Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/356

350 Midrash on Proverbs and the Second Targum to Esther, are, according to the best authorities, not older than the tenth century, whilst neither the Talmud of Jerusalem nor that of Babylon, nor any of the other earlier Midrashim (homiletic comments on the Old Testament), ever allude to them. But the silence of these sources may be explained on other grounds. Indeed, it would seem that the earlier Rabbis purposely avoided touching on the whole subject. For we read in the name of R. Samuel bar Nachmani, a famous Aggadist of the third century: “He who translates the words Malkath Sheba as ‘the Queen of Sheba’ is mistaken, its real meaning being ‘the kingdom of Sheba.’&thinsp;” It is hardly necessary to say that this Rabbi Samuel’s explanation is against all grammar. But we know from other places that this Rabbi was rather fond of such forced interpretations of Scriptural stories, which in their simple meaning would rather be irreconcilable with the ideal which posterity has formed of their heroes. We may therefore assume, I think, that also in the present case the passage quoted was also meant as a protest against some legends about Solomon, current at the time, which the Rabbis considered unworthy of the Solomon idealised by a later generation. The legend which scandalised the Rabbis was probably that which is to be found first in the Pseudo-Sirach, according to which the relation between Solomon and the Queen ended in a love affair of which Nebuchadnezzar was the result. This legend, again, is based on the Scriptural words: “And the King Solomon gave unto the Queen (Malkath) of Sheba all her desire” (1 Kings, x, 13 ; 2 Chron. ix, 12; and Bertheau, ad loc.). The best way to make an end to all such stories was, therefore, to explain the word Malkath as if it were