hence the above-mentioned Midrash confused the “Dead Sea” of his source—of Christian origin?—with the “Sea of Death” of Babylonian mythology, that is the ocean. In ‘Erubin 22b it is supposed that the ocean surrounds the earth (so also Herodotus II, 21 and 23), whereas according to PRE 5, the earth extends over the waters of the abyss as a ship in the midst of the sea. ‘Aseret ha-Dibrot 63 speaks of the “Great Sea that encompasses the earth”. This corresponds to ‘Erubin, loc. cit., since the designation of “Great Sea” for the ocean is known in rabbinic literature; comp. the explicit statement concerning this identity made in Konen 32, as well as Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 9 and Luria, note 7 on PRE, loc. cit., and the statement (in Sifre D., 39; Mikwaot 5.4; BR 5.8) that there is only one sea; the Bible speaks of “seas”, because the sea differs in its peculiarities in different places. The reason why the ocean does not overflow, though all the waters enter into it, is because the salt waters “absorb” the sweet; BR 13.9; Bekorot 9a; Koheleth 1.7. A different view is given in Tikkune Zohar (end), which reads: The ocean derives its name (אוקינוס) from אוקי “he spat out”, because it “spits out” the water or the aquatic animals that come into it. Comp. Kohut’s essay in Jüdische Wochenschrift II, No. 5, on the ocean according to Jewish sources.—With regard to the strife of the waters, comp. also 4 Ezra 4.15–17, where it is said that the waves of the sea took counsel to wage war against the wood of the field that they win more territory; although the wood had been vanquished by fire, the counsel of the waves of the sea did not succeed because the sand kept them within their bounds. This is, however, not a mythological conception, as maintained by many, but a fable; comp. the following note. The reason why the waters of the seas and the abysses did not overflow the earth is due to the fact that God had sealed their boundaries with His name; Prayer of Manasseh 3. For details on this “sealing” comp. vol. III, p. 99, and vol. IV, p. 96.
74 Konen 25, which essentially follows BR 5.9. Comp. further Sanhedrin 39b; ER 29, 143; Elleh Ezkerah (beginning). It is a legendary application of an old fable, which is already found in Ahikar; comp. Smend, Alter und Herkunft des Achikar-Romans, 77, seq. From Ahikar it was directly or indirectly borrowed by the Greeks; comp. Back, Monatsschrift XXV, 132–135, and XXXIII, 267. On the pride of the trees comp. Tub ha-Arez 93, which reads: The fruits of the ground thrive even when moistened by the feminine waters (on the sex of the waters comp. vol. I, p. 162), but not the trees, which,
27
