The Meaning and Interpretation of Saf

The Ambiguous Saf

The word saf in Tanakh is understood to mean either threshold or basin in different verses. Accordingly, Solomon Mandelkern has two entries for saf in his concordance of the Bible, one for each of the meanings.¹ The Akkadian cognate, sippu, has the primary meaning of a doorframe, entranceway or threshold, and is used also for the entrance to a city or the edge of an object, such as the rim of a bowl or edge of a table.² It also has a secondary meaning of a container. Since the Akkadian sippu can also refer specifically to a door hinge and to the hollowed out stones that served as hinge sockets, it could also have the meaning of a hollowed out space, which could also refer to a container.³ Alternately, it has been conjectured that sippu with the meaning of container is possibly a variant of sappu, the Akkadian term for a metal object or container,⁴ so that the two meanings of the Hebrew saf are actually two completely different and unrelated words.

Throughout Tanakh the use of this word has been interpreted with both meanings. For example, So it will be: that I will make Jerusalem as a saf of reeling for all those nations surrounding her (Zech. 12:2), is understood by Rashi, Radak, Metzudat Zion and Malbim to refer to a cup filled with poison that causes whoever drinks from it to suffer, while Mahari Kara explains it as a threshold that people stumble on when they try to step over it. In this article we will look at two well known verses that use the word saf where both interpretations were offered, and the implications of the different meanings there.

Saf in Exodus

As part of the instructions for preparing the Pesach sacrifice in Egypt and ensuring protection from the tenth plague, the Israelites are told, Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it in the blood in the saf, and put some of the blood on the top and two sides of the doorframe (Exodus 12:22). The meaning of the word saf here is a matter of debate in Mekhilta d’Rabbi Yishmael on this verse. “Scripture apprises us that he makes an indenture at the side of the threshold and slaughters (the blood) into it. Saf is a threshold, as in In setting their threshold (sippam [from saf]) by My threshold (Ezekiel 43:8), and And the posts of the sippim would shake (Isaiah 6:4). These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: Saf is a vessel, as in and the sippot, and the snuffers, and the sprinkling bowls (I Kings 7:50).”

Most commentators on this verse follow the approach of R. Akiva, that saf is a kind of vessel, a basin. This is the interpretation of R. Saadia Gaon, Rashi and Rashbam.⁵ Mandelkern also lists this verse in the container category. While the Targums translate saf here as a vessel, the Septuagint and Vulgate translate it as threshold.⁶

In R. Akiva’s interpretation, the Pesach sacrifice was offered in the manner of later Israelite sacrifices, where the blood was collected in basins. For example, the sacrifice offered at Mount Sinai in Ex. 24:6 and the many references in Leviticus where it is implied that the blood was collected in vessels (see Lev. 1:5, 3:2, 4:6).⁷ Note however that in Exodus 24:6 the term for basin is agganot, not saf.

The implication of R. Yishmael’s interpretation is that the sacrifice was slaughtered at the doorway, so that its blood would splatter all over the threshold and was collected in the hollowed out parts of the stones that served as hinge sockets. According to this, the doorway had to be coated in blood from all four sides in order to offer protection.⁸ This is somewhat difficult as Exodus 12:7 does not mention blood on the threshold, They shall then take some of the blood and put it on the two sides and top of the doorframes of the houses where they are to eat the lamb, but it may be explained that the verse is only talking about where the blood was intentionally placed, and not where it spilled naturally. More problematic is Exodus 12:23, When the Lord passes through to strike Egypt and sees the blood on the top and sides of a doorframe, He will pass over that doorway and will not let the destroyer enter your houses to strike you down, implying that there was no blood to be seen on the threshold,⁹ but here too it may be explained that the verse is only referring to the blood that was spread by the Israelites rather than what spilled out on its own.

The differences between the manner in which R. Yishmael and R. Akiva interpret biblical texts in general shed light on the thinking behind these two meanings. “Rabbi Akiva could be credited with seeking out the wondrous; Rabbi Yishmael could be credited with shunning the wondrous… Rabbi Yishmael’s teachings contained straightforward logic, and with it lucidity, simplicity of language, and an aversion to intellectual games…He sought to strip Scripture of anthropomorphisms and to excise unnecessary metaphor and imagery. But Rabbi Akiva’s teachings sought to penetrate to inner depths, with profundity and potency of language. He…cherished imaginative meanings, added metaphorical embellishments, and created images of the supernal world. Instead of a logic that was subservient to surface meaning, he championed free exegesis and intellectual flights.”¹⁰ Here, R. Akiva is looking at the Pesach sacrifice from the perspective of later Israelite history, adding in the element of a collecting vessel for the blood that would be used in sacrificial services, making this very unusual sacrifice, performed without a priest or altar, at least somewhat in line with later normative Israelite practice.¹¹ Although this reading of the word saf is not fantastic or supernatural, it is closer to a midrashic interpretation. On the other hand, R. Yishmael preserves the original sense of the verse,¹² and in particular the apotropaic nature of this ritual.¹³

Saf in Esther

In Esther, saf is what Bigtan and Teresh guard. As Mordekhai sat at the King’s Gate at that time, fury engulfed Bigtan and Teresh, two of the king’s eunuchs, guards of the saf, and they plotted to lay their hands on King Ahashverosh (Esther 2:21). This is generally interpreted as guards of the entrance to the courtyard, as found for example in the commentary of Ibn Ezra to this verse. This would explain how Mordechai was able to find out about their plan, as he is described as sitting at a gate himself. However, others explain that Bigtan and Teresh were guards of vessels, as found in the commentary of the Sages of France.¹⁴ This is in line with the idea that they were cupbearers, as stated by Ralbag, and as found in Targum Sheni.¹⁵ This explanation is also brought by Rashi in his commentary to TB Avoda Zara 38b. Although Rashi on this verse does not define the word saf, he does refer to TB Megilla 13b where R. Yochanan explains that Bigtan and Teresh planned to kill the king by putting poison in his goblet. This may be taken to imply that they were cupbearers who had access to what the king drank.

While initially it would appear that the exact role of Bigtan and Teresh is not all that significant, there is a narrative reason behind having them function as cupbearers. The many plot similarities between the narratives of Esther and Joseph (a Jew rises to a high position in a foreign court and then helps his family/people) have long been noted,¹⁶ with the heroic role of Joseph divided between Esther and Mordechai. As in the Joseph narrative, we have heroes who were taken into captivity (Mordechai in Est. 2:6, Esther herself in Est. 2:8) and described as good looking (Gen. 39:6; Est. 2:9). By the end of the story the heroes are promoted by the king (Joseph in Gen. 41:39-45; Esther in Est. 2:17, Mordechai in Est. 8:1, 10:3).

Bereishit Rabbah 88:3 adds that in both narratives anger between a king and his servants leads to the Jewish character rising to power. In the Joseph narrative, Pharaoh was angry at his cupbearer, leading him to be imprisoned along with Joseph (Gen. 41:10), and ultimately informing Pharaoh about Joseph’s talent for dream interpretation. In the case of Mordechai, Bigtan and Teresh were angry at the king and so plotted to kill him (Esther 2:21). This ultimately led to Mordechai rising to power when the incident was read to Achashverosh (Esther 6). In this section of midrash, Shmuel states that the plan of Bigtan and Teresh was to place a snake inside the cup of Achashverosh.

The idea of Bigtan and Teresh being cupbearers adds another parallel element to the Joseph and Esther narratives, as it is now not just anger that leads to a promotion, but a cupbearer character serves as the mechanism for the promotion in both accounts. Also note that the promotion via the cupbearer comes after a night of the king having some kind of sleeping disturbance in both narratives, Pharaoh with his bad dream and Achashverosh with his insomnia. Thus, in this case, understanding saf as a cup or vessel serves to add to the parallels between the Joseph and Esther plotlines.

Conclusion

There are only three verses in Tanakh where saf unequivocally means a vessel (I Kings 7:50, II Kings 12:14, Jer. 52:19). In the more than twenty remaining occasions that saf appears it either clearly means a threshold or can be interpreted that way, as we have seen in the verses analyzed here. In terms of the Rabbinic commentators, the interpretation of that word did not rest solely on a linguistic basis, other exegetical concerns informed the decision as to how to interpret saf. Both in Exodus and Esther interpreting the word as a vessel, the less common usage in Tanakh, adds an additional layer of meaning to the text. In the case of the Pesach sacrifice this aligns the sacrificial service with later practice, and in the case of Esther it adds another parallel to the Joseph narrative. This is particularly significant when we note that the primary meaning of the Akkadian sippu is a threshold, and that the current scholarly consensus is that threshold is probably the more accurate way to understand the word saf,¹⁷ making the basin definition more of a midrashic interpretation.