What Is Better than Wine?

The poetry begins in verse 2. The superscription in verse one is generally considered to be an editor’s introduction, explaining what the book is and its authorship; such introductions are common in biblical books from the later prophets and writings. In this case, the work is attributed to King Solomon, though it is almost certainly much later, and is more like a collection of poems woven together by an editor than a consistent work.

Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary (New York: Norton, 2019), 3.581–617 [p. 587]. All translations of the Hebrew Bible, unless otherwise specified, are Alter’s. For a discussion of the odd grammatical shift from 3^rd person to 2^nd person in this verse, see Marc Brettler, “Enallage in the Bible,” TheTorah (2018).

Michael Fox notes:

Dodim “lovemaking,” always refers to physical lovemaking, from kisses and caresses to sexual intercourse, whether or not accompanied by affection… The word dd occurs as a Semiticism in Egyptian, where it is written with the phallus sign as the determinative and usually alludes to sexual intercourse.

See, Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, Anchor Bible 18A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 202.

As noted by the Assyriologist Andrew George:

This word seems to mean generally 'love', but it also denotes the object of love ('darling') and the physical realization of love ('lovemaking').

Andrew R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition, and Cuneiform Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 2.797. See also, the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, volume 3, s.v. “dādu A” (p. 20). A good example of this usage in Akkadian appears in the Gilgamesh epic. After espying the wild man Enkidu, whom Šamḫat the prostitute is supposed to seduce, the hunter says to her that she should go to him and remove her clothes after which (Gilgamesh 1.186) da-du-šú i-ḫab-bu-bu “his love will caress you.” Text and translation from, George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.548–549. In his commentary, George explains this phrase as referring to “the last stage of lovemaking before copulation” (The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 2.797).

See discussion in, Geoffrey Khan, “How Was the Hebrew of the Bible Originally Pronounced?” TheTorah (2020); Emanuel Tov, “The Bible and the Masoretic Text,” which is Part 1 of The (Proto-)Masoretic Text: A Ten-Part Series, TheTorah (2017).

See Gregorio Del Olmo Lette and Joaquín Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson, Handbook of Oriental Studies 67 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1.264–265.

Del Olmo Lette, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 1.285. The latter is the connotation in Rabbinic and modern Hebrew, and perhaps biblical Hebrew as well. See David J. A. Clines, ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. 5 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), s.v. דַּד “breast, teat, nipple.”

Del Olmo Lette, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 1.285. For the discussion of the Hebrew usage, see Abraham Even-Shoshan, המלון החדש [The New Dictionary], updated version (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1998 [orig. 1945]), 2.505 s.v. דַּד. Even-Shoshan also claims that the root was preserved in Akkadian didâ, but the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (3.135–136, s.v. didū) argues that, in Akkadian, this term refers to a piece of woman’s clothing and is unrelated to the Semitic term for breast.

ἀγαπήσομεν μαστούς σου ὑπὲρ οἶνον

τί ἐκαλλιώθησαν μαστοί σου, ἀδελφή μου νύμφη, τί ἐκαλλιώθησαν μαστοί σου ἀπὸ οἴνου. The term appears twice in this verse because of the climactic parallelism, a technique in which a phrase is begun, leading up to the naming of the person (or deity) described, and then the phrase is started again. See, e.g., Psalm 92:10, 93:3, 94:1, 115:1, Ecclesiastes 1:2, Exodus 15:16 (and to some extent 15:6). This technique is especially prominent in Song of Songs. In addition to this verse, which is the third in a series (4:8, 4:9, 4:10, 4:12), see also, 2:15, 4:1, 5:1, 5:9, 6:1, and 7:1. See discussion in Wilfred G.E. Watson, “Internal or Half-Line Parallelism in Classical Hebrew Again,” Vetus Testamentum 39:1 (1989): 44–66.

ἐκεῖ δώσω τοὺς μαστούς μου σοί

This is not surprising, since the Old Latin translates from the Greek. (When there is a star, the first number is the traditional numbering, the second, the numbering in the Latin version.) Four times it uses the Latin uber (cognate with English “udder”), and once it doesn’t translate the word at all, but relies on the parallelism to the previous mention of uber:

• ^{1:2 [*1:1]} quoniam bona ubera tua super vinum; “for your breasts are better than wine”
• ^{1:4 [*1:3]} diligamus ubera tua super vinum; “we love your breasts more than wine”
• ^4:10 Quam decora facta sunt ubera tua soror mea sponsa, quam decora facta sunt a vino; “How beautiful are your breasts, my sister spouse, how much more beautiful than wine”
• ^{7:13 [*7:12]} ibi dabo ubera mea tibi; “there I will give you my breasts”

Like the Old Latin, the Vulgate uses the Latin uber four times, but in one case uses mammae (cognate with English “mammary”):

• ^{1:2 [*1:1]} quia meliora sunt ubera tua vino; “how much better are your breasts than wine”
• ^{1:4 [*1:3]} memores uberum tuorum super vinum; “remembering your breasts more than wine”
• ^4:10 quam pulchrae sunt mammae tuae soror mea sponsa pulchriora ubera tua vino; “how beautiful are your bosoms my sister spouse, your breasts are more beautiful than wine”
• ^{7:13 [*7:12]} ibi dabo tibi ubera mea; “there I will give you my breasts”

Jerome usually translates according to the MT, so his rendition here following the LXX is unusual (though notably, the difference between MT and LXX would be invisible to anyone looking at only the consonantal text).

The first two verses are translated as if they said dod “love,” though each uses a different term, and the latter two as if they said dad “breasts.”:

• ^1:2 מטל דטבין רחמיך מן חמרא (ܡܛܠ ܕܛ݁ܒܝ̈ܢ ܪ̈ܚܡ݂ܝܟ ܡܢ ܚܡܪܐ) “because your fondness is better than wine”
• ^1:4 נתדכר חובך מן חמרא (ܢܬ݁ܕܟ݂ܪ ܚܘܒܟ ܡܢ ܚܡܪܐ݂) “calling to mind your love beyond wine”
• ^4:10 מא שפירין תדיכי חתי כלתא מא שפירין תדיכי מן חמרא (ܡܐ ܫܦܝܪ̈ܝܢ ܬܕܝ̈ܟܝ݂ ܚܬܝ ܟܠܬܐ. ܡܐ ܫܦܝܪ̈ܝܢ ܬܕܝ̈ܟܝ ܡܢ ܚܡܪܐ) “how beautiful are your breasts, my sister bride, how much more beautiful are your breasts than wine.”
• ^7:13 תמן אתל לך תדי (ܬܡ݁ܢ ܐܬܠ ܠܟ ܬ̈ܕܝ), “there I will give you my breasts.”

Neusner’s translation (2.1770) reads here “Thus [indeed] is the matter” understanding אֵין as אִין, but this would be an unusual Aramaism in the Tosefta, and it goes against the apparent meaning of the response with its prooftext.

Over time, the reading dad instead of dod because so unknown in Jewish circles that traditional commentators on the Tosefta assume the debate is about whether the word should be read with a male or female pronominal suffix (dodekha or dodayikh), and repoint the text accordingly. Indeed, where the Mishnah records this debate (m. Avodah Zarah 2:5), all texts (printed and MS) read it this way. In the Mishnah, there is a vav as a mater lectionis between the two dalets, making the reading dad impossible. This letter, however, was likely added later, once the dad interpretation became virtually unknown. Given that in the 2^nd century, when this debate would have taken place, the rabbis were surrounded with Jews and early Christians who used the Septuagint, Syriac, and Old Latin translations, scholars suggest that their original debate was almost certainly about how to point the main word, dod or dad.

See discussion on Myron B. Lerner, “The Works of Aggadic Midrash and the Esther Midrashim,” in The Literature of the Sages, Part 2, ed. Shmuel Safrai, Zeev Safrai, Joshua Schwartz, and Peter J. Tomson, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum (Assen, Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum/Fortress press, 2006), 133–230 [141–142, 168–169]. The midrash was first printed by, Solomon Schechter, אגדת שיר השירים [Agadath Shir HaShirim] (Cambridge: Deighton Bell & Co, 1896), who argued that it was from the 10^th century C.E. Another edition was published in, Salomon Buber, מדרש זוטא [Midrash Zuta], 2^nd ed. (Vilna, 1925), which includes similar short midrashim on all of the megillot except Esther. See discussion of the various dating options and publications in, Anat Reizel, מבוא למדרשים [Introduction to the Midrashic Literature], 2^nd ed., ed. Amnon Bazak (Alon Shevut: Tevunot Press-Herzog College, 5773 [2012–2013]; repr. of 5771 [2010–2011]), 164–165.

Later, this midrash includes a version of the R. Joshua / R. Ishmael argument, but, as in the Mishnah, the text has mater lectionis forcing a reading of dodekha vs. dodayikh (as opposed to dadayikh). Again, I suggest this is due to later scribes cleaning up the text.

See David Solomon Sassoon, Ohel David: Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the Sassoon Library, London (London: Oxford University Press, 1932), §262 p. 52. (He is the grandfather of the contemporary scholar, Isaac Sassoon.) Saul Lieberman (Tosefet Rishonim 2:248), quoting Sassoon, describes the MS as simply Midrash HaHeifetz, the 15^th century Yemenite work by R. Zecharya ben Shlomo HaRofeh. Nevertheless, my understanding of Sassoon’s description is that this is from a collection that comes after Midrash HaHeifetz in that manuscript. It is very common to have MSS with multiple works one after another. In any event, in the critical edition of Midrash HaHeifetz on Genesis (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1981), this gloss does not appear on Genesis 30:14, the verse about mandrakes, nor does Dr. Meir Havatzelet (1927–2018), the editor of the Genesis volume, make any note that elsewhere in the text the word is glossed this way.

This is a Judeo-Arabic word, standard in Judeo-Arabic midrash collections when quoting from rabbinic texts.

The text reads with the vav here, but this has to be an error given the nature of the homily.

This is only a problem in this verse, however. In Song 1:4, it is unclear who is talking, in 4:10, the man is clearly addressing the woman, and in 7:13, the woman is speaking about herself.

In contrast, the Latin Vulgate generally translates “beloved” for dodim, as it does here (Song 1:13): ego dilecto meo et dilectus meus mihi.

See, for example, Holly Morse, “‘Judgement Was Executed Upon Her, and She Became a Byword Among Women’ (Ezek. 23.10): Divine Revenge Porn, Slut-shaming, Ethnicity and Exile in Ezekiel 16 and 23,” in Women and Exilic Identity in the Hebrew Bible, ed., Katherine E. Southwood and Martien A. Halvorson- Taylor (Eds.), The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2018), 129­–154 [=ch. 8].

The other two examples are:

^{יחזקאל כג:ח} וְאֶת תַּזְנוּתֶיהָ מִמִּצְרַיִם לֹא עָזָבָה כִּי אוֹתָהּ שָׁכְבוּ בִנְעוּרֶיהָ וְהֵמָּה עִשּׂוּ דַּדֵּי בְתוּלֶיהָ וַיִּשְׁפְּכוּ תַזְנוּתָם עָלֶיהָ.

^{Ezek 23:8} And her whoring from Egypt she did not abandon, for they had lain with her in her youth, and they fondled her virgin teats and spilled their whoring upon her.

^{יחזקאל כג:כא} וַתִּפְקְדִי אֵת זִמַּת נְעוּרָיִךְ בַּעְשׂוֹת מִמִּצְרַיִם דַּדַּיִךְ לְמַעַן שְׁדֵי נְעוּרָיִךְ.

^{Ezek 23:21} And you went back to the lewdness of your youth, when your teats were fondled by the Egyptians, your youthful breasts squeezed.

This is Alter’s translation. NJPS prefers “nipples” as do R. Eleazer of Beaugency and Shadal (ad loc.). This is likely correct, and thus important evidence that the term is crass.

Ironically, the LXX translator here (not the same who translated the Song), doesn’t translate any of these instances as breasts. The first two instances (vv. 3, 8) are translated as διεπαρθενεύθησαν “they deflowered,” apparently understanding the term dad as hymen. This is also how the Old Latin understands the terms: v. 3 devirginatae sunt, v. 8 devirginaverant eam. (This is actually how Malbim understands the term as well [see his gloss on Proverbs 5:19], דדים התחתונים “her lower dadim.”) LXX translates the final instance of dadim in chapter 23 (v. 21), however, as ἐν τῷ καταλύματί “in your lodging.” (The Old Latin for this verse is not extant.) This translation likely reflects a reading of דר instead of דד; dalet/resh exchanges are very common given the graphic similarities between the letters. See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed., revised and expanded (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 227–229, Friedrich Delitzsch, Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament; nebst den dem Schrifttexte einverleibten Randnoten klassifiziert [The Reading and Writing Errors in the Old Testament; In Addition to the Marginal Notes Incorporated into the Text] (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1920), 105–107 §104. The Latin Vulgate, in contrast, understands all three uses of דד (and even dodim in v. 17) as a reference to breasts.

A fourth verse makes use of the phrase dodim in MT:

^{יחזקאל כג:יז} וַיָּבֹאוּ אֵלֶיהָ בְנֵי בָבֶל לְמִשְׁכַּב דֹּדִים וַיְטַמְּאוּ אוֹתָהּ בְּתַזְנוּתָם...

^{Ezek 23:17} And the sons of Babylonia came to her for lovemaking and defiled her with their whoring…

LXX here renders this phrase as εἰς κοίτην καταλυόντων, “in a bed of lodging,” which is also how he translates the phrase עֵת דֹּדִים “time of loving” in Ezekiel 16:8, καιρὸς καταλυόντων “a time of lodgers.” As noted above, LXX seems to be reading דרים in these instances. The Old Latin, in contrast, translates both as dodim: It renders Ezekiel 16:8 as tempus divertentium “a time of wooing,” and 23:17 as ad cubile divertentium “to fornicate with wooing.” It would seem that the Greek as we have it was not his Vorlage. The Latin Vulgate does not translate the two phrases in the same way. It translates Ezekiel 16:8 as tempus amantium “a time of loving” but Ezekiel 23:17 as ad cubile mammarum “to fornicate her breasts.” Jerome may have been influenced by the other appearances of dadim in this chapter to understand this one as dadim as well.

It is possible that this is meant as a euphemistic reference to the woman’s womb. See discussion in Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, Anchor Bible 18A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 201.

Alter’s invoking of the Song of Songs 5:1, שִׁכְרוּ דּוֹדִים “be drunk on loving,” is ironic, since LXX, which does not know this meaning of dod, reads “be drunk my brothers” (μεθύσθητε ἀδελφοί).

ἡ δὲ ἰδία ἡγείσθω σου καὶ συνέστω σοι ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ. The doubling of the action “guide you and be associated with you” is a double translation of the verb. In the MT, the verb is יְרַוֻּךָ, “slake.” Perhaps this translation reflects an uncertainty of the verb and therefore including two: יֹרוּךָ, meaning “to teach or guide,” and the graphically similar יְלַוּךָ, meaning “to accompany.”

See Michael V. Fox, משלי Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2015), 121–123. Certainly, the Greek translator of Proverbs, unlike that of the Song, knows that dodim can mean love, since he translates it this way explicitly in 7:18 (see below).

LXX here (Prov 7:18) reads “Come, and let us enjoy love until the early morning; come here, and let us embrace in love” (ἐλθὲ καὶ ἀπολαύσωμεν φιλίας ἕως ὄρθρου, δεῦρο καὶ ἐγκυλισθῶμεν ἔρωτι). The Old Latin also understands it this way, “Come, let us enjoy loving all the way till daybreak (Veni, fruamur amicitia usque in diluculum), as does the Syriac Peshitta, “Come, let us be spiced with love until the morning” תא, נתבשם ברחמתא עדמא לצפרא (ܬܐ ܢܬ݁ܒܣܡ ܒܪܚܡ݂ܬܐ݂ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܨ݁ܦܪܐ). The Latin Vulgate, however, reads the word as dadim: “Come, let us be drunk on your breasts until the light of day” (veni inebriemur uberibus donec inlucescat dies). Almost certainly, Jerome’s translation is mistaken here.

The Latin Vulgate reads dadeha like MT here: ubera eius inebrient te omni tempore “may her breasts make you drunk at all times,” and the Old Latin for this verse is not extant. The Syriac Peshitta has what seems to be a third text: אורחתה ילף בכל זבן (ܐܘܪ̈ܚܬܗ݁ ܝܠܦ݂ ܒܟܠ ܙܒܢ) “learn her ways at all times,” apparently reading דרכיה in place of דדיה, as suggested by Hermann Pinkuss, “Die Syrische Übersetzung der Proverbien,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 14 (1894): 65–141, 161–222. Fox dismisses this suggestion because the word is too graphically dissimilar, but both words begin with a dalet and end with yod and heh, and a resh and dalet look identical. It would then be a scribe adding a kaf to make sense of the inexplicable word דריה. (Above I suggest that the same thing explains a דדיה and דבריה switch.) As for the Targum, some manuscripts read הוונא איליף “be sure to learn” and others תַדְוָנָא אֲלַף “learn ???” (the Jastrow dictionary, s.v. תדונא, suggests “kindness, liberality”). It is clear that the Targum understands the verb as יֹרוּךָ, but how it reads the noun is difficult to reconstruct.

Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 190.

For an edition of this commentary, translated into Hebrew, with a detailed introduction, see Sarah Kamin and Avrom Saltman, על פי רש"י: פירוש לטיני לשיר השירים מהמאה הי"ג [Secundum Salomonem: A 13^th Century Latin Commentary on the Song of Songs] (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1989).

Rashi does not accept parallelism as a literary form, and is likely looking for the reason for the repetition of “how beautiful is your loving,” and suggests it hints at multiple places of worship.

“Quam pulcre sunt mamme tue soror mea sponsa”—Hoc dicit propter rationale iudicii quod summus pontifex in pectore gestabat. “Pulcriora sunt uber atua vino”—quia rationale illud factum erat ex rebus coloris rubei…

Another example where Secundum Salomonem must find an allegory that fits breasts, is in his gloss on Song 7:13 [*7:12]:

“Ibi dabo tibi ubera mea”—id est doctrinam quam addiscam ibi…

“There I will give you my breasts”—meaning, the Torah which I taught there…

Again, the breasts are interpreted as an object, this time the Torah, perhaps an oblique reference to the two tablets of the law. Rashi, in contrast, whose text reads “loving,” interprets:

שם אתן את דודיי – שם אראך כבודי וגודלי שבח בניי ובנותיי.

“There I will give you my loving”—There I will show you my glory and greatness, the praiseworthiness of my sons and daughters.

Similarly, Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335–ca. 395) writes in his Homilies on the Song of Songs (§1):

“Your breasts are better than wine,” signifying by the breasts the heart. Nobody will err if he understands by the heart the hidden, secret power of God. One would rightly suppose that the breasts are the activities of God’s power for us by which he nourishes each one’s life and bestows appropriate nourishment.

See Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament 9: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, ed. J. Robert Wright (Intervarsity Press, 2007).

See Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty, The Song of Songs: A Patristic Commentary, trans. Ferial Moawad (Sporting, Alexandria: St. George’s Coptic Orthodox Church, 2005), 117–118. Notably, Origen was aware of a different reading of the term דדים in an earlier verse, but not the Masoretic one (Commentary on the Song of Songs 1.3 [=1:4]). Nevertheless, Origen piously (from his perspective) defends the received LXX translation of “breasts”:

Let it not escape our notice that in some manuscripts we find written “because your discourses are better than wine” instead of what we read: “because your breasts are better than wine.” Although it evidently seems to have meant those things which we have discussed in our spiritual interpretation, nonetheless we preserve in all matters the things written by the seventy translators, because we are certain that the Holy Spirit wanted the outlines of the mysteries to be concealed in the divine Scriptures and not to be revealed and out in the open.

If this translation had a Hebrew Vorlage, it may have been דבריך instead of דדיך, mistaking the second dalet for a reish, and then adding a bet between the two to make sense of it.

R. Chaim Kanievsky (1928–2022), the editor of the standard edition of this commentary, adds a vav in parentheses, ד(ו)דיך, clearly bothered by this reading. We saw above the same revision in the Mishnah and Song of Songs Zuta, turning dadayikh into dodayikh.