1. Hilvitz, A., “Le-harkavah shel derashat ha′aggada be-resh masekhet ′avodah zarah,” Sinai 80 (1977): 119–140;Google ScholarHammer, R., “Complex Forms of Aggadah and Their Influence on Content,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 48 (1981): 186CrossRefGoogle Scholarand n. 4; Bacher, W., ′Aggadat ′amora′e ′eres yisra′el(Tel Aviv: Devir 1924): vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 327 n. 6;Google ScholarHeinemann, J., Derashot be-sibbur bi-tequfat ha-talmud(Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1982), pp. 67–69;Google ScholarNeusner, J., The Bavli′s Massive Miscellanies: The Problem of Agglutinative Discourse in the Talmud of Babylonia(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), pp. 49–71;Google ScholarJacobs, L., “Israel and the Nations: A Literary Analysis of a Talmudic Sugya,” Tel-Aviv Review 2 (1989/1990): 372–383.Google Scholar

2. The version of the midrash in Tanhuma, Shofetim§9 (Berlin, 1927), pp. 651–652 (= Tanhuma, Shofetim§9, ed. S. Buber [Vilna, 1885], 5:31–32) already removes the Aramaic additions, although some would claim that the Tanhumapreserves the homily from another sourceGoogle Scholar. In any case, Israel ibn Al-Nakawa, Menorat ha-Ma′or, ed. Enelow, H.G. (New York: Bloch, 1929), 3:212Google Scholar who clearly knew the Bavli version, removed the additions. Hilvitz, “Le-harkava,” also separates the “talmudic expansions” from the “original version.” However, while excising the Aramaic, he misleadingly includes the Hebrew midrashim grafted from elsewhere in his “original version.” See, e.g., p. 15. Mishcon, A., the tractate in the Soncino series, accurately marks off the additions with parentheses (′Abodah Zarah[London: Soncino Press, 1935], pp. 2–8)Google Scholar. Isaac Hirsch Weiss, Davar ′al ′odot ha-talmud ′im yakhol hu letargem hoi sorkho(Pressburg, 1885), an essay devoted to the difficulties of translating the multi-tiered talmudic style in an intelligible manner, presents our homily among his examples. Hirsch separates the glosses and prints them in the margins in different type.

3. Moore, George Foot, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927), pt. VII, “The Hereafter,” pp. 279–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Montefiore, C. G. and Loewe, H., A Rabbinic Anthology(London:Macmillan, 1938), pp. lxxxvi.Google Scholar

5. The authors do cite the tradition that “a gentile who occupies himself with Torah is like a High Priest,” which appears among the later interpolations as an objection to the view expressed in the homily (p. 559).

6. Urbach, E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. I. Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Schechter, Solomon, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology(New York, Macmillan, 1909).Google Scholar

7. By “drama” I simply mean a composition in prose or verse presenting a story involving conflict or contrast of character which includes dialogue and action. I do notmean that the story was (or was meant to be) acted on the stage, i.e., a play.

8. The homily was clearly a favorite among Jews throughout the Middle Ages, preserved in the later midrashic collections and cited by medieval authors. It appears in Tanhuma, Shofetim§9, 651–652; Tanhuma, Shofetim§9, ed. Buber, 5:31–32; Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana(hereafter PRK), “Alternative Parsha,” ed. Mandelbaum, B. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1987), 2:452;Google ScholarYalqut ha-Makhiri ′al Tishayahu(Berlin, 1893), pp. 138–140;Google ScholarYalqut Shimoni, Isaiah, §452; Bet ha-Midrash, ed. Jellinek, A. (Jerusalem, 1938), 6:50;Google Scholar Al-Nakawa, Menorat ha-Ma′or, 3:212. For medieval halakhic sources, see below, n. 83.

9. The translation that follows is based on MS Paris 1337, although I have occasionally adopted the reading of the JTS and Munich 95 manuscripts (JTS 44830; facsimile edition, ed. Shraga Abramson [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1957]). Only the major variants are noted.

10. In MS JTS “R. Shela.”

11. So MS M. MSS Paris and JTS: “All the nations assemble as one, the peoples gather.”

12. So MS JTS. “In this world” is missing in MS Paris. In MS M it appears in the margin.

13. “Complete idiots” is missing in MS Paris.

14. In Isaiah: “Who amongst themcan speak this?”

15. Lit., “[Who among them] foretold to us the things that have happened.”

16. Lit., “As surely as I have established My covenant with day and night–the laws of heaven and earth–so I will never reject the offspring of Jacob and My servant David.” The midrash turns the verse on its head: God only created the world for the sake of the Torah, his covenant with his people.

17. So MS JTS and MS Paris (′avera).In MS M: ′erva– sexual immorality.

18. So MSS JTS and M. MS Paris adds: “This [those proved righteous] refers to Israel.”

19. However, the homilist himself cites Gen 25:23 to prove that “people” refers to a kingdom and Deut 4:44 to prove that “this” refers to Torah.

20. God cites a clause from Isa 43:9 in his response to the first question of the nations (did we ever accept the Torah and not fulfill it?).

21. This was noted by Heinemann, Derashot, p. 68. On threefold structures, see Ginzberg, L., Ginze Shechter, vol. 1 (New York, 1927), p. 24Google Scholar, who notes, “three examples of this matter are brought in the passage, as is typical of the aggada and the halakha.” Friedman, Shamma, “Some Structural Patterns of Talmudic Sugior,” Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 3 (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 391–396Google Scholar(Hebrew), demonstrates that units of three characterize numerous sugyot in the Babylonian Talmud. See too , Friedman, “Pereq ha′ishah raba ba-bavli,” Mehqarim u-Meqorot, ed. Dimitrovksi, H. (Jerusalem, 1977), pp. 316–319Google Scholar and the references there. 22. The brief sentence, “The same thing [occurs] with each and every nation,” which I have labeled A2′ in the outline below, echoes the initial confused gathering of nations. A′.

23. In the Bible bw′is sometimes a technical term meaning “come for judgment.” See Ps 143:2, Job 9:32, 22:4.

24. See Westermann, Claus, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary, trans. D. Stalker (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969)Google Scholar; , idem, Forschung am Alten Testament(Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1964), pp. 135–144;Google Scholar, idem. Old Testament Form Criticism, ed. Hayes, John H (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1974), pp. 165–167;Google ScholarBegrich, J., Studium zu Deuterojesaja(Munich, 1920), pp. 26–48.Google Scholar

25. Most scholars suggest that “you” should be emended to “they.” See McKenzie, John L., Second Isaiah, Anchor Bible 20 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968), p. 52Google Scholar, and see the note in the New JPS translation.

26. , Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 120.Google ScholarKarlmarti, D., Das Buck Jesaja (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1900), pp. 297–298Google Scholar suggests that the subject switches from the nations to their witnesses: “Let them (the nations) bring their witnesses and be justified, and they (the witnesses) may say, ‘So it is.’”

27. Note that the talmudic sugya immediately preceding the homily, bAZ 2a, contemplates different interpretations of this clause (“let them give their witnesses”) and various identifications of the witnesses.

28. Cf. Isa 41:21–29: “Submit your case, says the Lord; Offer your pleas, says the King of Jacob. Let them approach and tell us what will happen. Tell us what has occurred, or announce what will occur, that we may know the outcome” Isa 41:1–5: “Stand silent before Me, coastlands, and let nations renew their strength. Let them approach to state their case; let us come forward together for argument. Who has roused a victory from the East, summoned him to His service? [Who] has delivered up nations to him, and trodden sovereigns down?” See too Isa 44:6–8,45:20–25; Begrich, Studium, pp. 19–42, and Westermann, Forschung, pp. 134–13

29. In technical terminology, the scene is a Volkerkampf.See Gunther Wanke, Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten, BZAW 97 (Berlin: Alfred Tdpelmann, 1966), pp. 74–92;Google ScholarClifford, R. J., The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, HSM 4 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1972), pp. 152–154.Google Scholar

30. Kraus, H.J., Psalms 1–59: A Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), pp. 123–135Google Scholar, and see the literature cited; Mowinckel, S., The Psalms in Israel′s Worship, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962), pp. 1:46–50, 62–63Google Scholar

31. In the form hargishu.There Darius′s ministers conspire to charge Daniel with violating the law, much as the nations accuse Israel in the homily. (Ragshuis translated “assemble” in the New JPS; “be in an uproar” in the old JPS. See the standard biblical dictionaries.)

32. The JTS manuscript has R. Shela, probably a corruption of R. Simlai.

33. Rabbis are routinely described as carrying a Torah scroll in their bosom. See e.g. bAZ 18a, bSuk 41b, and mSot 7:7.

34. bQid 30a.

35. The glossator adds in Aramaic, “and we translate [in the Targum] One kingdom will be stronger than the other,”to clarify the sense of the prooftext. This does a disservice to the homily, for the allusion to the Targum diverts attention from the allusion to the struggle between Rome and Israel, which is the main theme.

36. Assuming the homilist′s text matched the Masoretic text here.

37. “Persian” in the Babylonian Talmud refers to the contemporary Babylonians. See Gafni, I., The Jews of Babylonia in the Talmudic Era(Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1990), p. 156 (Hebrew).Google Scholar

38. The Sasanians heavily defeated the Romans in 260 C.E. If the homilist lived at this time, it explains why he attributed claims of military prowess to the “Persians,” not the Romans.

39. This reversal bothered the traditional commentators. See the commentary Hiddushei ha-Ge′onimin ′En Ya′akov(New York, 1980), to AZ 3a, pp. 12b–13a: “These matters require explanation. How can God, who is witness and judge, debate (lefalpel ′asmo)with the nations?” This reaction, of courses, fails to appreciate the satirical and humorous tone.Google Scholar

40. The dismissal of God′s testimony recalls the famous midrash of the “Oven of Achnai,” bBM 59b. The rabbis reject God′s testimony that R. Eliezer′s opinion is correct on the grounds that the Torah is “not in Heaven.”

41. The four served as Job′s “comforters.” Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite appear together in Job 2:11. Elihu ben Barachel the Buzite, their younger colleague, surfaces in Job 32.

42. Pirqe de-Rabi ′Eli ′ezer§26. And see Ginzberg, Louis, Legends of the Jews(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909–38), 1:197–203 and notes.Google Scholar

43. Gen 31:7, 30.

44. Gen 39:14–18.

45. Dan 3:13–23.

46. Dan 6:8–24.

47. Job 3 ff.

48. Maharsha, in his commentary, asks why Balaam, a true prophet of the nations, is not ′.called to witness. Certainly he is precisely the type of “expert witness” whose testimony would: be most compelling. But unlike the characters summoned, he never compelled Israel to violate i the Torah.

49. Heinemann, Derashot, p. 67 emphasizes the satirical tone.

50. tAZ 8:4.

51. The indictment of the nations hides one ironic twist. In the course of the dialogue the nations twice quote Scripture to disqualify God and then Heaven and Earth from testifying. Whereas at the outset God had accused the nations of not “speaking this,”meaning Torah, here the nations proficiently cite the text. Apparently they have learned something of the holy wnt. Then again in rabbinic midrash everybody-and everything-^uotes verses: Roman officials, Satan, infants, cows, even the personified days of the week. In other midrashim the “nations of the world” routinely quote Scripture, and perhaps we should understand their unexpected familiarity with Torah in this context. See Y. Heinemann, Darkhe ha-′Aggadah(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1974), pp. 39–43. Moreover, by citing Torah the nations again subvert their own cause. Their mastery of the text and exegetical adroitness compromise the initial defense that they had never received the Torah.

52. bBer 57b; cf. bShab 118a, mTam 7:4.

53. Although the homilist attributes the bridges to the Persians, the Romans were famous for their engineering skill.

54. Compare bShab 33b: “Once R. Yehuda, R. Yose, and R. Shimon sat together, and Yehuda b. Gerim [= proselytes] sat among them. R. Yehuda opened: ‘How pleasant are the [ ways of this nation [Rome]. They established markets, they established bridges, they established bath-houses.’ R. Yose was silent. R. Shimon b. Yohai answered: ‘Everything they made was done exclusively for their own needs. They established markets to place prostitutes there. Bath-houses, to adorn themselves. Bridges, to collect taxes’”

55. Isa 1:8, Amos 9:11.

56. Cf. Maharsha ad loc.

57. A glossator interpolated, “And why did he call it a misvah qalah?Since it is inexpensive.” This is one possible meaning of misvah qalah, as in mHul 12:5, “A misvah qalahwhich [costs] about an ′issar.”But the term occurs frequently in tannaitic and amoraic sources with a range of different meanings. The failure of the nations bothered the glossator: If God made it so hot that the nations were forced to abandon their sukkot, how could the sukka be considered a “simple” precept? He chose a secondary meaning imported from mHul. But this misses the point of the aggada and destroys the irony. Lieberman, Saul, “Persecution of the Jewish Religion,” Salo Wittniayer Baron Jubilee Volume(Jerusalem and New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1974), pp. 213–236Google Scholar (Hebrew), likewise concludes that the original sense of misvah qalahhere is not “an inexpensive commandment,” although his explanation of the phrase is implausible. Goren, Rabbi Shlomo, “Ha-′Universaliut ve-ha-yihud ha-ruhani she-be-hag ha-sukkot,” Mahanayim 50 (1961): 8Google Scholar, writing on a somewhat different topic, comments: “The explanation of the Talmud, ′since it is an inexpensive misva,′is incomprehensible. Do all the other Jewish festivals cost more than the commandments of Sukkot? And there are other commandments which cost less than the commandment of the sukka!”

58. Rosenthal, D., “The Torah Reading in the Annual Cycle in the Land of Israel,” Tarbiz 53 (1984): 144–147Google Scholar(Hebrew), assigns the homily specifically to the festival of Simhat Torah, which he claims was observed annually at the end of Sukkot in third-century Palestine, opposing the scholarly consensus that the festival is of Babylonian origin and developed only in geonic times. Rosenthal was commenting on an article by Fleischer, Ezra, “A List of Early Holidays in a Piyyutby Qiliri,” Tarbiz 52 (1983): 223–272Google Scholar (Hebrew), who claimed that a recently discovered piyyut mentioned Simhat Torah, and concluded that the festival was already known in Palestine in the sixth or seventh century. Rosenthal suggests that the focus on fulfilling the commandments is appropriate for the completion of the Torah reading cycle marked by Simhat Torah, and points out that Isa 43:9, the scripture the homilist expounds, occurs in the hafiarafor parashat bereshitaccording to the Babylonian lectionary cycle. This conclusion seems less compelling than the assignment to Sukkot. The theme of fulfilling commandments is always appropriate, and a homily that praised the merits of Torah would suit any weekday, Sabbath, or festival. Both Rosenthal and Fleischer have been criticized by Fox, Menahem Zvi, “Insights on the Palestinian custom of Simhat Torah, the Sabbath That Coincides with the New Moon, and the Days of Awe,” Sinai 103 (1989): 81–84Google Scholar (Hebrew). Fox rejects the putative reference to Simhat Torah, but recognizes the thematic connection between the homily and Sukkot. He suggests that the motif of an assembly of nations derives from the haqhelceremony (Deut 31:10–13), the septennial Torah-reading assembly that took place on Sukkot. This suggestion has a great deal of merit. The homily projects the haqhelassembly to the eschaton, where the issue becomes reward for the study of Torah, which Jews have merited through their septennial gatherings. This is a type of measure-for-measure motif, similar to those, as we shall see below, that characterize the midrashim for Sukkot. Heinemann, Derashol, p. 68, also assigns the homily to Sukkot, and conjectures that Isa 43 may have served as the haftara.

59. This was noted by Bacher, ′Aggadat, p. 329 n. 2. Actually Nathan, R. Abraham b. of Lunel, Sefer Ha-Manhig, ed. Raphael, Y. (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1978), 2:408, §46Google Scholar and Samuel, Simhah b., Mahzor Vitry, ed. Hurwitz, S. (Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1893), 2:443, §381Google Scholar, both noted the connection as well, for both relate Zechariah′s prophecy to the homily. Like Ps 2, Zech 14 is a Volkerkampf;see Wanke, Zionstheologie, pp. 77–79. (Zech 14 is generally attributed to a later prophet, a deutero- or trito-Zechariah.)

60. Lit., “delights are ever (nesah)in your right hand.” The passage interprets nesahin the sense of “victory.”

61. PRK27:2, 404–407. A slightly different form of the midrash appears in Leviticus Rabba30:2, ed. M. Margoliot (Jerusalem, 1953–60), p. 694. For full analysisGoogle Scholar, see Rubenstein, Jeffrey L., The History of Sukkot during the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods(diss.; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1992), pp. 432–434.Google Scholar

62. The classical Greek term for “palm” is phoenix.Later sources use baisor baion, from a root borrowed from Egyptian. See Paulys Real-encyclopaedie der klassischen Altertumwissenschaft, ed. Pauly, A and Wissowa, G (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1894–1959) 20, 1, p. 386, s.v. phoenix.Google Scholar

63. Cf. 2 Mace 10:7. The Hasmonean triumph, following the rededication of the Temple, was celebrated with palm branches: “Bearing wands (thursoi)wreathed with leaves and fair boughs and palms, they offered hymns of praise to Him who had prospered the cleansing of his own place.” See too Targum Shenito Esther 3:8: “[the Jews] destroy the orchards by breaking down the hedges and not taking care, and they make for themselves a hosha ′ana, saying, ′As does the king in his [triumphal] ceremonies, so do we.′” (Hosha′anahere is a synonym for (lulav, as found in other sources.) The triumphator usually held a myrtle branch in his right hand during the triumphal procession.

64. Pausanius, PeriegaraVII 48, 2, notes, “At most games, however, [the victor] is given a crown {stephanon)of palm, and at all a palm is placed in the right hand of the victor” (Loeb ed., trans. W. H. S. Jones [Cambridge, 1935], 4:137.) Suetonius, Caligula32, 2 relates that Caligula, after killing a gladiator (who intentionally fell), “ran about with a palm branch as victors do” (Loeb ed., trans. J. C. Rolfe [London, 1914]). Numerous imperial inscriptions dedicating games include a provision that the victors be awarded palms.

65. Plutarch, Quaest. Conv.VIII, 4, 723B, relates a discussion in which his companions consider the question: “Why, at the various athletic festivals different kinds of wreaths are awarded, but the palm-frond at all of them?” (Loeb ed., trans F. Babbitt [Cambridge, 1927], 145). “Palm,” in fact, became synonymous with victory in later classical literature. Cicero, Rose.6.17: aliter plurimamm palmamm vetus ac nobilis gladiator habetur(“The first is reputed to be a famous and experienced gladiator, who has won many victories [palms]”; Loeb ed., trans. J. H. Freese [London, (1930], 6:137). (Plutarch, Stoic. Repugn.1045D: “if two racers have run a dead heat, is it permissible that the umpire reward the palm to whichever he pleases?” In races first place was called “first palm.” Cf. Vergil, Aeneid5:339: “Euralus darts by and, winning by grace of his friend, takes first, and flies on amid favouring applause and cheers. Behind come Helymus and Diores, now third palm {nunc tertiapalma, Diores;Loeb ed., trans. H. Fairclough, [London, 1935]). Apuleis, Metamorphoses2, 4 calls the goddess of victory the “palm goddess”: attolerabant statues palmeris deae fades.During triumphal processions the triumphator wore a tunic adorned with palm leaves, the tunica palmata.See Livy, Ab Urba ConditaX 7, 9.Google Scholar

66. In 1 Mace 13:51, Simon celebrated the purification of the Akra with “praise and palm branches and harps and cymbals and viols and hymns, and with songs.” Judith and the women rejoicing with her carried branches in their victory parade, although these are not specified as palms; Jud 15:12–13. In John 12:13 the people greet Jesus with palms as he enters Jerusalem. In Testament ofNaphtali5:4 Levi receives twelve date palms as a symbol of power.

67. In the homily Israel does not bring charges. The dialogue takes place exclusively between God and the nations. In Leviticus Rabbaboth Israel and the nations bring charges before God.

68. See too the expansion of this midrash in Midrash Tehillim17:5, ed. S. Buber (Vilna, 1891), p. 126: “What is the reason for Delights in Your right hand are victory(Ps 16:11)? Just as according to the custom of the world, when two charioteers race in the hippodrome, which of them receives a palm {bain)′}The one who wins. Thus on Rosh Hashana all the people of the world come like contestants on parade and pass before God, and the children of Israel among all of the people of the world also pass before him like troops. When the first day of Sukkot comes, however, all the children of Israel, adults and children, take up lulavs in the right hand and etrogs in their left, and then all the people of the world know that in the judgment Israel was proclaimed victorious.” In the Byzantine Empire races between charioteers representing different religions were indeed seen as symbolic of a struggle for superiority. See Yaron Dan, “Circus Factions (Blues and Greens) in Byzantine Palestine,” The Jerusalem Cathedra I, ed. Lee Levine (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 105–119: “When rivals were members of different religions, the victory of their chariots was viewed as a victory for their religion. Thus triumph also served as a valuable form of propaganda. In one race held in fourth-century Gaza, a Christian named Italicus competed against a pagan who was one of the heads of the city government. The race, in effect, represented a struggle between paganism and Christianity. The victory of Italicus′s chariot was considered a victory of Jesus over Marnas, the god of the city (Marnas victus est a Christo).Malalas reports that in Neapolis, the victory of a Christian charioteer named Nicias over Samaritan and Jewish entries so enraged Julianus, the leader of the Samaritan revolt (529), that he ordered Nicias be killed” (p. 107). On Jewish participation in chariot races, see p. 106 n. 4. Yaron also argues that the “Samaritan riots and rebellion at Caesarea very likely began during the chariot races, or at least were connected in one way or another with the hippodrome” (p. 117; the riots occurred in 555). The midrash beautifully incorporates this cultural symbolism into its promise of eschatological victory for the Jews.

69. bBB 75a; PRK455 and 456. bBB 74b mentions the banquet. See too the eschatological huppot(canopies) of bBB 75a; Pesiqta Rabbati§37, ed. Meir Ish-Shalom (Vienna, 1880), pp. 163a; Leviticus Rabba25:2, 570.

70. PRK454–455. See too Tanhuma, ′Emor§22, 496: “The Holy One said to Israel. In this world I told you to make a sukka to repay me for the good I did for you, as it says, You shall live in booths seven days In order that future generations may know that I made the Israelite people live in booths(Lev 23:42–43). But in the future world I will appear in my kingdom and protect you like a sukka, as it says, And it serve as a sukka from heat by day(Isa 4:5).”

71. Yalqut Shimoni, ′Emor, §753, p. 408; PRK452.

72. PRK452^53.

73. It should be noted that Mai 3:10–24 was the haftarafor the intermediate Sabbath of Sukkot in the Palestinian lectionary cycle; see Charles Perrot, “The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue,” Mikra, ed. M J. Mulder, CRINT II/l (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), p. 147. The traditions which connect Malachi′s blazing fire to the sun of the homily;learly associated the homily with Sukkot.

74. See the medieval sources, below n. 83, which also relate the homily to Sukkot.

75. The meaning of the verse is unclear. This seems to be the understanding of the mir jsh.

76. PRK28:9, p. 433.

77. In other versions of this tradition the sacrifices atone for the sins of the nations or propitiate God for rain on their behalf. Thus bSuk 55b juxtaposes the tradition with a statement of R. Yohanan: “Alas for the nations of the world, who had a loss and know not what they lost. While the Temple stood the altar atoned for them. Now what will atone for them?” And see Rashi ad loc. So Shir ha-Shirim Rabba4:1: “Just as a dove atones for sins, so Israel atones for the nations. Since all those seventy bullocks that they sacrifice on the Festival correspond to the seventy nations, for the world will never be empty of them.” On rain, see Midrash Tehillim109:4: “On Sukkot we offer up seventy bullocks for the seventy nations, and we pray that rain will come down for them.”

78. Tanhuma, Pinhas§17, 603; Tanhuma, Pinhas§14, ed. Buber, 4:35; Bamidbar Rabba21:24; Midrash Tehillim109:4; Yalqut Shimoni, Num §782.

79. See bSuk 55a, cited in n. 77.

80. PRK452; see the notes there.

81. Bet Ha-Midrash, ed.Jellinek, A (Leipzig, 1853–77), 6:50. Jellinek calls the text “Neue Pesikta,” apparently a later reworking of the Pesiqtamaterials.Google Scholar

82. See Qalir′s siluq, Ki ′eqqah mo′ed, in Mahzor le-Sukkot, edited by Goldschmidt, Daniel; compiled by Jonah Frankel (Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 126–135.Google Scholar The beginning of the piyyut presupposes the homily. Those who believe Qalir did not know the Babylonian Talmud will claim that he knew the midrash foundin the Talmud from another source. We have seen that the amoraim to whom the Talmud attributes the midrash are Palestinian. For references in other piyyutim, see the aforementioned Mahzor, p. 22 1. 19, p. 25 1. 16, p. 34 11. 14–15, p. 54 11. 36 ff., p. 24811. 17 ff.

83. See Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel, Sefer Ha-Manhig, ed. Raphael, Y (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1978), 2:408, §46;Google ScholarSimhah ben Samuel, Mahzor Vitn;ed. Hurwitz, S. (Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1893), 2:443, §381;Google ScholarElazar b. Judah of Worms, Sefer Roqeah Ha-Gadol(Warsaw, 1880), pp. 48b.Google Scholar

84. ySuk 2:10, 53c. Recall that Jonah felt so uncomfortably hot in his sukka that he longed for death (Jon 4:8).