“The Rabbis Maintained that it was Flaxseed”: The Identification and Interpretation of Unidentified Biblical Plants in Aggadic Homilies

Purpose of the Study

This article discusses proposals for identifying biblical vegetative terms in the literature of the Aggadic homilies (in Hebrew: midreshei Aggadah). Aggadic homilies are an extensive body of non-legalistic exegetical Jewish works that begins in rabbinical times. This literature deals with the narrative portions of the Tora, and it encompass educational stories, interpretations, ethics, and thought. The Midrash gives commentary on past and present, from the perspective of the exegetist. (A fairly wide body of literature has been written about Aggadic homilies. See for example Ginnzberg 1912; Urbach 1969; Isaac Heinemann; Joseph Heinemann; Fraenkel 1981; Shinan 1987; Mack 1989).

The purpose of the article is to follow the literary phenomenon of proposed identifications of general vegetative terms, such as “tree” (etz), “shrubs” (siḥim), or “fruit of the earth” (pri ha'adama), namely plants which the biblical narrator chose to avoid explicitly identifying as belonging to a specific species, and their identification does not seem to have been important for the story or for conveying its message.

A conspicuous example of this phenomenon, which due to its scope will not be further discussed here, is the tree of knowledge that appears in the story of the Garden of Eden as an anonymous plant (Gen 3: 1–7). The biblical narrator chose to refrain from identifying the tree of knowledge with a specific species of tree but the Talmudic and Midrashic literature suggest identifying it with various edible crops, such as the grape, fig, citron, and surprisingly also wheat which, as we know, is not considered a tree (Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 40a; Sanhedrin 70a–b; Theodor & Albeck I: 140).

It is notable in this context that a similar process is also evident in the Quran, where the author adhered to the biblical narrative and left the tree of knowledge anonymous. The tree's identity was not stated in the commandment to refrain from eating its fruit nor in the description of the sin committed by Adam and Eve (Abdullah 1938, Sūra 2 (Al-Baqara): 35; Sūra 7 (Al-Araf): 19–22; Sūra 20 (Tā Hā): 121). The Muslim commentators too offered an array of identifications for the tree, which include wheat (Amar 1998: 67–77).

Research Questions

At the center of this study are two questions:

Kotz ve'dardar (Thorns and thistles) (Genesis 3: 17–18)—kinres and akaviyot

Adam, Eve, and the snake, who were all implicated in the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge, were each punished appropriately. God says to Adam:

Man's punishment involves the earth that will grow thorns and thistles for him. The meaning of the change in man's life is that it will be hard for him to obtain food and he will have to work hard and toil to produce food from the earth, while previously he ate of the garden's plants in a fair effort (“tilling and keeping”). The punishments imposed on Adam and Eve pertain to their traditional role in the family. The man is responsible for the family's subsistence, and the woman is responsible for bearing progeny and expanding the family.

Tilling the land requires farmers to engage in a constant battle against Segetal Plants, i.e., uncultivated plants that invade the tilled or untilled fields in their primary dispersion region (On segetal plants and their Characters see Zohary 1950; Wiesel: viii; 97–102). The phrase “thorns and thistles” (kotz ve'dardar) appears twice in the Bible—in the story of Adam and Eve and in the Book of Hosea (see below). According to its simple meaning, in both occurrences the meaning of the couplet is general, i.e., a collective noun designating irksome thorny plants that symbolize punishment, desolation, and destruction due to the sins of man and society. “Briars and thorns” (shamir va'shayit) is another biblical phrase that serves, according to most ancient translations and modern scholars, as a collective designation for uncultivated plants (thorns and weeds) symbolizing desolation and destruction, for instance abandoned vineyards or formerly tilled agricultural land in the hills that were neglected. Some have suggested, however, that these are specific plant species (Isa 5:6, 7:23–24, 7:25; on the identification of the Shamir and Shaite see Cohen; Felix 1976: 212; Felix 1997: 119; Amar 2012: 235).

The second example of “thorns and thistles” (kotz ve'dardar) as a collective noun for thorny plants appears in Hosea's prophecy on the destruction of the high places (bamot) of foreign worship in the towns of Samaria, which will be overgrown with thorny plants that grow in desolate unpopulated places: “The high places of Aven, the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed. Thorn and thistle shall grow up on their altars; and they shall say to the mountains, Cover us, and to the hills, Fall upon us” (Hos 10:8).

In contrast to the general meaning of the phrase “thorns and thistles,” the midrash identifies this couplet in the context of Adam's sin with specific uncultivated plants: “‘Thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you’ (Gen 3:18). Thorns (kotz) are kinarim, thistles (dardar) are akaviyot, and some say on the contrary that thorns (kotz) are akaviyot. Thistles (dardar) are kinarim, which has a whorled form” (Genesis Rabbah, Vilna edition: 20:10; on Adam's punishment in the aggadic literature see Ginnzberg: 75–83).

The midrash presents two versions for identifying thorns and thistles. According to the first version, the dardar is akaviyot, probably gundelia tournefortii (common name: tumble thistle) that the Arabic names akub or kaub, similar to the Midrashic name. The pleasant aroma of roasted gundelia tournefortii is mentioned in a midrash on the destruction of the First Temple (70 ce). The exegetist contends that the Roman legions that surrounded the city of Jerusalem tried to break the spirits of the hungry besieged by roasting receptacles of gundelia tournefortii, which produced a tempting fragrance (Ekha Rabbah, Vilna edition: 4:12. On eating the tumble thistle in the Talmudic period see also Tosefta, Betza 3:19, Lieberman: 298; Babylonian Talmud, Betza 34a.). The taste of the heads (capitulum) of the thistle is similar to that of the artichoke, and its large seeds are edible. The culinary tradition of eating tumble thistle is still common in traditional Mediterranean societies. The tumbles are still eaten in various forms by Arabs in Israel (Dafni: 64–65; Hirschfeld: 34–37; 1983–89, III: 914).

According to the second version of the midrash, dardar are kinarim, an edible vegetable, is mentioned in early rabbinical literature (see Mishnah, Kilaim 5:8; Tosefta, Kilaim 3:12, Lieberman: 216; Jerusalem Talmud, Kilaim 5:7, 30a). Maimonides (1138–1204), in his commentary to the Mishnah identifies the Kinres (in the midrash version: kinarim) with the artichoke. He writes: “Kinres—Al-kanaria, and this is the Al-ḥarshuf that is known in the west in the name Al-kharshuf” (Maimonides: Oktzin 1:6). According to this, it appears that kinarim in the midrash can be identified with the Bermuda grass (also Dog's tooth—scientific name: cynara syriaca), a wild artichoke that grows in many parts of the Land of Israel (Feinbrun-Dotan & Danin: 720). Apparently, the cynara syriaca and another wild species, the cynara cardunculus, contributed to the development of the cultivated artichoke, i.e., cynara scolymus (=cynara cardunculus var. scolymus (Zohary 1990: 168).

The Bermuda grass is similar to artichoke, and various dishes are prepared mainly from the receptacle while it is still in the bud. However, the description of kinarim as having a “whorled form,” i.e., the thorns are arranged in a circle, expands the possible identification to many thorny plants, especially from the compositae (asteraceae) family, whose receptacle is arranged in such a form (Felix 1976: 206). The names dardar and durdar are used in Arabic for thorny weeds of the Centaurea type, whose soft stems are eaten in the wintertime by the poor as well.

It may be assumed that the author of the midrash was aware that the simple meaning of thorns and thistles is a collective name for a wide range of thorny plants, but he chose to focus the meaning on a specific pair of plants in order to express an idea regarding the meaning of Adam's punishment. Two explanations for this may be proposed:

First, the author of the midrash was attempting to resolve a linguistic difficulty in the phrasing of the punishment. It appears from the verse that man will eat the “weeds of the field” (essev ha'sadeh), i.e., the thorns and thistles that the land will bring forth. This wording raises the following question: does the verse mean that man will have to deal with uncultivated plants that will invade his field or that he will eat actual weeds and thorns? The exegetist's answer is that it is possible to eat thorns that grow in the field. He demonstrates this reality to his Land of Israel readers using local uncultivated plants.

Cynara syriaca and gundelia tournefortii are two field vegetables that were familiar to locals in the time of the exegetists. Unlike high standard cultivated crops that occupied a prominent place in culinary and dietary practices, these seasonal vegetables were relatively inferior and marginal despite their fairly good taste. Moreover, gathering uncultivated plants to supplement one's diet is characteristic of undeveloped human societies, in contrast to more advanced societies that produce their food themselves. Hence, cynara syriaca and gundelia tournefortii are inferior from a culinary and social viewpoint and reflect the curse imposed on the earth and on man.

The second explanation runs as follows. As we know from traditional Mediterranean Arab culinary practices, cynara syriaca and gundelia tournefortii are uncultivated plants that require a considerable amount of work in order to be eaten, because of the need to remove the thorns that surround the inflorescence. Indeed, as stated above, fairly tasty dishes are prepared from them, but the hard work that is required detracts from their value. This reality is also apparent from medieval Jewish interpretations.

R. Shlomo Yitzchaki (Rashi, North France 1040–1105) in his commentary on Genesis 3:18 cites the midrash we mentioned above but adds to it another detail—the need to work hard to prepare the two plants: “‘Thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you’ [Gen 3:18]—when you sow it with various kinds of grain, it shall bring forth thorns and thistles—kundes and akaviyot—which are fit for food only after special preparation.” Namely, while before he sinned man ate from the prod uce of the Garden of Eden effortlessly, after he sinned the punishment imposed on him will be the considerable bother of preparing food for eating.

Rashi's interpretation derives from rabbinical literature. The Bavli in Tractate Betza 34a discusses the issue of preparing food on a festival, and it permits the preparation of thorn dishes: “One may not trim [the top of the leaves connected to] the vegetable with its [special] shears, but one may prepare kundes and akaviyot.” The sages forbade one to perform on the festival acts that require a great deal of work. Although the preparation of these two vegetables involves a great deal of work (see Rashi in his commentary to Betza, 34a), the sages did not prohibit their preparation for eating, maybe because they were considered tasty or because it was customary to prepare them in honor of Passover when they were in season in the fields.

“Under one of the bushes (siḥim)” (Gen 21:14–15)—White Broom

Following Sarah's advice, Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away from their home. The two lost their way in the Beer Sheva desert and because of the heat and lack of water Hagar was forced to cast her son under one of the shrubs “she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the child under one of the bushes” (Gen 21:14–15). In rabbinical homilies the casting of Ishmael under one of the shrubs is explained in two ways—either as meaning that he was cast under a plant or as meaning appealing and talking to angels:

In this midrash and in Midrash Tanḥuma, Vayetze 5 the word siḥim is interpreted as conversation, i.e., prayer (On the word siḥa as expression of prayer see Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 26b). According to this proposal, Hagar asked the angels to help her save her son from the risk to his life. The midrash intentionally disregards the simple meaning of the verse, perhaps to stress the significance of prayers for the health of a fatally ill person. According to the simple meaning, Hagar chose a plant in her surroundings as a shady place that offered protection from the harsh desert conditions (the heat and strong sun), to protect her son and prolong his life. The scriptures use the term siḥim in general and do not specify the species of plant that protected Ishmael, because they did not see this as a detail that was necessary in order to understand the story.

In several compilations from the rabbinical period, both midrashim and external literature, specific plants were suggested for this scene, not, apparently, to convey an educational message but rather to depict the scene more clearly. According to the Book of Jubilees, Hagar cast Ishmael under an olive tree (Kahana: 257). However, this suggestion makes no sense, as olive trees grow in a Mediterranean climate while the story takes place in a desert climate.

A suggestion that seems more appropriate for the desert landscape of the plot appears in other midrashim: “He [Ishmael] went and cast himself beneath the thorns of the wilderness (ḥaruley ha'midbar)” (Yalkut Shimoni, Remez 95: 56; Horowitz: 101). The identification of the ḥarulim in the scriptures is not unequivocal. The ḥarul is mentioned in the scriptures three times and it is described as a useless plant that grows in arid regions or in abandoned agricultural fields. Some suggest that ḥarulim is a collective name for thorny plants, while others proposed that these are specific plants such as thorns and weeds that grow in agricultural fields (See Zeph 2:9; Job 30:7; Prov 24:31. On the identification of ḥarul/ḥarulim see Löw II: 417–37; Felix 1967: 224; Moldenke: 27; Zohary 1982: 162; Feldman: 210).

The authors of the midrash may have been interested in enhancing their description of Hagar's embarrassment and helplessness at being forced to cast her son under plants that did not give much shade, despite the need for more protection. It is not impossible that the midrash derived its identification from the words of Job, who describes the wretchedness of the desert dwellers who subsist on shrubs of orache (atriplex halimus—English common name: tall shrubby orache—Hebrew: maluaḥ) and White Broom and live under ḥarulim: “They pick orache [in RSV: mallow] and the leaves of bushes, and to warm themselves the roots of the broom” (Job 30:4). Like the desert people who take shelter under shrubs that give no shade, Hagar finds herself in a similar situation and is forced to cast her son under this type of plant.

With regard to compatibility with the desert landscape, the most probable proposal is that of R. Meir, one of R. Akiba's greatest disciples in the 2^nd century CE, who lived and operated in the Land of Israel and was familiar with its landscape and plants. R. Meir suggests that these are White Broom (retama raetam), and he justifies his claim by the fact that this plant usually grows in the desert. The retama raetam is one of the most common shrubs in the Land of Israel deserts: the Negev, the Dead Sea Valley, and the Arava (Feinbrun-Dotan & Danin: 305) Because of the sparse vegetation in desert regions, the juniper is an important local plant that provides shade, food, and firewood (See Job 30:4; Ps 120:4; Genesis Rabbah, Vilna edition: 98:19; Babylonian Talmud, Baba Batra 74b, and at length Felix 1967: 130).

There is reason to assume that R. Meir's words are based on his comparison between the story of Hagar's banishment to the desert and Elijah's fleeing Jezebel to the desert and hiding under a broom shrub: “But he himself went a day's journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a broom tree; and he asked that he might die” (1 Kgs 19:4). The two stories have in common their place of occurrence in the Beer Sheva desert and in both the lives of the main characters. Ishmael and Elijah were both at risk as a result of the heat and dryness.

“And the Lord showed him a tree” (Exodus 15:25)

After the Israelites left Egypt they reached Mara, in the Sinai Desert, but they and their animals were unable to drink the fetid water. The Israelites complained to Moses, and then God instructed him to do the following: “And he cried to the Lord; and the Lord showed him a tree, and he threw it into the water, and the water became sweet. There the Lord made for them a statute and an ordinance and there he proved them” (Exod 15:25). God showed Moses a certain tree, which appears to have been growing near the water, as a solution to the problem. And indeed, Moses took a branch of this tree and cast it in the water, which miraculously became drinkable. Similar to the cases above, here too the scriptures do not specify the identity of the tree that purified the water, as its identity was not important to convey the miracle. God's strength and ability are not reduced to a specific tree. Moreover, the biblical narrator might have avoided this to refrain from transforming the “miraculous” tree into a target of pagan adoration.

Although the scriptures do not specify the species of the tree, the Mekhilta brings a list of trees and agricultural crops proposed by the tannaim to identify the piece of wood cast into the water:

The Mekhilta suggests the following plants: willow, olive, oleander, Juniper, fig, and pomegranate. First the identity of these plants should be examined, followed by the question of whether they are appropriate for the plot. Some of the suggestions do not appear to be relevant from a climate and geobotanical perspective. Hence, it may be assumed that the identification was made on a symbolic-ideological rather than interpretive-realistic level.

The willow indeed grows on the banks of rivers and water sources, but particularly in Mediterranean and Irano-Turanian climates rather than in the desert Saharo-Arabian region (Feinbrun-Dotan & Danin: 94). The olive, fig, and pomegranate are cultivated Mediterranean crops, and they too are absent from the arid regions of the Sinai Desert, perhaps with the exception of intentional plantings in desert oases. Hence, from a realistic perspective these identifications are also problematic. With regard to the fig and pomegranate, the tannaitic tradition we have before us offers no justification for the proposed identification, aside from the olive which the tanna explains as being a bitter tree. The meaning of the bitter taste will be discussed below.

The katros is identical to one of the juniper species (juniperus sp.), but the realistic or conceptual basis for this proposal is unclear. (On the identification of the Katros see Felix 1994: 223; Amar 2012: 188.) Another difficulty with this suggestion is that juniper species are Euro-Siberian or Mediterranean types and do not grow in the Saharo-Arabian region (Feinbrun-Dotan & Danin: 91–92). The hardufani should be identified with the oleander (nerium oleander), a green shrub that grows on river banks, whose leaves are arranged in whorls and whose flowers are pink. (On the hardufani in the ancient Jewish literature see Felix 1994: 179–82.) The leaves contain a very noxious substance; according to the sages it could be used to kill animals and mice (See Mishnah, Hulin 3:5; Babylonian Talmud, ibid, 58b; and compare Tosefta, Baba Kama 6:17, Lieberman: 24; Weiss, 48c). However, Nerium oleander grows in the Mediterranean region, such that its dispersion is not consistent with attribution to the Sinai region (Feinbrun-Dotan & Danin: 508).

The identification of the tree that sweetened the water with the olive or oleander is based on the fact that the olive's leaves are bitter (compare Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 18b), and those of the oleander are poisonous and dangerous. These qualities explain R. Shimon ben Gamliel's claim concerning the ideological message encompassed by casting branches of these trees into the water and transforming it into drinkable water: “(A man of) flesh and blood heals bitter with sweet, but the Holy One Blessed be He heals bitter with bitter.”

As stated by the scholars, the midrashic sages tend to add to the miracles mentioned in the scriptures and to expand their meaning (Isaac Heinemann: 81. On the differences between the characters of the miracle in the Bible and the miracle in the Aggadic literature see Fraenkel 1981: 23–40). The message conveyed in the midrash aims to reflect how God operates in the world and the difference between his conduct and abilities and those of human beings. While humans neutralize bitterness by using sweetening substances, God amends the bitter miraculously using the same bitter substance, something that makes no sense judging by the laws of logic and nature.

The Mekhilta extends this miraculous-anomalous principle and brings several examples:

The exegetist supported the manner in which the water was sweetened based on other miracles in the scriptures. The anomalous principle of healing a disease by means of a substance capable of causing harm appears in the story of the miraculous healing of Isaiah, who suffered from a severe skin lesion. Placing a cake of figs on the diseased spot healed him although this contradicts the customary medical conception whereby figs are detrimental to treating such an ailment. Hence this was caused, not by the substance, but rather by the strength of God who controls the formation of miracles. So also in the miracle of Elisha who sweetened the bad water of the city of Jericho. He cast salt into the spring although the salt should have worsened the taste of the water, but its taste miraculously improved.

In summary, the identification of the piece of wood that Moses cast into the water with oleander, which is a poisonous plant, serves to enhance the miracle, as it indicates God's exclusive ability to fix the water's taste against all logic. As I shall show below, this outlook existed in the ancient world of medicine and here the exegetist attributes it to God.

The Tree that Haman Prepared in Order to Hang Mordechai (Esther 5:14)

The last example I shall discuss with regard to the manner in which the midrash identifies plants whose precise species is not stated in the scriptures, appears in Midrash Abba Gorion. (On this Midrash see Buber 1887: I–V; Atzmon: 15–17; Elboyim). This late collection of midrashim was familiar to medieval sages, for instance to R. Shlomo Yitzchaki (Rashi) in the 11^th century, and was utilized among others by the midrash collections Lekach Tov and Yalkut Shimoni (Buber 1887: IV, VIII; Atzmon II: 16). Abba Gorion was first printed in the 19th century by Jellinek, and later also by Solomon Buber (Yelinik, Midrash Abba Gurion, Beit Ha-Midrash, A1, Jerusalem 19; Rabinovitch: 161–70).

The author of the Book of Esther relates that, at the counsel of Zeresh, Haman prepared a fifty-cubit tall tree on which to hang Mordechai the Jew (Esth 5:14). From a narrative standpoint, the question of exactly what tree was used to prepare the gallows is completely marginal, but Midrash Abba Gorion expresses interest. The Book of Esther laconically describes the preparation of the tree for hanging Mordechai. The author of the midrash, in contrast, relates that choosing a suitable tree was a major issue, arranged by God himself. The exegetist believes that this was not a simple gallows but rather the species of tree from which it was produced might indicate the cause of Haman's downfall. The midrash describes the process of choosing the tree as follows:

One of the aggadic methods utilized is personification. Angels occasionally behave like human beings, the Torah is an entity to which human qualities are attributed, and so too trees, animals, and even inanimate objects (Heinemann: 19–20; Mack: 105). As Fraenkel (1981: 27–28) stated, there are stories in the Midrashic literature that are based on biblical stories’ details, such as the story of Nikanors’ gates (Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 38a) and the story on the prophet Jonah (Jonah 1:5–15). The personification of the trees and the stylistic way in which the tree is selected is strongly reminiscent of the Parable of Jotham (Judg 9: 8–15).

In the story before us the trees try to persuade God of their suitability for the proposed role, while in the Parable of Jotham they present justifications proving their inadequacy to rule over the other trees. In both cases the appeal to the proposed tree involves presenting the tree's contribution to human society or its symbolism in the Jewish world. Moreover, in both cases thorny plants, the bramble (lycium europaeum—in Hebrew atad) and the thorn (kotz), are eventually chosen for the role, surprisingly so, although in the Parable of Jotham the choice bears negative meaning while in the current midrash it is presented as a positive choice. (On the identification of the atad in Judges 9: 8–15 and in Psalm 58:10 see Felix 1992: 123–125, 275.)

The narrative of the Book of Esther presents the discrepancy between the visible reality and hidden developments that evolve unknowingly. The midrash reveals another aspect of concealment – activities that occur in Divine spheres, i.e., God's intervention in the events and his control of the actions and fate of the book's characters.

Haman orders that the tree for hanging Mordechai be prepared only once God has chosen the appropriate tree for hanging Haman himself. According to the narrative, the decision and the selection of the tree are under the full control of Haman and his household – “This counsel pleased Haman, and he had the gallows” (Esth 5:14). However, the exegetist stresses that in fact it is God who decides and determines man's fate rather than man himself. According to the contents of the book, Haman chose a particularly high tree in order to publicize the elimination of Mordechai his enemy.

The midrash surprisingly ignores this meaningful detail and does not present the trees as voicing any claim associated with the required height. When considering height, the most appropriate tree for the task would appear to be the Lebanon cedar (Cedrus libani (that reaches a height of over 40 meters, but it is nevertheless rejected (in any case the cedar is not a native plant of Persia). Several of the other plants that take part in the discussion, such as the myrtle, the pomegranate, and the vine, and certainly the thorn that is eventually chosen, do not fit the height criterion (fifty cubits, about 25 meters) nor the necessary strength demanded of a tree intended for hanging. Hence, it is clear that the exegetist completely abandoned the realistic sphere and chose to present the trees based on their symbolism in the biblical verses. The message of the exegetist is that in a miraculous reality matter loses significance and it is the metaphysical that affects the fate of the individual or of the collective.

Analysis of the arguments and justifications brought by the plants in support of their suitability as a tree for hanging Haman indicates two main features:

Discussion and Conclusions

In this article I have presented five incidents in which the midrash aggadah identifies plants and crops mentioned in the scriptures without explicitly noting their botanical species. The biblical narrator conveys his messages matter-of-factly, with no need for details that are not essential for the story's contents. The task of the midrash's author is to clarify the text and to complement the story by adding missing realistic details (Mack: 102). He also utilizes data that were mentioned in the scriptures but not further developed and finds in them new meanings that serve his theological aims (Mack: 100).

The structuring of the new meanings is performed, among other ways, by identifying the botanical term specifically, using its unique natural qualities and its symbolism. Although this is a marginal component of the story, the midrash gives it value that might enhance or encourage a clearer understanding. The interpretation produced through this literary technique makes it possible to generate religious and educational theoretical ideas and even practical lessons. Isaac Heinemann claims that the desire to ascribe fundamental value to all details of the biblical stories, even those that seemingly have no utility, indicates the aggadic inclination to see the entire scriptures as a uniform book with comprehensive meaning (Isaac Heinemann: 75–77).

The Literary Goals of Identifying Biblical Vegetative Terms