרה הּוא‬
‫ וְּהּוא‬,‫ וְּשֹסַע שֶ סַע פ ְַּרסָה‬,‫ וְּאֶ ת־ ַה ֲחז ִיר כִי־מַ פְּרִ יס פ ְַּרסָה הּוא‬7 ‫ ּופ ְַּרסָה ֹלא ִהפ ְִּריסָה; טְּמֵ ָאה הִוא ָלכֶם׃‬,‫ כִי־מַ ֲעלַת ּג ֵָרה הִוא‬,‫ַָארנֶבֶת‬ ְּ ‫וְּאֶ ת־ה‬6
8
‫ ּו ְּבנ ִ ְּב ָלתָם ֹלא תִ ּג ָעּו; טְּמֵ אִ ים הֵם ָלכֶם׃‬,‫ּג ֵָרה ֹלא־יִּג ָר; טָמֵ א הּוא ָלכֶם׃ מִ בְּשָ ָרם ֹלא ת ֹאכֵלּו‬
437
The first part of the chapter (13.1) deals with the death of Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10.
438
Hab. 6:3.
.‫ לֹו‬,‫ שַ חּו ּגִ ְּבעֹות עֹולָם; ֲהלִיכֹות עֹולָם‬,‫עַד‬- ‫ וַי ִתְּפֹצְּצּו הַרְּ ֵרי‬,‫ ָרָאה וַיַתֵר ּגֹוי ִם‬,‫עָמַ ד ַוי ְּמ ֹדֶ ד אֶ ֶרץ‬

158
 measure of all the nations and found no nation but Israel that was truly worthy to receive
the Torah. The Holy One, blessed be he, further took the measure of all generations and
found no generation but the generation of the wilderness that was truly worthy to receive
the Torah. The Holy One, blessed be he, further took the measure of all mountains and
found no mountain but Mount Moriah that was truly worthy for the Presence of God to
come to rest upon it. The Holy One, blessed be he, further took the measure of all cities
and found no city but Jerusalem that was truly worthy in which to have the house of the
sanctuary built. The Holy One, blessed be he, further took the measure of all mountains
and found no mountain but Sinai that was truly worthy for the Torah to be given upon it.
The Holy One, blessed be he, further took the measure of all lands and found no land but
the Land of Israel that was truly worthy for Israel. That is in line with the following
verse of Scripture: ‘He stood and took the measure of the earth.” 439

After emphasizing that the election was done vis-à-vis all other options (Israel

was elected from all the nations, mount Sinai from all the mountains, etc.), the midrash

moves to the second part of the first phrase of Habakkuk 3:6 which concerns the conquest

of the land of Canaan by the Israelites, described in terms of eating:

[“He rose and measured the earth] and He released (‫ יתר‬yatar) nations” (Hab. 3:6) – Rab
said: He declared [the shedding of] the blood of heathens permitted, and He declared the
[appropriation of the] property of heathens permitted. He declared [the shedding of] their
blood permitted, as it is said, “Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth”(Deut. 20:17).
He declared [the appropriation of] their property permitted, as it is said, “Thou shalt eat
spoil of thine enemies,” (Deut. 20:14). R. Yohanan says: He jumps them to Hell as it is
written “to leap [lenater ‫ ]לנתר‬with them on the ground.” (Lev. 11:21). R. Huna of
Tzippori said: He permitted their harlotry (zonim ‫)זונים‬, as it is written, “He looses the
bond [musar ‫ ]מוסר‬of kings and binds their loins with a girdle” (Job 12:18). 440

439
LevR 13.2. Translation by Jacob Neusner, A Theological Commentary to the Midrash, vol. 4,
Leviticus Rabbah (Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 2001), 47.
‫ מדד הקב"ה בכל האומות ולא מצא אומה שהיא ראויה‬.)‫ ו‬,‫ “ עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים וגו'” (חבקוק ג‬:‫ר' שמעון בן יוחי פתח‬
‫ מדד הקב"ה בכל‬.‫ ומדד הקב"ה בכל הדורות ולא מצא דור הראוי לקבל את התורה אלא דור המדבר‬.‫לקבל את התורה אלא ישראל‬
‫ מדד הקב" ה בכל עיירות ולא מצא עיר שיבנה בה בית המקדש אלא‬.‫ההרים ולא מצא הר שתשרה שכינה עליו אלא הר המורייה‬
‫ מדד הקב" ה בכל הארצות ולא מצא ארץ שהיא‬.‫ מדד הקב" ה בכל ההרים ולא מצא הר שתינתן עליו תורה אלא הר סיני‬.‫ירושלם‬
.‫ הה"ד עמד וימודד ארץ‬.‫ראוייה לישראל אלא ארץ ישראל‬
Parallels: Sifri Deutronomy 311; Midr Tann 32.8; PesR, annex 1.3
440
LevR 13.2. Translation by Israelstam and Slotki, Midrash Rabbah, vol. 4. Leviticus, 165, with slight
alteration."
‫ "ואכלת את שלל‬,‫ התיר ממונן‬.)‫ טז‬,‫ "לא תחיה כל נשמה" (דברים כ‬,‫ התיר דמן‬.‫ התיר דמן התיר ממונן‬:'‫" רב אמ‬.‫“ראה ויתר גוים‬
‫ ר' הונא רבה דציפורי‬.)‫ כא‬,‫ "לנתר בהם על הארץ" (ויקרא יא‬:'‫ ר' יוחנן אמ' הקפיצן לתוך גהנם כמה דאת אמ‬.)‫ שם יד‬,‫איביך" (שם‬
.)‫ יח‬,‫ "מוסר מלכים פתח ויאסור אזור במתניהם" (איוב יב‬:‫ הה"ד‬,‫אמ' התיר זונים שלהם‬
Parallels: NumR, Aqev 5; B. Baba Kama 38a; TanB Shemini 10.

159
 ‫‪Habakkuk 3:6 is part of a psalm which describes how, after coming from Teman‬‬

‫‪and Para (in the vicinity of Mount Sinai), God takes revenge on the evil nations . 441‬‬

‫‪Therefore, by choosing this verse, Leviticus Rabbah refers to both the election in Sinai in‬‬

‫”‪” means “drove asunder,‬יתר ‪the past and the future redemption. In Habakkuk 3:6, “yatar‬‬

‫‪but can also mean “to make permissible,” but it may also, as the midrash proposes, mean‬‬

‫‪“to release / be released.” The idea is that while the Canaanites were released from the‬‬

‫‪commandments, it was permissible for the Israelites to take their lives and land. In‬‬

‫”‪another words, while the Canaanites were authorized to eat, Israel was authorized to “eat‬‬

‫‪them and their land. Hence, the midrash links Israel’s election in Sinai with the messianic‬‬

‫‪judgment of the evil nations, which will be “eaten” as were the seven nations of Canaan‬‬

‫‪in the past. 442‬‬

‫‪441‬‬
‫‪Robert D. Haak, Habakkuk (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 82-83. Neusner, A Theological Commentary‬‬
‫‪2001), 169-206. Habakkuk 3:6 is part of the prophetic lesson (haftarah) on the second day of Pentecost,‬‬
‫‪which the Sages identified with the anniversary of the recieving of the Torah in Mount Sinai.‬‬
‫‪442‬‬
‫‪This idea is emphsized in other versions of the midrash. See: Midr Tann 33.2‬‬
‫ד"א "ה' מסיני בא" היה ראוי לומר לסיני בא ולמה אמר מסיני? אמ' ר' שמעון בן יוחאי‪ :‬מסיני הוא בא לדין אומות העולם ששמעו‬
‫את התורה ולא קיבלו אותה שנ'‪ " :‬ועשיתי באף ובחמה נקם את הגוים" (מיכה ה‪ ,‬יד)‪ :‬וכן את מוצא שהרי הוא מזכיר שעיר ופארן‬
‫שאמ' משה רבונו של עולם כשתהא כועס השב הכעס על אלו שלא קיבלו את תורתך וה"א‪ " :‬עמד וימדד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים"‬
‫(חבקוק ג‪ ,‬ו)‪.‬‬
‫‪Mek Yetro 318.5.‬‬
‫ולפיכך נתבעו אומות העולם בתורה‪ ,‬כדי שלא ליתן פתחון פה להם כלפי שכינה לומר‪ ,‬אלו נתבענו כבר קיבלנו עלינו‪ ,‬הרי שנתבעו‬
‫ולא קבלו עליהם‪ ,‬שנ'‪" :‬ויאמר ה' מסיני בא וגו'" (דברים ל‪ ,‬ב(‪ .‬נגלה על בני עשו הרשע ואמר להם‪ ,‬מקבלים אתם עליכ' את‬
‫התורה‪ .‬אמרו לו‪ :‬מה כתיב בה? אמר להם‪" :‬לא תרצח ‪ ".‬אמרו לו‪ :‬זו היא ירושה שהורישנו אבינו‪ ,‬שנאמר‪" :‬ועל חרבך‬
‫תחיה"(בראשית כז‪ ,‬מ)‪ .‬נגלה על בני עמון ומואב‪ ,‬אמר להם‪ :‬מקבלים אתם את התורה‪ .‬אמרו לו‪ :‬מה כתוב בה? אמר להם‪" :‬לא‬
‫תנאף‪ ".‬אמרו לו‪ :‬כלנו מניאוף דכתיב‪ " :‬ותהרין שתי בנות לוט מאביהם" (בראשית יט‪ ,‬לו)‪ ,‬והיאך נקבלה‪ .‬נגלה על בני ישמעאל‪,‬‬
‫אמר להם‪ :‬מקבלים אתם עליכם את התורה‪ .‬אמרו לו‪ :‬מה כתוב בה? אמר להם‪ " :‬אל תגנוב‪ ".‬אמרו לו‪ :‬בזו הברכה נתברך אבינו‪,‬‬
‫דכתיב‪" :‬והוא יהיה פרא אדם" (בראשית טז‪ ,‬יב) וכתיב‪" :‬כי גנב גנבתי" (בראשית מ‪ ,‬טו)‪ .‬וכשבא אצל ישראל‪" :‬מימינו אש דת‬
‫למו" (דברים לג‪ ,‬ב)‪ ,‬פתחו כלם פיהם ואמרו‪ :‬כל אשר דבר ה' נעשה ונשמע‪ ,‬וכן הוא אומר‪ " :‬עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים"‬
‫(חבקוק ג‪ ,‬ו)‪.‬‬
‫‪B. Avoda Zara 2b:‬‬
‫אומרים לפניו‪ :‬רבש"ע‪ ,‬כלום נתת לנו ולא קיבלנוה? ומי מצי למימר הכי? והכתי'‪" :‬ויאמר ה' מסיני בא וזרח משעיר למו" (דברים‬
‫לג)‪ ,‬וכתיב‪" :‬אלוה מתימן יבוא וגו'" (חבקוק ג)‪ ,‬מאי בעי בשעיר ומאי בעי בפארן? א"ר יוחנן‪ :‬מלמד שהחזירה הקב"ה על כל אומה‬
‫ולשון ולא קבלוה‪ ,‬עד שבא אצל ישראל וקבלוה! אלא הכי אמרי‪ :‬כלום קיבלנוה ולא קיימנוה? ועל דא תברתהון‪ ,‬אמאי לא‬
‫קבלתוה? אלא כך אומרים לפניו‪ :‬רבש"ע‪ ,‬כלום כפית עלינו הר כגיגית ולא קבלנוה‪ ,‬כמו שעשית לישראל? דכתיב‪" :‬ויתיצבו‬
‫בתחתית ההר" (שמות יט)‪ ,‬ואמר רב דימי בר חמא‪ :‬מלמד שכפה הקב"ה הר כגיגית על ישראל‪ ,‬ואמר להם‪ :‬אם אתם מקבלין את‬
‫התורה ‪ -‬מוטב‪ ,‬ואם לאו ‪ -‬שם תהא קבורתכם! מיד אומר להם הקב"ה‪ :‬הראשונות ישמיעונו‪ ,‬שנא'‪" :‬וראשונות ישמיענו" (ישע יהו‬
‫מג)‪ ,‬שבע מצות שקיבלתם היכן קיימתם! ומנלן דלא קיימום? דתני רב יוסף‪ " :‬עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים" (חבקוק ג‪ ,‬ו)‪ ,‬מאי‬
‫ראה? ראה ז' מצות שקבלו עליהן בני נח ולא קיימום‪ ,‬כיון שלא קיימום עמד והתירן להן‪ .‬איתגורי איתגור? א"כ מצינו חוטא נשכר!‬

‫‪160‬‬
 In the following paragraph Leviticus Rabbah tells two parables which explain

why the commandments were given to the Jews and not to all nations of the world:

Ulla Biraah in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: “The matter [of the reference to
‘releasing the nations’] is to be compared to the case of one who went out to the threshing
floor [for harvesting his crop], taking his dog and ass with him. He loaded his ass with
five seahs of grain, and his dog with two. The dog went along panting. He took one seah
off the dog, but it continued to pant. He took off the second, but it continued to pant. He
said to it, ‘Now you’re carrying nothing, yet you’re continuing to pant!’ So as to even the
seven religious duties that the children of Noah accepted: since they could not endure
under their burden, the [nations] went and loaded them onto Israel. 443

The message is that if the commandments are a burden, the Jews by obeying them

demonstrate their superiority to other nations. We may refer to this idea as the Burdening

Principle:444 to the extent that an individual or a group burdens itself, it demonstrates or

claims superiority over other individuals or groups. 445 This line of thinking is inter alia a

counter argument to the Christian view of the yoke of the law as a punishment to Israel,

from which Jesus liberates humanity. If Christians argue that “the letter of the Law kills”

(cf. 2 Cor. 3:6), the midrash to the contrary argues that freedom from the Law kills, as is

emphasized in the second parable of the midrash which uses medical imagery:

Said R. Tanhum b. R. Hanilai, “The matter [of releasing the nations] may be compared to
a physician who went to pay a call on two sick persons. One of them [he judged] to have
the strength to live, and the other of them [he judged] not to have the strength to live. To
the one who he judged to be able to survive, he said, “Such and so you must eat.” But to
the one who he judged to be unable to survive, he said, “Whatever he wants [to eat], give
him.” So the nation of the world, who are not going to enjoy the world to come: “[Every

443
LevR 13.2. Translation by Neusner, Leviticus Rabbah, 48
‫ והיה אותו הכלב‬.‫ הטעין לחמורו חמש סאין ולכלבו שתים‬,‫עולא ביראה בש' ר' שמעון בן יוחי לאחד שיצא לגורן וכלבו וחמורו עמו‬
‫ כך אפילו שבע מצוות שקיבלו‬.‫ אמ' ליה טעון לית את טעון ואת מלחית‬.‫ שתיהן והיה מלחית‬,‫ העביר ממנו אחת והיה מלחית‬.‫מלחית‬
.‫עליהן בני נח כיון שלא יכלו לעמוד בהן עמדו ופרקום על ישראל‬
Parallels: Sifri Deutronomy 343.
444
Amots Zehavi and Avishag Zahavi. The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).
445
We can find the handicap principle also in the distinction the sages make between themselves and
the Jewish mob (am ha-aretz). See for example bavli Pesahim 49b: “Rabbi said, it is forbidden for an am
ha-aretz to eat meat - as it is written, 'This is the torah of beast and fowl' (Lev 11:46) - for all who engage
in Torah - it is permitted to eat the flesh of beast and fowl. But for all who do not engage in Torah, it is not
permitted to eat beast and fowl.” Jonahan Brumberg-Kraus, “Meat-eating and Jewish Identity: Ritualization
of the Priestly 'Torah of Beast and Fowl' [Lev. 11:46] in Rabbinic Judaism and in Medieval Kabbalah,”
Association for Jewish Studies Review 24, no. 2 (1999): 227-262.

161
 moving thing that lives will be food for you], as the green herb have I given you
everything” (Gen. 9:3). But to Israel, who will enjoy the world to come: “[And the Lord
said to Moses and Aaron, Say to the people of Israel,] these are the living things which
you may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth” (Lev. 11:1-2) 446

If in the first parable the burden of the commandments was placed on Israel

because of its healthy capacity to carry it, in the second parable the commandments were

given to Israel to improve its health. The pure diet is metaphorically the healthy one,

while omnivorous regimen is equal to death. Life and death however, are not in this

world but in the world to come. Interestingly enough, we find a si milar argument in the

neoplatonist Porphyry (c. 234-c.304), Against the Christians, where Porphyry notes that

Paul “mutters like a man on his deathbed,” when he said: “Eat whatever’s sold in the

meat market without raising questions on the basis of conscience, for the earth is the

Lord’s and everything in it (1 Cor. 10:25-26).”447

The midrash´s citation of Genesis 9:3, “Every moving thing that lives will be food

for you, as the green herb have I give you everything,” as being what permits the

idolaters to eat everything, likely refers to the Christian reading of this verse. According

the Christian exegesis, beginning with Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century,

446
LevR. 13.2. Translation by Neusner, Leviticus Rabbah, 48.
'‫ זה שיש בו כדי לחיים אמ‬.‫ אחד יש בו כדי לחיים ואחד אין בו כדי לחיים‬,‫ לרופא שנכנס לבקר שני חולים‬:‫אמ' ר' תנחום בר חנילאי‬
:‫ כך אומות העולם שאינן לחיי העולם הבא‬.‫ וזה שאין בו כדי לחיים אמ' להם כל דבעי הבו ליה‬,‫ דבר פלו' ודבר פלו' לא יאכל‬:‫ליה‬
‫ "זאת החיה אשר תאכלו מכל הבהמה אשר על‬:‫ אבל ישראל שהן לחיי העולם הבא‬,)‫ ג‬,‫"כירק עשב נתתי לכם את כל" (בראשית ט‬
.)‫ ב‬,‫הארץ" (ויקרא יא‬
Compare to: tanB Shemini 10.
,‫ למה הדבר דומה לרופא שהלך לבקר שני חולים‬,‫ התיר להם את האסורים את השקצים ואת הרמשים‬:‫ר' תנחום בן חנילאי אמר‬
‫ אמר לבני ביתו‬,‫ ראה את האחד שהיה חוזר לחיים‬,‫ אמר לבני ביתו תנו לו לאכול כל מה שהוא מבקש‬,‫ראה אחד מהן שהיה בסכנה‬
‫ אמרו לו לרופא מה ראית בין זה לזה [שלזה שהוא בסכנה אמרת יאכל כל מה שהוא‬,‫ כך וכך מאכל לא יאכל‬,‫כך וכך מאכל יאכל‬
‫ אמרתי תנו לו‬,‫ לזה שראיתי שהוא למיתה‬,‫ אמר להם הרופא‬, ]‫ וזה שהוא לחיים אמרת לו כך וכך יאכל כך וכך לא יאכל‬,‫מבקש‬
‫ וכך הקב" ה התיר לגוים עובדי כוכבים שקצים ורמשים וא ת כל העבירות‬,]‫ [אבל זה שיש בו לחיים ישמור את עצמו‬,‫שהוא למיתה‬
‫ אמר להם (והייתם קדושים כי קדוש אני) אל תשקצו את נפשותיכם (ויקרא יא‬,‫ אבל לישראל שהם לחיי גן עדן‬,‫לפי שהן לגיהנם‬
‫ "ואתם‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ למה שהן חיים‬, "‫ "את זה תאכלו ואת זה לא תאכלו‬,)‫ מד‬,‫ויקרא יא‬/ ‫ [ והייתם קדושים כי קדוש אני] (שם שם‬,)‫מג‬
."'‫ הוי "עמד וימודד ארץ וגו‬,)‫הדבקים בה' אלהיכם חיים כלכם היום" (דברים ד ד‬
447
Porphyry, Porphyry's Against the Christians: The Literary Remains, ed. and trans. R. Joseph
Hoffmann (Amherst, NY.: Prometheus Books, 1994), 63.

162
this verse as proofs that all kind of food are pure and therefore permitted. 448 Interestingl y

enough, more or less in the period of the writing of Leviticus Rabbah, the emperor Julian

“the Apostate” or “the Philosopher,” in his anti-Christian treaty Against the Galileans (wr.

June 362-March 363, cf. Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian), criticizes the Christians’

“omnivorousness:”

Why in your diet are you not as pure as the Jews, and why do you say that we ought to
eat everything “even as the green herb (Gen 9:3),” putting your faith in Peter, because, as
the Galilaeans say, he declared, “What God hath cleansed, that make not thou common
(Acts 10:15)”? 449

This “omnivorousness” for Julian was scandalous. In his discourse, To the

Uneducated Cynics, he criticizes his interlocutor for despising Diogenes of Sinope’s

diet:450 “For you are an Egyptian, though not of the priestly caste, but of the omnivorous

type whose habit it is to eat everything “even as the green herb” (Gn. 9:3). You recognize,

I suppose, the words of the Galilaeans.” 451 Thus the Christians (the Galilaeans) are

associated with the omnivorousness of the Egyptian mob, and hence indirectly with the

omnivorous animal par excellence – the pig - from which Egyptian priests abstained.

While Peter’s vision in Jaffa (Acts 10: 9-22) plays an important role in the Christian

argument that all foods are permitted, the later Christian interpretation of Genesis 9:3

448
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 20.2. See: David Rokeah, Justin Martyr and the Jews (Leiden:
Brill, 2002), 112. The anti-Christian message of the midrash is also found in its paralell in Exodus Rabbah
30.22 which cites Ezekiel 22:25, which is used to support the Christian argument that the Jewish law is
negative. See: Jean-Louis Déclais, “Du combat de Jacob avec l’ange à la licéité de la viande de chameau: le
devenir d’un récit,” Islamochristiana 25 (1999): 47.
449
Julian, Against the Galilaeans 306B-314E (Apud Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian).
450
On Julian and the cynics, see Rowland Smith, Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the
Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate (London: Routledge, 1995), 49-90.
451
Julian, To the Uneducated Cynics 193A. See: Derek Krueger, “The Bawdy and Society: The
Shamelessness of Diogenes in Roman Imperial Culture,” in The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity
and Its Legacy, ed. Robert Bracht Branham and Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé. Hellenistic culture and society,
23 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 232. Pseudo Aristeas makes a similar connection
between Egypt’s mob and omnivorousness: “The priests who are the guides of Egyptians have looked
closely into many things and are conversant with affairs, and have named us ‘men of God,’ a title
applicable to no others but only to him who reveres the true God. The rest are men of food and drink and
raiment, 141: for their whole disposition has recourse to these things.” Letter of Aristeas 139-140.

163
goes further by arguing that Peter’s vision merely returned the status of animals to their

primordial state at the time of Noah. Jewish food avoidances were thus limited in time, a

temporal exigency placed upon the Jews to correct their ways. The avoidance of pork

thus does not concern the nature of the pig but rather the sinful nature of the Jews. Since

for Julian the different religious manifestations go back to early times and are

unchangeable (as is the Torah for the sages), he cannot accept this dynamic explanation

of the Law. Thus, he ironically asks if the nature of the pig changed after Peter’s vision:

What proof is there of this, that of old God held certain things abominable, but now has
made them pure? For Moses, when he is laying down the law concerning four-footed
things, says that whatsoever parteth the hoof and is cloven-footed and cheweth the cud is
pure, but that which is not of this sort is impure [cf. Leviticus 11:3]. Now if, after the
vision of Peter, the pig has now taken to chewing the cud, then let us obey Peter; for it is
in very truth a miracle if, after the vision of Peter, it has taken to that habit. But if he
spoke falsely when he said that he saw this revelation, - to use your own way of speaking,
- in the house of the tanner, why are we so ready to believe him in such important matters?

Julian hints that the Christian abandonment of food avoidance is a practical

accommodation motivated by the desire to render life easier:

Was it so hard a thing that Moses enjoined on you when, besides the flesh of swine, he
forbade you to eat winged things and things that dwell in the sea, and declared to you that
besides the flesh of swine these also had been cast out by God and sh own to be
impure? 452

Julian reverses the Christian claim that originally Moses was forced to yoke the

Jews with food avoidances in order to end their enslavement to their bellies; that the Jews’

literal understanding of pork avoidance demonstrates that they are carnal and earthly, or

in other words: hoggish. 453 Julian hints that it is the Christians who resemble the pi g,

which consumes everything with no limits. He also suggests that their porcine diet is

452
Julian, Against the Galilaeans 306B-314E (Apud Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian).
453
See: Peter J. Tomson,”Jewish Food Laws in Early Christian Community Discourse,” Semeia 86
(1999): 193-211. S. Stein, “The Dietary Laws in Rabbinic and Patristic Literature,” Studia Patristica 2
(1957): 141-54.

164
motivated by their weakness of the flesh. 454 This is similar to the argument in Leviticus

Rabbah that the non-Jews were released from the Law because of their weak nature. Like

Julian, Leviticus Rabbah turns the Christian argument on its head: the law was not given

to Israel as a corrective-preventive punishment because of the Jews’ sinful-earthly nature

but rather because of their healthy nature; freedom from the commandments does not

bring life but rather death, while the burden of the Commandments brings life.

Leviticus Rabbah 13.3

This section of the midrash begins with another interpretation of Leviticus 11:2:

“These are the living things which ye may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth,”

proposing that the commandments came to purify (letzaref ‫ )לצרף‬the peoples (briot ‫)בריות‬:

“Every word of God is pure ]tzrufa[ (Prov. 30:5) - Rab said: This means the precepts
were given for the express purpose of purifying [letzaref ‫ ]לצרף‬peoples [briot ‫]בריות‬. Why
[must one assume] so much? Because it is said, “He is a shield to them that seek refuge in
Him” (Prov. 30:5). 455

454
Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444 CE) in his Against Julian refutes Julian’s criticism, noting that the
avoidance of pork from the beginning was spiritual and not physical: “The law is spiritual and does not
provide an explanation that stops at physical meanings. (…) So the voice of the Lord came down, not only
because God was rebuking him but also he was saying clearly, “What God has cleansed, you must not call
common.”(Acts 10:15) Then [Peter] immediately understood that the time had come when the shadows had
to be transformed into truth. And so the passage of the figures into truth fulfilled them and should not show,
as some people think, that they were placed there without a reason. Doubtless, the lawgiver does no t
consider a pig, or the other animals, now clean, now unclean. No, for he knows that they are well made, for
it is written, ‘And God saw all that he had made, and behold all was very good, and he blessed it.’(Gen.
1:31) For to the extent that each thing of creation has come to be and to the extent that it has been made, it
will only have, so I suppose, in itself what is good. So even though the pig cannot chew the cud, it is not
unclean, but rather is perfectly edible, and what is proper to something’s nature does not pollute it. As I
have said, the law was figures and shadows that remained ‘until the time of correction.’(Heb. 9:10)” Cyril
of Alexandria, Against Julian 9.318-19 [PG 76: 989-92]. Translation by Ancient Christian Commentary on
Scripture, New Testament, vol .V. Acts, ed. Francis Martin and Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove, IL: Inter
Varsity Press, 2006), 128. On Cyril’s interpretation of Acts 10 see: François Bovon, De Vocatione Gentium:
istoire de ’interpr tation d’Act. 10,1-11, 18 dans les six premiers siècles (Tübingen: Mohr, 1967), 123.
455
LevR 13.3. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 166-167, with slight
alteration.
‫ וכל כך‬.[‫ לא נתנו מצוות אלא לצרוף בהן את הביריות ]הבריות‬:'‫ רב אמ‬.)‫ ה‬,‫“כל אמרת אלוה צרופה מגן הוא לחוסים בו” (משלי ל‬
.)‫ ה‬,‫למה? “מגן הוא לחוסים בו” (משלי ל‬

165
 The idea that the one who fulfills God´s Commandments will be rewarded is

followed by the description of the banquet that God will arrange for the righteous in the

messianic era:

R. Judan b. R. Simeon said: Behemoth and the Leviathan are to engage in a wild-beast
contest [kinigin ‫ ]קניגין‬before the righteous in the Time to Come, and whoever has not
been a spectator at the wild-beast contests [kinigin ‫ ]קניגין‬of the nations of the world in
this world will be accorded the boon of seeing them in the World to Come. How will they
be slaughtered? Behemoth will, with its horns, pull Leviathan down and rend it, and
Leviathan will, with its fins, pull Behemoth down and pierce it through. The Sages said:
And is this a valid method of slaughter? Have we not learnt the following in a Mishnah:
“All may slaughter, and one may slaughter at all times [of the day], and with any
instrument except with a scythe, or with a saw, or with teeth [in a jaw cut out of a dead
animal], because they chok”? R. Abin b. Kahana said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said:
“Instruction [of the Torah] shall go forth from Me” (Is. 51:4), i.e. a new interpretation of
the Torah will go forth from Me. 456

The kinigin, from Greek (kynegionκυνήγιον) ‘chase’ or ‘hunt’ (kynegia) 457 refers

to the show of animal combat, as well as the place where this show took place. 458 The

symmetry of reward will make the ones who do not watch the non-Jewish games in this

456
LevR 13.3. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 166-167, with slight
alteration.
‫ וכל מי שלא ראה קיניגין שלאומות העולם בעולם הזה‬,‫ בהמות וליויתן הן קניגין שלצדיקים לעתיד לבוא‬:‫אמ' ר' יודן בר' שמעון‬
‫ והצדיקין‬.‫ כיצד הן נשחטין? בהמות נותן לליויתן בקרניו ונוחרו וליויתן נותן לבהמות בסנפיריו וקורעו‬.‫זוכה לראותן לעולם הבא‬
‫ ולא כך תנינן הכל שוחטין ובכל שוחטין ולעולם שוחטין חוץ ממגל קציר והמגירה והשינים והצפורן מפני‬,‫או' זו שחיטה כשירה היא‬
.‫ חידוש תורה מאיתי תצא‬,)‫ ד‬,‫ אמ' הקב"ה " תורה מאתי תצא" ( ישעיה נא‬:‫ אמ' ר' אבה בר כהנא‬.‫שהן חונקין‬
457
William K. Jr. Whitney, “The Place of the Wild Beast Hunt’ of Sib. Or. 3,806 in Biblical and
Rabbinic Tradition,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 25, no. 1 (1994): 68-81. Kimberly B. Stratton, ”The
Eschatological Arena: Reinscribing Roman Violence in Fantasies of the End Times,” Biblical
Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches 17, no 1-2 (2009): 45-76.
458
In Constantinople, the amphitheatre of Septimus Severus was known as the Kynegion. Joseph
Patrich proposed that this could also be the name of the amphitheatre in Caesarea in the time of the Rabbis
(see: Joseph Patrich, “Herod’s Hippodrome/Stadium at Caesarea in the Context of Greek and Roman
Contests and Spectacles,” in Studies in the History of Eretz Israel, presented to Yehuda Ben Porat, ed.
Yehoshua Ben-Arieh and Elchanan Reiner (Jerusaelm: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2003), 163 (Hebrew). Ze'ev
Weiss, “The Jews and the Games in Roman Caesarea,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two
Millennia, ed. Avner Raban, Kenneth G Holum, and Jodi Magnes, Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research. no. 308: 108 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 443-453. Ibid., “Roman Leisure Culture and Its
Influence upon the Jewish Population in the Land of Israel,” Qadmoniot 109 (1995): 2-19 (Hebrew). Ibid.
“The Jews of Ancient Palestine and the Roman Games: Rabbinic Dicta vs. Communal Practice,” Zion 66
(2001), 427-459 (Hebrew). Ibid., “Adopting a Novelty: The Jews and the Roman Games in Palestine,” The
Roman and Byzantine Near East: Recent Archaeological Research, II, ed. J. H. Humphrey, Journal of
Roman Archaeology, Supp. 31 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1999), 23 -49. R. Aha, a
third-centruy Amora who lived in Caesarea: “When the day of the Judgment arrives… you will be among
those who behold the punishement of the sinners rather than among those who are beheld receiving
punishment. You will be among the spectators rather than among the gladiators.” PRK. 28:3. see: Weiss,
“The Jews,”451.

166
world instead watch the messianic play. The question of the edibility of the slaughtering

of Behemoth and Leviathan contrasts implicitly the non-edible way of killing of animals

in the kinigin, but it is also a criticism of the idea that in the messianic era God will

change the Law.

This is a marginal idea in early rabbinical Judaism, but central in Christianity,

which argues that Jesus replaced the old Torah with a new one. 459 The midrash 460 reads

the “new Torah (‫ ”)תורה חדשה‬of Isaiah as a new interpretation of Torah ( ‫ )חידוש תורה‬which

will resolve the rabbinic question of the legality of Behemoth and Leviathan’s butchery.

To reinforce the idea of a reward for keeping the purity laws, another midrash is told

concerning the messianic banquet which this time is described as a reward for keeping

the food purity laws:

R. Berekiah said in the name of R. Isaac: In the Time to Come, the Holy One, blessed be
He, will make ariston [ ‫ אריסטון‬meal, banquet] 461 for his righteous servants, and whoever
has not eaten nebelah and trefa in this world will be merited to eat in the World to Come.
This is indicated by what is written, “And the fat that which dieth of itself (nebelah) and
the fat of that which is torn of beasts (terefah), may be used for any other service, but eat
it [ye shall] not,” in order that you may eat it in the Time to Come. For this reason did
Moses admonish Israel, saying to them: “This is the animal which ye shall eat.” Rabbi
Chiya says Moses was holding each animal and demonstrated it to Israel, and saying: this
is the animal you will eat and this is the one you will not eat. “These you may eat, of all
that are in the waters.” (Lev. 11:2) This is the animal you will eat and this is the one you
will not eat. “These you shall regard as detestable among the birds” (Ibid. 11:13). - This
is the animal you will detest and this is the one you will not detest. “These are unclean for
you” (Ibid. 11:29) - This is the unclean and this is unclean. “These are the creatures that
you may eat (Ibid. 11:2).”462

459
Abraham Joshua Heschel, Heavenly Torah: As Refracted Through the Generations, trans. Gordon
Tucker and Leonard Levin (New York: Continuum, 2005), 680-700.
460
According to Hananel Mack, the message of the midrash is that in the messianic era some
commandments include the laws of butchering. This possible reading does not seem to me the original
message of the midrash in the light of its context. Mack, “The Source,” 69.
461
Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (Ramat-
Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990), 75.
462
LevR 13.3. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 166-167, with slight
alteration.
‫ אריסטון גדול עתיד הקב" ה לעשות לעבדיו צדיקים לעתיד לבוא וכל מי שלא אכל נבילות וטרפות בעולם‬:‫ר' ברכיה בש' ר' יצחק‬
‫ בשביל שתאכלו‬,)‫ כד‬,‫ "חלב נבלה וחלב טרפה יעשה לכל מלאכה ואכל לא תאכלוהו" (ויקרא ז‬:‫ הה"ד‬,‫הזה זוכה לאכל בעולם הבא‬
‫ תני ר' חייא מלמד שהיה משה‬.)‫ ב‬,‫ "זאת החיה אשר תאכלו" (ויקרא יא‬:‫ לפיכך משה מזהיר את ישראל ואו' להן‬.‫ממנו לעתיד לבוא‬

167
 Again we find here the idea that one that avoids the forbidden foods in this world

will be recompensed by eating in the world to come. This is evident in reading Leviticus

7:24, “eat it [ye shall] not” and Leviticus 11:2, “these are the creatures that you may eat,”

as referring not just to the present but also to the future.

Leviticus Rabbah 13.4

After noting the meticulous nature of the food laws, the midrash turns from the

reward for keeping the commandments to the punishment in the opposite case:

[Returning to] the body [of the matter], said R. Abbahu, “It was a kind of fiery skull that
the Holy One, blessed be he, showed to Moses. He said to him, “If [during a slaughter]
the membrane of the brain is perforated, in any measure at all, [the beast is] invalid[ly
slaughtered and may not be eaten.]” Said R. Simeon b. Laqish, “If you have merit, you
shall eat. If you do not have merit, you shall be eaten – by the kingdoms.” Said R. Aḥa,
“It is written, “If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if
you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword (ḥerev ‫[ ;)חרב‬for the mouth of
the Lord has spoken]” (Is. 1:19-20). “You shall eat carobs (ḥaruvin ‫)חרובין‬.”For R. Aḥa
said, “When a Jew has [to resort to eating] carobs, he carries out repentance. And as
becoming is poverty for the Jews as a red ribbon on the chest of a white horse.” 463

The message is that Israel’s political condition is the consequence of the success

or failure of the Jews to keep the commandments. When Israel goes astray, it is eaten by

the nations, but its diet of misery (eating carob) serves as repentance.

‫ זה אכלו‬,)‫ ט‬,‫ את זה תאכלו מכל אשר במים" (ויקרא יא‬.‫ "זאת החיה אכלו וזאת לא תאכלו‬:‫אוחז בחיה ומראה להן לישראל וא' להן‬
‫ זה טמא‬,)‫ כט‬,‫ שם‬,‫"וזה לכם הטמא" (שם‬.‫ אלה תשקצו ואלה לא תשקצו‬,)‫ יג‬,‫ "את אלה תשקצו מן העוף" (ויקרא יא‬.‫וזה לא תאכלו‬
.)‫ ב‬,‫ שם‬,‫ זאת החיה אשר תאכלו (שם‬.‫וזה אינו טמא‬
463
LevR 13.4.
‫ אם ניקב קרום של מוח ואפילו כל‬:‫ כמין גלגלת שלאש הראה לו הקב"ה למשה מתחת כסא כבוד שלו ואמ' לו‬:‫ אמ' ר' אבהו‬.‫גופה‬
:‫ אמ' ריש לקיש‬.‫ החיה מטריפתה תאכלו ושאינה חיה מטריפתה לא תאכלו‬,)‫ ב‬,‫ "זאת החיה" (ויקרא יא‬:'‫ ורבנין אמ‬.‫שהוא פסולה‬
‫ כתיב " אם תאבו ושמעתם טוב הארץ תאכלו ואם תמאנו ומריתם חרב‬:‫ אמ' ר' אחא‬.‫אם זכיתם תאכלו ואם לאו תאכלו למלכיות‬
‫ צריך יהודאה לחרובה עבד תתובא ויאיא מסכינתא ליהודאי כי ערקתא‬:‫ דאמ' ר' אחא‬,‫ חרובין תאכלו‬,)‫כ‬- ‫ יט‬,‫תאכלו" ( ישעיה א‬
.‫סומקתא דעל ליביה דסוסיא חיורא‬

168
Leviticus Rabbah 13.5

The fourth section (13.5) relates a series of ten different readings of verses, where

the sages see a structure of “three-four,” in which they read the schemes of the four

kingdoms )Table 2(. This pattern, which is the most common in the Hebrew Bible (98

places),464 is composed of four elements: three which repeat each other or are analogous

and a fourth which creates a radical change which is the climax of the pattern. The

contradiction between the situation common to the first three elements and the fourth

creates tension and surprise and provides a general logic to the pattern. This is also the

overall pattern of section 13.5, which is divided into four parts (I-IV): Part I (“Adam saw

the four kingdoms…”) reads Genesis 2:11-14, which describes the four rivers that go out

from the garden of Eden as the four kingdoms. Part II (“Abraham saw the four

kingdoms…”) reads Genesis 15:12 which describes the falling of the night during God´s

blessing to Abraham in the Brit bein HaBetarim, the “Covenant Between the Parts,”

linking it to the animals mentioned in Deuteronomy 8:15. 465 Part III (“Daniel saw the

four kingdoms…”) refers to the four animals mentioned in Daniel 6:4, which is linked to

the animals mentioned in Jeremiah 5:6. Part IV (“Moses saw the four kingdoms…”)

refers to the four animals mentioned in Leviticus 11:6: the camel, the hare, the rock

badger, and the pig. In other words, the section moves from Paradise, and hence from

Creation to the Abramaic covenant (the Covenant Between the Parts), to Exodus (Deut.

464
Yair Zakovitch, ‘ or Three…and for our’ The Pattern of the umerica Sequence Three-Four in
the Bible (Jerusalem: Makor, 1979), 496 (Hebrew).
465
As Irit Aminoff notes, midrashim concerning the four kingdoms refers to different subjects, as
“creation in all its stages; the rivers flowing out of Eden, the convenant with Abraham, the four kings’ war,
the binding of Isaac, relations between Isaac and Esau, Jacob’s dream of the ladder, pairing of heroes
among Jacob’s sons with each of the four kingdoms, the halacha of leprosy, the red heifer, prohibition of
impure animals, the prophet’s visions, particularly Daniel’s of the four beasts, selection of Biblical verses
opposite the four kingdoms, Israel’s honour.” Aminoff, The Figure, 308.

169
8:15), then to the eschatological fourth beasts of the book of Daniel, to the animals

mentioned in Jeremiah 5:6 as the punishment God sent on Judah for it sins, and finally to

the purity of animal kinds in Leviticus (table 2).

Part Read Phrase/ Babylonia Media Greece Rome (Edom)

ing Empire
I 1 Gn 2:11-14 Pishon Gihon Tigris Euphrates
Adam
II 2 Gn 15:12 Dread Darkne Great Fell on him
Abraham ss
3 Deut. 8:15 Snake Serpent Scorpion Fell on him
4 Gn. 15:12 Fell on Great Darkness Horror
him
III 5 Daniel 6:4 Lion Bear Wolf The fourth beast
Daniel (Dan. 7:6)
6 Jeremiah Lion Wolf Leopard “Whoever goes
5:6 out from them
will be savaged”
IV 7 Lev. 11:6 Camel Hare Rock Pig
Moses badger
8 Lev. 11:6 Camel hare rock pig
badger
9 Lev. 11:6 Camel hare rock pig
badger
10 Lev. 11:6 Camel hare rock pig
badger
Table 2: The Four Kingdoms in Leviticus Rabbah 13.5.

We will now observe the texts referring to the pig. In part III, the fourth beast of

the book of Daniel is linked to the boar of Psalm 80:14:

Daniel beheld the empires engaged in their [subsequent] activities. “I saw in my vision by
night, and, behold, the four winds of the heavens broke forth upon the great sea. And four
great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from the other (Dan. 7:2).” If you will so
merit, it [the animal] will come up out of the sea, but if not, from the forest. An animal
coming up from the sea is timid, whereas if it comes from the forest, it is not tim id.
Similar is [the interpretation of] “The boar out the wood [ya’ar] doth ravage it (Ps.
80:14).” 466

466
LevR 13.5. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 171.
‫ וארבע חוון רברבן סלקן מן‬.‫ " חזי הוית בחזוי די ליליא וארו ארבע רוחי שמיא מגיחן לימא רבא‬.‫דניאל ראה את המלכיות בעיסוקן‬
‫ סלקא מן חורשא היא‬,‫ הדא חיותא כד סלקא מן ימא לית היא ממכיא‬.‫ אם זכיתם מן ימא ואם לאו מן חורשא‬.)‫ ג‬- ‫ ב‬,‫ימא" (דניאל ז‬
‫ הדא חיותא כד סלקא מן נהרא לית היא‬.‫ אם זכיתם מן היאור ואם לאו מן היער‬,)‫ יד‬,‫ דכואתא יכרסמנה חזיר מיער ( תהלים פ‬.‫ממכיא‬
.‫ סלקא מן חורשא היא ממכיא‬,‫ממכיא‬

170
 The pig out of the river (ye’or) refers probably to a certain kind of fish which is

called pig and which is not harmful to man. 467 The message of the midrash, that we have

seen above (in section 13.4), is clear: the political condition of Israel (subjection/ liberty)

does not depend so much on its relations with non-Jews but more on its relations with

God. When the Jews respect the commandments they are free, but when they do not they

are subjected to the nations. 468 This is an idea which the Mishnah formulated in the

saying: “Whoever accepts the yoke of Torah is relieved of the yoke of the empire, but

whoever shrugs off the yoke of Torah is subjected to the yoke of the empire.”469

In some manuscripts it is added, “The letter ‘ayin [in the word ya’ar] is suspended, [indicating that it might
be read as if ye’or (river), meaning]: If you will prove worthy it [i.e the boar] will come from the river, if
you will not prove worthy, from the wood; an animal coming from a river is timid, one coming from a
forest is not timid.”
The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, version A seems to link Psalms 80:14 with Rome: “Scripture
reads, The boar out of the wood (ya’ar) doth ravage it (Ps 80:14), but it is written, The boar our out of the
river (ye’or) doth ravage it. The boar out of the wood doth ravage it [according to one manuscript: ‘refers
to the Roman Empire’]. For when Israel does not do the will of God, the nations appear to them [Israel] like
the boar out out of the wood: even as the boar of the forests kills people and injures folk and smites men, so
too, so long as Israel does not do the will of God, the nations kill them [Israel] and injure them and smite
them. But so long as Israel does the will of God the nations do not rule over them. (Then the nations are)
like the boar out of the river: even as the boar of the rivers kills no people and harms no folk, so too, so
long as Israel does His will, no nation or people kills them or harms them or smites them. That is why it is
written, The boar out of the river.” The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan A 34. Translation by Goldin,
The Fathers, 138.
‫ שבזמן‬.]‫ יכרסמנה חזיר מיער [זו מלכות רומי‬.‫ יכרסמנה חזיר מיאור כתיב‬.)‫ " יכרסמנה חזיר מיער" (שם פ' י"ד‬:‫הרי הוא אומר‬
‫ מה חזיר מיער הורג נפשות ומזיק את הבריות ומלקה‬.‫שאין ישראל עושין רצונו של מקום אומות העולם דומות עליהם כחזיר מיער‬
‫ וכל זמן שישראל‬.‫בני אדם כך כל זמן שאין ישראל עושים רצונו של מקום אומות העולם הו רגין בהם ומזיקין בהם ומלקין אותן‬
‫ מה חזיר של יאור אינו הורג נפשות ואינו מזיק לבריות כך‬:‫עושים רצונו של מקום אין אומות העולם מושלין בהן כחזיר של יאור‬
.‫כל זמן שישראל עושין רצונו אין אומה ולשון הורגין בהן ומזיקין בהן ולא מלקין אותן לכך נכתב חזיר מיאור‬
467
This is probably a fish; several fish in Greek and Latin are called pig or boar, see: Alfred C.
Andrews, “Greek and Latin Mouse-Fishes and Pig-Fishes,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American
Philological Association 79 (1948): 232-253. Jacques André, “La part des suidés dans le vocabulaire grec
et latin,” Anthropozoologica 15 (1991): 8-11. Isidore of Seville (7th century) writes: “Shetfish (porcus
marinus. lit. “sea pigs”), commonly called suilli (lit. “small swine), are so named because when they seek
food they root up the earth underwater like swine.” Isidore of Seville, Etymology 12.6.12. Translation by
Stephen A. Barney, The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006),
260. In Arabic, the term khinzir (pig) is also used to designate several animals with a long muzzle : the
potamocherus of Africa is called khinzir al-nahr/al-mā (“Pig/boar of the river/water). See: F. Viré,
“Khinzir,” The Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. V (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 9.
468
On this idea in the rabbinic midrashim concerning Esau (Rome), see: Aminoff, The Figure, 208-212.
469
M. Avoth 3.5.
‫ נותנין‬,‫ מעבירין ממנו עול מלכות ועול דרך ארץ; וכל הפורק ממנו עול תורה‬,‫ כל המקבל עליו עול תורה‬:‫רבי נחוניה בן הקנה אומר‬
.‫עליו עול מלכות ועול דרך ארץ‬

171
 Most references to the pig are found in part IV of the midrash, in which the

pattern “three-four” is found in each of the four readings which make up this part as well

in the relations between the first three readings (7-9) and the last one (10). The first of the

four reads as follows (no. 7):

Moses foresaw the empires engaged in their [subsequent] activities. “The camel, the hare,
The Rockbadger,” (Deut. 14:7) “The camel [gamal]” - alludes to Babylon, of whom is
said, “[O daughter of Babylon, that art to be destroyed]; happy be he that repayeth thee
thy retributions [gemul] as thou hast dealt [gamal] with us” (Ps. 137:8). “The Rockbadger
alludes to Media. The Rabbis and R. Judah b. Simon gave different explanations. The
Rabbis said: just as the rock-badger possesses marks of uncleanness and marks of
cleanness, so too did Media produce a righteous man as well as a wicked man. R. Judah b.
R. Simon said: The last Darius was the son of Esther, clean from his mother[‘s side] and
unclean from his father[‘s side]. The hare alludes to Greece; the name of the mother of
Ptolemy was [Lagos, the Greek equivalent of] hare. The swine alludes to Edom [i.e.
Rome]. 470

The end of the reading emphasizes the particularity of the fourth beast (Rome):

Moses mentioned [the first] three of them in one verse, but the last [by itself] in another
verse. R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish gave explanations. R. Johanan said: Because
it [i.e. the swine] is on a par with the three others put together. R. Simeon b. Lakish said:
It is even more than that. R. Johanan raised an objection to the view of R. Simeon b.
Lakish [on the strength of the passage], “Thou, therefore, son of man, prophesy, and
smite hand to hand [and let the threefold sword [doubled]” (Ezekiel 21:19). What does
Resh Lakish do with this? [Resh Lakish replied: It is said]: “The threefold swords
doubled” (Ibid.). 471

In the next paragraph the midrash links the boar of psalm 80:14 with the pig of Leviticus

11:7:

For the metaphor of the ‘yoke’ ‫ עול‬see: Marijn Zwart, Reverence & Resistance The Term ‘ o e’ in
Matthew 11, 28-30 as Elucidated by the Theories of Bildfeld & Hidden Transcripts (M.A. Thesis, Utrecht:
Utrecht University, 2011).
470
LevR. 13.5. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 173-174.
‫ "אשרי שישלם לך את‬,‫" זו בבל‬, ‫ "את הגמל‬.)‫ ז‬,‫ "את הגמל ואת הארנבת ואת השפן" (דברים יד‬.‫משה ראה א ת המלכיות בעיסוקן‬
‫ רבנין אמ' מה השפן הזה יש בו סימני טומאה‬.‫ רבנין ור' יהודה בר' סימון‬.‫ זו מדי‬,"‫ "את השפן‬.)‫ ח‬,‫גמולך שגמלת לנו" ( תהלים קלז‬
‫ אמ' ר' יהודה בר' סימון דריוש האחרון בנה שלאסתר היה טהור מאמו וטמא‬.‫וסימני טהרה כך היתה מלכות מדי מעמדת צדיק ורשע‬
.‫ זה אדום‬,)‫ ח‬,‫ "ואת החזיר" (דברים יד‬.‫ אמו שלתלמי המלך ארנבת שמה‬,‫ זו יוון‬,‫ ואת הארנבת‬.‫מאביו‬
In some manuscripts the fourth beast (the pig) is not Rome but Persia. The exceptional identification of the
pig with Persia plays with the sonority of the Hebrew word for hoof: parsa ‫ פרסה‬and the Hebrew word for
Persia: paras ‫פרס‬.
471
LevR 13.5.
'‫ ור‬.‫ ר' יוחנן אמ' שהיא שקולה כנגד שלשתן‬.‫ למה? ר' יוחנן ור' שמעון בן לקיש‬,‫משה נתן שלשתן בפסוק אחד ולזו בפסוק אחד‬
,‫ דא מה עביד לה ר' שמעון בן לקיש‬,‫ מתיב ר' יוחנן לר' שמעון בן לקיש בן אדם הנבא והך כף אל כף‬.‫שמעון בן לקיש אמ' יתירא‬
.‫עביד לה ותיכפל‬

172
 R. Phinehas and R. Hilkiah, in the name of R. Simeon, said: Out of all the prophets, only
two, namely Asaph and Moses, named it [i.e. Rome]. Asaph said: “The boar (ḥa ir) out
of the wood doth ravage it” (Ps 80:14], Moses said: “And the pig (ḥa ir) [because it
parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean to you]”
(Lev. 11:7).” Why is it [i.e. Rome] compared to a ḥa ir [pig or boar]? – To tell you this:
Just as the pig when reclining puts forth its hooves as if to say: See that I am clean, so too
does the evil kingdom [Rome] boast as it commits violence and robbery, under the guise
of establishing a judicial tribunal. Once a governor in Caesarea who put to death the
thieves, adulterers, and sorcerers, said to his counselor: “I myself did these three things in
one night.”472

We find the same midrash in Genesis Rabbah 65.1 concerning Esau´s marriage at

the age of forty with Judith, the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath, the daughter

of Elon (Gn. 26:34), which is presented as a hypocritical behavior given that “until the

age of forty, Esau used to ensnare married women and violate them, yet when he attained

forty years he compared himself to his father, saying, ‘As my father was forty years old

when he married, so I will marry at the age of forty.’” (Gn. 26:34). 473 The midrash

creates unity between the Torah and Psalms, proposing that the criminal nature of the pig

(Rome) in Psalm 80:14 is explained in Leviticus 11:7. 474 Caesarea was the capital of the

province of Judea and hence the governor’s center. The governor in the midrash is hence

the highest Roman authority in the city which the sages saw as “small Rome,” and hence

represents the typological wicked Esau who is marked by his hoggish nature.

The second reading (no. 8) of the four animals of Leviticus 11:4-6 provides the

first explanation (out of three) for why Rome (the pig) is different from the three

preceding empires (beasts):

472
LevR. 13.5. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 174.
,‫ " יכרסמנה חזיר מיער" ( תהלים פ‬:'‫ אסף אמ‬,‫ אסף ומשה‬,‫ מכל הנביאים לא פירסמוה אלא שנים‬:‫ר' פינחס ור' חלקיה בש' ר' סימון‬
,‫" למה נמשלה בחזיר? לומר לך מה חזיר הזה בשעה שהוא רבוץ ומוציא טלפיו ואומר ראו שאנו טהור‬. ‫ "ואת החזיר‬:'‫ משה אמ‬.)‫יד‬
‫ מעשה בשלטון אחד בקיסרי שהיה הורג את‬.‫כך היתה מלכות הרשעה הזו מתגאה וחומסת וגוזלת ונראת כילו שהיא מצעת בימה‬
.‫הגנבים ואת המנאפין ואת המכשפין ואמ' לסנקליטין שלו שלשתן עשה אותו האיש בלילה אחד‬
473
GenR Toledoth 64.1. Translation by Freedman, Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, vol. II, 580. See:
Fraenkel, Darchei Aggadah VeHamidrash, vol. I, 220.
474
The image of the pig as pretending to be pure may recall the Greco-Roman proverb concerning the
pig as being emblematic of stupidity: “A pig teaching Minerva” (Sus docet Minervam).

173
 Another interpretation: The camel alludes to Babylon, “Because he extolleth with the
throat,” (Lev. 11:4) i.e. that it praised the Holy One, blessed be He. R. Berekiah and R.
Helbo said in the name of R. Samuel b. Nahman: All the expressions that David used
separately, that wicked man [viz. Nebuchadnezzar] included in one verse, as it is said,
“Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honour the King of Heaven; for all His
works are truth, and His ways justice; and those that walk in pride He is able to abase”
(Dan. 4:34). [Corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar’s expression] ‘praise, [David had said],
“Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem” (Ps. 147:12); [corresponding to] “extol,” [David had
said], “I will extol Thee, O Lord” (Ps. 30:2); [corresponding to] “honour,” [David had
said], “O Lord my God, Thou art very great; Thou art clothed with glory and honour” (Ps.
104:1); [corresponding to] “All His works are truth” [David had said], “For Thy mercy
and for Thy truth,” (Ps. 138:2); [corresponding to] ‘His way is justice,” [David had said],
“He will judge the peoples with equity (Ps. 96:10); [corresponding to] “Those that walk
in pride,” [David had said], “The Lord reigneth, He is clothed in pride (Ps. 93:1);
[corresponding to] “He is able to abase,” [David had said], “All the horns of the wicked
also will I cut off” (Ps 75:11).“And the rock-badger” alludes to Media, “He exalteth with
the throat” in that it extolled the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said, “Thus saith Cyrus,
king of Persia [All the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord, the God of the heavens, given
me, etc].” (Ezra 1:2). “And the Hare: alludes to Greece, She raiseth with the throat in that
it extolled the Holy One, blessed be He. Alexander of Macedon, when he saw Simeon the
Just, said: “Blessed be the Lord, God of Simeon the Just.” 475

While the first three empires exalt God, Rome blasphemes:

“The pig” (Lev. 11:7) - this refers to Edom. “For it does not chew the cud”- for it does
not give praise to the Holy One, blessed be he. And it is not enough that it does not give
praise, but it blasphemes and swears violently, saying, “Whom do I have in heaven, and
with you I want nothing on earth. (Ps. 73:25). 476

The third reading of the four beasts of Leviticus 11:4-6 (no. 9) states that while

the first three empires exalt the righteous, Rome kills them:

Another interpretation: The camel” (Lev. 11:4) - this refers to Babylonia. “For it chews
the cud” -for it exalts righteous men: “And Daniel was in the gate of the king” (Dan.
2:49). “The rock badger” (Lev. 11:5) - this refers to Media. “For it brings up the stranger”
- for it exalts the righteous men: “Mordecai sat at the gate of the king” (Est. 2:19). “The
hare” (Lev. 11:6) - this refers to Greece. “For it brings up the stranger” - for it exalts the

475
LevR 13.5. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 175.
‫ רבי ברכיה ורבי חלבו בשם ר' ישמעאל בר‬.‫ שמקלסת להקב"ה‬:)‫ ד‬,‫ "כי מעלה גרה היא" (ויקרא יד‬,‫ זו בבל‬- "‫ד"א "את הגמל‬
,‫ "כען אנה נבוכדנצר משבח ומרומם ומהדר למלך שמיא"(דניאל ד‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ כלל אותו רשע בפסוק אחד‬,‫ "כל מה שפרט דוד‬:‫נחמן‬
‫ "ה' אלהי גדלת מאד‬- "‫ "ומהדר‬.)‫ ב‬,‫ "ארוממך ה '"( תהלים ל‬- "‫ "ומרומם‬.)‫ "שבחי ירושלים את ה'" ( תהלים קמז‬- "‫ "משבח‬.)‫לד‬
‫ "די כל‬.)‫ ב‬,‫ "על חסדך ועל אמתך" ( תהלים קלח‬-)‫ לד‬,‫ (דניאל ד‬,"‫ "די כל מעבדוהי קשוט‬,)‫ א‬,‫הוד והדר לבשת" ( תהלים קד‬
"‫ "ה ' מלך גאות לבש‬- )‫ לד‬,‫ "ודי מהלכין בגוה" (דניאל ד‬.)‫ א‬,‫ " ידין עמים במישרים" ( תהלים צג‬- )‫ לד‬, ‫ארחתיה דין" (דניאל ד‬
‫ כי מעלה גרה‬,‫ זו מדי‬- "‫ "ואת השפן‬.)‫ יא‬,‫ "וכל קרני רשעים אגדע" ( תהלים עה‬- )‫ לד‬,‫ " יכיל להשפלה" (דניאל ז‬.)‫ א‬,‫( תהלים צג‬
‫ כי מעלת גרה היא שמקלסת‬,‫ זו יון‬- "‫ "ואת הארנבת‬.)‫ כ‬,‫ "כה אמר כורש מלך פרס" (עזרא א‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫הוא שמקלסת להקב"ה‬
."‫ "ברוך ה' אלהי של שמעון הצדיק‬:‫ אלכסנדרוס מוקדן כד הוה חמי לר"ש הצדיק אומר‬,‫להקב"ה‬
476
LevR 13.5.
‫ ולא דייה שאינה מקלסת אלא מחרפת‬, ‫ שאינה מקלסת לקב"ה‬,)‫ ז‬,‫ והוא גרה לא יגר (ויקרא יא‬.‫ זו אדום‬,)‫ ז‬,‫"את החזיר" (ויקרא יא‬
.)‫ כה‬,‫ "מי לי בשמים ועמך לא חפצתי בארץ" ( תהלים עג‬:‫ומגדפת ואומרת‬

174
 righteous. When Alexander of Macedonia saw Simeon the Righteous, he would rise up
on his feet. They said to him, “Can’t you see the Jew, that you stand up before this Jew?”
He said to them, “When I go forth to battle, I see something like this man’s visage, and I
conquer.” “The pig” (Lev. 11:7) - this refers to Rome.“ But it does not bring up the
stranger” - for it does not exalt the righteous. And it is not enough that it does not exalt
them, but it kills them. That is in line with the following verse of Scripture: “I was angry
with my people, I profaned my heritage; I gave them into your hand, you showed them no
mercy; on the aged you made your yoke exceedingly heavy” (Is. 47:6). This refers to R.
Akiba and his colleagues. 477

The last reading (no 10), which also closes the chapter, introduces the third

difference between the empires and Rome, which will not be followed by another empire:

Another interpretation [now treating “bring up the cud” (gera) as “bring along in its
train”]: “The camel” (Lev. 11:4) - this refers to Babylonia. “Which brings along in its
train” - for it brought along another kingdom after it. “The rock badger” (Lev. 11:5) - this
refers to Media. “Which brings along in its train” - for it brought along another kingdom
after it. “The hare” (Lev. 11:6) -this refers to Greece. “Which brings along in its train” -
for it brought along another kingdom after it. “The pig” (Lev. 11:7) - this refers to Rome.
“Which does not bring along in its train” - for it did not bring along another kingdom
after it. And why is it then called “pig” (ḥa ir)? For it restores (meḥazeret) the crown to
the one who truly should have it [namely, Israel, whose dominion will begin when the
rule of Rome ends]. That is in line with the following verse of Scripture: “And saviors
will come up on Mount Zion to judge the Mountain of Esau [Rome], and the kingdom
will then belong to the Lord (Ob. 1:21). 478

In sum, the three readings give a different sense to the blemished sign of the pig

in Leviticus, that it does not chew the cud: the first reads it as a sign that Rome “does not

exalt the righteous;” the second, that Rome “does not give praise to the Holy One,

blessed be he. And it is not enough that it does not give praise, but it blasphemes and

swears violently;” and finally that “it did not bring along another kingdom after it.” The

477
LevR 13.12. Translation by Neusner, Judaism and Christianity, 222.
‫ כי‬.‫" זו מדי‬, ‫ "ואת השפן‬.)‫ מט‬,‫ "ודניאל בתרע מלכא" (דניאל ב‬,‫ שמגדלת את הצדיקים‬,‫ כי מעלה גרה הוא‬.‫" זו בבל‬, ‫ד"א "את הגמל‬
,‫ כי מעלת גרה היא‬.‫" זו יוון‬,‫ "ואת הארנבת‬.)‫ יט‬,‫ " ומרדכי ישב בשער המלך" (אסתר ב‬,‫ שמגדלת את הצדיקים‬,‫מעלה גרה הוא‬
,‫ אלכסנדרוס מקדון כד הוה חמי לשמעון הצדיק הוה קאים על ריגליה אמ' ליה יהודאי לית את יכיל למיחמי‬.‫שמגדלת את הצדיקים‬
", ‫ "והוא גרה לא יגר‬.‫" זו אדום‬,‫ "ואת החזיר‬.‫ בשעה שאני יוצא למלחמה כדמותו אני רואה ונוצח‬:‫ אמ' להן‬,‫מן קדם יהודיי את קאים‬
,)‫ ו‬,‫ "קצפתי על עמי חללתי נחלתי ואתנם בידך" ( ישעיה מז‬:‫ הה"ד‬,‫ ולא דייה שאינה מגדלת אלא הורגת‬,‫שאינה מגדלת את הצדיקים‬
.‫זה ר' עקיבה וחביריו‬
478
LevR 13.13. Translation by Neusner, Judaism and Christianity, 222-223.
.‫ שגררה מלכות אחריה‬,‫ כי מעלה גרה הוא‬.‫" זו מדי‬, ‫ "את השפן‬.‫ שגררה מלכות אחריה‬,‫ כי מעלה גרה הוא‬.‫" זו בבל‬, ‫ד"א "את הגמל‬
‫ שלא גררה מלכות‬,‫ והוא גרה לא יגר‬,‫" זו אדום‬,‫ "ואת החזיר‬.‫ שגררה מלכות אחריה‬,‫ כי מעלה גרה הוא‬,‫" זה יוון‬,‫"את הארנבת‬
"‫ " ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון לשפט את הר עשו והיתה לי" י המלוכה‬:‫ הה"ד‬,‫ ולמה נקרא שמה חזיר? שמחזרת עטרה לבעלה‬.‫אחריה‬
.)‫ כא‬,‫(עובדיה א‬

175
last reading is reinforced by the midrash name for the word pig (ḥa ir): “And why is it

then called “pig” (ḥa ir)? For it restores (meḥazeret) the crown to the one who truly

should have it [namely, Israel, whose dominion will begin when the rule of Rome

ends].”479 Hence, the impure nature of the pig incarnates Rome’s crimes against God a nd

his nation, but also Rome’s future fall and punishment and Israel’s final triumph. The

fourth kingdom, Rome, Edom, the pig, will fall and will raise the fifth and final kingdom,

Israel, after the future revenge prophesized in Obadiah 1:21: “And saviors will come up

on Mount Zion to judge the Mountain of Esau [Rome], and the kingdom will then belong

to the Lord.” 480

Discussion

In all four sections of the midrash (13.2-5), the main message is: The fulfillment

of the commandments is a sign of Israel’s superiority over the nations (13.2). If Israel

follows the law, it will be rewarded (13.3), if Israel does not follow the law, it will be

punished (13.3); Israel´s subjection to Rome is part of a divine plan. Rome is the worst of

the four kingdoms, but also the final kindom (13.5) (table 3). Through the midrash, we

can see the dialectics of eating which function with several contradictions: to eat - to be

eaten; to avoid eating – to be rewarded by eating; and not to eat now (in this world) – to

eat in the future (in the world to come). Israel should avoid eating impure food in this

world but will eat the messianic meal; Israel in this world is eaten by the nations of the

world but will eat them in the world to come. Hence, passivity, which is the outcome of

powerlessness, which is symbolized by the simile of being eaten, is transformed into an

479
LevR 13.13.
480
LevR 13.13. Translation by Neusner, Judaism and Christianity, 222-223.
.)‫ " ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון לשפוט את הר עשו והיתה לה' המלוכה" (עובדיה א‬:‫הדא הוא דכתיב‬

176
active power. This is achieved by portraying avoidance of impure food as the “real” field

of battle and by projecting it to the messianic future where Israel will receive its

recompense, and actively eat.

Section Content Main Ideas

13.2 God elects the generation - Israel’s Election is the dis-election of the
of the desert, Mount nations.
Moriah, Jerusalem, Mount - The release of the nations from the
Sinai, the land of Israel. commandments demonstrates their inferiority.

God permits Israel “to eat” The release of the nations from the law is not a
the nations of Canaan sign of liberty but of subjection.
(their lives, land, and
goods).
- The parable of the donkey The burdening of the commandments
and the dog demonstrates the superiority of the Jews.
- The parable of the doctor
and the two patients
13.3 The aim of the - In the world to come, the Jews will be
Commandments recompensed for their keeping of the Law.

The banquet of Behemot - The Torah is eternal (there will not be a new
and Leviathan in the Torah in the messianic era).
World to Come
- God will recompense those that will keep his
The ariston [banquet] for Law.
the righteous in the World
to Come - The eternity of the Law
- God will recompense those who keep the food
laws.
13.4. God showed Moses a fiery Israel´s political condition (freedom/
skull. subjection) is conditioned by its observance of
the Law.
13.5 The four kingdoms Israel’s subjection to the four kingdoms is part
of the divine plan announced by all the
prophets.
The fourth kingdom (Rome=Pig) is
distinguished from the three empires preceding
it. It is the worst but the last. After its fall,
Israel will be redeemed.

Table 3: The Structure and message of Leviticus Rabbah 13.2-5.

177
 We can see a strong symmetry in the construction of the midrash which follows

the pattern “three-four,” in which the fourth element is different from the three

preceeding and consists of a climax of all the elements. The chapter concerning Leviticus

11:1-7 is divided into four sections (13.2-5); the fourth section (13.5) is divided into four,

while each of the ten readings include a variety of verses according to the pattern of

“three-four”(fig. 22).

1 2 3 4

a
Readings

Fig. 22: The three-four model in Leviticus Rabbah 13.

We find here the two types of symmetry which Chaim Milikowsky observes in

midrash Seder Olam: moral and esthetic. The moral symmetry is one of the faces of “a

measure for a measure” (‫)מדה כנגד מדה‬, or as the Mishanah says: “According to the

measure that a person measures, with it do we measure him” (m. Sota 1.7), while the

esthetic symmetry provides a sense of order in the divine historic plan. 481 As Gerson D.

Cohen notes, “It was not out of love for the art of history that the rabbis sought symmetry,

but out of a passionate longing for the messianic redemption. Schematology always

481
Chaim Milikowsky, “The Symmetry of History in Rabbinic Literature: The Special Numbers of
Seder Olam, Chapter Two,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 11 (1993): 45 (Hebrew).

178
betrays a very superficial interest in the events themselves, but a deep desire to unravel

their meaning and their place in the plan of history as a whole.” 482 History is a repetitive

pattern. The sages read the diverse texts following the idea of the unity of Torah ( ‫אחדות‬

‫)המקרא‬: all the texts are understood as decoding the same basic idea, that of the four

kingdoms. This unity of scriptures is imagined as unity of time (Adam, Abraham, Daniel,

Moses) and as unity between prophecy and Law, practice and history. This structure

placed special importance on the pig (=Rome) and resolved in a sense the problem posed

by the actual importance of the avoidance of pork due to the tensions between Jews and

eaters of pork in the Greco-Roman world.

As proposed above, a few ideas in the midrash can be understood as constituting a

polemic with Christianity, mainly the rejection of the idea that the commandments are but

a yoke and a burden. As Joseph Heinemann notes (1971):

All sections of this homily refer, in one way or another, to animals and the eating of their
meat; yet, instead of dealing with details of the precepts, they put the entire chapter into
an utterly new perspective. Far from being a burden, the dietary laws are a token of
distinction for Israel, a means by which they are set apart from other nations and will,
eventually, inherit life in the World-to-Come. If they refrain from participating in the
wild-beast contests and from eating forbidden meat in this world, incomparably greater
pleasures are in store for them in the future. And this very chapter, apparently but
enumerating the list of forbidden animals, is in truth foretelling the messianic redemption.
In this as in other homilies the author deals by implication with acute problems of his
time. Not only does he hold up the hope of redemption and demonstrate that Israel's
subjugation to Roman rule is but temporary, he also summarily rejects the idea that the
commandments are but a yoke and a burden — as was claimed by Christianity in its
polemics against Judaism. 483

Jacob Neusner, in Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History,

Messiah, Israel, and the Initial Confrontation (1987), linked the sages’ identification of

482
Gerson D. Cohen, “The Symmetry of History,” in Abraham Ibn Daud, The Book of Tradition (Sefer
Ha-Qabalah), ed. Gerson, D. Cohen (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1967), 213.
483
Joseph Heinemann, “Profile of a Midrash: The Art of Composition in Leviticus Rabba.” Journal of
the American Academy of Religion 39, no. 2. (1971): 147-148.

179
Rome with the pig to Jerome’s allegorical exegesis of the two signs of purity of four

footed animals (the parted hoof and the chewing of the cud):

The Jew is single-hoofed and therefore he is unclean. The Manichean is single hoofed
and therefore he is unclean. And since he is single-hoofed he does not chew what he eats,
and what has once gone into his stomach he does not bring up again and chew and make
fine, so that what had been coarse would return to the stomach fine. This is indeed a
matter of divine mystery. The Jew is single-hoofed, for he believes in only one Testament
and does not ruminate; he only reads the letter and thinks over nothing, nor does he seek
anything deeper. The Christian, however, is cloven-hoofed and ruminates. That is, he
believes in both Testaments and he often ponders each Testament, and whatever lies
hidden in the letter he brings forth in the spirit. 484

As Neusner (1987) notes, Rome in Leviticus Rabbah “bore some traits that

validate, but lacked others that validate – just as Jerome said of Israel. It would be

difficult to find a more direct confrontation between two parties to an argument. Now the

issue is the same – who is the true Israel? – and the proof-texts are the same; moreover,

the proof-texts are read in precisely the same way. Only the conclusions differ.” 485 For

Neusner, the image of the pig w hich pretends to be pure summerizes the main anti-

Christian polemical message of the chapter:

The polemic represented in Leviticus Rabbah by the symbolization of Christian

Rome makes the simple point that, first, Christians are no different from, and no better
than, pagans; they are essentially the same. The Christians’ claim to form part of Israel,
then, requires no serious attention. Since Christians came to Jews with precisely that
claim, the sages’ response -they are another Babylonia - bears a powerful polemic charge.
But that is not the whole story, as we see. Second, just as Israel had survived Babylonia,
Media, and Greece, so would it endure to see the end of Rome (whether pagan, whether
Christian). But there is a third point. Rome really does differ from the earlier, pagan
empires, and that polemic shifts the entire discourse, once we hear its symbolic
vocabulary properly. Christianity was not merely part of a succession of undifferentiated
modes of paganism. The symbols assigned to Rome attributed worse, more dangerous
traits than those assigned to the earlier empires. The pig pretends to be clean, just as the
Christians give the signs of adherence to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That

484
Jerome, Tractates on Psalms 95.2. Translation by Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Church
Fathers (New York: Paulist, 1985), 25-26. Allegorical interpretation of these signs is found as early as
Pseudo-Aristeas, Letter of Aristeas 150-154 in the second century BCE and in Philo of Alexandria The
Special Laws 4.18-19.106-109; On Husbandry 33. 143-145 in the first century CE.
485
Neusner, Judaism and Christianity, 102.

180
 much the passage concedes. For the pig is not clean, exhibiting some, but not all, of the
required indications, and Rome is not Israel, even though it shares Israel’s Scripture. 486

Neusner’s reading makes the polemic with Christianity the leitmotiv of the

Leviticus Rabbah and Genesis Rabbah, but what are the proof texts for this reading? The

midrashic presentation of the Empire as pretending to be pure can be understood as

targeting the Empire’s discourse, which presents its action as just and beneficial to

humanity, and not just against the Christian claim to be true Israel. Neusner argues that

the fourth century, or the age of Constantine, was a dramatic turning point in Jewish-

Christians relations:

The age of Constantine, the fourth century (roughly, from 312, when Constantine
extended toleration to Christianity, to 429, when the Jewish government of the Land of
Israel ceased to enjoy the recognition of the state), marks the period in which Christianity
joined the political world of the Roman Empire. In that century Christianity gained power,
briefly lost it, and, finally, regained the power that assured its permanent domination of
the state. Christians saw Israel as God’s people, rejected by God for rejecting the Christ.
Israel saw Christians, now embodied in Rome, as Ishmael, Esau, Edom: the brother and
the enemy. The political revolution marked by Constantine’s conversion forced the two
parties to discuss a single agendum and defined the terms in which each would take up
that agendum. 487

However as Adiel Schremer noted recently, “contrary to prevalent scholarly

opinion, Constantine’s conversion and the resulting Christianization of the Roman

Empire were, from the rabbinic point of view, of relatively little significance. Palestinian

rabbis of late antiquity continued to view Rome as a powerful oppressor, without paying

much attention to its new religious character.” 488 The historical reality was probably

somewhere between these two scholarly opinions. However, what is important for my

discussion here is the lack of any direct reference to Christianity in the midrash itself. If

the midrash represents the subtext of the dominated and it indeed targets Christianized

486
Ibid. Italics mine.
487
Ibid, 1.
488
Adiel Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 22.

181
Rome, why does it not directly point to it? One possible explanation is the refusal of the

sages to follow the Christian reading of the Christianization of the Empire as a turning

point. If for Christianity the Empire changed its nature by embracing the true faith, the

sages insist on the continuity by repeatedly describing the empire as being as unj ust as

before. Thus: while for Christians “all changes,” for the sages “nothing changes.” There

was no need to Christianize Rome. The need was rather to refuse to recognize the

supposed change in the empire’s nature.

182
 Chapter 8
The Boar out of the Wood
As we have seen, in Genesis Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah, Esau, Rome, and the

fourth empire are identified with the “boar out of the wood” of Psalm 80:14. We will now

discuss the interpretation of this verse in other rabbinical texts (mainly Sifre 316-317 and

b. Pesaḥim 118b) and in Christian exegesis (Augustine, Eucherius of Lyons, and

Cassiodorus). However, first we will observe in some detail the scriptural context of

Psalm 80:14. 489 A prayer for the restoration of the ravaged vineyard [Israel] of the

Shepherd of Israel [God], the psalm starts with an invocation and petition (vv 2-4),

followed by a lamentation (vv. 5-8) which serves as a prologue to the main section of the

psalm, the parable of the vine (vv. 9-20),which itself may be divided into three parts: 1)

A recitation of God’s saving acts (vv. 9-12), 2) a description of the vine’s present

condition (vv 13-17a), and 3) petitions and a vow (vv. 17b-20). As Marvin E. Tate

explains, the parable of the vine is an “extended metaphor of Yahweh’s great vine which

he took from Egypt and planted in his land. In the vineyard that was Israel, the vine once

spread its branches and tendrils until it transformed a large territory into a vineyard and

covered mountains and mighty cedars with its shade. But now the great vine is ravaged,

uprooted by wild hogs and trampled by vagrants who pluck its fruit as they will.” 490 The

historical pattern of the psalm is that of salvation-enslavement-redemption, going from

God´s salvation of Israel from Egypt, to the giving of the Promised Land, to the

489
Ps. 80 is dated by some to the eighth century BCE. As Craig C. Broyles notes, “Ps. 80 has been
variously considered to reflect every national crisis from the tenth century division of the kingdom to the
time of Maccabees. The most plausible conjectures locates the psalm either in 732 -722 BC when the
northern tribes were under threat (…) or in the time of Josiah and his reform.” Craig C. Broyles, The
Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A Form-Critical and Theological Study (Sheffield,
England: JSOT Press, 1989), 161.
490
Marvin E. Tate, Psalms. 51-100 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990), 316.

183
 punishment of Israel for its sins by a foreign force, and finally to the future redemption

(table 4).

Structure Text Event

I. Invocation and 1: To the Conductor. According to ‘Lilies’. A Hope for future
petition (vv 2-4) testimony. To Asaph. A Psalm. redemption
2: Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou who
hast led Joseph like a flock! Thou who art
enthroned upon the cherubim, appear!
3: Before Ephraim and Benjamin and
Manasseh stir up thy might and come to save
us!
4: Restore us, O God; let thy face shine, that
we may be saved!
II. Lamentation 5: O Lord’ ‘Sabaoth, how long wilt thou be Israel’s present
(vv 5-8) angry with thy people’s prayer? suffering
6: Thou hast fed them with the bread of tears,
and given them tears to drink in full measure.
7: Thou didst make us a strife to our
neighbours, and our enemies mock at us.
8: Restore us, O God Sabaoth; let thy face
shine, that we may be saved!
III. Parable of the vine
1. Recitation of God’s 9: Thou didst bring a vine out of Egypt; Thou The Exodus from
saving acts (vv 9-12) didst drive out the nations and plant it. Egypt.
10: Thou didst clear the ground for it; it took
deep root and filled the land. The conquest of the
11: The mountains were covered with its Promised Land
shade, the cedars of God with its braches;
12: It sent out its tendrils to the sea, and its
branches to the river.
2. Description of the 13: Why hast thou broken down its walls, Israel’s present
vine’s present so that all who pass along the way pluck its destruction
condition (vv13-17a) fruit?
14: The boar from the forest ravages it, and
the beasts of the field feed on it.
15: Return to us, O God Sabbaoth! Look
down from heaven, and see, and visit this
vine,
16: the sapling which thy right hand planted,
and the son whom thou hast reared for
thyself!
17: It is burned with fire and hacked to pieces;

184
3. Petitions and vow
(vv 17b-20)
they perish at the rebuke of thy countenance. The future redemption
18: Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right
hand, the son of man whom thou hast reared
for yourself!
19: We will not part from thee; thou givest us
life that we may call on thy name;
20: Restore us, O Lord’ ‘Sabaoth! Let thy
face shine, that we may be saved. 491

Table 4: Structure and content of Psalm 80

If verse 80:14 is a metaphor for Israel’s enemy who destroyed the vineyard

(Israel/ Temple),492 it is inscribed in a divine historical plan and hence carries both the

idea of destruction and the hope for redemption. This scriptural context made Psalm

80:14 particularly apt for transferring an eschatological interpretation of Israel´s

subjection by Rome in the Rabbinic literature.

Sifri Numbers 316-317

One of the earlier (end of the 3 rd cent.?)493 references to Psalm 80:14 is found i n

Sifri on umbers’ interpretation of verses thirteen and fourteen of Deuteronomy thirty

two. These verses are part of the blessing and warning God gave to the Israelites before

Moses´ death and their crossing of the Jordan into the Holy Land (known as “the song of

Moses ‫)”שירת האזינו‬.494 The midrash offers four different readings following the patter n

“three-four” [see table 5]. The first reading evokes the time of the Israelites’ conquest of

491
Weiser, The Psalms, 546.
492
In the Masoretic text, the letter ayin ‫ ע‬of the word ya’ar (forest) is suspended above the line [ ‫]יער‬. It
was proposed that it is a clue to a change of the original text which read ḥa ir meyeor (‫“ )חזיר מיאור‬boar of
the Nile,” referring to Egypt, while ḥa ir meya’ar (‫ )חזיר מיער‬refers to Rome. But, as Marvin E. Tate notes,
“the suspension is more likely due to the fact that this was assumed to be the middle consonant of entire
Plaster.” Tate, Psalms, 307.
493
Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 297.
494
Deuteronomy 32:13-14: “13: He made him ride on the high places of the earth and he did eat the
fruitage of the field and He made him to suck honey out of the crag, and oil out of the flinty rock. 14: Curd
of kine and milk of sheep with fat of lambs and rams of the breed of Bashan and hegoats with the kidney-
fat of wheat and the blood of the grape thou drankest foaming wine.”

185
the Promised Land, and the bounty of the Holy Land in the past; the second speaks of the

Temple cult; the third of Torah learning; and the fourth, which will be discussed here, of

the bondage to Rome:

Another interpretation: “He made him ride on the high places of the earth” (Deut.
32:13) – this refers to the world, as it is said, “The boar out of the wood doth ravage it,”
[that which moveth in the field feedeth on it] (Ps. 80:14) – “and he did eat the fruitage of
the field” (Deut. 32:13) – this refers to the four kingdoms – “and He made him to suck
honey out of the crag, and oil out of the flinty rock” (31:53) – this refers to the oppressors
[metzikim]495 who have taken possession of the Land of Israel, and from which it is as
difficult to extract a pĕrutah [a penny] as from rock; but in the near future Israel will
inherit all of their possessions and will derive pleasure from them as from oil and honey.
“Curd of kine” (Deut. 32:14) – this refers to their consuls [pitkim] and their generals
[hagmonim] – “and milk of sheep” (Deut. 32:14) – this refers to their colonels
[klirikim] – “and rams” (Deut. 32:14) – this refers to their centurions [kintornim] – “of the
breed of Bashan” (Deut. 32:14) – this refers to the privileged soldiers [benifikarim = lat.
beneficarius], who extract (food) from between the teeth – “and hegoats” (Deut. 32:14) –
this refers to their senators [snokolitim] – “with the kidney-fat of wheat” – this refers to
their noble ladies [metroniot = lat. matrona] – “and the blood of the grape thou drankest
foaming wine” (Deut. 32:14) – in the near future Israel will inherit their possessions and
will derive pleasure from them as from oil and honey. 496

The paragraph opens with the reading of Deuteronomy 23:13 in the light of Psalm

80:14. The textual connection between the two verses was probably that both have the

word “field – ‫ ”שדי‬in them:

Deut. He made him ride on the high places of the and he did eat the fruitage
32:13 earth of the field.
Ps. The boar out of the wood doth ravage it [that which moveth in the
80:14 field feedeth on it].

With this link, the fourth and final reading of the midrash of Deuteronomy 32:13

creates a surprise: while the first three readings create an idyllic climate, interpreting the

495
For the term “metzikim” see: Herr, Roman Rule, 52-53.
496
Sifre 317. Translation by Reuven Hammer, Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of
Deuteronomy (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1986), 324, with slight alteration.
‫ אלו ארבע‬- "‫ " ויאכל תנובות שדי‬.(‫ יכרסמנה חזיר מיער ) תהלים פ יד‬:‫ זה העולם שנאמר‬,"‫ " ירכיבהו על במתי ארץ‬:‫דבר אחר‬
,‫ אלו מציקים שהחזיקו בה בארץ ישראל והם קשים להוציא מהם פרוטה כצור‬- "‫ " ויניקהו דבש מסלע ושמן מחלמיש צור‬.‫מלכיות‬
‫"עם חלב‬,‫ אלו הפיטקים והגמונים שלהם‬- "‫"חמאת בקר‬.‫למחר הרי ישראל יורשים נכסיהם והם עריבים עליהם כשמן וכדבש‬
- "‫"ועתודים‬.‫ אלו בניפיקרין המוציאים מבין שניים‬- "‫ "בני בשן‬.‫ אלו קינטרונים שלהם‬- "‫ "ואילים‬.‫ אלו כליריקים שלהם‬- "‫כליות‬
‫ למחר הרי ישראל יורשים נכסיהם‬- "‫ "ודם ענב תשתה חמר‬.‫ אלו מטרניאות שלהם‬- "‫ "עם חלב כליות חטה‬.‫אלו סנוקליטים שלהם‬
.‫ועריבים להם כשמן ודבש‬

186
verses as standing for the blessing of the Israelites (the Land of Israel, the Temple, and

Torah), the fourth addresses Rome. However, we can see here how the four readings

together create an order: the first reading reminds us of the blessing which the people of

Israel enjoyed in their land in the past; the second reminds us of the Temple cult; the third

speaks of the Torah learning, which is the sages’ occupation, while the fourth describes

the future redemption from Roman subjection. The midrash proposed that the blessing of

Deuteronomy 32:13-14 will comfort the destruction caused by the boar in Psalm 80:14.

Hence a symmetry is created between the blessing and the curse; the past and future;

subjection and redemption, between “being eaten” right now (by the boar = Rome) and

the future eating of the oppressors of Israel (= the Romans). A shift is created in time

from the world of the Temple to the world of the sages, from sacrifices to Torah learning,

making the study and fulfillment of the Torah the key to redemption, a condition for the

messianic “eating” of Rome.

187
 Deuteronomy Readings
32:1-14 1 2 3 4
Past’s Temple’s cult To rah’s Subjection and
blessing learning Redemption
He made him Land of Temple Torah World (=Rome)
ride on the Israel = the boar of Ps.
high places of 80:14
the earth
and he did eat Fruits of the Offering baskets Scripture Fourth kingdom
the fruitage of land of of first fruits
the field Israel (Bikurim)
and He made Figs of Libations of oil Mishnah Oppressors who
him to suck Siknin; olive have taken
honey out of of Gush possession of the
the crag, Halab Land of Israel,
and oil out of Talmud which in the near
the flinty rock. future Israel will
inherit
Curd of kine Solomon’s Sin offering Inferences Consuls and their
times form the minor generals
and milk of to the major, Colonels
sheep analogies,
with fat of Ten tribes’ rules, and
lambs times answers (to
arguments)
and rams Centurions
of the breed of Privileged
Bashan soldiers
and hegoats Senators
with the Solomon’s Offering of flour Laws that are Noble ladies
kidney-fat of time the essence of
wheat Torah
and the blood Ten-tribes’s Libations of Homiletic Israel will derive
of the grape time wine lessons that pleasure from
thou drinkest attract man’s them as from oil
foaming wine. heart like wine and honey
Table 5: The reading of Deuteronomy 32: 13-14 in Sifre 316-317.

Bavli Pesaḥim 118b

In Bavli Pesaḥim 118b, the boar of psalm 80:14 is found in a midrash which links

psalm 117:1 497, which describes the praising of the Lord by the nations in the messianic

497
Ps. 117:1. “Praise the Lord, all you nations! Extol him, all you peoples! 2 For great is his steadfast
love toward us, and the faithfulness of the Lord endures forever. Praise the Lord!”
. ‫ ַהלְּלּו י ָּה‬- ‫ וֶאֱ מֶ ת י ְּהוָה לְּעֹולָם‬, ‫ כִי גָבַר ָעלֵינּו ַח ְּסדֹו‬.‫ב‬. ‫שַ בְּחּוהּו כָל הָאֻׁ מִ ים‬, ‫ַהלְּלּו אֶ ת י ְּהוָה כָל ּגֹוי ִם‬

188
era, to psalm 68:30-32, which describes the future punishment of Israel’s enemies by God

and how the nations of the world in the messianic era will praise the Lord and bring gifts

to the Temple.498 The first part of the midrash argues that Israel has more reasons tha n

other nations to praise the Lord:

Said R. Kahana, 499 “When R. Ishmael b. R. Yosé fell ill, 500 Rabbi sent word to him:501
‘Tell us two or three of the things that you said to us in the name of your father.’ “He sent
word to him, ‘This is what father said: “What is the meaning of the verse of Scripture,
‘Praise the Lord all your nations (Ps. 117:1)? What are the nations of the world doing in
this setting? This is the sense of the statement, ‘Praise the Lord all you nations (Ps. 117:1)
for the acts of might and wonder that he has done with them; all the more so us, since ‘his
mercy is great toward us.’” 502

The second part of the midrash describes how God will accept gifts from Egypt

and Ethiopia:

“And further: “Egypt is destined to bring a gift to the Messiah. He will think that he
should not accept it from them. The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah,
‘Accept it from them, they provided shelter for my children in Egypt.’ Forthwith: ‘Nobles
shall come out of Egypt bringing gifts’ (Ps. 68:32). The Ethiopians will propose an
argument a fortiori concerning themselves, namely: ‘If these, who subjugated them, do
this, we, who never subjugated them, all the more so!’ The Holy One, blessed be He, will
say to the Messiah, ‘Accept it from them.’ Forthwith: ‘Ethiopia shall hasten to stretch out
her hands to God’ (Ps. 68:32). 503

498
Ps 68: 30-33. “Rebuke the wild animals that live among the reeds, the herd of bulls with the calves
of the peoples. Trample under foot those who lust after tribute; scatter the peoples who delight in war. Let
bronze be brought from Egypt; let Ethiopia hasten to stretch out its hands to God. Sing to God, O kingdoms
of the earth; sing praises to the Lord, Selah.”
. ‫ִירים ְּבעֶגְּלֵי עַמִים מִ תְּ ַרפֵס ב ְַּרצֵי ָכסֶף ִבזַר עַמִ ים קְּ ָרבֹות י ֶ ְּח ָפצּו‬
ִ ‫ ּגְּעַר ַחי ַת קָ נֶה עֲדַ ת אַ ב‬.‫לא‬. ‫מֵ הֵי ָכלֶָך עַל י ְּרּושָ ָ ִל ם לְָּך יֹובִילּו מְּ ָלכִים שָי‬
.‫ָָארץ שִ ירּו לֵאֹלהִים זַמְּ רּו אֲ דֹנ ָי ֶסלָה‬
ֶ ‫ מַ מְּ לְּכֹות ה‬.‫ לג‬. ‫ י ֶאֱ תָיּו חַשְּ מַ נִים מִ נִי מִ צְּרָ י ִם כּוש תָ ִריץ י ָדָיו לֵאֹלהִים‬.‫לב‬
See: Samuel L. Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids,
Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2003), 485-496.
499
Rabi Kahana was a Babylonian Amora of the first generation (3rd cent.).
500
Rabbi Ishmael b. R. Yosé was a Tana of the fifth generation (2 nd cent. - beginning of 3 rd cent. CE).
501
Rabbi Judah I the Patriarch was a Tana of the fifth generation (2nd cent. - beginning of 3rd cent. CE)
502
B. Pesaḥim 118b. Translation by Jacob Neusner, The almud: Law, Theology, Narrative: a
Sourcebook (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2005), 85-86.
‫ כך‬,‫ שלח לו‬.‫ אמור לנו שנים ושלשה דברים שאמרת לנו משום אביך‬:‫ כשחלה רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי שלח לו רבי‬:‫אמר רב כהנא‬
- "‫ "הללו את ה' כל גוים‬:‫ אומות העולם מאי עבידתייהו? הכי קאמר‬,)‫ א‬,‫ "הללו את ה' כל גוים" ( תהלים קיז‬:‫ מאי דכתיב‬:‫אמר אבא‬
.‫ כל שכן אנו דגבר עלינו חסדו‬,‫אגבורות ונפלאות דעביד בהדייהו‬
503
B. Pesaḥim 118b.
,‫ קבל מהם‬:‫ אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשיח‬,‫ כסבור אינו מקבל מהם‬,‫ עתידה מצרים שתביא דורון למשיח‬:)‫(אמר לו) ועוד (חדא‬
‫ ומה הללו שנשתעבדו‬:‫ נשאה כוש קל וחומר בעצמה‬.)‫ לג‬,‫ מיד " יאתיו חשמנים מני מצרים" ( תהלים סח‬,‫אכסניא עשו לבניי במצרים‬
,‫ מיד "כוש תריץ ידיו לאלהים" ( תהלים סח‬,‫ קבל מהם‬:‫ לא כל שכן? אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא‬- ‫ אני שלא נשתעבדתי בהן‬,‫ כך‬- ‫בהן‬
.)‫לג‬

189
 The third part of the midrash speaks of Rome which is identified with the rebuked

“wild beast of the reeds” in Psalm 68:30 which includes three interpretations of the word

“reeds” (kaneh ‫)קנה‬. The first interpretation is as keneh (to take possession):

Wicked Rome will then propose [the same] argument a fortiori in her own regard: ‘If
these, who are not their brethren, are such, then we, who are their brethren, all the more
so!’ The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to Gabriel, “Rebuke the wild beast of the
reeds [kaneh].” (Ps. 68:32) – ‘rebuke the wild beast and take possession [keneh] of the
congregation [‘edah].’ 504

This reading divides Psalm 68:32 - “Rebuke the wild beast of the reeds” - into

two parts: the first refers to Rome’s punishment, while the second to the restoration of

Israel - God’s congregation. The second reading makes an illusion to the midrashic

tradition according to which Rome was founded on reeds, as for example in Songs of

Songs Rabbah: “’My own vineyard I did not keep (Song 1:6)’ – R. Levi said: On the day

that Salomon married the daughter of Pharaoh Necho, Michael the great prince came

down from heaven and stuck a great pole in the sea, and mud came up on each side so

that the place became like a thicket of reeds, and that was the site of Rome.” 505 Hence

Leviticus Rabbah reads “the reeds” in Psalm 68:32 as the “forest” mentioned in Psalm

80:14:

Another interpretation: ‘Rebuke the wild beast of the reeds’ - who dwells among the
reeds, ‘the boar out of the wood ravages it, that which moves in the field feeds on it.’ (Ps
80:14). 506

504
B. Pesaḥim 118b.
‫ לא כל שכן? אמר לו הקדוש ברוך‬- ‫ אנו שאנו אחיהן‬,‫ כך‬- ‫ ומה הללו שאין אחיהן‬:‫נשאה מלכות [רומי] הרשעה קל וחומר בעצמה‬
.‫ געור חיה וקנה לך עדה‬.)‫ "גער חית קנה" ( תהלים סח‬:‫הוא לגבריאל‬
505
SongR 1:41. Translation by Rivka Ulmer, Egyptian Cultural Icons in Midrash (Berlin: Walter De
Gruyter, 2009), 36.
‫" אמר רבי לוי יום שנתחתן שלמה לבת פרעה נכה ירד מיכאל השר הגדול מן השמים ונעץ קנה גדול בים‬, ‫"הוי כרמי שלי לא נטרתי‬
.‫ועלה לחלוחית מיכן ומיכן ועשו אותו מקום כחורש והוא היה מקומה של רומי‬
Also Y. Avodah Zara 1:2, 39c; b. Sabbath 56b; Sanhadrin 21b; Song R 1:41.
506
B. Pesaḥim 118b.
.)‫ יד‬, ‫ " יכרסמנה חזיר מיער וזיז שדי ירענה" ( תהלים פ‬:‫ דכתיב‬,‫ שדרה בין הקנים‬- "‫ "געור חית קנה‬:‫דבר אחר‬

190
 If indeed this reading refers to the tradition of Rome’s foundation on reeds, it

links it to the destruction of Israel/ the Temple by the Romans. Rome is the home of the

boar, the animal of the reeds, which recalls the Roman myth of Aeneas’s sow, but

contrary to that in the midrash, the boar is not a sign of Rome’s fortune, but rather of its

criminal nature; it is not a sign of eternal Rome, but rather of its falling. The third reading

interprets the word “reeds” (kaneh ‫ )קנה‬as pen (using the Greek word kolmus, which in

rabbinic literature means “reed” or “reed pen”):507

Said R. Hiyya bar Abba: said R. Yohanan, “Rebuke the wild beast, all of the actions of
which may be recorded with the same pen.” “The multitude of the bulls [abirim] with the
calves of the people” (Ps. 68:31): they slaughtered the valiant [adirim] like calves that
have no owners. “Everyone opens his hand with the desire of money.” (Ps. 68:31): they
open their hand to take the money but do not do what the owner wants. “‘He has scattered
the people that delight in approaches” (Ps. 68:31): what brought about that Israel should
be scattered among the nations? It [is] the approach [to the nations] which they wanted. 508

Rome, the animal of the reeds - the boar, is described as murderous and a

despoiler. Like the midrashic tradition concerning the foundation of Rome as a res ult of

King Solomon’s marriage with a non-Jewish woman, the conclusion of the midrash

explains Israel’s subjection to Rome as the result of “the approaches to the nations that

they [Israel] wanted.” 509 The seeking of proximity with the other is however also the

507
For the word Kolmus in rabbinic literature, see: Brown, “Midrashim,” 185.
508
B. Pesaḥim 118b. My translation.
- )‫ " עדת אבירים בעגלי עמים" ( תהלים סח‬.‫ געור בחיה שכל מעשיה נכתבין בקולמוס אחד‬:‫אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן‬
‫ ואין עושין רצון‬,‫ שפושטין יד לקבל ממון‬- )‫ "מתרפס ברצי כסף" ( תהלים סח‬.‫ששחטו אבירים כעגלים שאין להם בעלים‬
.‫ קריבות שהיו חפצין בהן‬- ‫ מי גרם להם לישראל שיתפזרו לבין אומות העולם‬- )‫"פזר עמים קרבות יחפצון" ( תהלים סח‬.‫בעלים‬
Parallels: YalkShim Psalms 800.
509
In Exodus Rabbah, the midrash concerning Psalms 68 appears in a slightly different version,
preceded by a midrash on the three materials that one should donate to the construction of the Tabernacle
[miskan] and the Temple according to Exodus 25:3: “And this is the offering which ye shall take of them:
gold, and silver and brass,” and the three materials mentioned in Daniel 2:32: “As for that image, its head
was of fine gold, its breast and its arms were of silver, its belly and thighs were of brass.” From the fact that
iron, which symbolizes Rome, is not mentioned in either of the verses, the midrash teaches that while the
three first kingdoms will be rewarded in messianic times, Rome will not: “Another explanation of “And
thou shalt make the boards.”? Preceding this verse, we read: “And this is the offering which ye shall take of
them: gold, and silver and brass” (Ex. 25:3). Gold refers to Babylon, for it says, “As for that image, its head
was of fine gold” (Dan. 2:32); silver refers to Media, for it says, “Its breast and its arms were of silver” (ib.);
brass refers to Greece, for it says, “Its belly and thighs were of brass” (ibid). But no mention is made of

191
reason for Rome’s fall in the future. They will believe that because of their family ties

with Israel as the descendants of Esau, they will want to bring gifts to the messiah.

However, they will be rebuked as is the animal of the reeds, the pig, the emblematic

animal of negative hybridism, which is pure and impure at the same time.

iron in the construction either of the tabernacle or the Temple. Why? Because Rome, that destroyed the
Temple, was likened to iron, and the verse teaches that God will accept gifts from all kingdoms in the time
to come, save from Edom [Rome]. But, surely, Babylon likewise destroyed the Temple? Yes, but it did not
raze it to the ground, whereas of Edom it is written, “Who said: Raze it, raze it, even to the foundation
thereof” (Ps. 137:7). – [saying to each other], ‘It still has a foundation! It is on this account, because Edom
is compared to it [Iron], that no mention is made of iron in the construction of the tabernacle. Similarly, in
the millennium you will find that all nations will bring presents to the king Messiah, Egypt being the first to
do so. When the Messiah will hesitate to accept these gifts from them, God will say to him: ‘My children
found hospitality in Egypt,’ for it says, “Nobles shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall hasten to stretch out
her hands unto God” (Ps. 68: 32). Whereupon he will immediately accept their gifts. Ethiopia will then
draw an inference for himself, thus: ‘If the Messiah receives gifts from Egypt which enslaved them, then
how much more will he receive gifts from us who have never subjected them to slavery? Hence it says,
“Ethiopia shall hasten to stretch out her hands unto God.” When the other kingdoms will hear this, they will
also bring presents, as it says, “Sing unto God, ye kingdoms of the earth” (Ps. 68:33). The kingdom of
Edom will then draw an inference for herself, thus: ’If presents were received from those who are not their
brothers, then how much more will they be received from us [who are their brothers]?’ But when she will
be about to bring her present to the Messianic King, God will say to him: “Rebuke the wild beast of the
reeds, etc.” (Ps. 68: 31), for the whole of that nation is like a wild beast of the reeds.’ Another explanation
“Rebuke the wild beast that sojourns among the reeds,” as it says, “The boar out of the wood doth ravage it”
(Ps. 80:14). “The multitude of the bulls, with the claves of the peoples” (Ps 68:31) – namely, that kingdom
that consumes the wealth of peoples, and derives support from Abraham, saying: ‘I descend from them,
since Esau was the son of Isaac who was the son of Abraham. “Every one submitting himself (mithrappes)
with pieces of (razze) silver” (Ps. 68:31); for even when one has sinned against her [Edom] and she is
worth with him, yet she opens her palm (mattereth pas) to accept the proffered bribe and becomes
reconciled (mith-razzeh) to him. What is the meaning of “He hath scattered the peoples that delight in war”
(Ps. 68:31)? – That she [Rome] disperses Israel when assembled for the study of the Torah, and gathers
them in such places in which the Evil Inclination takes delight. Another explanation of “He hath scattered
the peoples that delight in war”: They scattered Israel across the face of the globe. Another explanation of
this verse: ‘Bizzar ‘ammim’ (He hath scattered the peoples) – they made Israel zarim (strangers) unto Me.
Yet they [have the effrontery] now to bring gifts!” ExR. 35.5. Translation by S. M. Lehrman, Midrash
Rabbah. Vol. III, Exodus (London: Soncino, 1939), 433-435, with slight alteration.
‫ "הוא צלמא‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ זהב זו בבל‬,‫ מה כתיב למעלה וזאת התרומה אשר תקחו מאתם זהב וכסף ונחשת‬,‫הד"א ועשית את הקרשים‬
‫ "מעוהי וירכתיה‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ נחושת זו יון‬,)‫ "חדוהי ודרעוהי די כסף" (דניאל ב‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ וכסף זו מדי‬,)‫ראשה די דהב טב "(דניאל ב‬
‫ ללמדך שמכל‬.‫ למה שנמשל בו אדום? שהחריבו בהמ"ק‬.‫ אבל ברזל אין כתיב כאן לא במקדש ולא במשכן‬,)‫די נחש" (דניאל ב‬
‫ אבל אדום מה‬.‫ והרי בבל אף היא החריבה אותו? אלא על שלא קעקעה אותו‬.‫המלכיות יקבל הקב"ה דורון לעתיד לבא חוץ מאדום‬
‫ לפיכך לא נכתב ברזל במשכן ובמקדש שמשולין בו‬,‫ "האומרים ערו ערו עד היסוד בה" ( תהלים קלז) עד עכשיו היסוד בה‬:‫כתיב בה‬
‫ ו כן אתה מוצא לעתיד לבוא שכל האומות עתידין להביא דורון למלך המשיח ומצרים מביאה תחלה וכסבור שלא לקבל מהם‬,‫אדום‬
‫ מיד‬,)‫ " יאתיו חשמנים מני מצרים כוש תריץ ידיו לאלהים" ( תהלים סח‬:‫ אכסניא נעשו לבני במצרים שנאמר‬:‫ואומר לו הקב"ה‬
‫ מיד כוש תריץ‬,‫ נשאה כוש קל וחומר ומה מצרים ששעבדו בהן קבל מהם אנו שלא נשתעבדנו בהן על אחת כמה וכמה‬.‫מקבל מהן‬
‫ ואח"כ מלכות אדום‬.)‫ "ממלכות הארץ שירו לאלהים" ( תהלים סח‬:‫ מיד כל המלכיות שומעות והן מביאות שנאמר‬,‫ידיו לאלהים‬
‫ ואף היא מבקשת להביא דורון למלך המשיח ואומר לו‬,‫ ומה הללו שאינן אחיהם קבלו מהם אנו עאכ"ו‬:‫נושאת ק"ו בעצמה ואומרת‬
"‫ " יכרסמנה חזיר מיער‬:‫ געור חיה הדרה בין הקנים שנאמר‬,‫ ד"א‬.‫ שכולה חיה מן הקנה‬,)‫ "גער חית קנה" ( תהלים סח‬:‫הקב"ה‬
‫ " עדת אבירים בעגלי עמי" ם אותה שאוכלת שמנן של עמים ובאה בכחו של אברהם ואומר מהם אני עשו בן יצחק בן‬.)‫( תהלים פ‬
‫ ומהו "בזר עמים‬,‫ אע"פ שחטא אדם וכועסת עליו מתרת את הפס ונוטלת את הכסף והיא מתרצה לו‬,"‫ "מתרפס ברצי כסף‬,‫אברהם‬
- "‫ ד"א " בזר עמים קרבות יחפצו‬.‫קרבות יחפצו"? שהיא מפזרת לישראל מתלמודה של תורה ומכנסת אותן במה שיצר הרע חפץ בו‬
.‫ והם מביאין קרבנות‬,‫ שעשו את ישראל זרים לי‬- "‫ ד"א "בזר עמים‬.‫שפיזרו את ישראל מן העולם‬

192
Bereshit Rabbati of Moses ha-Darshan
To the well known midrashim mentioned above we may add a midrash from the

lost Bereshit Rabbati of Moses ha-Darshan, an eleventh-century commentator from

Narbonne. In a midrash which is cited in the polemical work of Raymond Martini (1278

CE), Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Iudaeos (Dagger of the Faith against the Muslims

and the Jew),510 Genesis 30:16511 is linked to Psalm 104:20-22:512

“When Jacob came from the field in the evening, Leah went out to meet him,” (Gn 30:16)
– thus it is written: “You make darkness, and it is night,” (Ps 104:20). “You make
darkness,” (Ibid.) - this is Israel’s Exile, for Israel darkens their deeds, as it is written:
“whose deeds are in the dark,” (Is. 29:15) – [for this reason] the Holy one blessed be He,
darkens their world as it was said: “The sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars
withdraw their shining” (Joel 2:10; 4:15). “And it is night,” (Ps. 104:20) – Those are the
days of Exile which are as nights for Israel. “When all the animals of the forest come
creeping out.” (Ibid.) – those are the nations of the world which are called “animals of the
forest” and trample Israel, as it is written: “The boar out of the wood doth ravage it, that
which moveth in the field feedeth on it” (Ps 80:14). “The young lions roar for their prey,”
(Ps. 104:21) – “The young lions” those are the nations of the world which deny the Holy
one blessed be He, and roar for prey. Said R. Hanina bar Papa: [not just they] deny the
Holy one blessed be He and roar for prey but moreover ask the Holy one blessed be He
for a reward in the future, as it is written: “seeking their food from God” (Ibid.) And what
is their reward from the Holy one blessed be He? “When the sun rises, they will withdraw
(‫( ”)יאספון‬Ps. 104:22) – as “Let Aaron withdraw (‫ )יאסף‬to his people” (Num. 20:24). The
sun of the King-Messiah will rise, as it was written: “like the light of morning rises the
sun” (2 Samuel 23:4). In this hour will sink the sun of the worshipers of idolatory, as it is
says: “they will withdraw (‫( ”)יאספון‬Ps. 104:22). 513

510
Syds Wiersma, “The Dynamic of Religious Polemics: The Case of Raymond Martin (ca. 1220-
ca.1285),” Interaction between Judaism and Christianity in History, Religion, Art and Literature , ed.
Marcel Poorthuis, Joshua Schwartz, and Joseph Turner (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 197-218. Ursula Ragacs,
“Raimundo Martí, O.P. Biografía”, Valle Rodríguez, Carlos del, Andrés Barcala Mu oz, and Domingo
Mu oz Le n. La contro ersia udeocristiana en spa a (desde os or genes hasta e sig o III homena e
a Domingo Mu o Le n (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto de Filología,
1998), 301-308.
511
Genesis 30:16: “When Jacob came from the field in the evening, Leah went out to meet him, and
said, "You must come in to me; for I have hired you with my son's mandrakes." So he lay with her that
night.”
512
Psalms 104:20-22: “You make darkness, and it is night, when all the animals of the forest come
creeping out. 21: The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. 22: When the sun rises,
they withdraw and lie down in their dens:”512
513
Moshe Hadarshan, BereshitRabbati, Genesis 30:16, cf. Raymond Martin, Pugio fidei adversus
Mauros et Iudaeos, 2.11.10 (fol. 344). Raymundus Martinus, Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos
(Leipzig, 1687. Reprint. Farnborough, Eng. 1967), 430. My translation.
‫ על‬,‫ זה גלות ישראל‬- "‫ " תשת חשך‬.)‫ כ‬,‫ " תשת חשך ויהי לילה" ( תהלים קד‬:‫ הה"ד‬- ‫ויבא יעקב מן השדה בערב ותצא לאה לקראתו‬
‫ "שמש וירח‬:'‫ שנ‬,‫ טו); החשיך עליהם הקב"ה את העולם‬,‫ "והיה במחשך מעשיהם" ( ישעיה כט‬:‫ כדכתיב‬,‫שהחשכו ישראל מעשיהם‬

193
 ‫‪Although some argue that the midrashim cited by Raymond Martini are pure‬‬

‫‪forgeries, it seems that most of them are authentic. 514 In fact, the heart of the midrash‬‬

‫‪discussed here follows Bavli Baba Metzia 83b:‬‬

‫‪R. Zera lectured — others say. R. Joseph learnt: What is meant by, Thou makest darkness,‬‬
‫‪and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth? Thou makest darkness,‬‬
‫‪and it is night — this refers to this world, which is comparable to night; wherein all the‬‬
‫‪beasts of the forest do creep forth — to the wicked therein, who are like the beasts of the‬‬
‫;‪forest. The sun ariseth — for the righteous; the wicked are gathered in — for Gehenna‬‬
‫‪and lay them down in their habitations — not a single righteous man lacks a habitation as‬‬
‫‪befits his honour. Man goeth forth unto his work — i.e., the righteous go forth to receive‬‬
‫‪their reward; and to his labour until the evening — as one who has worked fully until the‬‬
‫‪very evening. 515‬‬

‫קדרו וכוכבים אספו נגהם" (יואל ב‪ ,‬י; ד‪ ,‬טו)‪" .‬ויהי לילה" ( תהלים קד‪ ,‬כ) ‪ -‬אלו ימי הגלות שהן כלילה לישראל‪" .‬בו תרמש כל‬
‫חיתו יער" ( תהלים קד‪,‬כ) ‪ -‬אלו אומות העולם הנקראים חיתו יער ורומסים את ישראל‪ ,‬הה"ד‪ " :‬יכרסמנה חזיר מיער וזיז שדי‬
‫ירענה" ( תהלים פ‪ ,‬יד) "הכפירים שאגים לטרף" ( תהלים קד‪,‬כא)‪" ,‬הכפירים" ‪ -‬אלו אומות העולם שכופרין בהקב"ה ושאגין לטרף‪.‬‬
‫א"ר חנינה בר פפא‪ :‬כופרין בהקב" ה ושאגין לטרף ולא עוד אלא שמבקשין שכר מן הקב"ה לעתיד לבא‪ ,‬הה"ד‪" :‬ולבקש מאל‬
‫אכלם" ( תהלים קד‪,‬כא)‪ ,‬ומה שכרם מן הקב"ה? " תזרח השמש יאספון" ( תהלים קד‪ ,‬כב)‪ - ,‬כמו‪ " :‬יאסף אהרון אל עמיו" (במדבר‬
‫כ‪ ,‬כד)‪ .‬תזרח שמשו של מלך המשיח‪ ,‬כדכתיב‪" :‬וכאור בקר יזרח שמש" (שמואל ב‪ ,‬כג( באותה שעה תשקע שמשן של ע"ז‪ ,‬הוי‬
‫אומר‪ " :‬יאספון" ( תהלים קד‪ ,‬כב)‪.‬‬
‫)‪See: Hananel Mack, Mi-Sodo shel Mosheh ha-darshan (The Mystery of Rabbi Moshe Haddarshan‬‬
‫‪(Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010), 269-270 (Hebrew). On the authencity of the midrashim cited by Martini‬‬
‫‪see also: Hananel Mack, “The Source and Development of the Shawaten Exposition on the Rescission of‬‬
‫‪the Mitzvot,” Sidra 11 (1995): 65-67 (Hebrew).‬‬
‫‪514‬‬
‫‪Y. Baer, “The forged Midrashim of Raymond Martini and their Place in the Religious Controversies‬‬
‫‪in the Middle Ages,” Studies in Memory of Asher Gulak and Samuel Klein (Jerusalem, Palestine: Center for‬‬
‫‪Judaic Studies Hebrew University, 1942), 29-49. For contrary opinions, see: Saul Lieberman, “Raymond‬‬
‫‪Martini and his alleged forgeries.” Historia Judaica 5 (1943): 87-102. Ursula Ragacs, “The Forged‬‬
‫‪Midrashim of Raymond Martini – Reconsidered” Henoch 19 (1997): 59-68.‬‬
‫‪515‬‬
‫‪B. Baba Metzia 83b.‬‬
‫דרש רבי זירא‪ ,‬ואמרי לה תני רב יוסף‪ :‬מאי דכתיב " תשת חשך ויהי לילה בו תרמש כל חיתו יער"? " תשת חשך ויהי לילה" ‪ -‬זה‬
‫העולם הזה שדומה ללילה‪ " .‬בו תרמש כל חיתו יער" ‪ -‬אלו רשעים שבו‪ ,‬שדומין לחיה שביער‪ " .‬תזרח השמש יאספון ואל מעונתם‬
‫ירבצון"; " תזרח השמש" ‪ -‬לצדיקים‪ " ,‬יאספון" ‪ -‬רשעים לגיהנם‪ .‬ואל מעונתם ירבצון ‪ -‬אין לך כל צדיק וצדיק שאין לו מדור לפי‬
‫כבודו‪ " .‬יצא אדם לפעלו" ‪ -‬יצאו צדיקים לקבל שכרן‪" ,‬ולעבדתו עדי ערב" ‪ -‬במי שהשלים עבודתו עדי ערב‪.‬‬
‫‪Compare to YalShim Psalms 862.‬‬
‫רבי ברכיה בשם ר' סימון‪ :‬שניהם נבראו להאיר יהי מאורות‪" ,‬והיו למאורות‪ ,‬והיו לאותות אלו השבתות כי אות היא וגו'‪",‬‬
‫" ולמועדים" אלו ימים טובים‪" ,‬ולימים" אלו ראשי חדשים‪ ,‬ושנים אלו ראשי שנים‪ " :‬תשת חשך ויהי לילה‪ ".‬לעולם יכנס אדם בכי‬
‫טוב (כתוב ברמז י"ג)‪" :‬הכפירים שואגים לטרף ולבקש מאל אכלם ‪ ".‬ר' שמעון בן חלפתא הוה קאזיל באורחא פגעו ביה הנהו‬
‫אריותא דהוו קא נהמי באפיה‪ ,‬אמר‪" :‬הכפירים שואגים לטרף‪ ".‬נחיתו ליה תרתי אטמתא חדא אכלוה וחדא שבקוה‪ ,‬אתא לבי‬
‫מדרשא בעא עלה דבר טהור הוא או דבר טמא הוא אמרו לו אין דבר טמא יורד מן השמים ואפילו ירד דמות חמור‪ " :‬תזרח השמש‬
‫יאספון וגו'‪ ".‬אמר ריש לקיש‪ :‬פועל בכניסתו משלו ביציאתו משל בעל הבית‪ ,‬שנאמר‪ " :‬תזרח השמש יאספון ואל מעונותם ירבצון‪",‬‬
‫ואומר‪ " :‬יצא אדם לפעלו ולעבודתו עדי ערב‪ ".‬וליחזי היכי נהיגי בעיר חדשה‪ .‬וליחזי מהיכא דקאתו בנקיטאי‪ .‬איבעית אימא דא" ל‬
‫דאגריתו להו כפועל דאורייתא‪ .‬דרש ר' זירא ואמרי לה תני רב‪ :‬מאי דכתיב‪ " :‬תשת חשך ויהי לילה"? זה העולם הזה שהוא דומה‬
‫ללילה‪ " .‬בו תרמוש כל חיתו יער" אלו הרשעים שדומין לחיה רעה שביער‪ " ,‬תזרח השמש לצדיקים‪ ",‬יאספון רשעים לגיהנם‪" ,‬ואל‬
‫מעונתם ירבצון" אין לך כל צדיק וצדיק שאין לו מדור לפי כבודו‪ " .‬יצא אדם לפועלו" יצאו הצדיקים לקבל שכרם‪" ,‬ולעבודתו עדי‬
‫ערב" במי שמשלים עבודתו עדי ערב‪:‬‬
‫‪Otzar ha-Midrashim (ed. Eisenstein, vol. 1), 409.‬‬
‫"להגיד בבקר חסדך" זה עולם הבא שנמשל לבקרים שנאמר‪" :‬חדשים לבקרים רבה אמונתך" (איכה ג)‪" ,‬ואמונתך בלילות" זה‬
‫העולם הזה שנמשל ללילה שנאמר‪ " :‬תשת חשך ויהי לילה בו תרמוש כל חיתו יער" ( תהלים קד)‪ ,‬וכי כל חיתו יער לא תרמוש אלא‬
‫בלילה וביום אינה רומשת כלל? אלא מלמד שעוה"ז נמשל כלילה ומלכי או" ה משולים כחיות שהן רומשות ביער בתוך הלילה‬

‫‪194‬‬
 While Bavli Baba Mezia 83b speaks of the wicked and righteous in general, the

midrash of Joseph ha Darashan applies it to the distinction between Israel and the nations

of the world. The link of the boar of Psalms 80:14 to the wild animals of psalm 104:20 is

extremely efficient, for it locates the boar in a temporal scene of night and day, darkness

and light, Exile and Redemption (table 6).

Psalm 104: 20-22 Meaning

You make darkness, Israel’s sins.
and it is night, Exile.
When all the animals of the forest come The nations of the world that oppressed
creeping out. Israel.
The young lions roar for their prey, The nations that deny God.
seeking their food from God The nations will ask for a reward in the
world to come.
When the sun rises, they will withdraw The nations’ fall.
(‫”)יאספון‬
Table 6: The interpretation of Psalm 104: 20-22 in Bereshit Rabbati.

Discussion
The diverse interpretations of Psalm 80:14 link the Boar, the emblematic animal

of Rome, to criminal acts such as robbery, stealing, and murder (Sifre Numbers, 316-317;

LevR 13.5; GenR 65.1; B. Pesaḥim 118b; Bereshit Rabbati), or to the Empire/ Esau’s

hypocrisy; the pig pretends to be pure by showing its hoofs, as Jacob’s brother and the

Empire pretend to be just while acting unjustly (LevR 13.5, GenR 65.1). By identifying

the boar/ pig alternatively with Esau (GenR. 65.1; MidrPss 120), with the Empire, with

“The evil kingdom” or the nations of the world, with the Emperor (MidrPss 80), or with

the fourth kingdom of the book of Daniel (Sifre Num 316-317; LevR 13.5), most of the

‫ וכשם שכל החיות חוזרות ליערם ולמקומם כך כל מלכי הארץ ורוזני תבל כיון שבא‬.‫ וכיון שעלה עמוד השחר חוזרין‬,)‫(הגלות‬
'‫ "והיה ה‬:‫עליהם עוה" ב ומלכות משיח חוזרים ליערם ולמקומם ויורדין מגדולתם ושבים אל עפרם ואינם באים לעוה"ב שנאמר‬
.)‫למלך על כל הארץ" (זכריה יד‬

195
midrashim inscribe the boar/ pig as the means of the historical divine plan of destruction

and redemption. In other words, the pig (Rome) is the blow and the remedy. The “boar

out of the wood” is part of a divine symmetrical plan. Hence, the Bavli Kidusin 30a

remarks that:

“The boar out of the wood [ya’ar ‫ ]יע ר‬devours it” (Ps. 80:14). The letter ‘ayin [‫[ ]ע‬of the
word] ya’ar [ ‫ ]יע ר‬is the half-way [point of the book of] Psalms. “And he is merciful and
he forgives sin” (Ps. 78:38) is the half-way point of the verses [of the book of Psalms]. 516

The symmetry of the text hints at the symmetry between the destruction (hurban)

and redemption (gehula). In the same way that God destroyed the Temple in His rage,

He will rebuild it in His mercy, as in the famous midrash about Rabbi Akiba who sees a

fox in the ruins of the Temple:

“For Mount Zion which lies desolate; jackals prowl over it” (Lam. 5:18): Rabban
Gamaliel, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar b. Azariah, and R. Akiba went to Rome. They heard the
din of the city of Rome from a distance of a hundred and twenty miles. They all begin to
cry, but R. Akiba began to laugh. They said to him, “Akiba, we are crying and you laugh?”
He said to them, “Why are you crying?” They said to him, “Should we not cry, that
idolaters and those who sacrifice to idols and bow down to images live securely and
prosperously, while a footstool of our God has been burned down by fire and become a
dwelling place for the beasts of the field? So shouldn’t we cry?” He said to them, “That is
precisely the reason that I was laughing. For if those who outrage him he treats in such a
way, those who do his will all the more so!” There was the further case of when they
were going up to Jerusalem. When they came to the Mount Scopus they tore their
clothing. When they came to the Temple mount and a fox came out of the house of the
Holy of Holies, they began to cry. But R. Aqiba began to laugh. “ Akiba,” you are always
surprising us. Now we are crying and you laugh?” He said to them, “Why are you crying?”
They said to him, “Should we not cry, that from the place of which it is written, “And the
ordinary person that comes near shall be put to death” (Num. 1:51) a fox come out? So
the verse of Scripture is carried out: “for Mount Zion which lies desolate; jackals prowl
over it.” He said to them, “That is precisely the reason that I was laughing. For Scripture
says, “And I will take for myself faithful witness to record, Uriah the priest and
Zechariah the son of Jeberchiah” (IS. 8:2). “Now what is the relationship between Uriah
and Zechariah? Uriah lived in the time of the first temple, Zechariah in the time of the
second! But Uriah said, “Thus says the Lord of hosts: Zion shall be plowed as a field, and
Jerusalem shall become heaps” (Jer 26:18). And Zechariah said, “There shall yet be old
men and old women sitting in the piazzas of Jerusalem, every man with his staff in his
hand for old age” (Zech 8:4). And further: “And the piazzas of the city shall be full of

516
B. Kidusin 30a. My translation.
"‫ עי"ן ד" יער‬- (‫ יד‬,‫]" יכרסמנה חזיר מיער" ( תהלים פ‬...[ ‫ שהיו סופרים כל האותיות שבתורה‬- ‫לפיכך נקראו ראשונים סופרים‬
.‫ חציו דפסוקים‬- )‫ לח‬,‫ "והוא רחום יכפר עון" ) תהלים עח‬,‫חציין של תהלים‬

196
 boys and girls playing in the piazzas thereof” (Zech 8:5). Said the Holy One, blessed be
He, “Now lo, I have these two witnesses. So if the words of Uriah are carried out, the
words of Zechariah will be carried out, while if the words of Uriah prove false, then the
words of Zechariah will not be true either.” I was laughing with pleasure because the
words of Uriah have been carried out, and that means that the words of Zechariah in the
future will be carried out. They said to him, “Akiba, you have given us consolation. May
you be comforted among those who are comforted.” 517

A reverse symmetry exists between Rome and Jerusalem, between the flourishing

of the first and the destruction of the second and vice versa. The fox and the boar in the

holy of holies function in the same way: they are the sign of destruction, but at the same

time they inscribe this chaotic catastrophe in the divine plan, pronouncing the future

redemption. 518 The animal that marked the destruction of the Temple holds paradoxical

meaning: it is the negative sign but also positive. If Rome is the detractor beast, in the

end it will be destroyed, as notes the later Midrash on Psalms:

“My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace” (Ps. 120:6). Is there any man who
hates peace? Esau hates peace. Scriptures says, “I will give you peace in the land” (Lev.
26: 6). When will there be peace? The verse goes on to answer, “After I will cause evil
beasts to cease out of the land” (ibid.). “Evil beasts” can refer only to the boar, for it is

517
LamR B 5.18. Translation by Jacob Neusner, Neusner on Judaism, vol. 2, Literature (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2005), 441, with slight alteration (Parallels: Sifri Deuteronomy 43.16; M. Tan’aim Deuteronomy
11.16 ; B. Makot 24b; YalkS Torah Pinhas 782; Aqeb 865; Isaiah 410). See: Shaye J. D. Cohen, “The
Destruction: From Scripture to Midrash,” Prooftexts 2, no 1 (1982): 35. Shahar, “Rabbi Akiba,” 147
(Hebrew).
‫ כבר היו רבן גמליאל ור' יהושע ור' אלעזר בן עזריה ור' עקיבה עולין לרומי ושמעו קול המונה‬.‫על הר ציון ששמם שועלים הלכו בו‬
‫ אמר להם למה‬,‫ אמרו לו עקיבה אנו בוכים ואתה שוחק‬,‫ התחילו הם בוכים ור' עקיבה משחק‬,‫של רומי רחוק מאה ועשרים מיל‬
‫ ובית הדום רגל אלהינו היה‬,‫ א"ל לא נבכה שעובדי ע"ז ו זובחים לאלילים ומשתחוים לעצבים ויושבים לבטח ובשלוה‬,‫בכיתם‬
‫ שוב פעם אחת עלו‬.‫ אמר להם לכך אני שוחק אם למכעיסיו כך לעושי רצונו עאכ"ו‬,‫לשריפת אש ומדור לחיות השדה לא נבכה‬
‫ התחילו בוכים ור' עקיבה‬,‫ והגיעו להר הבית והיה שועל יוצא מבית קדש הקדשים‬,‫לירושלים כיון שהגיעו לצופים קרעו בגדיהם‬
‫ אמר להם רבן גמליאל ראו מה‬,‫ אמר להם למה בכיתם‬,‫ א"ל רבן גמליאל עקיבה לעולם את מתמיה אנו בוכים ואתה שוחק‬,‫שוחק‬
‫ עלינו נתקיים הכתוב על זה היה‬,‫ לא נבכה‬,‫ שועל יוצא מתוכו‬,)‫ נב‬,‫ מקום שכתוב בו והזר הקרב יומת (במדבר א‬,‫עקיבה אומר לנו‬
‫ ואעידה לי עדים נאמנים את אוריה הכהן ואת‬,‫ א"ל לכך אני שוחק שאומר הכתוב‬,]‫ על הר ציון [ששמם שועלים הלכו בו‬,‫דוה לבנו‬
‫ אוריה אמר ציון שדה תחרש‬,‫ מה אמר אוריה ומה אמר זכריה‬,‫ וכי מה ענין אוריה אצל זכריה‬,)‫זכריהו בן יברכיהו ( ישעיה ח ב‬
‫ זכריה אמר כה אמר ה' [צבאות] עוד ישבו זקנים וזקנות ברחובות‬,)‫ יח‬,‫ והר הבית לבמות יער ( ירמיה כו‬,‫וירושלים עיים תהיה‬
‫ אמר הקב"ה יש לי‬,)‫ ורחובות עיר ימלאו ילדים וילדות משחקים ברחובותיה (זכריה ח ד ה‬,‫ירושלים ואיש משענתו בידו מרוב ימים‬
‫ שמחתי‬,‫ יהיו בטלים דברי זכריה‬,‫ ואם בטלים דברי אוריה‬,‫ יהיו קיימים דברי זכריה‬,‫ אם קיימים דברי אוריה‬,‫שנים עדים הללו‬
.‫ כלשון הזה אמרו לו עקיבה ניחמתנו תתנחם במנחמים‬,‫ סוף שיתקיימו דברי זכריה לעתיד לבוא‬,‫שנתקיימו דברי אוריה‬
518
I follow here Inbar Raveh’s analysis of the legend of Rabbi Akiba in Bavli Makot 24b, See: Inbar
Raveh, Fragments of Being: Stories of the Sages: Literary Structures and World-View (Or Yehuda, Israel:
Kinneret, Zmora-Bitan, Dvir; Beer Sheva: Heksherim Istitute, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2008),
140-143.

197
 said, “The wild boar out of the wood doth root it up, and the wild beasts of the field
devour it” (Ps. 80:14), and the boar is none other than wicked Esau. 519

The following idea is found in the midrash “pig of the sea, pig of the forest,” in

Leviticus Rabbah 13.5: “Daniel beheld the empires engaged in their [subsequent]

activities. “I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven broke

forth upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from

the other (Dan. 7:2).” If you will so merit, it [the animal] will come up out of the sea, but

if not, from the forest. An animal coming up from the sea is timid, whereas if it comes

from the forest, it is not timid.”520 The following midrash is found in a more elaborate

form also in The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, version A:

“Scripture reads, “The boar out of the wood (ya’ar)” doth ravage it (Ps 80:14), but it is
written, The boar our out of the river (ye’or) doth ravage it. “The boar out of the wood
doth ravage it” [according one manuscript: ‘refers to the Roman Empire’]. For when
Israel does not do the will of God, the nations appear to them like “the boar out out of the
wood”: even as the boar of the forests kills people and injures folk and smites men, so
too, so long as Israel does not do the will of God, the nations kill them and injure them
and smite them. But so long as Israel does the will of God the nations do not rule over
them. (Then the nations are) like “the boar out of the river”: even as the boar of the rivers
kills no people and harms no folk, so too, so long as Israel does His will, no nation or
people kills them or harms them or smites them. That is why it is written, “The boar out
of the river.” 521

519
MidrPss 120. Translation by Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, 293.
‫ "ונתתי שלום‬:‫ וכה"א‬.‫ וכי יש אדם שונא שלום? עשו שונא השלום‬.)‫ ו‬,‫"רבת שכנה לה נפשי וגו '" [עם שונא שלום] ( תהלים קכ‬
‫ אימתי יהיה כן? "והשבתי חיה‬.)‫ ו‬,‫]" (ויקרא כו‬:‫בארץ [ ושכבתם ואין מחריד והשבתי חיה רעה מן הארץ וחרב לא תעבר בארצכם‬
.‫ זה עשו הרשע‬- )‫ יד‬,‫ " יכרסמנה חזיר מיער" ( תהלים פ‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ ואין חיה רעה אלא חזיר‬,)‫ ו‬,‫רעה מן הארץ" (ויקרא כו‬
520
LevR 13.5. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 171.
‫ וארבע חוון רברבן סלקן מן‬.‫ חזי הוית בחזוי די ליליא וארו ארבע רוחי שמיא מגיחן לימא רבא‬.‫דניאל ראה את המלכיות בעיסוקן‬
‫ סלקא מן חורשא היא‬,‫ הדא חיותא כד סלקא מן ימא לית היא ממכיא‬.‫ אם זכיתם מן ימא ואם לאו מן חורשא‬.)‫ ג‬- ‫ ב‬,‫ימא (דניאל ז‬
‫ הדא חיותא כד סלקא מן נהרא לית‬.‫ אם זכיתם מן היאור ואם לאו מן היער‬,)‫ יד‬,‫ דכואתא " יכרסמנה חזיר מיער" ( תהלים פ‬.‫ממכיא‬
.‫ סלקא מן חורשא היא ממכיא‬,‫היא ממכיא‬
521
ARN A 34. Translation by Goldin, The Fathers, 138.
‫ שבזמן‬.]‫ "יכרסמנה חזיר מיער" [זו מלכות רומי‬.‫ יכרסמנה חזיר מיאור כתיב‬.)‫ " יכרסמנה חזיר מיער" (שם פ’ יד‬:‫הרי הוא אומר‬
‫ מה חזיר מיער הורג נפשות ומזיק את הבריות ומלקה‬.‫שאין ישראל עושין רצונו של מקום אומות העולם דומות עליהם כחזיר מיער‬
‫ וכל זמן שישראל‬.‫בני אדם כך כל זמן שאין ישראל עושים רצונו של מקום אומות העולם הורגין בהם ומזיקין בהם ומלקין אותן‬
‫ מה חזיר של יאור אינו הורג נפשות ואינו מזיק לבריות כך‬:‫עושים רצונו של מקום אין אומות העולם מושלין בהן כחזיר של יאור‬
:‫כל זמן שישראל עושין רצונו אין אומה ולשון הורגין בהן ומזיקין בהן ולא מלקין אותן לכך נכתב חזיר מיאור‬

198
 This midrash makes Israel subject to Rome, and Israel´s liberation is conditioned

by its deeds. In some manuscripts of Leviticus Rabbah, the scriptural basis of the midrash

is added:

“Similar is [the interpretation of] “The boar out the wood [ya’ar] doth ravage it (Ps.
80:14).”The letter ‘ayin [in the word ‘ya’ar’] is suspended [ ‫]מיע ר‬, [indicating that it might
be read as if ye’or (river), meaning]: If you will prove worthy it [i.e the boar] will come
from the river, if you will not prove worthy, from the wood; an animal coming from a
river is timid, one coming from a forest is not timid.” 522

The uncontrolled, savage force of the boar (Rome) is in some sense domesticated:

it’s destructive force is not arbitrary, but rather a direct consequence of Israel’s sins.

Christian Reading of Psalm 80 (79):14

Christian authors had a somewhat different version of Psalm 80 (79):14 according

to the Christian Bible: The Septuaginta Greek’s text reads: “ἐλυμήνατο αὐτὴν σῦς ἐκ

δρυμοῦ καὶ μονιὸς ἄγριος κατενεμήσατο αὐτήν,” 523 while the Latin Vulgate reads:

“extermnavit eam aper de silva et singularis ferus depastus est eam:” “The wild boar of

the wood has destroyed it, and the solitary wild beast has devoured it.”524 The Churc h

Fathers provided diverse interpretations of Psalms 80 (79):14, mainly seeing the “boar

out of the wood” as Satan, 525 or a furious enemy of Christianity which attacked the Soul

or the Church. 526 However, after the fourth century, we find a Christian reading tha t

refers to the defeat of the Jews by the Romans. As we have seen, Jerome (d. 408) in his

522
LevR 13.5. Translation by Israelstam, Midrash Rabba, vol. 5, Leviticus, 171.
523
Septuaginta, ed. A. Rahlfs, 2 vols in one (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1979), ii 88
(Psalm 79).
524
Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, ed. R. Weber and R. Gryson (Stutgart: Deutsche Bibel-
gesellschaft, 1994), 873.
525
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 6. The Physiologus as well identified the boar with
Satan and the World, the vineyard with the Soul and the Lord. Physiologos 61. French Translation:
Physiologos: Le bestiaire des bestiaires, trans. Arnand Zucker, Physiologos: le bestiaire des bestiaires
(Grenoble: Millon, 2004), 302-303. For the diabolic image of the boar in Christianty, see: Michel
Pastoureau, “Chasser le sanglier. Du gibier royal à la bête impure: histoire d’une dévalorisation,” Une
histoire symbolique du moyen age occidental, 65-77 (Paris: Seuil, 2004), 72-74.
526
Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 2.10.

199
Commentary on Daniel 7:7 notes, “The Hebrews believe that the beast which is here not

named is the one spoken of in Psalms: “A boar from the forest laid her waste, and a

strange wild animal consumed her” (Ps. 80 (79):14):”527 It is however Augustine (d. 430)

in his Expositions of the Psalms who seems to be the first Christian author to see the

Romans in the boar of Psalm 80 (79):14:

“The boar from the forest has ravaged it” (Ps. 80 (79):14). What are we to understand by
the boar? To the Jews pigs are abhorrent, and typical of the uncleanness of the Gentiles.
The Jewish nation was defeated by Gentiles, and the king who defeated it was not merely
an unclean pig, but a boar; for what is a boar but a savage pig, a proud pig? “The boar
from the forest has ravaged it” (Ps. 80:14). “From the forest” means from the Gentiles.
The Jews were a vineyard, the Gentiles a forest. But when the Gentiles came to believe,
what does scripture say about that? “All the trees of the forest will shout for joy” [Ps
95(96): 12]. So “the boar from the forest has ravaged” the vineyard, and “the solitary
beast has fed on it.” (Ps. 80 (79):14) The boar who wrecked it is a solitary beast, solitary
in the sense of proud, for every proud person talks like this: “Me, me. No one else
matters.” 528

Where the sages identify the subjection of Israel by Rome and Israel’s future

redemption, Augustine identifies the passage of election from old Israel to the new Israel,

from the Jews to Christians. Augustine recognizes the way Jews associated the pig with

the impurity of gentiles, but he introduces a hermeneutic twist that transforms the

impurity of the gentiles (forest) into purity, while shifting the impurity to the Roman

emperor whom he identified with the boar. While Augustine does not name the Roman

emperor, Eucherius of Lyons (d. 449 CE) identified the boar with Vespasian and the

527
Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 7:7. PL 25. Translation by Gleason L. Jr., Jerome's Commentary on
Daniel Archer (Michigan, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1958), 71-82. See: Van Kooten, George H.
“The Desecration of the ‘The Most Holy Temple of all the World’ in the ‘Holy Land’: Early Jewish and
Early Christian Recollections of Antiochus ‘Abomination of Desolation,” in The Land of Israel in Bible,
History and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, ed. Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelis de Vos, 291-
316 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009).
528
Translation by Maria Boulding, Saint Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms, 73-98 (Hyde Park, NY:
New City Press, 2002), 147 . Augustinus, Enarration in Psalmum 79, PL 36, 1025; Augustinus, Exposition
in Psalmum 79:11. CCSL 39, pars X, 2. P. 1116.

200
“singular beast” with his son Titus.529 The same reading is developed by Cassiodorus (d. c.

583 CE), who merges it with Augustine’s exegesis:

“The boar out of the wood has exterminated it, and a singular wild beast has devoured it.”
(Ps. 80 (79):14). Exterminated, that is, scattered it everywhere beyond the boundaries of
its native land, as happened to the Jews; the sense is identical to the earlier phrase, they
strip it. Perhaps we should interpret the boar as Vespasian, who showed himself tough
and savage to the Jews. This label of boar shows him as foe of the Jews, for they were
known to consider this beast as unclean among the rest. Out of the wood means from the
Gentiles, who are rightly compared to rough woodland, for as yet they were not
implanted with fruitful seed. The boar (aper) is so called because it dwells in rough
(asper) regions. The singular wild beast denotes Titus, son of Vespasian, who conducted
the closing stages of the war with such grinding ravaging that he destroyed nation and
city; he devoured them in fearful fashion like hay – an inevitable end to the vineyard once
the wall was seen to be down. 530

If Cassiodorus omits Augustine’s idea of the transformation of the nations (the

forest) from impurity to purity, he introduces the idea that “The boar out of the wood has

exterminated it,” referring to Israel’s exile, reading the verb “exterminare” as to exile (ex-

terminus). The three readings discussed here repeat Christian medieval exegesis in

different variants. 531 Interestingly enough, the Christian reading recalls Midrash on

529
“Quem significat dicens Exterminauit eam aper de silua et singularis ferus depastus est eam ? –
Aprum hic Vespasianum, ut quidam dicunt, uult intellegi qui Iudaeos bello uastauit; singularem ferum
Titum Vespasiani filium qui Hierusalem oppugnatione consumpsit.” Instrructiones I, xxxvi. Eucherius.
Eucherii Lugdunensis Formulae spiritalis intelligentiae; Instructionum libri duo . Eucherius, ed. C.
Mandolfo. CCSL 6 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 124. See: Rolf Baumgarten, “The 'pig and vine gloss' and
the Lives of St. Brigit.” Peritia 19 (2005): 232.
530
Translation by P. G. Walsh, Cassiodurus, Explanation of the Psalms, Vol II. Psalms 51-100 (New
York: Paulist Press, 1991), 289. Cassiodurus also provides an allegorical explanation: “The boar because of
its aggression and excessive strength can be interpreted in a spiritual sense as the devil; out of the wood
implies that the devil’s intentions are always rough and devious.” Cassiodorus, Expositio in Psalmum
79:14; CCSL 98, II, 2, p. 745.
531
For the history of the Christian interpretation of Ps. 80 (79):14 in the Middle Ages see: Wilfried
Schouwink, Der wilde Eber in Gottes Weinberg: zur Darstellung des Schweins in Literatur und Kunst des
Mittelalters (Sigmaringen: J. Thorbecke, 1985). Ibid., “The Wild Pig in Medieval Historiography: How a
Pagan Devil Becomes a Christian Ruler,” in Atti del V Colloquio della International Beast Epic, Fable and
Fabliau Society, Torino–St-Vincent, 5-9 settembre 1983, ed. Alessandro Vitale-Brovarone and Gianni
Mombello (Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso, 1987), 301-311. The eighth century Glossa in Psalmos writes,
for example: “EXTERMINAUIT EAM, [id est] uiniam. APER, id est Nabocodonossor [Nebuchadrezzar],
uel Sencaribh [Senncherib]. ET SINGULARIS FERUS, id est Titus uel Vespassianus.” Glossa in Psalmos,
Codex Palatinus Latinus 68, 79.14 (fol. 16V). Martin McNamara, Glossa in Psalmos: The Hiberno-Latin
Gloss on the Psalms of Codex Palatinus Latinus 68 (Psalms 39:11-151:7) (Città del vaticano: Biblioteca
apostolica vaticana, 1986), 173. For the manuscript’s date, see Martin McNamara, The Psalms in the Early
Irish Church (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 165-238. The Pseudo Meliton’s Clavis (ninth

201
Psalm 80: “the boar out of the wood” refers to the emperor [in some manuscripts

“commander of the host”], while “that which moveth in the field” refers to his generals

[‫]איסטרטיקולין‬. [Another interpretation]: “that which moveth in the field” refers to

both.”532 However, contrary to the Christian authors, the sages do not identify the boar

with a particular Roman emperor, but rather with the empire in general. While the

Christians identified the hoggishness with Vespasian and Titus, whom they see as

executers of punishment of the Jews for their rejection of Christ, the sages emphasize the

hoggish nature of the empire, which - whether pagan or Christian - does not change its

nature.

Conclusion
Based on Leviticus Rabbah and Jerome, we may conclude that the identification

of Rome with the boar of Psalm 80:14 and the fourth beast of the book of Daniel

originated at least in the fourth century. However, we do not have any reason to believe,

as Mireille Hadas-Lebel proposes, that the identification of Rome with the pig originated

in the reading of Psalm 80:14, 533 for the identification has in the rabbinic literature

cent.,) writes “Aper, diabolous: “Exterminavit eam aper de silva, et singularis ferus. Titus et Vespasianus.
Clavis 35. De bestis, S. Melitions clavis, 47. Bruno the Carthusian (1030-1101 CE) “‘aper de silva’
procedens, Vespasianus scilicet, qui ferus erat et immundus sordibus vitiorum, sicut aper ferum animal est
et sordidum” (PL 152: 1066D). Rupert of Deutz (c. 1075–1129) writes: “Ut dictum, ita et factum est.
Venerunt enim animalia de silva qua primi ex omnibus gentibus ausi fuerunt ad se missos prophetas et
sapientes et Scribas occidere et crucifigere, flagellare in synagogis suis, et de civitate in civitatem persequi
ubi erat multiplicitas errorum, et feri homines habitabant, sicut ferae in silva” (PL 168: 623B-C). For the
history of the exegesis of Psalm 80 (79): 14 see: Ute Schwab “Runentituli, narrative Bildzeichen und
biblisch-änigmatische Gelehrsamkeit auf der Bargello-Seite des Franks Casket.” In Runica—Germanica—
Mediaevalia [Festschrift for Klaus Düwel]. Eds. Wilhelm Heizmann and Astrid von Nahl.
Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 37. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 759–
803. Klaus Speckenbach, “Der Eber in der deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters,” in Verbum et Signum.
Beiträge zur mediävistischen Bedeutungsforschung, Festschrift Friedrich Ohly, vol. 1., ed. Hans Fromm,
Wolfgang Harms and Uwe Ruberg (Munich: Fink, 1975), 425-476.
532
MidrPss. 80 (ed. Buber).
.‫ זה וזה‬.‫ [דבר אחר] וזיז שדי ירענה‬.‫ זה איסטרטיקולין‬.‫ וזיז שדי ירענה‬.‫ זה השר צבא‬.‫[ו] יכרסמנה חזיר מיער‬
533
Hadas-Lebel. Jerusalem Against Rome, 517. Ibid. “Rome,” 307. See Fraenkel, Darchei Aggadah
VeHamidrash, vol. II, 618, note 128.

202
diverse exegetic proof texts. Most of the midrashim which mention Psalm 80:14 inscribe

it in a historical divine plan of subjection -redemption as in its original scriptural context.

The historical sense the sages give to Ps. 80:14 is opposite to that which some Christian

authors give it. For the sages the boar devouring the vine stands for the fourth kingdom

(Rome), which is the last empire but also marks a continuity with the empires before it.

The Christian reading sees in it a mark of a historical turning point in the passage from

Judaism to Christianity.

203
Source Date Associated with Main idea
Bereshit 11th The nations of the world are called
Rabbati of cent. “animals of the forest” (Ps. 104:20.) and
Moses ha- trample Israel, as it is written: “The boar
Darshan out of the wood doth ravage it, that which
moveth in the field feedeth on it” (Ps
80:14).
Midrash on Esau Evil beasts can refer only to the boar, for
Psalm it is said, “The wild boar out of the wood
(Buber) 120 doth root it up, and the wild beasts of the
field devour it” (Ps. 80:14), and the boar
is none other than wicked Esau
Midrash on “the boar out of the wood” refers to the
Psalm 80 emperor.
Bavli, 6th-7th R. Kahana in the name Another interpretation: ‘Rebuke the wild
Pesaḥim cent. of R. Ishmael, son of R. beast of the reeds’ - who dwells among
118b Jose (3rd cent.) the reeds, ‘the boar out of the wood
ravages it, that which moves in the field
feeds on it.’ (Ps 80:14).
Bavli Kidusin 6th-7th The letter ‘Ain [‫[ ]ע‬of the word] ya’ar
30a cent. [‫ ]יער‬is the half-way [point of the book of]
Psalms. ‘And he is compassionate,
forgave the sin” (Ps. 78:38) is the half-
way point of the verses [of the book of
Psalms].
Leviticus 4th-5th R. Phinehas and R. The boar out of the wood or the boar out
Rabbah,13.5 cent. Hilkiah, in the name of of the river.
and Avot R. Simon (2nd cent.)
deRabbi
Nathan A
34.19
Leviticus 4th-5th Esau, Fourth kingdom, The pig pretends to be pure.
Rabbah,13.5 cent. Lev. 11:7
Genesis Esau, Lev. 11:7.
Rabbah, 65.1 R. Simon b. Pazzi; R.
Simon (3rd cent.)
Jerome, d. Fourth kingdom Daniel 7:7
Commentary 408
on Daniel 7:7
Sifre on 3rd Fourth kingdom “He made him ride on the high places of
Numbers, cent. the earth” (Deut. 32:13). This refers to
316-317 the world, as it is said, “The boar out of
the wood doth ravage it,” [that which
moveth in the field feedeth on it] (Ps.
80:14)

Table 7 : Psalm 80:14 and the Association of the Pig with Rome

204
 Chapter 9
Why is it called ḥazir?
In the midrash “why is it called ḥazir?” the sages placed great importance on the

pig’s name, seeing it as embodying a deep meaning of the quality and fate of what is

named. 534 As we have seen in chapter thirteen of Leviticus Rabbah, this midrash explains

the name of the pig (ḥa ir) as embodying the promise of redemption:

“The pig” (Lev. 11:7) - this refers to Edom [Rome]. “Which does not bring along in its
train” - for it did not bring along another kingdom after it. And why is it then called “pig”
(ḥa ir)? For it restores (meḥazeret) the crown to the one who truly should have it. That is
in line with the following verse of Scripture: “And saviors will come up on Mount Zion
to judge the Mountain of Esau [Rome], and the kingdom will then belong to the Lord (Ob.
1:21). 535

According to this midrash, in messianic times Israel will “judge” Rome, a term

that may be understood as meaning to rule, but more plausibly as taking vengeance. The

midrashic explanation of the nature of the pig (by his name), that it is called ‘ ḥa ir’

“because it is destined to restore (lehahzir) sovereignty to its owners,” seems to play with

the common Greco-Roman notion that the pig pays for its crime. 536 Rome, the boar, is the

destroyer of Israel but also the kingdom that will restore the kingdom to Israel, for as the

Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael notes, God “in what He strokes - He cures.”537 In this chapter

we will observe later versions of the midrash “why is it called ḥa ir?,” namely from

Ecclesiastes Rabbah and Hamidrash HaGadol, where we find a tension between different

conceptions of the messianic era.

534
On midrashim on animals’ names in the Old Testament, see: Moshe Garsiel, Midrashic Name
Derivations in the Bible (Ramat-Gan: Revivim, 1987), 51-53 (Hebrew).
535
LevR 13.13. Translation by Neusner, Judaism and Christianity, 222-223.
‫ "ולמה נקרא שמה חזיר? שמחזרת עטרה‬.‫ שאינה גוררת מלכות אחריה‬,)‫ז‬,‫ "והוא גרה לא יגר" (ויקרא יא‬,‫ זו אדום‬- "‫"ואת החזיר‬
.)‫ " ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון לשפוט את הר עשו והיתה לה' המלוכה"(עובדיה א‬:‫ הדא הוא דכתיב‬,"‫לבעליה‬
536
As the Greek expression goes: ”Pig, you will give back grape-pips;” as the Suda explains: “that is,
you will give back more than you ate up. [This is applied] to those paying a penalty greater than their sins.”
Suda, Adler, alpha, 3600: Suda On Line: Byzantine Lexicography, <www.stoa.org/sol/< consulted
September 10, 2009.
537
Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, beshalach 5. My translation. ". ‫] במה שהוא מכה הוא מרפא‬...[ ‫"הקב"ה‬

205
Ecclesiastes Rabbah

Ecclesiastes Rabbah (7th-9th centuries) relates the midrash “why is it called ḥa ir?”

in its interpretation of Ecclesiastes 1:9.538 The midrash opens by declaring that in the

eschatological times only Israel will be rewarded:

“That which hath been is that which shall be” [and that which has been done is that which
will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.] (Ecc. 1:9). The Rabbis say: In the
Hereafter the generations will assemble in the presence of the Holy one, blessed be He,
and say before Him, ‘Lord of the Universe, who shall utter a song before Thee first?’ He
will answer them, ‘In the past none but the generation of Moses uttered a song before Me,
and now none but that generation shall utter a song before Me.’ What is the proof? As it
is said, “Sing unto the Lord a new song, and His praise from the end of the earth; ye that
go down to the sea” (Is. 42:10). 539

From a point of view which holds that a radical change will occur in the

messianic era, the idea of Ecclesiastes 1:9 “that which hath been is that which shall be” is

problematic. The midrash resolved this problem by stating that in the messianic era the

“new song” will be that of Moses’ generation, portraying the messianic era as a return or

restoration rather than a radical change. This is an idea developed further on in the

following episode the midrash relates concerning Rabbi Meir and the Romans:

Once [the Roman] government dispatched a message to our Rabbis, saying, ‘Send us one
of your torches.’ They said, ‘They possess ever so many torches and they want one torch
from us! What multitudes of torches they have; what abundance of precious stones and
pearls! It seems to us that they want of us nothing else than somebody who enlightens
(meir) faces with legal decisions [halaha].’ They sent R. Meir to them, and they asked
him many questions, all of which he answered. Finally they asked him why he [the pig] is
called ‘ḥa ir’, and he replied, ‘Because it is destined to restore (lehahzir) the sovereignty
to its owners.’ R. Meir continued to sit and expound: A time will come when the wolf

538
For the date of this midrash, see: Reuven Kiperwasser, “Sturcture and Form in Kohelet Rabbah as
Evidence of Its Redaction,” The Journal of Jewish Studies 58, no. 2 (2007): 283-302.
539
EcclR 1.9. Translation by A. Cohen, Midrash Rabbah, vol. VIII, Ruth and Ecclesiastes (London:
Soncino Press, 1939), 31-32.
‫ הדורות מתכנסין לפני‬,‫ לעתיד לבא‬:‫" רבנן אמרי‬, ]‫ תחת השמש‬,‫חדש‬- ‫ הוא שיעשה; ואין כל‬,‫שנעשה‬- ‫"מה שהיה הוא שיהיה [ומה‬
‫ לשעבר לא אמר שירה לפני אלא דורו של משה ועכשיו‬:‫ רבש" ע מי יאמר לפניך שירה תחלה? ואומר להם‬:‫הקב"ה ואומרים לפניו‬
.)‫ "שירו לה' שיר חדש תהלתו בקצה הארץ יורדי הים ומלואו וגו' "( ישעיהו מב‬:‫ מאי טעמא? שנאמר‬,‫לא יאמר שירה לפני אלא הוא‬

206
 will have a fleece of fine wool and the dog a coat of ermine. They said to him, ‘Enough,
R. Meir! ‘There is nothing new under the sun’ (Ecc. 1:9). 540

The midrash explains two names: Meir and ḥa ir (“pig”). Rabbi Meir (‫ )מאיר‬is

named so because he “illuminates,” ( ‫)מאיר‬, as he brings his followers to know the light of

God. He is both illuminated and illuminates, for his inner source of light, of wisdom,

“makes his face to shine” (Ecclesiastes 8:1).541 The pig is named ḥa ir (‫ )חזיר‬because he

returns (mahzir ‫)מחזיר‬. The juxtaposition of the two names, Meir and ḥa ir, creates an

esthetic enjoyment for the names rhyme with each other, but this also creates

contradiction (the sage – the abominable animal). 542 It is probably not accidental that

Rabbi Meir is the hero of the midrash. Was it because according to another midrash Rabi

Meir pretended to eat pork in Rome? 543 Was it because Rabbi Meir was allegedly

descended from Caesar Nero who converted to Judaism? 544 What is clear is that, in both

540
EcclR 1.9.
‫ כמה קסלופנוס יש להם והם מבקשין‬:‫ אמרו‬.‫ שלחו לנו קסלופנוס אחד משלכם‬:‫מעשה ושלחה מלכות אצל רבותינו ואמרה להם‬
‫ממנו קסלופנוס אחד? כמה מקות פנסין יש להם כמה אבנים טובות ומרגליות יש להם? כמדומין אנו שאין מבקשין ממנו אלא מאיר‬
‫ למה נקרא שמו‬:‫ ובסוף שאלו אותו‬,‫ שואלין אותו והוא משיב‬,‫ שלחו להם את ר' מאיר והיו שואלין אותו והוא משיב‬.‫פנים בהלכה‬
,‫ והכלב גלבטינון‬,‫ עתיד זאב להיות גזוז מילתן‬:‫ ועוד ישב ר' מאיר ודרש‬.‫ שהוא עתיד להחזיר את המלכות לבעליה‬:‫חזיר? אמר להם‬
.)‫ "ואין כל חדש תח ת השמש" (קהלת‬,‫ דייך ר' מאיר‬:‫אמרו לו‬
Another version appeared in Moses Gaster, The Exempla of the Rabbis (based on a manuscript from Persia,
16th century): “The Emperor asked for a luminary among the sages to be sent. R. Meir was sent to the
Emperor as being one who lit up the world with his wisdom. He was asked various questions about swine
and why they are called “ḥazirim”. He explained that the name “ḥa ir” means “returning” i.e. profit to the
owner but that the profit of them who keep aloof from any creeping and unclean thing was far greater.”
Moses Gaster, The Exempla of the Rabbis; Being a Collection of Exempla, Apologues and Tales Culled
from Hebrew Manuscripts and Rare Hebrew Books (New York: Ktav, 1968), 99.
541
B. Eruvin 13b.
.'‫ ולמה נקרא שמו ר' מאיר? שהוא מאיר עיני חכמים בהלכה וכו‬.‫ אלא ר' נהוראי שמו‬,‫ לא ר' מאיר שמו‬:‫"תנא‬
See: Galit Hasan-Rokem. “Rabbi Meir, the Illuminated and the Illuminating: Interpreting Experience,”
Current Trends in the Study of Midrash, ed. Carol Bakhos (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 227-243. Also: Avigdor
Shinan, “Light and Blindness in the Stories of the Rabbis,” Migvan 2 (2003): 75-92 (Hebrew).
542
If the Romans ask, “why he [the pig] is called ‘ḥa ir,’” it is probably because the question refers to
Esau, the father of Edom = Rome according to the Sages, which is mentioned in Levitcus Rabbah’s
version’s citation of Obadiah 1:21.
543
B. Avoda Zara 18b; EcclR 7.12.1.
544
B. Gittin 56a. “He sent against them Nero the Caesar. As he was coming he shot an arrow towards
the east, and it fell in Jerusalem. He shot one towards all four points of the compass, and each time it fell in
Jerusalem. He said to a certain boy: Repeat to me [the last] verse of Scripture you have learnt. He said: And
I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel (Ezek. 15:14). He said: The Holy One,
blessed be He, desires to lay waste his House and to lay the blame on me. So he ran away and became a

207
stories, Rabbi Meir in Rome is by his acts or his statements, a trickster. As such, he is

glorified and mocked at the same time. Hence, following his witty midrash about the pig,

Rabbi Meir is presented as going too far with his exegetical imaginary when he says,” A

time will come when the wolf [a pig – according to Hamidrash HaGadol] will have a

fleece of fine wool and the dog a coat of ermine.” 545 This saying recalls the Latin proverb:

“Ab asino lanam quaeris - you're looking to get wool from a donkey,” referring to a vain,

impossible action.546 Hence the Romans were made to express the rebuke of the sages, 547

“Enough, R. Meir! ‘There is nothing new under the sun’” (Ecc. 1:9).” Indeed Rabbi Meir

is portrayed in the Bavli as one whose reasoning is so sharp that even his fellow sages did

not understand it:

Rabbi Acha bar Chanina said, “It is revealed and known before the Creator of the
Universe that there was no one in Rabbi Meir's generation who was Rabbi Meir's peer.
And why doesn’t the law follow him? Because his peers could not follow his logic, when
he declares impure – pure, and brings reasons to it and declares pure – impure and brings
reasons to it.”548

proselyte, and R. Meir was descended from him.” According Naomi G. Cohen, Rabbi Meir is the only
Talmudic figure named “Meir.” The name dos not appear in the Bible or in any Jewish texts before the
Ga’aonic period. She believes the name is a transliteration of a name from Asia minor. While the legend on
the conversion of his father Nero is linked to his origin from Asia Minor, according to the Roman and
Christian legend, Nero hides after he commits “suicide.” The rabbinic legend of Nero´s conversion is
according to Cohen part of the Jewish polemic with the Christian legend concerning Nero as anti-Christian.
Naomi G. Cohen, “Rabbi Meir: A Descendant of Anatolian Proselytes,” JJS 23 (1972): 51-59.
545
Midrash HaGAdol, Shemini 11.7. My translation. Italics mine. Midrash Hagadol to Leviticus, ed.
A. Steinsaltz (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1975), 249 (Hebrew).
.‫ועוד היה ר' מאיר אומר עתיד חזיר להיות גוזז מילתין וכלב גלקטינין‬
The fact that the pig is not sheered is mentioned in Midrash Zuta, Song of Songs (ed. Buber) 1.15.
546
The proverb originated from Aristophanes, The Frogs (186) where Charon, the boatman to the
underworld, asks: τίς εἰς τοῦ λήθης πεδίον, τίς εἰς ὄνου πόκας; "who's for the plain of Lethe? Who's for the
donkey's wool?" The use of Ecclesiastes 1:9 to criticize messianic sayings is found also in Bavli Sabbath
30b.
547
Shraga Abramson thinks that it is the Sages who are speaking and not the Romans, see: Shraga
Abramson, “Ma'amar Chazal U-Perusho (A Rabbinic Saying and Its Interpretation),” Molad 27, new series
4 (1971): 421-429 (Hebrew).
548
B. Eruvin 13b. My translation.
‫א" ר אחא בר חנינא גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שאין בדורו של רבי מאיר כמותו ומפני מה לא קבעו הלכה כמותו שלא‬
.‫יכלו חביריו לעמוד על סוף דעתו שהוא אומר על טמא טהור ומראה לו פנים על טהור טמא ומראה לו פנים‬

208
 The joke’s sting in Ecclesiastes Rabbah is that Rabbi Meir seems to go too far not

just for his fellows sages but even for the Romans. However, while the Romans seemed

to refuse Rabbi Meir’s messianic optimism, they implicitly admit that their ferocious

animal nature will not change in the future. This turns against the Romans in the next part

of the midrash, which argues that only Israel, not the pork eaters, will be rewarded in the

future:

The Rabbis say: In the Hereafter the Holy One, blessed be He, will send forth a herald to
announce, ‘Whoever has not partaken of swine’s flesh in his lifetime, let him come and
take his reward’; and many who belonged to the Gentile peoples who never partook of
swine’s flesh will come to receive their reward. At that time the Holy One, blessed be He,
will declare, ‘These wish to be rewarded in both worlds. Not enough for them that they
enjoyed their world [upon earth], but they also seek to enjoy the world of my children! At
that time the Holy One, blessed be He, will send forth a herald a second time to announce,
‘Whoever has not partaken of the flesh of animals which had not been ritually
slaughtered or of animals disqualified for food or of the animals and reptiles prohibited
by the Torah, [let him come and receive his reward.’ But there were none, apart from
Israel, because,] if [a Gentile] had not partaken of the flesh of such animals which
belonged to himself he did so of animals which belonged to another. Hence, why is the
pig called ‘ḥa ir,’? Because it is destined to restore greatness and sovereignty to those to
whom they are due.” 549

The midrash seems to be distorted. If it refers to the Romans, the pork eaters, why

does it speak about “Gentile peoples who never partook of swine’s flesh”? And if it is not

pork which is the focus of the midrash, why does the midrash finish with “why it is

called “ḥa ir”? The answer may perhaps be found in the Midrash HaGadol’s version of

the midrash (Yemen, 14th cent.).

549
EcclR 1.9.
‫ והרבה מאומות‬,‫ כל מי שלא אכל בשר חזיר מימיו יבא ויטול שכרו‬:‫ לעתיד לבא הקב"ה מוציא כרוז ומכריז ואומר‬:‫רבנן אמרין‬
‫ לא דיין שאכלו‬:‫ נשתכרו אלו שני עולמות‬:‫ באותה שעה הקב"ה אומר‬,‫העולם שלא אכלו בשר חזיר מימיהם והם באים ליטול שכרן‬
‫ כל מי שלא אכל‬:‫ באותה שעה הקב" ה מוציא כרוז פעם שנייה ומכריז ואומר‬.‫ אלא הם מבקשין לאכול עולמן של בני עוד‬,‫עולמן‬
‫ שעתיד להחזיר הגדולה‬- ‫ הוי למה נקרא שמו חזיר‬.‫בשר נבלות וטרפות שקצים ורמשים אם לא אכל משלו אכל משל חבירו‬
.‫והמלכות לבעליה‬

209
Hamidrash HaGAdol

“And the Pig” (Lev. 11:7) The Rabbis say: Once [the Roman] government
dispatched a message to our Rabbis, saying, ‘Send us one of your torches.’ The
Sanhedrin assembled and said: ‘They possess ever so many lighted candles and torches,
abundance of precious stones and pearls and they ask from us torches!? It seems that they
want of us nothing else than somebody who enlightens (meir) faces with legal decisions
[ha aḥa].’ What did they do? They sent R. Meir to them. And why he is called Meir? For
he illuminates (meir) faces in legal decision [ha aḥa]. And when he entered to Rome the
sons of Rome asked him: why the pig’s name is ‘ḥa ir’? He replied: ‘Because it is
destined to return ( aḥzor ‫)לחזור‬.’ They said to him: “Enough, R. Meir! ‘There is nothing
new under the sun’” (Ecc. 1:9).
And furthermore they [the Romans] asked him why his name is called ‘ḥa ir,’?
He said to them: ‘It will restore (lehaḥzir) the reward to its owners.’ In the Hereafter the
Holy One, blessed be He, will send forth a herald to announce, ‘Whoever has not
partaken of swine’s flesh, let him come and take his reward’; and many of the nations of
the world who did not partake of swine’s flesh since this day will come to receive their
reward. At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, says: ‘These wish to be rewarded in
both worlds. Not enough for them that they enjoyed [lit. eat] their world [upon earth], but
they also seek to enjoy [lit. to eat] the world of my children!? At that time the Holy One,
blessed be He, will send forth a herald to announce a second time: ‘Whoever has not
partaken of the flesh of animals which had not been ritually slaughtered [nebelot],
animals disqualified for food [trefot] or of reptiles and vermin [skatzim] and insects
[remasim] let him come and receive his reward.’ But there is none of the nations of the
world which did not eat nebelot, trefot, skatzim and remasim. And if he did not eat [it
all/pork] he dipped [in its] sauce and if he did not dip in [its] sauce he cooked it in a pot.
Hence, it is found to return [maḥzir] good reward to its owner.’ Concerning it scripture
says “A wise king winnows the wicked, and drives the wheel over them” (P roverbs
20:26). And R. Meir said furthermore: A time will come when the pig will have a fleece
of fine wool and the dog a coat of ermine. 550

This midrash refers to the punishment of pork eaters; although they were to stop

eating pork “since that day” – since the day God proclaimed, “Whoever has not partaken

of swine’s flesh, let him come and take his reward,” they will be punished. Hence, the

550
Midrash Hagadol (ed. A. Steinsaltz), Shemini 11.7, 248-249. My Translation. Italics mine.
‫" תנו רבנן מעשה ששלחה מלכות קצרה לרבנן אמרה להם שלחו לנו מכם קסילופניס אחד נתישבה סנהדרין על דעתה‬.‫"ואת החזיר‬
‫כמה נירות וכמה פניסין מאירין למלכות כמה אבנים טובות ומרגליות יש להן והן מבקשין ממנו פנים אחד דומה שאין מבקשין‬: ‫אמרו‬
‫ וכיון‬.‫ ולמה נקרא שמו מאיר? שהוא מאיר פנים בהלכה ובחכמה‬.‫ מה עשו? שלחו להן ר' מאיר‬.‫אלא מי שמאיר להן פנים בהלכה‬
‫ דייך מאיר "אין כל‬:‫ אמרו לו‬.‫ שהוא עתיד לחזור‬:‫ למה נקרא שם חזיר חזיר? אמר להן‬:‫שנכנס לרומי שאלוניה בני רומי אמרו ליה‬
.(‫ ט‬,‫חדש תחת השמש" )קהלת א‬
‫ כל מי‬:‫ לעתיד לבוא הקב"ה מוציא כרוז ואומר‬.‫ עתיד להחזיר מתן שכר לבעליו‬:‫ למה נקרא שמו חזיר? אמר להם‬:‫ועוד שאלו אותו‬
‫ באותה שעה‬.‫שלא אכל בשר חזיר יבוא ויטול שכרו והרבה מאומות העולם שלא אכלו בשר חזיר מאותו היום והן באין ליטול שכרן‬
‫ ישתכרו אלו בשני עולמים לא דיין שאכלו עולמן אלא מבקשין עוד לאכול עולמן שלבני? והקב"ה מוציא כרוז ואומר‬:‫הקב" ה אומר‬
‫ כל מי שלא אכל נבילות וטרפות שרצים ורמשים יבוא ויטול שכרו ואין לך מאומות העולם שלא אכל נבילות וטרפות‬:‫פעם שנייה‬
:‫ עליו הוא אומר‬,‫שקצים ורמשים ואם לא אכל טיבל ברוטב ואם לא ט יבל ברוטב בישל בקדרה ונמצא מחזיר שכר טוב לבעליו‬
.‫ ועוד היה ר' מאיר אומר עתיד חזיר להיות גוזז מילתין וכלב גלקטינין‬.(‫ כו‬,‫"מזרה רשעים מלך חכם וישב עליהם אופן" )משלי כ‬

210
conclusion that the pig “will restore (lehaḥzir) the reward to its owners.” The overall

message of the midrash is that in the messianic era nature will not change; “that which

hath been is that which shall be and that which has been done is that which will be done.

So there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecc. 1:9). The messianic era is described as an

era of restoration: the pig [Rome] will return the kingdom to Israel, God will punish the

pork eaters but not will not change the pig´s nature (make it pure/eatable), for as the

sages state elsewhere: “The only difference between the present and the Messianic era is

that political oppression will then cease” (B. Sanhedrin 91b).551 In this line, the midrash

limits the messianic expectations, and probably polemicizes with the radical conception

of the messianic era in Judaism and especially in Christianity.

Discussion

Famously, in the Dispute of Tortosa (1413-1414), the convert from Judaism

Geronimo de Santa Fé (Joshua Halorki), brought against the Jews another version of the

midrash, “why is it called ḥazir? that it will be restored to Israel.”552 Santa Fé / Halorki

551
B. Sanhedrin 91b. ‫אין בין העולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שעבוד מלכויות בלבד‬.
552
“‫ ”למה נקרא שמו חזיר ? שעתיד הקב"ה להחזירו לישראל‬see: Géronimo de Santa Fe, Sefer ha-Pikkurim, 9.A
“Propter quid porcus vocatur hazir, quod idem est quod redibile? Quoniam Deus restituet ipsum ad Israel.”
Lopez Antoni Pacios, La Disputa de Tortosa, II, Actas, (Madrid: Iselan, 1957), 262. Isaac Abarbanel (d.
1509) in his Rosh Amanah and Yeshu'ot Meshiho. See: Don Yitzhak Abravanel, Rosh Amanah. The
Priniciples of Faith, ed. Menachem Kellner (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1993), 102 (Hebrew).
And Yeshu'ot Meshiho, 258. Yitzhak Abravanel, Yeshu'ot meshiho (Konigsberg, 1861), 70. Baer argues that
the Jews did not answer honestly when they argued that they do not know the midrash ‘why is it called
ḥazir?” Baer, “The forged Midraschim of Raymond Martini,” 40, note 1. H. Albek, argues that the Jews
only ask to see the book mentioned by Joshua Halorki before they debate the midrash. H. Albek. “Addition
to Y. Baer, ‘The forged Midraschim of Raymond Martini and their Place in the Religious Controversies in
the Middle Ages,’” in Studies in Memory of Asher Gulak and Samuel Klein (Jerusalem: Center for Judaic
Studies Hebrew University, 1942), 49.

211
argued that in the messianic era the Jews will be authorized to eat pork. The midrash

appeared much earlier in Peter Alfonsi´s Dialogue against the Jews (wr. 1109):553

“Even your sages attest to this, who said that after the advent of Christ all meats ought to
be permitted and eaten. But also on account of this they said that the meat of a pig is
called “ḥazir” (‫)חזיר‬, that is, “changeable,” since after the advent of Christ it had to be
changed from inedible to edible.” 554

Approximately one century later, the same midrash appears in An Anonymous

Treaty against the Jews (ca. 1200-1235): 555 “Why is it called ḥazir? For it will be

returned to be eatable to Israel.”556 The Christian versions, especially that of the Dispute

of Tortosa, are similar to a common version in High and Late Medieval Jewish soruces:

“why is it called ḥazir? for the Holy One, blessed be He, will return it ( ehaḥzira ‫)להחזירה‬

/ will return it ( ehaḥziro ‫ )להחזירו‬to Israel.” 557 Hence, Adin Steinsaltz believes tha t

553
On the influence of this work, see: John Tolan, Petrus Alfonsi and his Medieval Readers (Gainsville,
FL: University Press of Florida, 1993), 95-131.
554
“Hoc etiam testantur doctores vestri, qui dixerunt post adventum Christi carnes omnes absolvendas
esse et comedi. Sed et propter hoc “ḥazir [‫]חזיר‬, id est “convertibilem”, appelatam esse dixerunt carnem
porci, quod post adventum Christi de incomestibili in comestibilem debebat converti.” Petrus Alfonsi,
Di ogo contra os ud os, ed and trans. John Victor Tolan, Klaus-Peter Mieth, Esperanza Ducay, and María
Jes s Lacarra (Huesca [Spain]: Instituto de Estudios Altoaragoneses, 1996), 189. Translation by Irven M.
Resnick, Petrus Alfonsi, Dialogue Against the Jews (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of
America Press, 2006), 268. The text is cited also in Francisco Machado, Espelho de Christãnos novos
(Mirror of the New Christians) (Alcobaça, Portugal, 1541). Francisco Machado, The Mirror of the New
Christians, ed. trans. and introd. Evelyn Vieira Mildred and Ephraim Frank Talmage (Toronto: Pontifical
Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1977), 184. On Francisco Machado’s use of Petrus Alphonsi, see: John
Tolan, Petrus Alfonsi and his Medieval Readers (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1993), 119-120.
555
On the date of the Tratado, see: José M. Millás Vallicrosa, “Un tratado an nimo contra los judios,”
Sefarad 13 (1953): 8. The midrash is told after arguing that God permited all foods during creation, for He
declared all his Creation good (Gn. 1:1-25). It further argues that the reason for the food avoidance in the
Old Testament was to avoid idolatry among the Israleites, and that the real sense of the commandments is
allegorical. The author argues that with the coming of Christ, the new convenant abolishes the food
avoidance. The midrash “why is it call ḥazir?” is told in order to reinforce this argument.
556
“Lama nicra semo ḥa ir ha ssum sseyah ir eheho isçrae .” Millás Vallicrosa, “Un tratado,” 33.
Josep Hernando, “Tractatus adversus Iudaeos. Un tratado an nimo de polémica antijudía (s.XIII),” Acta
historica et archaeologica mediaevalia 7-8 (1986-1987): 74.
557
The answer “‫שעתיד הקב"ה להחזירו‬/‫ ”להחזירה לישראל‬is found inter alia in: Ibn Shaprut, Even Bohan
11.15 (wr. 1385). Norman E. Frimer The Preparation of a Critical Edition of the Manuscript Eben Bohan
by Shem Tob bar Yitzhak Shaprut, Phd Dissertation (New York: Yeshiva University, 1953), 82. RITVA’s
(Yom Tov ben Abraham Asevilli, Spain, 1250-1330) interpretation to B. Kiddushin 59b. Ritva,
Commentary to the Talmud (Hiddushei ha-Ritva), Kiddushin, ed. R. Avraham Dinin (Jerusalem: Mossad
HaRav Kook, 1985), 526 (Hebrew). Rabbi Abba Mari of Lunel in his Minḥat kenaot 2. 20-30 (wr. c. 1310).
Rabbi Abba Mari of Lunel, Minḥat kenaot in Solomon ben Adret, Teshuvot ha-Rashba le-Rabenu
She omoh b.R. A raham ben Adret; ṿe-tsoraf la-hen Sefer Minḥat ena ot e-R. Aba Mari de-Lunil, vol. I.1

212
Hamidrash HaGadol’s version (“Because it is destined to return ( aḥzor ‫)”)לחזור‬, which

comes from the Muslim world, is the original uncensured version, while Ecclesiastes

Rabbah’s version (“Because it is destined to restore (lehaḥzir ‫ )להחזיר‬the sovereignty to

its owners”) was a result of Jews’ self-censorship in Christian Europe. 558 If so, how

should we explain that the most ancient version - in Leviticus Rabbah (“For it restores

(meḥazeret ‫ )מחזרת‬the crown to the one who truly should have it.”) – offers a similar idea

to that of Ecclesiastes Rabbah? As Shraga Abramson notes, we find this idea in the sixth

century piyyut of Yannai, where it is stated that God in the messianic era “will break

down the pig (ḥa ir ‫ )חזיר‬and kingship [to Israel] will return (yaḥzir ‫)יחזיר‬.”559 Rather tha n

trying to identify the original, uncensured version of the midrash, we can see in the

diverse answers to the question, “why is it called ḥa ir?” a reflection of diverse opinions

concerning the messianic era (table 8). In fact, if, as Steinsaltz proposes, the Hamidrash

HaGadol’s version is the oldest one, it contains a polemic between two messianic

interpretations of the name of the pig. The first is that the pig is called ḥa ir for it will

“return,” in the sense that the pig will become pure (edible) to Israel, but this

interpretation is rejected for “there is nothing new under the sun’” (Ecc. 1:9). Hence

comes the second interpretation, which is the correct one: “It will restore (lehaḥzir) the

reward to its owners,” in the sense that God will punish the pork eaters.

(Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Ḳuḳ; Makhon le-hotsaʼat rishonim ṿe-aḥaronim, 1990), 232 (Hebrew). Jacob
ben Sheshet of Gerona, Sefer meshiv devarim nekhohim 3, lines 82-92 (wr. c. 1240). Jacob ben Sheshet,
Sefer Meshiv Devarim Nekhohim, ed. Georges Vajda (Jerusalem: Israeli Academy of Science, 1968), 81-82
(Hebrew). Menahem Tzioni (14-15th Cent.). Sefer Tzioni (Jerusalem, 1964), 47 (Shemini) (Hebrew). And
Isaac Abarbanel (d. 1509) in his Rosh emuanah and Yeshu'ot Meshiho. Abravanel, Rosh Amanah, 102; Ibid.
Yeshu'ot meshiho, 70.
558
Adin Steinsaltz, “Atid ha-Kadosh Baruh Hu le- aḥa iro,” Tarbiz (1967): 297-298 (Hebrew).
559
Yannai, Keroba to Deutronomy 2:2. My translation. Menachem Zulay, Piyyute Yannai, (Liturgical
Poems of Yannai) (Berlin: Schocken 1938), 230. Abramson, “Ma'amar Chazal U-Perusho,” 423 (Hebrew).
.‫ ומלוכה יחזיר‬/]‫ויבקע חז[יר‬

213
 Source Date Answer Hebrew
Midrash 13th ‘Because it is destined to return´ ( aḥzor) ‫שהוא עתיד לחזור‬
HaGadol cent. ‘It will restore (lehaḥzir) the reward to its ‫עתיד להחזיר מתן שכר‬
owners.’ .‫לבעליו‬
Ecclesiastes 7th-9th ‘Because it is destined to restore ‫שהוא עתיד להחזיר את‬
Rabbah cent. (lehaḥzir) the sovereignty to its owners.’ ‫המלכות לבעליה‬
Leviticus 4th-5th ¨For it restores (meḥazeret) the crown to .‫שמחזרת עטרה לבעליה‬
Rabbah cent. the one who truly should have it´.
13.5
Table 8: The different answers to the question, “why is it called ḥazir”?
in midrashic literature

The Christians argue that the pig was pure since the creation of the world, and that

the coming of Jesus did not change the pig´s nature but rather changed the nature of the

Hebrew Bible law. The avoidance of pork traded its literal meaning for a spiritual one:

God does not ask man not to eat pork, but asks him not to behave like a pig. The

avoidance of pork was imposed temporarily on the Jews because of their sinful nature. In

a sense the Christians argued that, regarding animal purity, “That which hath been is that

which shall be” (Ecc. 1:9), that the impurity of animals was an innovation of Sinai. Hence,

with the coming of Christ, the status of the pig returned to its original one. The sages, on

the other hand, made the pig stand for the future punishment of Rome for its sins against

Israel, for “that which hath been is that which shall be” (Ecc. 1:9). Furthermore, not only

will the avoidance of pork not cease to be respected in the messianic era, but also God

will punish the eaters of pork. This idea is elaborated in the Midrash on Psalms (Buber)’s

interpretation of Ecclesiastes 1:9:

“The Lord sets prisoners free,” (Ps. 146:7). What does “sets prisoners free” mean? Some
say: every animal that is unclean in this world will be purified by the Holy One, blessed
be he, in the World to Come, and so it is written: “What was is what will be, and what
was made is what will be made” (Eccl. 1:9); “what was made” - whatever [animals] were
made [created] before the time of Noachides were [considered] clean, and so it is written,
“I gave you everything as the green herb” (Gn. 9:3). Just as I gave the green herb to
everyone, so [I gave] beasts and animals to everyone from the beginning. Why, then, did
he forbid it? In order to see who would obey his command and who would disobey; in the
World to come, he will permit everything that he forbade. But some say that he will not
permit them in the World to Come for, as it is written: “those who eat swine’s

214
 flesh…[shall come to an end together]” (Is. 66:17). If he cuts down and destroys whoever
ate them, how much more so [God will consider impure] the unclean animal [itself]? 560

The midrash seems to interpret “the Lord sets prisoners free (matir asurim)” (Ps.

146:7) as “the Lord permits the prohibited (matir isurim).” The midrash provides two

additional interpretations, besides the abrogation of food avoidances: 1) the abrogation of

the prohibition of Niddah, of having intercourse during menstruation (because women

will have no more menstruation), and 2) The resurrection of the dead (‫)תחיית המתים‬, when

God will liberate the dead from the prison of death. 561 The first interpretation regarding

impure foods opens with the argument that in the times of Noah it was declared that all

food was pure (based on Gn. 9:3), which the Christians used as proof that the food

avoidances of the Hebrew Bible were temporary. This idea is rejected by the argument

that God gave the commandments to Israel to test the willingness of Israel and the nations

of the world. The idea of the abrogation of the food avoidances in the messianic era is

rejected by the citation of Isaiah 66:17. This verse is understood not only as proof that the

nations of the world will be punished in the future, but also as an argument a priori that if

God will be so severe with those who eat impure animals, how much stricter will he be

concerning the impure status of those animals themselves. The midrash on Psalm 146

560
MidrPss 146. Translation by Rokeah, Justin Martyr, 112-113, with slight alteration. Rokeah
translates the final phrase of the midrash as, “how much more so [will he destroy] the unclean animal
[itself]”. However, it seems to me that that this phrase refers to the question of the status of impurity of
animals in the messianic era, with which the midrash opens.
‫ מהו "מתיר אסורים"? יש אומרים כל הבהמה שנטמאת בעולם הזה מטהר אותה הקב"ה לעתיד‬.)‫ ז‬,‫"ה' מתיר אסורים" ( תהלים קמו‬
: ‫ וכה"א‬,‫ ומה שנעשה טהורים היו מקודם לבני נח‬,)‫ ט‬,‫ "מה שהיה הוא שיהיה ומה שנעשה הוא שיעשה" (קהלת א‬:‫ וכה" א‬,‫לבוא‬
,‫ ולמה אסר אותה‬,‫ אף החיה והבהמה לכל מתחלה‬,‫ מה ירק עשב נתתי לכל‬,)‫ ג‬,‫"להן כירק עשב נתתי לכם את כל" (בראשית ט‬
: ‫ שכה"א‬,‫ ויש אומרים אינו מתירן לעתיד לבוא‬.‫ ולעתיד לבוא הוא מתיר את כל מה שאסר‬,‫ ומי אינו מקבל‬,‫לראות מי שמקבל דבריו‬
.‫ הבהמה הטמאה לא כל שכן‬,‫ ומה אם למי שהיה אוכלם הוא מכרית ומאביד‬,)‫ יז‬,‫"אוכלי בשר החזיר וגו'" ( ישעיה סו‬
561
MidrPss 146.
‫ ולעתיד לבוא הוא‬,‫ שהאשה רואה דם ואסרה הקב"ה לבעלה‬,‫ ז)? אין אסור גדול מן הנדה‬,‫ומהו "מתיר אסורים" ( תהלים קמו‬
‫ "ואל אשה בנדת‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ ואין טומאה אלא נדה‬,)‫ ב‬,‫ "וגם את הנביאים ואת רוח הטומאה אעביר מן הארץ" (זכריה יג‬,‫מתירה‬
‫ שביום שנגלה הקב"ה על הר‬,‫ תדע לך שכן הוא‬,‫ ויש אומרים אף תשמיש המטה היא אסורה לעתיד לבא‬,)‫ יט‬,‫טומאתה" (ויקרא יח‬
,)‫ טו‬,‫ "היו נכונים לשלשת ימים אל תגשו אל אשה" (שמות יט‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫סיני ליתן התורה לישראל אסר תשמיש המטה שלשה ימים‬
,‫ ומהו מתיר אסורים‬,‫ לעתיד לבא שהשכינה ביניהם אינם אסורין‬,‫ומה כשנגלה עליהם יום א' אסרן מתשמיש המטה שלשה ימים‬
.‫אסורי מות ואסורי שאול‬

215
perhaps originated from Bereshit Rabbati of Moses ha-Darshan (11th cent.) and was

integrated into Midrash on Psalms between the eleven and twelfth centuries. 562 The

midrash therefore seems to reflect a High Medieval polemic with Christianity.

A later midrash which plays with the idea that the pig will return asks, “Why is it

[Rome] compared to the pig (ḥazir)?” answering, “Because the Holy One is going to pay

it (lehaḥzir) with strict judgment,” 563 as for example in Midrash Tanḥuma:

‘These, However, you may not eat (…): The camel (…); The rock badger (…); The hare
(…); And the pig’ (Lev. 11:4-7). The camel (gamal) represents the kingdom of Babylon,
since it is stated: ‘O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, [blessed is the one
who repays you the recompense (gemuleh) with which you recompense (shegamalt) us’
(Ps. 137:8). The rock badger represents the kingdom of Media, since it is stated: So
humans sought to destroy [all the Jews]…(Esth. 3:6). The hare alludes to Greece, because
it brought low the Torah from the mouth of the prophets. The pig represents the evil
kingdom of Edom, since it is stated: ‘The pig of the forest gnaws at it’ (Ps. 80:14). Why
is it compared to the pig (ḥazir)? Because the Holy One is going to pay it back (ḥazir)
with strict judgment. How? In the age to come the Holy One will issue a proclamation:
Whoever has been engaged in the Torah may come and receive his reward. Then the
gentiles also will say: Give us our reward, for we also have performed such and such a
commandment. The Holy One [however] has said: Whoever has not eaten abhorrent
creatures and creeping things may receive his reward. At that time they [will] receive
their judgment ( ‫)איפופסין‬,564 as stated: ‘Those who eat the flesh of the pig, the abhorrent
creature, and the mouse shall be consumed together, says the Lord’ (Is. 66:17). 565

562
On the date of the midrash, see: Mack, “The Source,” 68. The midrash cited in Raymond Martini’s
Pugio fidei tells a similar version:
‫ כל הבהמה‬.)‫ ז‬,‫ " יהוה מתיר אסורים" ( תהלים קמו‬:‫ זה שאמ' הכתוב‬,)‫א‬,‫" ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים ופרעה חולם” (בראשית מא‬
‫ "כירק עשב נתתי לכם את כל"(בראשית‬:'‫שנטמאת בעולם הזה הב" ה מטהר אותה לעתיד לבא כשם שהיו טהורים תחלה לבני נח שנ‬
‫ מה הירק עשב טהור לכל אף החיה והבהמה היו טהורים להם ואף לעתיד לבא הוא מתיר את כל מה שאסר ולמה אסרם‬,)‫ ג‬,‫ט‬
‫ ז)? אין אסור גדול מנדה שהאשה רואה‬,‫בעולם הזה לראות מי מקבל דבריו ומי לא מקבל ומהו " יהוה מתיר אסורים"( תהלים קמו‬
‫ ואין‬,)‫ ב‬,‫ " וגם את הנבואים ואת רוח הטומאה אעביר מן הארץ" (זכריה יג‬:'‫ואסרה הב" ה ולעתיד לבא הוא מתירה וכן הוא אומ‬
‫ יט) ויש אומ' אף תשמיש המטה הוא יהיה אסור‬,‫ " ואל אשה בנדת טומאתה לא תקרב" (ויקרא יח‬:'‫טומאה אלא נדה וכן הוא אומ‬
‫בפעמים לעתיד תדע לך שכן יום שנגלה הב" ה על הר סיני אסרם בתשמיש המטה שלשה ימים שנ' "היו נכונים לשלשת ימים אל‬
‫ למה כי ביום השלישי ירד יהוה על הר סיני ואם יום אחד שנגלה הב"ה אסר עליהם שלשה ימים‬,)‫ טו‬,‫תגשו אל אשה" (שמות יט‬
.‫ל עתיד לבא בימות המשיח שהשכינה בינהם לא כל שכן אלא מהו מתיר אסורים? אסירי שאול אסירי המות‬
Raymond Martini, Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Iudaeos 3.3.11. Raimundus Martini and Joseph de
Voisin. Raymundi Martini Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Iudaeos.: Cum observationibus Iosephi de
Voisin (Lipsiae, 1687), 802-803.
563
Midrash Hagada (ed. Buber), Leveticus 11.5. Tan (ed. Buber), Shemini 14; YalkShim, Shemini 536.
564
On the word ‫ איפופסין‬see: Daniel Sperber, A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic
Literature (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1984), 52-54.
565
TanB Shemini 14. Translation by John T. Townsend, Midrash Tanhuma (S. Buber Recension), vol.
2. Exodus and Leviticus (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1997), 235-236.
‫ "בת בבל השדודה [אשרי‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ זו מלכות בבל‬- "‫ "את הגמל‬.)‫ז‬-‫"את הגמל ואת השפן ואת הארנבת ואת החזיר" (ויקרא יא ד‬
,‫ "ויבקש המן להשמיד וגו'" (אסתר ג‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ "את הארנבת" – זו מלכות מדי‬.)‫ ח‬,‫שישלם לך את גמולך שגמלת לנו]" ( תהלים קלז‬
"‫ " יכרסמנה חזיר מיער‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ זו מלכות אדום הרשעה‬- "‫ "ואת החזיר‬,‫ זו יון שהשפילה את התורה מפי הנביאים‬- "‫ "את השפן‬.)‫ו‬

216
 In Yalkut Shimoni, Shemini 536 we find another configuration of the idea that the

in the messianic era God will punish the pork eaters on the basis of Isaiah 66:17:

“Every word of God is pure ]tzrufa [(Prov. 30:5) – and does God care if one gorged
[ritually] an animal and ate [it according to the law] or if one killed [the animal] and ate
it ? But the precepts were given for the purpose of purifying [ eṣaref ‫ ]לצרף‬peoples [briot
‫]בריות‬. Come and see: in the beginning of the world it is written: “[Every moving thing
that lives will be food for you], as the green herb have I given you everything” (Gen. 9:3)
and when Israel were on Mount Sinai [God] multiplied to them Torah and
commandments. Said the Holy One, blessed be He: A minor commandment I command
him [the nations of the world] and he transgresses it, all those commandments how can he
fulfill? In the Hereafter the Holy One, blessed be He, will send forth a herald to announce,
‘Whoever has dealt with the Torah will come to receive their reward. And the Kutim
[Samaritans, but here in the sense of non-Jews] will come and say: “give us our reward
for we also followed the commandments.” The Holy One, blessed be He, will say: “any
one that did not eat pig’s flesh, and abominations or creeping things will come and
receive his reward.” In this hour they [the nations of the world] will receive their verdict
[‫ ]איפופסין‬as it is written: “the eaters of the flesh of pig, vermin, and mouse, shall come to
an end together, says the Lord” (Is. 66:17). 566

The first part of the midrash originates from Leviticus Rabbah 13.3-4. However,

while in Leviticus Rabbah the idea that the food avoidance is as a test to the Jews is

emphasized, later midrashim placed greater importance on the future punishment of

Israel’s enemies in the messianic era for not respecting the food avoidances.

‫ כיצד? לעתיד לבא הקב"ה מוציא כרוז כל מי‬,‫ למה נמשלה לחזיר? שעתיד הקב"ה להחזיר עליה את מדת הדין‬.)‫ יד‬,‫( תהלים פ‬
‫ כל מי שלא אכל‬:‫ אמר הקב"ה‬.‫ ואף הגוים אומרים תן לנו שכרינו שאף אנו עשינו מצוה פלונית‬,‫שעסק בתורה יבא ויטול שכרו‬
‫ "אוכלי בשר החזיר והשקץ והעכבר יחדו יספו‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ באותה שעה הם נוטלין איפופסין שלהן‬,‫שקצים ורמשים יבא ויטול שכרו‬
.‫ חסלת פרשת שמיני‬.)‫נאם ה'" ( ישעיה סו יז‬
Compare to: Midrash Haggadah (ed. Buber), Shemini.
‫ יד) ולמה נמשלה לחזיר? שעתיד‬,‫ " יכרסמנה חזיר מיער" ( תהלים פ‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ שנמשלה לחזיר‬,‫ זו אדום הרשעה‬- "‫"ואת החזיר‬
‫ ואף‬,‫ כל מי שעשה מצווה פלונית יבוא ויטול שכרה‬:‫ והאיך? לעתיד לבוא הקב"ה מוציא כרוז‬,‫הקב"ה להחזיר עליה מדת הדין‬
,‫ איזה מצווה עשיתם? והם שותקים‬:‫ אמר הקב"ה‬,‫ שאף אנו עשינו מצוה פלונית‬,‫ תן לנו שכרינו‬:‫ ואומרים‬,‫הגויים באים ליום הדין‬
‫ באותה שעה מתקבצין כל‬.‫ יבוא ויטול שכרו‬,‫ והעכבר ורמשים‬,‫ השקץ‬,‫ כל מי שלא אכל בשר החזיר‬:‫באותה שעה אמר הקב"ה‬
.)‫ יז‬,‫ "אוכלי בשר החזיר השקץ והעכבר יחדיו יספו נאם ה'" ( ישעיה סו‬:‫ שנאמר‬.‫ והקב"ה מענישם‬,‫הגוים‬
566
YalShim, shemini 536.
.‫אמרת ה' צרופה וכי מה איכפת לו להקב"ה בין שוחט בהמה ואוכל בין נוחר ואוכל? הא לא נתנו המצות אלא לצרף בהן את הבריות‬
.‫ "כירק עשב נתתי לכם את כל" ומשעמדו ישראל על הר סיני הרבה להם תורה ומצות‬:‫בוא וראה מתחלת ברייתו של עולם כתיב‬
‫ לעתיד לבא הקב"ה מוציא כרוז כל מי שעסק‬.‫ מ צוה קלה צויתי אותו ועבר עליה כל המצות האלו היאך יכול לקיים‬:‫אמר הקב"ה‬
‫ כל מי שלא אכל בשר חזיר‬:‫ אמר הקב"ה‬.‫ תן לנו שכרנו שאף אנו עשינו מצות‬:‫בתורה יבא ויטול שכרו ואף הכותים אומרים‬
‫ "אוכלי בשר החזיר והשקץ והעכבר יחדיו יסופו‬:‫ושקצים ורמשים יבא ויטול שכרו באותה שעה הן נוטלין איפופסין שלהן שנאמר‬
(.‫ יז‬,‫נאם ה'" ( ישעיה סו‬

217
Conclusion

The midrash “why is it called ḥazir?,” dated from as early as the fourth or fifth

century, in the High and Late Middle Ages had diverse versions which have been

explained in diverse ways.567 As we have seen, the midrashic playing with the Hebrew

word for the pig, “ḥa ir” and the verb to return (leaḥzir) is also found in piyyut of Yannai

in the sixth century, where it is described how God in the messianic era “will break down

the pig (ḥa ir) and kingship [to Israel] will return (yaḥzir).”568 Similarly, it is wrriten in a

piyyut by Yehuda (Eretz Israel/Palestine, 6th-7th century?):

Until when shall the daily offering [tamid] be void from your multitudes,
and in the hands of those who eat pork [beshar aḥa ir] shall your residence be given?
Be zealous for our zeal to return [ eaḥziro] it [Israel] to your dwelling.
Let my prayer be counted as incense before you (Ps 141:2). 569

We find this construction later in several Medieval liturgical poems, as for

example in the line of Yehuda Halevi (1070-1140 CE): “And [God] will expel Shamah

[one of Esau’s descendents] the eater of Pork (ḥa ir) and we will bless there “Blest the

one that returns (maḥzir).”570 The links between the pig and return is also found in the

later medieval Psikta Zutara’s explanation that the pig is so called because it “turns all its

567
Rabbeinu Behaye (d. 1340), Biur al ha-Torah,vol. II, Exodous, Leviticus, ed. R. Hayyim Dov
Chavel (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Ḳuḳ, 1967), 458-459. For further sources, see: Karlinski H., “He-ḥa ir
ve-‘ etero e-Atid Lavo,” Shanah be-Shanah (1972): 243-254.
568
Yannai, Keroba to Deutronomy 2:2. My translation. Zulay, Piyyute Yannai, 230. For the link
between this piyyut and the midrash “why is it called ḥazir?” see Shraga Abramson, “Ma amar Ḥa a -
Pirusho.”
‫ ומלוכה יחזיר‬/]‫ויבקע חז[יר‬
569
Yehuda, Quedusa for Vayishlach. Translation by Wout Jac van Bekkum, Hebrew Poetry from Late
Antiquity: Liturgical Poems of Yehudah (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 1998), xv.
‫ תכון תפלתי‬/ ‫קנא קנאתינו להחזירו למעוניך‬/ ]‫ וב[ יד אוכלי] בשר החזיר ניתן ביד מלו[ניך‬/‫עד [מתי בטל] התמיד [מה]מוניך‬
.‫קט[רת] ל[פנ[יך‬
570
Israel Levin and Angel Saenz-Badillos, Si me o ido de ti, erusa em… Cantos de las sinagogas de
al-Andalus (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1992), 68. The poem probably originates from after the first
crusades since the pig eaters are in the Temple.
.‫ונברך שמה ברוך מחזיר‬/‫ויגרש שמה אוכל החזיר‬

218
body, and does not turn its neck.” 571 Likewise, it is found in the Greco-Roman image of

the pig returning to the mud after the bath. This saying, attributed to Heraclitus, 572 is

found in 2 Peter 2:22: “’The dog returns to its vomit’ and ‘The pig, once washed,

wallows in mud.’”573 Hence, a biological, behavioral conception of the pig as an animal

that turns/returns converged with the Hebrew etymology of the pig’s name as containing

the root ḥ.z.r, which is also that of the verb to return, and this made the pig particularly

apt to be manipulated in the idea of messianic return.

Judah Rozental collected several midrashim which transmit the idea of the

abrogation of the commandments in the messianic era.574 While not all the examples he

cites are convincing, it is clear that the idea of the abrogation of the commandments

existed in early rabbinic literature and probably even earlier. This idea is central in

Christianity, as the coming of Jesus is understood as abrogating the old Law. Therefore,

the tension between the idea of the eternity of the Law and its messianic abrogation

which is inherent to Judaism itself became one of the most important differences between

Judaism and Christianity. In the fourth century, Julian the Apostate ironically asks

whether the nature of the pig changed after Peter’s vision in Jaffa (Acts 10: 9-22),

arguing that “if, after the vision of Peter, the pig has now taken to chewing the cud, then

let us obey Peter; for it is in very truth a miracle if, after the vision of Peter, it has taken

to that habit.” 575 It seems that similarly, the midrash “why is it called ḥa ir?” seems to

reject the same idea that the pig will change its nature in the messianic era, at least in

571
Psikta Zutra, Leviticus Shemini 29b. .‫ שמחזר כל גופו ואינו מחזר צוארו‬.‫ואת החזיר‬
572
Courcelle, “Le thème littéraire, 281. Jungkurtz “Fathers, Heretics, and Epicureans.”
573
Brown, An Introduction, 767.
574
Judah Rosenthal, “Abrogation of the Commandments in Jewish Eschatology,” in Meyer Waxman
Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. Judah Rosenthal, Leonard C. Mishkin,
and David S. Shapiro (Chicago: College of Jewish Press; Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem: Mordecai Newman,
1966), 217-233 (Hebrew).
575
Julian, Against the Galilaeans 306B-314E (Apud Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian).

219
Hamidrash haHagado ’s version. While this version mentioned an interpretation of the

name of the pig which seems to propose that it will became pure in the messianic era, this

interpretation is mentioned solely with the aim of being rejected.

As Jonathan Boyarin notes, Christianity made the pig, or more exactly eating pork,

a passage, a poros from Judaism to Christianity, from the past to the future. 576 The

midrash “why is it called “ḥa ir?” makes a similar move, but in the opposite direction:

the pig is a poros, a passage from Rome (Christianity) to Israel, in the sense that in the

messianic era Israel’s power will be restored. To this idea was added the punishment of

the pork eaters in the messianic era, which later midrashim based on Isaiah 66:17: “Those

who eat the flesh of the pig, the abhorrent creature, and the mouse shall be consumed

together, says the Lord.”

576
Boyarin, “Le porc en dieu Pôros.”

220
 Chapter 10
The End of the Pig
The tension between binary oppositions can be managed in different ways: It

might be maintained, elaborated, or limited. However, it might come to its end by a

synthesis of both oppositions or by the destruction of both or one of the opposites.

Messianic thinking tends to imagine - after the messianic overcoming - a neutral, pacific

world, a world free of tensions. If the pig incarnated for the sages the antithesis of Israel,

did they believe that the tension between the two binary oppositions would come to end

in the messianic era? And if so, did they imagine the end of the pig? As we have seen, the

midrash “why it is called ‘ḥa ir’?” imagines that the pig in the messianic era will restore

the kingdom to Israel, but the midrash does not speak of the end of the pig´s existence or

its impurity. A more radical version of this midrash hints that at the end of time, the pig

will become pure, and hence the tension which it embodied will end. However, while

some Kabalists understood this midrash as proposing that in the messianic era the pig

will become pure (as a Shabatian author of the seventh century also believed), this

opinion is marginal.577 Another midrash states that the eaters of pork will be punished a t

the end of time, but it does not imagine the end of the pig, its killing, or its extinction. In

fact, only one midrash, in Esther Rabbah, mentions the killing of the pig.

Esther Rabbah

Midrash Esther Rabbah twice mentions the pig: in chapters four and seven. In

chapter four, Vashti (the former wife of King Ahasuerus) is compared to a sow:

“What shall we do [unto the queen Vashti] according to law” (Esther 1:15).- R. Isaac said:
[To think that] that sow is treated according to law, and a holy nation not according to

577
Mack, “The Source,” 59.

221
 law, but with barbarity!? “unto the queen Vashti” (Ibid) - And how much more with a
queen who is not Vashti!” 578

The simile of the better treatment of the sow as a symbol of Israel’s enemy´s

current superiority is found also in Genesis Rabbah 44.23. In this midrash, the

paradoxical existence of the elected people under the subjection of the Roman Empire is

addressed in a paragraph which interprets God’s blessing to Abraham in Genesis 15 in

what is known as the Abrahamic covenant (Brit bein HaBetarim, the "Covenant Between

the Parts”). The midrash must overcome the contradiction between the blessing that

promises Abraham´s offspring that they will inherit the land of the ten nations of

Canaan, 579 with the reality of the Roman occupation during its time of composition. The

midrash resolves this problem with the idea that in the past God gave the Jews the seven

nations of Canaan but not the remaining three nations that Israel will inherit in the

future. 580 Later on, the midrash compares this injustice to that of the fecundity of the

impure sow and the barenness of the pure sheep:

578
EstherR 4.5. Translation by Maurice Simon, Midrash Rabbah, Esther (London: Soncino Press,
1939), 60.
‫ במלכה ושתי על אחת כמה וכמה במלכה‬,‫ אמר רבי יצחק לחזירתה כדת ולאומה קדושה שלא כדת אלא באכזריות‬,‫כדת מה לעשות‬
.‫שאינה ושתי‬
579
Genesis 15:19: “The Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite, and the Hittite, and the
Perizzite, and the Rephaim, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite.”
580
“R. Dostai said in the name of R. Samuel b. Nahman: Because the Hitite is not mentioned here [V.
Deut. 7:1] the Rephaim are substituted in their stead. R. Helbo said in R. Abba’a name in R. Johanan’s
name: The Holy One, blessed be He, did at first contemplate giving Israel possession of ten peoples, but He
gave them only seven, the other three being the Kenite, and the Kenissite, and the Kadmonite. Rabbi said:
They are Arabia, the Shalamite and the Nabatean. R. Simeon b. Yohai said: They are the Damascus region,
Asia Minor, and Apamea. R. Liezer b. Jacob said: Asia Minor, Thrace, and Carthage. The Rabbis said:
Edom, Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon are the three nations that were not given to them [to
Israel] in this world, as it is said, “For I will not give you of their land, [not so much as for the sole of the
foot to tread upon]; because I have given Mount Seir to Esau for a possession” (Deut. 2:5). But in the days
of the Messiah they shall once again belong to Israel, in order to fulfill God’s promise. Now, however, He
has given them but seven, as it says, “Seven nations greater and mightier than thou” (Deut. 7:1).” GenR,
Lech Lecha 44. 23. Translation by Freedman, Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, vol. I, 563-565.
‫ רבי חלבו בשם רבי אבא‬.‫ לפי שאינו מזכיר כאן החוי לפיכך הוא מביא רפאים תחתיהם‬:‫רבי דוסתאי בשם רבי שמואל בר נחמן אמר‬
‫ ולא נתן‬,‫ ואת הקדמוני‬,‫ את הקיני ואת הקנזי‬,‫ כך עלה בדעתו של מקום להנחיל להם לישראל ארץ עשרה עממים‬:‫בשם רבי יוחנן‬
‫ ולמה נתן להם‬.‫ הרי שבעה‬,‫ ואת היבוסי‬,‫ ואת הגרגשי‬,‫ ואת הכנעני‬,‫ ואת האמורי‬,‫ ואת הרפאים‬,‫ ואת הפרזי‬,‫ את החתי‬,'‫להם אלא ז‬
,‫ דרמוסקוס‬:‫ רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אומר‬.‫ נוטייה‬,‫ ערביה שלמייה‬:‫ ואיזה הם הג' שלא ניתן להם? רבי אומר‬,)‫שבעה (פירושן לעיל‬
‫ הם הג' שלא נתן להם‬,‫ וראשית בני עמון‬,‫ אדום ומואב‬:‫ רבנן אמרי‬.‫ אסיא ותרקי וקרטגינה‬,‫ ר"א בן יעקב אמר‬.‫ ואספמייא‬,‫ואסייא‬

222
 R. Isaac said: The sow grazes with ten of its young whereas the sheep does not graze
even with one. Thus, all these, viz. “The Kenite, the kenizzite, etc.” (Gn. 15:19). [i.e. the
Romans who were promised to Abraham’s seed], yet so far, “Sarai Abraham’s wife bore
him no children” (Gn. 16:1)!” 581

The Sages learn from Genesis 16:1 that as Sarah finally became pregnant with

Isaac, hence Israel´s redemption finally will come. If now “the sow [Rome] grazes with

ten of its young [allusion to the ten nations] whereas the sheep [Israel] does not graze

even with one,” in the future Israel will inherit Rome. 582

The problem of the unjust asymmetry between the pig/sow (Israel’s enemy) and

the pure animal (Israel) is resolved in the “porcine” midrash in Esther Rabbah’s chapter

seven:583

After those things, Ahasuerus, the king, promoted Haman, the son of Hammedatha the
Agagite, etc” )Esther 3: 1(. As the writing said: “But the wicked shall perish, and the
enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs” )Psalms 37: 20(. For they are not
fattened for their own sake but for slaughtering; similarly, Haman was promoted just for
his downfall. As in the parable of a man that had a filly, a she–ass and a sow, who gave to
the sow without measure and to the she-ass and the filly only their due. The filly said to
the she-ass: “what is this fool doing ? To us, that are working for the master of the house,
he gives only our due and to the sow, who is idle, he give without measure?” She
answered her: “the time will come and you will see her downfall, for she is not fed more
for her glory but rather for her damnation”. And as Kalandes arrived, they took
immediately the sow and slaughtered her. They started to give barley to the daughter of
the she-ass and she blew on it and didn’t eat. Her mother told her: “my daughter, it is not
the food that is the cause, but the idleness, as it was written: “and he set his seat above all
the princes that were with him” (Esther 3:1), therefore, “so they hanged Haman” (Esther
7:10). 584

‫ "אל תצר את‬:‫ "כי לא אתן לך מארצו ירושה כי ירושה לעשו נתתי את הר שעיר (דברים ב) ובמואב כתיב‬:‫ אדום שנאמר‬,‫בעוה"ז‬
‫ אבל לימות המשיח יחזרו ויהיו לישראל‬.‫ קיני וקדמוני הוא מעמון ומואב‬,‫מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה" (דברים ב) קנזי הוא מעשו‬
.)‫ “ש בעה גוים רבים ועצומים ממך" (דברים ז‬:‫ אבל עכשיו שבעה נתן להם שנאמר‬.‫כדי לקיים מאמרו של הקב"ה‬
581
Ibid.
,'‫ כל אילין אמר הקב" ה לאברהם דיהב ליה את הקיני ואת הקנזי וגו‬.‫ חזירתא רעיא בעשרה ואימרתא ולא בחד‬:‫אמר רבי יצחק‬
. ‫ועדיין ושרי אשת אברהם לא ילדה לו‬
582
In the late Midrash Shir-ha-Sirim Zuta (1.15) Israel is compared to a ewe that is sheared and grows
wool each year, and is contrasted to the pig that is not sheared and does not grow anything. See: Midrash
Zuta on Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations and Ecclesiastes, ed. S. Buber (Berlin, 1894) (Hebrew).
583
According to Arnon Atzmon, this midrash is from the earlier stratum of Esther Rabbah. Arnon
Atzmon, Esther Rabbah II – Towards a Critical Edition, PhD Dissertation (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan
University, 2005), 58-64. (Hebrew)
584
EstherR 7.10.

223
 The story seems to be a version of Aesop’s fable 414: The Pig, the Donkey, and

the Barley: 585

There was a man who had vowed that he would sacrifice a pig in honour of Hercules if
the god agreed to rescue him from danger. When the man fulfilled his vow and sacrificed
the pig, he then ordered that the pig’s leftover barley be given to the donkey. The donkey,
however, refused to touch it. ‘This is the kind of food that would normally arouse
appetite,’ said the donkey, ‘but not when it is the result of the previous diner having had
his throat cut!’
[Moral] This fable taught me caution und I have avoided risky ventures ever since – but
you say ‘those who grab wealth get to keep it’. Just remember how many of them are
eventually caught and killed! Clearly, the ones who have been punished constitute the
larger crowd. A few people may profit from reckless behavior, but more are ruined by
it. 586

Esther Rabbah’s version has the moral that, “it is not the food that is the cause,

but the idleness,” but the general message does not change much from the Aesopian

origin. The use of the Aesopian fable in Esther Rabbah could be clarified by an episode

from the Byzantine Life of Saint Symeon (wr. 764/5-844/5), where the saint prophesies

the death of Emperor Leo V on Christmas day of the year 820:

For once when God-loving men were sitting with the holy man at the column and
conversing, they spoke [as follows] about this impious man [emperor Leo V]: “Have you
seen, father, what a lawless emperor God has made to live long because of our sins? He
subjects the orthodox to continuous banishments (…). So what do you say, holy one,
what? Encourage us your children.” And opening his mouth our divine father Symeon
said nothing scriptural but a country saying known by all: “Endure patiently, brothers, for
squeals of swine [come] around the Kalends.” Which in fact happened; for during
Christmastide in the church of Stephen the first martyr, the one within the palace, in the

‫ "כי רשעים יאבדו ואויבי ה' כיקר‬:‫ זה שאמר הכתוב‬, ]‫ א‬,‫אחר הדברים האלה גדל המלך אחשורוש את המן בן המדתא וגו' [אסתר ג‬
‫ משל לאדם שהיתה לו‬,‫ כך המן הרשע לא נתגדל אלא למפלתו‬,‫ שאין מפטמין אותן לטובתן אלא לטבחה‬.(‫ כ‬,‫כרים" ( תהלים ל"ז‬
‫ מה שוטה זה עושה? אנו שאנו‬:‫ אמרה סייחה לחמורה‬.‫סייחה וחמורה וחזירה והיה נותן לחזירה בלא מדה לחמורה ולסייחה במדה‬
‫ שאין‬,‫ תבא השעה ואת רואה במפלתה‬:‫עושין מלאכתו של בעל הבית נותן לנו במדה ולחזירה שהיא בטלה שלא במדה? אמרה לה‬
‫ התחילו נותנין שעורים לפני בתה של חמורה‬.‫ כיון שבא קלנדס מיד נטלו לחזירה ונחרוה‬.‫מאכילין אותה יותר לכבודה אלא לרעתה‬
‫ " וישם את כסאו מעל כל‬:‫ כך לפי שכתוב‬,‫ בתי לא המאכל גורם אלא הבטלה גורמת‬:‫ אמרה לה אמה‬,‫והיתה מנשבת בהן ולא אכלה‬
.]‫ י‬,‫השרים אשר אתו" לפיכ ֿך "ויתלו את המן" [אסתר ז‬
585
For a different suggestion as to which of Aesop’s fable the midrash transforms, see: Yassif, The
Hebrew Folktale, 199-200.
586
Aesop, Fable 599: ”The farmer and the Pig.” Translation by Laura Gibbs, Aesop’s ab es (Oxford
and New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 194. The same is found in Latin in Phaedrus 5.4 (‘The Ass
and the Pig’s Barley’).

224
 place named Daphne, during the night he [Emperor Leo V] was cut to pieces limb from
limb and departed to gloomy darkness. 587

Being an iconoclast, Emperor Leo V is portrayed as the enemy of the Church, and

therefore as a boar.588 In Kalends (kalendae), the first day of the Roman month, it was the

custom to sacrifice to Juno a porca (sow) and agna (sheep) near the regina sacrorum in

Regia. 589 However, it seems that the Kalends which is mentioned in the Life of Saint

Symeon and in Esther Rabbah is that of January, the New Years Eve of the Julian year. 590

“Squeals of swine come around the Kalends,” seems to be proverbial expression

equivalent to the French-Spanish proverb: “À chaque porc vient la Saint-Martin”/“A todo

cerdo le llega su San Martín” – “To each pig comes [it’s] Saint Martin´s Day.” Since pigs

are traditionally slaughtered on this day, November eleventh, 591 the proverb´s message is

that each criminal will one day pay for its crimes. Both in the midrash and in the

Byzantine life of the saint, the killing of the pig on the Kalends symbolizes the execution

of the tyrant, an idea that we find in a version of another Aesopian parable concerning the

criminal pig, which Aelian relates in the third century CE:

587
Life of Sts. David, Symeon and George of Lesbos 16. Italic mine. Translation by Dorothy
Abrahamse and Douglas Domingo-Forasté, “Life of Sts. David, Symeon and George of Lesbos” in Alice-
Mary Maffry Talbot, Byzantine Defenders of Images: Eight Saints' Lives in English Translation
(Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1998), 182-183.
588
Interestingly enough, in what might parallel the Jewish tradition of the pig entering the Temple, the
rise of Leo V is symbolized as a pig that enters the Church. Life of Sts. David, Symeon and George of
Lesbos 14. Talbot, Byzantine Defenders of Images, 177.
589
Jaan Puhvel, “Victimal Hierarchies in Indo-European Animal Sacrifice,” The American Journal of
Philology 99.3 (1978): 359.
590
Hadas-Lebel, Jérusalem contre Rome, 310-312. Ibid. “Le paganisme à travers les sources
rabbiniques des IIe et IIIe siècles. Contribution à l’étude du syncrétisme dans l’empire romain.” ANRW II,
19, no. 2 (1979): 427-429. For the Kalends in Rabbinic sources, see: Moshe Benovitz, “Herod and
Hanukkah,” Zion 68, no. 1 (2003): 39-40 (Hebrew). Emmanuel Friedheim, Rabbinisme et Paganise en
Palestine romaine: étude historique des Realia talmudiques (Ier-IVème siècles) (Leiden; Boston: Brill,
2006), 332-335.
591
On the day following Saint Martin Day the forty days of Advent begin, during which it is forbidden
to eat meat. See: Sillar and Meyler, The Symbolic Pig, 156. Fabre-Vassas, The Singular Beast, 77. Compare
to the Arabic proverb, “Every dog will have its day.”

225
 This is the story from Phrygia; it is from Aesop the Phrygian. It says that if one touches a
pig, it squeals, and quite reasonably: it produced no fur or milk, nothing but meat, and it
has visions of death because it knows in what way its nature is a source of profit for
others. Tyrants are like Aesop’s pig: they suspect and fear everything, because they know
that they too, just like the pig, are at mercy of everyone. 592

If, as Joseph Tabory remarks, the tale in Esther Rabbah is not “Jewish,” as

expressed by the fattened sow which is sacrificed for the Kalends, 593 it nevertheless

serves to relay a “kosher” message. When told in a Jewish context, the non-kosher

elements take on a particular Jewish meaning. The question is, who “Judaizied” the story?

The phrase cited by Esther Rabbah: “But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the

Lord shall be as the fattened lambs” (Ps 37:20) speaks of the killing of fat lambs, a pure

animal. However, the story that follows, speaks of a sow, an impure animal. Haman,

symbolized by the sow, is, according to the sages, the descendant of Esau, who is

identified with the pig. The midrash proposes that the execution of Haman (Esther 7:10)

resembles the killing of the pig. 594 Now we can see how the porcine midrash in chapter

seven answers the injustice expressed in the porcine midrash in chapter four: “[To think

that] that sow is treated according to law, and a holy nation not according to law, but with

592
Elian, Historical Miscellany 10.5. The original Aesopian parable, entitled The Sheep, the Goat, and
the Sow: A story about a sow, teaching us to give each man his due: “A man had rounded up a sow, a goat,
and a sheep from his farm. While the donkey carried them all to the city, the goat and the sheep settled
down quietly, but the sow’s screams bothered their chauffeur, so the donkey said to the sow, ‘Why on the
earth can’t you go along quietly like the others?’ The sow replied, ‘The goat is being brought here for her
milk, the sheep for his wool, but for me this is a matter of life and death! The moral of the parable is that
“each man has his own reason for acting as he does.” Translation by Laura Gibbs, Aesop, “Fable 397: The
Sheep, the Goat, and the Sow,” in Aesop’s ab es (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2002),
185.
593
Tabory, “The Proems, 12.
594
For Purim’s vengeance fantasies, see: Hagit Sivan, Palestine in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2008). In Sephardic communities it was the custom during Purim to write a “Marriage
Contract” (ketubah) for Haman and his wife Zeresh. In one example from Salonika (in Ya'akov Tzidkuni’s
collection) Haman is portrayed as the “cursed, stupid, notorious wild boar, enemy of the Jews,” see: Yom-
Tov Lewinsky, “ eit ad Ḥiku Et Haman biTefutzot Yisrael (How Haman was beaten in the Jewish
Diasporas),” Yalkut Folkloristi lePurim (Tel-Aviv: HaḤevra Ha’Ivrit lyeda Am, 1947), 14 (Hebrew).

226
barbarity!?” 595 The reply: injustice is temporary, for in the end the sow will be

slaughtered!596

Discussion

While the pig is the emblematic animal of the evil empire, it is quite surprising

that we find just one midrash concerning its killing. However, as we have seen, the later

Midrash on Psalms imagines the future extermination of the pig (Rome=Esau):

595
EstherR 4.5. Translation by Maurice Simon, Midrash Rabbah, Esther (London: Soncino Press,
1939), 60.
‫ במלכה ושתי על אחת כמה וכמה במלכה‬,‫ אמר רבי יצחק לחזירתה כדת ולאומה קדושה שלא כדת אלא באכזריות‬,‫כדת מה לעשות‬
.‫שאינה ושתי‬
596
For the image of Vashti in Rabbinic literature, see: Yael Shemesh, “Gi gu eha she ashti Mi ra,
midrash Ḥa a , ha-parshanut ha-femiistit,” Beth Mikkra 47 (2002): 356-372 (Hebrew). To the midrashim
mentioned above, we may associate a story in Hekhalot Rabbati (c. 650-900 CE) in which the killing of the
Roman emperor is associated with pigs. According to the legend, Emperor Lupinus, who condemned R.
Ḥanina ben Teradyon to death, is miraculously transferred by an angel from his palace to a pig sty [where
the Rabbi was jailed]. In the morning, the emperor’s soldiers came and killed the emperor, who seemed to
them to be the condemned rabbi: “R. Ishmael said: Suriya, the prince of the countenance, told me:
“Beloved, Let me tell you what HDR THWR HDR ‘WHYHM, the Lord, the God of Israel, did at that hour.
He ordered me to descend, and I harassed and pushed Emperor Lupinus out of his palace, where he slept at
night, and I led him to the pen of the pigs and dogs. I brought R. Hananyah ben Teradyon in and led him to
the palace of Emperor Lupinus. The next morning, the guards who were angry with R. Nehunya ben ha-
Qanah came to say: ‘(He is) sitting performing wonders in the house of study, sitting teaching the noble
ones of Israel Torah.’ ‘Chop off his head!’ Emperor Lupinus appeared to them as R. Hananyah ben
Teradyon [as R. Nehunyah ben ha-Qanah] and they cut off his head, while R. Nehunya ben ha-Qanah was
in his house. Meanwhile, R. Hananyah ben Teradyon went and bound the crown of his kingdom and
reigned over wicked Rome in the guise of Emperor Lupinus for six months, during which he killed six
thousand generals, a thousand generals each month. They displayed him in the form of R. Hananyah ben
Teradyon before the people of wicked Rome, and they seized him and threw him into the fire. Who was it
whom they had thrown into the fire in place of R. Hananyah ben Teradyon? (It was) Lupinus, since – after
they had killed him – they revived him again in the upper court of justice. They seized him, threw him into
the fire, and he suffocated in the flames.” Hekhalot Rabbati 8.3.120-121. Translation of MS O5135 by
Raʻanan S. Boustan, From Martyr to Mystic: Rabbinic Martyrology and the Making of Merkavah
Mysticism (T bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 233-236.
‫אמר ר' ישמעאל סח לי סווריא שר הפנים ידיד אומר אני לך מה עשה הדר טהור הדר אוהיהם [אוריהם] יוי אלהי ישר' באותה שעה‬
‫ציוני וירדתי וטרדתי ודחפתי את לופינוס קיסר מהיכלו שהיה ישן בו בלילה והולכתי אותו בבית להקת חזירים וכלבים והכנסתי את‬
‫ר' חנניא בן תרדיון וחילמתי והולכתי אותו בבית לופינוס קיסר למחר באו ההורגים שכועסין על ר' חנניה בן תרדיון לומד נפלאות‬
'‫יושב ועשה בבית המדרש ויושב ומלמד לאבירי ישר' תורה התיזו את ראשו נדמה להם לופיינוס קיסר כר' חנניה בן תרדון [כר‬
‫נחוניה בן הקנה 'ס'א] וחתכו את ראשו ור' נחוניא בן הקנה בתוך ביתו ור' חנניה בן תרדיון קשר כתר מלכותו והלך ומלך על רומי‬
'‫ והעמידו בצורת ר‬.‫הרשעה בצורת פניו של לופיינוס קיסר ששה חודשים והרג בה ששת אלפים הגמונים אלף הגמונים לכל חודש‬
‫חנניה בן תרדיון לבני רומי הרשעה ותפשוהו והטילוהו באש ומיהו שהיטלו באש תחת ר' חנניה בן תרדיון לופיינוס שמאחר‬
‫שהמיתוהי חזרו והחיו אותו בבית דין של מעלה ותפשוהו והטילוהו באש והיה בשינוק בית השרפה ובמדה הזו כל עשרת חכמי‬
.‫ישראל‬

227
 “My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace” (Ps. 120:6). Is there any man who
hates peace? Esau hates peace. Scriptures says, “I will give you peace in the land” (Lev.
26: 6). When will there be peace? The verse goes on to answer, “After I will cause evil
beasts to cease out of the land” (ibid.). Evil beasts can refer only to the boar, for it is said
“The wild boar out of the wood doth root it up, and the wild beasts of the field devour it”
(Ps. 80:14), and the boar is none other than wicked Esau. 597

While the famous prophetic image in Isaiah 11:6 of the messianic era as a time

when animals will change their nature - when “the wolf shall live with the lamb, the

leopard shall lie down with the kid” - the Midrash on Psalms imagines the messianic

extermination of the evil beast, the boar. However, this midrash is isolated in its extreme

vision of the end of the boar and does not change the overall picture of the rarity of the

image of the killing of the pig in rabbinic literature.

This rarity might be conected to the many versions of the Islamic Hadith

according to which, in the end of the days, ‘Isā (Jesus) will descend upon earth and will

kill the pigs, as in, for example, the ninth century version of Muslim’s Sahih:

I swear by God that Jesus will descend from heaven and that he will be an equitable
judge, he will destroy the cross, he will kill the pigs, he will abolish the tax to the non-
Muslims, he will leave the young she-camels and no one will be interested in them; spite,
mutual haters and jealousy will disappear, and when he calls the people to accept wealth,
no one will do so. 598

Some later versions speak of how ‘Isā (Jesus) “will kill the swine, break the cross,

destroy chapels and churches and kill the Christians except those who believe in him,” 599

or how ‘Isā (Jesus) “shall break the cross and slay the pigs and the Jews, so that the Jew

will hide near a rock. And the rock shall say to the believer: ‘O believer, come, for there

597
MidrPss 120. Translation by Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, vol. 2, 293.
‫ "ונתתי שלום‬:‫ וכה"א‬.‫ וכי יש אדם שונא שלום? עשו שונא השלום‬.)‫ ו‬,‫"רבת שכנה לה נפשי וגו'" [עם שונא שלום] ( תהלים קכ‬
‫ אימתי יהיה כן? "והשבתי חיה‬.)‫ ו‬,‫]" (ויקרא כו‬:‫בארץ [ ושכבתם ואין מחריד והשבתי חיה רעה מן הארץ וחרב לא תעבר בארצכם‬
.‫ זה עשו הרשע‬- )‫ יד‬,‫ " יכרסמנה חזיר מיער" ( תהלים פ‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫ ואין חיה רעה אלא חזיר‬,)‫ ו‬,‫ ויקרא כו‬,‫רעה מן הארץ" (שם‬
598
Muslim, Sahih, 1.136.155 cited in: Roberto Tottoli, ib ica Prophets in the ur ān and Mus im
Literature (Richmond: Curzon, 2002), 157.
599
Al-Baydāwī, Tafsir (13th Century), on Sūra XLIII, v. 61, cited by: Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, “Is there a
Concept of Redemption in Islam?” Some Religious Aspects of Islam: A Collection of Articles (Leiden: Brill,
1981), 52-53.

228
is a Jew near me: kill him’” 600 Hence, the killing of the pigs in some versions is

analogous to the killing of the Muslims’ others. Although the hadith represents a common

tradition while the Midrash on Psalms is a unique text, both imagine the messianic era as

a violent end of tensions which the pig represents, as an era of the end of the pig, the end

of the other.

It is not surprising that in Christianity, we find a very different messianic

construction. If the end of time is not imagined as a period where all humanity will eat

pork, the idea that in the end of time all humanity will be Christian implies that the

historical process of Christianization of the world will lead to an increase in pork eating

until it is consumed by all humanity. 601 However, part of the messianic move of

Christianity, by the abrogation of the prohibition of pork, makes it a locus of abrogation

of the old testament´s binary tension between pure and impure, between Israel and the

nations.

The sages, to the contrary, insist upon maintaining the tensions that the pig

incarnates. In fact, they strengthen the meaning of the avoidance of pork as a locus of

separation between Israel and the nations. Therefore, even in their discourse on the

messianic era, the sages usually take care not to go too far, insisting that the nature of the

pig, or the law concerning it, will not change. Hence, the important simile for the sages is

not the killing of the pig, but rather avoiding association with it, first by avoiding the real

animal, especially consuming its meat, and secondly by disassociation from what it

600
Ta’yīd al-milla, foll. 44r (Spain, Huesca, 1360). Cited by: David Nirenberg, Communities of
Violence. Persecution of Minorities in the Middle Ages (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996),
197.
601
In Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice (3.5.1) Lancelot complains about Jessica’s conversion: “This
making of Christians will raise the price of hogs – If we grow all to be pork eaters, we shall not shortly
have a rasher on the coals for money.”

229
stands for (Rome, the Empire, Christianity). For the sages, to not kill the pig and not

consume it in some sense means to be devoid, to be controlled, to be powerless. The pig

is not the object of violence for the Jews; it is not the subordinate but rather the dominant,

the ruler, the Empire. For the sages, avoidance became an important principal in their

relation with the non-Jewish world and the Empire in particular, and they asked their

fellow Jews to avoid as much contact with non-Jews (sex, marriage, eating, etc.) as

possible. Avoidance became an active force of resistance to respond to a passive political

existence. In other words, avoidance became one of the Sage’s solution to their being

devoid of political power. Pork became one of the foci of this “politics of avoidance.”

The pig is the Roman Empire which devours Israel, who is devoid of power in this world;

however, by avoiding pork Israel will reverse this situation in the world to come. In the

messianic era Rome, being devoid of political power, will be devoured, while the

kingdom will be restored to Israel.

230
 Discussion and Conclusion

When was Rome identified with the pig in rabbinic literature? After addressing

this question, we will discuss the meaning of this identification of Rome with the pig in

the light of the broad context of the rabbinic discourse concerning pigs and the avoidance

of pork. Following this, we will examine the link between the sages’ identification of

Rome with the pig and the use of porcine symbolism by the Romans themselves. Then

we turn to the question of time in the model of the four kingdoms and in the typolo gical

pair, Jacob and Esau, before concluding.

When was the equation “Rome = Edom = Esau = The Fourth

Kingdom=Pig” Established?
If the topos of the replacement of the tamid by the pig is as early as the

Maccabees (2nd cent. BCE), we can presume that its transfer to the destruction of the

Temple by the Romans was somehow natural, and could have occurred in an early period.

If we consider a possible impact of the boar emblem of the legion X Fretensis, a remote

memory of a sacrifice of a pig that might have been carried out in the Temple Mount, and

the presence of boar images on the coins of Aelia Capitolina, we can presume that the

linkage of the pig to the legend of destruction, known already to Origen (d. c. 254 CE),

was made in the Tannaitic period. However, the question remains as to when the equation

“Esau = Edom = Rome = the fourth beast = pig” was established.602

602
Aminoff, The Figure, 223-233. In Jewish fundamentalist circles the identification of Christiantiy
with the pig remains commonplace up to this day. See for example: Yoel ben Aharon Schwartz, Yemot
Olam: Mabat al-Tekufatenu veMasmauta (Jerusalem: Dvar Yerusalym, 1980), 15. Cited in: Abraham
Amsallem, Bein Israel LeAmim (Between Israel and the Nations) (Jerusalem: Publisher unknown,
2000/2001), 23-25 (Hebrew).

231
 While the identification of Esau with Edom is biblical, 603 the identification of

Esau and Edom with Rome seems to originate from as early as the thirties of the second

century, if we accept as authentic the attribution of this identification to the sages of the

generation after the Bar Kokva revolt. 604 As for the identification of Rome with the fourth

kingdom of the book of Daniel, this likely occurred in the first century CE. 605 The

connection of Esau with the boar is found in 1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilees (2 nd cent.

BCE), 606 which led several scholars to propose that “the wild boar may have been a

common Jewish term of abuse for the Edomites during the Antiochan crisis.”607 However,

it is not clear if this early connection to Esau with the boar contributed to the

identification of Edom/Esau with the pig in rabbinic literature. Mireille Hadas-Lebel

believes that the identification of Rome with the pig originated with the allegorical

interpretation of Psalms 80:14: “The boar out of the wood,” as a prophecy of the

603
Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible, 322.
604
Adiel Schremer, “Midrash and History: God’s Power, the Roman Empire, and Hopes for
Redemption in Tannaitic Literature,” Zion 72 (2007): 29 (Hebrew). Cohen, “Esau as Symbol.” S. Zeitlin
believes that Rome was identified with Edom only since the fourth century, see: S. Zeitlin., “The Origin of
the Term Edom for Rome and the Roman Church,” JQR 60 (1970): 262-263. An earlier date was proposed
by Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. V, 272, note 19: “The use of the names Edom, Seir, Esau,
and similar ones, to describe Rome is very old, and was probably coined at the time of Herod, whose
designation "the Idumean" was applied to his masters, the Romans. When Rome adopted Christianity, the
same appellations were transferred to the Christians and Christianity. (…) In the Amoraic portions of the
talmudic and midrashic literature, the use of Edom for Rome is met with quite frequently.” Jacob Neusner
argues that ‘Esau’ and ‘Edom’ begin to function as nicknames for Rome only in the later Rabbinic works,
and not in the early, Tannaitic, sources. For criticism of this opinion, see: Adiel Schremer, “Eschatology,
Violence, and Suicide: An Early Rabbinic Theme and Its Influence in the Middle Ages,” in Apocalypse and
Violence, ed. A. Amanat and J. J. Collins (New Haven: Yale Center For International and Area Studies,
2002), 20, note 7.
605
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 10.206-210; The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch 39; The Apocalypse of
Edras, 12.11,13. See: Hadas-Lebel. “Rome,” 98-99.
606
Bryan, Cosmos, 117, note 70. According to the book of Jubilee, Esau, attacking Jacob, says: “If the
boar can change his skin and make bristles soft as wool, or if he can make horns to sprout out of his head
like the horns of a stage or a sheep then will I observe the tie of brotherhood with you.” Jubilee 37.20. The
text continues: “When Jacob saw that he was adversely inclined toward him from his mind and his entire
self so that he could kill him and (that) he had come bounding along like a boar that comes upon the spear
which pierces it and kills it but does not pull back from it, then he told his own (people) and his servants to
attack him and all his companions.” Jubilees 37. 24-25. Traslation by James C. VanderKam, The Book of
Jubilees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 249.
607
Bryan, Cosmos, 117-18 [following: A. Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch (Leipzig: Vogel, 1853), 259.]

232
destruction of the Temple by Rome. 608 Frenkel appears to be correct when he argues tha t

this assumption is not probable for it is not mentioned anywhere in the midrashic

literature.609 In his opinion, the midrashic equation came into existence in two phases: 1)

in the second century CE the identifications of Rome with the four beasts of the Book of

Daniel and Rome with Esau and Edom were shaped simultaneously, and 2) One hundred

years later the four impure animals mentioned in Leviticus chapter eleven were linked to

the four beasts (kingdoms) of Daniel (Leviticus Rabbah 13.5). 610 Both Frenkel and

Hadas-Lebel tend to date the identification of Rome with the pig, according to the date of

the speakers to which the different midrashim are attributed. But how can we know that

the saying indeed reflects the ideas of these sages and not those of later generations

ascribed to them? The Talmud and Midrash are difficult if not impossible to date exactly,

given that for many generations they followed the oral tradition and were only compiled

and edited much later. 611 In any case, it seems that from the fourth century on, for the

sages, the equation “Esau = Edom = Rome = the fourth kingdom = pig,” was, as Frenkel

608
Hadas-Lebel, Jerusalem Against Rome, 507. Hadas-Lebel, “Rome,” 305.
609
Fraenkel, Darchei Aggadah VeHamidrash, vol. II, 618, note 128.
610
According to Frenkel, Leveticus Rabbah is the most ancient misrashic source of the identification
“Pig = Edom = Rome.” Fraenkel, Darchei Aggadah VeHamidrash, vol. I, 219.
611
Daniel Boyrin notes, “By speaking of talmudic culture, I am emphatically not suggesting that there
was one homogeneous form of this culture for the nearly six hundred years and two major geographical
centers which attest to it. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, there were consistent differences between the earlier
and later forms of the culture and between its western version in Palestine under Hellenistic cultural
domination and its eastern version in Babylonia, where Persian culture reigned supreme. (…) But the texts,
particularly the later ones, such as the Talmuds, are encyclopedic anthologies of quotations, comprising all
of the places and times of rabbinic culture production. We can assume with confidence neither that a given
passage quoted from a particular authority represent an expression of that authority’s time and place, nor
that it doesn’t and that it only belongs to the culture in which the text was put together […]. Indeed, even,
the redaction of the midrashic and talmudic texts cannot be assigned with any certainty to a particular time,
place, or set of persons. Even within the individual texts, there is evidence that different sections received
their final forms in very different historical moments. (…) By default, then, I am generally constrained to
write of rabbinic culture as a whole, even knowing that such discussion represents only a gap in our
knowledge.” Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1993), 24-25.

233
notes, “commonplace.” 612 This observation is supported by Jerome’s (d. 408) comment

that the Jews identified Rome both with the fourth beast of the book of Daniel and the

boar of Psalm 80:14. 613 The broadness of this equation in Judaism after the fourth centur y

is observed in Yannai’s piyyutim, liturgical poems from the Land of Israel (6 th cent.). For

example, in a Kedushah to Yom Kippur, Yannai uses the idea which is found as early as

Leviticus Rabbah 13.5, that the pig (Rome - the fourth kingdom) blasphemes:

The reign of the pig gnaws at us, it eats our power, and crushs our labour, (cf. Daniel 7:7);
It tramples upon us and treads down our land, with no end, [saying]” "I am, and there is
no one besides me” (Is. 47:8),
to the nation you have said: “I am God, and there is no other” (Is. 45:22). 614

In a Keroba to Genesis 32:4, Yannai uses another idea which is origi nally found

in Leviticus Rabbah 13.5, that the fourth kingdom, the pig, is more dreadful than the three

kingdoms which preceded it: 615

612
Fraenkel, Darchei Aggadah VeHamidrash, vol. I, 219.
613
Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 7:7. PL 25. Translation by Gleason L. Jr. Archer, Jerome's
Commentary on Daniel, (Michigan, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1958), 71-82. See: George H. Van
Kooten, “The Desecration of the ‘The Most Holy Temple of all the World’ in the ‘Holy Land’: Early
Jewish and Early Christian Recollections of Antiochus ‘Abomination of Desolation,” in The Land of Israel
in Bible, History and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, ed. Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelis de
Vos, 291-316 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009).
614
Yannai (Keroba to Yom Kippur). My translation (partly following W. Jac. van Bekkum, “The
Classical Period of the Piyyut: the Paytan Yannay (Sixth Century A.D.),” in Jaarbericht van het
vooraziatisch-egyptisch genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 27 (1981): 138. Menachem Zulay, Piyyute Yannai
(Liturgical Poems of Yannai) (Berlin: Schocken, 1938), 336.
,‫] ה אני ואפסי עוד ( ישעיה מז‬...[ ‫ רופסת עלינו ורומסת גבולינו איך קץ‬/ ‫ומשולת חזיר מכרסמת בנו אוכלת כוחינו ומדקת עמלינו‬
(‫ כב‬,‫ לעם אשר אמרתה אני הוא " אל ואין עוד" ) ישעיה מה‬/ )‫ח‬
615
We find the theme in an anonymous lament: “Alas, the gnawing (animal) had seized the Temple
(hadom)/ Pouncing upon me with iron clad teeth that tore me to the bone (kedom)/ And I was plunged into
the turbulence of Sodom/ Oppressed for 550 years under the kingdom of Edom (= Rome).” Translation by
Hagit Sivan, “From Byzantine to Persian Jerusalem: Jewish Perspectives and Jewish-Christian Polemics,”
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 41 (2000): 284. Y. Davidson, Otzar ha-shirah v'-ha-piyut (Treasury
of Song and Liturgical Poetry), vol I (New York: 1924–1933 (repr., New York: Ktav, 1970)), 1712.
.‫ עישנו תק ונ שנה במלכות אדום‬/ ‫שמני כמהפכת סדום‬/ ‫ניבוהי די פרזל אותי לקדום‬/ ‫אוי כי מכרסם תפש הדום‬
The printed manuscripts of prayer books (mahzorim) read: “Alas, the gnawing (animal) had seized the
Temple (hadom)/ it stabbed me like a pig which tears to the bone (kedom)/ Dirty and loathsome as the
turbulence of Sodom/ It Oppressed ” me some years, made me its footstool (hedom).” My translation.
.‫ שמני לרגליו הדום‬,‫עשקני כמה שנים‬/ ‫סחי ומאוס כמהפכת סדום‬/ ‫נעץ כחזיר אותי לקדום‬/ ‫אוי כ י מכרסם תפש הדום‬
Or in the anonymous lament:
.]‫ סוגר מקץ חמש מאות (ושמונים) [וחמשים‬/ ‫ ניבוהי די פרזל – זה מזה קשים‬/ ‫מכרם לחזיר חרשים‬
J. Yahalom, “The Transition of Kingdoms in Eretz Israel (Palestine) as Conceived by Poets and Homelists,”
Shalem 6 (1992): 8 (Hebrew).

234
 Edom which [terrified me?] and cause me dread; your animal name was not given;
his body is comparable to a brave boar; more terrifying than its companions [the other
three empires], [that the prophet Daniel] saw in his imagination. 616

In another piyyut (Keroba 23 to Genesis 25:19), Yannai enumerates a long list of

differences between Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Rome), contrasting “The history of lamb

and pig/ lamb to sacrifice (korban ‫ )קרבן‬and pig to destruction (ḥurban ‫)חרבן‬.”617 The

destruction associated with the pig could refer to the past destruction of Israel/the Temple

by the pig (Rome), but also to the future destruction of Rome in the messianic era. 618 In

his Keroba to Deuteronomy 2:2, Yannai ask his fellow Jews not to revolt against the

Empire, but rather to pray for its punishment in the messianic era:

I adjure you the sons of rightness (cf. Song of Sol. 1:7), do not awaken; in your love, his
animosity does not wake up.
And early in the morning, solicit without lighting fire /until it will be desired (cf. Ibid.
2:7), the time of the nightingale (cf. Ibid. 1:51)/ the time to reap the corn will come,
when the harvest matures, and the vintage rots, the chaff dries, and the pig will be broken,
and He will return the kingship to its holy possessor. 619

616
Yannai, Keroba to Genesis 32:4. My translation. The Liturgical Poems of Rabbi Yannai according
to the Triennial Cycle of the Pentateuch and the Holidays. Vol. I. ed. Zvi Meir Rabinovitz (Jerusalem:
Bialik Institute, 1985), 199 (Poem 30, lines 88-89) (Hebrew).
. ‫ גושמה מתיל בחזיר גיבר; דחילה בחברתה חזות דמיונה‬/ ‫ א אימתני; כחיוותא לא התפרשת בשם‬...‫אדום אשר‬
617
Yannai, Poem 23, lines 24—35. My translation.
‫ כבש לקרבן וחזיר‬- ‫ תולדות כבש וחזיר‬/‫ יחיד לחד ויהיר ליחת‬- ‫ תולדות יחיד ויהיר‬/‫ טלא לטילול וזאב לטלטול‬- ‫תולדות טלא וזאב‬
.‫ למוד לחניך ולץ לגרש‬- ‫ תולדות למוד ולץ‬/ ‫לחרבן‬
The Liturgical Poems of Rabbi Yannai, 162-163.
618
This is an idea also found in Yochanan HaCohen´s (Levant, 7 th century) apocalyptic siluq (final
section of the Piyyut before qedusha) to Lamentations:
”.‫ בכן יסגירנה בסיגור כל סער‬/‫ כי גפן כרסמה מיער‬/‫ להוללנה בסופה ובסער‬/‫“העת לגעור חיית יער‬
Cited in: Yahalom, “The Transition,” 6.
619
Yannai, Keroba to Deutronomy 2:2. My translation. Zulay, Piyyute Yannai, 230.
‫ ועונת עמיר‬/‫ עד שתחפוץ עת הזמיר‬/‫ ואשכם בקשו בלי להבעיר‬/‫ אה[בת]כם באיבתו בלי להעיר‬/‫השבעתי אתכם בני צדק מיעיר‬
.‫לבעליה קדוש‬/ ‫ ומלוכה יחזיר‬/]‫ ויבקע חז[יר‬/‫ ויבש חציר‬/‫ ויבאש בציר‬/‫ויבשל קציר‬/
Yannai is playing here with the Songs of Songs 2:7, 12.
‫ח קֹול דֹודִ י ִהנֵה זֶה בָא‬. ‫ְּעֹוררּו אֶת הַָא ֲהבָה עַד שֶתֶ ְּחפָץ‬ ְּ ‫ז הִשְּ ַבעְּתִי אֶ תְּ כֶם ְּבנֹות י ְּרּושָ ַ ִלם ִבצְּ ָבאֹות אֹו בְַּאיְּלֹות הַָָּׂ דֶ ה אִם תָ עִירּו וְּאִ ם ת‬
‫ט דֹומֶ ה דֹודִ י ִלצְּבִי אֹו לְּעֹפֶר הָאַ יָלִים ִהנ ֵה זֶה עֹומֵ ד ַאחַר כָתְּ לֵנּו מַשְּ ּג ִי ַח מִ ן ַהחֲֹּלנֹות מֵ צִיץ מִן‬. ‫מְּ דַ לֵג עַל ֶהה ִָרים מְּ קַ פֵץ עַל ַהּג ְּ ָבעֹות‬
‫יב ַהנִ ָצנִים נ ְִּראּו‬. ‫יא כִי ִהנֵה הסתו [ ַה ְּסתָיו] ָעבָר ַהּגֶשֶ ם ָחלַף ָהלְַך לֹו‬. ‫י ָענָה דֹודִ י וְָּאמַ ר לִי קּומִ י לְָך ַר ְּעיָתִי י ָ ָפתִי ּו ְּלכִי לְָך‬. ‫ַהח ֲַרכִים‬
.‫ָָארץ עֵת ַהזָמִיר ִהּג ִי ַע וְּקֹול הַתֹור נִשְּ מַ ע בְַּארְּ ֵצנּו‬
ֶ ‫ב‬
For the link between this piyyut and the midrash “why is it called ḥazir?,” see Shraga Abramson, “Ma'amar
Chazal U-Perusho (A Rabbinic Saying and Its Interpretation)” Molad 27, new series 4 (1971): 421-429
(Hebrew). The piyyut’s ideas are to the ones found in Genesis Rabbah 63.25.

235
 The Edom to which Yannai refers stands for his contemporary Christian

Byzantine Empire. In a Keroba to Yom Kippur, Yannai states that the Christians “will be

humiliated, ashamed and disgraced,” inter alia because they “arrange a sacrifice [ minḥah

‫ ]מנחה‬of pig’s blood.”620 In a fragment of another Keroba to Yom Kippur of Yannai the

Christians are similarly described as “the ones who kill a human being and slaughter an

ox/ who are fervent about the ones that see their secret/ who are yearning to make an

offering of pig's blood.” 621 Yannai seems to refer to Isaiah 66:3,17, in which, as we have

seen, later midrashim were used to refer to the punishment of the nations (Rome/ the

Christians) in the messianic era.

To summarize, the nature of the sources does not permit exact dating of the

process of the identification of Rome with the pig, but rather only an approximate,

hypothetical reconstruction is possible (fig. 23). Prior to the destruction of the Temple, in

seventy CE a topos of porcine profanation of the temple existed. This tradition included

620
Yannai, Keroba to Yom Kippur ("‫)"האומרים לכילי שוע‬. Zulay, Piyyute Yannai, 333 (poem 51).
.‫העורכים מנחה דם חזיר‬
Translation by Steven Fine, “Non-Jews in Synagogues of Late-Antique Palestine: Rabbinic and
Archeological Evidence.” in Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue, ed. Steven Fine
(New York: Routledge, 1999), 232-233.
621
Yannai, Keroba to Yom Kippur. My translation. Zulay, Piyyute Yannai, 382.
.‫ הכמהים לעלות מנחה דם חזיר‬/‫ המכים איש ושוחטים שור; הלוהטים למביטי סודם‬/‫הנוחרים ועורפים שם תבל‬
We find the same accusation in the Muslim Animal's epistle. which is part of “Rasa’il Ikhuan al-safa,” an
encyclopedic composition written in Arabic by the Brethren of Purity who lived near Basra, Iraq in the 10 th
century. Here the pig says “The Romans, on the other hand, eat our meat with gusto in their sacrifices and
believe that it makes them blessed before God.” Ikhwān al-Safā’, The Case of the Animals versus Man
before the King of Jinn. A Tenth-century Ecological Fable of Basra, trans. Lenn Evan Goodman (Boston:
Twayne Publishers, 1978), 63. The text was translated by Kalonymus ben Kalonymus in Provence in 1316
under the title Igeret Baale Haim. Kalonymus Ben Kalonymus, Igeret Baale Haim, ed. I. Toporovesky, ep.
A.M. Habermann (Jerusalem: Mosad haRav Kuk, 1959) (Hebrew).
".‫" ובני הרומיים יתענגו באכילת בשרנו בקרבונותיהם וחגותיהם ושמחתם ויתברכו בנו ויגדלונו עדרים עדרים בבית ובשדה‬
This paragraph was not included in the English translation and adaptation of the Hebrew translation: The
Anima s’ Lawsuit against umanity. A Modern Adaptation of an Ancient Anima Rights Tale, trans. and
adap. by Rabbi Anson Laytner and Rabbi Dan Bridge. Intr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr (Louisville, KY: Fons
Vitae, 2005), ix.

236
Psalm 80:14, Isaiah 66:3,17 and the memory of an alleged sacrifice of a pig/sow in the

Temple by King Antiochus during the Macabeean crisis in the second century BCE.

Old Testament
The four “The Boar out of the
Esau=Edom Isaiah 66
kingdoms wood” (PS 80:14)
(Daniel 7)

The topos of the

2nd cent. BCE Esau=Boar profanation of the
Jubilee Temple by a pig
1st cent.

Esau=Edom=Rome Rome= The destruction

the fourth legend
? kingdom
4th cent. Esau=sus (gr.)=sow
Genesis Rabbah

Esau=Edom=Rome=The fourth kingdom=Pig=The boar out of the wood

Leviticus Rabbah
6th-9th
The messianic punishment
cent. Why is it called hazir?
Ecclesiastes Rabbah of the pork eaters

Fig. 23: Hypothetical reconstruction of the midrashic process of identification of Rome

with the pig.

In the first century CE, the identification of Rome with the Esau=Edom and the

fourth kingdom were established. The legend of the Temple destruction by a pig was

established perhaps as early as the second century CE, probably due to the influence of

the earlier topos of profanation of the Temple by a pig. The identification of Esau with

the boar of psalm 80:14 was established before the end of the fourth century CE. The

interpretation of the name Esau as sow in Greek was probably also from this period. In

Leviticus Rabbah (4th-5th cent.), the equation “Rome = Esau = the fourth kingdom = the

pig = The boar out of the wood” appeared in its complete, fully developed form. In later

period (6th-9th cent.), the midrash “why is it called ḥa ir?,” found as early as Leviticus

Rabbah, was developed to reject the idea that pork will become pure in the messianic era,

237
and this midrash was aggregated with the midrash on the future punishment of pork

eaters by God, which has Isaiah 66 as its proof text.

In short, the identification of Rome with the pig was a result of a configuration of

diverse exegesis readings and topoi which exagetical combined to create the equation

“Rome = Esau = the fourth kingdom = the pig = The boar out of the wood.” This,

however, is found in its complete form only in Leviticus Rabbah and later midrashim

which cite it, such as Yalkut Shimoni and Midrash Tanḥuma. In other sources (mostly

from the Land of Israel), we find only variants of parts of this equation.

The identification of Rome with the pig and the rabbinic disc ourse
concerning the pig and the avoidance of pork

The association of Rome with the pig directly or indirectly linked it to everything

associated with this animal by the sages: prohibition of breeding/commerce/touching,

plagues, leprosy, impurity, sin, filthiness, excrement, sexual corruption, the destruction of

the Temple, hypocrisy, injustice, harmfulness, persecutions, forbidden sexual relations

with non-Jews, sexual lust, heresy, and drunkenness. To this sphere is contrasted the

sphere of Israel which stand for purity, Torah, justice, the Temple, the Land of Israel, and

other positive qualities. The two spheres are separated, and mixing between the two

(especially raising pigs, heresy, learning Greek wisdom, or eating pork) is conceived as a

transgression (fig. 24).

Mary Douglas, in her classic book Purity and Danger (1966), argues that impurity,

like uncleanness, “is matter out of place,” an anomaly within a given classificatory

system. Anything that crosses or blurs the boundary of a given category is considered

238
defilement. 622 To illustrate this idea, Douglas analyzes the abominations of Leviticus,

particularly its dietary rules. She points out that in Leviticus, “holiness requires that

individuals shall conform to the class to which they belong. And holiness requires that

different classes of things shall not be confused. (…) to be holy is to be whole, to be one;

holiness is unity, integrity, perfection of the individual and of the kind. The dietary rules

merely develop the metaphor of holiness on the same lines.” 623

Purity Impurity
Sexual lust
Destruction
Proselytes
Torah’s Drunkenness
learning Raising Gluttony
pigs Forbidden Excrement
Jacob Torah
sex Idleness
Jews who do Leprosy
Justice
Israel not learn Torah

Heretics
Pig Hypocrisy
Uselessness
Temple Nations of
Learning Rome
the world
Greek
Land of Israel Harmfulness
wisdom
Esau
Purity Prostitution
Filthiness
Death

Fig. 24: The Discursive spheres of Israel and the Pig in Rabbinic literature.

In this system, “cloven hoofed, cud chewing ungulates [cattle] are the model of

the proper kind of food for a pastoralist.” The pig is one of the borderline cases of this

order, an anomaly, and thus impure. She notes that the failure of the pig “to conform to

622
Douglas argues that defilement must be analyzed in the light of the total system of classification of
a given culture: “Defilement is never an isolated event. It cannot occur except in view of systematic
ordering of ideas. Hence any piecemeal interpretation of the pollution rules of another culture is bound to
fail. For the only way in which pollution ideas make sense is in reference to a total structure of thought
whose key-stone, boundaries, margins and internal lines are held in relation by rituals of separation.”
Douglas, Purity and Danger, 42.
623
Ibid., 55.

239
the two necessary criteria for defining cattle is the only reason given in the Old

Testament for avoiding the pig; nothing whatsoever is said about its dirty scavenging

habits,” suggesting “that originally the sole reason for its being counted as unclean is its

failure as a wild boar to get into the antelope class (…).”624 Hence, the pig stands for the

distinction between pure and impure, or more exactly for the refusal to mix categories, as

Seth D. Kunin notes:

Both [Israelite] myth and ritual include mediators; these, however, are always
problematic and need to be transformed. Thus, the pig in the food rules system appears to
mediate between the categories of permitted and forbidden animals – the system denies
this mediation by making the pig especially negative. This is a consistent process
whereby all mediators are denied by transformation, usually in the negative direction but
occasionally in the positive. What is significant is not the direction of transformation but
the denial of mediation. 625

This denial of mediation is manifested in the sages´ primary relationship with the

pig: that of avoidance. Contrary to the polyvalent Greco-Roman porcine discursive

sphere, the rabbinic porcine discursive sphere is binary, the product of a world order

which pivots around the distinction between pure and impure. 626 Other binary couples are

parallel to the fundamental binary couple “pure-impure;” these include :

Pure Impure
Israel Nations of the world
Pure animal Pig
Shepherd Swineherd
Torah learning Learning Greek wisdom
To rule oneself To be ruled by desire
The impulse to do good The impulse to do evil

624
Ibid., 56.
625
Seth D. Kunin, We Think What We Eat: Neo-Structuralist Analysis of Israelite Food Rules and
Other Cultural and Textual Practices (London and New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 16.
626
As Walter Houston notes, “Judaism inherits from the development of custom and thought in pre-
biblical and biblical times a law of animal kinds that summarizes in itself a great richness of symbolic
themes. It stands for the order and peace of civil society over against the disorder and violence of the wild;
for the just and traditional ordering of society against anarchy; for the purity of the sanctuary against the
permanent threat of pollution; for the holiness of the people of God as his devoted ones; for their protection
against pressures from without, and their separation from all that would threaten their dedication to their
one God; for the possibility, not confined to Israel alone, of living in peace with God’s creatures and in the
experience of his presence. It does not merely symbolize these things; by the constant practice of rules it
actually inculcates them.” Houston, Purity and Monotheism, 258.

240
 Justice Injustice
Proselytes Heretics
Avoiding pork Pork eating
Jacob Esau

The highly associative nature of rabbinic literature links these binary couples in

several configurations. However, Rome does not only stand for the negative qualities

associated with the pig, but also for what makes the pig abominable: the mixing of

categories. This is particularly manifested in the identification of Rome with Esau

(Jacob´s twin brother) and in the midrash which presents Rome as doing injustice while

pretending to do justice in the same manner in which the pig presents its hooves,

pretending to be pure while not ruminating the cud.

Reversing Rome’s porcine discourse

If any real use of the pig or porcine symbols by the Romans contributed in some

way to the identification of Rome with the pig, the rabbinic literature does not refer to

them at all. Hence, any interpretation which attempts to explain the identification by a

reaction to real historical events or causes is reductionist and highly speculative. Rather,

it is more probable that by identifying Rome with the pig, the sages to some extent are in

dialogue with the use of porcine symbolism in Roman political discourse. Insofar as the

Romans did have positive porcine political symbols (Aeneas’s sow, the boar as emblem,

the emperor as boar’s hunter), the sages´ negative reversal of the pig became more

powerful. The equation ‘Rome = pig” was not less Roman than Jewish: in a counter -

symbolism, the sages reverse this reference from positive to negative. The pig served

both sides to express two opposite political conceptions: that of the powerful and that of

241
the powerless, that of the ruler and that of the subjected. While for the sages the Jews are

the victims of Rome - the boar which gnaws at them - the Roman rulers saw themselves

as not only comparable to the boar, but also as those who defend the Empire from its

enemies, comparable to a wild boar which one must destroy. The sages, rejecting the

politics of raw power, reject the boarish/boar hunter metaphor of the ruler. Rather, they

invert the Roman identification with the boar from a sign of legitimacy to a sign of

illegitimacy; thus, the Roman boar went from being the symbol of power and victory to

one of destruction; the sow of fortuna and prosperity became a curse. The sages did not

resist with the enemy’s (boarish) terms of (boar) hunting, but rather longed for a future

where the boar (ḥa ir) will return the rule to Israel. This messianic projection avoids the

politics of force, which may give rise to a direct violent confrontation with the Roman

Empire. Rather, the sages advocate a non-violent politics of subjection to the non-Jewish

rule. However, the rabbinic resistance to the Empire was not only a passive messianic

solution. By equating the pig, the impure animal par excellence, with the Empire, the

avoidance of pork became an act of concrete resistance, in the here and now. A daily act

of eating became an act of resistance to the omnivore-homogenized politics of Imperial

universalism. Not partaking of pork meant not partaking in the Empire. Usually, Greek

and Latin distinguish between the domestic and wild pig, thus facilitating the Greeks´ and

Romans’ distinction between hoggishness and boarishness, or between the pig as a

symbol of earthly desires and the boar as a symbol of courage and power. Hebrew on the

other hand, uses only one word, ḥa ir, for both the domestic and wild pig, which

facilitates the sages argument that the positive value of the boar should be rejected, that

the courage and power of the boar is nothing more than earthly desires. 627 One who
627
The pig and the boar are indeed one biologcal species. As Francois Poplins remarks: “ils sont deux

242
identifies himself with the boar as a symbol of power is nothing more than a pig, a slave

to his desires.628

The Fourth Kingdom

The model of the four kingdoms gave a new meaning to the avoidance of pork: if

in the Hebrew Bible it is inscribed mainly in a non-temporal order, with its main axis

being pure-impure, in the midrashim it is inscribed in a temporal process, with its main

axis being subjection-redemption, viewed as a concrete succession of four empires:

Babylonia, Media, Greece, and Rome. The pig became a powerful political symbol,

inscribed in concrete relations over ti me between the subjected Israel and Imperial Rome.

The (non-historical) model of the four kingdoms inscribed the relationship with Rome

(Christianity) in a historical pattern. This construction makes the existence of the other

tangible according to the inner Jewish grammar of time; the sense of the existence of the

Empire is understood according to an inner grid (or logic) which is foreign to the Romans.

We can see in this construction what was for Jean Piaget the premise of structuralism:

“an ideal (perhaps a hope) of intrinsic intelligibility supported by the postulate that

structures are self-sufficient and that, to grasp them, we do not have to make reference to

all sorts of extraneous elements.” 629 The model of the four kingdoms is total: it explains

chose divisée en deux par l’homme. “Poplin, “Que l’homme cultive aussi le sauvage que le domestique,”
528.
628
The same process happened in the Christian symbolism at the end of the Middle Ages: “De fait, à
partir du millieu du XIIIe siècle, dans les somme théologiques sur les vices, dans les recueil d’exempla puis
dans les bestiaires littéraires ou iconographiques associés aux sept péchés capitaux, le sanglier semble
additioner sur sa personne tous les vices et péchés autrefois distribués entre le porc domestique et le porc
sauvage : sorditas, foeditas, libido, intemperantia, gula, pigritia, d’un coté ; violentia, furor, cruor, ira,
superbia, obstinatio, rapacitas, impietas, de l’autre.” Pastoureau, “La chasse au sanglier,” 18. Bryan notes
that the fourth beast in Daniel 7 is “the unclean beast par excellence,” which stands in contrast to the one
“who is like a ‘man’, the archetypal clean land creature,” created in the image of God.” Bryan, Cosmos,
238.
629
Jean Piaget, Structuralism, 9

243
the political reality in the past, present, and future. It provides the reasons, or the inner

grammar, of the relationship between Israel and foreign powers, as well as the conditions

that will cause this relationship to change in the future. This model served the sages’

politics of submission, where liberation is projected into a messianic era, where

frustrations of being powerless here and now are contained by the expectations of a

messianic redemption. In the model of the fourth kingdoms, we find what Mircea Eliade

calls the “Eternal return”:

In studying these traditional societies, one characteristic has especially struck us: it is
their revolt against concrete, historical time, their nostalgia for a periodical return to the
mythical time of the beginning of things, to the “Great Time. The meaning and function
of what we have called “archetypes and repetition” disclosed themselves to us only after
we had perceived these societies’ will to refuse concrete time, their hostility toward every
attempt at autonomous “history,” that is, at history not regulated by archetypes. 630

Although Eliade thought that Judaism does not have such a conception of time,

Moshe Idel notes that the difference between archaic religions and rabbinic Judaism is

not very significant. 631 Indeed, in the model of the four kingdoms we can see how Rome

is understood as an archetype, or as a cyclical phenomenon. This corresponds to the

predomination of memory over history in Judaism, as demonstrated by Yosef Hayim

Yerushalmi, 632 a historical memory which tends to be understood in terms of patter ns

(what Neusner called paradigmatic history). 633 This cyclical conception of history, as

Gabrielle M. Spiegel summarizes, is manifested in the repetition of the liturgy:

630
Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return (New York: Harper, 1954), xi.
631
Moshe Idel, “Afterward,” in Mircea Eliade, The Myth of Eternal Return, trans. Yotam Rehuveny,
ed. Ronit Nikolsky (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2002), 146-147 (Hebrew). See also Ibid. Ascensions on High in
Jewish Mysticism: Pillars, Lines, Ladders (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2005), 232.
632
Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Zakhor, Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle: University of
Washington Press, 1982).
633
Jacob Neusner, “History, Time, and Paradigm in Classical Judaism,” Approaches to Ancient
Judaism 16 (1999): 189-212. Ibid. “Paradigmatic versus Historical Thinking: The Case of Rabbinic
Judaism,” History and Theory 36 (1997): 353-377. Ibid. The Presence of the Past, the Pastness of the
Present: History, Time and Paradigm in Rabbinic Judaism (Bethesda: CDL Press, 1996).

244
 Although the historical events of the biblical period remain unique and irreversible,
psychologically they are experienced cyclically, repetitively, and hence atemporally. In
liturgical commemoration, as in poetic oral recitation, the fundamental goal is, precisely,
to revivify the past and make it live in the present, to fuse past and present, chanter and
hearer, priest and observer, into a single collective entity. The written text, when it
represents a transcription of a once-live recital, commemorates both the past which is
sung about and performance itself. History, in the sense that we understand it to consist
of unique events unfolding within an irreversible linear time, is absorbed into cyclical,
liturgical memory.” 634

By identifying the fourth kingdom with the forbidden animals of Leviticus 11,

history is also manifested by the praxis of food avoidance. Through this link, categorical

thinking of the food classification system is interwoven with a paradigmatic conception

of history. In this manner, the relational tension between Jews and non-Jews, between

Judaism and Rome, is shifted from the historical-political arena of the present to an inner

Jewish activity that is deeply inscribed in messianic aspiration. Because Rabbinical

thinking is marked by a paradigmatic-analogical reading of history that sees history in

terms of patterns, the sages could easily express history by classificatory categories of

pure and impure animals. Hence, different aspects of the world converge, and a more

solid, global vision of existence is achieved - a more crystallized order. The midrash

turns the pig, the fourth kingdom, into a time capsule. The micro-chronic dimension, the

time of the ritual, repeats the macro-chronic time of history. The micro-chronic

dimenstion of the here and now (this world) came to contain the macro-chronic

dimension, the historical pattern, which leads to future redemption (the world to come).

Rome (Christianity) is not the end of history, but a cyclical phenomenon that will

disappear, as have its predecessors. However, the model of the four kingdoms does not

only manifest the idea of historical recurrence, that history repeats itself, but also that this

634
Gabrielle M. Spiegel. “Memory and History: Liturgical Time and Historical Time.” History and
Theory 41, no. 2 (2002): 152.

245
repetition is linear, that it will come to an end. 635 In a sense, the midrash “why is it called

ḥa ir?,” which reads the name of the pig (ḥa ir) as the verb to return (lehaḥzir), holds the

basic principle of cyclic time, of the eternal return, but also the idea of its end. Thus,

while the model of the four kingdoms contains the idea of cyclic movements of rise and

fall, it does not possess the concept of the arbitrariness of the wheel of fortune. In the

future, the wheel will turn and Rome (Christianity) will fall while Israel will rise.636

The midrashic discursive sphere of the identification of Rome with the pig might

be understood as a social drama, following Victor Turner’s definition of social drama as

the unity of a process of disharmony occurring in a situation of conflict, divided into four

principal phases: breach, crisis, redressive action, and reintegration/schism (table 9). 637

The first phase, the breach, is a violation of the norm generated by a symbolic trigger of

confrontation, corresponding to the destruction of the Temple by the pig; the crisis is the

period of the subjection to the boar (the Roman Empire); the redressive action is the

keeping of the law, including the avoidance of pork, which will bring the Messiah; and

the reintegration is the messianic era, when the pork eaters will be punished.

635
For the limits of the distinction of cyclical and linear history in Judaism and Christianity, see: G. W.
Trompf, The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought: From Antiquity to the Reformation
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), 116-220.
636
For the fourth kingdom model in Late Antique Christianity and Judaism, see: Alexei M. Sivertsev,
Judaism and Imperial Ideology in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 9-20.
637
Victor Turner, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors. Symbolic Action in Human Society (Ithaca and
London: Cornell University Press, 1974), 37.

246
 Turner’s Breach Crisis Redressive Reintegration
social drama action
The Destruction Subjection to The fulfillment Redemption
midrashic (ḥurban) Rome, of the (geula)
terminology Exile (galut) commandments
(avoiding
pork)
Time Past Present Present Future
Midrashim The legend of The Leviticus The pig will
destruction identification Rabbah 13 return the
of Rome with kingdom to
the pig Israel; God will
punish the pork
eaters.
The Pig The destructor The oppressor The tool of The tool of
redressing redemption/ the
messianic
punishment
Table 9: The Pig in the historical model of the Midrashic discursive sphere.

Jacob and Esau

What is the logic behind of the identification of Esau with the pig? Avshalom C.

Elitzur proposes to link the Jews’ hate for Amalek to the Jews’ hate for the pig.

According to his terminology, both are manifestations of a “metaphysical hate,” a hate

that originated from the proximity between the hated and the hater. Elitzur notes that as

much as the hated Amalek is a relative of Israel, so the hated pig is close to human. 638

Although Elitzur speaks about Amalek, his reading is even more relevant to Amalek’s

“grandfather,” Esau. 639 The problem of animality in general, and that of the huma n

relation to the pig in particular, lies in the proximity of the human animal to other animals.

The pig, like man, is an omnivorous mammal, and its inner organs resemble those of man.

This is probably also the reason that if, as the French proverb says, “Each person has in
638
Avshalom C. Elitzur, “Amalek and the swine: The anatomy of metaphysical hatred.” in Sefer
HaYovel Lichvod proffesor Shlomo Shoham, ed. Chemi Ben Nun et al. (Tel-Aviv: Ydihot Haḥronot, 2004)
(Hebrew). On line version: <http://www.e-mago.co.il/e-magazine/hate.html> Consulted August 23, 2011.
639
On the midrashic association between Amalek and Esau, see: Aminoff, The Figure, 162-117. For
the subject of twinship, see: Sharon Roubach, In Life, in Death, they were not Parted: The Idea of Twinship
in Western Christianity, PhD Dissertation (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 2003).

247
his heart a dormant pig (Tout homme a dans son cœur un cochon qui sommei e),” often

humans tend not to recognize their own proximity to the pig but rather associate its nature

with their fellow man. Proximity brings with it the risk of the blurring of frontiers, and

hence is a source of anxiety. From the sages´ perspective, the twin, like the pig, is a

mixture of two categories, as the pig is half pure (parting the hoofs) and impure (not

chewing the cud); the twin Esau, is half pure (being the descendant of Isaac) and half

impure (being an evil person). Hence, the nature of the pig is the nature of Esau, or Rome,

being a family member and stranger at the same time, or being a mixing of pure and

impure, and hence abominable.640

During the period of the First Temple, Edom and Israel kept hostile relations. The

myth of the origin of Israel also tells us the origin of its neighboring nation, explaining

the proximity between the two as well their enmity. 641 In the myth of Jacob and Esau, the

history of Edom is the history of Israel in negative. The birthright or the Election is

absolute and unique. The Election is by the Father, and it is vis-à-vis the Other, the twin

brother. The Election of Jacob (Israel) is the “Diselection” of Esau (Edom). 642 As

Gershon D. Cohen notes, the couple “Jacob-Esau” was particularly apt as a model for the

640
Carol Bakhos, “Figuring (out) Esau: The Rabbis and Their Others,” Journal for Jewish Studies 58,
no. 2 (2007): 250-262.
641
For the diverse relational configurations of Esau and Jacob as a dialogical model, see my article:
Misgav Har-Peled, “Entre l’âne et le bœuf, réflexion sur la machine dialogique,” dans Adam et ’astraga e
ssais d’anthropo ogie et d’histoire sur es imites de ’humain, ed. Gil Bartholeyns, Pierre-Olivier
Dittmar, Thomas Golsenne, Misgav Har-Peled et Vincent Jolivet (Paris: Les éditions de la Maison des
sciences de l’homme, 2009), 87-97.
642
Seth D. Kunin notes that in Genesis, “genealogical closeness was indirectly related to ideological
closeness.” In the Talmud, he argues, the “nature of these relations will change as Israel becomes less
politically significant; with the contraction of political relations, there will be a similar contraction in
nations that are ideologically negative – within this contraction, those nations that are genealogically close
will remain strongly negative and equally will be associated with nations that remain politically significant.”
Kunin, We Think What We Eat, 5 [see “chapter 6: Israel and the Nations” (pp. 211-237) and Kunin’s earlier
publication: “Israel and the Nations: A Structuralist Survey” JSOT, 1999. 82:19-43.]

248
relationship of Israel and Rome because of the proximity of the claim of election between

the Jews and the Romans:

(…) there was a basic similarity between Rome and Judea in patterns of thought and
expression. Neither of them could accept their existence as a mere fact. Each considered
itself divinely chosen and destined for a unique history. Each was obsessed with its
glorious antiquity. Each was convinced that heaven had selected it to rule the world.
Neither could accept with equanimity any challenge to its claims.
This collective self-consciousness and obsession with past and future, with duty
and destiny, came to its greatest expression in Rome in the Augustan age and most
notably in the works of Livy and Virgil. Though shaken by civil wars and the decline of
ideal Roman society, the average learned Roman echoed of his people what the Jew said
of his own: “Thou didst chose us from among all peoples; thou didst love and favor us;
thou didst exalt us above all tongues and sanctify us with thy commandments. Thou, our
King, didst draw us nearer to Thy service and call us by Thy great and holy name.”
[Jewish holidays’ prayer 643] As the Jews spoke of an eternal covenant between Israel and
God, the Roman could quote the promise of Jove to Rome: “Imperium sine fine dedi [“I
have given empire without end”].” 644

The idea that the Roman empire will be “without end,” the discourse of eternal

Rome, extended with time to the Empire and Caesar, reached its climax in the times of

Hadrian (early 2nd cent.), 645 and sharply contradicted the Jewish concept of election. The

Jews subjected to Rome are confronted with the gap between the biblical promise of

election and the real political condition of exile and subjection to Rome. In Particular, the

sages had to explain how this could be the case if the commandments were suppose to

protect and glorify Israel, as Deuteronomy 26:15-19 declares:

This very day the Lord your God is commanding you to observe these statutes and
ordinances; so observe them diligently with all your heart and with all your soul. 17
Today you have obtained the Lord's agreement: to be your God; and for you to walk in
his ways, to keep his statutes, his commandments, and his ordinances, and to obey him.
18 Today the Lord has obtained your agreement: to be his treasured people, as he
promised you, and to keep his commandments; 19 for him to set you high above all

643
The sanctification of the Day: Kedushat HaYom.
‫ וקידשתנו במצוותיך וקרבתנו מלכנו לעבודתך; ושמך‬, ‫ אהבת אותנו ורצית בנו ורוממתנו מכל הלשונות‬,‫אתה בחרתנו מכל העמים‬
.‫ עלינו קראת‬,‫הגדול והקדוש‬
644
Cohen, “Esau as Symbol,” 25.
645
Benjamin Isaac, “Eternal Rome,” Historia 1-2 (1998): 19-31 (Hebrew). F. G. Morre, “On Urbs
Aeterna and Urbs Sacra,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 25 (1984): 34-60.

249
 nations that he has made, in praise and in fame and in honor; and for you to be a people
holy to the Lord your God, as he promised. 646

Hence, while keeping the commandments was supposed to set Israel “high above

all nations,” the political reality was that the Jews were subjected to Rome´s power and,

in the life of a Diaspora minority, fulfilling the commandments poses practical hardships

on the Jews in daily life. The sages resolve this problem, and others, with the idea that the

commandments and suffering come to purify ( eṣaref ‫ )לצרף‬Israel. The yoke of the

commandants is not a punishment, but rather proof of the virtue of the Jews, a virtue for

which they will be recompensed in the messianic era. The promise of Election is

conditioned: if Israel will follow God’s commandments, it will be free and sovereign, but

if not it will be subjected to others. If Israel will repent for its sins and will accomplish

the Law, then it will be liberated. In this scenario, there is a constant tension between

election and subjection, between past (the promise), present (exile/subjection to Rome),

and the future (messianic redemption).

As Daniel Boyarin notes, “after 312, Esau, or Edom, his descendant, is most often

read as referring to the Christian Church, or as the sages themselves put it: “The

Principate turned to sectarianism” (B. Sotah 49b and parallels). 647 Hence, as the

identification of Esau passed from Rome to the Church, the identification with the pig

passed to the Church as well, and by extension to Christians, the “pork eaters.” Contrary

646
Deuteronomy 26:15-19.
‫י ְּהוָה‬- ‫ יז אֶת‬.‫נַפְּשֶ ָך‬- ‫ ְּל ָבבְָּך ּו ְּבכָל‬- ‫ ְּבכָל‬, ‫הַמִשְּ ָפטִים; וְּשָ מַ ְּרתָ וְּעָשִיתָ אֹותָם‬- ‫וְּאֶת‬-- ‫ ַהחֻׁקִ ים הָאֵ לֶה‬- ‫ י ְּהוָה אֱֹלהֶיָך מְּ ַצּוְָּך ַל ֲעשֹות אֶת‬,‫ַהיֹום ַהזֶה‬
‫ ִלהְּיֹות לֹו‬,‫ִירָך הַיֹום‬ ְּ ‫ יח וַיהוָה הֶאֱ מ‬.‫ ְּולִשְּ מ ֹר חֻׁקָ יו ּומִ צְּוֹתָיו ּומִשְּ ָפטָיו ְּולִשְּ מ ֹ ַע בְּק ֹלו‬,‫ ִל ְּהיֹות לְָּך לֵאֹלהִים ְּו ָל ֶלכֶת בִדְּ ָרכָיו‬:‫ ַהיֹום‬, ָ‫הֶאֱ מַ ְּרת‬
- ‫ְָּארת; ְּו ִלהְּיֹתְָּך עַם‬
ֶ ‫ ּו ְּלשֵם ּולְּתִ פ‬,‫לִתְּ ִהלָה‬, ‫הַּגֹוי ִם אֲשֶ ר עָשָה‬- ‫ עַל כָל‬,‫ יט ּו ְּלתִתְָּך ֶעלְּיֹון‬.‫מִ צְּו ֹתָיו‬- ‫ כָל‬,‫לְָך; ְּולִשְּ מ ֹר‬- ‫ ִדבֶר‬,‫ כַאֲשֶ ר‬,‫ְּלעַם ְּסגֻׁלָה‬
. ‫ כַאֲשֶ ר דִ בֵר‬,‫קָ ד ֹש לַיהוָה אֱֹלהֶיָך‬
647
Boyarin, Dying for God, 3. As Guy Stroumsa notes, “It is precisely when “the barbarians” threaten
the Empire from within and without, in the late fourth and fifth century, that the Christians ceased to see
themselves as “barbarians”, or peregrine, and identified, for the first time unambiguously, as Romans.”
Guy Stroumsa “Philosophy of the Barbarians: On Early Christian Ethnological Representations,” in
Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift Martin Hengel, vol. II, ed. H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger and P.
Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 347.

250
to pagan Greeks or Romans, for the Christians eating pork became an affirmative act of

being Christian. If the biblical laws were surpassed by Jesus, then to avoid pork is to

reject the coming of the Savior, and eating it an act of acceptance. Hence, avoidance of

pork became not just the marker of Jewishness in the eyes of Christians as it was in the

eyes of Jews, but a marker of Judaizing, of heresy.

The pair Jacob-Esau in the patristic reading serves as a model for the relationship

between Judaism and Christianity. Jacob henceforth represents the Christians, and Esau

the Jews. As the primogeniture passed from the older to the younger, in the same way the

Election passed from Israel according to the flesh (the Jews) to Israel according to the

spirit (the Christians).648 The true Israel is not defined by the flesh but by the faith. This

idea is found as early as Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: “And not only this; but when

Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; For the children being not

yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to

election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, ‘The elder

shall serve the younger’ (Gn 25:23). As it is written, ‘Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I

hated’ (Malachi 1:2)“ (Romans 9:10-13). The reading of Genesis 25:23 with Malachi 1:2

reinforced the original sense of the story. That is to say, it is the case that not only “the

elder shall serve the younger” but also that the one is loved and the other is hated. Paul

reversed the biblical role of Esau as the dialogical Other of Israel. Here Esau comes to

represent Carnal Israel, the dialogical other of true Israel (verus Israel). 649 As Israel

648
See: Limor Ora, Jacob and Esau, in: Jews and Christian in Western Europe. Encounter between
Cultures in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Unit 1 (Tel-Aviv: The Open University, 1993) (Hebrew).
Martine Dulaey, “La figure de Jacob dans l’exégèse paléochrétienne (Gn 27-33),” Recherches
Augustiniennes 32 (2001): 75-168.
649
An exegetical reversal much like that achieved by Paul for Isaac and Ishmael in Galatians 4: 28-31.
see: David Nirenberg, “The Birth of the Pariah: Jews, Christian Dualism, and Social Science”, Social

251
Yuval remarks, for both Judaism and Christianity the pair Jacob and Esau was understood

typologically as a model of their relations:

It uses an existing narrative system based on Scriptures and charges it with the later
conflict between Israel and Edom, Judaea and Rome, Judaism and Christianity, a conflict
between chosen and rejected, persecuted and persecutor. This involvement with the
question of who is chosen and who is rejected, who is “Jacob” and who is “Esau,”
reflects a process of self-definition as well as, ipso facto, a definition of the other, the
persecutor and rival. The tension evoked by typology is one between subjugation,
suffering, and exile, on the one hand, and dominion, primogeniture, and victory, on the
other. For Christianity, it is viewed as the tension between the Old Testament and the
New Testament; for Judaism, it is that between Exile and Redemption. 650

But if Jacob and Esau are a common typological pair for both Judaism and

Christianity, they understood them in different ways. As Daniel Boyarin notes, “If for the

Church Judaism ultimately was a superseded ancestor of the true heir to the promise, for

the Rabbis, the two entities were more like constantly struggling twin siblings.” 651 In a

sense, it seems that Christianity tends to understand the model of Jacob-Esau more as

representing a dialectical process, where the accent is put on the progressive nature of

their relations, while rabbinic Judaism understands it more dialogically, where the two
652
pairs are imagined has having diverse relations over time. Likewise, if pork

consumption for the Christian was a locus of passage from Judaism to Christianity, from

the old law to the new one, 653 for the sages the avoidance of pork was the locus of

passage (that is conceived to be more as a return than a turn) yet to come in the messianic

era.

Research, 70, no. 1, (2003): 201-236, 212. For the elabroation of Paul´s reading by the Church Fathers, see:
Limor Ora, Jacob and Esau. Adiel Schremer, “Midrash and History: God’s Power, the Roman Empire, and
Hopes for Redemption in Tannaitic Literature,” Zion 72 (2007): 13 (Hebrew).
650
Israel Jacob Yuval, Two nations in your womb: perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late
Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), 1.
651
Boyarin, Dying for God, 3.
652
For the Bakhtinian distinction between dialectics and dialogics, see: Tzvetan Todorov, Mikhail
Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984 (1981)), 104.
653
Boyarin, “Le porc en dieu Pôros.”

252
 Fabre-Vassas, following Mary Douglas’ work, notes that “if forbidden foods

manifest the categories of a culture, they also necessarily demonstrate the indigenous

distinctions between societies. They are only fully affirmed, and can only be understood,

in the context of this confrontation.” 654 The sages not only admit the inter-cultural

confrontation around the avoidance of pork, but they also resolve it in a sense by thinking

of the abominable animal dialogically as embodying their relationship with the Roman

Empire and later on with Christianity.

Mary Douglas argues that, “if two symbolic systems are confronted, they begin to

form, even by their opposition, a single whole,” 655 If this is true, then this “single whole”

is full of holes, or gaps, and hence is highly partial. In some sense, in the Judeo-Christian

dialogic, being one is in some sense being and not being the other. However, we should

not make this dimension the essence of their relations. The question is not to discover

“agency” in Jewish texts and hence establish the “dialogic” nature of Jewish Christian

relations, but rather to learn how both Jewish and Christian texts construct the other

dialogically. Hence, we should separate dialogism as referring to an aspect of inter-group

relations from dialogism as referring to the way identity is constructed by incorporating

the real or imagined voice of the other in one discourse. In both cases, one’s logic is

created vis-à-vis the other’s real or imagined logic, and hence is dialogical.

654
Fabre-Vassas, The Singular Beast, 6. Also: Claudine Vassas, “Questions anthropologiques autour
de l’interdit du porc dans le judaïsme et de son élection par le christianisme,” dans De la domestication au
tabou: le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient ancien, éd. B. Lion et C. Michel, Travaux de la Maison
René-Ginouvès 1 (Paris: De Boccad, 2006), 229.
655
Douglas, Natural Symbols, 43-44.

253
 After the fourth century, Christianity not only condemns the avoidance of pork,

but makes pork eating a legal obligation, as for example in the Apostolic Canon from the

(4t-5th cent.):

The Christians would not imitate the Jews on the subject of abstinence from [certain]
foods but would even eat pork, the Lord having said that “what enters the mouth does not
sully the man but [rather] what exits the mouth, as if coming from the heart” (Mt
15:11;17-18); that they would not be attached to the letter [of the law] but would conduct
themselves according to [its] spirit and [its] elevated meaning, for the carnal synagogue
of the Jews execrates pork but is possessed by unkindness in keeping with the prophetic
word: “they gorged themselves on pork and left the scraps for their little ones” (cf. Ps.
16:14). 656

Hence, the contradictory Jewish and Christian practices are mutually related

dialogically: if one eats pork, he rejects the position of those who abstain from pork, and

vice versa. At the end of the eleventh century, Tobiah ben Eliezer in his Misrash Leqah

Tob (Psikta Zutara), explains the struggle of Jacob and Esau in their mother´s womb

(Genesis 25:22) in dialogical terms:

“And the sons struggled” )vitrozezu ‫ )ויתרוצצו‬- they were cutting [each other] inside the
womb, as it was said “and [she] crushed (vataretz ‫ )ותרץ‬his skull.” (Judges 9:53): a sign
for generations: the [first] one runs to kill the other, and the other runs to kill the first one
- as says Rabbi Yohanan. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: the one permits the
commands of the other, and the other permits the commands of the other. How? That one
forbid the day of Sabbath and the other forbid the day of Sunday; the one forbid pork and
the other permitted it, for this reason it was said: Vitrozezu [they struggled] – two words
are: ‘viter zivuyo – [he permits his commands]’.657

The rabbinic dialogue, of “this says this and this says that” is transformed here

from constituting the nature of rabbinic learning to that of the basic principle of relations

656
The Apostolic Canon 5. Charles Joseph Hefle, istoire des conci es d’après es documents
originaux, tome 1, vol. 2 (Paris: Le Clère, 1907), 1076-1077. Claudine Fabre-Vassas partially cites this
source in her: “Juifs et chrétiens, autour du cochon,” Identité alimentaire et altérité culturelle [Actes du
colloque de Neuchâtel, 12,13 novembre 1984 (Neuchâtel, Belgium: Institut d'ethnologie Saint-Nicolas,
1985(, 61. and Fabre-Vassas, The Singular Beast, 247 (Fabre-Vassas confused this text with the Council of
Antioch in 325 CE).
657
Psikta Zutara (Midrash Lekah Tob), Genesis 25:22. Psikta Zutara (Midrash Lekah Tob), ed. S.
Buber (Vilna, 1884). My translation.
‫ וזה‬,‫ זה רץ להרוג את זה‬,‫ סימן לדורות‬,)‫ ותרץ את גלגלתו (שופטים ט נג‬:‫ כענין שנאמר‬,‫ היו מחתכין בתוך הבטן‬.‫ויתרוצצו הבנים‬
‫ כיצד ? זה אוסר את יום‬,‫ וזה מתיר צוויו של זה‬,‫ זה מתיר צוויו של זה‬:‫ ור" ש בן לקיש אמר‬.‫ כדברי ר' יוחנן‬,‫רץ להרוג את זה‬
:‫ ויתר ציוויו‬:‫ שתי מלות הן‬,"‫ "ויתרוצצו‬:‫ לכך נאמר‬,‫ וזה מתירו‬,‫ זה אוסר את החזיר‬,‫ וזה אוסר את יום ראשון‬,‫השבת‬

254
between Judaism and Christianity. This is a later source, but it seems to express well the

dialogical dimension of pork in the Judeo-Christian context: the Christians ate pork (in

part) to distinguish themselves from Jews, while Jews did not eat pork (in part) to

distinguish themselves from Christians. This symmetry did not exist before the rise of

Christianity. In the Roman world, Jews perhaps abstained from pork (also) in order not

to be Romans, but Romans did not eat pork in order to avoid being Jews. Perhaps the

Jewish avoidance of pork seemed strange or negative to some Romans, but it did not have

any special importance for them: it did not have any relation to the ways in which they

generally understood their pork consumption.

Conclusion: The Dialogical Beast

A people without history

Is not redeemed from time, for history is a pattern
Of timeless moments. So while the light fails
On a winter’s afternoon, in a secluded chapel
History is now and England.

T. S. Eliot, Little Gidding, No. 4 ‘Four Quartets, V. 658

For Judaism, history is now and practice. The timeless moments are historical,

and the unhistorical practice is history. The avoidance of pork is a manifestation of being

part of the sacred history of salvation - to be part of a process, and at the same time part

of the condition that the process will be achieved, i.e. the Gehula, the redemption of the

Messianic age. This inscribing of the avoidance of pork in time goes hand in hand with

imagining it in the inter- relations with the other. This might correspond to Emannuel

Levinas´ conception of time itself:

658
T. S. Eliot, “Little Gidding,” V. T. E. S. Eliot, Collected Poems 1909-1962 (New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World, 1963), 208 [first published in Four Quartets, 1942].

255
 Relationship with the future, the presence of the future in the present, seems all the same
accomplished in the face-to-face with the Other. The situation of the face-to-face would
be the very accomplishment of time; the encroachment of the present on the future is not
the feat of the subject alone, but the intersubjective relationship. The condition of time
lies in the relationship between humans, or in history. 659

Time is not an external quality to which events correspond, but rather inherent to

the relations with the other. In the midrashim, the pig is a unit of time which contains and

marks the relations with the other (animal, the divine (God), and humans

(Rome/Christianity). The avoidance of pork marks a distinction between the Jews and

omnivorous animals, for it is by self-control that the Jews distinguish themselves from

their own animality, from a piggish nature, and from the animal kingdom. It is by a total

acceptance of the avoidance of pork that the Jews accept and confirm their particular

relation with God; it is by refusing to partake of pork that the Jews resist the omnivorous

Empire, whether pagan or Christian. If the pig is a symbol of otherness, of the Other, all

the more appropriate that the sages called it “another thing.” Like the heretic par

excellence, Elisah ben Abuya, is named: Aḥer, Other. The pig became the “other” par

excellence, a symbol of “otherness” itself - otherness understood as that of the brother

twin.

Midrash Temurah (13th cent.?), while speaking of the need for contradictions in

the world and noting that without purity there is no impurity and vice versa, says that “the

pig and other unclean animals said to the clean ones: You should be grateful to us,

because were it not for the uncleanness of us and our friends you would not be known as

clean. If there is no just [man] there is no wicked [man]; said a wicked man to a just man:

you should thank me for if I were not evil, how would you be known [as just]? If all men

659
Emmanuel Levinas, Time and the Other: And Additional Essays (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University
Press, 2002 (1947), 79.

256
were just, you would have no advantage.” 660 If Judaism and Christianity (and Isla m)

should not thank each other, they should at least give thought to the measure by which

their identities are mutually constructed. The case of the pig, the dialogical beast, may

help us think in this dialogical dimension: the way each religion constructs its

fundamentals (identity, morals, anthropology, conception of history, etc.) in dialogue

with the other real or imagined voice; by inventing the other in the particular discourse of

each religion. We should ask ourselves to what extent the reason or logic of each of these

religions is the fruit of dia-logics, of being between diverse logics.

660
Midrash Temurah 4. Shlomoh Aharon Wertheimer. Batei Midrashot, vol. 2. (Jerusalem: Mosad
Harav Cook, 1953), 192-193.
‫ צריכים אתם להחזיק לנו‬,‫ החזיר וכל מיני בהמה טמאה לבהמה טהורה‬,‫ אמרו‬.‫ואם אין טהרה אין ט ומאה ואם אין טומאה אין טהרה‬
‫ אמר רשע לצדיק צריך אתה להחזיק לי‬,‫ אם אין צדיק אין רשע‬.‫טובה אילולא אני וחברי שאנו טמאים לא נודעתם שאתם טהורים‬
.‫ אלו היו כל בני אדם צדיקים לא היה לך יתרון‬,‫טובה לולי שאני רשע מאין היתה ניכר‬
For the rhetoric of Midrash Temurah, see: Mauro Perani, Il Midrash Temurah: la dialettica degli opposti in
un'interpretazione ebraica tardo-medievale (Bologna: EDB, 1986).

257
 Bibliography

Primary Sources

Rabbinic
Abba Mari of Lunel, Minḥat kenaot in Solomon ben Adret, Teshuvot ha-Rashba le-
Rabenu Shelomoh b.R. Avraham ben Adret ve-tsoraf la-hen Sefer Minḥat ena ot e-R.
Aba Mari de-Lunil, vol. I.1. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kuk; Makhon le-hotsaʼat
rishonim ve-aharonim, 1990. (In Hebrew)
Abot deRabbi Nathan version (Goldin) = The Fathers According to Rabbi Narhan.
Translated by Judah Goldin. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955.
Abot deRabbi Nathan version B (Saldarini) = The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan
(Abot de Rabbi Nathan version B), Translated by Anthony J. Saldarini. Leiden: Brill,
1975.
Esther Rabbah = One line critical edition of Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies.
<http://www.schechter.ac.il/raba.asp> Consulted July 12, 2012.
Gaster, Moses. The Exempla of the Rabbis; Being a Collection of Exempla, Apologues
and Tales Culled from Hebrew Manuscripts and Rare Hebrew Books. New York:
Ktav, 1968. (Hebrew)
Gdaliah ibn Yahia, Sefer Soshelet ha-Kabala. Venice, 1585 (Reprint: Jerusalem: Hadorot
HaHronim VeKorotam, 1962). (In Hebrew)
Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonain Talmud, Pesahim. London: The Soncino
Press, 1967.
Isaac Abarbanel, Rosh Amanah = Yitzhak Abravanel, Rosh Amanah. The Priniciples of
Faith. Edited by Menachem Kellener. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1993.
(Hebrew)
Isaac Abarbanel, Yeshu'ot Meshiho = Yitzhak Abravanel, Yeshu'ot meshiho. Konigsberg,
1861. (Hebrew)
Jacob ben Sheshet, Sefer Meshiv Devarim Nekhohim. Edited by Georges Vajda.
Jerusalem: Israeli Academy of Science, 1968. (Hebrew)
The Jewish-Persian Apocalypse of Daniel (Ma‘aseh Danī’e = Shapira, Dan. “Qīṣṣa-ye
Dāniyāl – ’o Ma‘aseh Danī’el – be-farsit-yehudit: Ha-ḥibbur we-targumo,” Sefunot 7
(1999): 337-366. (Hebrew)
Lamentations Rabbah (Buber) = Midrasch Echa Rabbati, Edited by S. Buber. Wilna,
1899 (Reprint: Hildesheim, 1967). (Hebrew)
Leviticus Rabbah (Margulies) = Midrash wayyikra Rabbah: A Critical Edition Based on
Manuscripts and Genizah Fragments with Variants and Notes. Edited by Mordecai
Margulies. Jerusalem, 1956-1958. (Hebrew)
The Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael (Horowitz and Rabin) = Mekhilta de-Rabbi
Ishmael: Mechilta d'Rabbi Ishmael. Edited by H. S. Horowitz and I. A. Rabin.
Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrman, 1960. (Hebrew)
The Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael (Neusner) = The Mekhilta According to Rabbi
Ishmael: An Analytical Translation, 2 vols. Translated by Jacob Neusner. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 1988.

258
The Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael (Lauterbach) = Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael: A
Critical Edition on the Basis of the Manuscripts and Early Editions with an English
Translation, Introduction and Notes. Edited by Jacob Zallel Lauterbach. Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society of America, 1976.
Menahem Zioni. Sefer Zioni. Cremona: Vincentino Conti, 1560 (Reprint: Jerusalem:
1964). (Hebrew)
Midrash Aggadah. Edited by S. Buber. Vienna, 1894. (Hebrew)
Midrash Hagadol to Leviticus. Edited by A. Steinsaltz. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook,
1975. (Hebrew)
Midrash Mishle: A Critical Edition based on Vatican MS. Ebre. 44, ed. Burton I.
Visotzky. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1990. (Hebrew)
Midrash on Proverbs = S. Buber, Midrasch Mischle, Wilna, 1893 (Reprint: Jerusalem,
1965). (Hebrew)
Midrash on Psalms = S. Buber, Midrash Tehillim. Vilna, 1892 (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1966).
(Hebrew)
The Midrash on Psalms. Translated by William C. Braude. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1959.
Midrash Rabbah, vol. II. Genesis. London and Bournemouth: Soncino Press, 1951.
Midrash Rabbah. Vol. III, Exodus. Translated by S. M. Lehrman. London: Soncino, 1939.
Midrash Rabbah, Leviticus, Translated by J. Israelstam and Judah J. Slotki. London; New
York: Soncino Press, 1939.
Midrash Tannaim = Midrash Tanaim al sefer Devarim; Midrasch Tannaim zum
Deutronomium. Edited by David Tsvi Hoffmann. Berlin: Ittskovski, 1908-1909.
Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu: An English Translation of Genesis and Exodus from
the Printed Version of Tanhuma-Yelammedenu with an Introduction, Notes, and
Indexes. Translated by Samuel A. Berman. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1995.
Midrash Tanhuma (S. Buber Recension), vol. 2. Exodus and Leviticus. Translated by
John T. Townsend. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1997.
Midrash Zuta, Song of Songs (Buber) = Midrash Zuta on Song of Songs, Ruth,
Lamentations and Ecclesiastes. Edited by S. Buber. Berlin, 1894. (Hebrew).
The Midrash on Psalms, vol. 2, Translated by William G. Braude. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1959.
The Minor Tractates of the Talmud: Massektoth Ketannoth, vol. II. Translated by A.
Cohen. London: Soncino Press, 1966.
Mishnayoth, vol I. Order Taharoth. New York: Judaica Press, 1964.
Mishnayoth, vol. V. Order Kodashim. Translated by Philip Blackman. New York:
Judaica Press, 1964.
Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed. Translated by M. Friedlander. London:
Geroge Routledge, 1919.
Otzar Midrashim (Eisenstein) = Eisenstein, J. D. Ozar Midrashim: A Library of two
Hundred Minor Midrashim, 2 vol. Bibliotheca Midraschica. New York: Reznick,
Menschel & Co, 1915.
Pesikta Rabbati (Friedmann) = M. Friedmann, Pesikta Rabbati, Vienna, 1880.
Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer = Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer. Edited by D. Luria. Warsaw,
1852 (Reprint: Jerualem, 1960).

259
Pesikta de Rab Kahana = Mandelbaum, B. Pesiqta de Rav Kahana: According to an
Oxford Manuscript with Variations….With Commentary and Introduction, 2 vols.
New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962.
Pesikta deRab Kahana: R. Kahana's Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal
Days. Translated by W. G. Braude and I. J. Kapstein. Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1975.
A Rabbinic Anthology. Edited by Claude Goldsmid Montefiore and Herbert Loewe. New
York: Schocken, 1974.
Rabbeinu Behaye, Biur al ha-Torah, vol. II, Exodous, Leviticus. Edited by R. Hayyim Dov
Chavel. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Ḳuḳ, 1967. (Hebrew)
Ritva, Commentary to the Talmud (Hiddushei ha-Ritva), Kiddushin. Edited by R.
Avraham Dinin. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1985. (Hebrew)
Seven Minor Treatises = Seven Minor Treatises: Sefer Torah, Mezuzah, Tefillin, Zizit,
'Abadim, Kutim, Gerim: And Treatise Soferim II. Edited by M. Higger. New York:
Bloch, 1929/30.
Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. Translated by Reuven
Hammer. New Haven and London: Yale Univeristy Press, 1986.
The Talmud, The Steinsaltz Edition, vol. XIV, Tractate Ta’anit, part II. New York:
Random House, 1995.
The Talmud of the Land of Israel. 35 vols., vol. 20, Hagiaga nad Moed Qatan. Translated
by Jacob Neusner. Chicago and London: The Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1982.
The Tosefta, vol. I, Zeraim (The Order of Agriculture). Translated by Jacob Neusner.
New York: Ktab, 1977.
The Tosefta, vol. V, Qedoshim (The Order of Holy Things). Translated by Jacob Neusner.
New York: Ktab, 1977.
Wertheimer, Shlomoh Aharon. Batei Midrashot, vol. 2. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kuk,
1953.

Non-Rabbinic
Aelian. Historical Miscellany. Translated by N. G. Wilson. LCL 486. Cambridge, MA;
London: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Aesop’s ab es. Translated by Laura Gibbs. Oxford and New York: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
Ambrose, Commentry on Luke = Ambroise de Milan, Traité sur l`Evangile de S. Luc.
Traduit par Gabriel Tissot. SC 45. Paris: Cerf, 1976.
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, vol .V, Acts. Edited by
Francis Martin and Thomas C. Oden. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2006.
Anonymus, Treaty of Physiognomy (De Physiognomonia Liber) = Anonyme Latin, Traité
de physiognomonie. Traduit par Jacques André. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1981.
Aristophanes, The Acharians = The Acharnians of Aristophanes. Translated with notes by
W. J. M. Starkie. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1968.
Aristotle. History of Animals. Translated by D. M. Blame. LCL 439. Cambridge, MA and
London: Harvard University Press, 1991.
Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms = Saint Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms, 73-
98. Translated by Maria Boulding. The Works of Saint Augustine, Part III, Books, vol.

260
 18. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2002. Latin text: Augustinus, Enarration in
Psalmum, PL 36. Augustinus, Exposition in Psalmum, CCSL 39.
The Book of Jubilees. Translated by James C. VanderKam. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2001.
The Book of the Saints of the Ethiopian Church, vol. 1.1. Mas aram mt h d r
(September 8-December 6). Translated by E. A. Wallis Budge. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1928.
Bruno the Carthusian. Expositio in Psalmos. PL 152, 637C-1420C.
Cassiodurus, Explantion of the Psalms, vol II. Psalms 51-100. Translated by P. G. Walsh.
New York: Paulist Press, 1991. Latin text: Cassiodorus, Expositio in Psalmum. CCSL
98.
Cicero, Against Piso = Cicero in Twenty Eight Volumes, vol. XIV. Translated by N. H.
Watts. LCL 252. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press; London: W.
Heinemann, 1953.
Clement of Alexandria. Miscellanies (Stromata) = Clement of Alexandria. The Stromata,
or Miscellanies, in: The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of The Writings of the
Fathers Down to AD 325, ANF 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994 (Reprint of
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1885).
Columella. On Agriculture. 3 vols. Translated by E. S. Forster and Edward H. Heffner.
LCL 361; 407;408. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: W.
Heinemann, 1941-1955.
Dio Cassius. Roman History. 9 vols. Translated by Earnest Cary. LCL. London and New
York: Heinemann and Macmillan, 1914-1927.
Ephrém de Nisibe. Commentaire de l' Evangile concordant ou Diatesseron. Traduit du
syriaque et de l'arménien par Louis Leloir. SC 121. Paris: Cerf, 1966.
Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron. Saint phrem’s Commentary
on Tatian’s Diatessaron. An ng sih Trans ation of Chester eatty Syriac MS 709
with Indtroduction and Notes. Translated by C. McCarthy. JSSt Supplement 2.
Manchester: Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester,
1993.
Epictetus. The Discourses. 2 vols. Translated by W. A. Olfdfather. LCL. Cambridge, MA
and London: Harvard University Press, 1925.
Eucherius. Eucherii Lugdunensis Formulae spiritalis intelligentiae; Instructionum libri
duo. Eucherius, ed. C. Mandolfo. CCSL 6. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004.
Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary, vol. 1b, Judean War 2. Translation and
commentary by Steve Mason. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2008.
Fracisco Machado, Mirror of the New Christians = Fracisco Machado, Espelho de
Christãnos novos, Alcobaça, Portugal, 1541. English Translation: Francisco
Machado, The Mirror of the New Christians. Edited, translated and introduced by
Evelyn Vieira Mildred and Ephraim Frank Talmage. Toronto: Pontifical Insitute of
Mediaeval Studies, 1977.
Galen, On the powers of Foods = Galen on Food and Diet. Translated by Mark Grant.
London: Routledge, 2000.
Hilary of Potiers, On Matthew = Hilaire de Poitiers, Sur Matthieu, tome I. Traduit par
Jean Doignon. SC 254. Paris: Cerf, 1978.

261
Historiae Augustae = The Scriptores Historiae Augustae, vol. III. Translated by David
Magie. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1922.
Histoire auguste. Tome V, 1ère partie, Vies d'Aurélien. Tacite, texte établi, traduit et
commenté par François Paschoud. Paris: les Belles lettres, 1996.
Horace, Epistles = Horace. Satires, Epistles and the Poetica. Translated by H. Rushton
Fairclough. LCL 194. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1926.
Ikhwān al-Safā’, The Case of the Animals versus Man before the King of Jinn. A Tenth-
century Ecological Fable of Basra. Tanslated by Lenn Evan Goodman. Boston:
Twayne Publishers, 1978.
Isidore of Seville, Etymology = The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville. Translated by
Stephen A. Barney. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Jerome, Commentary on Daniel = Jerome's Commentary on Daniel. Translated by
Gleason L. Jr. Archer. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1958.
The Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot. Translated by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin and
New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000.
Julian. Against the Galileans in The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. III. Translated by
W. C. Wright, 313-427. LCL 157. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University
Press, 1923.
Juvenal, Satire = Juvenal and Persius. Translated by G. G. Ramsay. LCL 91. London:
William Heinemann, 1918.
Kalonymus Ben Kalonymus, Igeret Baale Haim. Edited by I. Toporovesky. Epilogue by
A.M. Habermann. Jerusalem: Mosad haRav Kuk, 1959. (Hebrew). Partial English
translation: The Anima s’ Lawsuit against umanity. A Modern Adaptation of an
Ancient Animal Rights Tale, Translated and adapted by Rabbi Anson Laytner and
Rabbi Dan Bridge. Introduced by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae,
2005.
The Letter of Aristeas = Aristeas to Philocrates. Translated by M. Hadas. New York:
Harper, 1951.
Life of Sts. David, Symeon and George of Lesbos = “Life of Sts. David, Symeon and
George of Lesbos” Translated by Dorothy Abrahamse and Douglas Domingo-Forasté.
in Alice-Mary Maffry Talbot, Byzantine Defenders of Images: Eight Saints' Lives in
English Translation. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection, 1998.
Lucretius, On the Nature of the Things = Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe.
Translated by Ronald Melville. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997.
Macrobius. The Satrnalia. Translated by Percival Vaughan Davis. New York and London:
Columbia University Press, 1969.
Ovid, Metamorphoses = Ovid in Six Volumes, vol. 4. Metamorphoses in Two Volumes,
vol. 2. Translated by Frank Justus Miller. LCL 43. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Pres, 1916.
Paul of Aegina, Seven Books = The Seven Books of Paulus Aegineta, Vol. 1. Translated
by Francis Adams. London: The Sydenham Society, 1844.
Petrus Alfonsi, Dialogue Against the Jews = Petrus Alfonsi, Di ogo contra os ud os.
Edited and translated by John Victor Tolan, Klaus-Peter Mieth, Esperanza Ducay, and
María Jes s Lacarra. Huesca, Spain: Instituto de Estudios Altoaragoneses, 1996.

262
 English translation: Petrus Alfonsi, Dialogue Against the Jews. Translated by Irven
M. Resnick. Washington, D.C.: The Catholoic University of America Press, 2006.
Philo. Flaccus, in Philo, vol. IX. Translated by F. H. Colson, 295-406. LCL 363. London:
William Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941.
Philo, On Husbandry = Philo. On Husbandry (De Agricultura), in Philo, vol. III.
Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, 104-206. LCL 247. London: William
Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930.
Philo, On the Life of Moses = Philo. Moses I and II (De Vita Mosis), in Philo, vol. VI.
Translated by F. H. Colson, 274-596. LCL 289. London: William Heinemann;
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935.
Philo, The Special Laws = Philo. On the Special Laws (De specialibus legibus), in Philo,
vol. VII-VIII. Translated by F. H. Colson. LCL 320; 341. London: William
Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937.
Philo of Alexandria, Writings, vol. I. The Historical Writings, the Apological Writings.
Translated and edited by Suzanne Daniel-Nataf. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1986.
(Hebrew)
Pliny. Natural History, vol. III., Books 8–11. Translated by H. Rackham. LCL 353.
London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940.
Plutarch. That Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible (non posse suaviter
vivi secundum epicurum), in P utarch’s Moralia, vol. XIV. Translated by Beendict
Einarson and Phillip H. De Lacy, 1-152. LCL 428. London: William Heinemann;
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.
Porphyry, Against the Christians = Robert M. Berchman, Porphyry against the
Christians. Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic tradition, vol. 1.
Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Porphyry, Porphyry's Against the Christians: The Literary Remains. Edited and
translated by R. Joseph Hoffmann. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1994.
Polybius. The Histories, vol, I, Books 1-2. Translated by William Roger Paton. LCL 128.
London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921.
[Pseudo] Ovid, Halieutica = The Halieutica ascribed to Ovid. Edited by J. A. Richmond.
London: Athlone Press, 1962. English translation: Peter Toohey, Melancholy, Love,
and Time: Boundaries of the Self in Ancient Literature. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 2004.
Raimundus Martini and Joseph de Voisin. Raymundi Martini Pugio fidei adversus
Mauros et Iudaeos.: Cum observationibus Iosephi de Voisin. Lipsiae, 1687.
[Pseudo] Melito of Sardis, Clavis = Clavis Melitionis in Spicilegium Solesmense, 2.3.
Edited by J. B. Pitra, 1-308. Paris, 1855.
Theophilus of Edessa, Chronicle = Theophilus of Edessa's Chronicle and the Circulation
of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Translated by Robert G.
Hoyland. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011.
Sebeos' History. Translated by Robert Bedrosian. New York: Sources of the Armenian
Tradition, 1985.
Varro. On Agriculture. Translated by William D. Hooper and Harrison B. Ash. LCL 283.
London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934.
Vegetius, Epitome of Military Science = Vegetius, Epitome of Military Science.
Translated by N. P. Milner. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993.

263
Virgil, Aeneid = Virgil, Aeneid. Translated by Frederick Ahl and Elaine Fantham.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Primary Sources after 1600

Amsallem, Abraham. Bein Israel LeAmim (Between Israel and the Nations). Jeuraslem:
no publisher, 2000/2001. (Hebrew)
Baronio, Cesare, Annales ecclesiastici Caesaris Baronii, vol. 2. Barri-Ducis: Guerin,
1864.
Basnage, Jacques. Histoire des juifs, depuis Jesus-Christ jusqu'a present, VII. La Haye :
Henri Scheurleer, 1710.
Schwartz, Yoel ben Aharon. Yemot Olam: Mabat al-Tekufatenu veMasmauta, Jerusalem:
Dvar Yerusalym, 1980. (Hebrew)

Secondary Sources

Abramson, Shraga. “Ma amar Ḥa a -Pirusho Ma'amar Chazal U-Perusho (A Rabbinic

Saying and Its Interpretation)” Molad 27, new series 4 (1971): 421-429. (Hebrew)
Aderet, Avrham. ”Tumat Yadaim ( Impurity of the hands),” in From Destruction to
Restoration: The Mode of Yavneh in Re-Establishment of the Jewish People, 210-231.
Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1990. (Hebrew)
Adorno, Theodor, W. The Stars Down to Earth and Other Essays on the Irrational in
Culture. London and New York: Routledge, 1994.
Albek, H. “Addition to Y. Baer, “The forged Midraschim of Raymond Martini and their
Place in the Religious Controversies in the Middle Ages.” In Studies in Memory of
Asher Gulak and Samuel Klein. Jerusalem: Center for Judaic Studies Hebrew
University, 1942 .
Alföldi, Andreas. Early Rome and the Latins. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1965.
Alon Gedaliah. “Inner Tensions: The Patriarchate and Sanhedrin,” in The Jews in their
Land in the Talmudic Age (70-640 C.E), 308-322. Cambridge, MA and London:
Harvard University Press, 1989 (Original Title: Ha-Yehudim be-Eretz- isra’e bi-
tekufat ha-Mishnah veha-Talmud, Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980).
Amar, Zohar and Ari. Z. Zivotofsky. “Identification of the Shibuta Fish.” HaMa'ayan 45,
no. 3 (2005): 41-46. (Hebrew)
Aminoff, Irit. The Figure of Esau and the Kingdom of Edom in Palestinian Midrashic-
Talmudic Literature in the Tannaic and Amoraic Periods. PhD dissertation,
Melbourne: Melbourne University, 1981.
Amselle, Jean-Loup. ranchements anthropo ogie de uni ersa it des cu tures. Paris:
Flammarion, 2001.
___. Métissage, branchement et triangulation des cultures.” Revue germanique
internationale 21 (2004): 41-51.
Anderson, J. K. Hunting in the Ancient World. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1985.
André, Jacques. “La part des suidés dans le vocabulaire grec et latin.” Anthropozoologica
15 (1991): 5-24.
___. L'alimentation et la cuisine à Rome. Paris: Klincksieck, 1961.

264
Andrews, Alfred, C. “Greek and Latin Mouse-Fishes and Pig-Fishes.” Transactions and
Proceedings of the American Philological Association 79 (1948): 232-253.
Arubas B. and H. Goldfus. “The Kilnworks of the Tenth legion Fretensis,” in The Roman
and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research. Edited by John H
Humphrey, 95-107. Ann Arbor, MI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1995.
Asmussen Jes Peter and H. Dadkhan. “En jødisk-persisk Daniel apocalypse, en
oversšttelse af en apokryf Daniel tekst (A Jewish-Persian Daniel Apocalypse, a
Translation of an Apocryphal Daniel text),” Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift (1998): 199-
215.
Atkinson, K. M. T. “The Historical Setting of the Habbakuk Commentary,” Journal of
Semiitc Studies 4 (1959): 238-263.
Atzmon, Arnon. Esther Rabbah II – Towards a Critical Edition, PhD Disertation. Ramat-
Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2005. (Hebrew)
Aymard, J. Essai sur les chasses romaines des origines à la fin des Antonins. Paris: De
Broccard, 1951.
Baer, Yitzhak “Israel, the Christian Church and the Roman Empire from the time of
Septimius Severus to the Edict of Toleration of A.D. 313,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 7
(1961): 79-147.
___. “The forged Midraschim of Raymond Martini and their Place in the Religious
Controversies in the Middle Ages,” Studies in Memory of Asher Gulak and Samuel
Klein,29-49. Jerusalem: Center for Judaic Studies Hebrew University, 1942.
(Hebrew)
Bakhos, Carol. “Figuring (out) Esau: The Rabbis and Their Others,” Journal for Jewish
Studies 58, no. 2 (2007): 250-262.
Barag, Dan. “Brick Stamp-Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis,” Bonner Jahrbücher
167 (1967): 244–267.
___. “Brick Stamp-Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis,” in E.L. Sukenik Memorial
Volume, 168-182. Eretz Israel 8. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1967.
(Hebrew)
___. “The Countermarks of the Legio Decima Fretensis (Preliminary Report),” The
Patterns of Monetary development in Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity.
Proceedings of the International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem 27-31 December
1963. Edited by Arie Kindler, 117-125, plates IX-XI. Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1967.
Barak-Erez, Daphne. Outlawed Pigs: Law, Religion, and Culture in Israel. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 2007.
Barr, Jane. “Review of Braverman, Jay. Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel: A Study of
Comparative Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, Washington,
The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1978.” Journal of Biblical Literature
100, no. 2 (1981): 288.
Barton, Stephen C. “Food rules, sex rules and the prohibition of idolatry. What’s the
connection?,” Idolatry: False Worship in the Bible, Early Judaism and Christianity,
141-162. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2007.
Baumgarten, Rolf. “The 'pig and vine gloss' and the Lives of St. Brigit.” Peritia 19
(2005): 229–238.

265
Becker, Hans-Jürgen. “Epikureer im Talmud Yerushalmi,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi
and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol 1. Edited by Peter Sch fer, 379-421. T bingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1998.
Be’eri, Nurit. Went Forth into Evil Courses: Elisha Ben Abuya – A’her. Tel-Aviv:
Miskal –Yedioth Ahronoth Books and Chemed Books, 2007. (Hebrew)
Belayche, Nicole. “’Dimenticare... Gerusalemme’ : les paganismes à Aelia Capitolina du
IIe au IVe siècle de notre ère,” Revue des Études Juives 158, no. 3-4 (1999): 287-348.
Benovitz, Moshe. “Herod and Hanukkah,” Zion 68, no. 1 (2003): 39-40. (Hebrew)
Benkheïra, Mohammed Hocine. “Tabou du porc et identité en Islam,” dans Histoire et
identités alimentaires en Europe. Dirigé par Martin Bruegel et Bruno Laurioux, 37-51.
Paris: Hachette, 2002.
Berthelot, Katell. Phi anthrôpia udaica e d bat autour de a “misanthropie” des ois
ui es dans ’Antiquit . Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Betz, Hans Dieter. The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the
Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 56-66: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary, Anchor Bible, vol. 19b. New York: Doubleday, 2003.
Bloch, Marc. The Historian's Craft. New York: Knopf, 1953.
Bodendorfer, Gherhard. “‫אני יהוה‬: God’s Self-Introdution Forumla in Leveticus in
Midrash Sifra,” in Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception. Edited by Rolf
Rendtorff, Robert A. Kugler, and Bartel S. Smith, 403-428. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Bohak, Gideon. Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish temple in Heliopolis. Atlanta,
GA: Scholars Press, 1996.
Bovon, François. De Vocatione Gentium: Histoire de ’interpr tation d’Act. 10,1-11, 18
dans les six premiers siècles. Tübingen: Mohr, 1967.
Botha, Phil J. “The Relevance of the Book of Daniel for Fourth-Century Christianity
According to the Commentary Ascribed to Ephrem the Syrian,” in Die Geschichte
Der Daniel-Auslegung in Judentum, Christentum Und Islam: Studien Zur
Kommentierung Des Danielbuches in Literatur Und Kunst. Edited by Katharina
Bracht and David S. Du Toit, 99-122. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2007.
Bottéro, Jean. “L’homme et l’autre dans la pensée babylonienne et la pensée israélite,” in
Hommes et bêtes, Entretien sur le racisme. Edited by Léon Poliakov, 103-113. Paris;
La Haye: Mouton, 1975.
Botterweck, G. J. “‫ חזיר‬chazîr,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. IV.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980.
Boulogne, Jacques. P utarque dans e miroir d’Épicure. Ana yse d’une critique
syst matique de ’ picurisme. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du
Septentrion, 2003.
Boustan, Raʻanan. From Martyr to Mystic: Rabbinic Martyrology and the Making of
Merkavah Mysticism. T bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Bowersock. Glen W. “The Greek Moses: Confustion of Ethnic and Cultural Components
in Later Roman and Early Byzantine Palestine.” in Religious and Ethnic Communites
in Later Roman Palestine. Edited by Hayim Lapin, 31-48. Bethesda, MD: Univeristy
Press of Maryland, 1998.

266
Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judeo-Christianity. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
___. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Meaning of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1999.
___. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1993.
Boyarin, Jonathan. “Le porc en dieu Pôros.” Penser/Rêver 7 (2005): 151-176. [English
version “The Pig as Poros: On the Uses (and Loss) of a Swinish Symbolic Mediator”
(April 2005). unpublished paper.]
Brady, Christian M. The Rabbinic Targum of Lamentations: Vindicating God. Leiden:
Brill, 2003.
Braun, Martin. “Biblical Legend in Jewish-Hellenistic Literature with Special Reference
to the Treatment of the Potiphar Story in the Testament of Joseph,” in History and
Romance in Graeco- Oriental Literature. Edited by Martin Braun, 44-104. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1938.
Braverman, Jay. erome’s Commentary on Danie A Study of Comparati e ewish and
Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. Washington: The Catholic Biblical
Association of America, 1978.
Briand, Michel. “Grec κάπρος: du (porc) au sanglier,” dans Les Zoonymes : Actes du
colloque international tenu à Nice les 23-25 Janvier 1997. Edité par Sylvie Mellet,
91-115. Nice: Publications de la Faculté des Lettres, Arts et Sciences humaines de
Nice, 1997.
Broshi, Magen. “The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period.” Cathedra 43 (1987): 15-32.
(Hebrew)
___. “The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period: introductory Notes,” in Bread, Wine,
Walls and Scrolls, 121-43. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001 (originally
published in: The Israel Museum Journal 5 (1986): 41-56).
Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the the New Testament. The Anchor Bible
Reference Library. New York et al.: Doubleday, 1997.
Brown, Ronald N. The Enjoyment of Midrash: The Use of the Pun in Genesis Rabba.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College, 1980.
___. “Midrashim as oral traditions,” HUCA 47 (1976): 181-189.
Broyles Craig C. The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A Form-Critical
and Theological Study. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1989.
Brumberg-Kraus, Jonahan. “Meat-Eating and Jewish Identity: Ritualization of the
Priestly 'Torah of Beast and Fowl' [Lev. 11:46] in Rabbinic Judaism and in Medieval
Kabbalah,” Association for Jewish Studies Review 24, no. 2 (1999): 227-262.
Bryan, David. Cosmos, Chaos and the Kosher Mentality. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1995.
Büchler, A., “The Patriarch R. Judah I and the Graeco Roman Cities of Palestine,“ in
Studies in Jewish history: the Adolph Büchler memorial volume, edited by Israel
Brodie and Joseph Rabinowitz, 179-241. London: Oxford University Press, 1956.
___.“Der Patriarch R. Jehuda I. und die Griechisch-R mischen St dte Pal stinas,“ The
Jewish Quarterly Review 13, no. 4 (1901): 683-740.
Buckser, Andrew. “Keeping Kosher: Eating and Social Identity among the Jews of
Denmark.“ Ethnology 38, no. 3 (1999): 191-209.

267
Cagnat, K. M. R. “L’armée romaine au siège de Jérusalem,” Revue des études juives 22
(1891): xlii.
Callan, Terrance. “Comparison of Humans to Animals in 2 Peter 2,10-22,” Biblica 90
(2009): 101-113.
Charles, R. H. The oo of noch Trans ated from Professor Di mann’s thiopic Text.
Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1893.
Cohen, Gershon, D. “Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought,” in Jewish Medieval
and Renaissance Studies. Edited by Alexander Altmann. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press, 1967.
___. “The Symmetry of History,” in Abraham Ibn Daud, The Book of Tradition (Sefer
Ha-Qaalah). Edited by Gerson, D. Cohen. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1967.
Cohen, Naomi G. “Rabbi Meir: A Descendant of Anatolian Proselytes,” JJS 23 (1972):
51-59.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. 2nd edition. Louisville and
London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006 (1989).
___. “The Destruction: From Scripture to Midrash,” Prooftexts 2, no 1 (1982): 18-39.
Cole, Penny J. “‘O God, The Heathen Have Come into Your Inheritance’ (PS.78.1) - the
Theme of Religious Pollution in Crusade Documents, 1095-1188.” In Crusaders and
Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria. Edited by Maya Shatzmiller, 84-111. Leiden;
New York; Köln: Brill, 1993.
Cook, John Granger. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Courcelle, Pierre. “Le thème littéraire du bourbier dans la littérature latine,” Comptes
rendus de ’Acad mie des Inscriptions et e es-Lettres (avril-juin 1973): 273-289.
Courtney, E. A Commentary on the Sattires of Juvenal. London: Athlone, 1980.
Dabrowa, Edward. Legio X Fretensis: a prosopographical study of its officers (I-III c.
A.D.). Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1993.
Dar, Shimon. “Food and Archeology in Romano-Byzantine Palestine,” in Food in
Antiquity. Edited by John Wilkins, David Harvey & Mike Dobson, 326-335. Exeter,
UK: University of Exeter Press, 1995.
Darmesteter, J. “L'Apocalypse persane de Daniel,” dans Mélanges Renier; recueil de
travaux pub. par l'École pratique des hautes études (Section des sciences historiques
et philologiques) en mémoire de son président Léon Renier, 405-420. Paris: École
pratique des hautes, 1887.
Davidson, Y. Otzar ha-shirah v'-ha-piyut (Treasury of Song and Liturgical Poetry), 4
vols. New York: 1924–1933 (Reprint : New York: Ktav, 1970).
De Saulcy, Félicien. “Lettre à M. Léon Renier sur une monnaie antique contremarquée en
judée,” Revue archéologique 20 (1869): 251-260.
___. Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, description des monnaies autonomes et impériales
de la Palestine et de l'Arabie Pétrée... Paris : J. Rothschild, 1874.
Déclais, Jean-Louis “Du combat de Jacob avec l’ange à la licéité de la viande de chameau:
le devenir d’un récit.” Islamochristiana 25 (1999): 25-43.
Di Marco, M. “Riflessi della polemica antiepicurea nei Silli di Timone II: Epicuro, Il
porco e ’insa iab e entre.” enchos 4 (1983 59-91.

268
Diamond, Eliezer. Holy Men and Hunger Artists: Fasting and Asceticism in Rabbinic
Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Douglas, Mary. “Impurity of Land Animals,” Purity and Holiness. The Heritage of
Leviticus, ed M. J. M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz, 24-45. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill,
2000.
___. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966.
Drijvers, H. J. W. Cults and Beliefs at Edessa. Leiden: Brill, 1980
Dulaey, Martine. “La figure de Jacob dans l’exégèse paléochrétienne (Gn 27-33),”
Recherches Augustiniennes 32 (2001): 75-168.
Duncan, Thomas S. “The Aeneas Legend on Coins,” The Classical Journal 44, no. 1
(1948): 15-29.
Efron, Joshua. “The Psalms of Solomon, The Hasmonean Decline and Christianity,” in
Studies on the Hasmonean Period. Leiden: Brill, 1987 (1980).
Eliade, Mircea. Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return. New York: Harper,
1954 (Original title : Le mythe de ’ terne retour, Paris: Gallimard, 1949).
Eliav, Yaron Z. “The Urban Layout of Aelia Capitolina: A New View from the
Perspective of the Temple Mount,” in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New
Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome. Edited by Peter Sch fer,
241-278. T bingen: Mohr, 2003.
___. Intdoduction to the Research of the Jewish Daily life in the Roman Bath-Houses in
ret Israe istory, a aca and Ta mudic’ Rea ia. M.A. Thesis. Jerusalem: The
Hebrew Univeristy, 1993. (Hebrew)
Eliot, T. E. S. Collected Poems 1909-1962. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1963.
Elitzur, Avshalom C. “Amalek and the Swine: The Anatomy of Metaphysical Hatred.” in
Sefer HaYovel Lichvod proffesor Shlomo Shoham. Edited by Chemi Ben Nun,
Avshalom Elitzur, Igal Vardi, Mati Gottriech and Sosanah Katz. Tel-Aviv: Ydihot
Hahronot, 2004. (Hebrew) On line version: < http://www.e-mago.co.il/e-
magazine/hate.html > Consulted August 23 2011.
Epstein, Abraham. “The Beasts of the Four Kingdoms,” Bet Talmud 4 (1885): 177.
(Hebrew)
___. Mi-Qadmoniot ha-Yehudim, 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1965 (Vienna
1887). (Hebrew)
Eshel, Hanan. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonaean State. Grand Rapids, Michigan;
Cambridge, U.K: Eerdmans; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2008.
___. “Aelia Capitolina. Jerusalem no more.” Biblical Archaeological Review 23, no. 6
(1997): 46-48.
Espérandieu, Émile. Recueil général des basreliefs de la Gaule romaine. Tome I. Paris:
Impr. Nationale, 1907.
Evans, Jane DeRose The Art of Persuasion: Political Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992.
Faas, Partick. Around the Roman Table: Food and Feasting in Ancient Rome. Chicago:
The Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1994.
Fabre-Vassas, Claudine. The Singular Beast: Jews, Christians, and the Pig. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1997 [Original title : La bête singulière. Les Juifs, les
chrétiens et le cochon. Paris : Gallimard, 1994.].

269
___. “Juifs et Chrétiens, autour du cochon.” dans Identité alimentaire et altérité
culturelle. Actes du colloque de Neuchâtel, 12,13 novembre 1984, 59-83. Neuchâtel,
Belgium: Institute d'ethnologie Saint-Nicolas, 1985.
Feldman, Louis H. Remember Amalek: Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in
the Bible According to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew
union college press, 2004.
___. Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1998.
___. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1993.
Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary, vol. 1b, Judean War 2. Translation and
commentary by Steve Mason. Boston: Brill, 2008.
Forti, Tova L. Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008.
Fraenkel, Jonah. Darkhei ha-Agadah ve-ha-Midrash, 2 vols. Tel Aviv and Givatayim,
Israel: Modan and Yad LaTalmud, 1991. (Hebrew)
Freidenreich, David Moshe. Foreign Food: A Comparatively-Encriched Analysis of
Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Law. PhD Dissertation, New York: Columbia
University, 2006.
Frère, Jean. Le bestiaire de Platon. Paris: Kimé, 1998.
Friedheim, Emmanuel. Rabbinisme et paganisme en Palestine romaine: étude historique
des realia talmudiques (Ier-IVème siècles). Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006.
___. “The Travelling Merchant and Arabian-Syrian Pagan Rituals Mentioned in the
Tosefta.” Tarbiz 69, no. 2 (2000): 167-176. (Hebrew)
Frimer Norman E., The Preparation of a Critical Edition of the Manuscript Eben Bohan
by Shem Tob bar Yitzhak Shaprut. Phd Dissertation, New York: Yeshiva University,
1953.
Gafni, Isaiah, M. “Jerusalem in Rabbinic Literature,” in The History of Jerusalem. The
Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE). Edited by Yoram Tsafrir and Smuel
Safrai, 35-60. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1999. (Hebrew)
Gafni, Isaiah, M. “Jerusalem in Rabbinic Literature, “ in The History of Jerusalem. The
Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE). Edited by Yoram Tsafrir and Smuel
Safrai, 35-60. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1999. (Hebrew)
Garnsey, Peter. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1999.
___. “Mass Diet and Nutrition in the City of Rome,” in Cities, Peasants and Food in
Classical Antiquity: Essays in Social and Economic History. Edited by Peter Garnsey
and Walter Scheidel. 226-252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Garsiel, Moshe. Midrashic Name Derivations in the Bible. Ramat-Gan: Revivim, 1987.
(Hebrew)
Geiger, Joseph. “To the History of the Term Apikoros,” Tarbiz 42 (1972-73): 499-500.
(Hebrew)
Germer-Durand, P. “Aelia Capitolina,” Revue biblique 1 (1892): 384.
Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. vol. V. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1947.
Golden, Mark. “Male Chauvinists and Pigs.” Echos du Monde Classiaque/Classical
Views 32, no. 7 (1988): 1-12.

270
Goldfus H. and B. Arubas. “The Kilnworks of the Tenth Legion at the Jerusalem
Convention Center,” Qadmoniot 122, no. 2 (2002): 111-119. (Hebrew)
Gowers, Emily. The Loaded Table: Representations of Food in Roman Literature.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Gourdain, Francois Philippe. “Translation of a Dissertation on Satyrical Medals
addressed to the Socity by Pere Francois Philippe Gourdain,” Archaeologia, or,
Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, vol. IX, 61-81. London: The Society of
Antiquaries of London, 1789.
Gozzini Giacosa, Ilaria. The Taste of Ancient Rome. Chicago and London: The University
of Chicago Press, 1992 ]origninal title: A cena da Lucullo: Come cucinare oggi i
piatti de ’antica Roma. Casale Monferrato: Edizioni Piemme, 1986.[
Graetz, Heinrich. History of the Jews. vol. II. Philidelphia: The Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1956 [1893].
Grant, Robert M. Early Christians and Animals. London and New York: Routledge,
1999.
Grottanelli, Cristiano. “Avoiding pork: Egyptians and Jews in Greek and Latin texts,” in
Food and Identity in the Ancient World. Edited by C. Grottanelli and L. Milano, 59-
93. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N., 2004.
Haak, Robert D. Habakkuk. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Habas, Ephrat. “The Halachic Status of Caesarea as Reflected in the Talmudic
Literature,” in Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia. Edited by
Avner Raban, Kenneth G. Holum, and Jodi Magnes, 454-468. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research. no. 308: 108. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Hadas-Lebel, Mireille. Jerusalem Against Rome. Translated by Robyn Fréchet. Leuven:
Peeters, 2005 (original title: Jérusalem contre Rome. Paris: Cerf, 2003).
___. “Rome ‘Quatrième Empire’ et le symbole du porc,” dans e enica t udaica
ommage Va entin i iprowet y. Editeé par André Caquot, Mireille Hadas-Lebel
et. J. Riaud, 297-312. Leuven: Peeters, 1986.
___. “Le paganisme à travers les sources rabbiniques des IIe et IIIe siècles. Contribution
à l’étude du syncrétisme dans l’empire romain.” ANRW II, 19.2 (1979): 427-429.
Har-Peled, Misgav. “Entre l’âne et le bœuf, réflexion sur la machine dialogique,” dans
Adam et ’astraga e ssais d’anthropo ogie et d’histoire sur es imites de ’humain,
ed. Gil Bartholeyns, Pierre-Olivier Dittmar, Thomas Golsenne, Misgav Har-Peled et
Vincent Jolivet, 87-97. Paris: Les éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme,
2009.
Harris, R. “Hadrian’s Decree of Expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem,” Harvard
Theological Review 19 (1926): 199-206.
Hasan-Rokem, Galit. “Rabbi Meir, the illuminated and the Illuminating: Interpreting
Experience,” in Current Trends in the Study of Midrash, 227-243. Edited by Carol
Bakhos. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Hayes, Christine Elizabeth. Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and
Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
___. “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” HTR 92, no. 1 (1999): 3-36.
“ḥazir ‫חזיר‬,” Tamudic Encyclopedia (Encyclopedia talmudit), vol. 13, 443-446.
Jerusalem, Israel: Talmudic Encyclopedia Institute, 1977. (Hebrew)

271
Heinemann, Isaac. The Methods of the Aggadah (Darkhe ha-agadah). Jerusalem:
Magness, 1949. (Hebrew)
Heinemann, Joseph. “Profile of a Midrash: The Art of Composition in Leviticus Rabba.”
Journal of the American Academy of Religion 39, no. 2 (1971): 147-148.
Hernando, Josep. “Tractus adversus Iudaeos. Un tratado an nimo de polémica antijudía
(s.XIII),” Acta historica et archaeologica mediaevalia 7-8 (1986-1987): 9-77.
Herr, Moshe David. “Persecutions and Martyrdom in Hadrian’s Days,” Scripta
Hierosolymitana 23 (1972): 85-125.
___. Roman Rule in Tannaitic Literature Its Image and Conception. PhD Dissertation.
Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1970.
Heschel, Abraham Joshua. Heavenly Torah: As Refracted Through the Generations.
Translated by Gordon Tucker and Leonard Levin. New York: Continuum, 2005.
Hesse, Brian and Paula Wapnish. “Pig Use and Abuse in the Ancient Levant:
Ethnoreligious Boundary-Building with Swine.” in Ancestors for the Pigs: Pigs in
Prehistory. Edited by Sarah M. Nelson, 123-135. MASCA research papers in science
and archaeology, v. 15. Philadelphia, PA: Museum Applied Science Center for
Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology,
1998.
Hirshman, Marc G. “Rabbinic Universalism in the Second and Third Centuries.” HTR 93
(2000): 101-115.
___. “Stories of the Bath-House of Tiberias.” Idan 11 (1988): 119-122. (Hebrew)
Houston, Walter. Purity and Monotheism. Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law.
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Idel, Moshe. Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism Pillars, Lines, Ladders. Budapest:
Central European University Press, 2005
___. “Afterward.” in Eliade, Mircea. The Myth of Eternal Return. Translated by Yotam
Rehuveny and edited by Ronit Nikolsky. Jerusalem: Carmel, 2002. (Hebrew)
Incigneri, Brian J. The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel.
Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Infante, Gil J. and J. Costa Durão. A Colour Atlas of Meat Inspection. London: Wolfe,
1990.
Isaac, Benjamin H. The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2004.
___. “Eternal Rome,” Historia 1-2 (1998): 19-31. (Hebrew)
Ish-shalom (Friedmann), Meir. “Arbah Gidulin ShAsru Hakhamim, (‫ארבעה גידולין שאסרו‬
‫)החכמים‬.” New York: Lipshitz, 1899. (Hebrew)
Jenkins, Michael R. “The 'Aeneid' medallion - a narrative interpretation,” The
Numismatic Chronicle 148 (1988): 148-152, pl. 12/3-4.
Jungkurtz, R. “Fathers, Heretics, and Epicureans,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History
17 (1966): 3-10.
Kadman, Leo. The Coins of Caesarea Maritima. Tel-Aviv; Jerusalem: Schoken,
Publications of the Israe Numismatic Soceity, 1957.
___. The Coins of Aelia Capitolina. Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium, vol. 1.
Jerusalem: Schocken, 1956.
Kaizer, Ted. The Religious life of Palmyra: A Study of the Social Patterns of Worship in
the Roman Period. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2002.

272
Karlinski H. “He-Ḥazir ve-‘ etero e-Atid Lavo,” Shanah be-Shanah (1972): 243-254.
(Hebrew)
Kay, Paul A. and Bob Chodos, “Man the Hunter? Hunting, Ecology, and Gender in
Judaism,” Ecotheology 11 (2006): 494-509.
Keel, Othmar. “Die kultischen Massnamen Antiochus’ IV. Religionsverfolgung und/oder
reformversuch?” in Hellenismus und Judentum: vier Studien zu Daniel 7 und zur
Religionsnot unter Antiochus IV, Hellenismus und Judentum, ed. Othmar Keel und
Urs Staub. Freiburg Schweiz: Universit tsverl; G ttingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2000.
Kiperwasser, Reuven. “Sturcture and Form in Kohelet Rabbah as Evidence of Its
Redaction,” The Journal of Jewish Studies 58, no. 2 (2007): 283-302.
___. Midrashim on Kohelet; Studies in their Redaction and Formation. Phd Thesiss.
Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2005.
Kister, Menahem. “Legends of the Destruction of the Second Temple in Avot De-Rabbi
Nathan.” Tarbiz 67, no. 4 (1998): 483-530. (Hebrew)
Kraemer, David. Jewish Eating and Identity through the Ages. New York and London:
Routledge, 2007.
Krauss, Samuel. Paras VeRomi BaTalmud UbaMidrashim (Persia and Rome in the
Talmud and Midrashim). Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Cook, 1948. (Hebrew)
___. Monumenta Talmudica, vol. 5: Geschichte, 1. Teil: Griechen und Rimer. Wien:
Orion, 1914.
Krostenko, Brian A. Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Krueger, Derek. “The Bawdy and Society: The Shamelessness of Diogenes in Roman
Imperial Culture,” in The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy.
Edited by Robert Bracht Branham and Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé, 222-239.
Hellenistic culture and society, 23. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.
Kunin, Seth D. We Think What We Eat: Neo-Structuralist Analysis of Israelite food rules
and other Cultural and Textual Practices, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament,
Supplement Series, 412 .Lonodn and New York: T&T Clark International, 2004.
Labendz, Jenny R. “’Know What to Answer the Epicurean’ - A Diachronic Study of the
Apiqoros in Rabbinic Literature.” Hebrew Union College Annual 74 (2003): 175-214.
Lachs, Samuel Tobias. A Rabbinic commentary on the New Testament: the Gospels of
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav; New York: Anti-defamation league of
B'nai B'rith, 1987.
Lafon, Christophe. “Un organisme interne semblable au chaudron du sacrifice,” La
sacrifice antique: vestiges procédures et stratégies. Sous la direction de Véronique
Mehl et Pierre Brulé, 155-166. Renne: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2008.
Lazarus-Yafeh, Hava. “Is there a Concept of Redemption in Islam?” Some Religious
Aspects of Islam: A Collection of Articles. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Le Breton, David. La saveur du monde: une anthropologie des sens. Paris: Métailié, 2006.
Leach, Edmund. “Anthropological Aspects of Languague: Animal Categories and Verbal
Abuse.” in New Directions in the Study of Language. Edited by E. H. Lenneberg, 23-
63. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1964.
Leary O. De Lacy. The Saints of Egypt. London: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge; New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937.

273
Levey, Irving M. “Caesarea and the Jews,” in The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima,
Vol. I, Studies in the History of Caesarea Maritima. Edited by Charles T. Fritsch, 43-
78. Missoula, MN: Scholars Press for the American School of Oriental Research,
1975.
Levick, Barbara. “Propaganda and the Imperial Coinage,” Antichton 16 (1982): 104-116.
Levine I. Lee, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1998.
___. Caesarea Under Roman Rule. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975.
Levinson, Joshua. “Enchanting Rabbis: Contest Narratives between Rabbis and
Magicians in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity.” Tarbiz 75 (2006): 295-328.
(Hebrew)
Lev-Tov, Justin. “‘Upon What Meat Doth this Our Caesar Feed…?’ A Dietary
Perspective on Hellenistic and Roman Influence in Palestine,” in eichen aus Text
und Stein Studien auf dem Weg u einer Arch o ogie des euen Testaments. Edited
by S. Alkier and J. Zangenberg, 420-446. Tübingen: Francke, 2003.
Levey, Irving M. “Caesarea and the Jews,” in The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima,
Vol. I: Studies in the History of Caesarea Maritima. Edited by Charles T. Fritsch, 43-
78. Missoula, MN: Scholars Press for the American School of Oriental Research,
1975.
Levin Israel and Sanez-Badillos Angel, Si me o ido de ti, erusa em… Cantos de as
sinagogas de al-Andalus. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1992.
Levinas, Emmanuel. Time and the Other: And Additional Essays. Pittsburgh: Duquesne
University Press, 2002. (Original title : Levinas Emmanuel, Le temps et ’autre, Paris :
PUF, 1983 (1947)).
Levine, Lee I. Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1998.
Lewinsky, Yom-Tov. “ eit ad i u t aman biTefut ot israe ( ow aman was
beaten in the Jewish Diasporas),” Yalkut Folkloristi lePurim. Tel-Aviv: HaHevra
Ha’Ivrit lyeda Am, 1947. (Hebrew)
Lieberman, Saul. Tosefta Ki-Fshutah: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta, 10
vols., Second Augmented Edition, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992.
(Hebrew)
___. Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature (Meḥ arim be-Torat rets- i ra e ).
Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991. (Hebrew)
___. “How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?” in Biblical and Other Studies. Edited by A.
Altmann, 123-141. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963.
___. “Raymond Martini and his Alleged Forgeries.” Historia Judaica 5 (1943): 87-102.
Linder, Amnon. The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages. Detroit: Wayne
State University Press, 1997.
Longo, Oddone. “La nourriture des autres,” dans Histoire de ’a imentation. Dirgée par
Jean-Louis Flandrin et Massimo Montanari, 265-275. Paris: Fayard, 1996.
L nnqvist, Kenneth K. A. “New Vistas on the Countermarked Coins of the Roman
Prefects of Judaea,” Israel Numismatic Journal 12 (1992): 56-70.
Lowe, J. C. B. “Cooks in Plautus,” Classical Antiquity 4, no. 1 (1985): 72-102.
Lowell, Edmunds. “Epic and Myth,” in A Companion to Ancient Epic. Edited by John
Miles Foley, 31-44. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005.

274
Lust, Johan. “Cult and Sacrifice in Daniel: The Tamid and the Abomination of
desolation,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John
Joseph Collins, Peter W. Flint, and Cameron Van Epps, 671-688. Leiden: Brill, 2002
(First published in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. Edited by J.
Quaegebeur, 283-299. Leuven: Peeters and Department Oriëntalistiek, 1993).
MacDonald, Nathan. “Food and drink in Tobit and other ‘Diaspora novellas’,” in Studies
in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach, 165-178. London and New York:
T&T Clark, 2006.
Mack, Hananel. Mi-Sodo shel Mosheh ha-darshan (The Mystery of Rabbi Moshe
Haddarshan), Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010. (Hebrew)
___. “The Source and Development of the Shabtaian Exposition on the Rascission of the
Mitzvot,” Sidra 11 (1995): 55-72. (Hebrew)
Madden, Frederic W. History of Jewish Coinage, and of Money in the Old and New
Testament: With 254 Woodcuts, and a Plate of Alphabets. London: Quaritch, 1864.
Magness, Jodi. “In the footsteps of the Tenth Roman Legion in Judea,” The First Jewish
Revolt: Archeology, History, and Ideology,189-212. Edited by Andrea M. Berlin and
Andrew, J. Overman. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
Mango, Cyril. “The Temple Mount AD 614-638,” in Bayt al-Maqdis: 'Abd al-Malik's
Jerusalem. Edited by Julian Raby and Jeremy Johns. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1992.
Ma’oz, Zvi Uri. “The Civil Reform of Diocletian in the Southern Levant,” Scripta
Classica Israelica 25 (2006): 105-119.
Marcus, Eliezer. The Confrontation Between Jews and Non-Jews in Folktales of the Jews
of Islamic Countries, 2 vols. Ph.D. dissertation. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1977.
(Hebrew)
Marillier, Bernard. Le sang ier h ra dique. Le Coudray-Macouard: Cheminements, 2003.
Marmorstein, A. “Dioclétien à la lumière de la littérature rabbinique,” Revue des études
juive 98 (1934): 19-43.
Martin, Jacob. “Pagan Tempel in Pal stina – rabbinische Aussagen im Vergleich mit
arch ologischen Funden,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman culture, vol.
2. Edited by Peter Sch fer and Catherine Hezser, 139-160. T bingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1998.
Massey, Isabel A. “Measure for Measure,” in Interpreting the Sermon on the Mount in
the Ligth of Jewish Tradition as Evidenced in the Palestinians Targums of the
Pentateuch: Selected Themes, 74-89. Lewiston: Mellen, 1991.
Matza, Devora. “The Story of Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife,” in Studies in Jewish
arrati e Ma’aseh Sippur. Edited by Avidov Lipsker and Rella Kushelevsky, 249-
50. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2006. (Hebrew)
Mayor, Adrienne. Greek Fire, Poison Arrows, and Scorpion Bombs: Biological and
Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World. Woodstock: Overlook Duckworth, 2003.
Mazar, Eilat. “The Camp of the Tenth Roman Legion at the Foot of the South-West
Corner of the Temple Mount Enclosure Wall in Jerusalem,” in New Studies on
Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference December 23 rd 1999. Edited by A.
Faust and E. Baruch, 52-67. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, Ingeborg Rennert
Center for Jerusalem Studies, 1999. (Hebrew)

275
McNamara, Martin. The Psalms in the Early Irish Church. Sheffield, England: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2000.
___. Glossa in Psalmos: The Hiberno-Latin Gloss on the Psalms of Codex Palatinus
Latinus 68 (Psalms 39:11-151:7). Roma, Città del vaticano: Biblioteca apostolica
vaticana, 1986.
Meir, Ofra. The Acting Characters in the Stories of the Talmud and the Midrash (A
Sample). PhD Thesis, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1977. (Hebrew)
Meshorer, Yaakov. The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina. Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1989.
___. “An Unpublished Coin of Aelia Capitolina,” Israel Exploration Journal 13 (1963):
59-60.
Michon, E. “Mélanges, III, Note sur une inscription de Ba’albek et sur des tuiles de la
légion Xa Fretensis.” Revue Biblique 9 (1900): 95-105.
Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17-22. New York: The Anchor Bible, 2000.
___. Leviticus 1-16. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
___. “Ethics and Ritual: The Foundations of the Biblical Dietary Laws,” in Religion and
Law: Biblical, Jewish, and Islamic Perspectives, 159–91. Edited by E.B. Firmage.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989.
___. “The Biblical Diet Laws as an Ethical System,” Interpretation 17 (1963): 288-301
(reprinted in Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, 105-106. Leiden: Brill,
1983).
Milikowsky, Chaim. “Reflections on Hand-Washing, Hand-Purity and Holy Scripture in
Rabbinic Literature,” in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus. Edited by M.
Poorthuis and J. Schwartz, 149-162. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000.
___. “The Symmetry of History in Rabbinic Literature: The Special Numbers of Seder
Olam, Chapter Two,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 11 (1993): 45. (Hebrew)
Millás Vallicrosa, José M. “Un tratado an nimo contra los judios” Sefarad 13 (1953): 3-
34.
Neusner, Jacob. The Talmud: Law, Theology, Narrative: a Sourcebook. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 2005
___. Neusner on Judaism, vol. 2, Literature. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.
___. A Theological Commentary to the Midrash. Vol. 4. Leviticus Rabbah. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 2001.
___. “History, Time, and Paradigm in Classical Judaism,” Approaches to Anceint Judaism
16 (1999): 189-212.
___. “Paradigamtic versus Historical Thinking: The Case of Rabbinic Judaism,” History
and Theory 36 (1997): 353-377.
___. The Presence of the Past, the Pastness of the Present: History, Time and Paradigm in
Rabbinic Judaism. Bethesda: CDL Press, 1996.
___. Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel, and
the Initial Confrontation. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press,
1987.
___. Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man. Part 1. The Tradition. Leiden:
Brill, 1973.
Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
The Anchor Bible, vol. 37C. New York et al.: The Anchor Bible, 1993.

276
Nirenberg, David, “The Birth of the Pariah: Jews, Christian Dualism ,and Social
Science”, Social Research, 70, no. 1 (2003): 201-236.
___. Communities of Violence. Persecution of Minorities in the Middle Ages. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996.
Novak, David. The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People. Cambridge; New
York; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Paczkowski, M. C. “Gerusalemme negli scrittori cristiani del II-III secolo,” Liber Annus
Studii Biblici Franciscani 45 (1995): 165-202.
Pastoureau, Michel. “Chasser le sanglier. Du gibier royal à la bête impure: histoire d’une
dévalorisation.” Une histoire symbolique du moyen âge occidental, 65 -77. Paris:
Seuil, 2004.
___. “La chasse au sanglier: histoire d'une dévalorisation (IVe-XIVe siècle).” dans La
Chasse au Moyen Age: Société, traités, symboles. Edité par Michel Pastoureau ;
Paravicini Bagliani, Agostino et Baudouin van den Abeele, 7-23. Firenze: SISMEL-
Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2000.
___.“Quel est le roi des animaux,” dans Le Monde animal et ses représentations au
Moyen-âge (XIe-XVe siècles): actes du XVe congrès de la Société des historiens
médiévistes de l'enseignement supérieur public, Toulouse, 25-26 mai 1984, 133-142.
Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail, Service des publications, 1985.
Patrich, Joseph. “Herod’s Hippodrome/Stadium at Caesarea in the Context of Greek and
Roman Contests and Spectacles,” in Studies in the History of Eretz Israel. Presented
to Yehuda Ben Porat, ed. Yehoshua Ben-Arieh and Elchanan Reiner, 120-167.
Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2003. (Hebrew)
Perani, Mauro. Il Midrash Temurah: la dialettica degli opposti in un'interpretazione
ebraica tardo-medievale. Bologna: EDB, 1986.
Perdue, Leo G. Proverbs. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2000.
Perles, F. “Nachlese zum neuhebr ischen und aram ischen W rterbuch,” in Festschrift
Adolf Schwarz zum siebzigsten Geburtstage, 15. Juli 1916. Edited by Samuel Krauss
and Victor Aptowitzer, 293-310. Berlin: R. L wit, 1917.
Poucet, Jacques “Le motif de la truie romaine aux trente gorets,” Folia Electronica
Classica (Louvain-la-Neuve) 7 (janvier-juin 2004),
<http://bcs.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fe/07/TRUIE/Gesine23.htm >. Consulted April 18, 2012.
Prina Ricotti, Eugenia Salza. “Alimentazione, cibi, tavola e cucine nel l’età imperiale,” in
L’A iment ione ne mondo antico, 90-94. Roma: Instituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello
Stato, 1987.
Puhvel, Jaan. “Victimal Hierarchies in Indo-European Animal Sacrifice,” The American
Journal of Philology 99, no. 3 (1978): 355–362.
Purcell, Nicholas. “The Way We Used to Eat: Diet, Community, and History at Rome,”
American Journal of Philology 124, no. 3 (2003): 329-358.
___. “The Roman Villa and the Landscape of Production.” in Urban Society in Roman
Italy. Edited by T. Cornell and K. Lomas, 151-79. New York: St. Martin's Press,
1995.
Rabello, Alfredo Mordechai. “On the Relations between Diocletian and the Jews,”
Journal of Jewish Studies 35 (1984): 147-167.
Ragacs, Ursula. “Raimundo Martí, O.P. Biografía”, in La contro ersia udeocristiana en
spa a (desde os or genes hasta e sig o III homena e a Domingo Mu o Le n,

277
 edited by Carlos del Valle Rodríguez, Andrés Barcala Mu oz, and Domingo Mu oz
Le n, 301-308. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto de
Filología, 1998.
___. “The Forged Midrashim of Raymond Martini – Reconsiderad,” Henoch 19 (1997):
59-68.
Rainbow, Jesse. “Sarah Saw a Hunter : the Venatic Motif in "Genesis Rabbah" 53:11.” in
Midrash and the Exegetical Mind: Proceedings of the 2008 and 2009 SBL Midrash
Sessions. Edited by Lieve M. Teugels and Rivka Ulmer, 155-179. Piscataway, NJ:
Gorgias Press, 2010.
Ramsey, Boniface. Beginning to Read the Church Fathers. New York: Paulist, 1985.
Raveh, Inbar. Fragments of Being: Stories of the Sages: Literary Structures and World-
View. Or Yehuda, Israel: Kinneret, Zmora-Bitan, Dvir; Beer Sheva: Heksherim
Istitute, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2008.
Regev, Eyal. “How Did the Temple Mount Fall to Pompey?” The Journal of Jewish
Studies 48, no. 2 (1997): 276-289.
Reinach, Théodore. “Mon nom est Légion,” Revue des études juives 47 (1903): 172-178.
Rofé, Alexander. “Isaiah 66 1-4: Judean Sects in the Persian Period as Viewed by Trito-
Isaiah,” in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel B. S. Iwry. Edited by
Ann Kort and Scott Morschauser, 205-217. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985.
Rokeah, David. Justin Martyr and the Jews. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
___. “Polmus shel Kitos–LeBirura shel Bayia Philologit-Historit,” in Meridot ha-
Yehudim bi-yeme Trayanus, 115-117 li-sefirat ha-Notsrim. Edited by David Rokeah,
172-173. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1978. (Hebrew)
Rosenblum, Jordon D. Food and Identity in Early Rabbinic Judaism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2010.
___. “Why Do You Refuse to Eat Pork?” Jews, Food, and Identity in Roman Palestine.”
The Jewish Quaterly Review 100, no. 1 (2010): 95-110.
___. ‘They sit apart at Mea s’ ar y Rabbinic Commensa ity Regu ations and Identity
Construction. PhD dissertation. Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University, 2008.
Rosenfeld, B. Z. “The Changing Significance of the Name ‘Yavne’ in Rabbinic
Tradition,” in Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period:
Studies in Honor of shmuel Safrai. Edited by Isaiah Gafni, Aharon Oppenheimer and
Menahem Stern, 149-164. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1993.
Rosenthal, Judah. “Abrogation of the Commandments in Jewish Eschatology,” in Meyer
Waxman Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his Severnt-Fifth Birthday. Edited by
Judah Rosenthal, Leonard C. Mishkin, and David S. Shapiro, 217-233. Chicago:
College of Jewish Press; Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem: Mordecai Newman, 1966.
(Hebrew)
Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. Demonic Desires: Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late
Antiquity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.
___. “Yetzer Hara in Amoraic Literature: A Reevaluation,” Tarbiz 77 (2008):1-38.
(Hebrew)
Rosivach, Vincent J. ”Lex Fannina Sumptuaria of 161 BC,” The Classical Journal 102,
no. 1 (2006): 1-15.
Rosner, Fred. “Yerakon in the Bible, and Talmud: Jaundice or Anemia,” The American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition 25, no. 6 (1972): 626-628.

278
Ross, Mark Barry. “Kabbalistic Tocinofobia: Américo Castro, Limpieza de Sangre, and
the Inner Meaning of Jewish Dietary Laws,” in Fear and its Representations in the
Middle Ages and Renaissance. Edited by Anne Scott and Cynthia Kosso, 152-86.
Turnhout: Brepols, 2002.
Roth, Jonathan P. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C. – A.D. 235).
Leiden; Bosotm; Köln: Brill, 1999.
Roubach, Sharon. In Life, in Death, they were not Parted: The Idea of Twinship in
Western Christianity. PhD Dissertation. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 2003.
Rozen, Baruch. “Swine Breeding in Eretz Israel after the Roman Period,“ Cathedra 78
(1995): 25-42. (Hebrew)
Rozin, P., Haidt, J., McCauley, C., & Imada, S., “Disgust: Preadaptation and the cultural
evolution of a food-based emotion.” in Food Preferences and taste. Edited by H.
MacBeth, 65-82. Providence: Berghahn Books, 1997.
Rutgers, Leonard V. “Some Reflections on the Archeological Finds from the Domestic
Quarter on the Acropolis of Sephoris.” in Religious and Ethnic Communities in Later
Roman Palestine. Edited by Hayim Lapin. Bethesda, MD: University Press of
Maryland, 1998.
Safrai, S. “The Holy Congregation in Jerusalem,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 23 (1972): 62-
78
Safrai, Ze’ev. “Pigs,” The Economy of Roman Palestine, 172-173. London and New York:
Routledge, 1994.
___. “The Exemption of the Territory of Cesarea from the Commandments Relating to
the Land,” Sinai 96, no. 5-6 (1985): 217-228. (Hebrew)
Salomon, Amitai. “Din Tzerorot veMekorotav, (The Law of Tzerorot and its Origin),”
Petuhi Hotam 3 (2008): 110-145. )Hebrew(
Sasson, Jack Murad. “Isaiah 66:3-4a,” Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 199–207.
Satlow, Michael. Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1995.
Schäfer, Peter. Judeophobia. Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World. Cambridge,
MA; London, Harvard University Press, 1997.
Schouwink, Wilfried. “The Wild Pig in Medieval Historiography: How a Pagan Devil
Becomes a Christian Ruler,” in Atti del V Colloquio della International Beast Epic,
Fable and Fabliau Society, Torino–St-Vincent, 5-9 settembre 1983, 301-311. Edited
by Alessandro Vitale-Brovarone and Gianni Mombello. Alessandria: Edizioni
dell'Orso, 1987.
___. Der wilde Eber in Gottes Weinberg: zur Darstellung des Schweins in Literatur und
Kunst des Mittelalters. Sigmaringen: J. Thorbecke, 1985.
Schremer, Adiel. Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late
Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
___. “Other Brothers,” Reshit 1 (2009): 165-185. (Hebrew)
___. “Eschatology, Violence, and Suicide: An Early Rabbinic Theme and Its Influence in
the Middle Ages,” Apocalypse And Violence. Edited by A. Amanat And J.J. Collins,
19-43. New Haven: Yale Center For International And Area Studies, 2002.
Schwab, Ute. “Runentituli, narrative Bildzeichen und biblisch-änigmatische
Gelehrsamkeit auf der Bargello-Seite des Franks Casket.” in Runica—Germanica—
Mediaevalia [Festschrift for Klaus Düwel]. Edited by Wilhelm Heizmann and Astrid

279
 von Nahl, 759–803. Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen
Altertumskunde 37. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003.
Seston, William. Dioclétien et la tétrarchie. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1946.
Shachar, Isaiah. The Judensau: A Medieval Anti-Jewish Motif and Its History. London:
Warburg Institute, 1974.
Shahar, Yuval. “Rabbi Akiba and the Desturction of the Temple: the Establishment of the
Fast Days,” Zion 68, no. 2 (2003):145-166. (Hebrew)
Shapira, Dan. “Qīṣṣa-ye Dāniyāl – ’o Ma‘aseh Danī’el – be-farsit-yehudit: Ha-ḥibbur we-
targumo,” Sefunot 7 (1999): 337-366. (Hebrew)
Shemesh, Yael. “Gi gu eha she ashti Mi ra, midrash Ḥa a , ha-parshanut ha-femiistit,”
Beth Mikkra 47 (2002): 356-372. (Hebrew)
Shinan, Avigdor. “Light and Blindness in the Stories of the Rabbis,” Migvan 2 (2003):
75-92. (Hebrew)
Siegel, Judy. “Kosher 'Pork of the Sea' Makes Aliya from Iran,” Jerusalem Post (Friday,
August 19, 2005), 6.
Sillar, Frederick Cameron, Ruth Mary Meyler, and Oliver Holt. The Symbolic Pig: An
Anthology of Pigs in Literature and Art. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1961.
Sivan, Hagit. Palestine in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
___. “From Byzantine to Persian Jerusalem: Jewish Perspectives and Jewish-Christian
Polemics,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 41 (2000): 277-306.
Sivertsev, Alexei M. Judaism and Imperial Ideology in Late Antiquity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Smith, Rowland. Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of
Julian the Apostate. London: Routledge, 1995.
Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period.
Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990.
Speckenbach, Klaus. “Der Eber in der deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters,” in Verbum et
Signum. Beiträge zur mediävistischen Bedeutungsforschung, Festschrift Friedrich
Ohly, vol. 1. Edited by Hans Fromm, Wolfgang Harms, and Uwe Ruberg, 425-476.
Munich: Fink, 1975.
Spencer, Diana. The Roman Alexander: Reading a Cultural Myth. Exeter: University of
Exeter Press, 2002.
Sperber, Daniel. A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature.
Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1984.
Spiegel, Gabrielle M. “Memory and History: Liturgical Time and Historical Time.”
History and Theory 41, no. 2 (2002):149–162.
Spijkerman, A. “Some Rare Jewish Coins,” Liber Annuus 13 (1962/3): 298-318.
Stein, S. “The Dietary Laws in Rabbinic and Patristic Literature,” Studia Patristica 2
(1957): 141-154.
Steinsaltz, A. “Atid ha-Kadosh Baruh Hu le-Haḥa iro,” Tarbiz (1967): 297-298. (Hebrew)
Stemberger, G nter. Jews and Christians in the Holy Land: Palestine in the Fourth
Century. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.
___. “Die Beurteilung Roms in der rabbinischen Literatur,“ ANRW II. 19, no. 2 (1979):
338-396.
Stern, David. “The Captive Woman: Hellenization, Greco-Roman Erotic Narrative, and
Rabbinic Literature,” Poetics Today 19, no. 1 (1998): 91–127.

280
Stern, Sacha. Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Stiebel, G. D. “The Whereabouts of the Xth Legion and the Boundaries of Aelia
Capitolina,” in New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference
December 23rd 1999. Edited by A. Faust and E. Baruch, 68-103. Ramat-Gan: Bar-
Ilan University, Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, 1999. )Hebrew(
Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel. “Parody and Polemics on Pentecost: Talmud Yerushalmi.
Pesahim on Acts 2?” in Jewish and Christian Liturgy and Worship: New Insights into
Its History and Interaction. Edited by Albert Gerhards and Clemens Leonhard, 279-
293. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Strack H. L. and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Edinburgh:
Clark, 1991.
Stratton, Kimberly B. “The Eschatological Arena: Reinscribing Roman Violence in
Fantasies of the End Times,” Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary
Approaches 17, no 1-2 (2009): 45-76.
Stroumsa, Guy. “Philosophy of the Barbarians: On Early Christian Ethnological
Representations,” in Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift Martin Hengel, vol.
II. Edited by H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger and P. Schäfer, 339-368. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1996.
Syme, Ronald. “The Composition of the Historia Augusta,” in Historia Augusta Papers,
12-29. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.
Tabory, Joseph. “The Proems of the Seventh Chapter of Esther Rabba and Midrash Abba
Gurion,” Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature 16 (1997): 7-18. (Hebrew)
Tate, Marvin E. Psalms. 51-100. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990.
Terian, Abraham. Patriotism and Piety in Armenian Christianity: The Early Panegyrics
on Saint Gregory. New Rochelle, NY: Avant, 2005.
Terrien, Samuel L. The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary. Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2003.
Thomas, Joël. “Le boeuf, la truie et la louve : les animaux-totems et les voyageurs dans le
mythe des origines de Rome,” dans Bouleversants voyages. Itinéraires et
transformations. Edité par P. Carmignani, 67-84. Perpignan: Presses universitaires de
Perpignan, 2000.
___. “La truie blanche et les trente gorets dans l’Énéide de Virgile,” dans Mythologies du
Porc. Actes du Co oque de Saint Antoine ’Abbaye (4-5 avril 1998). Texte réunis par
Philippe Zalter, 51-72. Grenoble: Jérôme Million, 1999.
Tiller, Patrick A. A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1993.
Tolan, John. Petrus Alfonsi and his Medieval Readers. Gainesville: University Press of
Florida, 1993.
Tomson, Peter J. “Jewish Food Laws in Early Christian Community Discourse,” Semeia
86 (1999): 193-211.
Toplyn, Michael. “Livestock and Limitanei: The Zooarchaeological Evidence” in The
Roman frontier in central Jordan: final report on the limes arabicus project, 1980-
1989. Edited by S. Thomas Parker, 484-486. Washington D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection, 2006.
Tottoli, Roberto. ib ica Prophets in the ur ān and Mus im Literature. Richmond:
Curzon, 2002.

281
Trompf, G. W. The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought: From Antiquity to
the Reformation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979.
Tsafrir, Yoram. “The Topography and Archaeology of Aelia Capitolina, “The History of
Jerusalem. The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE). Edited by Yoram Tsafrir
and Smuel Safrai. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1999. (Hebrew)
Tuck, Steven L. “The Origins of Roman Imperial Hunting Imagery: Domitian and the
Redefinition of Virtus under the Principate,” Greece and Rome 52, no. 2 (2005): 221-
245.
Turner, Victor. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors. Symbolic Action in Human Society.
Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1974.
Ulmer, Rivka. Egyptian Cultural Icons in Midrash. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2009.
Valler, Shulamit. “The Story of Japheth’s Daughter in the Midrash,” in A Feminist
Companion to Judges. Edited by Athalya Brenner, 48-66. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1999.
Van Bekkum, Wout Jac. “Four Kingdoms Will Rule: Echoes of Apocalypticism and
Political Reality in Late Antiquity and Medieval Judaism,” in Endzeiten. Edited by
Brandes Wolfram and Felicitas Schmieder, 101-118. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2008.
___. Hebrew Poetry from Late Antiquity: Liturgical Poems of Yehudah. Leiden; Boston;
Köln: Brill, 1998.
___. “The Classical Period of the Piyyut: the Paytan Yannay (Sixth Century AD),”
Jaarbericht van het vooraziatisch-egyptisch genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 27 (1982):
120-140.
Van Kooten, George H. “The Desecration of the ‘The Most Holy Temple of all the World’
in the ‘Holy Land’: Early Jewish and Early Christian Recollections of Antiochus
‘Abomination of Desolation,” in The Land of Israel in Bible, History and Theology:
Studies in Honour of Ed Noort. Edited by Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelis de Vos,
291-316. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009.
Vassas, Claudine. “Questions anthropologiques autour de l’interdit du porc dans le
judaïsme et de son élection par le christianisme,” dans De la domestication au tabou :
le cas des suidés dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Edité par B. Lion et C. Michel, 227-
232. Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 1. Paris: De Boccad, 2006.
Viré, F. “Khinzir,” The Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. V, 8-9. Leiden: Brill,
1979.
Voisenet, Jacques. Bestiaire chrétien. L'imaginaire animale des auteurs du Haut Moyen
Age. Toulouse: Presses universitaire du Mirail, 1994.
Walzer, Richard. Galen on Jews and Christians, London: Oxford University Press, 1949.
Warren, James. Epicure and Democritean Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2002.
Weiss, Ze'ev. “The Jews of Ancient Palestine and the Roman Games: Rabbinic Dicta vs.
Communal Practice,” Zion 66 (2001): 427-459. (Hebrew)
___. “Adopting a Novelty: The Jews and the Roman Games in Palestine,” The Roman
and Byzantine Near East: Recent Archaeological Research, II. Edited by J. H.
Humphrey, 23-49. Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supp. 31. Portsmouth, RI: Journal
of Roman Archaeology, 1999.
___. “The Jews and the Games in Roman Caesarea,” in Caesarea Maritima: A
Retrospective After Two Millennia. Edited by Avner Raban, Kenneth G Holum, and

282
 Jodi Magnes, 443-453. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. no.
308: 108. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
___. “Roman Leisure Culture and Its Influence upon the Jewish Population in the Land of
Israel,” Qadmoniot 109 (1995): 2-19. (Hebrew)
Weiser, Arthur. The Psalms: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962.
Weinstein, Sara. “Aaron Arend, A Critical – Annotated Edition of Elef HaMagen,”
Pathways Through Aggadah IV-V (2001-2002): 317-321. (Hebrew).
Weinstock, Stefan. “Pax and the 'Ara Pacis',” Journal of Roman Studies 50 (1960): 44-58.
Westreich, Avishalom. “Gibuso ePituho she din t erorot bedibrei haTana’aim, bedibrei
haAmora’aim ubata mudim, (The Formation and Development of Tzerorot Law in
the Saying of the Tannaics, Amoraics and the Talmuds,” Sidra 19 (2004): 77-100.
(Hebrew)
White, K. D. Roman Farming. London: Thames and Hudson, 1970.
Whitekettle, Richard. “Bugs, Bunny, or Boar? Identifying the Zîz Animals of Psalms 50
and 80,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67, no. 2 (2005): 250-264.
Whitney, William K. Jr. “The Place of the ‘Wild Beast Hunt’ of Sib. Or. 3,806 in Biblical
and Rabbinic Tradition,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 25, no. 1 (1994): 68-81.
Wiedemann, Thomas. Emperors and Gladiators. London: Routledge, 1992.
Wiersma, Syds. “The Dynamic of Religious Polemics: The Case of Raymond Martin (Ca.
1220-Ca.1285),” in Interaction between Judaism and Christianity in History,
Religion, Art and Literature. Edited by Marcel Poorthuis, Joshua Schwartz, and
Joseph Turner, 197-218. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Wiesenberg, Ernest. “Related Prohibitions: Swine Breeding and the Study of Greek.”
Hebrew Union College Annual 27 (1956): 213-233.
Wilk, Roman. “When Hyrcanus was Besieging Aristobulus,” in Dor Le-Dor: From the
End of the Biblical Times up to the Redaction of the Talmud, Studies in Honor of
Juhua Efron. Edited by Aryeh Kasher and Aharon Oppenheimer, 99-104. Jerusalem:
The Bialik Institute; Tel-Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1995. (Hebrew)
Williams, Stephen. Diocletain and the Roman Recovery. New York: Methuen, 1985.
Wilson, John F. Banias: The Story of Caesarea Philippi, Lost City of Pan. London: I.B.
Tauris, 2004.
Wilson, Jones Mark. “Genesis and Mimesis: The Design of the Arch of Constantine in
Rome,” The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 59, no. 1 (2000): 50-
77.
Yahalom, J. “The Transition of Kingdoms in Eretz Israel (Palestine) as Conceived by
Poets and Homelists,” Shalem 6 (1992): 1-22. (Hebrew)
Yassif, Eli. The Hebrew Folktale: History, Genre, Meaning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press, 1999.
Yerushalmi, Yosef Hayim. Zakhor, Jewish History and Jewish Memory. Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 1982.
Yisraeli-Taran, Anat. The Legends of the Destruction. Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad,
1997. (Hebrew)
Yuval, Israel Jacob. Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in
Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006
[Original title: “Two ations in our Womb” Perceptions of ews and Christians,
Tel-Aviv: Alma/Am Oved, 2000. (Hebrew)]

283
Zakovitch, Yair. David: From Shepherd to Messiah. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak ben Zvi, 1995.
(Hebrew)
___. ‘ or Three…and for our’ The Pattern of the umerica Sequence Three-Four in
the Bible. Vol. 2. Jerusalem: Makor, 1979. (Hebrew)
Zanker, P. “Die Larenaltar im Belvedere des Vatikans,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archaol- ogischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung 76 (1969): 205-218.
Zehavi Amots and Avishag Zahavi. The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of
Darwin's Puzzle. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Zeitlin, S. “The Origin of the Term Edom for Rome and the Roman Church,” JQR 60
(1970): 262-263.
Zivotofsky Ari Z. and Zohar Amar. “Identifying the Ancient Shibuta Fish,”
Environmental Biology of Fishes 75, no. 3 (2006): 361-363.
Zotenberg, Hermann. “Geschichte Daniels: Ein Apokryph,” Archiv für wissenschaftliche
Erforschung des Alten Testamentes 1 (1867-69): 385-427
Zulay Menachem. Piyyute Yannai, (Liturgical Poems of Yannai). Berlin: Schocken, 1938.
Zwart, Marijn. Re ernce & Resistance The Term ‘ o e’ in Matthew 11, 28-30 as
Elucidated by the Theoruies of Bildfeld & Hidden Transcripts. M.A. Thesis. Utrecht:
Utrecht University, 2011.

284
 VITA
Misgav Har-Peled was born in Jerusalem, Israel, on April 3, 1973. He studied at

The High School for Environmental Education, Ben Gurion College, in Sde-Boker,

Negev, Israel, where he majored in Environmental Studies and Archaeology. He received

a Bachelor’s Degree in Biblical and Classical Archaeology and General Studies (with a

specialization in Philosophy and Medieval History) from the Hebrew University in

Jerusalem in 1999. He then moved to Paris, France, where he received a Master’s Degree

in History from the University of Paris I – Panthéon – Sorbonne (L’espace io . Etude

sur la transformation des églises en écuries par les musulmans durant les croisades,

1095-1291) in 2002. After one year as an exchange student at the École Française de

Rome and at The University of Rome, La Sapienza (Programme: Histoire et

Anthropologie des sociétés méditerranéennes de l’antiquité à la période contemporaine),

he recieved his DEA from the Ecole de Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS),

entitled: Le ier d’Abraham et L’Agneau de Dieu. Une étude comparative de

’anima it dans e udaïsme et e christianisme). Misgav currently resides between Tel-

Aviv, Israel, and San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico.

285