IV. The Most Famous Scribes

IV. THE MOST FAMOUS SCRIBES
THE LITERATURE
The older Hebrew works on the Mishna teachers in Wolf, Biblioth. Hebr. ii. 805 sq. Fürst, Biblioth. Judaica, ii. 48 sq.
Ottho, Historia doctorum misnicorum qua opera etiam synedrii magni Hierosolymitani praesides et vice-praesides recensentur. Oxonii 1672 (frequently reprinted, e.g. also in Wolf’s Biblioth. Hebr. vol. iv., and in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xxi.).
Joh. Chrph. Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 805-865 (gives an alphabetical catalogue of the scholars mentioned in the Mishna).
Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 226-263. The same, Chronologische Ansetzung der Schriftgelehrten von Antigonus von Socho bis auf R. Akiba (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1854, pp. 221-229, 273-277).
Kämpf, Genealogisches und Chronologisches bezuglich der Patriarchen aus dem Hillel’schen Hause bis auf R. Jehuda ha-Nasi, den Redacteur der Mischnah (Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1853, pp. 201-207, 231-236; 1854, pp. 89-42, 98-107).
Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten, vols. i. ii.
Gräte, Geschichte der Juden, vols. iii. iv.
Derenbourg, Essai sur l’histoire et la géographie de la Palestine d’après les Thalmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques. P. i.: Histoire de la Palestine depuis Cyrus jusqu’à Adrien. Paris 1867.
The works, written in Hebrew, of Frankel (1859), Brüll (1876) and Weiss (1871-1876). For farther details concerning them, see the literature on the Mishna, § 3.
Friedländer, Geschichtsbilder aus der Zeit der Tanaiten und Armoräer, Brunn 1879 (a careless performance, see Theol. Litztg. 1880, p. 433).
Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii., the several articles.
Bacher, Die Agada der Tanaiten (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1882-1884). Also separately, Die Agada der Tanaiten, vol. i. 1884.
It is not till the period of the Mishna, i.e. about 70 A.D., that we have any detailed information concerning individual scribes. Of those who lived before this time, our knowledge is extremely scanty. This too is almost the case in respect of Hillel and Shammai, the famous heads of schools; for, setting aside what is purely legendary, our information concerning them is comparatively small and unimportant The names and order of the most celebrated heads of schools since about the second century after Christ have been handed down to us chiefly by the 1st chapter of the treatise Aboth (or Pirke Aboth), in which is enumerated the unbroken succession of individuals, who were from Moses till the time of the destruction of Jerusalem the depositaries of the traditions of the law. The whole chapter runs as follows:—[1282]
[1282] The following translation is for the most part taken from the edition of the Mishna which has lately appeared under the management of Jost; but partly corrected according to the careful explanation of Cahn (Pirke Aboth, 1875). Comp. also for the exposition the editions of Surenhusius (Mishna, vol. iv.), P. Ewald (Pirke Aboth, 1825), Taylor (Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, Cambridge 1877), and Strack (Die Sprüche der Väter, 1882).
1. Moses received the law upon Sinai, and delivered it to Joshua; he to the elders; the elders to the prophets; and the prophets delivered it to the men of the Great Assembly. These laid down three rules: Be careful in pronouncing judgment! bring up many pupils! and make a fence about the law! 2. Simon the Just was one of the last of the Great Assembly. He said: The world subsists by three things—by the law, the worship of God, and benevolence. 3. Antigonus of Socho received the tradition from Simon the Just. He said: Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of reward, but be like those who do service without respect to recompense; and live always in the fear of God.
4. Joses ben Joeser of Zereda and Joses ben Johanan of Jerusalem received the tradition from them. Joses ben Joeser said: Let thy house be a place of meeting for the wise, dust thyself with the dust of their feet, and drink eagerly of their teaching. 5. Joses ben Johanan of Jerusalem said: Let thy house be always open (to guests), and let the poor be thy household. Avoid superfluous chatter with women. It is unbecoming with one’s own wife, much more with the wife of, another. Hence the wise also say: He who carries on useless conversation with a woman, brings misfortune upon himself, is hindered from occupation with the law, and at last inherits hell.
6. Joshua ben Perachiah and Nithai of Arbela received the tradition from these. The former said: Procure a companion (in study), and judge all men according to the favourable sida. 7. Nithai of Arbela said: Depart from a bad neighbour; associate not with the ungodly; and think not that punishment will fail.
8. Judah ben Tabbai and Simon ben Shetach received the tradition from these. The former said: Make not thyself (as judge) an advocate. When both sides stand before thee, look upon both as in the wrong. But when they are dismissed and have received sentence, regard both as justified. 9. Simon ben Shetach said: Test the witnesses well, but be cautious in examination, lest they thereby learn to speak falsehood.
10. Shemaiah and Abtalion received from them. Shemaiah taught: Love work, hate authority, and do not press thyself upon the great 11. Abtalion said: Ye wise, be cautious in your teaching, lest ye be guilty of error, and err towards a place of bad water. For your scholars, who come after you, will drink of it, die, and the name of God be thereby dishonoured.
12. Hillel and Shammai received from these. Hillel said: Be a disciple of Aaron, a lover of peace, a maker of peace, love men, and draw them to the law. 13. He was accustomed also to say: He who will make himself a great name, forfeits his own. He who does not increase his knowledge diminishes it, but he who seeks no instruction is guilty of death. He who uses the crown (of the law) (for external purposes) perishes. 14. The same said: Unless I (work) for myself, who will do so for me? And if I do so for myself alone, what am I? And if not now, when else? 15. Shammai said: Make the study of the law a decided occupation; promise little and do much; and receive every one with kindness.
16. Rabban Gamaliel said: Appoint yourself a teacher, you thus avoid the doubtful; and do not too often tithe according to mere chance.
17. His son Simon said: “I have grown up from early youth among wise men, and have found nothing more profitable for men than silence. Study is not the chief thing, but practice. He who speaks much only brings sin to pass.”
18. Rabban Simon ben Gamaliel said: The world subsists by three things—by the administration of justice, by truth, and by unanimity. (Thus also it is said, Zechariah 8:16 : “Let peace and truth judge in your gates.”)[1283]
[1283] The bracketed words are wanting in the best manuscripts, e.g. Berolin. MSS. fol. 567 (see Cahn, Pirke Aboth, p. 62), and Cambridge University Additional, 470. 1 (see Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, p. 4).
So far the Mishna. Among the authorities here specified, those which chiefly interest us are “the men of the great assembly,” or of the great synagogue (אַנְשֵׁי כְנֵסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה). They appear here as the depositaries of the tradition of the law between the last prophets and the first scribes known by name. Later Jewish tradition ascribes to them all kinds of legal enactments.[1284] Very recent, indeed really modern, is, on the other hand, the opinion, that they also composed the canon of the Old Testament.[1285] As no authorities tell us who they really were, there has been the more opportunity for the most varying hypotheses concerning them.[1286] The correct one, that they never existed at all in the form which Jewish tradition represents, was already advocated by older Protestant criticism,[1287] though it was reserved for the conclusive investigation of Kuenen to fully dissipate the obscurity Testing upon this subject The only historical foundation for the idea is the narrative in Nehemiah 8-10, that in Ezra’s time the law was solemnly accepted by a great assembly of the people. This “great assembly” was in fact of eminent importance to the maintenance of the law. But after the notion of a great assembly had been once fixed as an essential court of appeal for the maintenance of the law, an utterly non-historical conception was gradually combined therewith in tradition. Instead of an assembly of the people receiving the law, a college of individuals transmitting the law was conceived of, and this notion served to fill up the gap between the latest prophets and those scribes to whom the memory of subsequent times still extended.[1288]
[1284] See Rau, De synagoga magna, pp. 6-24. Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 244 sq. Kuenen, Over de mannen der groote Synagoge, pp. 2-6. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, p. 124 sq. D. Hoffmann in the Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenth. x. 1883, p. 45 sqq.
[1285] This opinion became current chiefly through Elias Levita (sixteenth century), and was transferred from him to Christian theology. See Strack in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. vii. 416 sq. (art. “Kanon des Alten Testaments”).
[1286] See Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung des Alten Testaments mit dem Neuen, pp. 120-166. The Introductions to the Old Testament, e.g. De Wette-Schrader, § 13. Heidenheim, Untersuchungen über die Synagoge magna (Studien und Kritik. 1853, pp. 286-300). Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, ii. 22-24, 380 sqq., iii. 244 sq., 270 sq. Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. i. 41-43, 91, 95 sq. Grätz, Die grosse Versammlung (Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1857, pp. 31-37, 61-70). Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. xv. 296-299. Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 29-40. Ginsburg in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia, iii. 909 sqq. Neteler, Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1875, pp. 490-499. Bloch, Studien zur Geschichte der Sammlung der althebräischen Literatur (1876), pp. 100-132. Hamburger, Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. pp. 318-323. Montet, Essai sur les origines des partis saducéen et pharisien (1888), pp. 91-97. D. Hoffmann, Ueber “die Männer der grossen Versammlung” (Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 10th year, 1883, pp. 45-61). Strack in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. xv. 95 sq.
[1287] Joh. Eberh. Rau, Diatribe de synagoga magna, Traj. ad Rh. 1726. Aurivillius, Dissertationes ad sacras literas et philologiam orientalem pertinentes (ed. Michaelis, 1790), pp. 139-160.
[1288] See Kuenen, Over de mannen der groote synagoge, Amsterdam 1876 (separate reprint, Verslagen en Mededeelingen der koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, 2de Reeks, Deel vi.). Comp. Theol. Litztg. 1877, p. 100.
Together with the notion of the great synagogue may be dismissed also the statement, that Simon the Just was one of its latest members. This Simon is, on the contrary, no other than the high priest Simon L in the beginning of the third century before Christ, who, according to Josephus, obtained the surname ὁ δίκαιος.[1289] Undoubtedly this name was conferred on him by the Pharisaic party on account of his strict legal tendencies, while most of the high priests of the Greek period left much to be desired in this respect. It was on this very account also that he was stamped by Jewish tradition as a vehicle of the tradition of the law.[1290]
[1289] Joseph. Antt. xii. 2. 4.
[1290] He is also mentioned in Para iii. 5 as one of the high priests under whom a red heifer was burnt. Comp. in general, Wolf, Biblioth. Hebr. ii. 864. Fürst’s Literaturbl. des Orients, 1845, p. 33 sqq. Herzfeld, ii. 189 sqq., 377 (who in opposition to Josephus maintains that Simon II., the high priest at the close of the third century, is Simon the Just). Grätz, Simon der Gerechte und seine Zeit (Monatsschrift, 1857, pp. 45-56). Hamburger, Real-Enc., Div. ii. pp. 1115-1119. Montet, Essai sur les origines, etc. pp. 185-189.
The most ancient scribe of whom tradition has preserved at least the name is Antigonus of Socho. Little more than his name is however known of him.[1291] The information too given in the Mishna of the subsequent scribes down to the time of Christ is extremely scanty and uncertain, as is indeed evident from the externally systematic grouping of them in five pairs. For there could hardly be historical foundation for such a fact as that in each generation only a pair of scholars should have specially distinguished themselves. It is likely that just ten names were known, and that these were formed into five pairs of contemporaries, after the analogy of the last and most famous pair, Hillel and Shammai.[1292] In such a state of affairs, of course, only the most general outlines of the chronology can be determined. The comparatively most certain points are the following.[1293] Simon ben Shetach was a contemporary of Alexander Jannaeus and Alexandra, and therefore lived about 90-70 B.C.[1294] Hence the first pair must be placed two generations earlier, viz. about 150 B.C. Hillel is said, according to Talmudic tradition, to have lived 100 years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and thus to have flourished about the time of Herod the Great.[1295] His supposed grandson, Gamaliel I., is mentioned in the Acts (5:34, 22:3), about 30-40 A.D.[1296] It has been already stated (p. 180 sq.) that subsequent tradition makes the whole five pairs presidents and vice-presidents of the Sanhedrim, and the utter erroneousness of this assertion is there pointed out They were in fact nothing more than heads of schools.
[1291] Comp. also Wolf, Biblioth. Hebr. ii 813 sqq. Fürst’s Literaturbl des Orients, 1845, p. 36 sq. Hamburger, Real-Enc. s.v. In the Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, c. 5, two disciples, Zadok and Boethos, are ascribed to Antigonus, and the Sadducees and Boethosees traced to them.
[1292] Hence these ten are in Rabbinical literature sometimes simply called “the pairs” (זוּגוֹת), e.g. Pea ii. 6.
[1293] Comp. on the chronology, Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, p. 37, and Herzfeld in the Monatsschrift f. Gesch. und Wissenschaft des Judenth. 1854.
[1294] With this agrees the statement in Taanith iii. 8, that Simon ben Shetach was a contemporary of the Onias so famed for his power in prayer, and whose death is related by Josephus, Antt. xiv. 2. 1, as taking place about 65 B.C.
[1295] Shabbath 15a. Hieronymus ad Jesaj. 11 sqq. (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, iv. 123): Sammai et Hellel non multo prius quam Dominus nasceretur orti sunt Judaea.
[1296] Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 9; Vita, 38, 39, 44, 60.
The first pair, Joses ben Joeser and Joses ben Johanan, is only mentioned, besides the chief passage in the treatise Aboth, a few times more in the Mishna,[1297] and still less frequently do we meet with the second pair, Joshua ben Perachiah and Nithai of Arbela.[1298] Of the third pair only Simon ben Shetach has a somewhat tangible form, though what is related of him is for the most part of a legendary character.[1299] There is no mention of any of these in Josephus. On the other hand, he seems to speak of the fourth pair, Shemaiah and Abtalion, under the names Σαμέας and Πωλίων. He tells us that when, in the year 47 B.C., the youthful Herod was accused before the Sanhedrim on account of his acts in Galilee, and all owners of property were silent through cowardly fear, that a certain Sameas alone raised his voice, and prophesied to his colleagues that they would yet all perish through Herod. His prophecy was fulfilled ten years later, when Herod, after his conquest of Jerusalem in the year 37, had all his former accusers executed.[1300] Only the Pharisee Pollio and his disciple Sameas (Πωλίων ὁ Φαρισαῖος καὶ Σαμέας ὁ τούτου μαθητής) were spared, nay highly honoured by him, because during the siege by Herod they had given counsel, that the king should be admitted into the town. The Sameas here mentioned is expressly identified by Josephus with the former.[1301] Lastly, Pollio and Sameas are mentioned by Josephus, and again in the same order, in a third passage. Unfortunately however we obtain no entire certainty as to time. For he informs us that the followers of Pollio and Sameas (οἱ περὶ Πωλίωνα τὸν Φαρισαῖον καὶ Σαμέαν) refused the oath of allegiance demanded of them by Herod, and were not punished on this account, “obtaining indulgence for the sake of Pollio” (ἐντροπῆς διὰ τὸν Πωλίωνα τυχόντες).[1302] Josephus relates this among the events of the eighteenth year of Herod (= 20-19 B.C.). It cannot however be quite certainly determined from the context, whether this occurrence really took place in that year. Now the two names Σαμέας and Πωλίων so strikingly coincide with שְׁמַעְיָה and אַבְטַלְיוֹן that the view of their being identical is very obvious.[1303] The chronology too would about agree. The only thing that causes hesitation is, that Sameas is called the disciple of Pollio, while elsewhere Shemaiah stands before Abtalion. Hence we might feel tempted to identify Sameas with Shammai,[1304] but that it would then be strange, that Josephus should mention him twice in connection with Abtalion, and not with his contemporary Hillel. If however by reason of this connection we take Hillel and Shammai to be meant by Pollio and Sameas,[1305] there is against this identification, first the difference of the names Pollio and Hillel, and then the designation of Sameas as the disciple of Pollio, while Shammai was certainly no disciple of Hillel. All things considered, the connection of Sameas and Pollio with Shemaiah and Abtalion seems not only the more obvious, but the more probable.[1306]
[1297] Both besides Aboth i. 4, 5 only in Chagiga ii. 2; Sota ix 9. Joses ben Joeser also in Chagiga ii. 7; Edujoth viii. 4. According to Chagiga ii. 7, Joses ben Joeser was a priest, and indeed a pious one (חָסִיד) amongst the priesthood. The information in Sota ix. 9, that since the death of Joses ben Joeser and Joses ben Johanan, there had been no more אשכולות, is obscure. Since the Mishna itself here refers to Micah 7:1, it is probable that אשכולות is to be taken in its usual signification (grapes), as a figurative designation of men who could afford mental refreshment. Others desire to take it like σχολαί. Comp. Herzfeld, iii. 246-249. Derenbourg, pp. 65, 75, 456 sqq.
[1298] The two only in Aboth i. 6, 7 and Chagiga ii. 2. Instead of Nithai (נתאי or נתיי) there is good testimony in both passages (Cod. de Rossi 138, Cambridge University Additional, 470. 1, also the Jerusalem Talmud, Chagiga ii. 2) for מתאי or מתיי, i.e. Matthew, which is perhaps preferable. The native place of Nithai (ארבל) is the present Irbid, north-west of Tiberias, where ruins of an ancient synagogue, the building of which is of course ascribed by tradition to Nithai, are still found (see § 27, note 89a). Comp. Herzfeld, iii. 251 sq. Derenbourg, p. 93 sq.
[1299] On his relations with Alexander Jannaeus and Alexandra, see above, § 10. Camp. beside Aboth i. 8-9, Chagiga ii. 2, also Taanith iii. 8, Sanhedrin vi. 4. Landau in the Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1853, pp. 107-122, 177-180. Herzfeld, iii. 251 sq. Gräts, Gesch. der Juden, vol. iii. 3rd ed. pp. 665-669 (note 14). Derenbourg, pp. 96-111.
[1300] Antt. xiv. 9. 4.
[1301] Antt. xv. 1. 1.
[1302] Antt. xv. 10. 4.
[1303] The name שְׁמַעְיָה, which also frequently occurs in the Old Testament, especially in Nehemiah and Chronicles, is rendered in the LXX. by Σαμαία, Σαμαίας, Σαμείας and Σεμείας. The name Πωλίων is not indeed identical with Abtalion, but, on the contrary, like the Latin Pollio. It is well known however, that besides their Hebrew, the Jews often bore like-sounding Greek or Latin names (Jesus and Jason, Saul and Paulus, etc.).
[1304] שמאי or שמיי (probably only an abbreviation of שמעיה, see Derenbourg, p. 95) may very well be rendered by Σαμέας in Greek, as ינאי by Ἰαννέας in Antt. xiii. 12. 1.
[1305] So e.g. Arnold in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st. ed. vi. 97.
[1306] Comp. on both, beside Aboth i. 10, 11 and Chagiga ii. 2, also Edujoth i. 3, v. 6. Landau in the Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1858, pp. 317-329. Herzfeld, iii. 253 sqq. Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, 3rd ed. iii. 671 sq. (note 17). Derenbourg, pp. 116-118, 149 sq., 463 sq. Hamburger, Real-Enc., Div. ii. p. 1113 sq. (art. “Semaja”).
Hillel and Shammai are by far the most renowned among the five pairs.[1307] An entire school of scribes, who separated, if not in principle, yet in a multitude of legal decisions, in two different directions, adhered to each of them. This circumstance certainly makes it evident, that both are of eminent importance in the history of Jewish law. Both indeed manifestly laboured with special zeal and ingenuity to give a more subtle completeness to the law, but it must not therefore be supposed, that their personal life and acts stand out in the clear light of history. What we know of them with certainty is comparatively very little. In the Mishna, the only trustworthy authority, they are each mentioned barely a dozen times.[1308] And what we know of them from later sources bears almost always the impress of the legendary. Hillel, called “the elder,” הַוָּקֵן,[1309] to distinguish him from others, is said to have sprung from the family of David,[1310] and to have immigrated from Babylon to Palestine. Being poor he was obliged to hire himself as a day-labourer to earn a living for himself and his family and to meet the expenses of instruction. His zeal for study was so great that on one occasion, not being able to pay the entrance-fee into the Bethha-Midrash, he climbed up to the window to listen to the instruction. As this happened in winter, he was frozen with cold, and was found in this position by his astonished teachers and colleagues.[1311] Tradition tells strange things of the learning he acquired by such zeal. He understood all tongues, and even the language of the mountains, hills, valleys, trees, plants, of wild and tame animals and of daemons.[1312] At all events he was the most celebrated jurist of his age, but he was no more president of the Sanhedrim than was any other learned scribe of the time. The leading features of his character were the gentleness and kindness of which singular proofs are related.[1313] It is manifested in the first of the maxims given above: “Be a disciple of Aaron, a lover and maker of peace, love men and attract them to the law.” Shammai, noted for sternness, and also called “the elder,” הַוָּקֵן, was the antipodes of the gentle Hillel.[1314] The following example of his rigorous zeal for the literal observance of the law is given in the Mishna. When his daughter-in-law brought forth a child on the feast of Tabernacles, he had the ceiling broken through and the roof over the bed covered with boughs, that the newborn child also might keep the feast according to the precept of the law.[1315]
[1307] On both, especially on Hillel, see Biesenthal in Fürst’s Literaturbl. des Orients, 1848, Nos. 43-46. Kämpf in the same, 1849, Nos. 10-38. Arnold in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. 96-98 (and the older literature there cited). Herzfeld, iii. 257 sqq. Grätz, iii. 222 sqq. Jost, i. 255-270. Ewald, Jahrb. der bibl. Wissenschaft, vol. x. pp. 56-83. Gesch. des Volkes Isr. vol. v. 12-48. Geiger, Das Judenthum und seine Gesch. i. 99-107. Delitzsch, Jesu und Hillel, 1866 (2nd ed. 1867). Keim, Gesch. Jesu, i. 268-272. Derenbourg, pp. 176-192. Strack in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. vi. 113-115. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 401-412. Bacher, Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1882, pp. 100-110. Goitein, Magazin für die Wissensch. des Judenth. 11th year, 1884, pp. 1-16, 49-87.
[1308] Hillel is mentioned in the Mishna only in the following passages: Shebiith x. 3; Chagiga ii. 2; Gittin iv. 3; Baba mezia v. 9; Edujoth i. 1-4; Aboth i. 12-14, ii. 4-7, iv. 5, v. 17; Arachin ix. 4; Nidda i. 1. Shammai only in the following: Maaser sheni ii. 4, 9; Orla ii. 5; Sukka ii. 8; Chagiga ii. 2; Edujoth i. 1-4, 10, 11; Aboth i. 12, 15, v. 17; Kelim xxii. 4; Nidda i. 1.
[1309] Shebiith x. 3; Arachin ix. 4.
[1310] Jer. Taanith iv. 2, fol. 68a; Bereshith rabba c. 98, on Genesis 49:10 (see Bereshith rabba, translated by Wünsche, pp. 485, 557).
[1311] Delitzsch, Jesus und Hillel, pp. 9-11.
[1312] Delitzech, Jesus und Hillel, p. 8.
[1313] See Delitzsch, p. 31 sq.
[1314] Orla ii. 5; Sukka ii. 8.
[1315] Sukka ii. 8.
The tendencies of their respective schools correspond with the mildness of Hillel and the strictness of Shammai. The school of Hillel decided legal questions in a mitigated, that of Shammai in an aggravated sense.[1316] As they are however only minutiae on which the difference turns, it will not be worth while to follow the contrast into further details.[1317] Some examples may suffice. The command to prepare no food on the Sabbath was extended to laying-hens, and hence it was debated, whether and under what conditions an egg laid upon a holy day might or might not be eaten.[1318] Or it was discussed, whether fringes (Zizith) were needful or not to a square linen night-dress;[1319] or whether on a holy day a ladder might be carried from one pigeon-house to another, or might only be slanted from one hole to another.[1320] Of ideas of reformation, which Jewish self-love would so willingly have us believe in, there is not, as we see, a single word. In practice the milder school of Hillel gained in the course of years the upper hand, though in many points it voluntarily relinquished its own view and assented to those of the school of Shammai,[1321] while in others neither the opinion of Hillel nor that of Shammai was subsequently followed.[1322]
[1316] Edujoth iv. 1-12, v. 1-5.
[1317] For the sake of those who may desire to go farther to the subject I here give all those passages in the Mishna in which differences between the two schools are mentioned. Berachoth i. 3, viii. 1-8; Pea iii. 1, vi. 1, 2, 5, vii. 6; Demai i. 3, vi. 6; Kilajim ii. 6, iv. 1, 5, vi. 1; Shebiith i. 1, iv. 2, 4, 10, v. 4, 8, viii. 3; Terumoth i. 4, v. 4; Maaseroth iv. 2; Maaser sheni ii. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, iii. 6, 7, 9, 13, iv. 8, v. 3, 6, 7; Challa i. 6; Orla ii. 4; Shabbath i. 4-9, iii. 1, xxi. 3; Erubin i. 2, vi. 4, 6, viii. 6; Pesachim i. 1, iv. 5, viii. 8, x. 2, 6; Shekalim ii. 3, viii. 6; Sukka i. 1, 7, ii. 7, iii. 5, 9; Beza i. 1-9, ii. 1-5; Rosh hashana i. 1; Chagiga i. 1-3, ii. 3, 4; Jebamoth i. 4, iii. 1, 5, iv. 3, vi. 6, xiii. 1, xv. 2, 3; Kethuboth v. 6, viii. 1, 6; Nedarim iii. 2, 4; Nasir ii. 1, 2, iii. 6, 7, v. 1, 2, 3, 5; Sota iv. 2; Gittin iv. 5, viii. 4, 8, 9, ix. 10; Kiddushin i. 1; Baba mezia iii. 12; Baba bathra ix. 8, 9; Edujoth i. 7-14, iv. 1-12, v. 1-5; Sebachim iv. 1; Chullin i. 2, viii. 1, xi. 2; Bechoroth v. 2; Kerithoth i. 6; Kelim ix. 2, xi. 3, xiv. 2, xviii. 1, xx. 2, 6, xxii. 4, xxvi. 6, xxviii. 4, xxix. 8; Ohaloth ii. 3, v. 1-4, vii. 3, xi. 1, 3-6, 8, xiii. 1, 4, xv. 8, xviii. 1, 4, 8; Para xii. 10; Tohoroth ix. 1, 5, 7, x. 4; Mikwaoth i. 5, iv. 1, v. 6, x. 6; Nidda ii. 4, 6, iv. 3, v. 9, x. 1, 4, 6-8; Machshirin i. 2-4, iv. 4, 5, v. 9; Sabim i. 1-2; Tebul jom i. 1; Jadajim iii. 5; Ukzin iii. 6, 8, 11; בית שמאי only: Berachoth vi. 5; Demai iii. 1; Kilajim viii. 5; Terumoth iv. 3; Orla ii. 5, 12; Beza ii. 6; Edujoth iii. 10; Mikwaoth iv. 5. This list of passages shows that the differences relate chiefly to the matters treated of in the first, second, third and fifth parts of the Mishna, i.e. (1) religious dues, (2) the Sabbaths and holy days, (3) the marriage laws, and (4) the laws of purification, and scarcely at all to those treated of in the fourth and fifth parts (civil and criminal law and the laws of sacrifice). The latter, which do not affect the religious acts of private individuals, but either purely civil or sacerdotal transactions, were not discussed with equal zeal in the schools. The civil and criminal law did not on the whole excite the same interest as religious decrees. It is however probable that the sacrificial laws had already been dealt with by the more ancient priestly scribes, and lay outside the direct sphere of Rabbinical authority.
[1318] Beza i. 1; Edujoth iv. 1. Delitzsch, p. 21 sq.
[1319] Edujoth iv. 10.
[1320] Beza i. 3.
[1321] Edujoth i. 12-14.
[1322] E.g. Edujoth i. 1-3. Comp. the passages cited in note 155.
An enactment, contrary indeed to the law, but authorized by the state of things, and certainly of salutary results, is connected with the name of Hillel. The legal appointment of a release of all debts every seventh year (Deuteronomy 15:1-11) entailed the evil consequence, “that people hesitated to lend each other money,” although the law itself warned against backwardness in lending on account of this institution (Deuteronomy 15:9). In order then to do away with this evil, the so-called Prosbol (פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל = προσβολή), i.e. the delivery of a declaration, or as we should say a registered declaration, was introduced by Hillel’s influence.[1323] It was, that is to say, allowed to a creditor to make in court a declaration to the following effect: מוֹסֵר אֲנִי לָכֶם אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי הַדַּיָּנִים שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁכָּל חוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי שֶׁאֶגְבֶּנּוּ כָל זְמָן שֶׁאֶרְצֶה, “I so and so deliver[1324] to you the judges of such and such a place (the declaration), that I may at any time I choose demand the payment of all my outstanding debts.” Such a reservation made before a court secured the creditor even during the Sabbath year, and he needed not to be backward in lending money on its account. Thus credit was again laid upon a more solid foundation.[1325]
[1323] According to other פרוזבול = πρὸς βουλήν, which is however very improbable.
[1324] מסר, “to deliver” (whence also מָסוֹרָה, tradition), answers to the Greek word προσβάλλειν.
[1325] Comp. on the Prosbol especially, Shebiith x. 3-7 (the formula will be found Shebiith x. 4); the institution by Hillel, Shebiith x. 3; Gittin iv. 3; generally: Pea iii. 6; Moed katan iii. 3; Kethuboth ix. 9; Ukzin iii. 10. Such Prosbol declarations are indeed to be understood by the συμβόλαια τῶν δεδανεικότων, which, according to Joseph. Bell. Jud., were deposited among the archives at Jerusalem. Literature: Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. col. 1806 sq. Guisius in Surenhusius’ Mishna, i. 196. Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. i. 265 sq. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 939 sq. (art. “Prosbol”). Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. s.v. פרוזבול.
A Simon, said also to be the father of Gamaliel I., is generally named by both Jewish and Christian scholars as the son of Hillel. The existence of this Simon, and with him the whole genealogical relation, is however very questionable.[1326] We do not reach a really historical personage till Gamaliel I., רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַוָּקֵן, as he is called in the Mishna, in distinction from Gamaliel II.[1327] It was at his feet that the Apostle Paul sat (Acts 22:3); and it was he who once gave counsel in the Sanhedrim to release the accused apostles, since their work, if it were of man, would come to nought, while if it were of God, it was in vain to oppose it (Acts 5:34-39). Christian tradition has in consequence of this represented him as being a Christian,[1328] while Jewish tradition glorifies him as one of the most celebrated teachers. “Since Rabban Gamaliel the elder died there has been no more reverence for the law (כְּבוֹד הַתּוֹרָה); and purity and abstinence (טָהֳרָה וּפְרִישׁוּת) died out at the same time.”[1329] That he was as little the president of the Sanhedrim. as Hillel was, appears from Acts 5:34 sqq., where he figures as a simple member of it. Much confusion concerning him has arisen, especially among Christian scholars, by attributing to him matters which apply to Gamaliel II., e.g. labours at Jabne and elsewhere.
[1326] He is not mentioned in the Mishna at all. His name first occurs in the Babylonian Talmud, and there not as the son of Hillel, but only as holder of the dignity of Nasi between Hillel and Gamaliel I. The whole passage (Shabbath 15a, below) is as follows: הלל ושמעון גמליאל והמעון נהגו נשיאותן לפני הבית מאה שנה. “Hillel and Simon, Gamaliel and Simon held the dignity of Nasi, during the time of the existence of the temple, for a hundred years,” i.e. during the last hundred years before the destruction of the temple. Considering the worthlessness of this late Talmudic information, B. Lebrecht e.g. is quite justified in disputing the existence of this Simon altogether (Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitachr. für Wissensch. und Leben, xi. 1875, p. 278, note). For older views of him, see Wolf, Biblioth. Hebr. ii. 861 sq.
[1327] Orla ii. 12; Rosh hashana ii. 5; Jebamoth xvi. 7; Sota ix. 15; Gittin iv. 2-3. In all these passages he is expressly called “the elder” (הַוָּקֵן). Independently of Aboth i. 16, this elder Gamaliel is probably meant also in Pea ii. 6 and Shekalim vi. 1. In other passages this is doubtful. In particular the famous jurist Slav Tabi (טָבִי) was not in the service of the elder, but of the younger Gamaliel (Berachoth ii. 7; Pesachim vii. 2; Sukka ii. 1). Comp. in general, Graunii, Historia Gamalielis, Viteb. 1687. Wolf, Biblioth. Hebraea, ii. 821 sq. The same, Curae philol. in Nov. Test. on Acts 5:34. Palmer, Paulus und Gamaliel, Giessen 1806. Winer, RWB. i. 389. Pressel in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. 656 sq. Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, 3rd ed. iii. 373 sqq. Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. i. 281 sqq., 423. Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, vi. p. 256 sq. Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 239-246. Schenkel in the Bibellex. ii. 328-330. Hamburger, Real-Enc., Div. ii. art. “Gamaliel I.”
[1328] Clement. Recogn. i. 65 sqq. Comp. also the narrative of the presbyter Lucianus of Jerusalem on the finding of the bones of the martyr Stephen (in Latin in Surius, Vitae Sanctorum, iv. 502 sqq. (3 August); Baronius, Annal. ad ann. 415, and in the Benedictine edition of Augustine, vol. vii. Appendix), according to which the bones of Nicodemus, Gamaliel and his son Abiba, who all here figure as Christians, were found at the same time as those of Stephen. This legend of Lucianus, which was already known to Gennadius, Vitae, 46, 47 (see also Fabricius, Biblioth. graeca, ed. Harles, x. 327), was drawn upon by the presbyter Eustratius of Constantinople, 6th century, in his book on the state of the dead, cap. 28 (published in Greek by Leo Allatius 1655; see Fabricius, Bibl. gr. x. 725, xi. 623). Lastly, Photius gives extracts from Eustratius in his Bibliotheca cod. 171. On a monument of the three saints, Gamaliel, Abibas and Nicodemus at Pisa, see Wagenseil on Sota ix. 15 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 314 sq.). Comp. also Thilo, Cod. apocr. p. 501; Nilles, Kalendarium Manuale (1879), p. 232, and the literature there cited.
[1329] Sota ix. 15. כְּבוֹד הַתּוֹרָה means “reverence for the law;” see Wagenseil in Surenhusius’ Mishna, iii. 312, n. 13, 315, n. 20. Comp. Nedarim ix. 1: כבוד אביו = “respect towards his father.” So too Aboth iv. 12. The sense thus is, that no one any longer had such reverence for the law as Rabban Gamaliel the elder.
His son Simon also enjoyed extraordinary fame as a scribe.[1330] Josephus says of him:[1331] Ὁ δὲ Σίμων οὗτος ἦν πόλεως μὲν Ἱεροσολύμων, γένους δὲ σφόδρα λαμπροῦ, τῆς δὲ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσεως, οἳ περὶ τὰ πάτρια νόμιμα δοκοῦσι τῶν ἄλλων ἀκριβείᾳ διαφέρειν. Ἦν δʼ οὗτος ἀνὴρ πλήρης συνέσεώς τε καὶ λογισμοῦ, δυνάμενός τε πράγματα κακῶς κείμενα φρονήσει τῇ ἑαυτοῦ διορθώσασθαι. He lived at the time of the Jewish war, and during its first period (A.D. 66-68) took a prominent part in the conduct of affairs. Still neither was he at any time president of the Sanhedrim.
[1330] Comp. Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 9; Vita, 38, 39, 44, 60. Jost, i. 446 sqq. Derenbourg, pp. 270-272, 474 sq. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 1121. By the Rabban Simon ben Gamaliel, so frequently mentioned in the Mishna, is generally intended the son of Gamaliel II. So especially in Aboth i. 18; Kerithoth i. 7 alone, besides Aboth i. 17, refers perhaps to Simon the son of Gamaliel I.
[1331] Vita, 38.
Of profound importance to the further development of scribism was the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the hitherto relative independence of the Jewish commonwealth. The ancient Sanhedrin, at the head of which had stood the Sadducean high priests, now for ever retired from the stage. The Pharisaic teachers of the law, who during the last century before the destruction of the temple had already actually exercised very great influence, became the sole leaders of the people. Hence the direct result of the political fall was an increase of Rabbinical power and an exaltation of Rabbinical studies. Henceforth our authorities became more copious,—the first codification of Jewish law having been undertaken by men directly connected with the generation which survived the fall of the city.
Jamnia or Jabne, which had since the Maccabaean period been chiefly inhabited by Jews, became after the destruction of the holy city a chief seat of these studies. The most distinguished of those scholars, who survived the fall of Jerusalem, seem to have settled here.[1332] Lydda or Lud is besides mentioned as an abode of eminent scribes.[1333] later on, perhaps subsequent to the middle of the second century after Christ, Tiberias became a centre of scribism.
[1332] See in general, Shekalim i. 4; Rosh hashana ii. 8-9, iv. 1-2; Kethuboth iv. 6; Sanhedrin xi. 4; Edujoth ii. 4; Aboth iv. 4; Bechoroth, iv. 5, vi. 8, Kelim v. 4; Para vii. 6.
[1333] Rosh hashana i. 6; Taanith iii. 9; Baba mezia iv. 3; Jadajim iv. 3.
The most important scribe in the decade after the destruction of Jerusalem was Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai.[1334] The period of his activity is evident from the circumstance, that he altered several legal enactments or customs “after the temple was destroyed.”[1335] His place of residence seems to have been chiefly Jabne.[1336] But Berur Chail (ברור חיל) is also mentioned as a scene of his labours.[1337] And he must likewise have temporarily sojourned in Arab (ערב), where various legal questions were propounded for his decision.[1338] Among his legal innovations perhaps the most prominent is his doing away with the water of bitterness to be drunk by one accused of adultery.[1339] How closely connected he still was with matters as they were before the destruction of Jerusalem, is seen by the fact of his disputing concerning legal questions with Sadducees,[1340] who soon after it disappear from history. He is also the vehicle of ancient traditions which are referred to Moses himself.[1341] Legend tells us of him what Josephus tells us, of himself, viz. that he predicted to Vespasian his future elevation to the imperial dignity.[1342] R. Elieser ben Hyrkanos, R. Joshua ben Chananiah, R. Joses the priest, R. Simon ben Nathanael and R. Eleasar ben Arach are named in the Mishna as his five disciples.[1343] The best known and most eminent are the two first named, R. Elieser and R. Joshua.
[1334] See concerning him the Hebrew works of Frankel, Brüll and Weiss (titles above, § 3), also Jost, Gesch. des Judenthums und seiner Sekten, ii. 13 sqq. Landau, Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1851-52, pp. 163-176. Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 10 sqq. Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 266 sq., 276-288, 302-318. Hamburger, Real-Enc., Div. ii. pp. 464-473. Bacher, Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1882, pp. 145-165. Spitz, Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai, Rector der Hochschule zu Jabneh, Dissertation, Leipzig 1883. He is mentioned in the Mishna in the following passages: Shabbath xvi. 7, xxii. 3; Shekalim i. 4; Sukka ii. 5, iii. 12; Rosh hashana iv. 1, 3; Kethuboth xiii. 1-2; Sota v. 2, 5, ix. 9, 15; Edujoth viii. 3, 7; Aboth ii. 8-9; Menachoth x. 5; Kelim ii. 2, xvii. 16; Jadajim v. 3, 6. Only as בִּי זכאי, Sanhedrin v. 2. For the passages in the Tosefta, see the index to Zuckermandel’s edition.
[1335] Sukka iii. 12; Rosh hashana iv. 1, 3, 4; Menachoth x. 5.
[1336] Shekalim i. 4; Rosh hashana iv. 1.
[1337] Sanhedrin 32b; Tosefta, Maaseroth, 82. 13 (comp. Jer. Demai iii 1, fol. 23b; Jer. Maaseroth ii. 3, fol. 49d). Derenbourg, 307. Many, as e.g. B. Derenbourg, are of opinion that Johanan ben Sakkai was driven from Jabne by Gamaliel II. and retired to Berur Chail.
[1338] Shabbath xvi. 7, xxii. 3. Arab is a small town in Galilee not far from Sepphoris. See Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 318, note 3.
[1339] Sota ix. 9. Nine decrees (תקנות) introduced by him are enumerated in the Talmud, Rosh hashana 31b; Sota 40a. Derenbourg, p. 304 sq.
[1340] Jadajim iv. 6.
[1341] Edujoth viii. 7; Jadajim iv. 3, fin. Comp. above, p. 272.
[1342] Midrash rabba on Lamentations 1, 5. Derenbourg, p. 282 sq.; Wünsche, Der Midrash Echa rabbati (1881), p. 66 sqq.
[1343] Aboth ii. 8-9. The abbreviation R. means Rabbi, while the higher title Rabban is generally written in full.
R. Zadok, or as his name would be more correctly pronounced, R. Zadduk,[1344] was about contemporary with Rabban Johanan ben Sakkai. He is said to have lived before the destruction of the temple, and also to have held intercourse with Gamaliel II., Joshua and Elieser.[1345] He is in fact often mentioned in conjunction with them in the Mishna.[1346] In certain passages, according to which the date of his life would have to be considerably postponed, a subsequent R. Zadok is probably intended.[1347]
[1344] See concerning him, Derenbourg, pp. 342-344. Racher, Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1882, pp. 208-211. In the Mishna, Terumoth x. 9; Pesachim vii. 2; Sukka ii. 5; Nedarim ix. 1; Edujoth iii. 8, vii. 1-4; Aboth iv. 5; Bechoroth i. 6; Kelim xii. 4-5; Mikwaoth v. 5. On Shabbath xx. 2, xxiv. 5, comp. note 185. For the passages in the Tosefta, see the index to Zuckermandel’s edition. The pronunciation Zadduk is pointed according to the Cod. de Rossi 138. Comp. Σαδδούκ in the LXX. in Ezekiel, Ezra and Nehemiah.
[1345] Proofs of both in Derenbourg and Bacher’s above-named works.
[1346] With Gamaliel II., Pesachim vii. 2; with Joshua, Edujoth vii. 1 = Bechoroth i. 6; with Elieser, Nedarim ix. 1.
[1347] So Shabbath xx. 2, xxiv. 5. Comp. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, p. 215. If we acknowledge the existence of this subsequent R. Zadok, the question of course arises, whether other passages must not also be referred to him.
To the first decades after the destruction of the temple belongs also a distinguished priestly scribe, R. Chananiah, “president of the priests” (סגן הכהנים).[1348] He relates what his father had done, and what he had himself seen in the temple,[1349] and appears in the Mishna almost entirely as a narrator of the details of the priestly ritual.[1350] It is characteristic of him as an eminent priest, that he exhorts to prayer for the welfare of the heathen authorities.[1351]
[1348] See Derenbourg, pp. 368-370. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 131, and Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, pp. 216-219. His name according to the best authorities is not Chanina but Chananiah (so Cod. de Rossi 138, and the Cambridge MS. edited by Lowe). On the office of a priestly סגן, see above, p. 259.
[1349] Sebachim ix. 3, xii. 4.
[1350] See in general, Pesachim i. 6; Shekalim iv. 4, vi. 1; Edujoth ii. 1-3; Aboth iii. 2; Sebachim ix. 3, xii. 4; Menachoth x. 1; Negaim i. 4; Para iii. 1.
[1351] Aboth iii. 2.
R. Elieser ben Jacob[1352] also belongs to the first generation after the destruction of the temple. For it is very probable that a former scribe of the same name must be distinguished from the considerably later R. Elieser ben Jacob so frequently quoted in the Mishna. He flourished not long after the destruction of the temple,[1353] in which his uncle had ministered as a Levite,[1354] and he is frequently quoted as an authority in the treatise Middoth;[1355] nay, subsequent tradition even ascribes to him the composition of the whole treatise.[1356] It can no longer be decided in particular cases which passages are to be attributed to him and which to R. Elieser ben Jacob the younger. Perhaps the statements on circumstances of ritual may be referred to the elder.[1357]
[1352] Derenbourg, p. 374 sq. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, pp. 228-233.
[1353] So also Derenbourg, 375, n. 2, and Bacher, 228. The younger Elieser ben Jacob was a contemporary of R. Simon about A.D. 150 (Para ix. 2), and narrates in the name of Chananiah ben Chakinai, who again narrates in that of R. Akiba (Kilajim iv. 8. Tosefta, Negaim 617. 38; Tohoroth 672. 15, ed. Zuckermandel).
[1354] Middoth i. 2.
[1355] Middoth i. 2, 9, ii. 5, 6, v. 4. Comp. Shekalim vi. 3.
[1356] Joma 16a. Derenbourg, 374, n. 1.
[1357] E.g. the statements concerning the marriages of priests (Bikkurim i. 5; Kiddushin iv. 7), the sacrificial rites (Menachoth v. 6, ix. 3; Tamid v. 2), the first-born of cattle (Bechoroth iii. 1), the sacred singers (Arachin ii. 6), the offerings of proselytes (Kerithoth ii. 1).
Rabban Gamaliel II., son of Simon and grandson of Gamaliel I., the most renowned scholar of the turn of the century (about A.D. 90-110), lived only a few decades later than Johanan ben Sakkai.[1358] The tribunal at Jabne, of which he was the head, was in his days generally acknowledged as the chief authority in Israel.[1359] The most famous scholars were here assembled about him, and in this respected circle Gamaliel was reckoned the decisive authority.[1360] Among the scholars in close intercourse with him, R. Joshua, about his equal in age, and R. Akiba, his junior, were the most eminent.[1361] On the other hand, Gamaliel does not seem to have entered into close relations with his famous contemporary R. Elieser ben Hyrcanus. At least there is no trace of this in the Mishna, while subsequent tradition on the contrary relates that Elieser was excommunicated by Gamaliel (see below). Gamaliel once undertook in conjunction with R. Joshua, R. Akiba and the equally renowned R. Eleasar ben Asariah, a sea voyage to Rome, which obtained a certain celebrity in Rabbinical literature.[1362] He is said to have been on one occasion removed by the seventy-two elders from the presidential dignity on account of his too autocratic dealings, and R Eleasar ben Asariah to have been appointed to replace him. Gamaliel was however, on showing contrition, soon reinstated in his office, which Eleasar voluntarily vacated.[1363] The elevation of Eleasar by the seventy-two elders to the headship of the school is at any rate evidenced by the Mishna.[1364] In his legal decisions Gamaliel followed the school of Hillel; it is mentioned as an exception, that in three things he decided in an aggravated sense, according to the school of Shammai.[1365] In general he is characterized as much by legal strictness on the one hand,[1366] as on the other by a certain amount of worldly conformity, nay of candour of judgment.[1367]
[1358] See concerning him the Hebrew works of Frankel, Brüll and Weiss, also Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. ii. 25 sqq. Landau, Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1851-52, pp. 283-295, 323-335. Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iv. 30 sqq., 423 sq. Derenbourg, pp. 306-313, 319-346. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii. 237-250. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, pp. 245-267. The chronology results from the fact that his younger contemporary Akiba played a part in the Barkochba war.
[1359] Rosh hashana ii. 8-9; Kelim v. 4. Comp. Derenbourg, pp. 319-322. He seems to have sojourned but temporarily at Kefar-Othnai, where we only once (Gittin i. 5) meet with Gamaliel.
[1360] Hence when once during a protracted absence of Gamaliel it had to be decided, whether the year was to be a leap year, this was only done with the reservation that Gamaliel should agree to it (Edujoth vii. 7). Comp. also for the authoritative position of Gamaliel, the formula “Rabban Gamaliel and the elders” (Maaser sheni v. 9; Shabbath xvi. 8; Erubin x. 10).
[1361] On the mutual relations of Gamaliel, Joshua and Akiba, comp. especially, Maaser sheni v. 9; Erubin iv. 1; Rosh hashana ii. 8-9; Maaser sheni ii. 7; Sukka iii. 9; Kerithoth iii. 7-9; Negaim vii. 4. Gamaliel and Joshua, Jadajim iv. 4. Gamaliel and Akiba, Rosh hashana i. 6; Jebamoth xvi. 7.
[1362] Erubin iv. 1-2; Maaser sheni v. 9; Shabbath xvi. 8. Grätz, Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1851-52, pp. 192-202. Derenbourg, pp. 334-340. Renan, Les évangiles (1877), p. 307 sqq. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, p. 251 sqq.
[1363] Jer. Berachoth iv. 1, fol. 7ed; Bab. Berachoth 27b (in German in Pinner, Talmud Babli Tractat Berachoth, 1842, in Latin in Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. 337, iii. 247). Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. ii. 28 sqq. Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 35 sqq. Derenbourg, pp. 327-329.
[1364] Sebachim i. 3; Jadajim iii. 5, iv. 2.
[1365] Beza ii. 6; Edujoth iii. 10.
[1366] Berachoth ii. 5-6.
[1367] Comp. beside the journey to Rome, his intercourse with the governor (hegemôn) of Syria (Edujoth vii. 7) and his visit to the bath of Aphrodite at Akko, although there was there a statue of the heathen goddess (Aboda sara iii. 4).
The two most celebrated contemporaries of Gamaliel were R. Joshua ben Chananiah and R. Elieser ben Hyrcanus, both pupils of Johanan ben Sakkai.[1368] We frequently find them disputing with each other on legal questions, and Akiba the younger taking part in these discussions.[1369] With Gamaliel however Joshua only, and not Elieser, seems to have been in familiar intercourse. According to later tradition this would be explained by the fact that Elieser was excommunicated by Gamaliel.[1370] R. Joshua was descended from a Levitical family.[1371] He was of a gentle and yielding disposition, and hence submitted to the unbending Gamaliel.[1372] “Since the death of R. Joshua, there is no longer any kind-heartedness (טוֹבָה) in the world.”[1373] His motto was, “Envy, evil desire and hatred bring a man out of the world.[1374] Pekiin or Bekiin (עקיעין, בקיעין), is named as the place of his labours.[1375] His close relations with Gamaliel however lead to the conclusion that he also resided partly at Jabne. Tradition relates of him, among other things, that he had various conversations with the Emperor Hadrian on religious subjects.[1376] In contrast with the yielding Joshua, Elieser was of a firm, unbending character, and a very strict adherent to tradition, over which, by reason of his faithful memory and extensive scholarship, he had more influence than any other.[1377] His teacher Johnnan ben Sakkai boasted of him, that he was like a well coated with lime, which does not loose a single drop.[1378] He was not to be moved by any reasons or representations from what he knew as tradition. Hence his strained relations with Gamaliel, although he is said to have been his brother-in-law.[1379] His dwelling-place was Lydda.[1380] The strange opinion of a modern scholar, that he was inclined to Christianity, nay was secretly a Christian,[1381] rests upon a legend which really proves the contrary. Elieser is at one time brought before a heathen tribunal, and looks upon this as a just punishment of God for his having been pleased with the ingenious solution of a legal question, which a Jewish Christian had communicated to him as having been derived from Jesus.[1382]
[1368] Aboth ii. 8. Comp. Edujoth viii 7; Jadajim iv. 3, fin.
[1369] On the mutual relations of Joshua, Elieser and Akiba, comp. especially Pesachim vi. 2; Jebamoth viii. 4; Nedarim x. 6; Nasir vii. 4; Edujoth ii. 7. On Joshua and Elieser, Pesachim vi. 5; Taanith i. 1; Sebachim vii. 4, viii. 10; Nasir vii. 4. On Joshua and Akiba, Pesachim ix. 6; Sanhedrin vii. 11. On Elieser and Akiba, Pea vii. 7; Kerithoth iii. 10; Shebiith viii. 9-10.
[1370] Jer. Moed Katan iii. 1, fol. 81d; Bab. Baba mezia 59b; Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. ii. 35. Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 47. Derenbourg, 324 sq.
[1371] This appears from Maaser sheni v. 9. Comp. on Joshua, the Hebrew works of Frankel, Brüll and Weise; also Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 50 sqq., 426 sq. Derenbourg, pp. 319 sqq., 416 sqq. Hamburger, Real-Enc. ii 510-520. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, pp. 340-359, 433-464, 481-496.
[1372] Rosh hashana ii. 8-9. Derenbourg, 325-327.
[1373] Sota ix. 15.
[1374] Aboth ii. 11: עין הרע ויצר הרע ושנאת הבריות.
[1375] פקיעין, Sanhedrin 32; Tosefta, Sota 307, 8. בקיעין, Jer. Chagiga i. 1. Derenbourg, 307.
[1376] Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, pp. 461 sqq., 481 sqq.
[1377] See the Hebrew works of Frankel, Brüll and Weiss; also Gratz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 43 sq., 425 sq. Derenbourg, 319 sqq., 366 sqq. Hamburger, ii. 162-168. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, pp. 289-315, 337-359, 433-445.
[1378] Aboth ii. 8.
[1379] Shabbath 116a. Derenbourg, 323.
[1380] Jadajim iv. 3; Sanhedrin 32b. Derenbourg, 307.
[1381] Toetterman, R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanos sive de vi qua doctrina Christians primis seculis illustrissimos quosdam Judaeorum attraxit, Lipsiae 1877. Comp. Theol. Litztg. 1877, pp. 687-689.
[1382] There are two versions of this legend: (1) Aboda sara 16b in German in Ewald’s Aboda sarah oder der Götzendienst, 1868, pp. 120-122; (2) Midrash rabba on Eccles. i. 8 in German in Wünsche, Der Midrasch Koheleth, 1880, p. 14 sq. See in general, Jost, ii. 41 sq. Grätz, iv. 47. sq. Derenbourg, 357-360. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, p. 301.
R. Eleasar ben Asariah,[1383] a rich and eminent priest, whose genealogy is traced back to Ezra, also occupies an honourable position together with those last mentioned.[1384] His wealth was so great, that it was said that after his death there was no longer any wealth among the learned.[1385] His relations with Gamaliel, Joshua and Akiba, his journey with them to Rome, his elevation by the seventy-two elders to the office of president, and his voluntary relinquishment of this position have been already spoken of. It is evident even from these personal circumstances that he must have laboured in Jabne, a fact also testified elsewhere.[1386] He was also in personal relation with R. Ishmael and R. Tarphon, the contemporaries of Akiba.[1387]
[1383] See concerning him, Derenbourg, 327 sqq. Hamburger, ii 156-158. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, pp. 6-27. According to the best authorities, his name is not Elieser but Eleasar (in the Cod. de Rossi 138, and in the Cambridge MS. generally, לעזר).
[1384] Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, p. 7. That he was a priest is clear from Maaser sheni v. 9
[1385] Sota ix. 15.
[1386] Kethuboth iv. 6. Some sentences of Eleasar in Aboth iii. 17.
[1387] A disputation between him, Tarphon, Ishmael and Joshua is given Jadajim iv. 3. Eleasar and Ishmael in Tosefta, Berachoth 1, lin. 15, ed. Zuckermandel. Eleasar and Akiba, Tosefta, Berachoth i. 12; Shabbath 113. 23.
R. Dosa ben Archinos (or Harkinos) was another contemporary of Gamaliel and Joshua,[1388] Of him it is especially stated, that he induced Joshua to submit to Gamaliel.[1389]
[1388] See Derenbourg, 368 sq., 370 sq. Hamburger, ii. 155. His name is, in Cod. de Rossi 138, ארכינם, elsewhere generally הרכינס, but is in any case not like Hyrcanus, but Archinos.
[1389] Rosh hashana ii. 8-9. Comp. also Erubin iii. 9; Kethuboth xiii. 1-2; Edujoth iii. 1-6; Aboth iii. 10; Chullin xi. 2; Ohaloth iii. 1; Negaim i. 4.
Among the later men of this generation is also Eleasar ben Zadok, son of the already mentioned R. Zadok.[1390] The son was, as well as the father, intimately acquainted with Gamaliel, and hence gives information concerning his enactments and the legal customs of his house.[1391]
[1390] See concerning him, Derenbourg, pp. 342-344. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1082, pp. 211-215. As in the case of R. Zadok, so probably in that of Eleasar ben Zadok, we must distinguish between two scribes of the same name, an older and a younger (so Frankel, Darke hamishna, pp. 98,178; Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, p. 215; otherwise Derenbourg, p. 262, n. 2, 344, n. 4). The younger relates in the name of R. Meir (Kilajim vii. 2), and therefore did not live till the middle of the second century. The name of both is according to the best authority not Elieser but Eleasar (Cod. de Rossi 138, and the Cambridge MS. have chiefly לעזר).
[1391] Tosefta, Challa 99. 9; Shabbath iii. 15; Jom. tob. 202. 28, 204. 15-16; Kiddushin 336. 13 (ed. Zuckermandel).
R. Ishmael occupies an independent position among the scribes of the time.[1392] We find him indeed occasionally in Jabne.[1393] He was also intimate with his renowned contemporaries R. Joshua, Eleasar ben Asariah, Tarphon, and Akiba.[1394] His usual dwelling was however in the south of Palestine on the borders of Edom, in the village of Kephar-Asia (כפר עזיז), where Joshua once visited him.[1395] He seems, judging from his age, to have stood in nearer relation to Tarphon and Akiba than to Joshua; he questioned Joshua, and went “behind him” (like a pupil), while he was on equal terms with Tarphon and Akiba.[1396] It would be of special interest, if his father really did, as tradition asserts, also exercise the functions of high priest. The matter is however more than questionable, and only so far probable that he was of priestly descent.[1397] In the history of the Halachah, Ishmael represents a special tendency: in opposition to the artificial and arbitrary exegesis of Akiba, he adhered more to the simple and literal meaning of Scripture, but this must be understood in only a very comparative sense.[1398] The laying down of the thirteen Middoth, or exegetic rules for Halachic exegesis, is ascribed to him.[1399] A large portion of the exegetic material contained in two of the oldest Midrashim (Mechilta on Exodus, and Sifre on Numbers and Deuteronomy) comes from him and his disciples, even if these are not, as tradition asserts, the exclusive production of his school.[1400] According to the legend, Ishmael, like most of his contemporaries, is said to have died as a martyr in the Barkochba war.[1401]
[1392] See concerning him, Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 60 sqq., 427 sqq. Derenbourg, pp. 386-395; Hamburger, ii. 526-529. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, pp. 63 sqq., 116 sqq., 209 sqq. On the school of Ishmael, D. Hoffmann, Magazin für die Wissensch. des Judenth. xi. 1884, pp. 17-30.
[1393] Edujoth ii. 4.
[1394] Joshua and Ishmael, Kilajim vi. 4; Aboda sara ii.5; Tosefta, Para 638. 35. Akiba and Ishmael, Edujoth ii. 6; Mikwaoth vii. 1. On a disputation between Tarphon, Eleasar ben Asariah, Ishmael and Joshua, see Jadajim iv. 3. But that Joshua and Ishmael e.g. did not live in the same place is seen from Kilajim vi. 4; Tosefta, Bechoroth 536. 24. The same is evident with respect to Akiba from Erubin i. 2; Tosefta, Sabim 677. 6 (pupils of Ishmael are reporting to Akiba the instruction of the former).
[1395] On the borders of Edom, Kethuboth v. 8; in Kephar-Asis, Kilajim vi. 4; on Kephar-Asis, comp. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Kitchener and Conder, iii. 315, 348-350. Mikwaoth vii. 1, according to which people of Medaba, the well-known Moabite town, relate concerning his teaching, points to labours in Peraea.
[1396] Compare the passages cited in note 232. With respect to Joshua, Aboda sara ii. 5; Tosefta, Para 638. 35. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, p. 64.
[1397]a Derenbourg, p. 387 sq.
[1398] Comp. briefly, Hamburger, p. 528. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, p. 73 sq.
[1399] See above, p. 336; and Derenbourg, pp. 389-391.
[1400] The tradition is reduced to its true proportion e.g. in Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, p. 66 sq. Comp. also on the two Midrashim, § 3, above.
[1401] Grätz, iv. 175. Derenbourg, p. 436.
Among those scribes who also had intercourse with Gamaliel, Joshua and Elieser, but stood more or less in a relation of discipleship to them, by far the most celebrated was R. Akiba ben Joseph.[1402] He flourished about A.D. 110-135. His relations with Gamaliel, Joshua and Elieser have already been spoken of (notes [1403] [1404] [1405] He surpassed them all in influence and reputation. None gathered about him so large a number of pupils;[1406] none was so glorified by tradition. It is scarcely possible however to pluck the historically true from the garland of myths. Not even the place of his labours is known with certainty; from the Mishna it seems to have been Lydda,[1407] while the Babylonian Talmud names Bene-Barak (בני ברק).[1408] Such sentences of his as have been handed down are not only characteristic of his rigidly legal standpoint, but also show that he made dogmatic and philosophic questions the subjects of study.[1409] Like the ancient Zealots, he combined national patriotism with religious zeal. Hence he hailed the political hero Barkochba as the Messiah,[1410] and is said to have suffered martyrdom as one of the most eminent sacrifices for the national cause.[1411] Of his exegetic method it can only be said, that it is an exaggeration and degeneration of that which prevailed among the Rabbis in general, “it is the art of deducing heaps of Halachoth from every jot of the law.”[1412] To attain this, the principle was acted on, that no word of the text was superfluous, that even the slightest, the most apparently superfluous elements of the text contain the most important truths.[1413] It is of much more value than these exegetical tricks, and of real epoch-making importance in the history of Jewish law, that in the time of Akiba, and probably under his direction, the Halachah, which had hitherto been only orally propagated, was for the first time codified. The various materials were arranged according to the point of view of their actual matter, and what was current law was recorded in writing together with adductions of the divergent views of all the more eminent scribes. This work forms the foundation of the Mishna of R. Judah ha-Nasi, which has been preserved to us.[1414]
[1402] See concerning him the Hebrew works of Frankel, Brüll and Weiss; also Jost, Gesch. des Judenth. ii. 59 sqq. Landau, Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1854, pp. 45-51, 81-93, 130-148. Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 53 sqq.; Ewald’s Gesch. des Volkes Israel, vii. 376 sqq. Derenbourg, pp. 329-331, 395 sqq., 418 sqq. Hamburger, ii. 32-43. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, pp. 254 sqq., 297 sqq., 347 sqq., 419 sqq., 433 sqq. Gastfreund, Biographie des Tanaiten Rabi Akiba (in Hebrew), Lemberg 1871.
[1403] On the mutual relations of Gamaliel, Joshua and Akiba, comp. especially, Maaser sheni v. 9; Erubin iv. 1; Rosh hashana ii. 8-9; Maaser sheni ii. 7; Sukka iii. 9; Kerithoth iii. 7-9; Negaim vii. 4. Gamaliel and Joshua, Jadajim iv. 4. Gamaliel and Akiba, Rosh hashana i. 6; Jebamoth xvi. 7.
[1404] Erubin iv. 1-2; Maaser sheni v. 9; Shabbath xvi. 8. Grätz, Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1851-52, pp. 192-202. Derenbourg, pp. 334-340. Renan, Les évangiles (1877), p. 307 sqq. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1882, p. 251 sqq.
[1405] On the mutual relations of Joshua, Elieser and Akiba, comp. especially Pesachim vi. 2; Jebamoth viii. 4; Nedarim x. 6; Nasir vii. 4; Edujoth ii. 7. On Joshua and Elieser, Pesachim vi. 5; Taanith i. 1; Sebachim vii. 4, viii. 10; Nasir vii. 4. On Joshua and Akiba, Pesachim ix. 6; Sanhedrin vii. 11. On Elieser and Akiba, Pea vii. 7; Kerithoth iii. 10; Shebiith viii. 9-10.
[1406] Derenbourg, p. 395 sq.
[1407] Rosh hashana i. 6.
[1408] Sanhedrin 32b; Derenbourg, pp. 307, 395.
[1409] The sentences, Aboth iii. 13-16. Among them, iii. 15, is the saying הכל צפוי והרשות נתונה, “Everything is watched (by God), but freedom is granted (to men).”
[1410] Derenbourg, p. 425 sq.
[1411] Grätz, iv. 176, 177. Derenbourg, p. 436. Bacher, 1883, p. 256.
[1412] Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, p. 254 sq.
[1413] Thus e.g. the particle את is said to indicate, that besides the object mentioned, something else is also intended together with it. In the account of the creation את השמים is used, because the sun, moon and stars are also meant (Wünsche, Bereshith rabba, p. 6 sq.). Comp. Derenbourg, p. 397. The proselyte Aquila tried to be faithful to this exegetical principle by translating in his Greek version of the Bible σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν γῆν, at which Jerome vents his just scorn (Epist. 57 ad Pammachium, c. 11, Opp. de Vallarsi, i. 316). Comp. also, on Aquila as a disciple of Akiba, Hieronymus, Comment. in Jes. viii. 11 sqq. (Vallarsi, iv. 122): Akibas quem magistrum Aquilae proselyti autumant. Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iv. 437.
[1414] That an older work of the time of Akiba is the foundation of our present Mishna, may be inferred almost with certainty from its contents. That the work in question was edited by Akiba himself may also be accepted as probable from the testimony of Epiphanius (haer. 33. 9). For further particulars, see § 3. Comp. also Derenbourg, pp. 399-401.
R. Tarphon, a priestly scribe, who is said to have been very much in earnest about his priestly duties and privileges, so far as this was possible after the destruction of the temple, was a contemporary of Akiba.[1415] He lived at Lydda,[1416] and was chiefly in intercourse with Akiba,[1417] but took part in a disputation with Eleasar ben Asariah, Ishmael and Joshua.[1418] Subsequent tradition makes him, like all the scribes of his time, a martyr in the Barkochba war.[1419] As this is however of just the same value as the Christian tradition, which makes all the apostles martyrs, he may very well be identical with that Trypho with whom Justin met, and who said of himself that he had fled from Palestine on account of the war.[1420] It is peculiar that hard words against the Gospels and against the Christian faith should have been reported exactly of him.[1421]
[1415] See in general, Dereubourg, pp. 376-383. Hamburger, ii. 1196 sq. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, pp. 497-507.
[1416] Taanith iii. 9; Baba mezia iv. 3.
[1417] Terumoth iv. 5, ix. 2; Nasir vi. 6; Bechoroth iv. 4; Kerithoth v. 2-3. Tosefta, Mikwaoth, 654. 4, 660. 33.
[1418] Jadajim iv. 3.
[1419] Grätz, iv. 179. Derenbourg, p. 436.
[1420] Justin. Dial. c. Tryphone, c. 1: εἰμὶ δὲ Ἑβραῖος ἐκ περιτομῆς, φυγὼν τὸν νῦν γενόμενον πόλεμον, ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι καὶ τῇ Κορίνθῳ τὰ πολλὰ διάγων. The names טרפון and Τρύφων are identical, for it cannot be proved that the former is a genuine Semitic name, although, according to its form, this is possible. The time too exactly agrees. Hence the identity of R. Tarphon with Justin’s Trypho has been accepted by many scholars. See Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 837.
[1421] He said that the Gospels ought to be burned although they contained the name of God (Shabbath 116a; Derenbourg, p. 379 sq.; Bacher, 1883, p. 506). On account of the great interest of R. Tarphon to Christian theologians, I here give all the passages of the Mishna in which he is named: Berachoth i. 3, vi. 8; Pea iii. 6; Kilajim v. 8; Terumoth iv. 5, ix. 2; Maaseroth iii. 9; Maaser sheni ii. 4, 9; Shabbath ii. 2; Erubin iv. 4; Pesachim x. 6; Sukka iii. 4; Beza iii. 5; Taanith iii. 9; Jebamoth xv. 6-7; Kethuboth v. 2, vii. 6, ix. 2, 3; Nedarim vi. 6; Nasir v. 5, vi. 6; Kiddushin iii. 13; Baba kamma ii. 5; Baba mezia ii. 7, iv. 3; Makkoth i. 10; Edujoth i. 10; Aboth ii. 15-16; Sebachim x. 8, xi. 7; Menachoth xii. 5; Bechoroth ii. 6-9, iv. 4; Kerithoth v. 2-3; Kelim xi. 4, 7, xxv. 7; Ohaloth xiii. 3, xvi. 1; Para i. 3; Mikwaoth x. 5; Machshirin v. 4; Jadajim iv. 3. For the passages in the Tosefta, see the index to Zuckermandel’s edition.
Beside R. Tarphon there remain to be mentioned as contemporaries of R. Akiba, R. Johanan ben Nuri, who lived also in the time of Gamaliel II., Joshua and Elieser, but is most frequently spoken of as in intercourse with Akiba;[1422] R. Simon ben Asai, or merely Ben Asai, who is famed for being specially indefatigable in study;[1423] R. Johanan ben Beroka, who was an associate of Joshua and Johanan ben Nuri;[1424] R. Joses the Galilean, who is mentioned as the contemporary of Eleasar ben Asariah, Tarphon and Akiba;[1425] R. Simon ben Nannos, or only Ben Nannos, also a contemporary of Tarphon and Akiba.[1426]
[1422] In the time of Gamaliel, Rosh hashana 148. In the time of Joshua, Tosefta, Taanith 217. 14. In the time of Elieser, Tosefta, Orla 45. 1. Kelim 575. 18, 20. In association with Akiba, Rosh hashana iv. 5; Bechoroth vi. 6; Temura i. 1; Ukzin iii. 5. Tosefta, Pesachim 155. 27. Comp. in general, Hamburger, ii. 490 sq. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, p. 537 sq.
[1423] Contemporaries of Akiba, Shekalim iv. 6; Joma ii. 3; Taanith iv. 4; Baba bathra ix. 10. It was said of him: “Since the death of Ben Asai there are no longer any indefatigable students” (Sota ix. 15: שַׁקְדָּנִים, properly, waking ones, i.e. untiringly studying ones). Some sentences of his in Aboth iv. 2-3. Comp. in general, Hamburger, ii. 1119-1121. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1884, pp. 173-187, 225 sq.
[1424] With Joshua, Tosefta, Sota 307. 7. With Johanan ben Nuri, Tosefta Terumoth 38. 15. In the Mishna, Johanan ben Beroka is mentioned, Erubin viii. 2, x. 15; Pesachim vii. 9; Jebamoth vi. 6; Kethuboth ii. 1; Baba kamma x. 2; Baba bathra viii. 5; Shebuoth vii. 7; Aboth iv. 4; Bechoroth viii. 10; Kelim xvii. 11. Comp. also Bacher, Monatsschr. 1884, p. 208 sq.
[1425] With these three, Jer. Gittin ix. 1 (Derenbourg, p, 368). With Akiba and Tarphon, Tosefta, Mikwaoth 660. 32. He relates also in the name of Johanan ben Nuri, Tosefta, Orla 45. 1. See in general, Hamburger, ii. 499-502. Bacher, Monatsschr. 1883, pp. 507-513, 529-536.
[1426] See especially Tosefta, Mikwaoth 660. 33. We find him associated with Ishmael, Baba bathra x. 8. He is mentioned by his full name Simon ben Nannos (νάννος = dwarf), Bikkurim iii 9; Shabbath xvi. 5; Erubin ix. 15; Baba bathra x. 8; Menachoth iv. 3. Only as Ben Nannos, Kethuboth x. 5; Gittin viii. 10; Baba bathra vii, 3, x. 8; Shabbath vii. 5.
To the same period belongs also Abba Saul, who indeed gives an account even of a saying of Johanan ben Sakkai, and is repeatedly quoted as an authority concerning the arrangements of the temple, but cannot have been of earlier date than Akiba, since he frequently reports his sayings also.[1427] Also R. Judah ben Bethera, who is mentioned on the one hand as a contemporary of Elieser, on the other as a contemporary of R. Meir, and who must consequently have flourished in the period between the two, i.e. in the time of Akiba.[1428]
[1427] On a saying of Johanan ben Sakkai, Aboth ii. 8. On the arrangements of the temple, Middoth ii. 5; also Menachoth viii. 3, xi. 5. On sayings of Akiba, Tosefta, Kilajim 79. 9; Sanhedrin 433. 27. Comp. also Pea viii. 5; Kilajim ii. 3; Shabbath xxiii. 3; Shekalim iv. 2; Beza iii. 8; Kethuboth vii. 6; Nedarim vi. 5; Gittin v. 4; Kiddushin iv. 2; Baba mezia iv. 12, vi 7; Baba bathra ii. 7, 13 Sanhedrin x. 1; Makkoth ii. 2. Lewy, Ueber einige Fragmente des Mischna des Abba Saul, Berlin 1876 (comp. Magazin für die Wissensch. des Judenth. iv. 1877, pp. 114-120; Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1878. pp. 187-192, 227-235).
[1428] Contemporary of Elieser, Negaim ix. 3, xi. 7. Contemporary of Meir, Tosefta, Nasir 290. 14. Comp. also on the chronology, Pea iii. 6; Pesachim iii. 3; Edujoth viii 3; Kelim ii. 4; Ohaloth xi. 7. Tosefta, Jebamoth 255. 28. See in general, Bacher, Monatsschr. 1884, pp. 76-81.
R. Judah, R. Joses, R. Meir and R. Simon, men of the next generation, are more frequently mentioned in the Mishna than all those hitherto named. Their labours however, having taken place in the middle of the second century, fall outside the limits of the period here dealt with.