(ProQuest: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.) One of most difficult sayings in Sermon on Mount is one about light and body (Matt 6:22-23): (22a) The lamp of body is eye. (22b) If, then, your eye is healthy/good, your whole body will be full of light. (23a) If, however, your eye is sick/evil, your whole body will be dark. (23b) If, therefore, light which is in you is darkness -what darkness!1 The ancient rabbinic parallel that I will present here is a partial one, a loose one. It does not solve exegetical problems of Gospel passage, nor does it challenge main lines of its interpretation offered by NT scholarship-and yet it may help to illuminate origins and nature of imagery in this saying. I In b, Ta'an. 24a we read following story: Once House of Patriarch ordained a fast and no rain fell. Thereupon Oshaiah Younger, a colleague of scholars, taught them: If it was done unwittingly, being hidden from eyes of assembly . (Num 15:24)-this can be compared to a bride who lives in her father's home. As long as her eyes are attractive, her body requires no examination; should, however, her eyes be illshaped, then her body requires examination. Thereupon servants (of Patriarch) came, put a scarf around his neck and started choking him. The people of city cried out: Leave him alone; he insults us also, but since we see that whatever he does is for sake of Heaven, we say nothing to him and we leave him alone-so you too leave him alone.2 The story reports an incident that happened, apparently, in Palestine. The identity of Oshaiah cannot be established with certainty; it is very likely, however, that he lived in third century C.E.3 Communal fasts, along with prayers and related rituals, were regularly held in times of drought, in order to urge heavens to give rain.4 Oshaiah makes a biting remark on failed efforts of Jewish patriarch's people (or of patriarch, Nasi, himself) to bring rain, effectively saying that the fish rots from head.5 The incident must be understood against backdrop of decline of patriarchal authority and growing tensions between patriarchal circles and sages.6 An important piece of information gets lost in translation, almost unavoidably. Oshaiah's saying is introduced by technical term ... (he taught), apparently indicating that all of what he says is a citation of an older, tannaitic source. In other words, his remark is presented as a tradition formulated in, or coming from, first-second centuries C.E. approximately.7 Some chronological uncertainties notwithstanding, I see no reason, textual or other, to doubt basic historicity of story or tannaitic origins of homily and-in particular-of bride maxim.8 It is not so much historical setting of Oshaiah's dictum that concerns us here as simile he used. It is based on notion of eyes as primary markers of one's physical condition-as far as a bride is concerned. This notion can be properly seen as a physiognomic one. One has to bear in mind that, in ancient Jewish marriage law, certain bodily defects of woman, unknown to husband at time of betrothal or marriage, had major legal implications.9 The checking of certain bodily traits prior to marriage-by third parties-is mentioned in early sources. M. Ketub. 7:8 discusses preconditions necessary for bridegroom/husband to make claims related to bodily defects of bride/wife: The sages, however, say, that (such claims can be made) only in case of defects on hidden (parts of body); but in case of defects on exposed (parts of body), he can not make claims. And if there is a bath-house in that town, he can not make claims even about hidden defects, since he (is assumed to have had) examined her by his women relatives. …