J.Jewish Thought and Philosophy, Vol. 2, pp.

1-17 © 1992
Reprints available directly from the publisher
Photocopying permitted by licence only

The Jewish Allegory of Love:

Change and Constancy
Isaac B. Gottlieb
Bar-Ilan University, Israel

In many ways, the allegorical exegesis of the Song of Songs is an

exception to the rule. Midrashic interpretation of other biblical
books displays a panoply of comments based on a wide array of
techniques; in the case of the Song, the rabbinic interpretations
uniformly present the characters and actions of the book as "some-
thing else" - anything but the literal meaning.
This negation of the peshat is the only common element; midra-
shic teachers do not agree on where the scenes in the Song unfold
and, consequently, on exactly whom its subjects represent. No
wonder that even scholars sympathetic to midrashic literature
called the allegory inconsistent,l a potpourri of historical, mystical
and eschatological allusions which "commingle in confusion.,,2
Further, were the allegorical reading of the Song to be flawless, it
would still have a drawback: allegorization of literature is gener-
ally understood to be a way for rational people to maintain their
earliest writings, by transforming myth into philosophy. 3
Allegoresis of the Bible is likewise dismissed as a form of apolo-
getics, a figleaf to cover an embarrassing text. Among medieval

James Kugel, 'Two Introductions to Midrash,' Prooftexts 3 (1983), pp. 145-146.

1
Ephraim E. Urbach, 'The Homiletical Interpretations of the Sages and the Expositions
2
of Origen on Canticles, and the Jewish-Christian Disputation,' Scripta Hierosolymitana 22
(1971), p. 247.
3 C.S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love (Oxford, 1936), pp. 57-58; Ernst R. Curtius, European
Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. Willard R. Trask (London, 1953), p. 204; Beryl
Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame, 1964), p. 2: 'The allegorical
interpretation marks a stage in the history of any civilized people whose sacred literature
is 'primitive'. They dispose of what conflicts with their present moral and intellectual
standards by reading their past as an allegory.'

Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM

via University of Sydney
2 Isaac B. Gottlieb

Jewish Bible commentators - not philosophers - the method never

enjoyed wide acceptance;4 Philo, its classical exponent, was totally
ignored by them.s In modern scholarship, our particular example
earned the epithets" superficial," "non-continuous", "atomistic". 6
Yet, it is a fact that allegory to the Song flourished. 7
By way of example, in one of the opening pericopes of Shir
Hashirim Rabba, Saul Lieberman identified a catalogue of major
allegories stemming from tannaitic sources.8 He theorized that the
frequent references to the crossing of the sea and the giving of the
Torah at Sinai had once been applied respectively by different
schools of Rabbis to the entire Song, not just to scattered verses.9
Here, then, was evidence of widespread allegorical readings
throughout the period of the Mishnah.
In the talmudic age, the various allegories were further devel-
oped into longer homiletical units by the editors of Shir Hashirim
Rabba and Pesikta de-Rab Kahana, and in several talmudic passages.
In the post-talmudic period, both Targum and Rashi carried on
with allegorical interpretation of the Song. While both works flow
from the Midrash, they clearly differ from the earlier model. Rashi
went so far as to criticize his midrashic sources, proposing a novel
approach to overcome their weaknesses.1o But overall, allegory
remained at the center of Jewish commentary to the Song.
How is one to reconcile all these points? Allegorical explanations
are rare in Jewish exegesis, except for this book; criticized by Rashi,

4 See Ibn Ezra's introduction to his Bible Commentary ('the third path'); Smalley, pp.
170-71; Gershom G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1946), p. 28;
Isaak Heinemann, 'Scientific Allegorization during the Jewish Middle Ages,' Studies in
Jewish Thought, ed. Alfred Jospe (Detroit, 1981), pp. 248-51, 261 ff.
5 Samuel Sandmel, Philo's Place in Judaism (Cincinnati, 1956), p. 16.
6 Joseph Bonsirven, 'Exegese allegorique chez les rabbins tannaites', Recherches de
science religieuse 24 (1934), pp. 35-46. All of his allegations against midrashic allegory
culminate in the well-known bias against the Rabbis: 'dans une histoire d'amour un
juriste ne verra guere qu'une matiere a contrats .... ' For a critique, see Nicholas c.R. de
Lange, Origen and the Jews (Oxford, 1976), p. 196, n. 52.
7 Not only in the past: a modern example can be found in Joseph B. Soloveitchik, 'Kol
Dodi Dofek' [Hebrew], Torah U-Melukha, ed. Simon Federbusch Oerusalem, 1961), pp.
20-25.
8 'Mishnath Shir Ha-Shirim' [Hebrew] in Gershom G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism,
Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition (New York, 1965), Appendix D, pp. 118-26.
9 Ibid., p. 119.
10 In the introduction to his commentary. For the text we used Judah Rosenthal,
'Rashi's Commentary on the Song of Songs,' Samuel K. Mirsky Jubilee Volume (New York,
1958), pp. 130-88.

Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM

via University of Sydney
 Jewish Allegory of Love 3

yet cited by him in many verses; condemned by modern readers as

artificial, defended by others as authentic.ll
The answer lies in the realization that the Midrash to the Song is
not an allegory in the accepted sense12 but a number of individual
applications,13 several of which proved to be quite versatile. On
the face of it, rabbinic allegory is a constant through the ages; in
fact, later commentators subtly changed these derashot to accord
with new ideas about the meaning of the Song.
This formulation is not offered glibly. It is the result of deliberate
study of the Song's interpretation, and of some hard thinking
about the terms allegory, metaphor, symbol. We propose a tripar-
tite argument: we will first cite the midrashic applications and
parables, trace their textual evolution, and note how they were
changed in transmission. Then we will apply insights from the
realm of literary studies:14 If midrashic interpretation is not alle-
gory, how did the Rabbis understand the poem, its images and
metaphors? How did they read the Song, and how are we to read
11 Lieberman, 'Mishnath'; Gerson D. Cohen, 'The Song of Songs and the Jewish
Religious Mentality,' The Samuel Friedland Lectures 1960-1966 (New York, 1966), pp. 1-21;
Harold Fisch, Poetry with a Purpose (Bloomington, 1988), pp. 95-98.
12 We are in full agreement with Daniel Boyarin, lntertextuality and the Reading of Midrash
(Bloomington, 1990), p. 108: 'We must clearly distinguish the midrashic reading of the
Song from that of allegorists such as Origen.' However, Boyarin's objections are based on
overall hermeneutic considerations: he defines 'midrashic-intertextual readings' as 'the
connecting of texts to the ultimate Text [i.e. Torah] and not allegoresis, the connecting of
texts to abstract ideas' (pp. 115-116). Our claim is practical and limited to the Midrash on
the Song; it does not spin a protracted allegory. Rather, it supplies historical references,
cites parables, and explains individual metaphors. In the process, it creates its own
metaphors and symbols. We will further elaborate in the body of this paper.
13 We chose the word 'applications' for its neutrality; it has no literary connotations.
However, we often fall back on the word 'allegory' as a concession to its frequent use in
describing the Song, and it should be understood as if with quotation marks. Some may
argue that the word used in the midrash for such applications, patar (e.g. Rabbi Akiba patar
qeraya be-Yisrael, be-sha'a she-'amdu lifne har Sinai [Songs Rabba 2:14,4]), suggests a connec-
tion to the Qumran pesher, defined as a revealed interpretation concerning history, and
etymologically related to 'dream-interpretation', which is close to allegory. See Maurya P.
Horgan, Pesharim, CBQMS 8 (Washington D.C., 1979), p. 229. However, the term patar in
Songs Rabba is used with reference to people (Moses, 'ole regalim), and even things (the
priestly blessing), without connection to history.
14 Lack of consideration for literary aspects is one reason for the contradictory evalu-
ations about Midrash. 'In the wider context of scholarship on religion, the study of
metaphor ... is likely to receive scant attention.' David Tracy, 'Metaphor and Religion:
The Test Case of Christian Texts,' On Metaphor, ed. Sheldon Sacks (Chicago, 1979), pp.
89-104. Stephen A. Barney, 'Visible Allegory ... ,' Allegory, Myth and Symbol, Harvard
English Studies 9 (Cambridge, Mass. 1981), p. 88, is more optimistic: 'The new interest in
biblical symbolism, and the newer interest in the theory of interpretation, have encour-
aged students of language departments to enter the terrain once exclusively held by
historians and theologians .... '

Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM

via University of Sydney
4 Isaac B. Gottlieb

them? Finally, we will survey two examples of post-midrashic

commentary, Targum and Rashi, in order to show that the history
of the Song's interpretation is an ongoing process of change and
continuity vis-a.-vis the Midrash.
The tannaitic Midrash cites the Songs of Songs about sixty times,
applying several allegorical identifications to its verses. 15 Four of
these applications are cited so often in the later sources as to merit
special attention. Besides the Sea ('al hayam) and Sinai (be-sinai),
which were the subjects of Lieberman's study, we find repeated
references to the Tent of Meeting ('ohel mo'ed) and the Temple (bet
'olamim). These four themes break up into natural pairs: the first
two are events in the book of Exodus while the latter two relate to
subjects in Leviticus.
An examination of the tannaitic Midrash shows that while the
applications Sea and Sinai are frequent in Mekhilta, Tent and Temple
have only three examples, two in Seder Olam and one in Sifra. All
three are based on Song 3:9-11 and 4:16-5:1. We cite all three:
1. And of that hour it was said, "0 maidens of Zion, go forth" - these are the sons who
excel; "And gaze upon King Solomon" - the King of Peace; "Wearing the crown that his
mother gave him" - this is the Tent of Meeting; ... "On his wedding day" - on the day
that the Divine Presence dwelled among Israel; "and on his day of bliss" - on the day that
a new fire descended from heaven and consumed the offerings upon the altar.
(Sifra Shemini)16

Seder Olam has two comments:

2. And of that hour it was said, ... "His wedding day" - those are the seven days of
consecration; "the day of gladness of his heart" - that is the building of the Temple.
(Seder a/am 15)
3. And about that day it was said: Awake, 0 north wind, And come - Awake, 0 north
wind - this refers to the burnt-offering which was slaughtered in the north (of the
Tabernacle Court); And come, 0 south wind - this refers to the peace offerings which are
slaughtered in the south;
Blow upon my garden - this refers to the tent of meeting; Let my beloved - this refers to
the Divine Presence; Come to my garden ... this refers to the eighth day (of
consecration).
And enjoy its luscious fruits - this refers to the sacrifices;
(Seder a/am 7)17

15 There are thirty-two references to the Song in Mekhilta, twenty in Sifre Deuteronomy,
four in Sifre Numbers, two in Sifra, three each in Sifre Zuta and Seder alamo In addition,
there are two in Mishnah and eight in Tosefta. The vast majority are 'allegorical'.
Research of the tannaitic midrash was supported by a grant from the Memorial
Foundation for Jewish Culture.
16 Sifra Parshat Shemini Mekhilta de-Miluim, 15--16. Sifra or Torat Kohanim according to
Codex Assemani LXVI (New York, 1956), p. 192.
17 We used Chaim Milikowsky, 'Seder Olam: A Rabbinic Chronography' (1981), an

Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM

via University of Sydney
 Jewish Allegory of Love 5

Clearly, all three derashot are related. Two open with the ex-
pression" And of that hour," one with the phrase" And of that
day." All apply the verses in the Song to historical events: two refer
to the Tabernacle, one to the Tent and Temple. While there is some
difficulty in using the phrase "of that hour" for both the days of
consecration in the desert and the building of Solomon's temple
many years later,I8 it is a fact that in Seder Olam 15, the same verse
serves both allegories of Tent and Temple.
There are two versions of these derashot in Shir Hashirim Rabba
3:11,2:
"In the day of his espousals" - this was the day of Sinai, when Israel were like
bridegrooms; "and in the day of the gladness of his heart" - this refers to the Torah ....
Another explanation, "On the day of his espousals" - this refers to the Tent of Meeting;
"And in the day of the gladness of his heart" - this refers to the Temple.

The first version applies the verse to events at Mount Sinai, the
second, like Seder Olam, refers to Tent and Temple together, under
the rubric of a single verse.
The derashot we have seen in Sifra and Seder Olam receive a
different twist in the Mishnah, at the conclusion of the tractate
Ta'anit:
In the day of his espousals - this is the giving of the Law; and in the day of the gladness of
his heart - this is the building of the Temple. May it be built speedily, in our days!
(Ta'anit 4,8)

Many concluding mishnahs wax hopeful, and this one is no excep-

tion. But there is something unusual in its version of the derasha:
Sinai and Temple are paired together, and the Temple is neither
the first nor the second. The eschatological sense of "Temple" is
borne out by the final words of prayer in the Mishnah. Further, the
two places, Sinai and bet 'olamim, are replaced by actions: the
"giving" of the Law and the "building" of the Temple. Together,
they form a contrast between past and future activities.

unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, for both the Hebrew text (p. 308; 259) and the translation
(p. 491; 470). In D.B. Ratner's edition, the texts are found on p. 17b (=34) and p. 32b
(=64).
18 The printed editions of Sifra read ba-bayit, i.e. in the Temple, in place of 'among
Israel.' Based on the reading ba-bayit, the Raabad in his commentary to Sifra asks how the
phrase 'and of that hour' could refer to 'the house' (the Temple) and the Tent of Meeting
simultaneously. However, the oldest MS. extant, Vatican 66 (see n. 16), reads 'among
Israe1,' rendering the question superfluous.

Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM

via University of Sydney
6 Isaac B. Gottlieb

The Mishnah has moved away from the original tannaitic alle-
gory, geographical-historical in nature; the same symbols now
have different connotations. 19 This progression becomes evident in
the later amoraic Midrash, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana and Shir Hashirim
Rabba.
The very first chapter (pisqa) of Pesikta de-Rab Kahana takes the
Tabernacle in the desert as its main theme. Based on the Torah
reading for the Sabbath of Hanukka, which describes the dedi-
cation of the Tabernacle (Num. 7:1-89), the homily makes the
biblical Tabernacle the symbol for the Temple which the Maccabees
rededicated. The pericope contains four petihtot, three of them
based on verses from the Song. The second and third relate to Song
3:9-11:
2. "King Solomon made himself a pavilion [Heb. 'apiryon]" (3:9) - By pavilion is meant
the Tabernacle [Heb. 'ohel mo'ed] .... In explanation of the verse, R. Judah bar Il'a'i told
the parable of a king who had a young daughter. Before she was old enough to show the
signs of puberty, he felt free to talk to her wherever he saw her .... But after she came of
age ... he said: It does not suit the deference owed to my daughter that I speak to her in
public. Make a pavilion for her, and I will speak to her in privacy within the pavilion. So
[was it between God and Israel] .... The children ofIsrael saw Me in Egypt ... they saw
Me at the Red Sea ... they saw Me at Sinai .... But once they accepted the Torah ... I
said, it no longer suits the deference owed to My children that I speak to them in public.
Make ye the Tabernacle for Me, and then I shall speak to them from within the
Tabernacle. 20
3. R. Simeon b. Yol.1ai,according to R. I:Iunya, asked R. Eleazar bar R. Jose: Have you
perhaps heard from your father an interpretation of the verse "Wearing the crown that
his mother gave him" [3:11]? R. Eleazar replied: The verse may be understood by the
parable of a king who had a daughter whom he loved inordinately. He did not stop
calling her endearing names until he had called her "my sister;" even then, he did not
stop his endearment of her but went on to call her "my mother." So at first, ... the Holy
One called her "My daughter" - "Hearken, 0 daughter, and consider" (Ps. 45:11). He ...
went on to call her "My sister" - "My sister, My bride (Song 5:1). Even then He ... went
on to call her "My mother," as is indicated by the verse ... "And give ear unto Me, 0 my
nation" (Isa. 51:4) where u-le-'ummi, "My nation," is spelled defectively so that it may
read u-le-immi, "My mother". R. Simeon ben Yol.1airose, kissed R. Eleazar on the brow,
and said to him: Had I come and heard nothing but this interpretation, I would have been
content .... 21
By the words "In the day of His espousals" (3:11) is meant the day of God's betrothal of
Israel [at Sinai]; and by the words "in the day ofthe gladness of his heart" (ibid.) is meant
the day He entered the Tent of Meeting.

19 This part of the mishnah is later than the other midrashic formulations cited above.
Urbach, pp. 247--48, cites Ta'anit 4, 8 as an example of an 'old mishnah,' an early, non-
allegorical interpretation of the Song. Cohen, p. 20, n. IS, disagrees. Both, however, are
referring to that part of the mishnah which cites the beginning of the verse, 'Go out and
see, 0 daughter of Zion, King Solomon,' and not to its conclusion.
20 Pesikta de-Rab Kahana, trans. William G. Braude, Israel J. Kapstein (Philadelphia,
1975), I, 2, p. 6; Songs Rabba 3:9,l.
21 Pesikta, pp. 10-11; Songs Rabba 3:11,2.

Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM

via University of Sydney
 Jewish Allegory of Love 7

Or by the words "In the day of His espousals" is meant the day he entered the Tent of
Meeting; and by the words "in the day of the gladness ... " is meant His gladness at
Israel's building of the eternal Habitation [bet 'olamim].22

If the dominant theme in the entire pisqa is the Tabernacle, why

do the parable in the second petil;ta and the exposition of verses at
the end of the third make fleeting references to the allegories of the
Sea, Sinai, even to the Temple? Though these seem to be perfect
examples of allegories which "commingle in confusion," the well-
wrought construction of the entire pisqa teaches otherwise.
The second and third petil;tot, from which we cited, are similar in
form. Each begins with a verse from the Song, contains a parable,
and concludes with the first verse of the Torah reading, "On the
day that Moses finished setting up the Tabernacle" (Num. 7:1).
While the parables are original, the derashot which relate to verses
from the Song are reworkings of the tannaitic midrash which we
cited above.
Further, the two parables, though different, have a common
theme. The first parable describes the king's love for his daughter,
which took place in the "pavilion" - the Tent of Meeting. The
second portrays the love between God and Israel as a strong bond
between a king and his daughter whom he calls "mother,
daughter, sister". Both parables describe a non-erotic love23 which
finds its expression in the Tabernacle.
But the editor of the Pesikta had different ideas, for he arranged
these parables around Song 3:11, "On his wedding day, on his day
of bliss." Further, the entire pisqa - i.e. the first petil;ta - opens with
"I came to my garden, my sister, my bride [Heb. kallal" (Song 5:1)
and each and every petil;ta closes with "On the day that Moses
finished [Heb. kallot Moshe] setting up the Tabernacle" (Num. 7:1).
The keyword to the entire homily is kalla "bride", the dominant
theme of the pericope is the love of newlyweds, the Tent of
Meeting is symbolized by the marital bedchamber, 'apiryon.
The innocent parables about the king and his daughter are more
complex than they appear: my sister, my daughter, even "Imma"
can be terms of endearment between lovers. Via these terms, the
editor leads us, in stages, to marital love. In the explication of the
first parable as well, "they saw Me at the sea, they saw Me at
Sinai," we are led in stages to the communion in the tent which

22 Pesikta, p. 12; Songs Rabba 3:11,2.

23 Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem, 1974), p. 160.

Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM

via University of Sydney
8 Isaac B. Gottlieb

dwelled within the Tabernacle. The second parable is not

explained, but by analogy, R. Jose ben I:Ialafta must have applied
lithe crown that his mother made for him" (Song 3:11) to the
Tabernacle. It was the gift which Israel ('immo) gave to the
Almighty. 24
Verses from the Song and parables of love intertwine with
applications from the tannaitic Midrash - Sea, Sinai, Tent and
Temple. Within the context of the pisqa, the midrashic applications
do not serve as historical allegories but rather as symbols of love.
Tent and Temple are especially referents for the connubial
chamber. All the applications are cited in proximity, for they
convey the identical message. The historical-geographical identifi-
cations ("allegories") have been elevated to metaphysical symbols.
We should like to cite a further example of the tannaitic Midrash
reworked and expanded. We mentioned above that the Mekhilta
deals primarily with the allegories about Sea and Sinai. In the
following examples,25 both applications are triggered by an ident-
ical word:
"Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord" (Ex. 14:13) ... the expression "standing"
(yezibah) everywhere suggests the presence of the Holy Spirit ... To what were the
Israelites at that moment like? To a dove fleeing from a hawk, and about to enter a cleft in
the rock where there is a hissing serpent. ... In such a plight were the Israelites at that
moment, the sea forming a bar and the enemy pursuing. Immediately they set their mind
upon prayer. Of them it is stated ... "0 my dove that art in the clefts of the rock" (Song
2:14) ... and when it further says: "For sweet is thy voice and thy countenance is
comely" (ibid.) it means, for thy voice is sweet in prayer and thy countenance comely in
the study of Torah.

"And they stood (wayityazbu) ... below the Mount" (Ex. 19:17) .... Of them it is
declared in the traditional sacred writings: "Oh my dove that art in the clefts of the rock
... let me hear thy voice," (Song 2:14) that is, when responding to the Ten
Commandments; "for sweet is thy voice," (ibid.) after having received the Ten
Commandments R. Eliezer says: This may be interpreted as referring to the occasion
at the Red Sea .

The proof text in the first derasha (Ex. 14:13) speaks of the splitting
of the sea, while the verse in the second derasha (Ex. 19:17) de-
scribes the giving of the Law at Sinai. Around each, the editor of

24 The parable understands 'his mother' as 'his nation.' His nation, Israel, placed a
crown (the Tabernacle) on His head. According to the translators, p. 10, n. 34, 'R. Jose
read Song 3:11 as "The crown wherewith He crowned himself (in calling Israel) 'His
mother'." , In our opinion, this makes no sense.
25 Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, ed. Jacob Z. Lauterbach, (Philadelphia, 1933), Beshallal;1 3,
vol. I, pp. 210-11; Bal;1odesh 3, vol. II, pp. 219-20.

Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM

via University of Sydney
 Jewish Allegory of Love 9

the Mekhilta cited the allegories of Sea or Sinai to the verse "My
dove" (Song 2:14). But it is the keyword Y$B which endows both
allegories with a new dimension over and above their historical-
geographical message - that of revelation and religious experience. 26
Furthermore, though there were no tannaitic applications of
Tent or Temple at Song 2:14, we find these two identifications
linked to revelation and applied by Mekhilta to another verse in the
Song of Songs:
"This is my God and I will glorify Him" (Ex. 15:2) ... And the other sages say: I will
accompany him until I come with Him into His Temple. To give a parable, a king had a
son who went away to a far away country. He went after him and stood by him So
also, when Israel went down to Egypt the Shekinah went down with them When
they came up ... the Shekinah came up with them .... When they went into the sea .
. . . When they went into the wilderness .... until they brought Him with them to His
holy Temple. And so it also says: "Scarce had I passed from them," etc. (Cant. 3.4)27

Mekhilta de Rashbi carried this derasha a step further, by completing

the citation of the verse: "until I brought him to my mother's
house" (Song 3:4) - this is the Tent of Meeting. "And to my
parent's room" - from there Israel received its teaching.28 In sum,
between the two Mekhiltas, at the Sea, Sinai, Tent, and Temple are
all tied to the motif of divine revelation.
Taking his cue from the Mekhiltas, the editor of Song of Songs
Rabba gathered all four applications around the single verse "My
dove", applying its phrases to the Tent and the Temple as well:29
3. R. Eleazar interpreted the verse as referring to Israel when they stood by the Red Sea.
"My dove in the cleft of the rock": they were so called because they were sheltered in the
recess of the sea. "Let me see thy countenance": as it says, "Stand still, and see the
salvation of the Lord" (Ex. 14, 13). "Let me hear thy voice": this refers to the Song, as it
says, "Then sang Moses" (ib. 15, 1). "For sweet is thy voice": this refers to the Song; "And
thy countenance is comely": because the Israelites pointed with the finger saying, "This is
my God, and I will glorify Him (ib. 2)."
4. R. Akiba interpreted the verse as applying to Israel at the time when they stood
before Mount Sinai. "My dove in the cleft of the rock": so called because they were
hidden in the shadow of the mountain. "Show me," etc., as it says, "And all the people
perceived the thunderings," etc. (Ex. 20, 15). "Let me hear thy voice": this refers to what
they said before the Commandments were given, as it says, "All that the Lord hath
spoken will we do, and obey," (Ex. 24, 7). "For sweet is thy voice"; this refers to what

26 The root YZ:Bis translated by the amoraic midrash as ????????? (ready, prepared.) So
BR 1286:2 and 482:3, cited in Songs Rabba 2:9. See Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish
Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat Gan, 1990), s.v. ??????? We have no way of knowing if the
Mekhilta's understanding is earlier or later, related or unrelated.
27 Tractate Shirata 3: Lauterbach, Mekilta, II, p. 27.
28 Mechilta de-Rabbi Simon b. Jochai, ed. D. Hoffman (Frankfurt a.M., 1905), p. 61;
Mekhilta D'Rabbi simon b. ]ochai, ed. J.N. Epstein, E.Z. Melamed (Jerusalem, 1955), pp.
79-80, has a slightly different version.
29 Songs Rabba 2:14, 3-6, Soncino translation, pp. 130-33.

Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM

via University of Sydney
10 Isaac B. Gottlieb

they said after the Commandments were given, as it says, "And the Lord heard the voice
of your words ... and said, ... they have well said all that they have spoken" (Deut. 5,
25).... "and thy countenance is comely": as it says, "And when the people saw it, they
trembled, and stood afar off" (Ex. 20, 15)....
6. R. Huna and R. Al;ta in the name of R. Al;ta b. l:fanina interpreted the verse, following
R. Meir, as referring to the tent of meeting. "My dove in the cleft of the rock": because they
are hidden in the shelter of the tent of meeting. "Let me see thy countenance"; as it says,
"And the congregation was assembled at the door of the tent of meeting" (Lev. 8, 4). "Let
me hear thy voice," as it says, "And when all the people saw it, they shouted" (ib. 9, 24).
They chanted a beautiful song because they saw a new thing; therefore they chanted a new
song. "For sweet is thy voice": this refers to the song. "And thy countenance is comely": as
it says, "And all the congregation drew near and stood before the Lord" (ib. 9, 5). R.
Tanl;tuma said: They [R. Huna and R. Al;ta] interpreted it, following R. Meir, as referring to
the tent of meeting; 1too will interpret it, following the Rabbis, as referring to the Temple.
"My dove in the cleft of the rock": because they were hidden in the shelter of the Temple:
"Let me see thy countenance"; as it says, "Then Solomon assembled," etc. (I Kings 8, I).
"let me hear thy voice": as it says, "It came even to pass, when the trumpeters and singers
were as one" (II Chron. 5, 13).... "For sweet is thy voice": this refers to the song; "And
thy countenance is comely": this refers to the offerings, of which it says, "And Solomon
offered for the sacrifice of peace-offerings," etc. (I Kings 8, 63).

The entire exegetical process may be summarized as follows: In the

original tradition, which we can glimpse in Sifra and Seder Olam, an
entire verse was applied to one moment in history. Parallel expressions
in the same verse such as "wedding day/day of gladness" or "count-
enance/voice" were explicated as different aspects of the same allegory.
In the next stage, evidenced by Mekhilta, the various allegories
were grouped together around a common metaphysical theme.3o
This tendency is full-blown in the amoraic Pesikta de-Rab Kahana
and Shir Hashirim Rabba. Here we find all four allegories grouped
together under the motif of revelation (Shir Hashirim Rabba) or
linked to the parables of love (Pesikta).
Considered together rather than individually, these applications
began to define and delimit each other. The pair Tent and Temple
became a binominal, the A to Z of merismus. Tent represents a
small and temporary abode, scene of early revelation, while

30 It is therefore difficult to understand how Lieberman, p. 119, concluded that the

tannaitic teachers originally explicated only one historical allegory each. See Kugel, p.
154, n. 23. On the contrary, perhaps those Tannaim who were involved with esoteric
study stressed the general motif of revelation above the particular allegory. Rabbi Akiva,
for example, applied the setting of 'at Sinai' to various verses in the Song (Lieberman, pp.
119-120). But in his mishnaic aphorism (Yadayim 3,5), he called the Song 'the Holy of
Holies,' a metaphor related to Tent or Temple. On second thought, perhaps Lieberman's
theory is supported by our findings; at a later stage, the editor of Mekhilta worked the
original tannaitic traditions into larger units. At any rate, it was Lieberman (p. 122) who
pointed out the mystical-metaphysical side of the applications Sea and Sinai. We add that
beginning with Mekhilta, Tent and Temple were incorporated into this theme.

Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM

via University of Sydney
 Jewish Allegory of Love 11

Temple symbolizes the final and everlasting place of Divinity. Tent

represents the past, Temple stands for the future; hence its name
in the Midrash - bet 'olamim, "the eternal dwelling-place".
Contrasting and complementary, the two concepts implied the
totality of religious experience.31
This development explains why the Pesikta applies "On his
wedding day" (Song 3:11) to the Tent of Meeting and its parallel,
"On his day of bliss" (ibid.), to the Temple. Most MSS of Sifra
Shemini, cited above, also apply Tent and Temple to a single
verse.32 The allegory of Tent, which originally stood alone, now
summoned up the corresponding symbol "Temple", which was
added to the literary unit by editors and copyists.
The process which we have traced - the introduction of new
ideas in the guise of the old - is not exceptional for Midrash. But by
defining the Midrash to the Song as allegory, and by seeking to
flesh out this determination with examples from all the rabbinic
texts, with no attention to sequence and change, the dynamics of
Midrash were obscured.
Why is the Midrash to the Song not allegory? Isaak Heinemann
offers the following guideline: "An allegorist is someone who
views larger units, in particular whole narratives ... in a figurative
manner; he is not someone who interprets individual words ... in
a metaphorical way.",33 The demand for a narrative basis in alle-
gory is more stringent in the following definition: "We have alle-
gory when the events of a narrative obviously and continuously
refer to another simultaneous structure of events or ideas .... ,,34
As the Song of Songs is not generally taken to be a narrative,
midrashic applications must be something other than allegorical.
This is not to say that no derashot are allegories. A fine example is
Mekhilta de-Shirata 3, which weaves a story out of several verses.35
But precisely because the Song of Songs itself tells a story at this
point, it could be allegorized. Most of the Song is lyrical descriptive
poetry, sparse in events. The midrashic identifications and appli-

31 Jon D. Levenson, 'The Jerusalem Temple in Devotional and Visionary Experience,'

Jewish Spirituality, ed. Arthur Green, I (New York, 1986), pp. 32-34.
32 See n. 18.
33 'Scientific Allegorization,' p. 247.
34 Northrop Frye, 'Allegory,' Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, ed. Alex
Preminger (Princeton, 1974), p. 12.
35 See n. 27 for reference.

Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM

via University of Sydney
12 Isaac B. Gottlieb

cations work by converting the images in the Song to metaphors

and symbols of religious experience.
A good metaphor is an image in words. Ezekiel's foundling girl,
grown into flowering adolescence and ripening as a full-bodied
woman, is a natural and forceful connotation for Israel's develop-
ment.36 When the image supplied is not only a literary construc-
tion, but related to a concrete object in life, we call it a symbol. 37
The blood in Ezekiel 16 evokes feelings of abhorrence - menstrual
blood, uncleanness - and the fear of death. But blood is also life
itself, and the prophet evokes this idea in the first stage of the
metaphor - the blood of birth (bedamayik l;ayi). These gut feelings
are called forth primarily by the sight of blood, not by the word.
The word is thus a symbol, stronger than a metaphor.
The major allegories - Sea, Sinai, Tent and Temple - are meta-
phors and symbols. At the Sea ('al hayam) and on Sinai (be-sinai) are
literary phrases which connote revelation. But Tabernacle and
Temple, to those who experienced them, were concrete objects
which evoked a sense of shelter, concealment, hiding; architectural
beauty and majesty;38 religious feelings of awe and the idea of
encounter with a Presence which dwells within. These metaphors
and symbols are called forth by the Song's own images.39
It is another matter with the minor allegories; " 'he lies between
my breasts' - between the two staves of the Ark," indeed seems

36 We chose this example because G. Cohen singled it out, together with Ex. 34, to
illustrate biblical metaphors which portray religious relationships as connubial love, and
idolatry as adultery. We concur, but feel that Cohen then jumps from metaphor to
allegory. However, Edwin M. Good, 'Ezekiel's Ship: Some Extended Metaphors in the
Old Testament,' Semities I (1970), p. 87, considers the possibility that Ez. 16 is allegory
rather than metaphor. Further on, pp. 94-97, Good provides an excellent example of
literary analysis applied to the Song (4:12-5:1).
37 'In literary theory, it seems desirable that the word [symbol] should be used in this
sense: as an object which refers to another object but which demands attention also in its
own right, as a presentation.' Rene Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature
(London, 1949), p. 193. On the potency of symbol vs. allegory and metaphor, see
Scholem, Major Trends, pp. 26-28, 225.
38 On the symbolism of buildings, see Harriet Ritvo, 'Gothic revival Architecture in
England and America,' Allegory, pp. 314-15, and the literature cited. On the Temple as
symbol see Alice Muehsam, Coin and Temple, (Leiden, 1966); Erwin R. Goodenough,
Jewish Symbols in the Graeeo-Roman Period, vol. I (New York, 1953), pp. 276-77.
39 'To see such enfolded meanings in the Song is not to import some extraneous
element; it is to seek out the meanings that the poem invites us to find in it, to operate
with the language and symbolism that the poem ... calls to our attention.' Fisch, p. 95.

Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM

via University of Sydney
 Jewish Allegory of Love 13

contrived.40 For here the Midrash identifies x with y based on the

numerical correspondence ("two"). The allegory is not applied to
an image or metaphor in the Song, but to ordinary denotative
words. Now one can force the denotative words into metaphorical
straitjackets and extract some connotation which relates to the
allegory, but this simply heightens the artificiality of the allegory
and bears out the Romantic bias: "Since Coleridge (and ultimately
Goethe) allegory has been the loser in a symbol versus allegory
competition. Meaning is seen as being actually and naturally there
in symbol, but artificially there in allegory.,,41
Why then do so many authors refer to the "allegory" on the
Song? "The word allegory has been used in an insufficiently pre-
cise manner by scholars writing about medieval Jewish exegesis, a
confusion abetted by the promiscuous use of the word mashal. . . .
The interpretation that treats Biblical text or aggadic utterance as
allegory may be fundamentally different from the interpretation
that treats them as a metaphor or symbol. The word "allegory" ...
should be restricted to refer to the representation of an abstract
concept by a concrete image somehow related to it. ,,42
For this reason we dealt with the major applications, whose
power as true metaphors and symbols accounts for their adapta-
bility. This ability to stir the imagination was not lost on successive
generations of Midrashists and explicators.
The grand metaphor of the Song - which others call its allegory -
is the identification of the lovers as God and His people. The prime
connotation of this image is relationship. The excitement which
kindles the lovers lights the major midrashic applications too, for
they also connote intimacy and union. Just as the metaphor of love
includes its nature, its ups and downs, closeness and distancing,
relentless pursuit, so this cycle informs the metaphysical and his-
torical pairing of God and the Jews, and gives life to the
applications.
The dynamics of the Midrash did not stop here. From among all

40 Cited by Rashi, Song 1:13, based on Songs Rabba 1:14,3, and 1:16,2. But possibly, this
application is part of the tannaitic application to the Tabernacle. See Tosefta Kippurim 2,15
and Baraita di-Melekhet Ha-Mishkan in J.D. Eisenstein, Ozar Midrashim (New York, 1915),
vol. II, p. 301: he'eriku lJa-baddim ... hayu boletim ba-paroket ve-nir'im ba-heykal keshene dadde
isha.... Besides 'two', there may be a wordplay (badde-dadde-shede) at work here. I thank
Paul Mandel for the reference to Tosefta.
41 Gary Clifford, The Transformations of Allegory (London and Boston, 1974), p. 117.
42 Marc Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis (Cambridge, Mass., 1980), p. 15.

Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM

via University of Sydney
Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM
via University of Sydney
Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM
via University of Sydney
Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM
via University of Sydney
Downloaded from Brill.com02/02/2020 10:47:01PM
via University of Sydney