� 28. Life Under The Law

§ 28. LIFE UNDER THE LAW
I
ALL zeal for education in the family, the school and the synagogue aimed at making the whole people a people of the law. The common man too was to know what the law commanded, and not only to know, but to do it. His whole life was to be ruled according to the norm of the law; obedience thereto was to become a fixed custom, and departure therefrom an inward impossibility. On the whole this object was to a great degree attained. Josephus declares: “Even if we are deprived of wealth, of towns, and of other possessions, the law remains to us for ever. And no Jew will be so far from his native land, nor so much fear a hostile ruler, as not to fear the law more than him.”[1709] So faithfully did most of the Jews adhere to their law, that they willingly incurred even torture and death itself in consequence. “Often already,” says Josephus, “have many of the prisoners been seen to endure the rack and all kinds of death in theatres, for the sake of not uttering a word against the law and the other Holy Scriptures.” [1710]
[1709] Apion. ii. 38: Κἂν πλούτου καὶ πόλεων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀγαθῶν στερηθῶμεν, ὁ γοῦν νόμος ἡμῖν ἀθάνατος διαμένει· και οὐδεὶς Ἰουδαίων οὔτε μακρὰν οὕτως ἂν ἀπέλθοι τῆς πατρίδος οὔτʼ ἐπίπικρον φοβηθήσεται δεσπότην ὡς μὴ πρὸ ἐκείνου δεδιέναι τὸν νόμον.
[1710] Apion. i. 8: Ἤδη οὖν πολλοὶ πολλάκις ἑώρανται τῶν αἰχμαλώτων στρέβλας καὶ παντοίων θανάτων τρόπους ἐν θεάτροις ὑπομένοντες ἐπὶ τῷ μηδὲν ῥῆμα προέσθαι παρὰ τοὺς νόμους καὶ τὰς μετὰ τούτων ἀναγραφάς. Comp. also Apion. i. 22 (from Hekatäus), and ii. 30: πολλοὶ καὶ πολλάκις ἤδη τῶν ἡμετέρων περὶ τοῦ μηδὲ ῥῆμα φθέγξασθαι παρὰ τὸν νόμον πάντα παθεῖν γενναίως προείλοντο.
But what were the motives, whence sprang this enthusiasm for the law, what the means whereby it obtained this enormous sway over minds? To answer briefly: it was faith in Divine retribution, and that a retribution in the strictest juristic sense. The prophetic idea of the covenant, which God had entered into with the chosen people, was apprehended in the purely juristic sense; the covenant was a legal one, by which both the contracting parties were mutually bound. The people to observe the law given them by God, exactly, accurately and conscientiously: while God was also bound in return to pay the promised recompense in proportion to their performances. And the obligation held good not only with respect to the nation as a whole, but to every individual; performance and recompense always stood in corresponding relations to each other. He who did much had to expect from God’s justice the bestowal of much reward; while on the other hand every trangression entailed its corresponding punishment.[1711] The externalism with which this belief in retribution weighed, on the one side transgression and punishment, on the other the fulfilment of the law and reward by each other, will appear from what follows: “Seven different plagues came into the world on account of seven chief transgressions. (1) If part of the people tithe their fruits and part do not, such a famine arises through drought that part of the people are in want and part have enough. (2) If no one tithes, there follows a famine from the devastations of war and from drought. (3) If nowhere the heave dough has been separated, a famine consuming all arises. (4) A pestilence rages when such crimes gain the upper hand as have in Scripture the penalty of death pronounced upon them, but whose perpetrators are not delivered up to justice for its execution. (5) War devastates the land because of delay of sentences, turning aside of law and illegal interpretation of Scripture, (6) Wild beasts get the upper hand on account of perjury and the desecration of the divine name. (7) Carrying away into foreign lands is the punishment for idolatry, incest, murder, and neglect of the Sabbatic year.”[1712] With like conscientiousness was the reward for the fulfilling of the law computed. “Whoever fulfils only one law, good is appointed to him, his days are prolonged, and he will inherit the land.”[1713] “According to the proportion of pains taken will be the reward” (לְפוּם צַעֲרָא אַגְרָא).[1714] “Know that everything is taken account of” (דַּע שֶׁהַכֹּל לְפִי הַחֶשְׁבּוֹן).[1715] Thus every fulfilment of the law involves its corresponding reward. And God only gave so many commandments and so many laws to the people of Israel, that they might obtain great rewards.[1716] Both punishment and reward are bestowed on men in the present life. But full retribution does not follow till the life to come, the עוֹלָם הַבָּא. Then will all seeming inequalities be reconciled. He, who was in this life visited with sorrows, notwithstanding his righteousness, will then receive the fuller reward. But apart from this, full recompense does not take place till the world to come. For the present world is still a world of imperfection and of evil. In the future world all weakness will cease. Then will Israel, both as a nation and as individuals, be rewarded for a faithful fulfilling of the law by a life of undisturbed happiness. Good works—such as reverence of parents, benevolence, peace-making among neighbours, and above all the study of the law—may therefore be looked upon as a capital, whose interest is already enjoyed in this life, while the capital itself remains for the life to come. This hope of a future retribution was therefore the mainspring of all zeal for the law. Nay the entire religious life of the Jewish people during the period of which we are treating just revolved round these two poles: Fulfilment of the law and hope of future glory. Zeal for the former derived its vitality from the latter. The saying of Antigonus of Socho: “Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of reward, but be like those who do service without respect to reward,”[1717] is by no means a correct expression of the keynote of Pharisaic Judaism, which was in fact like the servants who serve for the sake of recompense.
[1711] Comp. Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie (1880), pp. 235 ff., 290 ff. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, Div. ii. art. “Lohn und Strafe” (pp. 691-703), and “Vergeltung” (pp. 1252-1257).
[1712] Aboth v. 8-9. So too e.g. Shabbath ii. 6. The promises and threats of the blessing and the curse in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 are the Old Testament foundation for this. But the casuistic carrying out into parallels is alien to the Old Testament.
[1713] Kiddushin i. 10.
[1714] Aboth v. 23.
[1715] Aboth iv. 22.
[1716] Makkoth iii. 16.
[1717] Aboth i. 3.
To what results then did this zeal for the law lead? They corresponded with its motives. As the motives were essentially of an external kind, so also was the result an incredible externalizing of the religious and moral life. This result was indeed inevitable, when once religion was made into law, and that indeed in such wise, that all religion was made to consist in nothing else, than in the strict obedience to a law, which regulated the civil and social as well as the individual life in all its relations. By this view of religious duty, which forms the characteristic distinction of post-exilian Judaism, the whole religious and moral life was drawn down into the sphere of law, and the result necessarily was as follows: (1) First of all the individual life was thus regulated by a norm, whose application to this sphere at all is an evil. The province of law is simply to order the relations of men to one another according to certain standards. Its object is not the individual as such, but only civil society as a whole. The functions of the latter are to be so regulated, that the fulfilment of his individual task within this framework is to be made possible to each. The application of the legal norm to the individual life therefore of itself subjects the latter to a false standard. For if external constraint is of the essence of law, freedom is of the essence of moral action. The moral life of the individual is a healthy one, only when it is governed by internal motives. Its regulation by external standards is an adulteration of it in its very principle. (2) The application of the legal norm to the religious and moral life also involves the placing of the most varying avocations of life upon a level, as though of equal value. For every employment is regulated absolutely by the law, not merely the behaviour of men to one another in the State and in society, but also those most special manifestations of the inner life of the individual: how he shows his gratitude to God or evidences his repentance for sins he has committed, how he manifesta his love to his neighbour, how he fashions his daily life in its most external respects, in manners and customs. All falls under the same point of view—under the norm of the law, and that a law which comes forward with Divine authority. Thus the purport of an act is comparatively indifferent. Merely conventional demeanour in outward matters and ceremonies is of the same value as the fulfilment of the highest religious and moral duties. The former is raised to the rank of the latter, and the latter lowered to that of the former. There is always and everywhere only one duty—the fulfilling of the law, i.e. the fulfilling of all that has once been commanded by God, no matter of what kind it may be. (3) Hence it is self-evident, that all in reality depends upon satisfying the law. There is no higher task in the department of law. If the requirement of the law is exactly fulfilled, duty is satisfied. Thus the only question that can be raised is: what is commanded? and what must be done that the commandment may be fulfilled? That every art should be directed only to compounding with the letter of the law is an inevitable consequence. This task will perhaps be aggravated, more rather than less will be done for the sake of meeting in practice the whole extent of the law. But still one purpose only will be kept in view, that of satisfying the letter. And this cannot be done without damage to the substance. The real value of the good is left out of account. Not the doing of the good as such, but merely formal accuracy in fulfilling the letter of the law is the aim. And notwithstanding all zeal, nay just because of it, true morality must of necessity be a loser. (4) Lastly the purely formal point of sight has the further consequence, that the moral duty is split up into an endless atomistic multitude of separate duties and obligations. All law is necessarily casuistic, for it lays down a multiplicity of individual statutes. All casuistry is by its nature endless. The one case may have been divided into ever so many sub-species; but each sub-species can again be split into sub-divisions, and there is here no end to the dividing. The most conspicuous proof of this is furnished by the marvellous labours of the Pharisaic scribes. With all their diligence and acuteness in making distinctions, they never came to an end. But the testimony cannot be refused them, that they really worked hard to do so. Jewish law became in their hands a widely ramified science. They cut up the law into thousands upon thousands of single commands, and thus, as far as in them lay, set up a rule for the direction of every conceivable case of practical life. Marvellous however as were their performances, it is here that their most grievous error is found. All free moral action was now completely crushed under the burden of numberless separate statutory requirements. The greater their number, the more fatal is the effect of the fundamental error of transferring the juristic mode of treatment to the region of religion and morality. In every department of life action no longer proceeds from inward motive, is no longer the free manifestation of a moral disposition, but results from the external constraint of statutory requirement. And such requirement reaches equally to everything, to the greatest as to the least, to the most important as to the most indifferent; every act, whether great or trifling, when estimated by a moral standard, is now of the same value; there is but one point of view for all: to do what is commanded, because it is commanded. And thus there is of course no higher vocation, than to be faithful to the letter for the letter’s sake. All depends, not on the inward motive, but on the external correctness of an action. And all this petty and mistaken zeal insisted finally on being the true and genuine service of God. The more men wearied themselves out with it, the more they thought to gain the Divine approbation. As St. Paul says: ζῆλον θεοῦ ἔχουσιν, ἀλλʼ οὐ κατʼ ἐπίγνωσιν (Romans 10:2). How far this unwise zeal for God went astray, and what a heavy burden it laid upon the life of the Israelite, may be made evident by a series of concrete examples.[1718]
[1718] In this series those points are chiefly brought forward, which are touched on in the Gospels. It should then be remembered, with respect to the date to which the material here adduced belongs, that the authorities cited in the Mishna almost all belong to the hundred years between A.D. 70-170. Hence Jewish law is here presented to us in that form which it maintained in about the first half of the second century. This form will however be essentially that which is handed down from the beginning of the Christian era, from the time of Hillel and Shammai. For the differences of their two schools already related to the subtlest distinctions.
II
One of the most important points, both with respect to its extent and the value attributed to it, was that of Sabbath sanctification.[1719] The brief prohibition of work on the Sabbath which is found in the Pentateuch, and which hardly at all enters into detail (Exodus 16:23-30; Exodus 20:8-11; Exodus 23:12; Exodus 31:12-17; Exodus 34:21; Exodus 35:1-3; Leviticus 23:3; Numbers 15:32-36; Deuteronomy 5:12-15. Comp. Jeremiah 17:21-24; Amos 7:5; Nehemiah 10:32; Nehemiah 13:15 sqq.), was in the course of time developed in so many-sided a manner as to form of itself an extensive branch of knowledge. For of course the Rabbis could not rest satisfied with this simple prohibition. They must also accurately define what work was forbidden. And consequently they at last, with much ingenuity, got out of it, that on the whole thirty-nine kinds of work were prohibited, but very few are of course anywhere alluded to in the Pentateuch. These thirty-nine prohibited works are: (1) sowing, (2) ploughing, (3) reaping, (4) binding sheaves, (5) threshing, (6) winnowing, (7) cleansing crops, (8) grinding, (9) sifting, (10) kneading, (11) baking, (12) shearing wool, (13) washing, (14) beating, (15) dyeing, (16) spinning, and (17) warping it, (18) making two cords, (19) weaving two threads, (20) separating two threads, (21) making a knot, (22) untying a knot, (23) sewing two stitches, (24) tearing to sew two stitches, (25) catching a deer, (26) killing, (27) skinning, and (28) salting it, (29) preparing its skin, (30) scraping off the hair, (31) cutting it up, (32) writing two letters, (33) blotting out for the purpose of writing two letters, (34) building, (35) pulling down, (36) putting out a fire, (37) lighting a fire, (38) beating smooth with a hammer, (39) carrying from one tenement to another.[1720]
[1719] Comp. in the Mishna the treatises Shabbath, Erubin, Beza, the Book of Jubilees, cap. 50 (Ewald’s Jahrb. iii. 70); also Winer, Realwörterb. ii. 343-349. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. xiii. 193-204 (in the 2nd ed. revised by Orelli, xiii. 156-166). Saalechütz, Das Mosaische Recht, i. 388 sqq. Mangold in Schenkel’a Bibellex. v. 123-126. Riehm’s Wörterb. s.v.
[1720] Shabbath vii. 2. The translation here and in what follows is always that of Jost’s edition of the Mishna. Comp. also the enumeration in the Book of Jubilees, c. 50 (Ewald’s Jahrb. iii. 70).
Each of these chief enactments again require further discussions concerning their range and meaning. And here, properly speaking, begins the work of casuistry. We will bring forward just a few of its results. According to Exodus 34, ploughing and reaping were among the forbidden works. But to gather a few ears of corn was already looked upon as reaping.[1721] When on one occasion the disciples did this on the Sabbath, they were found fanlt with by the Pharisees, not on account of plucking the ears, which (according to Deuteronomy 23:26) was permitted, but because they were thus guilty of doing reaping work on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-2; Mark 2:23-24; Luke 6:1-2). The prohibition of making and untying a knot (Nos. 21 and 22) was much too general to rest satisfied with. It was also necessary to state to what kind of knot this applied, and to what it did not “The following are the knots, the making of which renders a man guilty: The knot of camel-drivers and that of sailors; and as one is guilty by reason of tying, so also of untying them. R. Meir says: Guilt is not incurred by reason of a knot, which can be untied with one hand. There are knots by reason of which one is not guilty, as one is in the case of the camel-driver’s and sailor’s knots. A woman may tie up a slit in her shift and the strings of her cap, those of her girdle, the straps of the shoes and sandals, of skins of wine and oil, of a pot with meat”[1722] And to tie strings of the girdle being permitted, it was agreed that a pail also might be tied over the well with a girdle, but not with a rope.[1723] The prohibition of writing on the Sabbath (No. 32) was further defined as follows: “He who writes two letters with his right or his left hand, whether of one kind or of two kinds, as also if they are written with different ink or are of different languages, is guilty. He even who should from forgetfulness write two letters is guilty, whether he has written them with ink or with paint, red chalk, India-rubber, vitriol, or anything which makes permanent marks. Also he who writes on two walls which form an angle, or on the two tablets of his account-book, so that they can be read together, is guilty. He who writes upon his body is guilty. If any one writes with dark fluid, with fruit juice, or in the dust on the road, in sand, or in anything in which the writing does not remain, he is free.[1724] If any one writes with the wrong hand, with the foot, with the mouth, with the elbow; also if any one writes upon a letter of another piece of writing, or covers other writing; also if any one meaning to write ח has only written two ז ז, or if any one has written one letter on the ground and one upon the wall, or upon two walls of the house, or upon two pages of a book, so that they cannot be read together, he is free. If in forgetfulness he writes two letters at different times, perhaps one in the morning and one towards evening, R. Gamaliel pronounces him guilty, the learned declare him free.”[1725] According to Exodus 16:23, it was forbidden to bake and to boil on the Sabbath. Hence the food, which it was desired to eat hot on the Sabbath, was to be prepared before its commencement, and kept warm by artificial means. In doing this however care must be taken, that the existing heat was not increased, which would have been “boiling.” Hence the food must be put only into such substances as would maintain its heat, not into such as might possibly increase it. “Food to be kept warm for the Sabbath must not be put into oil-dregs, manure, salt, chalk, or sand, whether moist or dry, nor into straw, grape-skins, flock, or vegetables, if these are damp, though it may if they are dry. It may, however, be put into clothes, amidst fruits, pigeons’ feathers, and flax-tow. R. Jehudah declares flax-tow unallowable, and permits only coarse tow.”[1726] According to Exodus 35:3, it was forbidden to kindle a fire on the Sabbath. This prohibition was supplemented by that of extinguishing a fire. With regard to the latter, the question arose, how it was to be observed, when a non-Israelite approached a fire. “If a non-Israelite comes to extinguish a fire, one must neither say to him: ‘put it out,’ nor ‘do not put it out,’ and that because one is not obliged to make him rest.”[1727] It is self-evident that the prohibition to extinguish fire would be extended to lights and lamps. Concerning these it was ordained as follows: “He who extinguishes a light because he is afraid of heathen, robbers, or the evil spirit, or for the sake of one sick, that he may sleep, is free. If it is done however to save the oil, the lamp, or the wick, he is guilty. R. Joses declares him in each case free, except with respect to the wick, because he thus prepares, as it were, a coal.”[1728] “A vessel may be placed under a lamp to catch the sparks, but water may not be put therein, lest the lamp be extinguished.”[1729] Very specially copious material for discussion was furnished by the last of the thirty-nine chief works, the carrying a burden from one tenement to another (הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת), which was, according to Jeremiah 17:21-24, forbidden. We shall see farther on, what refined sophistry was applied towards enlarging the notion of the רְשׁוּת. It may here be briefly mentioned, that even the bulk of what might not be carried from one place to another on the Sabbath was exactly determined. Thus e.g. he was guilty of Sabbath desecration who carried out so much food as was equal in weight to a dry fig,[1730] or so much wine as was enough for mixing in a goblet, or milk enough for one swallow, honey enough to put upon a wound, oil enough to anoint a small member, water enough to moisten an eye-salve,[1731] paper enough to wiite a custom-house notice upon,[1732] parchment enough to write the shortest portion of the Tephillin, i.e. the שמע ישראל, upon, ink enough to write two letters,[1733] reed enough to make a pen of, etc.[1734] It was forbidden also to carry such garments as did not belong to clothing proper. A warrior might not go out with coat of mail, helmet, greaves, sword, bow, shield, or spear.[1735] A cripple might, according to R. Meir, go out with his wooden leg, R. Joses, on the other hand, does not allow it.[1736] Only on the breaking out of a fire are some concessions made with respect to burden-bearing. “All the Holy Scriptures may be saved from a conflagration. The case of the book may be saved with the book, that of the Tephillin with the Tephillin, even if there is money in it. Food for the three Sabbath meals may be saved. If a fire breaks out on the evening of the Sabbath, let food be saved for three meals; if it takes place in the forenoon, for two; if in the afternoon, for one only. A basketful of bread may also be saved, even if enough for a hundred meals, a cake of figs, a cask of wine.”[1737]
[1721]a Comp. Maimonides in Lightfoot, Horae Hebr. on Matthew 12:2.
[1722] Shabbath xv. 1-2.
[1723] Shabbath xv. 2.
[1724] On the statements “he is guilty” (חייב) and “he is free” (פטור), see Jost’s introd. to the treatise Shabbath. The former means: the wilful transgressor forfeits his life, and is, if there are witnesses, to be stoned, or if he has sinned after warning, but without witnesses, he is sentenced to the penalty of extirpation. And he who has sinned from negligence or ignorance must offer the legal sin-offering. פטור means he is free from these penalties, but not from the scourging ordered by the court, so that the act iteelf (a few cases deducted) is not thereby declared allowable.
[1725] Shabbath xii. 3-6.
[1726] Shabbath iv. 1, and the commentary in Surenhusius’ Mishna, ii. 18.
[1727] Shabbath xvi. 6.
[1728] Shabbath ii. 5.
[1729] Shabbath ii. 6, fin.
[1730] Shabbath vii. 4.
[1731] Shabbath viii. 1.
[1732] Shabbath viii. 2.
[1733] Shabbath viii. 3.
[1734] Shabbath viii. 5.
[1735] Shabbath vi. 2, 4.
[1736] Shabbath vi. 8.
[1737] Shabbath xvi. 1-3.
The caution of these guardians of the law did not however confine itself to asserting what was forbidden on the Sabbath itself. They extended their prohibitions to every transaction, which might only possibly lead to a desecration of the Sabbath. This prophylactic care was the cause of the following enactments: “Let not a tailor go out at twilight with his needle, for he might forget (when the Sabbath begins) and go out with it. Nor the writer with his reed.”[1738] “Meat, onions and eggs may not be cooked, unless there is time to cook them by day. Bread may not be put into the oven in the twilight, nor cakes upon the coals, unless their surfaces can harden while it is still day. R. Elieser says: If there is only time for the under surface to harden.”[1739] Caution goes still farther, when e.g. it is forbidden to read by lamplight on the Sabbath, or to cleanse clothing from vermin. For both are transactions in which a clear light is especially necessary. And thus there is obviously a temptation to stoop the lamp for the purpose of leading more oil to it, and this would offend against the prohibition of kindling fire. Hence these actions are altogether forbidden. It is indeed permitted to a schoolmaster to take care how children read by light. But he himself may not read by a light.[1740]
[1738] Shabbath i. 3.
[1739] Shabbath i. 10.
[1740] Shabbath i. 3.
Besides these thirty-nine chief works, many other actions and employments, which cannot be summed up under any of them, are also forbidden. We learn of some of them e.g. from the following prescription with regard to the holy days (on which the rest was less strict). “All things, by which punishment is incurred on the Sabbath, because of their breaking its rest, or because of acts arbitrary in themselves, or acts legal at other times, are also not allowed on the holy day. The following because of the rest: one may not climb a tree, ride upon a horse, swim in the water, clap with the hands, strike upon the hips, or dance. The following because the acts are arbitrary: one may not hold a court of justice, acquire a wife by earnest money, pull off the shoe (the Chaliza on account of a refusal of levirate marriage), nor consummate levirate marriage. The following because they are legal transactions: one may not consecrate anything, put a value on anything, devote anything, nor separate heave and tithe. All this is declared unlawful on a holy day, not to mention a Sabbath.”[1741] To such appointments belongs also the enactment, that no one should on the Sabbath go farther than 2000 cubits from his dwelling, i.e. from where he is at the beginning of the Sabbath. This was called the “Sabbath limit,” תְּחוּם הַשַּׁבָּת,[1742] and a distance of 2000 cubits a Sabbath day’s journey (Acts 1:12 : σαββάτου ὁδός). How ingeniously this prescription, founded on Exodus 16:29, as well as that concerning the carrying of burdens, was evaded, will be shown farther on.
[1741] Beza v. 2.
[1742] Erubin v. 5. The distance of 2000 cubits (according to Numbers 35:1-8), Erubin iv. 3, 7, v. 7. Compare in general, Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldaicum, col. 2582-2586 (s.v. תחם). Lightfoot, Horae Hebr. on Acts 1:12. Winer, RWB. ii. 350 sq. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. xiii. 203 sq. Leyrer, ibid. xiii. 213 sq. Arnold, ibid. ix. 148 (all according to the 1st ed.). Mangold in Schenkel’s Bibellex. v. 127 sq.
Notwithstanding the great strictness with which the commandment to hallow the Sabbath was treated, certain cases, in which exceptions were tolerated, had of necessity to be acknowledged. Some such exceptions were allowed for the sake of humanity and some on account of a still higher and more sacred command. In the latter respect the necessities of the temple-ritual came especially under consideration. The daily burnt-offering must be offered on the Sabbath also, nay a special offering besides was ordered on the Sabbath day (Numbers 28:9-10). Hence it was self-evident, that all the transactions necessary for offering these sacrifices must be lawful even on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:5 : τοῖς σάββασιν οἱ ἱερεῖς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τὸ σάββατον βεβηλοῦσιν καὶ ἀναίτιοί εἰσιν.[1743] The acts necessary for offering the Passover sacrifice were also allowed on the Sabbath, but in this case it was very carefully settled what transactions were and what were not permitted.[1744] To the same category belongs also the command of circumcision. All that was necessary for circumcision might be done on the Sabbath, so far, that is, as it could not be done on the day before. For whatever could have been done on the day before was forbidden.[1745] For the sake of humanity it was permitted to render assistance to a woman at her delivery,[1746] and it was laid down as a general principle, that all danger to life should supersede the Sabbath (כָּל־סָפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת).[1747] “If a building falls upon any one, and it is doubtful whether he is under it or not, whether he is alive or dead, whether he is a non-Israelite or an Israelite, the ruins over him may be cleared away on the Sabbath. If he is found alive, they may be cleared farther; if he is dead, they must be left.”[1748] A physician may attend a patient if he is in danger. R. Matthijah ben Charash even allowed that a remedy might on the Sabbath be put into the mouth of any one feeling pain in the throat, because it might be dangerous.[1749] This is however cited as only the opinion of this scholar, and by no means as holding good in general. At any rate medical assistance was only allowed on the assumption that life was in danger. “A fracture (of a limb) may not be attended to. If any one has sprained his hand or foot, he may not pour cold water on it.”[1750] “A priest officiating in the temple may, on the Sabbath, put on again the plaister which he took off during his ministration; otherwise this may not be done; a plaister may not be put on for the first time on the Sabbath.… If a priest hurts his finger, he may on the Sabbath bind it with rushes for service in the sanctuary, otherwise this is not allowed; for the pressing out of the blood, it is everywhere forbidden.”[1751] It quite agrees with this, that the enmity of the Pharisees should have been excited against Jesus on account of His cures on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5; Luke 6:6-10; Luke 13:10-17; Luke 14:1-6; John 5:1-16; John 9:14-16).[1752] Even the principle, that danger to life should supersede the Sabbath, was by no means regarded as at all times decisive. At the beginning of the Maccabaean rising a troup of legalists let themselves perish to the last man, rather than have recourse to the sword on the Sabbath.[1753] From that time forward it was determined to take up the sword for defence, but not for attack upon the Sabbath.[1754] And this principle was on the whole adhered to.[1755] But use was made of it only in cases of extreme necessity. And it often happened even in later times, that hostile generals were able to make use of the Jewish Sabbath to the disadvantage of the Jews.[1756] How strictly the observance of the Sabbath was universally adhered to by Jewish soldiers, appears from the fact, that a man like Josephus regards it as a thing self-evident,[1757] and that the Romans even found themselves obliged to release the Jews entirely from military service, because Jewish Sabbatarianism and Roman discipline were irreconcilable contrasts.[1758]
[1743] Comp. Book of Jubilees, c. 50 (Ewald’s Jahrb. iii. 70). Lightfoot, Schöttgen, Wetzstein on Matthew 12:5. Wolf, Curae philol. on the same passage. Wünsche, Der lebensfreudige Jesus (1876), p. 424.
[1744] Pesachim vi. 1-2. On other exceptions from the Sabbath command in favour of the temple service, see also Erubin x. 11-15.
[1745] Shabbath xix. 1-5. Comp. John 7:22-23 (one of those features, which prove the intimate acquaintance of the fourth evangelist with Jewish matters).
[1746] Shabbath xviii. 3.
[1747] Joma viii. 6. Comp. also the passage from Synesius in Winer, RWB. ii. 345.
[1748] Joma viii. 7.
[1749] Joma viii. 6.
[1750] Shabbath xxii. 6.
[1751] Erubin x. 13-14. Comp. also Edujoth ii. 5.
[1752] The Rabbinic material has been treated of from a one-sided and distorted point of view in Danz, Christi curatio sabbathica vindicata ex legibus Judaicis (Meuschen, Nov. Test. ex Talmude illustratum, 1736, pp. 569-614). Zipser in Fürst’s Literaturblatt des Orients, 1847, p. 814 sqq.; Jahrg. 1848, pp. 61 sqq., 197 sqq. Wünsche, Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrash (1878), pp. 150-152. Comp. also Winer, RWB. ii. 346. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. xiii. 202 (1st ed.). On cattle which falls into a pit on a holy day, see Beza iii. 4.
[1753] 1Ma_2:34-38. Joseph. Antt. xii. 6. 2.
[1754] 1Ma_2:39-42. Joseph. Antt. xii. 6. 2.
[1755] Joseph. Antt. xii. 1-3, xiv. 4. 2, xviii. 9. 2. That to fight on the Sabbath was considered as “forbidden in after times also” (Lucius, Der Essenismus, p. 96, note), is not so universally correct. Josephus expressly says, that the law allowed the repulse of a personal attack (Antt. xiv. 4. 2).
[1756] Antt. xiii. 12. 1, xiv. 4. 2. Comp. also Joseph, contra Apion. i. 22, s. fin. (Ptolemy I. Lagos took Jerusalem on a Sabbath). Book of Jubilees, c. 50 (Ewald’s Jahrb. iii. 70).
[1757] Bell. Jud. ii. 21. 8 = Vita, 32.
[1758] Antt. xiv. 10. 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19. Under the Ptolemies the Jews still took military service (Antt. xii. 1 and 2. 4, according to “Pseudo-Aristeas” in Havercamp’s Josephus, ii. 2. 107. Merx’ Archiv, i. 260). Comp. also Antt. xi. 8. 5, fin., xiv. 8. 1.
III
Far deeper was the influence upon daily life of the manifold and far-reaching ordinances concerning cleanness and uncleanness and the removal of the latter,[1759] than that of the law of the Sabbath. The Old Testament (Leviticus 11-15; Numbers 5:1-4, and especially chap, 19) had already given tolerably numerous and stringent precepts on these points, by declaring (for what reasons may be left undiscussed) first certain incidents of sexual life, then certain appearances on persons and objects comprised under the joint term of leprosy, and lastly, the corpses of both men and animals, as unclean and imparting uncleanness. It also gives detailed prescriptions concerning purification by sacrifices or lustrations, which are of very different kinds according to the kind and degree of uncleanness. But ample as were these enactments, they are still but poor and scanty compared with the abundance stored in the Mishna. No less than twelve treatises (filling the whole of the last part of the Mishna) deal with the matters appertaining to this subject. The enumeration of the “chief kinds of uncleanness” (אְַבוֹת הַטֻּמְאוֹת), which it must be owned are for the most part based on the enactments of the Pentateuch (Leviticus 11-15), form the foundation of all these discussions. On this foundation however is raised an enormous and very complicated structure. For with each of the chief kinds the question has again to be dealt with: under what circumstances such uncleanness is incurred, in what manner and to what extent it is transferred to others, what utensils and objects are and what are not capable of contracting uncleanness, and lastly, what means and regulations are required for its removal. To give at least a notion to what an extensive branch of knowledge this doctrine of uncleanness had been developed, some of the enactments concerning the utensils, which do and which do not contract uncleanness and by contact propagate it, are here given. The Old Testament basis is in Numbers 19:14-15; Numbers 31:20-24.
[1759] Comp. generally, Winer, RWB. ii. 313-319 (art. “Reinigkeit”). Leyrer, art. “Reinigungen,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. vol. xii. pp. 620-640. Keil, Bibl. Archäologie (2nd ed. 1875), pp. 295-323. Haneberg, Relig. Alterthümer, pp. 459-476. Schenkel’s Bibellex. v. 65-73. Kamphausen in Riehm’s Wörterb. p. 1274 sqq. König in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 2nd ed. xii. 617-637.
A main question is first of all concerning the material of which the utensils are composed, and next concerning their form: whether they are hollow or flat. With respect to hollow earthen vessels, it is determined that the air in them contracts and propagates uncleanness, as does also the hollow of the foot, but not their outer side. Their purification can only result from their being broken.[1760] But how far must the breaking go to effect purification? To this question too we receive an exact answer. A fraction is still esteemed a vessel (and therefore susceptible of defilement) “if, of a vessel holding a log, so much is left as to be able to hold enough to anoint the little toe with; and if, of a vessel holding from a log to a seah, space for a quarter of a log, from one to two seahs space for half a log; and from two or three seahs to five, space for a log is left.”[1761] “While then hollow earthen vessels are not susceptible of defilement outside, though they are so within, the following earthen vessels contract no uncleanness at all: a flat plate without a rim, an open coal-shovel, a gridiron with holes in it for grains of wheat, brick gutters, although they are bent and have a hollow, and others besides.[1762] The following are, on the contrary, capable of defilement: a plate with a rim, a whole coal-shovel, a plate full of bowl-like receptacles, an earthen spice-box or a writing apparatus with several receptacles.[1763] Of wooden, leathern, bone and glass vessels, the flat ones are also insusceptible of defilement; the deep ones, on the contrary, not only like the earthen ones, contract defilement in their atmosphere, but also on the outside. If they break, they are clean. If utensils are again made of them, they are again susceptible of defilement.[1764] Here too arises again the difficult question: When are they to be accounted broken? “In all vessels for domestic purposes the measure (of a hole producing cleanness) is a pomegranate. R. Elieser says: The measure depends upon the use of the utensil.”[1765] “The pomegranate appointed as a measure is one not too large, but of a medium size.”[1766] “If a foot is wanting to a chest, a trunk or a press, it is clean, although capable of holding things. R. Joses considers all these as susceptible of defilement if, though not in proper repair, they are capable of holding the measure.”[1767] “A (three-footed) table, to which one foot is wanting, is clean, so is it if a second foot is gone, but if the third is also gone and it is to be used as a flat board, it is susceptible of defilement.”[1768] “A seat of which one side plank is missing is clean, so is it although a second is missing. If a hand-breadth in height is left it is capable of defilement.”[1769] Moreover in hollow utensils not only are the inside and outside, but also the “place for laying hold,” to be distinguished. “If e.g. the hands are clean and the outside of the cup unclean, and the cup is held at the part which serves for holding, one need not be anxious lest the hands should be defiled by the outside of the cup.”[1770] “Of metal vessels the smooth and the hollow are capable of defilement. If they are broken, they are clean; if vessels are again made out of them they are in their former uncleanness.”[1771] “Every metal vessel, which has a special name of its own, is capable of defilement; except a door, the bolt, the lock, the hinge-socket, the hinge, the knocker and a gutter; because they are fastened to the ground.”[1772] “In a bridle, the bit is capable of defilement, the plates on the cheeks are clean; according to R. Akiba, unclean. The learned say: only the bit is unclean, but the plates, only when they are fastened to it.”[1773] “Round horns (for blowing) are susceptible of defilement, straight ones are clean. If the mouthpiece is of metal, it is capable of defilement.”[1774] “Wood used on metal utensils is capable of defilement, metal used on wooden ones is clean. E.g. a wooden key with metal teeth is capable of defilement, even if the tooth is of only one piece. But if the key is of metal and the tooth of wood, it is not capable of defilement.”[1775]
[1760] Kelim ii. 1.
[1761] Kelim ii. 2.
[1762] Kelim ii. 3.
[1763] Kelim ii. 7.
[1764] Kelim ii. 1, xv. 1.
[1765] Kelim xvii. 1.
[1766] Kelim xvii. 4-5.
[1767] Kelim xviii. 3.
[1768] Kelim xxii. 2.
[1769] Kelim xx. 3.
[1770] Kelim xxv. 7, 8.
[1771] Kelim xi. 1.
[1772] Kelim xi. 2.
[1773] Kelim xi. 5.
[1774] Kelim xi. 7.
[1775] Kelim xiii. 6.
The enactments concerning the removal of defilement by sacrifices and lustrations form a fit pendant to those concerning defilement. We will here quote a few of the latter. The main question in this matter is, as to what water is adapted to the different kinds of purification: to the sprinkling of the hands, the washing of utensils, the bath of purification for persons. The Mishna distinguishes six gradations of water reservoirs: 1. A pond and the water in ditches, cisterns or pits, also spring water no longer flowing, and collected water to the amount of less than forty seahs. All this, so far as it has not been defiled, is adapted for (the preparation of) Challa,[1776] and for legal washing of the hands. 2. Spring water still running. This may be used for the heave (Terumah) and for the washing of the hands. 3. Collected water which amounts to forty seah. In this one may plunge oneself (take a bath of purification) and utensils. 4. A spring with little water, into which more drawn water has been poured. It resembles the former by purifying as a plunging bath in the place where it is collected (i.e. without running), and clean spring water, in that vessels are purified in it although there is but little of it. 5. Running water in which a change has taken place (i.e. water arising from mineral or warm springs). This purifies in running. 6. Clean spring water. This serves as a plunging-bath for running sores, for the sprinkling of lepers, and is suitable for sanctifying with ashes of purification.[1777] These general maxims then form the foundation of a casuistry, which here again loses itself in endless detail. The Mishna especially launches forth in wearying diffuseness on what conditions and prerequisites the “collected water” mentioned in No. 3 (i.e. such rain, spring or river water as is not drawn, but conducted directly through gutters or pipes into a receptacle) is fit for bathing and for plunging of utensils, for which purpose the chief matter is that no “drawn water” should be mingled with it. We give a few examples by way of illustration. “R. Elieser says: A quarter of a log of drawn water, to begin with, makes the water, which afterwards falls into it, unfit for a plunging bath; but three logs of drawn water, if there was already other water there. The learned say: three logs, whether at the beginning or to make up the quantity.”[1778] “If any one places vessels under the pipes (which run into the plunging bath), they make the bath unsuitable (because it then counts as drawn water). According to the school of Shammai it is all the same, whether they have been placed there or forgotten; according to the school of Hillel, they do not make it unfit, if they were only forgotten.”[1779] “If drawn water and rain water are mixed in the court, or in the excavation, or upon the steps of the bathing-place, the bath is fit, if there is most of the fit water, and unfit, if there is most of the unfit, or if there is an equal quantity of both. But only so, if they were mixed before they arrived at the collected water. If both run into the bath, then if it is certain that there were in it forty seahs of proper water before three logs of drawn water fell into it, it is fit, but otherwise unfit.”[1780] It was also disputed, whether snow, hail, hoar frost, ice and the like were fit to mix in the filling of a plunging bath or not.[1781] Extremely minute too are the directions concerning the washing or correct pouring upon the hands. It was needful that the hands should always have water poured on them before eating. (To dip them in water was only necessary for eating holy things, i.e. things pertaining to sacrifices.) Then it was fully discussed, from what vessels such pouring should take place, what water was suitable for it, who might pour it, and how far the hands must be poured on.[1782] We see with what zeal all these enactments concerning the washing of hands and the cleansing of cups, pots, dishes and seats were already observed in the time of Christ, from repeated allusions in the Gospels, which again receive their full light and aptest illustration through the details of the Mishna (Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:2-5; Matthew 23:25-26; Luke 11:38-39).
[1776] The heave offering of dough, which must be separated at baking.
[1777] Mikwaoth i. 1-8.
[1778] Mikwaoth ii. 4.
[1779] Mikwaoth iv. 1.
[1780] Mikwaoth iv. 4.
[1781] Mikwaoth vii. 1.
[1782] Berachoth viii. 2-4; Chagiga ii. 5-6; Edujoth iii. 2; Jadajim i. 1-5, ii. 3. Lightfoot and other expositors on Matthew 15:2. Wünsche, Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien (1878), p. 180 sq. Hamburger, Real-Enc., art. “Händewaschen.”
IV
From what has been stated it is abundantly evident, what enormous importance was everywhere attributed to external correctness of action, which is indeed a self-evident result, when once moral obligations are regarded in a legal manner. Highly characteristic of this strong tendency to externalism are the three mementoes, by which every Israelite, who is faithful to the law, is to be constantly reminded of his duties towards God. These three mementoes are: 1. The Zizith (צִיצִית, plur. צִיצִיּוֹת), κράσπεδα in the LXX. and in the New Testsment, כרוספדין in the Targum Onkelos, and τὸ κόκκινον ῥάμμ in Justin Martyr,[1783] tassels or fringes of hyacinth blue or white wool, which every Israelite, by reason of the prescription, Numbers 15:37 sqq., Deuteronomy 22:12, had to wear at the four corners of his upper garment. They were to be used, as it is said in the passage first quoted, “that ye may look upon them and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them.”[1784]. The Mesusa (מְזוּזָה), an oblong box, fixed to house and room doors above the right hand door-post, on which was written (according to the direction, Deuteronomy 6:9; Deuteronomy 11:20), in twenty-two lines, the two paragraphs, Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Deuteronomy 11:13-21.[1785]. The Tephillin or prayer-straps, which every male Israelite had to put on at morning prayer (except on Sabbaths and holy days), in the Old Testament טוֹטָפוֹת (frontlets and bracelets), in Rabbinic Hebr. תְּפִלִּין (from תְּפִלָּה, prayer), in the New Testament φυλακτήρια (preservatives, amulets), incorrectly translated “Denkzettel” (memorandum) by Luther. Their use is founded upon the passages Exodus 13:9; Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8; Deuteronomy 11:18. There were two of them: (a) The תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל יָד (Tephilla for the hand) or תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל זְרוֹעַ (Tephilla for the arm),[1786] a small dice-shaped hollow parchment case, in which lay a small roll of parchment, on which were written the passages Exodus 13:1-16; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Deuteronomy 11:13-21. It was fastened by means of a strap drawn through it to the upper part of the left arm. (b) The תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל ראֹשׁ (Tephilla for the head), a case of the same kind, but differing from the former by being divided into four compartments, holding four little rolls of parchment, on which were the above-named passages from the Bible. It was fastened by means of a strap to the forehead just below the hair.[1787] Of these three mementoes the first is at any rate founded on the directions of the Pentateuch, and probably the two others also, inasmuch as, at least in the passage of Deuteronomy, the literal interpretation is certainly the correct one (see Dillmann on Exodus 13:16). But the value which was set upon these externals, and the care with which everything was here ordered down to the smallest detail, is quite characteristic of later Judaism. How many threads the Zizith were to consist of, how long they were to be, how many knots were to be tied in them, and in what manner these were to be made, how the paragraphs of the Mesusa and Tephillin were to be written, how large the cases and how long the straps of the latter were to be, how they were to be fastened to the head and arm, and how often the straps should be bound round the latter: all this was settled with the most anxious care. There was almost as great reverence for the Tephillin as for the Scriptures.[1788] It was permitted to rescue the former as well as the latter from a fire even on the Sabbath.[1789] The Tephillin and Mesusa were held in such superstitious estimation that they were looked upon as preservatives against demoniacal powers, as is evident in the case of the former from the name φυλακτήρια.
[1783] Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 46, s. fin. (ed. Otto, ii. 154). The editions have indeed τὸ κόκκινον βάμμα (colour), which gives no sense. That the true reading is ῥήμμα is evident from Hesychius, Lex. s.v. κράσπεδα· τὰ ἐν τῷ ἄκρῳ τοῦ ἱματίου κεκλωσμένα ῥάμματα καὶ τὸ ἄκρον αὐτοῦ.
[1784] Comp. Pseudo-Aristeas, ed. Mor. Schmidt, in Merx’ Archiv, i. 281. 13 sq.; Matthew 9:20; Matthew 14:36; Matthew 23:5; Mark 6:56; Luke 8:44. The LXX. and Targum Onkelos on Numbers 15:38 and Deuteronomy 22:12. Mishna, Moed Katan iii. 4; Edujoth iv. 10; Menachoth iii. 7, iv. 1. The Rabbinical directions are brought together in an edition of the treatise Zizith by Raphael Kirchheim (Septem libri Talmudici parvi Hierosolymitani, ed. Raph. Kirchheim, 1851). Hiller, De vestibus fimbriatis Hebraeorum (Ugolini, Thesaurus, vol. xxi.). Buxtorf, Synagoga Judaica, pp. 160-170; Lex. Chald. col. 1908 sq. Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, p. 197 sqq. Bodenschatz, Kirchl. Verfassung der heutigen Juden, iv. 9-14. Levy, Chald. Wörterb. ii. 322. Winer, RWB., art. “Saum.” Haneberg, Relig. Alterlhümer, pp. 592-594. Wünsche, Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien, pp. 274 f., 378. Weber, System der altsynagogalen palänt. Theologie, pp. 26-28. Riehm’s Wörterb., art. “Läpplein.” The colour of the Zizith is now white, while originally it was to be of hyacinth blue. The Mishna, Menachoth iv. 1, already presupposes that both are allowed. They are also not now worn, as the Pentateuch directs, and as was still the custom in the time of Christ, on the upper garment (טַלִּית, ἱμάτιον), but on the two square woollen shawls, one of which is always worn on the body, while the other is only wound round the head during prayer. Both these shawls are also called Tallith.
[1785] Comp. Pseudo-Aristeas, ed. Mor. Schmidt, in Merz’ Archiv, i. 281. 15 sqq. Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 13. Mishna, Berachoth iii. 3; Shabbath viii. 3; Megilla i. 8; Moed Katan iii. 4; Gittin iv. 6; Menachoth iii. 7; Kelim xvi. 7, xvii. 16. The Rabbinical directions are put together in the treatise Mesusa (edited by Kirchheim in the above-named collection). Dassovius, De ritibus Mezuzae (Ugolini, Thesaurus, t. xxi.). Buxtorf, Synagoga Judaica, pp. 581-587; Lex. Chald. col. 654. Bodenschatz, Kirchl. Verfassung der heutigen Juden, iv. 19-24. Levy, Chald. Wörterb. ii. 19 sq. Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Enc. xi. 642 (2nd ed. xi. 668). Haneberg, Relig. Alterthümer, pp. 595-598. Hamburger, Real-Enc., art. “Mesusa.”
[1786] The former e.g. Menachoth iv. 1; the latter Mikwaoth x. 3.
[1787] Comp. Pseudo-Aristeas, ed. Schmidt in Merx’ Archiv, i. 281. 18 sqq.; Matthew 23:5. Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 13. Justinus Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. c. 46, s. fin. (ed. Otto, ii. 154). Origen on Matthew 23:5 (ed. Lommatzsch, iv. 201); the patristic expositors in general, on Matthew 23:5. Mishna, Berachoth iii. 1, 3; Shabbath vi. 2, viii. 3, xvi. 1; Erubin x. 1-2; Shekalim iii. 2; Megilla i. 8, iv. 8; Moed Katan iii. 4; Nedarim ii. 2; Gittin iv. 6; Sanhedrin xi. 3; Shebuoth iii. 8-11; Menachoth iii. 7, iv. 1; Arachin vi. 3, 4; Kelim xvi. 7, xviii. 8, xxiii. 1; Mikwaoth x. 2, 3, 4; Jadajim iii. 3, Targum Onkelos on Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8. Pseudo-Jonathan on Exodus 39:31; Deuteronomy 11:18. Targum on the Son_8:3; on Esther 8:16. Babylon. Talmud, Shabbath 28b, 62a; Erubin 95b to 97a; Megilla 24b; Menachoth 34b to 37a, 42b to 44b. (The passages from the Targum and Talmud after Pinner.) The treatise Tefllin (edited by Kirchheim) gives a collection of Rabbinical prescriptions. Ugolini, De Phylacteriis Hebraeorum (Thesaurus, tom. xxi.). Buxtorf, Synagoga Judaica, pp. 170-185; Lex. Chald. col. 1743 sq. Spencer, De natura et origine Phylacteriorum (in De legibus Hebraeorum ritualibus, ed. Tübing. 1732, pp. 1201-1232). Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, pp. 190-197. Bodenschatz, Kirchl. Verfassung der heutigen Juden, iv. 14-19. Lightfoot on Matthew 23:5. Wolf, Curae phil., and other expositors on Matthew 23:5. Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung des Alten Test, mit dem Neuen, pp. 360-362. Winer, RWB. ii. 260 sq. (art. “Phylakterien”). Pinner, Uebersetzung des Tractates Berachoth, fol. 6a, Explanation 33. Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 223-225. Leyrer, art. “Phylakterien,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. xi. 639-643 (2nd ed. xi. 666-669). Haneberg, Relig. Alterthümer, pp. 587-592. Levy, Chald. Wörterb. ii. 549 sq. Delitzsch, art. “Denkzettel,” in Riehm’s Wörterb. (with illustrations). Klein, Die Totaphoth nach Bibel und Tradition (Jahrbb. f. prot. Theol. 1881, pp. 666-689). Hamburger, Real-Enc., art. “Tephillin.”
[1788] Jadajim iii. 3.
[1789] Shabbath xvi. 1.
Such external formalism is, as all can see, very far removed from true piety. The latter certainly might even under such a burden still continue to maintain a bare existence; but when besides this even prayer itself, that centre of the religious life, was bound in the fetters of a rigid mechanism, vital piety could scarcely be any longer spoken of. This fatal step had also been already taken by Judaism in the time of Christ. The two chief prayers then always customary for private use are: (1) the Shema, which was to be recited twice a day, not a prayer properly speaking, but a confession of the God of Israel; and (2) the Shemoneh Esreh, the usual daily prayer, which was to be said morning, noon and evening (particulars § 27, Appendix). These prayers too were now made the subjects of casuistic discussions, and their use was thereby degraded to an external function.[1790] This applies especially to the Shema, to which we may here the more confine ourselves, in that it is questionable, whether the Shemoneh Esreh had in the time of Christ already attained a settled form. First of all, the period of time within which the evening and morning Shema were to be said had to be exactly determined. The point of commencement for the former was the time “when the priests return to eat their Terumah (Heave);” the point of conclusion, according to R. Elieser, the end of the first night-watch; according to the usual view, midnight; according to R. Gamaliel, the appearance of dawn.[1791] The morning Shema may be said “as soon as one can distinguish between blue and white. R. Elieser says: between blue and leek-green.” It may be said “till the sun appears. R. Joshua says till three o’clock (nine according to our reckoning), for it is the custom of the children of princes not to rise till three.”[1792] The Shema, consisting chiefly of paragraphs from the Bible, the question next arose, whether any one, who at the time for saying the Shema is reading the Bible, and reads the paragraphs in question in the midst of their context, has sufficiently done his Shema duty or not. To this it is answered: If he thought of it (אִם כִּוֵּן לִבּוֹ), he has sufficiently done it; but not otherwise.[1793] It is very characteristic, and a confirmation of the saying of Christ (Matthew 6:5) concerning praying in the streets, that the question is also discussed, whether and under what circumstances salutations may be made while praying the Shema. Three cases came under consideration: (1) Salutations from fear (מִפְּנֵי הַיִרְאָה); (2) salutations from reverence (מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד); and (3) salutations of every one (לְכָל אָדָם); besides which a salutation and a response to a salutation were to be distinguished; and lastly, it was to be considered, that there were in the Shema itself natural breaks, viz. between the first and second Berachah, betwen the latter and the paragraph Deuteronomy 11:13-21, and between that and the paragraph Numbers 15:37-41, and lastly between that and the final Berachah. R. Meir therefore allowed that at the breaks the salutation from reverence might be made and returned, but that in the middle only the salutation from fear might be given and returned. R. Jehudah however went a step farther, and allowed also to return the salutation of reverence in the middle, and at the breaks to return the salutation of every one.[1794] The following general directions were given: “He who prays the Shema, without making it audible to his ear, has performed his duty. R. Joses says: He has not performed it. He who prays and has not exactly noticed the letters has, according to R. Joses, satisfied his duty; but according to R. Jehudah he has not. He who prays in a wrong order has not done his duty. He who makes a mistake must begin again where he made the mistake. Workmen may pray in a tree or upon the wall.”[1795]
[1790] Comp. also Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie, pp. 40-42.
[1791] Berachoth, i. 1.
[1792] Berachoth i. 2.
[1793] Berachoth ii. 1.
[1794] Berachoth ii. 1-2.
[1795] Berachoth ii. 3-4.
It was a good custom, that food and drink should (according to the precept Deuteronomy 8:10) never be partaken of without thanksgiving to God. Grace (Berachoth) was said both before and after meals, and also by women, slaves and children.[1796] But here too regulations were made down to the pettiest detail: viz. what form was to be used for the fruits of the trees, what for wine, what for the fruits of the ground, for bread, for vegetables, for vinegar, for unripe fallen fruit, for locusts, milk, cheese, eggs; and scholars contended as to when this and when that form was suitable.[1797] “If a blessing has been spoken on wine before the meal, the wine after the meal is exempt.” “If the blessing has been pronounced over a side-dish before the meal, the side-dish after the meal is exempt. If the blessing has been said over the bread, the side-dish is exempt.”[1798] “If salted food is set before any one first and bread afterwards, the blessing is to be spoken over the salted food and the bread exempted.”[1799] “If any one has eaten figs, grapes and pomegranates, he is to say three blessings afterwards. This is the opinion of R. Gamaliel. The learned say: one blessing of threefold purport.”[1800] “For how much food is formal preparation for thanksgiving requisite? For food the size of an olive. R. Jehudah says: of an egg.”[1801] “If any one has eaten and forgotten to say grace, he must, according to the school of Shammai, return to his place and say grace; the school of Hillel allows him to say it where he remembers it. How long does the obligation to say grace last? Till the food is digested.”[1802]
[1796] Berachoth iii. 3-4. It is well known, that grace at meals was also a custom with Christians from the very first (Romans 14:6; 1 Corinthians 10:30; 1 Timothy 4:4), as indeed Jesus Himself always practised this usage (Matthew 14:19; Matthew 15:36; Matthew 26:26, and parallel passages). See in general, Winer, RWB. i. 398. Arnold, art. “Mahlzeiten der Hebräer,” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. viii. 6. 88 (2nd ed. ix, 202).
[1797] Berachoth vi. 1-3.
[1798] Berachoth vi. 5.
[1799] Berachoth vi. 7.
[1800] Berachoth vi. 8.
[1801] Berachoth vii. 2.
[1802] Berachoth viii. 7.
When such restriction was laid upon prayer by the legal formula, it could not but be chilled into an external performance. Of what avail was it that the prayers themselves were beautiful and copious (as must be admitted especially of the Shemoneh Esreh), if they were nevertheless only said for the sake of “fulfilling a duty”? Of what avail was it for R. Elieser to declare, that “he who makes his prayer an appointed duty (קְבַע), his prayer is no devout supplication,”[1803] when he himself contributed to make it the former? If a legalistic treatment of the moral life in general is an evil, it is twice and thrice such in the case of prayer, that tenderest blossom of the inmost heart. It was only the necessary result of such a mode of treatment, that men sank so low as to degrade prayer to the service of vanity (Matthew 6:5), and to misuse it as a covering of inward impurity (Matthew 15:7 sq.; Mark 7:6; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47).
[1803] Berachoth iv. 4. Comp. Aboth ii. 13.
A further point, in which the utter externalism of the religious life comes to light, is that of fasting. That the Pharisees fasted often, and set great value upon this act, we learn in a general manner from the Gospels (Matthew 9:14; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33). Particulars as to the kind and manner of fasting are found in the Mishna, whose details are again confirmed by the Gospels. Public or general fasts (which were ordered especially on the failure of rain in autumn, and at all times of public misfortune) were always delayed till the second and fifth days of the week (Monday and Thursday), and so that they always began on the second. Thus a three days’ fast would fall upon the second, fifth and second (Monday, Thursday, Monday), and a six days’ fast would then continue on the fifth, second and fifth, etc.[1804] Besides these general and appointed fasts, to which every one had to submit, there was also much voluntary fasting, and the strictest went so far as to fast on the two above-named weekdays all the year round.[1805] The external behaviour differed according to the strictness of the fast. In the slighter kind they used still to wash and anoint themselves; in the stricter both were omitted; and in the strictest of all, every kind of pleasant transaction, even mutual greetings, were abstained from.[1806] It was generally preferred to practise fasting in the most public manner possible, and thus to make a show of pious zeal. But the worst was the fundamental view, from which all this proceeded. It was thought by such self-infliction to put a pressure upon God, and as it were to extort favours from Him if He withheld them. The longer the rain was delayed in autumn, the stricter did the fasting become. If the 17th Marcheshvan came before the rain fell, individuals began to hold fasts of three days. If the new moon of Chisleu appeared without rain having fallen, three general fasts were ordered. If after these had taken place no rain had fallen, three more fast days, and indeed with certain severities, were ordered. If these passed by without rain, seven general fast days were prescribed, again with fresh severities.[1807]
[1804] Taanith ii. 9. Comp. Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων (ed. Bryennios, 1883), c. 8; Αἱ δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν· νηστεύουσι γὰρ δευτέρᾳ σαββάτων καὶ πέμπτῃ· ὑμεῖς δὲ νηστεύσατε τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν. The same almost literally in Const. apost. vii. 23. Epiphan. haer. xvi. 1 (ed. Petav. p. 34): ἐνήστευον δὶς τοῦ σαββάτου, δευτέραν καὶ πέμπτην. Josephi Hypomnesticum, c. 145 (in Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test. vol. ii. Appendix).
[1805] Ev. Luc. xviii. 12; comp. Taanith fol. 12a (in Lightfoot and Wetzstein on Luke 18:12): יחיד שקיבל עליו שני וחמישי ושני של כל שנה. “An individual who takes it upon himself on the second, fifth, and second days during the whole year,” etc. The widely-spread opinion, that all the Pharisees observed the two fast days during the whole year is, according to this, incorrect.
[1806] Taanith i. 4-7; in all points confirmed by Matthew 6:16-18 (where the figurative construction of the direction given by Jesus is not, as Meyer thinks, self-evident, but utterly preposterous. Jesus meant to say that fasting should not be shown externally, and therefore the usual washing and anointing not omitted). Comp. also Joma viii. 1.
[1807] Taanith i. 4-6.
V
The examples brought forward will have made sufficiently evident the manner in which the moral and religious life was conceived of and regulated from the juristic point of view. In all questions everything depended only upon settling what was according to law, and that with the utmost possible care, that so the acting subject might have certain directions for every individual case. In a word: ethic and theology were swallowed up in jurisprudence. The evil results of this external view on practical matters are very evident. And such results were its necessary consequence. Even in that most favourable case of juristic casuistry moving on the whole in morally correct paths, it was in itself a poisoning of the moral principle, and could not but have a paralysing and benumbing effect upon the vigorous pulsation of the moral life. But this favourable case by no means occurred. When once the question was started: “What have I to do to fulfil the law?” the temptation was obvious, that a composition with the letter would be chiefly aimed at, at the cost of the real demands of morality, nay of the proper intention of the law itself.
A tolerably harmless, and in its harmlessness a ludicrous example of the manner in which elaborate ingenuity may find ways and means of at once evading the law and yet fulfilling it, is given by the appointments concerning the so-called Erubh. It was, as we know, forbidden among other things to carry on the Sabbath an object out of one tenement (רְשׁוּת) into another. This had the inconvenient effect of preventing almost all freedom of movement on the Sabbath, for the term רְשׁוּת (or more exactly רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד), the private tenement or dwelling, was a very narrow one. If however this term could be enlarged, and the largest possible tenements instituted, the evil would happily be remedied. The first means adopted for the attainment of this object was the so-called commixture or connection of courts (עֵרוּב חֲצֵרוֹת), i.e. the connection of several houses standing in one court (each of which forms a רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד) into one רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. Such a connection was effected by all the inhabitants collecting a certain amount of food before a Sabbath or holy day and placing it in an appointed place, thus showing that they regarded the whole court, with all the dwellings in it, as a common whole. By this contrivance it became lawful to the joint inhabitants to carry in and out within this רְשׁוּת on a holy day.[1808] Of course it was now settled with great conscientiousness, what kind of food might be used for this Erubh, and how much food was necessary, and what particulars were to be observed, as may be read at length in the Mishna.[1809] Not very much however was obtained by this connection of courts. Hence another means supplementary of the former and far more prolific was hit upon, viz. the “connection of entrances” (עֵרוּב מָבוֹי), i.e. the shutting off of a narrow court or of a space enclosed on three sides by a cross beam, a rope or a string, by which these became רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, and thus spaces within which carrying in and out was allowed. In this case also it was very anxiously debated, how high and how broad the openings, the shutting up of which was in question, must be, and of what kind must be the means of closure, the beams, ropes, etc., how thick, how wide, etc.[1810]
[1808] Jost’s introduction to the treatise Erubin.
[1809] Erubin vi.-vii.
[1810] Erubin i. 1 sqq., vii. 6 sqq.
Besides the carrying of things from one tenement to another, walking a distance of more than 2000 cubits on the Sabbath was also forbidden. For this too a means of mitigation was devised by the “connection of boundaries” (עֵרוּב תְּחוּמִין). That is, he who desired to go farther than 2000 cubits had only before the beginning of the Sabbath to deposit somewhere within this limit, and therefore perhaps at its end, food for two meals. He thus declared, as it were, that here would be his place of abode, and he might then on the Sabbath go not merely from his actual to his legal abode, but also 2000 cubits from the latter.[1811] Nay such particular preparation was not necessary in all cases. If e.g. any one should be on the road when the Sabbath began, and see at a distance of 2000 cubits a tree or a wall, he might declare it to be his Sabbath abode, and might then go not only 2000 cubits to the tree or wall, but also 2000 cubits farther. Only he must do the thing thoroughly, and say: “My Sabbath place shall be at its trunk” (שְבִיתָתִי בְעִקָּרוֹ). For if he said only: “My Sabbath place shall be under it” (שְׁבִיתָתִי תַחְתָּיו), this did not hold good, because it was too general and indefinite.[1812]
[1811] Jost’s introduction to the treatise Erubin. More particular enactments, Erubin iii. iv. viii.
[1812] Erubin iv. 7.
Innocent as such trifling may be in itself, it nevertheless erribly shows, that the moral point of view was entirely superseded by the legal and formal one, that the effort was merely to do justice to the letter of the law, even though its meaning was evaded.
Such shifting of the right point of view necessarily led, in more important cases than those just touched upon, to results in direct opposition to a moral view of things. The woe pronounced by our Lord upon the scribes for lightly trifling with the oath by saying: “Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is bound: and whosoever sweareth by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the sacrifice that is on it, he is bound” (Matthew 23:16-18), is well known.[1813] So too is their lax interpretation of the injunction concerning divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1 : That a man might put away his wife if he had found anything shameful in her (עֶרְוַת דָּבָר), Only the school of Shammai left the words their proper meaning. The school of Hillel explained them away as: If she has even spoiled his food. And lastly, according to R. Akiba, a man was allowed to put away his wife if he had found another fairer than she was.[1814] The laws of purification gave occasion for treating the sphere of the intercourse of the sexes in a manner very similar to the slippery casuistry of the Jesuits—a striking proof how the casuistic method, as such, leads by an inward necessity to such errors,[1815] Another point too affords a striking parallel with Jesuitism, viz. the postponement of the duties of natural piety, e.g. towards a father or mother, to supposed religious obligations: “If a man shall say to his father or his mother, that whereby thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, given to God, you allow him to do no more for father or mother” (Mark 7:11-12; comp. Matthew 15:5); it is thus that Jesus reproves the Pharisees, and in agreement with this we read in the Mishna, that a vow made cannot be revoked “on account of the honour due to parents” (בכבור אביו ואמו).[1816] Thus the religious obligation, in its external and formal sense, stands above the supreme duty of natural piety.
[1813] Comp. Shebuoth iv. 13: He who swears “by heaven and earth,” if he swears falsely, is not guilty of perjury. See in general, Shebuoth iv. 3 sqq. Maimonides also says that an oath by heaven and earth is no oath. See the passage in Lightfoot, Horae hebr. on Matthew 5:33 (Opp. ii. 293). Schöttgen, Horae hebr. i. 40.
[1814] Gittin ix. 10. Comp. Matthew 19:3. On these dilutions in general, see Keim, Geschichte Jesu, ii. 248 sqq.
[1815] Comp. the treatises Nidda and Sabim.
[1816] Nedarim ix. 1 (only R. Elieser permits it, but he stands alone). Comp. also Wünsche, Neue Beiträge, pp. 184-186. All attempts to explain away the testimony of Jesus, agreeing as it does with the Mishna, are in vain, e.g. von Rosenberg in Delitzsch’s Saat und Hoffnung, 1875, pp. 37-40.
All this shows that the Lord had only too much reason for rebuking His contemporaries for straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel (Matthew 23:24), and for hurling in their faces the heavy accusation of making clean the outside of the cup and platter, but being within full of extortion and excess. Like whited sepulchres, which indeed appeared beautiful without, but within are full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness, they also appeared righteous before men, but within were full of hypocrisy and iniquity (Matthew 23:27-28; Luke 11:44). It would however be unjust to find in such words of rebuke, however well founded, a universal characteristic of the whole period. Justice requires us to mention, that many an excellent saying of the learned men of that age, affording proof, that all moral judgment was not stifled under the rubbish of Halachic discussions, has been preserved. We may recall perhaps the already mentioned exhortation of Antigonus of Socho, to be like servants, who do service without regard to reward,[1817] or that of R. Elieser, not to make prayer a settled duty.[1818] Hillel’s motto was, judge not thy neighbour till thou come into his place.[1819] R. Elieser ben Hyrkanos said: Let your neighbour’s honour be as dear to you as your own.[1820] R. Jose ha-Kohen said: Let your neighbour’s property be as dear to you as your own. He also said: Do all your acts in the name of God.[1821] R. Judah ben Tema said: Be bold as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift as a stag, and strong as a lion, to do the will of your Father in heaven.[1822]
[1817] Aboth i. 3.
[1818] Berachoth iv. 4. Comp. Aboth ii. 13.
[1819] Aboth ii. 4.
[1820] Aboth ii. 10.
[1821] Aboth ii. 12.
[1822] Aboth v. 20. Comp. Saalschütz, Archäologie der Hebräer, i. 247 sqq. Weiss (Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Tradition, vol. i. 1871) has collected a number of Talmudic parallels to sayings of Christ, given also in German by Weber in Delitzsch’s Saat auf Hoffnung, 1872, p. 89 sqq. So too has Duschak, Die Moral der Evangelien und des Talmud, Brüun 1877.
But when we look away from the single rays of light, and from the deeper shadows which form their contrast, we cannot better characterize the entire tendency of the Judaism of that period, than by the words of the apostle: “They have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. It was a fearful burden which a spurious legalism had laid upon the shoulders of the people. They bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders” (Matthew 23:4; Luke 11:46). Nothing was left to free personality, everything was placed under the bondage of the letter. The Israelite, zealous for the law, was obliged at every impulse and movement to ask himself, what is commanded? At every step, at the work of his calling, at prayer, at meals, at home and abroad, from early morning till late in the evening, from youth to old age, the dead, the deadening formula followed him. A healthy moral life could not flourish under such a burden, action was nowhere the result of inward motive, all was, on the contrary, weighed and measured. Life was a continual torment to the earnest man, who felt at every moment that he was in danger of transgressing the law; and where so much depended on the external form, he was often left in uncertainty whether he had really fulfilled its requirements. On she other hand, pride and conceit were almost inevitable for one who had attained to mastership in the knowledge and treatment of the law. He could indeed say that he had done his duty, had neglected nothing, had fulfilled all righteousness. But all the more certain is it, that this righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20), which looked down with proud thanks to God upon the sinner (Luke 18:9-14), and pompously displayed its works before the eyes of the world (Matthew 6:2; Matthew 23:5), was not that true righteousness which was well-pleasing to God.